CHAPTER VI
NEVER,” says M. Sagnac, “ hâve laws let loose more lively indignation.” 1 It is, indeed, no exaggeration to say that the decrees of March and iay carried consternation into every quarter of France, here was no longer room for doubt or hope ; the feudal /■stem was not to be abolished, it had even been fortified y the removal of its most glaring anomalies. Once tore a steady stream of protests began to flow in to the ational Assembly and its feudal Committee ; once tore class-warfare broke out in the villages as the seig- ?urs or their agents strove to enforce their threatened ghts and the peasants strove to destroy them. It will isist our compréhension of events if, disregarding strict ironology, we discuss these three movements separately. et us begin with the criticisms of its législation which ined upon the Assembly from the rural districts.
Ail these documents hâve a similar taie to tell, a taie : disillusionment and consternation. The new laws ive not brought émancipation nearer, they hâve even ade it impossible. The peasants cannot hope to deem their lands, so harsh are the conditions which ive been attached to that process. Moreover (and the mmunities proceed to prove their case figures in hand), the indemnities were paid on the basis laid down in the ay decree, the lords would not be merely compensated it positively enriched. If émancipation is to become
1 Sagnac, p. 12 1.
MF
a reality and not remain a pious aspiration, the purchas* terms must be modified ; the peasants must be allowec to redeem the annual apart from the casual rights solidarity must be abolished. But it will be best to lel the villages speak for themselves. On 8 May “ the poor peasants and cultivators of the province of th< Haute-Marche ” represent that they had hoped to enjoj some improvement in their lot as the resuit of the worl of régénération undertaken by the Assembly. “ Bu' the hopes of the petitioners will be without resuit if th< august Assembly does not lend them a helping hand for they perceive that neithei they nor their children wil ever enjoy this great liberty, but will remain eternalb under the yoke of the feudal System.” It is true tha they are permitted to emancipate themselves, but th< indemnities and dues on mutation are so heavy tha they could not hope to do this even if the decree had no maintained solidarity. ‘‘The petitioners supplicatetb august Assembly to hâve the charity to moderate no only the price of the dues in kind, but also the casua charges . . . also to authorise each individual to redeen himself even if others cannot do so.” 1
We possess no less than four documents emanatinj from different municipalities in Dauphiné, ail enforcinj similar points. The communal councillors of Thuelliu déclaré that “ the decrees of the National Assembl; . . . regarding the feudal rights hâve thrown them inb the great est consternation.” The average price of graii during the ten preceding years has been taken as a basi for calculating the capital value of the feudal rights ; i: some of those years the price was excessive, with th resuit that “ not only is rédemption impossible for poo proprietors, but it would be so disadvantageous for al that even the most easy in circumstances would not tak advantage of it. Thus, of ail the benefits conferred b; the National Assembly, that which is the great est, th 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 250.
Dst precious, the most necessary to liberty (with which e maintenance of the manorial dues, those cruel surfais of the feudal System, is incompatible), will be solutely nullified, and the people's dearest hope will ve been nothing but a vain illusion.” This contention proved by a statement of prices. On the basis fixed r the decree, the capital value of a bichet of wheat would 105 livres ; this does not include the casual dues, iw, judging by actual sales of land in the district, the il capital value is between 60 and 80 livres, in which m the price of the casual dues is included. “ There not a proprietor of rents who would not hâve regarded mself as making an advantageous spéculation if he had Id his land, along with the casual rights, at 70 or even livres the bichet.” The municipality swears to respect e decrees of the Assembly and cause them to be reected, “ nevertheless, the universal disquiet spread long the people, the interests both of proprietors of nts and those who owe them, the public tranquillity,” ike it essential that it should beg the législature to Dderate the price of rédemption.1 The communal uncil of Montferrat makes a similar calculation ; it irks out the cost of the indemnity at the same figure, that given for Thuellius, and calculâtes that this would more than half as much again as the just price of the Les ! The council, again following the example of îuellius, contrasts this impracticable proposai with e arrangement made in the neighbouring Duchy of .voy, where the amount of the indemnity for the feudal les was fixed at 68 livres for the quartel of wheat iniad of 105 as in the Assembly’s decree. Even there, points out, enfranchisement is not yet complété.2 It possible that the greater part of the country might able to liberate itself, but if the rates fixed by the
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 251.
