[Footnote 295: "Where we should look for the breadth of view and the
decision of the statesman, we find but the emotion of a doctrinaire
who has attained to office full of confidence in his theories, and
who finds himself suddenly thrown into a confused medley of practical
complications which he had not even suspected; it is the bewilderment
of a solitary who issues from obscurity and is blinded by the
unexpected play of light" (De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 208).
Upon this we remark that the above is based upon "the first
instructions which he sends after the unforeseen event of Munich;"
that that event destroyed a great system, and created what Frederick
described as "a terrible crisis"; and that it was just because
d'Argenson realised, with a statesman's breadth of view, the appalling
consequences either at home or abroad, that he hesitated to take
his choice of disasters. When grave issues are so nicely balanced,
precipitation is a sign, not of strength, but of weakness.
Frederick, it is true, did not hesitate; and M. de Broglie aptly
supplies the reason. A man does not hesitate about the next move when
he has no alternative but to throw up the game (De Broglie, "Marie
Thérèse," I. p. 219, &c., _cf._ Zevort, pp. 137, 138).]
[Footnote 296: On the evidence of a certain note, M. de Broglie
suggests ("Marie Thérèse," I. p. 213) that d'Argenson was by no means
at one with the Council, and that he accepted with reluctance a policy
which was forced upon him.
The note may be read with equanimity, for it only marks the
reappearance of an ideal regret, to be met with occasionally in
d'Argenson's Journal--a regret for the policy of merely indirect
interference which he sometimes mentions in connection with "un habile
homme tel que M. Chauvelin." His true feeling with regard to the
crisis is conveyed by some important words in the note immediately
preceding:
"Il en arrivera ce qui pourra, bien, j'espère; _mais pour la paix et
un armistice dans le statu quo, il n'y faut plus penser_" (De Broglie,
"Marie Thérèse." I. p. 211).
It is admitted that d'Argenson was not the prime mover in the policy of
the Council; he looked upon that policy as little short of desperate;
but he accepted it as a choice between two evil alternatives; and,
as we shall find, he did everything mortal man could do to make it a
success.]
[Footnote 297: Zevort, Appendix, p. 351.]
[Footnote 298: Ibid., pp. 138, 139.]
[Footnote 299: Valori, "Mémoires," I. p. 207. "Il me semble que
le parti que le roi de Pologne avait à prendre pour sa gloire, sa
grandeur, son interêt et celui de sa maison, était en premier lieu de
se prêter aux desseins que les rois de France et de Prusse avaient de
l'élever à la dignité impériale," &c.]
[Footnote 300: Zevort, p. 140.]
[Footnote 301: That this was d'Argenson's real attitude is suggested
by a multitude of minute hints to be found in nearly all the available
documents. It is the only attitude consistent with his known opinions
and with his subsequent conduct.]
[Footnote 302: Zevort, p. 139.]
[Footnote 303: Ibid, p. 140.]
[Footnote 304: Had Frederick imagined for a moment that Valori's
mission had the slightest prospect of success, his action as regards
both France and Saxony might have changed in a very startling fashion.
Every principle of policy would have engaged him to withstand the
elevation of Augustus to the Empire.]
[Footnote 305: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 228.]
[Footnote 306: M. de Broglie is perhaps a little premature in
describing this as "the beginning of the old game" ("Marie Thérèse,"
I. pp. 219, 220). Frederick, with the knowledge and concurrence of the
French Government (Zevort, p. 142), was already in communication with
England; he had not yet heard the intentions of France; he could have
no assurance that she meant to prosecute the war; and thinking his
position perilous, he took immediate steps to extricate himself with as
little loss as possible. Allowing time for the courier to travel from
Munich to Berlin, it is clear that these instructions were despatched
within a couple of days after the news of the Emperor's death first
reached him. Certainly it was a scuttling policy; and there is no
reason to suppose it would have been pursued had the war policy of
France been loyally supported.]
[Footnote 307: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 280.]
[Footnote 308: Zevort, pp. 137, 138.]
[Footnote 309: In the French despatch of January 31: see p. 110.]
[Footnote 310: Zevort, pp. 138, 141, 142, 145, 146. Appendix, pp.
254-7, 257-9.]
[Footnote 311: See p. 104.]
