CAMBRIDGE A – LEVEL HISTORY

EUROPEAN OPTION: MODERN EUROPE, 1789–1917

9489/1&2: FRANCE, 1789–1814
FOCUS POINT/ QUESTION
 The aims of French politicians by 1789.

AIMS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARIES/ POLITICIANS

CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOUTION

 System of government and Absolutism of the King.
 Character/ Personality of the King and Queen.
 System of Privileges.
 Impact of Intellectual ideas.
 Legacy of earlier events [American War of Independence and 7 Years war.]
 Impact of natural disasters.
 Financial crisis.

KEY DEBATES/ HISTORIOGRAPHY

 The revolution was a class conflict. [Marxist view]

 The revolution was an intellectual movement. [Orthodox view]
 The revolution was a revolt against the aristocracy. [Revisionist view]
 The revolt of the nobility and lawyers. [Financial crisis]

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AS A MARXIST REVOLUTION/ CLASS CONFLICT

In 1788, the term ancient regime became current to describe the system of government and
structure of society in France. In short, it is described as a state where the government was
based on absolute monarchy and where society and social structure were based on privilege.
There was widespread dissatisfaction with the system of government at many different levels
of society. Marxist historians believe that the French revolution was the culmination of an old
class conflict. [ancien regime system] which was essentially a struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Ketelby reckons that the French revolution was caused by
pressure from both below and above. A. Goodwin notes that, “ The French revolution had
from the beginning and remained to the end a merciless conflict between aristocracy
and democracy.” Thompson also argues that the French revolution was the collision of two
moving objects, a rising aristocracy and a rising bourgeoisie.

1
Karl Marx defined history of hitherto existing societies as class struggle. For him political
power resided in the class that controlled the means of production. In the French revolution, it
was the steady triumph of the bourgeoisie over the clergy and aristocracy. The aristocracy
and clergy wanted to protect their status whereas the bourgeoisie wanted increase in
political and social rights. The peasants wanted enough control over their lives to survive.
Thus, the overall goal of the Third Estate was thus to overthrow the absolute monarchy and
establish a new political, economic and social order.

NB: The French society was divided into three classes/ Estates/ Orders.

FIRST ESTATE [CLERGY]

The First Estate consisted of members of the religious orders. (clergy) The clergy were also
divided into two, the higher and the lower clergy. The higher clergy was made up of the
Cardinals, Archbishops and Abbots. The lower clergy were the parish priests, nuns and
monks. They numbered about 130 000 in total in the 1780s. The church enjoyed a number of
privileges which made it extremely unpopular. These were:

 plurality and absenteeism.

 collected tithes.
 exemption from taxes.
 had their own assembly to control their affairs (don gratuit).
 had their own courts.
 had monopoly over education and health.

Many younger sons of noble families entered the church and occupied its higher posts, such
as bishops and Archbishops which received large sums of incomes. The Archbishops of
Strasbourg received 400 000 livres per annum which contrasted sharply with most parish
priests who only received between 700 and 1 000 livres each year. Some bishops held more
than one bishopric which meant they were bishops of more than one diocese. These bishops
never visited the diocese which made the church very unpopular with many ordinary people
who considered that bishops were more interested in wealth than the religious and spiritual
needs of the people.

The wealth of the Church came from the land it owned and tithes paid to it. It was the largest
single landowner in France owning about 10% of the land. The tithe was the charge paid to
the church each year by landowners and was based on a proportion of the crops they
produced. The charge varied widely. In Dauphine it amounted to about one fiftieth of the
crops while in Brittany it was a quarter. Tithe were supposed to provide for parish priests,
poor relief and the upkeep of church buildings but much of it went instead into the pockets of
bishops and abbots. This was greatly resented by both the peasantry and the ordinary clergy
hence it was one of their most common grievances made in their cahiers in 1788.

2
The church had many privileges apart from collecting the tithe. By far the most important of
these was its exemption from taxation which added to its unpopularity because this deprived
the country of adequate revenue. The higher clergy did not participate directly in religious
activities much to the chagrin of the lower clergy who were involved in day to day religious
business. Rather they were involved in politics, aiding the King in maintaining his absolute
rule. Most of them gambled and engaged in numerous scandalous vices. A sufficient number
were corrupt, domineering and vicious. They monopolised the educational system by the use
of the Roman Catholic doctrine thereby undermining other Protestant religions.

France was a very religious country and Catholicism was the official state religion. The
influence of the church was considerable and touched many areas of people‟s lives. Thus, the
vast wealth of the church and its resistance to new ideas made it unpopular with many people
which contributed to the long term causes of the revolution.

