Aspects of European History (1780-1939) PDF

Aspects of European History (1780-1939) Module 2 Coming of the French Revolution Script  Aristocratic, bourgeois, peasant and popular revolutions. France under late ancien regime, we have already seen, was in...

Aspects of European History (1780-1939) Module 2 Coming of the French Revolution Script  Aristocratic, bourgeois, peasant and popular revolutions. France under late ancien regime, we have already seen, was in a state of crisis. Monarchy had become absolute, centralised and bureaucratic under Louis XIV and it appeared that the submission of the nobility was final. But through the eighteenth century the aristocracy revived its power and had recourse, not to the sword, but to traditional institutions and appeal to public opinion. Some of the enlightened administrators and ministers under Louis XV and Louis XVI like Machault, Maupeou or Turgot, attempted to introduce reforms in the existing structure, but failed because of the resistance of bodies like the parlements, clerical assemblies and the provincial estates. The Aristocratic Revolution: ‘The French Revolution was started and led to victory in its first phase by the aristocracy’, wrote Lefebvre. The immediate cause of the Revolution was a financial crisis originating in the war of American Independence. The ministers had exaggerated notion of the power of borrowing. Necker took huge loans to finance the war and after him Calonne continued the same policy. The need to reform the fiscal system assumed an urgency that could no longer be ignored. Yet, the aristocracy would not have agreed to the termination of their immunity. When in March, 1788 the first and last ‘budget’ of the ancien regime was presented, it showed an income of 503 million livres and an expenditure of 629 million. Thus there was a deficit of 126 million or 20 per cent. The deficit could have easily been bridged by introducing fiscal equality. But any proposal for reform was likely to be contested, particularly by the upper orders. The nobility had the clergy as its ally in its battle with the monarchy, but it could also appeal to the third estate for support as all the estates were against the arbitrary power of the monarchy. In August 1786, Calonne sent a note to the king suggesting that reform had become imperative. He proposed the extension of the government monopoly on salt and tobacco to the whole country; to replace the capitation or the vingtieme with a direct land tax on all; to lift all controls on grain trade and to abolish a few indirect taxes and internal customs barriers. Calonne mistakenly hoped that an assembly of Notables, consisting of nobles handpicked by him, would agree to the proposals as too much burden had not been imposed on the privileged orders by the proposals. But the nobles did not agree as it was proposed to elect provincial assemblies without the distinction of order and to put restrictions on the clergy’s manorial rights. Indeed they considered the summoning of the assembly to be a sign of weakness on the part of the king’s government. The king was seeking to consult them instead of notifying them of his will. Calonne, like his predecessors, had to go and was replaced by the Archbishop of Toulon, Lomenie de Brienne. Brienne promised to keep the provincial assemblies divided into estates and to protect the manorial rights of the clergy. But he wanted to increase the stamp duty. The notables opposed this saying that they had no authority to increase taxes. This was an indirect reference to the States General. Brienne turned to the parlement, which declined to oblige him stating that only the States General had the authority to impose new taxes. A royal session of the parlement, or the lit de justice, was called to give effect to the proposals. The parlement, in response, called the session illegal and started the trial of Calonne, who fled to England. The battle lines were being clearly drawn. Brienne tried to have recourse to borrowing, but the consent of the parlement was necessary even to take loans. Parlement imposed the condition that the first of all the States General must be convened. On 3 May 1788 the Parlement of Paris declared what they called the ‘fundamental laws of the land’. It declared: the monarchy is hereditary; only the States General had the right to impose taxes; no person can be arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned; the judges cannot be removed and the traditional rights of the provincial assemblies were inviolable. The king replied to this declaration by arresting two members, dissolving the parlement and forcibly registered six decrees. The opposition of the aristocracy was now transformed into an open defiance. They sought to rally the entire country. Resistance spread to the provinces as well- Franche-comte, Dauphine, Provence etc. In Grenoble occurred what came to be known as the ‘day of tiles’ when tiles were thrown from rooftop on the marching army. On 21 July, 1788 the representatives of the first two estates met representatives of the bourgeoisie at the chateau of Vizille. The meeting demanded the convening of the States General and the reinstatement of the parlement of Paris. The empty treasury obliged Brienne to announce that the States General would be convened on May1, 1789. The reinstated parlement demanded that the States General would comprise the three estates that would have separate sessions. The three estates would also have equal number of representatives. The aristocrats had apparently won. Lefebvre has called it the aristocratic revolution. It had two primary significance: first, it successfully protested against arbitrary monarchy, and second, the third estate now learned from them the lesson of united resistance. What was proposed would have limited the powers of the monarchy, but would also have preserved the dominance of the upper orders. The third estate, especially the bourgeoisie had so far supported the aristocracy in their struggle against the absolute monarchy. But from now on their destinies lay separate and took different trajectories. What particularly annoyed the bourgeoisie was the decision