[Footnote 312: The memoir is neglected by M. Zevort. It is noticed
by M. de Broglie ("Marie Thérèse," I. p. 202, note) and rejected as
possibly spurious and certainly unimportant. His principal reason is
that he has not been able to find it among the ordinary sources, or to
discover any reference to it by d'Argenson himself.
The writer believes that there is ample evidence to show where it might
have been found; and also that, by M. de Broglie's own criterion, it
should be one of the most important records of the time. The evidence
is such as the historian, upon his own admission, would probably accept
as conclusive. It is the critical question of d'Argenson's ministry,
and is dealt with fully in Appendix A.]
[Footnote 313: D'Argenson became minister on November 18, 1744. The
note of time given by Flassan is "au mois de février" (1745). From the
references to the hesitation of the King of Poland, it may perhaps be
placed immediately after the reception of Valori's first letters from
Dresden, February 17 (Zevort, p. 140).]
[Footnote 314: Apart from the policy set forth in it, this memoir
contains some important critical suggestions:
(_a_) The minister's determination to maintain Frederick in
Silesia.
(_b_) His conception of peace as the primary object to which all
others must contribute.
(_c_) His perfect knowledge of the real conditions of his
negotiations with Augustus. It throws a new light upon the
desperate persistency with which he tried to win over the Court of
Dresden.]
[Footnote 315: Flassan, "Histoire de la Diplomatie Française," V. pp.
242-5.]
[Footnote 316: Zevort, Appendix, pp. 254-7.]
[Footnote 317: Ibid., p. 257.]
[Footnote 318: Ibid., Appendix, p. 361.]
[Footnote 319: At the end of April, when he had been pressing the
negotiation for three months, d'Argenson had absolutely no faith in
its success. See a very significant passage in Zevort, p. 280, which
throws a light more than usually clear upon d'Argenson's view of his
own position.]
[Footnote 320: Zevort, Appendix, p. 362.]
[Footnote 321: _Cf._ Zevort, p. 143, where d'Argenson is quoted as
saying in March: "La sagesse et l'honneur veulent que nous soutenions
le roi de Prusse avec toute l'ardeur la plus grande que nous ayons
jamais embrassée aucune vue d'État."]
[Footnote 322: Ibid., p. 145.]
[Footnote 323: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 311.]
[Footnote 324: Ibid., I. p. 131.]
[Footnote 325: Ibid., I. pp. 290-3.]
[Footnote 326: Zevort, p. 145.]
[Footnote 327: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 303.]
[Footnote 328: Ibid., I. pp. 307-13.]
[Footnote 329: Ibid., I. p. 317.]
[Footnote 330: Ibid., I. p. 318.]
[Footnote 331: Zevort, pp. 144, 154.]
[Footnote 332: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 309.]
[Footnote 333: Zevort, Appendix, p. 364, Frederick to Louis XV., May 2,
1745.]
[Footnote 334: Zevort, Appendix, p. 366, Memoir of Frederick, May 16.]
[Footnote 335: Ibid., Appendix, p. 367.]
[Footnote 336: Ibid., Appendix, p. 364.]
[Footnote 337: See p. 110.]
[Footnote 338: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. p. 58.]
[Footnote 339: Ibid., II. p. 90.]
[Footnote 340: Ibid., II. p. 93.]
[Footnote 341: Zevort, Appendix, p. 368.]
[Footnote 342: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. pp. 102-29.]
[Footnote 343: Ibid., II. pp. 130-42.]
[Footnote 344: Ibid., II. p. 144.]
[Footnote 345: Ibid., II. pp. 196, 197.]
[Footnote 346: Ibid., II. pp. 188, 189.]
[Footnote 347: As an example of the straits to which d'Argenson was
reduced through the failure of the French Government to support his
policy, we may cite some remarks of his to the French representative at
Frankfort in reference to the retreat of Conti.
"It appears that the King of Poland, having always regarded the
continuance of the French army in the neighbourhood of Frankfort as
an obstacle to the success of the views which he has formed from the
beginning in regard to the imperial crown, is on the point of declaring
himself a candidate."
It is absurd to suppose that d'Argenson really meant this, or looked
upon the retreat as a subject of congratulation. It was simply one of
the kaleidoscopic movements by which events, affected as they were by
successive disasters, might still be made to look beautiful.
The resource, perhaps, was a little ridiculous; but it is hard to see
what he would have done without it.]
[Footnote 348: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," Appendix, II. pp. 407, 408.]
[Footnote 349: Ibid., II. p. 195.]