2 For the facts as to émancipation in Savoy, see Bruchet (IVI.) , ibolition des droits seigneuriaux en Savoie,
decree are maintained, “ this misérable région, badly endowed by nature, will bear the chains of servitude eternally.” 1 The Mayor of Saint-Ferjus, near Grenoble, bears similar testimony in an interesting memoir. He estimâtes that of every 70 sous paid as indemnity undei the Assembly’s decree, 34 would represent an excess over the true value of the rents and dues thus purchased, “ It results from these observations that the inhabitants of the country districts must remain subjected to the slavery of feudalism. . . . The high price at which the indemnity has been fixed being advantageous only te the proprietors, the debtors, having neither the will noi the means to liberate themselves, will be treated by their with more rigour than formerly ; the hopes of deliverance from the oppression of the rent-farmers with which the peasants hâve been entertained hâve been renderec vain by the decrees the Assembly has passed. It is foi the wisdom of our représentatives to weigh the conséquences.” 2
The fourth of the Dauphiné documents, drawn uj in June by “ the general council of the commune and the active citizens of Brangues,” is so clearly written thaï it merits quotation at some length. “ The decrees o: your august Assembly concerning the method and price of the rédemption of the feudal rights hâve spread con stemation among the inhabitants of the rural districts Along with the whole of France we applauded the im mortal constitution that you hâve given to this Empir< to guarantee the liberty of man and procure for citizen: security in their properties, their enterprises and labours Our most sacred duty is to love our country and interes ourselves in its happiness. The tender solicitude yo\ hâve shown for the feeble and oppressed draws al virtuous and sensible hearts towards you, and gives u confidence that you will be willing to hear us.” Thei the letter cornes to grips with its real subject.
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 234. * Ibid. p. 262,
“ The destruction of the feudal System decreed on the :h August, without which the liberty of the rural poputions cannot exist, made us hope that the price and ethod of rédemption would be fixed in a manner which ould enable us to enfranchise ourselves from the real rvitudes which oppress this community, as well as ail lose in the canton. We know the respect due to pro- ;rty of ail kinds ; we hâve given proofs of this in the ihappy times when pillage and arson surrounded us î every hand, but we do not think that we fail in this :spect when we address to you our représentations on îe decree of April 23, which renders it morally im- Dssible for us to enfranchise ourselves from the charges ith which we are overwhelmed.
“ In brief, the servitudes of this community consist most entirely in payments of wheat, and amount on :veral properties to three bichets for each ploughland of 30 fathoms. Calculating the value of this species of :ain on the basis fixed by the decree, that is, on the yerage price at the nearest market during the fourteen receding years (subtraction being made of the two ighest and the two lowest figures), the price of our bichet [ 40 pounds amounts to 4 livres, 8 sols, which, at four er cent, gives a capital value of 110 livres. This is a msiderable sum, and up to the présent, when lords of lanors hâve permitted enfranchisment, they hâve ne ver argained for more than 70 or 80 livres, the casual rights icluded. These dues on mutation are fixed in our ammunity at one-third of the selling price of real estate.
. . Now, what proprietor, the father of a family, peacebly in possession, will so miscalculate as to give the ninth f his fortune to free himself from a charge which neither e nor his children may ever be called upon to pay ? he terms of the decree are infinitely to the advantage f the proprietors of rents, and much beyond anything tiey would themselves hâve demanded. Obliged to rake considérable payments for the upkeep and renewal
of their manor-rolls, to construct barns, and carry their grain to market, they would treble their incomes if anyone were extravagant enough to liberate himself in this manner. In fact, the bichet of wheat, including the casual dues, is farmed out in this district at from 40 to 50 sols, and rédemption would increase its value to 7 livres, 10 sols at least.
“ An universal disquiet has spread among the people, and it cries out in its unhappiness. The weight of the feudal System, then, is fixed upon us more firmly than ever ; we are exposed to the oppressions of irritated proprietors, to the insolence of collectors and farmers of rents who will be inexorable in times of shortage ; unless we deprive ourselves of a large part of our property to redeem ourselves . . . we shall still sigh under the yoke which will weigh upon our heads.” 1
These protests from Dauphiné do not stand alone ; we possess others from the Bouches-du-Rhône, the Lot-et- Garonne, the Basses-Alpes, the Yonne, and the Corrèze. They use the same arguments and express them in almost identical words. “ We shall always be slaves because the seigneurial rights are excessive.” 2 “ You announced in your decrees that you had destroyed the feudal System ; you did the opposite, and we prove it by a simple calculation that you cannot contradict ; we shall always be forced to call our seigneurs those to whom we pay dues that we cannot redeem, on account of the excessive price you hâve fixed.” The value of the charges on a unit of land in this district [Lot-et-Garonne] varies from 300 to 400 livres, including the rents in corn, fowls, money and labour ; their purchase price under the Assembly’s scheme would be 540 livres, and that of the casual dues 500. “ After this proof, which cannot be
refuted, no one will buy ; we shall always hâve seigneurs, and, in conséquence, your labour and the decree which is the fruit of it are reduced to nothing, while we are aban-
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 264. * Ibid, p. 266.
doned to ail manner of vexations. We owe small thanks to our six deputies, who hâve not opened their mouths to defend our interests in this matter ; they know well enough, and you also, Messieurs, of whatever province you may be, that with 400 livres one can buy the rents of a piece of land together with the casual dues which fall upon it when it is sold. What hâve you done, then ? Nothing but exalt men’s minds and make them cry out upon you.” 1 This was exceptionally plain speaking, but it came from a région where there had already been, and were to be again, serious peasant insurrections.