SECOND ESTATE [NOBILITY]

It was made up of the nobility who were the most powerful group in France. Figures for the
nobility in France by 1789 vary between 100 000 and 400 000. Within the nobility there were
great variations in wealth and status. What distinguished them was not necessarily their
wealth but their social status and privileges. The most powerful were the 4 000 Court
nobility [nobility of the sword], restricted in theory to those whose noble ancestry could be
traced back before A.D 1400, in practice those who could afford the high cost of living at
Versailles. These higher nobility enjoyed many privileges. They were:

 tried in special courts.

 exempt from military service.
 exempt from the corvee ( forced labour on the roads )
 received a variety of feudal ( seigneurial ) dues.
 had exclusive rights to hunting and fishing.
 had monopoly right (banalities) to operate mills, ovens and winepresses.
 greatest privilege was exemption from taxation especially the most onerous of all, the
taille.

Second in importance were the Noblesse de robe [nobility of the Robe], legal and
administrative nobles which included the 1200 magistrates of the Parlements. These Nobles
of the Robe were despised by their counterparts since they were intelligent and progressive.
They were ardent reformers while a few played prominent roles in the revolution itself. They
also became richer despite surviving on the meticulous collection of feudal and manorial dues
from the peasantry. They therefore despised the luxury of their counterparts and also wished
to enjoy the same privileges which explains why they supported the peasants and identified
with them mostly.

3
The remainder of the nobility were Provincial nobility who lived in the countryside on huge
estates. It was the least wealthy of the nobles who felt that if they were to lose their tax
privileges and their seigneurial rights they would face ruination. They were determined to
oppose any changes that threatened their positions and undermined their privileges as these
were all they had to distinguish them from the commoners. The privileges relating to land
ownership and tax exemption were resented by many ordinary people who saw the second
estate as avoiding their share of the tax burdens borne by others. These issues thus
contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution.

THIRD ESTATE [BOURGEOISISE/ SERFS/ PEASANTS]

The Third Estate were found at the periphery of the social strata despite the fact that they
comprised ninety five percent of the 26 million French population. They were the fulcrum
and the pith of the country yet they had little or no privileges. Abbe Sieyes in 1789 remarked,
“ What is the Third Estate? Everything! What has it been in politics until now? Nothing!
What does it desire? To become something!”

The first group on the one extreme of the Third Estate were the bourgeoisie probably
between 4 and 10 percent of the French population who were rich merchants, industrialists
and business people. Others included financiers, landowners, members of the liberal
professions, lawyers and civil servants. The bourgeoisie rose not only in wealth but also in
numbers. They felt that their power and wealth should in the same way be reflected in the
political system as they bore such a substantial part of the tax revenue paid to the crown. This
slowly simmering resentment contributed to the long term causes of the revolution.

The second group were the urban workers, perhaps 4 million Frenchmen who lived in large
towns, the vast majority of these being small shopkeepers, skilled workers and unskilled
manual workers. They became known as the Sans culottes. These were to play a crucial role
in the development of the revolution between 1789-94.

The last group were the peasants, perhaps 20 million strong. They ranged from relatively
wealthy peasant farmers to landless labourers and sharecroppers. Many peasants owned land
but generally holdings were small and subject to feudal and seigneurial dues. The dues and
taxes with which the peasant was burdened limited their ability to do more than survive from
year to year. The various dues and taxes included:

 money payments or labour on the Lord‟s land (corvee)

 payments in kind on the crops grown.
 a transfer tax on the sale or inheritance of land.
 a requirement to use the Lord mill, bake bread in the Lord‟s oven and make
wine in the Lord‟s winepress.
 the Lord‟s hunting rights meant special permission was needed to build walls
or harvest hay before midsummer.
 direct royal taxes, taxes, the taille, vingtieme and capitation.
 indirect royal taxes, such as the hated gabelle.

4
NB: What is clear is that the demands made on the peasant were heavy and
disproportionate.

ANALYSIS OF CLASS CONFLICT

In light of the various groups embedded within the French society, the French revolution was
deemed a middle class movement. The original objectives of the revolution were primarily
for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. The common people did not make the revolution but
merely participated in it after it had been started by the middle class. The middle class needed
the support of the lower classes hence they naturally took notice of the grievances of the
peasants.

Furthermore, the French bourgeoisie had grown to be the dominant economic class, aside
from the land, nearly all the productive wealth in his hands. They controlled trade,
manufacturing and finance. Burns asserts that, “ The emergence of this group with a sense of
grievances and consciousness of its own strength and importance seems to be a necessary
condition to the outbreak of the revolution.”