[Footnote 350: Ibid., II. p. 201.]
[Footnote 351: Ibid., II. p. 223.]
[Footnote 352: Ibid., I. p. 261.]
[Footnote 353: Ibid., II. p. 340.]
[Footnote 354: With this compare Zevort, p. 105, where d'Argenson is
made the prime mover in measures which M. de Broglie proves he was
deliberately doing his utmost to frustrate.]
[Footnote 355: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. p. 341.]
[Footnote 356: Ibid., II. p. 342.]
[Footnote 357: Ibid., II. p. 298, &c.]
[Footnote 358: Ibid., II. p. 352.]
[Footnote 359: Ibid., II. p. 354, and Appendix, 410-13.]
[Footnote 360: Ibid., II. Appendix, pp. 408, 409. Reading this letter
in the light of d'Argenson's general policy and of subsequent events,
it is hard to find in it "the proof of the strange illusions by which
d'Argenson was possessed" (Ibid., Appendix, II. p. 407).]
[Footnote 361: Ibid., II. p. 391.]
[Footnote 362: The principal authorities are: Zevort, "Le Ministère";
de Broglie, "Maurice de Saxe et le Marquis d'Argenson"; and d'Argenson,
"Mémoires du Ministère" (Rathery, IV. and V.). Henceforth the
references need not be given in detail.]
[Footnote 363: In particular, M. de Broglie's account becomes as
excellent as it formerly seemed to be exceptionable. He is no longer
fretted by d'Argenson's anti-Austrian policy.]
[Footnote 364: Even in one of the Balleroy letters he speaks of
"une méchante confédération comme celle d'Italie"; and his ideal of
Italian independence was inspired, partly at least, by the man who had
introduced him to the study of foreign politics, the fallen minister
Chauvelin.]
[Footnote 365: Journal (Rathery), II., III., _passim_.]
[Footnote 366: Champeaux, at this time agent at Geneva, was a friend of
d'Argenson, and one of his old companions at the Entresol.]
[Footnote 367: The hope was perhaps suggested by Voltaire (de Broglie),
who had sent to the Minister the few cheering words he received during
the storm created by the disaster. The poet was in busy correspondence
with d'Argenson, and upon documents demanding elegance and finish his
accomplished pen was frequently employed.]
[Footnote 368: This account of Maurice's share in the incident is
derived mainly from Count Vitzthum d'Eckstaedt's work, "Maurice de Saxe
et Marie Josephe," 1867.]
[Footnote 369: Brühl to Saxe, November 16, 1746: Vitzthum, p. 93.
Maurice's letters give some interesting glimpses of d'Argenson; _e.g._,
he describes him to his brother, the King of Poland, as a man "not at
all easy to govern" (p. 95), and again to the Queen as "a kind of bear"
(p. 101). He tells Brühl that d'Argenson is "so 'bête' that the King
[Louis XV.] is ashamed of him" (p. 109).]
[Footnote 370: Vitzthum, p. 110.]
[Footnote 371: In certain letters of doubtful authority, the
ill-feeling is accounted for by the suggestion that Maria Theresa
was corresponding with Madame de Pompadour, and that d'Argenson had
intercepted the letters ("Correspondance sur la cour de Louis XV."
Gaçon-Dufour, Paris. 1808).]
[Footnote 372: See "Correspondance de Louis XV. et le Maréchal de
Noailles," ed. Camille Rousset. The Madame de Chatelus mentioned by
Noailles was the lady to whom d'Argenson had been attached for sixteen
years. He has left a rather striking description of her (see Journal,
under date 1728). They occupied adjoining houses in the Rue de Gros
Chenet, some drawings of which are to be found among d'Argenson's
sketches (Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS. 6164).]
[Footnote 373: M. Vitzthum d'Eckstaedt concludes his account as follows:
"It was not for general incapacity that the Marquis d'Argenson was
dismissed, nor for having forgotten one day to open the despatches from
Genoa. It was because he was obstinately attached to a false policy,
to a policy disapproved by Maurice de Saxe, who at this moment was
governing France" (p. 152).]
[Footnote 374: "Le système des ridicules poursuit de même le ministre
des affaires étrangères, qui, estimant peu les courtisans, est très
reservé avec eux. Ces messieurs, pour le distinguer de son frère,
l'appellent 'd'Argenson le Bête.' Les gens honnêtes ont nommé le
ministre de la guerre 'd'Argenson l'intrigant'" ("Correspondance,"
Gaçon-Dufour, p. 90).
