1

Primary Source 10.5

THE ANCIEN REGIME ON THE EVE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION1

In prerevolutionary France, established authorities of king, church, and aristocracy controlled most of the country’s vast wealth, enjoyed excessive social privileges, overwhelmingly influenced culture, and exercised preponderant and arbitrary political power. This nexus of hierarchical relationships and centralized control was known as the ancien régime, or Old Regime. By tradition and law, the population was divided into three distinct estates: those who prayed (the clergy), those who fought (the nobility), and those who worked (the commoners—in fact over 90 percent of the population, including both peasants and rich bankers and entrepreneurs). Within these divisions, the first two estates—the clergy and the nobility—were exempt from taxes, while the financial burdens of government were heaped upon the commoners. However, as France became entangled in increasingly costly wars, the government teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, nobles and commoners alike called for financial reform, and the monarchs and their advisors desperately sought new sources of revenue. As King Louis XVI (r. 1774–93) ran out of options to reform the financial system, he was forced to turn to the Assembly of Notables in an attempt to levy new taxes. That assembly, however, declared that only the Estates General, which had not met since 1614, could approve them. When it now met again, in May 1789, France was a far different country, one in which the Third Estate (the commoners) would refuse to play a passive role. The first of the passages below is by Anne Louise Germaine de Staël-Holstein (1766–1817), commonly known as Madame de Staël, who was the daughter of Jacques Necker (1732–1804), the chief minister to the king in 1788 and 1789 and the minister of finances many times before that. In the passage, Madame de Staël gives an overview of the French government before 1789. The second passage is a letter to the king from his court denouncing arbitrary imprisonment through “lettres de cachet” after a man had been wrongfully imprisoned. The final passage is Arthur Young’s account of the exclusive hunting rights of the French nobility, one of their many privileges. For the text online, click here.

Observations on the French Revolution (1818)

Among all the kingdoms of modern times France has certainly been the most arbitrary and unsettled in its political institutions. Perhaps the successive annexations of the various provinces by the crown is one reason for this. Each province brought with it its own customs and particular claims; the government skillfully played off the old provinces against the new, and only gradually did the country become a unit. Be this as it may, there has been no law, however fundamental, which has not been questioned at some period. There has been nothing which has not been viewed

1 James Harvey Robinson (ed.), Readings in European History, 2 vols. (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1906), 2:360–65. 2 in the most diverse ways. Were the kings the lawgivers of the realm, or no? Might they raise taxes of their free will, or were the Estates General the representatives of the people, to whom alone belonged the right to grant subsidies? And how should the Estates General be composed? Could the privileged orders, who had two votes out of the three, be regarded as separate nations, who voted their taxes separately, and might therefore withhold their aid, and so leave the people to bear the burden of the necessary contributions to the state? What were, precisely, the privileges of the clergy, who sometimes declared themselves independent of the king, sometimes of the pope? What were exactly the prerogatives2 of the nobles, who sometimes, and as late as the minority of Louis XIV,3 believed themselves entitled to enforce their rights by arms and by alliances with foreign powers; sometimes, on the other hand, acknowledged the king to be absolute? What should be the status of the third estate, emancipated by the kings from serfdom, admitted to the Estates General by Philip the Fair,4 and yet condemned to be always in the minority; since it was given but one vote out of three, and its grievances, presented to the king on its knees, were without any assured influence? What degree of political power rightly belonged to the parlements,5 which at one time declared that they had no other duties than to administer justice, and at another proclaimed that they were Estates General in miniature,—that is, the representatives of the representatives of the people? These same parlements did not recognize the jurisdiction of the intendants who administered the provinces in the king’s name. The king’s ministers questioned the right claimed by the pays d’etats6 to approve new taxes in their respective provinces. The history of France would furnish a mass of other examples of this want of fixity in the least, as well as in the greatest, matters; but it will suffice to cite some of the deplorable results of this absence of rules. Persons accused of state offenses were almost always deprived of their natural judges, and some of them passed their whole lives in prison, where the government had sent them on its own authority without trial. A code of terror was maintained for the Protestants, and cruel punishments and torture continued to exist until the Revolution.

Letter to the King Denouncing Lettres de Cachet7

Sire: Your Court of Excises,8 having been impeded in the administration of justice