The administrative assembly of the Basses-Alpes vigorously attacks the provisions of the decree which deal with the title-deeds of the feudal lords. “ If the yoke of feudalism has been broken, the usurpations of which it has been guilty still remain. How many rights hâve been established by fraud ? How many hâve been extorted by fear and oppression ? How many, again, owe their establishment to the notorious partiality of our higher tribunals ? What has been left undone to wrest their means of defence from communes and from oppressed individuals ? Their titles hâve been carried off from their own archives or from the registers of notariés. The law must give them help against such vexations. Of what use would it be that feudalism were annihilated if the chains that it has imposed upon us remained ?” The articles of the decree which déclaré certain dues redeemable, and enforce their payment till the indemnity has been rendered, are worthy of praise since property must be respected. But the article relating to proofs of title is open to grave objection, for there are no express rules and customs which deal with this matter. “ The parliamentary jurisprudence on this subject is truly oppressive ; a single acknowledgment , supported by thirty years’ prescription, suffices for the Church and the seigneurs having rights of high justice ; two acknowledgments are 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 267.
needed for the simple lord of a manor. Thus it was to the seigneur with rights of high justice, the man who had most means of oppression at his command, that were given the greatest facilities for arrogating to himself rights which were not due to him. If such rules be folio wed to-day, there is no usurpation that will not be protected.” The assembly urges that when the seigneurs cannot produce the original title-deeds of their rights, their absence should only be supplied by two acknowledgments which mention a third, and are of an earlier date than 1650. 1
The administrative ofhcers of the Yonne fasten on the same point, and give a much-needed lesson in history to the National Assembly. If, they urge, the rights which hâve been abolished without indemnity were servile in their origin, exactly the same can be said of the rights declared redeemable. There is even more reason to suspect usurpation in the case of the latter, since they are more profitable to those who own them ; hence the multiplied refusais to pay on the part of the peasants. “ The obstinate refusais of the people to pay the champ art or tierce arises from the injustice of that right in many places ; for, during the last thirty years, the cupidity of the seigneurs, the complacency of the commissioners for renewing the manor-rolls, the difficulty in obtaining justice against powerful men, hâve daily augmented these rights, and the people, at once the victim and the witness of these iniquities, has again revolted against them.
“ Why are the rights of tierce and champart more favoured than the corvées and monopolies if their origin be no purer ? And if, on the contrary, the means of extending the former hâve been easier and more common, if their later création is only the more suspect, and, finally, if by reason of their value the titles hâve been better preserved, could they not without injustice be submitted to more rigorous proof ?... Nothing is less established than that the rights of tierce and champart are, in general, 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 268.
:he fruit of a primitive concession of land ; it is demondrated, on the contrary, and proved by history and ail the old titles, that these rights are représentative of mainmorte in the greater part of the realm, since, in the eleventh and succeeding centuries, mainmorte covered our provinces ; to release the seigneur from the production of titles and charge the peasants with proof, is the very reverse of what we expected ; it puts the debtor in the position of not being able to obtain justice against the most odious of the feudal rights. . . . Justice, on this occasion, seems to hâve two weights and two measures ; ail the rights of which there is question in the decree hâve the same origin ; some, however, are only to be confirmed on the strength of titles, whilst for the maintenance of others only simple possession is needed, which can alone be destroyed by a proof almost impossible to obtain. . .
“ Liberty is the common law ; servitude is a right beyond the limits of the common law ; ail that which is contrary to liberty demands express proof ; it is not for the slave to prove that he has not been bought, it is for his master to produce his title of acquisition ; the decree renders homage to this principle of public law when it obliges the proprietor of monopolies or corvées to justify his possession by titles. The right of champart holds the land in a State of slavery, it is a right of servitude o ver a portion of the earth ; the amendment [to the decree] derogates from principle when it calls for direct proof of the contrary from that which owes the right ; but, moreover, it derogates from reason when it demands proofs by titles from him who has not and cannot hâve these titles at his disposition. For although the titles are common to the former seigneur and the proprietors, he will not communicate them, or will conceal them upon various pretexts as soon as his interest wams him of the danger of this communication. Thus, from the inability of the proprietor to afford a proof which is physically impossible, will follow the confirmation of ail
usurpations, and the law which began by promising complété justice will end by according none.” 1
The National Assembly, then, did not lack criticism, both destructive and constructive, of its work ; what effect these criticisms had will appear in the sequel. Our immédiate concern is to note the résistance to the execution of the decrees by the seigneurs on the one hand, and by the peasants on the other.