These letters are far from reflecting the very poor opinion of
d'Argenson which is said to have been prevalent at Court. Such may
have been the opinion of his political rivals and of the circle of
Madame de Pompadour, to which d'Argenson, in person and principle, was
consistently opposed. It might well have acquired the substance of a
tradition, and have affected later criticism unduly.]
[Footnote 375: It is necessary to grasp this point if we are to avoid
a frequent prejudice against d'Argenson, a prejudice which arises from
regarding him as a man of very large pretensions and of very inadequate
performance. There is no good ground for believing in his utter
failure, or consequently in the hollowness of his pretensions.]
[Footnote 376: Perhaps it is necessary to reinforce this point. It
is to be remembered that in any acutely critical period, wisdom is a
matter of months or weeks. Never even for seven days can opinion safely
be divorced from circumstance. It is quite true that a general view of
the relations of France with the German powers during the last century
and a half suggests that at the time with which we are concerned her
traditional anti-Austrian policy was tending to become an anachronism;
but we must be careful about making that general view the basis of
particular conclusions. The available documents prove conclusively that
whenever that tendency began to approach perceptibility and power, it
was never in the course of d'Argenson's ministry, still less during the
critical year 1745.
In and throughout that year France had but one competitor on the
continent--Austria. The position of Prussia--if in connection with
France and Austria we may assign her the dignity of a position--was in
the highest degree precarious. No one knew it better than the Prussian
king himself. There was probably not a moment in the course of the
year when he did not feel himself to be within an ace of destruction;
not an episode but betrays his anxiety for escape with honour. His
efforts for peace in January; his desperate overtures at London after
the death of the Emperor; his earnest, eloquent entreaties to maintain
the Elector of Bavaria and the Prince of Conti; his dull bitterness
and despair at the Convention of Augsburg and the withdrawal of the
French from Germany; his continued pressure upon England, ending in the
Treaty of Hanover; finally, his studious moderation when he appeared as
a conqueror in Dresden; all point to but one conclusion. His position
was, and he knew it be, desperate; and it was only the headlong courage
of desperation that enabled him to see the year out safely.
The definitive rise of Prussia is probably to be dated from the Peace
of Dresden, and not one moment before. Moreover it cannot have been
immediately apparent. One year after the treaty of peace d'Argenson
fell; and during that year Prussia was recovering from the effects of
the war, and her ambitions and prospective power can have been present
to the mind of Frederick alone. At what particular period her advance
must have become sufficiently evident to affect the views of statesmen,
only a profound study of that single question can disclose. Certain it
is that it cannot have been at any period during d'Argenson's ministry,
or more especially during the year 1745.
The truth of the matter appears to be this. Events were rapidly
tending towards, though they had not yet reached, a condition of which
d'Argenson had often dreamed. Prussia, if her power developed, might
one day be strong enough to stand alone against the Austrian House; and
France would be free to watch the contest, and might leave the rivals
to ruin each other. But this was still in the future; and the time
was yet apparently distant when a responsible French minister could
entertain the idea of an Austrian alliance.
It is true that there was already an Austrian party in the Council;
there is always such a party in any council. There are men who cannot
resist the fascination of cheap success, who are devoted to a policy of
ease with honour. They are not prominent in the ranks of statesmen.]
[Footnote 377: "Un grand homme qui manque" (De Broglie, "Marie
Thérèse," II. Appendix, p. 2).]
[Footnote 378: The aspiration was not so absurd as it might seem. Could
d'Argenson have acquired, by long acquaintance with affairs, that
practical aptitude which his brother possessed, he might have been
one of the greatest among men. He had a range of mind and a depth of
character to which Count d'Argenson could lay no claim.]
[Footnote 379: Journal (Rathery), V. p. 142.]
[Footnote 380: Ibid., V. p. 314. December, 1748.]
[Footnote 381: The best account of the whole movement is to be found in
Felix Rocquain, "L'esprit révolutionnaire avant la révolution."]
[Footnote 382: "La Philosophie."]
[Footnote 383: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 201, _cf._ Ibid., VI. p. 208.
The sentence displays his frequent disregard of syntax in directness
and force of expression.]
[Footnote 384: Ibid., VII. p. 199. April, 1752.]
[Footnote 385: Ibid., VI. p. 320. December, 1750.]