2 A right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. 3 Also known as the Sun King (r. 1638–1718) known for establishing France as the dominant power on the European continent and for building the Palace of Versailles. 4 Philip IV (r. 1285–1314). 5 Regional legislative and judicial bodies of limited power. 6 Namely, those provinces which retained their ancient provincial assemblies of the three orders. 7 Royal letters of the king and his court, often enforcing arbitrary actions and imprisonments. They could not be appealed and the practice was often abused by ministers. 8 This court, as well as the parlements, often sent protests to the king, criticizing the policy of his ministers and council. The protests were frequently printed. 3 by illegal acts which cannot have emanated from your Majesty personally, have determined that a very humble and very respectful protest should be to you concerning the matter. . . .9 Certain agents of the “farm”10 arrested an individual named Monnerat without observing any of the restrictions imposed by law. Shortly afterwards an order from your Majesty was produced in virtue of which the man was taken to the prison of Bicetre and held there for twenty months. Yet it is not the excessive length of the imprisonment that should most deeply touch your Majesty. There exist in the fortress of Bicetre subterranean dungeons which were dug long ago to receive certain famous criminals who, after having been condemned to death, saved themselves by exposing their accomplices. It would seem that they were condemned to a life which would have made death the preferable alternative. While it was desired that their cells should be absolutely dark, it was necessary to admit enough air to sustain life. Accordingly hollow pillars were constructed which established some connection with the outer air without letting in any light. The victims that are cast into these damp cells, which necessarily become foul after a few days, are fastened to the wall by a heavy chain and are supplied with nothing but a little straw, and bread and water. Your Majesty will find it difficult to believe that a man simply suspected of smuggling should be kept in such a place of horror for more than a month. According to the testimony of Monnerat himself, and the deposition of a witness, it appears that after emerging from his subterranean cell, which he calls “the black dungeon,” he was kept for a long time in another less dark. This precaution was taken for the welfare of the prisoner, since experience has shown— perhaps at the cost of a number of lives—that it is dangerous to pass too suddenly from the black dungeon to the open air and the light of day. Monnerat, upon being released from prison, brought suit for damages against the farmers general. Up to that point the question was one of an individual. But the arrest was illegal in form and the imprisonment a real injustice. If this man was a smuggler, he should have been punished according to the laws, which are very severe in this matter. But when your Majesty grants an order for the imprisonment of one suspected of smuggling, it is not your intention to have the suspected person kept in confinement for nearly two years waiting for proofs of his guilt. Now Monnerat has always maintained, both during and since his imprisonment, that he was not even the person for whom the order was obtained. . . . According to the prevailing system, whenever the farmer of the revenue has no proof of smuggling except such as the courts would regard as suspicious and insufficient, he resorts to your Majesty’s orders, called lettres de cachet, in order to punish the offense. . . . [By means of these arbitrary orders the most sacred rights are violated, and the victim has no means of learning who is his persecutor. If any one who is able to impose upon your Majesty and procure a lettre de cachet is to be shielded from the

9 All ellipses in source. 10 A company of financers who collected taxes, known as “farmers general.” 4 courts,] 11 how indeed can we be said to live to-day under any laws, sire, since such orders have prodigiously increased of late and are granted for all sorts of reasons and for personal considerations? Formerly they were reserved for affairs of state, and then, sire, it was proper that the courts should respect the necessary secrecy of your administration. Subsequently these orders began to be granted in certain interesting cases, as, for example, when the sovereign was touched by the tears of a family which dreaded disgrace. To-day they are considered necessary every time a common man offers any slight to a person of consideration,—as if persons of quality12 had not enough advantages already. It is also the usual form of punishment for indiscreet remarks. . . . These orders signed by your Majesty are often filled in with obscure names of which your Majesty cannot possibly have heard. They are at the disposal of your ministers, and it would appear, in view of the great number which are issued, of their clerks as well. They are confided to officials in both the capital and the provinces, who make use of them in accordance with the suggestions of their subdelegates and other subordinates. They doubtless find their way into many other hands, since we have just seen how readily they are granted to a simple farmer general or even, we may safely add, to the agents of the farm. . . . The result is, sire, that no citizen in your kingdom can be assured that his liberty will not be sacrificed to a private grudge; for no one is so exalted that he is safe from the ill will of a minister, or so insignificant that he may not incur that of a clerk in the employ of the farm. The day will come, sire, when the multiplicity of the abuses of the lettres de cachet will lead your Majesty to abolish a custom so opposed to the constitution of your kingdom and the liberty which your subjects should enjoy.

Arthur Young’s Account of Capitaineries13

The capitaineries were a dreadful scourge on all the occupiers of land. By this term is to be understood the paramountship of certain districts granted by the king to princes of the blood, by which they were put in possession of the property of all game, even on lands not belonging to them; and what is very singular, on manors granted long before to individuals; so that the erecting of a district into a capitainerie was an annihilation of all manorial rights to game within it. This was a trifling business in comparison to other circumstances; for in speaking of the preservation of the game in these capitaineries it must be observed that by game must be understood, whole droves of wild boars, and herds of deer not confined by any wall or pale, but wandering at pleasure over the whole country, to the destruction of crops, and to the peopling of the galleys by wretched peasants who presumed to kill them in order to save that food which was to support their helpless children.

11 Here the editor has condensed the text. 12 “Persons of quality” meant social elites. 13 The hunting rights and royal preserves of the French nobility. For full account see Arthur Young’s Travels in France. 5

The game in the capitainerie of Montceau, in four parishes only, did mischief to the amount of 184,263 livres per annum. No wonder then that we should find the people asking, “We loudly demand the destruction of all the capitaineries and of all the various kinds of game.” And what are we to think of demanding as a favor the permission “to thresh their grain, mow their fields, and take away the stubble without regard to the partridge or other game”? Now an English reader will scarcely understand without being told that there were numerous edicts for preserving the game, which prohibited weeding and hoeing lest the young partridges should be disturbed, steeping seed lest it should injure the game, . . . mowing hay, etc., before a certain time so late as to spoil many crops; and taking away the stubble which would deprive the birds of shelter.