Lastly, nearly all the leaders of the revolution were drawn from this class which included
merchants, industrialists, lawyers, doctors and other professional groups. Most of them lived
in towns, they also enjoyed many exemptions but the nobles and the clergy were more
privileged than them.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS AN INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT

French philosophers operated during the 17th century. Their ideas became a program of
action. These ideas drew the allegiance of the middle class who began spreading them like
the gospel of a new religion. Kishansley argues that, „Philosophers were knowledgeable
popularisers whose skills were in simplifying and publicizing a hodgepodge of new views.‟
These ideas made a principled struggle possible as despair caused riots and hope caused
revolts. Philosophers criticized traditional institutions, the monarchy, the church, customs
thus bringing awareness of oppression and inequality. E.M Burns (1985) notes that,‟
Philosophers were skeptical, critical and negative.‟ This added to the growing discontent with
absolute government hence the revolutionaries became determined to overthrow the
monarchy of Louis XVI.

Philosophers gave France her tongue for the first time in years. According to Jaffe, „Under
Louis XIV one dared not to say anything aloud. Under Louis XV, one spoke low. Under
Louis XVI, one spoke out loud.‟ Lower classes became defiant hence they refused the kings
orders during the infamous Estates General meeting as well as during the famous Tennis
Court Oath in 1789.

Philosophers provided later revolutionaries with the modus operandi. Jaffe acknowledges
that, „It is impossible to understand the policy of Mirabeau (Tennis Court Oath) without
knowing the skepticism of Voltaire, to understand Robespierre without knowing the idealism
of Rousseau.

5
The revolutionary ideas of equality, of fraternity and liberty and resistance to oppression were
crafted from the works of the philosophers. The infamous „Reign of Terror‟ also drew
inspiration from the „benevolence‟ resembled the diction of the philosophers.

However, the contribution of the philosophers should not be overstated. The overall impact
was minimal as they viewed monarchy as the only realistic form of government. Voltaire
once said, „I had rather be ruled by one lion than a hundred rats.‟ Rousseau‟s famous diction,
„Everyone is born free yet in chains‟ implied that citizens were subjects to control of the
government and in this case, absolutism. In general, philosophers were clamouring for
reforms within the monarchy, not to remove it. They wanted a Constitutional monarchy.

According to Burns, Enlightenment ideas were predicted upon the assumption that the state is
a necessary evil that government rest upon a Constitution (Constitutional monarchy.) The
connection between the ideas of philosophers and the outbreak of the revolution is somewhat
remote (distant) because they did not preach revolution. Moreover, they were always ready to
lend support to any monarchy that was prepared to adopt their ideas (Voltaire was invited by
Catherine the Great-Tsarina of Russia.)

VOLTAIRE

Voltaire was a pen name. His real name was Francois Marie Aruet. He began his career as a
poet and play writer. He was imprisoned in the Bastille for writing verses that maligned (said
bad things about) the honour of the Regent of France. After he insulted a noble man, he was
sent back to the Bastille. Upon his release, he went into exile in England where he spent two
years. He also stayed with Frederick the Great, King of Prussia in Berlin but their relationship
was stormy. He finally settled in Geneva, Switzerland but was also asked to leave due to his
political views. He returned to France where he wrote man philosophical letters.

Voltaire was a skeptical philosopher who attacked traditional institutions especially the
church. According to Burns, Voltaire considered Orthodox Christianity to be the worst of
enemies with mankind. He even went to the extent of questioning his own partenity and his
mother‟s morale. Voltaire was a deist who did not deny God but rebuked Him for His cruelty.
He therefore attacked superstition and religious institutions. He argued that Christianity was
meant to keep the poor quiet and comfort them.

Voltaire studied the writings of John Locke during his exile in England and was impressed by
assertions of individual freedom. He therefore maintained that all men are endowed by nature
with equal rights to liberty, property and the protection of laws. In his book Candide, he
wrote,‟ Everywhere the seeds of an inevitable revolution are being sown which I should not
have the joy of witnessing.‟

6
According to Kagan these ideas became the woof and warp of the ideas of the revolution
itself. At the height of the French revolution, Voltaire‟s body was removed from its resting
place in champagne and taken in great pomp to Paris where it was interred in the Ponthean
where the heroes of the French nation were put to test. The Sans Cullotes (Pari mob) chanted
the slogan,

„VOLTAIRE TAUGHT US TO BE FREE!!!!‟

However Voltaire was not a total liberal. He perceived the monarchy as the ideal form of
government. He was of the opinion that all was lost when the mob takes to reasoning. He was
an apostle of the idea of changing the heart of the rulers.

„It is not a question of making of revolution but at bringing one about in the mind of
those who govern.‟

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1717-1778)

Born 1712 in Geneva, his mother died in labour and his father abandoned him at the age of
ten. Before then, history has it that his father used to sodomise him hence this shadowy
background shaped his ideas of women in Emile whom he viewed as only for men‟s delight.
Rousseau was a founder of democracy. He was an idealist who upheld the popular thesis that
men had originally lived in a state of nature. The most significant of his writings a political
theory were The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origins of Inequality.