[Footnote 386: Ibid., VII. p. 23. November, 1751.]
[Footnote 387: Ibid., VII. p. 294. September, 1752.]
[Footnote 388: Ibid., VIII. p. 315. June, 1754.]
[Footnote 389: Ibid., VI. p. 26. August, 1749.]
[Footnote 390: Ibid., VI. p. 81. December, 1749.]
[Footnote 391: Ibid., VI. p. 390. April, 1751.]
[Footnote 392: Ibid., VII. p. 457. April, 1753.]
[Footnote 393: Ibid., VIII. p. 60. June, 1753.]
[Footnote 394: Ibid., VII. p. 106., _cf._ Ibid., 110, 111. February,
1752.]
[Footnote 395: The "Considérations." See Chap. VI.]
[Footnote 396: The "advanced" views privately held among the wealthier
clergy are well known. On hearing of a diocesan sermon on the subject
of "infidelity, d'Argenson observes that it is an absurd theme upon
which to preach to the clergy of France. It was very necessary,
however.]
[Footnote 397: D'Argenson did not disguise his sympathy with the
"philosophers." When the Abbé de Prades was fleeing the country he
took refuge in the neighbourhood of d'Argenson's château; and the
latter wrote to his powerful brother to intercede for the indiscreet
ecclesiastic (Journal, Rathery, VII. p. 57, note). D'Argenson was
naturally proud too of his friendship with d'Alembert.]
[Footnote 398: Journal (Rathery), VII. p. 424. March, 1758.]
[Footnote 399: D'Argenson had a personal reason for ill-feeling against
the Sorbonne. It proposed to condemn a "Histoire du droit public
ecclésiastique français," published (1737) in two large quarto volumes
by a Jesuit, de la Motte. It was based upon some papers which had been
read by d'Argenson before the Entresol (Journal, Rathery, VI. p. 168),
and afterwards given as an act of charity to la Motte, who was one of
d'Argenson's old masters at the Collège Louis-le-Grand. The book was
published without d'Argenson's sanction, but his share in the work was
pretty generally known--far too generally for his peace of mind. _Cf._
p. 57.]
[Footnote 400: Journal (Rathery), VIII. p. 289. May, 1754.]
[Footnote 401: "Les deux philosophies."]
[Footnote 402: Journal (Rathery), VIII. p. 291.]
[Footnote 403: References to what appear to be the most important
passages bearing on the great public questions of the time are given in
Appendix D.]
[Footnote 404: As a brief and excellent example, we may take a
criticism of sinking funds which English statesmen might have read with
advantage:--
"Ces rentes tournantes qu'a introduites ici Duverney, à l'imitation
de l'Angleterre, sont des précautions que le maître prend contre
le maître; emprunteur, il fait impôt, et destine tous les ans une
partie de cet impôt pour rembourser; par là il charge davantage ses
finances et ses peuples tout à la fois; et, comme il ne dépense pas
avec moins de facilité et de légèreté, il charge toujours davantage et
les maltôtes ne cessent plus. _Un prince sage devrait prendre le fond
d'amortissement sur ses épargnes seules_" (Journal, Rathery, V. p. 442).
D'Argenson's ideas on economics are marked by his usual acuteness
and independence. He was not a member of the physiocratic school;
and though he joined the Economists in deploring the sacrifice of
agriculture to manufacturing industry, he did not share their peculiar
views as to the exclusive value of land. He was one of the earliest
and soundest of Free Traders, maintaining that commerce should not be
interfered with except for purely fiscal purposes.]
[Footnote 405: See his sketches of Segrez in the Bibliothèque de
l'Arsenal, MS. 6164.]
[Footnote 406: Journal (édit. Jannet), V. p. 245.]
[Footnote 407: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 57.]
[Footnote 408: "L'esprit public," p. 231.]
[Footnote 409: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 182. "Quoi qu'il n'y ait rien
que de vertueux dans ce petit roman anglais."]
[Footnote 410: In January, 1747, d'Argenson was nominated by the King
President of the "Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles-Lettres"
(Journal, Rathery, V. p. 349). He gives an amusing account of his
original election (Journal, Rathery, I. pp. 165-75). The only
contribution of his we have been able to discover in the Journals of
the Academy is a paper on French historians and the writing of history
(XXVIII. pp. 626-46).]
[Footnote 411: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 197. May 2, 1750.]
