CHAPTER IV

THE uprising of the villages was, for the leaders of the Third Estate in the National Assembly, as disconcerting as it was unexpected. Their minds vere concentrated on one object : the organisation of a constitution, and this sudden invasion of the économie Droblem shocked both their ideas and their temperanents. Steeped in legality, and very respectful of )roperty rights, the aims of the peasants were almost as listurbing as their actions. The insurrections, moreover, îad produced a situation which threw ail their programme of action into confusion. Siéyès was a typical eader of the constitutionalists, and his attitude towards he agrarian problem may be judged by his writings. ’n the famous pamphlet, What is the Third Estate? he îad made only a passing reference to feudalism ; in his uggestions to the electors he had certainly mentioned ‘ feudal abuses,” but had included them among the natters which could be postponed till after the settlenent of the constitutional question. To Siéyès and the :lass he represented, political reform was the key to the ituation ; social questions might be adjourned to an ndefinite future.

But the situation was critical and action necessary. )n 3 August, a report describing the risings, and of l very alarming character, was read to the Assembly,

1 For the whole of this chapter, cf. the narratives of MM. Sagnac, nilard, and Henri Marion.

loi

and a draft déclaration submitted which censured the peasants and affirmed the necessity for maintaining the feudal dues. But this proposai met with some opposition, so that the discussion had to be remitted to the following day. On the evening of the 4th, Target presented a resolution which was very typical of the men and the ideas prédominant in the Assembly. It was conceived in these ternis : “ The National Assembly, consi dering that whilst it is solely occupied with the establishment of the happiness of the people on the basis of a free constitution, the disturbances and outrages which afflict different provinces are spreading alarm and inflicting the most fatal injury on the sacred rights of property and the security of persons, . . . Déclarés, that the ancient laws still stand and ought to be carried out till the authority of the Nation has abrogated or modified them . . . that ail customary dues and charges ought to be paid as in the past until the Assembly has otherwise ordered.” The carrying of this motion would probably hâve destroyed the Révolution by fixing a great gulf between the Assembly and the rural masses. The situation was saved by intervention from an unexpected quarter.

There had been a discussion at the Breton Club on the previous evening, when the Duc d’ Aiguillon, the richest noble in the realm and a prominent member of the liberal section of his class, had determined to propose the renunciation of their feudal rights by the privileged orders in return for a heavy indemnity. His intention came to the ears of the Vicomte de Noailles, the penniless cadet of a famous house, who immediately made up his mind to supplant D’Aiguillon. Accordingly, on the night of the historié Fourth, he intervened in the discussion and electrified the Assembly by proposing a composite resolution which would hâve abolished ail privilèges in matters of taxation, and declared the feudal dues to be redeemable in money. Mainmorte and other

Personal servitudes, including the corvées, were to be abolished without compensation. The villages, he urged, were not interested in constitutions ; the matters which they had at heart were the feudal rights and the taxes. “ These communities,” he said, “ for more than three months hâve seen their représentatives occupied with what we call, and what is, in fact, the public good ; but to them the public good appears to be the good that they desire and that they ardently wish to obtain.”

The speech and motion were like sparks thrown into a powder-magazine. “ On the instant,” says a contemporary report, “ a generous sentiment took possession of the soûls of ail the privileged members and filled them with enthusiasm.” If another eye-witness is to be believed, the excitement gained the public in the galleries and inspired one member of it to break into impromtu (and indiffèrent) verse ! Noailles was folio wed by D’Aiguillon, who defended the insurgent peasants. “ We must admit, gentlemen,” he said, “ that this insurrection, however culpable (for ail violent aggression is so), can hnd its excuse in the vexations of which he [the peasant] is the victim. The proprietors of fiefs and seigneurial lands are very rarely, it must be said, guilty of the excesses Df which their vassals complain, but their agents are Dften pitiless.” His proposais were less generous than those of Noailles, since he desired that ail rights should be redeemed at thirty years’ purchase, and that they should be “ exactly levied and maintained as in the past until their complété rédemption.”