Rousseau was an advocate of direct rule as opposed to representation. For him direct rule
could express the will of the people. He wrote that,

„You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the land to none.‟

This idea was revolutionary as it gave birth to the communes. The Central idea supreme to
individual interests as Burns explains, „The Social Contract was undertaking where the whole
body of individuals submitted to the will of the majority.‟ In other words, this meant that on
the one hand, the will of a Constitutional government was the will of the people and on the
other hand, the will of the monarchy was the will of the people.

For Rousseau, the vote of the majority as the highest court of appeal. What the majority
decided was always right in the political sense and was absolutely binding upon every citizen.
In Rousseau‟s own words,

„The voice of the people is the voice of God.‟

The tenets of the General Will were inalienable rights of sovereignty, liberty, security and
resistance to oppression. These ideas were found in the cahiers (list of grievances demands
prepared by the Third Estate) Burke therefore argues that, „Without Rousseau, the French
revolution would not have occurred at all.‟

7
Nevertheless, Rousseau was mortally afraid of revolution as he once declared that,
„Democratic government is suited to small states, aristocratic government to medium states
and monarchial to great ones.‟

CHARLES MONTESQUIEU

He was born Charles de Secondat in Bordeaux. He inherited a large landed estate and the
office of the President of the Parliament of Bordeaux. Montesquieu was a physiocrat
(outstanding man in economics in jurisprudence / criminal law.) He was also a student or
disciple of Locke who society as a complex of the relation which necessarily flows from the
nature of things. He said there could only be liberty if there was equality though he
maintained that equality was only possible for small states.

In both Persian letters and the Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu explained how liberty could
be achieved and despotism avoided. He divided all forms of government into republics,
monarchs and despots, each form had its own peculiar spirit virtue and moderation. He
argued that there is no perfect form of government suitable for all people under all conditions.

Montesquieu is famous for his theory of the separation of powers. He argues that the
government should be broken up into three divisions, legislative, executive and judicial.
Kishlansley notes,

„Montesquieu‟s successful government was one which powers were separated and
checks and balances existed within the institution.‟

Montesquieu like Voltaire admired the English political system which was constitutional. For
him, it was more representative. In his own words,

„England is the mirror of political liberty.‟

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS A REVOLT AGAINST THE

ARISTOCRACY/THE KING/ABSOLUTISM

This is the traditional view (Orthodox) that‟s blames Louis XVI and the aristocracy for the
chaotic situation that led to the revolt of 1789. However, it should be underscored that with
or without Louis XVI the revolution would have occurred, owing to the absolutism of
the French government. In general, French society bemoaned the existence of absolute
monarchy whose rule they considered archaic. The plurality of problems faced by Louis XVI
had been left by Louis XV who had a weak character. According to Grant, „Louis XV was
licentious, self-indulgent and tepid beyond any measure of any other King in the history
of Western Europe.‟ In this context, Louis XV did not allow the first minister to control the
government yet he was incapable of it. The result was that France had no effective
government at all. To worsen matters, he was highly influenced by his mistresses, chief of
who were Madame de Pampador and Madame Anburri and these scandals haunted the
French Crown up to the era of Louis XV1, thus eroding every confidence the citizens had
over the Bourbon leadership. This saw the decline of monarchial power and increased
opposition to the crown.

8
Thompson adds, „The political unity of France achieved over the countries by the
monarchy was likewise a fundamental prerequisite and even a case of the revolution.‟
According to Richards, „The prime cause was the existing system of government, the
practices of the ancient regime.‟

The divine right of Kings was a system adopted by Louis XVI from his predecessors Louis
XV and Louis XIV. Louis XIV once said, „The state is myself.‟ Louis XVI later added, „The
thing is legal because I wish it.‟ Under this system of authority, the Kings claimed power
from God and not his subjects for his actions hence there was gross abuse of power by the
sovereign. This was what was meant by divine right of Kingship. It was symbolised by the
anointing of the King in the coronation service. Political power concentrated in in the hands
of one man, the King. It was personal and therefore the personality, qualities and weaknesses
of the monarchy had a decisive impact on political decisions. The King appointed his own
ministers and also the 34 Intendants who were each responsible for a particular region of
France. Perhaps, the most obvious symbol of the King‟s absolutism was his not unlimited.
Burns explains that, „The King was therefore the sole repository of sovereign power. The
King was the state.‟

The King felt bound by the customs and laws of the realm and respected the privileges and
rights of various bodies and institutions within the kingdom. Other important institutions
were the 13 Parlements, the most important was that of Paris. These were the final courts of
appeal for their particular region and also had the responsibility of registering royal edicts.
Before registration, the Parlement could criticise the edict and ask the King to reconsider.
However, the King could force registration by a lit justice hence registration was a mere
formality. The damage to royal prestige and the attacks on privilege and vested interests, the
results of reform plans led Parlements to resist reform decrees and pose as defenders of the
liberties of the nation. It did not help that reform was often attempted at times of social and
economic hardship and it inspired the opposition of rival courtiers who sought to discredit
and replace reforming Ministers.