[Footnote 412: See Scherer, "Études," vol. III.]
[Footnote 413: Of M. Aubertin's notice ("L'esprit public") it is but
little to say that it is by far the ablest criticism of d'Argenson at
present existing. It is presumption even to praise a work so admirably
performed. It presents one or two features which one may do oneself the
honour to note.
(_a_) M. Aubertin seems to accept a little too readily the idea of
d'Argenson's practical incapacity. He has not of course examined
the events of his ministry.
(_b_) He regrets that d'Argenson should have occupied himself
with his practical ambitions, instead of confining himself to
the region of Speculation. It seems clear that to a man of
d'Argenson's temperament, speculative was dependent on practical
activity; and that had he resigned himself to be a mere thinker,
his power as a thinker would have been destroyed completely.
We have to accept d'Argenson upon his own terms as a practical
reformer before we can hope to do him justice.]
[Footnote 414: Note to the "Contrat Social" (Book iv.).]
[Footnote 415: Both editions were afterwards reprinted.]
[Footnote 416: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MSS. 2334, 2335, 2337, and
2338.]
[Footnote 417: Other notable features of the scheme are:--
(_a_) Principles of taxation. Total exemption for raw materials;
light taxes upon permanent stock and plant; the burden of taxation
to fall upon articles of consumption (Article XV.).
(_b_) Distribution of Revenue. Three-fourths of all revenue to go
to the Government, one-fourth to be retained for local purposes
(Article XV.).
(_c_) The reduction of the Intendancies, to an extent "smaller
than the present 'Généralités'"; if the present reduction
succeeds, it may proceed further, until the Intendancy shall
comprise no more than two hundred parishes, and the Sub-delegacy
no more than twenty.
(_d_) The Intendant shall retain a single post no longer than
three years; by this means he will be prevented from establishing
local connections to the prejudice of the public service, and
be inspired to exert what ability he possesses by the hope of
obtaining a more lucrative place.]
[Footnote 418: We have to guard against confounding d'Argenson's
philosophical disquisitions with his definite project of reform. He
held himself bound to establish principles as well as to formulate
proposals, and he expressly declares that the writer of such a work
as his must seek the counsels of perfection, however distant they may
seem at the moment from the realm of practical politics. And herein is
d'Argenson's greatness as a political thinker, that he never fails to
see, or to see the distinction between, what is best in principle and
what is possible in practice.
Thus, he denounces the "pernicious system" of the traffic in judicial
positions; but in his definite Plan of 1764 (1737) he says not a
word of it, owing to the practical difficulty of reimbursing those
whose interests would be sacrificed to the reform. He goes no further
than to provide, in Article 51, against the growth of the abuse
in connection with the new municipal offices which he proposes to
create. In course of time however he became convinced that the nation
would be benefitted, and that funds might be raised for compensating
office-holders, by the sale of the Crown lands; and accordingly in
the Plan of 1784 (1755), the practical difficulty being overcome, the
"pernicious system," untouched by the project of 1764 (1737), is swept
away at a stroke.
Again, as to the nobility. It is true that in Chapter VIII. Article 2,
pp. 305-8 [1764 (1737)], d'Argenson formulates certain objections to
the principle of a hereditary noble class; and further, that he dilates
elsewhere upon the harm done by the survival of the vexatious feudal
privileges exacted by the noblesse. Yet in his definite Plan he neither
touches the nobility as a class, nor does he lay a finger upon any of
the privileges pertaining to it. On the contrary, the continuance of
the seigneurial jurisdictions, which are deliberately abolished in the
later scheme of 1784 (1755), is incidentally recognised, p. 221 (1764).
The facts with regard to the three classes mentioned by M. Martin may
be stated as follows:--
(_a_) The bureaucracy.
By the Plan of 1764 (1737) the ministry, the administrative councils,
the Intendants, the Sub-delegates, in a word, the great standing
bureaucratic organisation, was to continue intact. It was even
strengthened. It is true that in the scheme of 1784 (1755) its lower
ranks were relaxed; but with that scheme we are not concerned, as it is
not noticed by M. Martin.
(_b_) The judicial aristocracy.
By neither of d'Argenson's Plans was the existence of the judicial
aristocracies affected in the least. In that of 1764 (1737) the
functions of the Parlements are even extended (Article 42). It is true
that he attacks the system of purchase upon which the Companies were
organised; but that system is untouched by the earlier Plan, and is
only abolished [in 1784 (1755)] when means have been found of replacing
it, and of compensating those who were subjected to forfeiture.