D’Aiguillon was succeeded by another speaker who merely bored the Assembly ; then there appeared a picturesque figure which revived and increased the excitement ; Le Guen de Kerangall mounted the tribune in the dress of a Breton peasant.1 “ You might hâve preyented the burnings of châteaux,” he told his colleagues, ‘ if you had been more prompt in declaring that the

1 He is variously described as a farmer and a cloth-merchant.

terrible weapons they contained, which had tormented the people for centuries, were to be annihilated by the compulsory purchase you had ordered. The people, impatient to obtain justice and weary of oppression, strives to destroy the title-deeds, those monuments of the barbarism of our forefathers. Be just, gentlemen ; let them bring us here those titles which humiliate the human race by demanding that men should be harnessed to a cart like beasts of burden. Let them bring us those titles which compel men to spend their nights beating the marshes to prevent the frogs from troubling the slumbers of their voluptuous lords. Which of us, in this enlightened âge, would not make an expiatory pyre of these infamous parchments, and would not bear the torch to make a sacrifice of them upon the altar of the public good ?” He urged the necessity for haste ; peace and order would never be restored till money payments, redeemable at will, had been substituted for the dues. Finally, he dwelt upon the considération which reappeared continually during the next four years, that is, the incompatibility of the System of agrarian feudalism with the idéal of a society of free and equal citizens. “ The Rights of Man hâve been held to be the necessary preliminaries to the Constitution ; they tend to render men free ; for them to be so, we must agréé that there shall be only one people, one free nation, one sovereign ; we must agréé to the sacrifices of feudalism necessary to liberty and to a good constitution. Otherwise, if there exist rights of champart, chief-rents, fiscalités, registrars, and rights of mills, we shall always see despotism and the tyranny of aristocracy ; society will be unhappy, and we shall only make good laws at last by organising ourselves under a code which banishes slavery.”

By this time the Assembly was ready for anything, • even for an absurd speech by a deputy who told of a seigneur of Franche-Comté “ who had the right to kill two of his vassals and warm his homicidal feet in their

•lood when he returned from hunting ! ” Noble after loble rose to demand the destruction of some privilège f their class. The Comte de Virieu, in a speech redolent f the eighteenth century, proposed the abolition of the xecrated monopoly of pigeon-houses. “ The tender 'atullus,” he said, “ had only a sparrow that he cherished, nd he sacrificed it. As for me, I hâve pigeons which re my chief delight, but since they are injurious to griculture, I cheerfully consent to sacrifice them.” The ight wore on ; the president, Chapelier, began to speak f putting the motions to the vote, but asked if any of he clergy first wished to be heard. Up to this point he members of that order had been conspicuous by their ilence ; there was no escape, however, and the Bishop f Nancy associated. himself with the attitude of the obility. The tide was set running again and more munciations followed. The Bishop of Chartres revenged is order on the nobles by proposing the abolition of unting rights ; it was accepted, and the Duc du Châtelet iposted by a proposai that the tithes should be turned ito money payments, redeemable at will. This, too, ras approved, and the discussion continued till the small ours of the morning, when, after deciding that a solemn 'e Deurn should be sung to celebrate the occasion, the issembly separated. However little it may hâve undertood the fact, it had laid the axe to the root of a social ystem.

The motions hastily formulated in a whirl of excitelent needed to be put into shape and reduced to the )rm of decrees. This task was begun on the 5th and ompleted on the nth. In the interval, the ardour of ne section — the clergy — had cooled, and a vigorous ebate raged around the question of the tithe. The speal of the original motion was demanded by members f the order — with disastrous results for themselves ! luzot, the future chief of the Girondins, answered their ppeal by a déclaration that the property of the Church