The last four years of Louis XV1‟s reign saw a determined effort by the Crown to trim the
powers of the Parlements and to initiate substantial financial reforms. In 1770 royal Ministers
issued Edicts prolonging the wartime extraordinary taxation (vingtieme) and ordered that all
Edicts of the Crown should be adhered to whether registered by the Parlements or not. The
opposition of the Paris Parlement led to its exile and then abolition, along with several other
Parlements. However necessary these reforms were they were deeply unpopular and further
reduced the standing of the monarchy hence Louis XV died a hated man. According to
Peacock, “…the King was above the law, not controlled by it.”

Burns adds, „Louis XVI could do anything without fear of imprisonment. He would
throw men in prison without trial. He could also prevent criticism by a rigid
censorship.‟

9
Louis XVI was only aged nineteen when he became king in 1774. He said to have exclaimed
“what a burden! At my age! and I have been taught nothing „‟ Fisher explains that the
young king was entirely unfitted though had every private virtue, honesty , piety ,amiability ,
good sense but could govern. Louis XV1 was unprepossessing, in society he was awkward,
his pleasures apart from hunting and eating were making locks than attending to government
business. He studied detailed lists of game killed on hunts to discuss with Ministers. He was
rumoured to be impotent because of the long delay in the arrival of Marie Antoinette‟s first
child, the parentage of whom was a cause of scandal speculation. A case in point about her
supposed sexual excesses was the diamond necklace affair of 1784. This was important not
because of any truth in the slander but because the people were willing and indeed keen to
believe it. In such ways, the reputation of the monarchy was gradually undermined.

Louis XV1‟S reign was marked by constant changes of direction or by a lack of direction. He
pressed for reform and then retreated from it. Harris asserts that “Louis XVI neither looked
nor acted like a King „‟. This was so because Louis XVI couldn‟t exercise a clearness of
mind, the decision of purpose, the sense of opportunity and the gift of steady application.
Emperor Joseph II, Louis XVI‟s brother in law also commented that Louis XVI treated petty
intrigues with the greatest attention hence in the process neglecting important affairs of the
state. Winks explains “he was mostly at home hunting, eating, and tinkering with locks „‟
Ketelby adds that, “Louis XVI could have been better as a shopkeeper than a king.‟‟

France‟s destiny rested with a King who was too weak minded to be stable and a Queen who
was too strong minded to be sensible. Louis XVI laboured under the severe handicap of a
politically unfortunate marriage to a Hapsburg, Mary Antoinette (1755-1793). Mary
Antoinette was badly educated, extravagant and completely isolated in the artificial social
world of Versailles. To the French patriots, she was also a constant reminder of the ill fatal
alliance with Austria-Hungary during the Seven Years War. Grant argues that the antipathy
between France and Austria was long standing.

Louis XV1 changed Ministers whenever the pressure was on, often from a court faction
centred on his wife. Mary Antoinette‟s expenses contributed to bankruptcy as she was a
spend thrift, earning her a deserved nickname, Madam Deficit, which explains why she
opposed Finance Ministers. She ill- advised Louis in the process to dismiss Turgot and
Necker in 1789. Their dismissal opened floodgates of inefficiency thus leading to bankruptcy
in 1789. Political wrangles further deteriorated the already chaotic situation. The Parliament
wrangled with Louis XVI over issues, chief of which was the influence of the Jesuits. The
control of the church in general became the greatest source of discontent among the lower
classes later during the reign of Louis XVI. The tyranny of French Kings was therefore at the
fore front of criticism. Richards further elaborates, „The practice of the government were
chaotic and can hardly called a system‟

10
Confusion reigned in nearly every department as the political structure was the product of the
long and irregular growth extending back into the Middle Ages. New agencies had been
established form time to time to meet some particular condition with a total disregard for
those already in existence. As a result, there was much overlapping of functions and
numerous useless officials drew huge salaries from the public purse. As explained by Burns,

„Conflicts of jurisdiction between rival departments frequently delayed action on vital

problems.‟

Almost everywhere, waste, graft and inefficiency were the ruling qualities of the system. The
government had no budget and accounts were seldom kept. There was no clear cut distinction
between the income of the King and that of the state. This led gross abuse of the funds.
Collection of public revenue was exceedingly haphazard. Private co-operations and
individuals who collected taxes retained as profit all they took from the people.
Disorganization prevailed in the realm of law and judicial procedure. According to Richards,
„So chaotic were the legal arrangements that in 1789 there still existed 360 different
feudal courts.‟ Nearly every province of France had special code based upon local customs.
Burns explains that, „This lack of uniformity was especially galling to the business classes
who were often involved in transactions in distant parts of the country.‟