The nobles as a class were favourably treated by the decrees of 1790. Had it been possible to execute their terms, the seigneurs would hâve lost certain honorific rights and even some valuable properties, but the rédemption of the real dues would hâve left them considerably enriched. Nevertheless, many members of the class were unable to reconcile themselves to the loss of their privileged position. As a rule, an aristocracy or oligarchy values its social superioiity more even than the wealth which is the basis of it, and will fight much harder to maintain its position as a ruling class than its actual material prosperity. Hence the détermination of many seigneurs to enforce the last jot and tittle of the rights that were left them, and their unwillingness finally to abandon those of which they had been deprived. Moreover, they had been afraid. The tierce and sudden uprising of the men of the fields had carried terror into every château. When the storm seemed to hâve passed, and the law had declared itself once more the protector of property and privilège, there was a very natural and human disposition to strike back, to remind the peasant in various unpleasant ways that master and servant were not empty words but stem realities. The complaints and protests which poured in to the Assembly give ample evidence of this disposition.
Thus, on 25 March, the very morrow of the passing of the new law, we find “ the peasants and cultivators of the Haute-Marche ” complaining that “ your decree 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 270.
)f the 4th August checked the hostilities of the seigneurs, Dut as soon as they had knowledge of the last one they ■ecommenced their old vexations against the petitioners.”1 \t Villeneuve, in Provence, the seigneur endeavours :o enforce his right of retrait against a vassal.2 The :ommunity of Frontignan (Haute-Garonne) has been vorsted in a lawsuit with M. Dupas de Fronsac in the natter of the érection of a bench in the parish church. :t has been cast in damages to the extent of 400 livres, ind has been compelled to beg for six months’ grâce. But it fears that it will be no better able to pay at the nd of that period than it is at présent, and what will then >ecome of it ? It cannot resist De Fronsac, “ for he is wimming in money and the community in poverty ” ; îe will give the people no quarter, “ for he has dared, vhen speaking of our deputies in the Assembly, to say hat the reward they may expect when they return home s to hâve their heads eut off ; judge whether he will show is mercy.” 8 The Mayor of Caudan, in Brittany, writes o complain that the local seigneur is endeavouring to ompel the tenants on his domain to carry out the usual orvée of repairing his mill. With the letter he encloses . playing-card, a nine of clubs, on the back of which is /ritten, “ Jacques Le Moing, tenant at Koeller, is to ssist without fail in the réparation of the mill at Plessix ; warn him that he will be compelled to do this at his own xpense, nothing as yet exempting him from his obligaions.” “ This card will prove to you, gentlemen,” acids he indignant Mayor, “ how much contempt is poured 'y certain individuals on the wise decrees already iromulgated by the august Assembly.” This was bviously a bold attempt to coerce the tenant ; the orvées were included in the class of rights abolished ûthout indemnity unless they could be proved “ real ”
1 origin, and even in this case the proprietor had to
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. loi. s Viguiar, p. 259.
* Sagnac and Caron, p. 183.
produce a legal title.1 The community of Vélosnes (Meuse) complains that the seigneurs hâve been harassing the people since 4 August, and are endeavouring to enforce a right of terrage legally condemned as long ago as 1604. They hâve already involved the community in an expenditure of over a thousand livres, and are obviously trying to weary it out by continuai suits. They hâve, moreover, been pasturing their cattle in the communal meadow.a From the région of Belfort there cornes in April a protest against the actions of the tithefarmers. After the August decree it had been generally believed that the tithe was abolished, and its proprietors made no effort to collect it ; now, they are enforcing it by prosecutions, of which more than three thousand are in progress.3 The municipality of Tournau (Seine-et- Marne) calls for the support of the Assembly against the seigneurs of the district who persist in hunting over the fields of their neighbours, and defend their action on the ground that they hâve a right to do so if the game has been started on their own properties. The municipality has pointed out that “ if, unhappily, any proprietor had the right to pursue game over the lands of his neighbours, anyone could scour the country for ten leagues round . . . which would give rise to enormous brigandage.” 4 Ebblinghem (Nord) allégés that the seigneurial jurisdiction is still enforced by the officers.6 The Directory of the Loire-Inférieure calls the Assembly’s attention to an attempt to enforce the right of sergentise. This is obviously a personal corvée, and as such is abolished, nevertheless, the lord of the manor has called upon two of his vassals to collect the rents and render him an account within one month. These individuals at first began the collection ; then " better advised and enlightened by the sentiment of liberty which has spread
1 Sagnac, p. 417.
* Sagnac, p. 419.
• Ibid. p. 369.