belonged by right to the nation. We need not consider here the conséquences of that speech, though they formed, indeed, the most important chapter in the history of the Révolution ; we are concerned simply with the fate of the tithe. This was decided at the sittings of the ioth and nth. Defended by Lanjuinais and Siéyès, attacked by Mirabeau, it finally suffered a fate more radical than that originally proposed for it. The clergy, in truth, had been guilty of a serious blunder in tactics ; they had no means of escape from the dilemma thrust upon them by Ricard. “ When the clergy rose with so much ardour to pronounce in favour of the suppression of the feudal rights, was it merely to build up their power on the ruin of other orders ? This very natural suspicion will only disappear when the people knows what you are willing to do for it. Undoubtedly, you wished to assist the Nation ! Very well, then, the rédemption of the tithes would only overburden it.” The clergy could only submit with a good grâce, and in the person of the Archbishop of Aix, consent to the total abolition of the tithe. The work begun on the night of the 4th was finished ; it only remained to appoint a committee to deal with the numerous questions that were bound to arise. This was done on 12 August.

Much subséquent denunciation was heaped on the Assembly and the liberal nobles who had urged it on to this “ Saint-Bartholomew of property.” Siéyès and Mirabeau joined with discomfited aristocrats in denouncing and belittling the w'hdle épisode, which, according to some, had its origin in the lowest motives, and according to others in mere sentimentality. That there was a degree of truth in the second of these charges admits of no doubt ; the first is more open to discussion. It is conceivable, for example, that D’Aiguillon and others were moved by a desire to outbid the leaders of the Third Estate in popular favour rather than by motives of pure philanthropy ; certainly, the whole conduct of Noailles

sems suspicious. It is difficult, moreover, to suppress oubts as to whether the nobles believed that by îaking concessions to the popular fury they would tie better secure their property. Bûchez and Roux rged long ago that “ the sacrifices of the night of August were a concession made to the exigencies of te moment rather than a voluntary satisfaction given d public opinion.” 1 M. Aulard points out quite correctly lat had D’Aiguillon’s original suggestion become law, nd ail the feudal rights been redeemed at thirty years’ urchase, the seigneurs would hâve been enriched by the ransaction.2 As against ail this must be put the unoubted fact that eye-witnesses of the scene received an npression of real sincerity, and it is impossible, indeed, ven at this distance of time, to read some of the speeches dthout émotion.

But what is of more importance than these spéculations ; to consider the attitude of the mass of the nobles and f the king. Nothing can be more certain than that the beral members of the privileged class in the Assembly rere entirely out of sympathy with their constituents n this matter of feudalism. They did not even repreent faithfully the opinions of the nobles in the Assembly :self. This is made clear by a very revealing letter fritten on 8 August by the deputies of the noblesse of Roussillon to their constituents. “ It was only a section, nd not the whole of the privileged members, who made aste to speak in the name of their electors, and many /ere silent ; several said that they could only make iersonal sacrifices, which, indeed, they offered, but they iad no power to associate their electors with them.” 3 évents subsequently to be described leave no doubt as o the fact that the nobles as a class, though willing to bandon their privilèges in matters of taxation, did not

1 Bûchez and Roux, vol. ii. p. 243. 2 Aulard, p. 87.

3 Vidal (P.), Histoire de la Révolution dans les Pyrénées-Orientales, ol. i. p. 65.

in the least desire to strip themselves of their property. Nor was Louis XVI willing to assist in such a process. During the sitting of the 4th, the Duc de Liancourt had hastened to inform him what was on foot and had received an appréciative answer. “ I approve everything that the National Assembly is about to do ; I rely on its wisdom and enlightenment, and, above ail, on its virtue.” But the night brought reflection and a change of mind. The next day the king wrote to the Archbishop of Arles, “ I will never consent to despoil my clergy and noblesse. ... I will not give my sanction to decrees which would despoil them, for then the French people might some day accuse me of injustice or weakness. You submit yourself to the decrees of Providence ; I believe that I do so too, by not allowing myself to be carried away by the enthusiasm which h as taken possession of ail the orders.” Louis XVI was not remarkable for his intelligence, but he certainly understood his noblesse better than the D’Aiguillons and Liancourts.