The most notorious legal obligation was the royal writ, a sealed letter (letter de catchet)
where one was liable to be arrested arbitrarily and could be imprisoned without trail.
According to Richards, „Some 150 thousand of these writs were issued in the reign of
Louis XV and 14 thousand under Louis XVI.‟ Thus, the law needed to be codified to
eliminate absolute medieval system. Many judges purchased on inherited their governmental
positions. To worsen matters, Louis XVI did not permit his ministers. Turgot and Necker to
attack those inefficient administrators. Instead, Louis XVI restored the parliament as a check
on absolute government but those parliaments were also an obstacle of social and economic
reform. Palmer notes that, „The French became disillusioned with forms of political
governments.‟ There was therefore little room for distribution of political power which
chagrined the bourgeoisie. Louis XVI was also unfortunate in his advisers. Necker lacked
firmness and one great man could have saved the king Mirabeau, died at a critical moment.
All this was compounded by the fact that Louis XVI was grossly incompetent.

The Legacy of earlier events imparted negativity on the system of government of Louis XVI.
Military failure certainly played a huge part in discrediting the French monarchy. France had
a disastrous campaign during the Seven Years War (1756-63) The French were routed by
Prussia at Rossbach and the English fleet had drove the French navy from the seas. France
also lost Canada and India, vital colonial possessions hence the monarchy became a slum in
the eyes of the French society.

11
The Seven Years War had three principal effects. It undermined respect for the monarchy by
damaging French prestige. Its cost left the Crown heavily in debt. Lastly, it left the Crown
anxious to reverse its humiliation hence there was pressure to increase expenditure on the
army and navy. The pressure to increase expenditure plus the legacy of debt made the Crown
anxious to maximise its revenues and so to consider reform the chaotic financial system.

The American war of Independence (1776-82) worsened the already myopic French foreign
policy. This war was costly hence Louis XVI was forced into debt. This in turn increased
tension with the middle class at home from whence the money had been borrowed. French
soldiers under General Lafayette returned home full of liberal ideas equality, liberty and
fraternity. These ideas imparted positively on the burdened lower classes which began to
cherish ideas of revolting against oppression. The lessons of the American war of
Independence served to suggest the fact that absolute monarchies were not invincible. This
gave the French people courage to defy the monarchy.

Against this background, the French craved for a glorious foreign policy and stability at home
as had been the case of Louis XIV. Louis XIV had managed to annex territories in northern
Europe during the Nordic wars. Paris had become the hub of European culture where all
important diplomatic meetings had been convened. French society therefore desired a
glorious era similar to that of Louis XIV rather than a gloomy and colourless foreign policy
of Louis XVI.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS A REVOLT OF THE NOBILITY

The French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville observed, „The most dangerous
moment for a government is generally that which it sets about reform.‟

There had been half hearted attempts to solve the problems of the royal finances since the
1760s. Clever accountancy by the Swiss financier Jacques Necker disguised its seriousness in
1781. Not until 1787 did Calonne produce a programme including a streamlined land tax
without exemptions and collected by a new type of local assembly, a stamp duty on all
official document and measures to stimulate economic growth.

The initial impetus came from the nobility. The revolt of the Nobility was triggered by the
actions of the King in 1787 who ordered a lit de justice to force registration of tax reforms.
Duc d‟ Orleans, his brother who protested was sent to exile and several critics of royal policy
were arrested. These actions stimulated protest. In May, 1788, the Paris Parlement issued a
declaration of what it believed were the „fundamental laws‟ of the kingdom, asserted the need
to call on Estates-General and the right not be imprisoned without trial and claimed that the
King could not change the privileges and customs of the people. The monarchy struck back
by ordering a drastic reform of the Parlements but meanwhile there were riots in provincial
capitals across France, notably in Rennes and Grenoble. (Day of Tiles) The Assembly of the
clergy sided with the Parlements, condemning the reforms and voting only a token don
gratuit. These events comprise the so called „Revolt of the Nobles.‟

12
Miller argues that for a well- organized and substantial group of nobles this was an
opportunity not to reform absolutism but to dismantle it. Led by a „Society of Thirty,‟
portraying themselves as a „patriot party‟ opposing royal extravagance and despotism and
advocating the right of consent to taxation and the „national interest,‟ they worked through
the Parlements to force the modification of the proposals in 1788 and then a surrender by the
King.

Louis XVI agreed to appoint Necker as finance Minister. Although, as Miller explains, he
was a Charlatan, he had a public image as a man who could solve the problem. Louis XVI
also agreed to convene the Estates General meeting that had last met in 1614 as this was seen
by the nobles as a means of blocking royal power. In this regard, the nobles would have been
able to dominate the Estates General if it had been the same structure as in 1614.

IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: FINACIAL CRISIS

The financial crisis is often viewed as „the crisis of 1789‟ hence the immediate cause of the
French Revolution mainly because that‟s when the revolution became more acute. The
revolution occurred because the nation found itself bankrupt in 1789. A myriad of political,
judicial and economic factors resulted/culminated in the convening of the Estates General
meeting that opened the „Pandora Box‟ of revolts in Paris. Thompson argues that,

„The King‟s well received action of summoning the Estates General precipitated
revolution.‟

The large immunity of the privileged classes from taxation was the root of all evil. This was
compounded by the fact that idle officials were drawing huge salaries from the government
purse. The dismissal of Finance Ministers Turgot and Necker who had the panacea to the
financial woes of the government worsened results. All Louis XVI‟s Finance Ministers
were concerned about reform.

Turgot was Louis XVI‟s first controller-General of Finance in 1774. He wanted to introduce
honesty and efficiency into the public services through:

 checking the dangerously great power of the church

 introducing a just method of taxation
 facilitating the circulation of goods, especially corn within the bounds of the kingdom.

However, his proposals aroused alarm in the classes whose interests seemed threatened. A
court cabal was formed against him in which Marie Antoinette played a part and Louis XVI
was not strong enough to uphold his Minister when he had become unpopular. Turgot was
dismissed and Necker became the next Controller-General of Finance.

Necker was the most popular Minister due to his unfaithfulness, honesty and the belief that he
represented the popular aspirations of the time. According to Ramm, “ He was skillful
financier but not a great statesman.” This was because he accepted the administration and
financial system of France as it stood and hoped without introducing fundamental change to
carry on the government by means of economy and loans.

13
Necker raised the necessary cash through loans and some financial reforms. A stream of
credit was secured by the first ever publication of the royal accounts in 1781 (Comte Rendu)
which appeared to show a surplus of revenue over expenditure. Necker‟s careful economics
had been insufficient to meet the expenses of the American War of Independence. Necker‟s
attempts to control the level of war expenditure aroused the opposition of powerful Ministers
like Vergennes. The upshot was that Ministerial opponents to Necker persuaded Louis XV1
to abandon him in 1781 and with him, went his reforms! The royal circle regarded the step as
dangerous and Necker was dismissed from office in 1781, only to return in 1788.

Calonne was Finance Minister from 1783-87. He was popular at the Court with whose
expensive pleasures he did not attempt to interfere, for he believed that an expensive Court
made borrowing easier. He lived by borrowing at the increasingly high rate of interest. This
ultimately exacerbated the financial woes of the government.

Calonne proposed a series of reforms including a land tax to be paid by privileged and
unprivileged alike. He also purchased new royal palaces including St Cloud. However, in
1784-85, the stream of credit began to dry up.

The beginning of the end of the old regime came on 20August 1786 when the controller-
general of finances, Calonne, told the King that royal finances required radical reform. With a
total of 475 million livres there was an annual deficit of about 100million livres. The situation
had arisen because of defense costs (American War of Independence) and inadequate revenue
being caused by aristocratic exemption and regional variations in tax. In addition, Miller
argues that the system of indirect and regressive in its effects.

The Assembly of the Notables which remained in session had called forth a flood of
discussion in which the Estates General was increasingly mentioned. The Assembly criticised
Calonne‟s proposals as they were not convinced given the Compte Rendu as they were not
convinced given the Compte rendu and Calonne‟s conspicuous expenditure. The Paris
Parlement refused to register new loans and the interest rates demanded by the financiers
began to escalate. The Notables demurred. To break the ensuing deadlock the King
dismissed Calonne in April 1787.

Lomenie de Brienne succeeded Calonne and dismissed the Notables but not before they had
advised the summoning of the Estates-General or still better the submission of the proposed
reforms to the Parliament of Paris. The revolt of the nobles began in 1787. Louis XVI
dismissed Brienne and recalled Necker who announced his intention to summon the Estates-
General.

The changing of Ministers failed to make the Assembly more amenable and it was dissolved,
having declared that only an Estates-General could approve new taxation. None of this public
washing of the monarchy‟s dirty financial linen made the availability of credit any better.

14
The financial crisis was worsened in 1787-8 by natural hazards, hail, snow and drought.
Snow blocked the roads and other means of communication resulting in the depletion of vital
resources. The mills were affected as no grown wheat was available, resulting in chronic
shortages of bread or flour.

The unfortunate disasters led to inflation. Inflation drove people from the rural areas to urban
areas where they joined the radical Paris mob (Sans Culottes) This group became ready for
any action and blamed the monarchy for their predicament as the King had failed to provide a
solution to their woes.