that the estates would sit and vote separately. They wanted the States General to act like a parliament- to have joint session and vote by head. Moreover, the continuing dominance of the aristocracy would have continued the seigneurial regime which the peasants detested. Thus the temporary unity was disrupted over larger issues of equality and privilege, and political rights. Having decided to summon the States General, the king asked the people to list their grievances. The petitions, known as the cahiers des doleances, came in their hundreds. There was a general demand that the number of the third estate representatives should at least be equal to the total of the representative of the two higher estates. The peasants underlined their anger about the seigneurial dues. Necker, who became the minister again, was moving cautiously. He desperately needed money, but did not wish to alienate the aristocracy. The aristocracy submitted a memorandum to the king on 12 December, 1788. In it they warned against any attack on property, but said that they were willing to pay some taxes, if their rights were kept intact. Necker, by a decree of the Council on 27 December, doubled the number of the deputies to be elected by the third estate. The third estate took this to be their victory, while the aristocrats strongly protested. The two upper estates and the third estate were now ranged on either side. Civil war conditions were prevailing in parts Brittany, Poitou, Provence etc. The third estate now looked towards a revolutionary solution. The Bourgeois Revolution: Sieyes wrote the celebrated pamphlet: What is the Third Estate? His answer was: nothing; what does it want to become: everything. This encapsulated the mentality of the third estate, particularly of its most articulate section, the bourgeoisie. There was also something like a public opinion emerging in France. Already in 1777, France’s first daily newspaper, the Journal de Paris, had appeared. Between May and September, 1788 at least 767 pamphlets were issued and another 752 appeared between September and the end of this year. In the first four months of 1789, 2639 titles appeared. It may help to remember that the elections to the States General were taking place at the same time. The regulations for election to the States General were promulgated on 24 January, 1789. These were quite democratic. Francois Furet believes that these regulations were central to the emergence of a ‘national’ assembly the following summer. The elections did produce a majority of Parish priests for the First Estate, while one-third of the nobles of the Second Estate turned out to be liberals. The successful third estate candidates included lawyers, landowners and office-holders and quite a few renegade nobles like Mirabeau. Among the leaders were many wise men with political experience. They were generally educated, industrious, solvent and honest. Bailly, Target, Mounier, Barnave, Le Chapelier, Buzot. Robespierre and others were among the leading third estate members. But the leaders included aristocrats like Lafayette and Mirabeau as well. Sieyes had put forward the idea of ‘constituent powers’ whereby he vested the sovereignty in the whole nation. Mirabeau was a great orator who could inspire the people. All Frenchmen from the great noble to the humble peasant participated in the preparation of the cahiers des doleances. These were later to provide the elected deputies with a blueprint for the reconstruction of the country and to provide the passage from a feudal society to one more congenial to the development of liberal capitalism. The cahiers delineated the demands of the different orders. Generally speaking, people were not against monarchy, but both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie wanted absolutist powers of the monarchy curbed by the rule of law. The upper orders expected the old division to be retained, their titles and property protected, but were reluctantly resigned to the fact that they would have to share the payment of taxes. But the third estate, as a social group, was for both liberty and equality. The peasants wanted, above all, an end to the seigneurial dues. The third estate believed that the doubling of the number of deputies of their estate in the States General meant ‘voting by head’; the upper orders still wanted ‘voting by estate’. The opening of the States General provided the context for open confrontation. The States General opened on 5 May, 1789 with a grand ceremony. The king first addressed the assembly underlining the need for reforms. He, however, asked the estates to vote separately. The third estate had from the beginning been asking for joint session and refused to accept the king’s order. After a stalemate for more than a month, the third estate called upon the upper orders to a joint session. Only a few parish priests were present in the session, but the nobles refused to join. On 17 June, the assembly assumed the name of the ‘national assembly’. The king had no intention of accepting this de facto situation. He called a royal session on 22 June. Necker proposed equality of taxes, all posts to be opened to all Frenchmen and voting per head in future States Generals. The third estate deputies found on 20 June that the gates of the assembly were locked. They repaired to a nearby tennis court and took the oath, proposed by Mounier, that they would remain united till a constitution was framed and accepted. The royal session started a day later on 23 June. The king proposed a series of reforms, but asked the orders to sit separately as he left. The members of the upper two estates followed him. The third estate deputies refused to budge. Indeed, Bailly declared that the ‘assembled nation cannot receive orders.’ Mirabeau announced that they could be ejected only by bayonets. Ultimately, the king’s order was not carried out. A majority of the clergy and 47 nobles joined the third estate. The king asked the rest to follow on 27 June. The States General became the National Assembly and was now entrusted with the task of making the constitution. The third estate, or more specifically the bourgeoisie, had won. The assembly called by the third estate became the national assembly. This was the recognition of the weight of their numbers. Yet, the victory was not complete. They were soon to experience the combined opposition of the monarchy and the privileged orders. The bourgeois revolution seemed lost. It was saved by the people. The Popular Revolution The king and the upper orders could hardly accept as final the victory of the third estate. The king had still not decided on his course of action. He dismissed Necker on 11 July. He was also banished from the kingdom. And the army appeared on the streets of Paris and Versailles. The king’s appeal to arms changed the context entirely. It transformed the nature of the revolution by bringing in the people to the fore. Lefebvre has analysed what he calls the ‘mentality of insurrection’ which characterised the peoples’ outlook now. Two things moulded this mentality: economic crisis and the summoning of the States General. We have seen earlier that there was a slide in the economy in the late 1770s.There was excessive production of grape which led to a slump in wine price. This was followed by fall in price of grain. This affected rural economy adversely as the purchasing power of the people declined. This in turn affected industrial production. Textile industry was facing a crisis as production in 1789 was half of that of 1788. Thus recurrent crisis for about a decade before the Revolution was pushing standard of life down. Price rise and lower wages combined to make the distress more acute. Hunger intensified anger as the people increasingly gave vent to their frustration through violence. Bread riots were not unknown in France. But the increasing price of bread indicated the rising temper of the poorer people. The artisans, shopkeepers, hired help, the peasants as well as townsmen—all agreed that the upper classes and the government were responsible for their afflictions. At this critical juncture the summoning of the States General produced the ‘great hope’. It was hoped that the meeting of the States General would produce solution to the problems they face in their quotidian life. The opposition of the aristocrats to the joint session led to a fear of ‘aristocratic conspiracy’. There was anxiety that the aristocrats would employ brigands or foreign help to unleash terror and undo the revolution. This ‘great fear’, as Lefebvre calls it, in turn produced, on the one hand, ‘defensive reaction’ and, on the other, ‘punitive will’. In such a situation the dismissal of Necker acted as a spark to the keg of powder. This was seen as an example of aristocratic conspiracy. Paris became the principal centre of revolutionary enthusiasm. There was increasing excitement on the streets of Paris. People crowded round impromptu orators in the street corners. Fear of the army provoked violence- as a means of defence. Forty toll barriers were demolished. The monastery at St. Lazare was looted. Barricades went up in the streets of Paris. Gunsmiths’ stores were raided for arms. The crowd converged on the Invalides on the morning of 14 July and took away 32,000 guns. Now they moved towards the Bastille which was a prison. The aim was not free the prisoners, but to capture the arms and ammunitions stored there. This apart there was a rumour that an attack might emanate from the fort. The leaders of the crowd wanted to discuss with De Launay, the governor of Bastille, to ask him to remove the canons and to surrender the ammunition to the people. But a few people went inside and a panicky De Launay ordered firing. One person died and 73 were injured. This, as it were, opened the floodgates. People stormed into the fort and Bastille fell. The fall of Bastille is significant only as a symbol; it was an emblem of the old regime. With this the people had saved the Revolution. The attackers comprised all classes of the society, but most were artisans from the faubourg Saint-Antoine (a suburb of Paris). The king now had to accept defeat. Necker was brought back. The army was sent back from Paris. The deputies took over the municipal government of Paris. Bailly was appointed the Mayor and the command of the National Guard went to Lafayette. He gave the guard ‘a cockade of red and blue, the colours of Paris, between which he placed a white band, the king’s colour. Through Lafayette the tricolour flag, emblem of the Revolution, joined old France with the new.’(Lefebvre) The Revolution of Paris spread to other parts of France. There were riots in many smaller towns. Administrative control passed into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Municipal control was in the hands of the revolutionaries. What was even more significant were the disturbances in the countryside. The turmoil in Paris inspired the peasants. According to Peter Jones, it was the ‘socio-economic and political conjuncture of 1789 which made possible the amalgamation of at least five regional distinct fears into one over- arching “great fear” which travelled the length of the kingdom.’ There was a rumour about the aristocrats unleashing the brigands on the peasants, who decided to take up arms. The peasants moved against the seigneurs. They attacked the manor houses in Hainaut, Alsace, Franch-Comte, Maconnais and burnt the manorial records. They refused to pay the seigneurial dues. This was a decisive attack on the feudal dues. The Revolution was no longer limited to the making of a new constitution. It upturned the existing social order. The main object of the peasant revolution was the attack on manorial servitude. The upsurge of the popular elements in the towns and the countryside widened the scope of the bourgeois revolution. It ended the ancient regime and inaugurated a new age in France. It was this massive rural rebellion which prompted the deputies in Paris to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation to emerge during the Revolution- the decrees of 4-11 August which ended the seigneurial regime in France. ‘If 14 July had dealt a death-blow to the political authority of Bourbon France, the night of 4 August destroyed its social and administrative base.’