This attitude made a conflict between the Crown and the Assembly inévitable. The situation was difficult, for the passing of the decrees had not immediately restored order in the provinces. On 14 August there was a serious anti-feudal riot at Castres,1 and at the end of the month conflicts began again in Dauphiné, this time in connexion with the tithes. The inhabitants of Lens- Lestang refused to deliver them to the curé, while those of Châtonnay, improving on this example, took baclc from the tithe-farmers the sheaves already collected.2 The farmers of the revenues of the Abbey of Saint Victor, in Provence, wrote to the Assembly on 16 August that some of the peasants had flatly refused the tithes, others had paid only what they thought fit. The season for collecting the tithe of wine was approaching and it was believed that it would be generally withheld. “ The

1 Combes (A.), Histoire de la ville de Castres, p. 51.

* Conard, p. 164.

.ws and the tribunals hâve no authority, the local judge as suspended his functions, the higher courts offer no slp. 1 The fermentation on the same subject was so rave in Auvergne that the magistrates of Riom thought

necessary to circularise ail the parish clergy in their irisdiction and point out that the Assembly had “ anaunced in the most formai manner in its decree that, atil the completion of the plan upon which it is engaged, îe tithes will continue to be levied according to the ws and in the accustomed manner.” 2 It was imperave, therefore, that the legislative body should act. On 2 September a number of deputies demanded that the >yal assent should be given to the decrees on the ground îat this was the only way to secure peace. Various atements showed the amount of unrest that still existed îd the résistance that was being ofïered to the policy of le Assembly. Dupont declared that the people of the irai districts would only believe in the reality of the icrifices made by the privileged orders when the king’s ssent had been given ; in many places, said another ember, there had been refusais to sing the Te Deum •dered by the decree on the ground that it had no legal fect. Rewbell declared that in Alsace writings were . circulation which declared that the execution of the ;cree was impossible.3 The priests of the bailliage of ouzonville (Lorraine) wrote that many of the local igneurs were levying dues which had been suppressed ithout indemnity as deriving from mainmorte, and were ifending their actions on the plea that the Assembly’s :cree had no validity since it lacked the king’s signature.4 l spite of clérical opposition, the Assembly ordered its esident to seek the royal sanction for its resolutions.

This, however, was not so easy to obtain. Louis did )t refuse his consent outright, but condescended to argue ie question. He approved the abolition of mainmorte

1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 58. * Marion, p. 270.

* Sagnac, jp. ,92. 4 Sagnac and Caron, p. 92.

and recalled his edict of 1779, then went on to criticise the other dispositions of the decree. Were the various Personal dues, not humiliating in themselves, also to be abolished without indemnity ? What, too, was to happen in cases where such rights had long since been replaced by money payments ? Such property rights had existed for centuries ; were they now suddenly to be swept away ? If not, was there not inconsistency and inequality ? Finally, he made a suggestion which would, if adopted, hâve been sufficient to render any serious scheme of agrarian reform impossible, namely, that the separate rédemption of annual and casual dues should not be permitted.1 A connoisseur in irony might hâve extracted some satisfaction from the situation. A king of France, the last of a long line of inveterate enemies of feudalism, had constituted himself its advocate and defender ! But the Assembly was not in the mood for such subtleties ; it made a peremptory demand for ratification. Louis countered with an order that the resolutions should be published, which involved their dispatch to ail the courts and administrative bodies, “ a very slow operation, destined in the minds of ministers to prevent the execution of the decrees.” 2 The debate might hâve dragged on indefinitely, with check and counter-check, but for the intervention of the Parisians. Marat had already attacked the king and the government for their delays, and one of the motives behind the manifestations of 5 and 6 October was the desire to wrest a sanction for the decrees from the reluctant monarch. What argument had not obtained was won by violence. The Assembly ordered the distribution ol the decrees on the 20th, and on 3 November the king formally promulgated them.

* Sagnac, notes to p. 94,

8 Ibid. p. 95,