ESTATES-GENERAL MEETING (MAY 1789)

The Estates-General were first summoned for 1788 but they actually met at Versailles, some
twelve miles from Paris, in May, 1789. National bankruptcy, a direct consequence of
political, social and economic malaise, had caused the convening of the Estates-General.

The Estates-General was a body representative the Clergy, Nobility and Commons of the
whole state had not been called since 1614. When the Monarchy had been weak they often
challenged in power: the triumph of the monarchy under Richelieu during the reign of Louis
XIV had led to their disappearance. According to Ramm,

„There was widespread enthusiasm for election and representation at the time and the
mind of France turned naturally to the one national institution in the past which had
both these characteristics.‟

The Paris Parlement suggested that the 1789 Estates-General should follow the forms of
1614. Then the representatives of the three Estates/ Orders had met separately and voted
collectively. This system meant that the first two privileged orders could always effectively
outvote the Third Estate. Following the declaration by the Paris Parlement, a vigorous public
debate carried on through pamphlets and in the saloons and cafes of Paris ensued. Liberal
noble and bourgeois leaders argued strongly that the representation of the Third Estate should
be doubled and voting in the Estates-General should be by head rather than by order.

Therefore, it should be underscored that the Estates-General in their traditional shape were ill
fitted for dealing with the national emergency. The three Estates, Clergy, Nobility and
Commons had each sat in separate rooms and there had thus been two privileged Chambers
while the unprivileged Commons had only one. The Commons possessed no powers. They
could only put forward demands and make suggestions. The government of France had never
conceded them any share in taxation or legislation. In addition, each member brought from
his constituency a statement of grievances (cahiers) The business of each „estate‟ was to draw
up a general statement of their wishes and to present it separately to the Crown. When this
had been done their work was over.

The Estates-General meeting resulted in a stalemate. There had been much discussion as to
their Constitution and procedure. The Third Estate had 600 representatives while the Clergy
and the Nobles had about 300 each. Two critical questions emerged. How were the 1200
members to sit and debate and vote?

15
Were they to sit in three Chambers and decide by a majority of individual votes? The first
method would give a majority of two Chambers to one for privilege: the second method
would secure a large majority for reform, for some of the Nobles and many of the Clergy
were in sympathy with the Third Estate. The King and Necker hesitated. They referred the
issue to an Assembly of Notables which unsurprisingly rejected the proposal as did the royal
Princes. Eventually, after long consideration within the Royal Council, it was decided to
double representation for the Third Estate. Nothing however was said about voting! This
fudge failed to calm the situation and public debate continued as elections for the Estate-
General debate went ahead and each village, town and order drew up lists of grievances,
Cahiers des dolences (cahiers) for consideration by the Estates-General. The Third Estate
had over 600 cahiers, chief among their concerns were government waste, indirect taxes,
church taxes, corruption of clergy and hunting rights of the aristocracy. They also wanted
periodic meetings of the Estates-General, more equitable distribution of taxes, unified
weights and measures, a free press and equality of rights among everyone.

The Third Estate refused to co-operate with the government in any way until the union of all
three Estates in one Chamber and „vote by head‟ were conceded. They refused even to take
the preliminary steps necessary to prove themselves legitimately elected until they were
joined by the other orders. This system of passive resistance lasted until June 10. This period
of inactivity was of great anxiety to the King and his advisers. The country was falling into a
grave of disorder. Taxes were not paid. The Estates-General had a danger of being dismissed
but the financial difficulty would remain as great as ever. The inaction of the government
gave the Third Estate confidence. They began to know their leaders and to understand their
powers.

On June 10, Abbe Sieyes, member of the Third Estate, proposed that the 1st and 2nd Estates
should be summoned for the last time to join the 3rd Estate in one chamber. He also proposed
that in the case of refusal by the 1st and 2nd Estates, the 3rd Estate would form a government.
The Third Estate was determined not to yield to the other Estates; they felt themselves strong
enough to dominate them. On June 14, the debate began as to what the title should be of a
new government of the 3rd Estate Sieyes proposed that they should call themselves „The
National Assembly.‟ By this very title, the 3rd Estate claimed that they had the right to speak
and act for the nation. On 17 June, the Third Estate issued a final invitation to the other two
orders to join them and declared itself to be the National Assembly.

On 19 June, the First Estate (clergy) voted to join the Third Estate. This finally provoked the
King into action. Necker persuaded Louis XV1 to summon a Royal Session of all three orders
and to offer concessions but reactionary members of the court persuaded the King to take a
less conciliatory line. On 20 June royal troops excluded the Third Estate from its usual
meeting place, arousing rumours of a royal military coup. Indeed, it can be said, according to
Ramm, „It was the French revolution in miniature.‟

16