3 Sagnac and Caron, p. 371.
4 Sagnac and Caron, p. 249.
to every corner of France, they felt the burden of a rvêe to which they ought not to hâve submitted, and turned both the manor-roll and the dues they had illected to the seigneur.” He refused to receive them, îd legal proceedings folio wed. “ He was neither astonhed nor discouraged ; wishing to sustain his pretenons to the end, he summoned the two receivers of rents, ad not only demanded payment in full, but also an ;knowledgment wherein, along with the déclarations ; to their properties, they admitted the right of serntise.” This was quite illégal, since the power to îmand aveux had been swept away by the March îcree.1 A similar complaint cornes from the Côtesi-Nord. The Directory urges that the Assembly lould deal with the matter at once. “ Already, in many aces, prosecutions hâve begun . . . complaints corne » us from ail parts, and we fear lest they should speedily lange into cries of fury and revenge.” 2 The inhabints of Payrac (Creuse) déclaré that “ although the :crees of the august Assembly . . . are sufhciently ear and précisé, the former seigneurs of this province
the Haute-Marche continue to vex the petitioners ith demands.” The lord of Saint Maixent is especially :tive, “ he allégés that the bouades and vinades [local imes for the corvées ] which appear on his court-roll are )t abolished.” 8
The foregoing citations are ail from documents of 1790. ut there were similar complaints and protests in 1791 so, as the folio wing examples will show. In January, ie municipahty of Beaulieu (Corrèze) complained that 1e farmers of feudal rents were still collecting dues which lould hâve been abolished ; they ignored both the ;cree and the prohibitions of the commune, and, relying 1 the support of the reactionary administration of the îpartment, continued to levy the charges in question.4
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 38p. * Ibid. p. 400.
* Sagnac, p. 416. 4 Sagnac and Caron, p. 208.
In March, at Ognéville (Meurthe), the seigneurs were endeavouring to collect arrears of dues which had been abolished for over a year.1 A letter dated n June shows that the law officers of the seigneurs were still endeavouring to exercise their authority in Maine-et- Loire. “ Feudahsm is abolished and the seigneurial courts are suppressed. The feudal notariés and sergeants continue to exercise their functions on the territory of our department.” 2 In the same month the inhabitants of Saint-Maurice-sur-Fessard (Loiret), protested that the seigneurs were putting obstacles in the way of those who wished to redeem the dues.3
Even in full révolution the attacks of the privileged class upon the communal property of the peasants continued. The inhabitants of Quincerot, in the Yonne, found their pastures invaded by the farmer of the seigneurial rents, who was also clerk to the lord’s court. The threats and entreaties of the municipality could not prevent him driving a flock of 180 sheep into the open fields.4 In the same way, the people of Nitting (Meurthe) suffered from the ravages of the seigneur’ s cattle in the forest where they enjoyed rights of usage ; trees of ail âges were attacked, “nothing is respected, everything is subjected to the teeth of his beasts, which alone enjoy the privilège of browsing in the forest throughout its whole extent.” Remonstrances were useless ; “I must enjoy itwhile I can,” was the answer, “make profit, and augment my revenues.” 6 Seven villages of the Isère wrote te complain of the usurpations of the Carthusians in theii communal woods ; “ they hâve ne ver been carried so far, they hâve never been made with so little disguise . . . as since the passing of the decree which transferrec ecclesiastical properties to the Nation.” 6 At Jouysous-les-Côtes (Meuse) the municipality complained thaï the lord had, by enclosing land, prevented the inhabitants
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 417. 8 Ibid. p. 200. 8 Ibid. p. 418.
4 Ibid. p. 507. s Ibid. p. 518. * Ibid. p. 534.
îjoying the cuslomary rights of pasture in lhe oper îlds after the harvest, and had proceeded against ! i: r breaking down his hedge.1
But the feudal offensive, vigorous though it was, irinks to small proportions when compared with that the peasants. Deceived and disappointed, the rural asses flung themselves into the war against the châteaux 'th renewed energy. A song ran through the villages Périgord which describes the popular attitude in rude alogue. A peasant, going to his work in the early orning, meets a seigneur, who threatens to tread him ider his horse’s hoofs. “ Corne on, Monsieur,” cries the asant, “ and I will argue with y ou with my axe and ad ! ” “ Rascal peasant,” the lord replies, “ I hâve
lown the time when you were not so haughty, when you me to borrow bread and wine from me.” “ Monsieur,” mes the triumpliant answer, “ thanks to the good God e old days are no more ! If the peasants wished it, the ntlemen would hâve to go to work themselves.” 2 The 1 days are no more : that short sentence summed up e peasant’s attitude. Feudalism for him was aboüshed ; the nobles and lawyers in Paris would not sweep the cursed thing away he would do it himself. In the pers of the feudal Committee we can see him at work. We note that the war on the seigneurial benches in 3 churches continues. The curé of Buxières (Allier) ites that his parishioners hâve dragged them out and stroyed them, following in this the example of the ighbouring villages. The municipality has fined the ders 3 livres, but dares not do more, for “ the people î too furious and will not suffer it.3 The weather- :ks, too, continued to be an eyesore to certain populans. The departmental authorities of the Corrèze beg vice on this subject in January 1791 ; people think that he weather-cocks, having always served as the exterior
1 Bussière, p. 166. * Sagnac and Caron, p. 190.
* Ibid. p. 195.