(_c_) The noblesse.
Under the scheme of 1764 (1737) the nobility had nothing to fear. Their
privileges, even those which d'Argenson disliked most strongly, are
maintained intact. It is only in the Plan of 1784 (1755) that the high
seigneurial jurisdictions are suppressed, and that the nobles are made
to share with the roturiers in the ordinary burdens of the state. Even
then their honorary distinctions are scrupulously conserved; the more
powerful of them are created Peers of their several Provinces; and
express provision is made for the continued magnificence of the Royal
Household.
As to the destruction of the nobility, nothing could have been further
from d'Argenson's mind. He was himself a nobleman; and, if he had
none of the prejudice, he had all the pride of his class. He advocates
the suppression of old feudal privileges in the belief that they can
be regretted by none but those whose devotion to the dignity of their
order amounts to madness, "jusqu'à la folie" [p. 126 (1784)]. He
repudiates the intention of debasing an aristocracy; in his own words,
"il n'est question que d'extirper une satrapie roturière et odieuse"
[p. 312 (1764)]. His only quarrel is with the nobleman's claims to "le
droit de chasse sur ses voisins, source de querelles et d'insultes;
les droits considérables de mutation et de reliefs en cas de vente et
même de succession collatérale, par où les terres mal administrées
passent plus difficilement dans des mains qui les cultiveroient mieux;
l'exercice de la justice seigneuriale négligé partout et pratiqué par
une race de gens avides, toujours occupés à exciter l'habitant simple
à plaider; enfin tous ces différens droits, procés, chicanes, vieilles
recherches, empèchement à la bonne culture des terres, rétrécissement
de l'abondance, obstacle au bonheur de la campagne" [pp. 120-21 (1784),
_cf._ pp. 119-20 (1764)]. These d'Argenson would have swept away; and
in doing so he would have reduced the French nobility, or rather he
would have raised it, to the position actually occupied by one of the
most powerful aristocracies in the world, the nobility of England.
No more cruelly keen-sighted man than d'Argenson ever lived. He only
differs from most men of equal vision in that his clear perception of
life as it was did not breed in him disgust and cynical acceptance.
His mind could command two worlds, the real and the ideal; but only
intimate knowledge can follow him at will into either, or avoid the
critical gaucherie of mistaking aspiration for illusion.]
[Footnote 419: Perhaps one source of obscurity is d'Argenson's
unhappy title. By "la démocratie" he means, not "democracy," but "the
democratic element." He was early taken to task for this ambiguity
of phrase. Bound up with one of the manuscripts in the Arsenal are
half-a-dozen sheets of criticism returned to d'Argenson by St. Pierre
in the spring of 1738. St. Pierre begins by saying that democracy is a
form of government in which the final voice on public questions rests
with the majority of the people, and that the author has really no
right to speak of "democracy" in connection with his scheme. Attached
to these sheets is a pretty little letter, which is interesting enough
to reproduce.
"Mardi, 8 avril, 1738, au Palais Roial.
"M. de Fontenelle a lu plusieurs chapitres du manuscrit; il panse comme
vous sur les elexions des officiers municipaux, et trouve que sans y
panser vous parlez fort eloquemment et fortement, et souvent avec des
alluzions très justes et très gracieuses.
"Pour moi, je panse aussi très souvent comme vous, et que vous pouvez
aller loin si vous continuez à méditer et à écrire.
"Vous verrez dans le petit cahier (above referred to) les observations
que j'ai faites en lizant vôtre manuscrit, que je vous invite à
perfexionner de plus en plus; et surtout à l'accusation de notre
extrême indolence sur la pernicieuse métode de la vénalité des emplois
publics.
"M. de Fontenelle croit que M. d'Aube serait bien aize de lire vôtre
manuscrit; il en est digne, et est de vos amis; il écrit aussi sur
quelques matières de gouvernement.
"C'est à vous de juger de mes observations, at à les rectifier.
"L'ABÉ DE ST. PIERRE."]
[Footnote 420: Voltaire to d'Argenson, June 21, 1739 (Garnier). In
speaking of this letter, M. de Broglie represents that Voltaire
regarded d'Argenson's book merely as the lucubration of an influential
fool, and that his congratulations and criticism were utterly insincere
("Marie Thérèse," I. pp. 187-90).