sign of a fief, and consequently of feudal power, ought t< be torn down.” The question is urgent, for insurrection: are on the point of breaking out ail over the départ ment.1 In April 1790, at Urvillers, near Saint-Quentin the seigneur appeals to the National Assembly for pro tection against the Mayor and inhabitants, who threatei to eut down his trees.*
It was, however, during the summer months that th< anti-feudal movement was most violent. In June, a Davenescourt (Somme), the portion of the commons whicl had been enclosed by the Comtesse de la Myre in 178; was invaded by armed inhabitants, who terrorised tb municipality and threatened to kill anyone who inter fered with them.3 At Châteauvillain (Haute-Marne), th peasants drove their flocks to pasture in the seigneuria woods, and guarded them, musket in hand.4 In th Nièvre, more than fifty persons, armed with ail sorts 0 rustic weapons, marched on Asnan, invaded the hous of a notary, and forcibly compelled him to refund th dues they had paid. They spent the rest of the da; peaceably in the inns of the place, and after their returi home published, “ to the Sound of a drum,” an order tha whosoever paid the dues in future would be fined te: francs.5 In the Loiret, rumours were spread abou the country that the National Assembly had suppresse the champart ; the inhabitants refused to hand over th sheaves, and at Coinces fired a proprietor’s bam. Th municipal bodies were unable or unwilling to intervene at Nemours, a crowd of 200 persons terrorised the judge: while the officers of the court were threatened or il treated.8 At Garravet (Gers), the Mayor announce after Mass on Sunday, that he had received a decre which forbade the payment of dues, and authorised th seizure of the commons. The following Saturday, th
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 2i<p » Ibid. p. 557.
s Ibid. pp. 383 and 631,
* Ibid. p. 545. 4 Ibid. p. 650,
* Ibid. p. 632,
isants assembled, and after parading the village, ike into two of the lord’s farms, carried away corn, it down the fences of his garden, and threatened to •n the château. According to his own account, they rained from doing so simply because he was not there ! Dsequently, he was warned not to appear in Garravet ; priest was ordered not to give him shelter ; the paynt of rents for the use of his mill was forbidden on n of death. After an unsuccessful attempt to extort munciation of his rights, the village cattle were turned se in his fields.1 In the Yonne, four municipalities nmoned the proprietors of feudal dues to deposit their e-deeds for examination within a fortnight, failing ich, the payment of ail dues would be forbidden. The ral Council was obliged to intervene and nullify these lers. a A letter from a priest at Mirepoix (Ariège) shows it in Languedoc, also, the peasants were demanding the iduction of the original titles of feudal property. He orts a general refusai of dues, and States that officers Lt by the seigneurs hâve been imprisoned and threat- ;d with hanging.3 At Barles, in the Basses-Alpes, the nmunity seized upon the mountain pastures which onged to the Vicomte d’Alais-Montalet, forbade his mers to take their flocks there, and withheld payments 2 to him.4 In August, at Salon (Bouches-du-Rhône), :i-feudal disturbances were so serious that it was ;essary to call out the National Guards of the surround- ; communes, and even to bring up regular troops.6 September, the municipal officers of Brive (Corrèze) >orted serious fermentations in that région, arising m a curious cause. A notary named Viridot was selling [es to the peasants which showed that they owed very ich smaller amounts of dues than they had been accusned to pay. Whether these documents were genuine not, the municipality declined to say ; it was certain,
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 375. • Ibid. p. 381.
* Ibid. p. 397. 4 Ibid, p, 636, * Ibid. p. 334.
however, that the people were withholding their rents The seigneurs had suggested calling out the Nationa Guard to enforce payment, but “ we must warn you gentlemen, that such a demand may become the gern of civil war ; the peasants are too obstinate to give way.’ There would be ten of them to every guard, and it i certain, moreover, that the latter would refuse to march for they, also, owe the dues.1
The most interesting, perhaps, of ail these documents is a letter addressed to the National Assembly by th seigneur of Montaut, near Auch. It describes in detail ; typical sériés of incidents in the war against the château} and at the same time throws a flood of light on th mentality of the feudal class.
The struggle at Montaut began at the feast of Aï Saints, “ the season when the rents are paid.” On Joseph Roucau, a mason, cried from the church step that the inhabitants and tenants were forbidden to pa dues of any kind, on pain of having their houses burn o ver their heads. The threat was effectuai, for onl three dared to pay. The rest, not content with refusin to acquit the rents actually due, withheld ail payment of arrears, and persuaded the tenants on other estate to make common cause with them. But the Revolutio had put another weapon into the hands of the peasants by abolishing the privilèges of the nobles in matters c taxation. The communities played an important pai in fixing the assessments, and to this new engine c war the people of Montaut resorted. They accuse Rouilhac, their seigneur (whether justly or not we ha\ no means of deciding), of corruptly evading taxatioi and then procured the increase of his charges by nearl iioo livres, if we are to accept his own account. Th Mayor was terrorised, or professed to be so ; judici; officers were threatened ; seditious placards were fixe to the church door, and the seigneur was told that I 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 208.