The origin of this, at first sight, astonishing suggestion is not
very hard to discover. The historian happened to have read the
"Considérations" in the edition of 1784. Unaware of the divergencies
between the two editions, he of course assumed that it was the Plan
published in 1784 in reference to which Voltaire was writing; and
failing very naturally to understand how, in regard to it, Voltaire
could have meant what he said, was driven to suggest that he said what
he did not mean; that, in short, Voltaire thought d'Argenson a fool,
and chose to flatter him for his own purposes.
This is a grave imputation upon both men; and the grounds for it
disappear entirely when Voltaire's letters are read in connection with
the Plan of 1764 (1737), of which he was actually writing. His meaning
at once becomes natural and clear. D'Argenson had been arguing against
over-centralisation, and had advocated the introduction of local
government upon a very modest scale. Voltaire replies that a system not
dissimilar in effect, was already at work in England; that there local
affairs proceeded without the intervention of a Council of State; and
that the law-abiding character of the English people was largely due to
their habit of local self-government. The argument is quite clear, and
is simply destroyed by equivocal interpretation.
Voltaire's feeling on receiving the book was one of keen surprise and
warm admiration. For months afterwards his letters are witness to the
impression it produced upon him. So cordial and frank are they that
it was at first difficult to conceive by what process the idea of
insincerity could have been fathered upon them.
Had Voltaire really written in such a spirit, not only his reputation
as a critic but his honour as a man would have suffered very gravely.
For months past d'Argenson had been straining every nerve to defend him
from "the literary police;" and to have written to his protector as the
historian suggests, would have been an act of black dishonour. It is
true that there were men before whom Voltaire could abase and debase
himself; but d'Argenson the philosophe, his old school friend, was not
one of them. With the exception of Count d'Argental, there is not one
of his correspondents to whom Voltaire writes with such openness and
freedom.]
[Footnote 421: Voltaire to d'Argenson, May 8, 1739 (Garnier).]
[Footnote 422: "Ce Traité de Politique a esté composé à l'occasion de
ceux de M. de Boulainvilliers, touchant l'ancien gouvernement féodal
de la France, 1737" (title-page of manuscripts in the Bibliothèque de
l'Arsenal).]
[Footnote 423: "Considérations," edition of 1764, article 41.]
[Footnote 424: See "Considérations," p. 189 (1764).]
[Footnote 425: Voltaire to d'Argenson, July 28, 1739 (Garnier).]
[Footnote 426: So far as is known to the writer, the only full account
of it is that of M. de Broglie ("Marie Thérèse," I. pp. 187-90), which
is open to grave objection. The scheme is not noticed by, or apparently
known to, M. Martin ("Histoire de France"), who examines the Plan of
1764 (1737).]
[Footnote 427: This article portrays in brief the spirit of the whole
scheme.]
[Footnote 428: _I.e._, each district receiver.]
[Footnote 429: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. chap. ii. § 2.]
[Footnote 430: See pp. 156-66.]
[Footnote 431: See p. 182-3.]
[Footnote 432: See Martin, "Histoire de France," XVI.]
[Footnote 433: See Plan (above), article XI. There were four from each
of the Estates and they had no common organisation.]
[Footnote 434: The popular attacks (see Chap. V.) were directed against
the person of the monarch and the ministers. The tradition of the
monarchy survived the disasters of the Seven Years' War, and only began
to crumble with the dismissal of Turgot. The danger to it threatened by
the popular attacks was only understood by a few men like d'Argenson.]
[Footnote 435: And this wise man knew it. He writes in March, 1756:--
"Cependant le Roi est très mal conseillé; il se donne toujours tort et
donne toujours raison au parlement. On le dégrade peu à peu, surtout
dans le siécle lumineux et philosophique où nous vivons. Si Henri
III. fut obligé de se mettre à la tête de la Ligue, Louis XV. devrait
se mettre à la tête de la philosophie, de la justice et de la raison
pour rétablir son pouvoir et son bonheur; qu'il se constitue hardiment
le chef des réformateurs de l'État pour conduire mieux qu'eux les
réparations que demande la situation de la France" (Journal, Rathery,
IX. p. 222).]
[Footnote 436: See one of her thrice delightful letters to the Comtesse
de Baschi ("Lettres de Madame de Pompadour," I. pp. 71-6. Owen. London,
1771).]
_INDEX._