ight consider himself fortunate inasmuch as his château id not been fired. “ What is to be done ? ” wrote the îhappy gentleman. “ There is neither subordination >r law in force. . . . Men talk of nothing but hanging îd burning ; such is the conséquence of the anarchy to which we are plunged. . . . What can be hoped r from the municipalities ? What is their usual com- >sition ? Who is willing to expose himself to be mocked j a cobbler ?... What can one expect from such ;rsons ? They are our tenants, and consequently inrested in evading payment ; they are ail related or )und together by a common interest. . . . Are they )t judges and parties ? What is to be expected from en without property, éducation, or morality, who iow nothing but violence, and hâve been reared in scality ? Would not a peasant steal with impunity he did not fear the rope ?” In the attitude of mind vealed by that last sentence we discover the cause of ie rural révolutions.1
It was in these régions of the South-West that the ime of insurrection burned most fiercely in the summer,
. in the previous winter and spring. In the Lot, which cluded most of the old province of Quercy, the dis- Lrbances were particularly violent, the maypoles )peared again, sometimes accompanied by gallows bich served as a warning to those who might be weak îough to pay their rents. The Directory of the départent issued a proclamation to the people, but without rail. “ Here, the municipal ofïicers dared not read iis proclamation ; there, they were unable to finish it ; sewhere, they could not read it a second time. In one unicipality, the priest, after having read it, was forcibly impelled to déclaré that it was false and did not corne om the Directory ; in others, the people hâve returned
the planting of maypoles, that uniform sign of in- .rrection. ... In others, again, gallows hâve been 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 393.
erected for whoever should dare to pay rents or collect them.” Such a gallows had been put up at the verj gâte of Cahors, where the Directory sat ! The more moderate section of the population contented itself witt refusing payment till the titles of the seigneurs had beer verified ; at Aynac, the peasants declared that the} repented having paid, because they had since acquirec titles which showed that their dues were three times as heavy as they ought to hâve been. As some compensation, however, they took possession of a meadow whicl they said had been wrested from them by violence.1
Conditions worsened as the winter drew near ; the departmental authorities dispatched troops to destro] the maypoles, but they were met with armed résistance At Saint-Germain-du-Bel-Air, the soldiers found them selves compelled to retreat to Gourdon, pursued witl volleys of stones. In December, a véritable peasan army, 4500 strong, led by a noble, one Joseph de Linars laid siégé to Gourdon itself. The town was occupiec and the soldiers obliged to surrender their cannon. Oi the 4th, the peasants, whose numbers had enormousb increased, proceeded to devastate the houses of noble and officiais. On the 6th, it was the turn of the monasten of Saint-Clair ; on the 7th, the insurrectionary arm] left Gourdon, but spread through the neighbourhood pillaging the châteaux as it went. The districts o Cahors and Lauzerte were similarly disturbed, thirt] houses or châteaux being attacked iri the latter.2
The revoit had now reached dimensions which madi it impossible for the local authorities to cope with it in despair, they appealed to the National Assembly On the I3th, the latter decreed that the King should b< asked to send troops to the disturbed area, along witl two civil commissioners who would in quire into th causes of the insurrection and suggest remedies for it Godard and Robin, the two persons appointed to thi
1 Sagnac and Caron, pp. 385 and 661. * Aulard, pp. 120-3.
)ffice, showed themselves to be humane and sensible nen, who conceived their mission to be one of conciliaion and appeasement. They began the task with a lignified appeal for order ; they distributed this to the >arish priests, and very wisely asked for their support, rhen they arranged for delegates of the peasants to meet hem at Gourdon, where, on n January 1791 and the ■ucceeding days, the conférence was held. Their report >n these proceedings is a most valuable document, dealing ls it does both with économie coditions and the mental ittitude of the agricultural class.1
“ In some of the villages,” says the report, “ the rents >f 1789 had been paid, and the people were ready to pay hose of 1790 if the proprietors demanded them ; but n almost ail there had been no payment for either year. rhe peasants, however, did not refuse to pay, but were >nly willing to do so after the vérification of the titleleeds. . . . These words, ‘ original titles,’ were in :very one’s mouth whenever we mentioned rents. The eason why the peasants so energetically and unaninously demanded the original titles was the excessive ate of the actual rents and the enormous surcharges ncluded in the récognitions. In certain neighbourloods, we were told, the peasant pays the seigneur a hird of the harvest, that is, three bushels out of nine, and he extra charges are a half or two-thirds more than the .mount stated in the primitive title ; the resuit is that he man who, according to this title, formerly paid welve quarters of corn is now obliged to pay eighteen >r twenty.” The peasants held that they had a right o be repaid these immense sums illegally extorted from hem, and they justified their refusais of payment and heir violent acts on this ground.
The commissioners made particular inquiries as to the >lanting of the maypoles and their significance. (These
1 The report is given in fuU in Maridal et Laurent, vol. xxv. pp. 273-
emblems seem, indeed, to hâve caused extraordinary appréhension in governing circles.) The answers to their questions are worth recording. When they mentioned the subject, “ the words ‘ liberty ’ and ‘ signs of rejoicing for liberty ’ were pronounced by ail. We asked if it were not believed that when a maypole had been planted for a year and a day, the people were free henceforward from ail payments of rent, and if this were not the cause of their universal plantation ? The question was negatived with a smile ; they could not believe that we really entertained such an idea. They answered that a piece of wood stuck in the earth could no more destroy a title than increase its value or create a new one.” It would appear, however, that the commissioners did subsequently meet a “ very small number of persons ” who cherished this “ superstition.” “ In general,” the report concludes, “ the idea attached to the maypoles was that of the conquest of liberty ; they are ornamented almost everywhere with ribbons, surmounted with a laurel crown or a bouquet of flowers, and bear a ci vie inscription : Long live the Nation, the Law, and the King ! In the whole of the district, there were only three communes whose maypoles bore a sign of insurrection. . . . At Saint-Cirq and Milhac they carried sieves, which had some relation to enfranchisement from rents. At Léobard, the maypole was crowned with a weather-cock taken by the inhabitants from the lord’s château. ... In these three places we were promised that the signs of sédition or disobedience to the law should disappear.”
Their inquiries completed, Godard and Robin harangued the delegates as to the benefits conferred upon them by the King and the National Assembly. The tithe, the corvées, the salt-tax, the hunting rights, had ail been abolished ; the seigneurs were now their equals before the law, but this must be respected. If they had wrongs to redress, let them proceed in a legal and orderly fashion by means of the courts of justice. This language had an
mmediate effect upon the peasants ; they ail promised to ibandon violent methods, and some even agreed to pay :heir rents before the titles were verified. “ The greater mmber, we must admit, did not make us this last promise; :hey gave as their reasons the enormous restitutions which mght to be made to them, the contradiction that there vould be in making payments to their debtors, and the oad of poverty under which they groaned, caused by the nandalous overcharges they had supported for so long, md by two years of dearth.” The report concludes by m impressive description of the commissioners’ methods — " we hâve acted only by persuasion and the law ” — md a defence of them. It should be remembered, they îrged, that éducation was lacking in the rural districts, md that it was better to spread enlightenment than to mnish men who were only reacting against the oppression >f centuries. They ended with an éloquent plea for a ruly national System of éducation, a plea which, ve may note, was not seriously acted upon by the ^.ssembly.
Godard and Robin had checked, though, as we shall ee, not extinguished the insurrectionary movement in he Lot ; meanwhile, it had been raging in other provinces, n July, the inhabitants of Néret, near La Châtre, invaded . field belonging to the Abbaye des Pierres, which, they leclared, was old common land, and began to reap the orn on it. The National Guard from La Châtre had o be called out to disperse them.1 Troubles broke out gain in Mayenne, in the folio wing months ; the château f Dampierre, near Domfront, and others were attacked •y peasants.2 In Auvergne, the châteaux of Pradt and m Prade were burnt ; at Saint-Hippolyte-du-Fort, in he Gard, a band of armed youths paraded the streets iuring the nights of 14 and 15 October, tearing lown the coats-of-arms from the nobles’ houses. At Cerfeuil, in the same department, there were refusais of 1 Bruneau, p. 187. * Duchemin, p. 44 note.
rents ; the word went forth that no payments were to be made, and the seigneur himself was threatened.1
In Périgord, where the revoit had flickered out in March, disturbances began again at the end of May. On the 2Ôth, at Thenon, Joseph de Vayre was attacked by his vassals, “ who came,” he wrote, “ to pillage, insult, and baffle him in his own house.” They demanded the refunding of old fines, and the return of guns taken from them.2 In July, the château of Marqueyssat was attacked and ransacked for arms ; the insurgents feasted on the lord’s provisions, and bore away triumphantly the measures used for testing the corn rents.3 The célébration of the fête of the Fédération on the I4th of the same month gave occasion for fresh violence. At Grun and Négrondes, the seigneurial benches in the churches were attacked ; on the 25th, a similar scene occurred at Bourdeille.4 In the autumn, when the season of the collection of dues approached, the peasants passed to more serious action ; at Saint-Martial, a band surrounded the Marquise de Cherval, demanded the production of the original titledeeds, broke into the château, and carried ofï the grain.6 At La Cropte, the scenes of the previous year were repeated, the notice demanding the payment of rents was torn down, and the commander of the National Guard threatened the punishment of anyone who dared to pay.8
The year 1791 brought no betterment of the situation. From March onwards, a succession of disturbances occurred in ail quarters of the territory. We can best follow them in chronological order.
On 15 March, the mayors and municipal officers of several communes in the Charente reported to Merlin de Douai that “ we hâve perhaps arrived at the moment when authority will be obliged to employ force to constrain the inhabitants of our cantons to pay the feudal
1 Rouvière, vol. i. pp. 221-2.
* Ibid. p. 351.
* Ibid. p. 437 et seq.
* Bussière, p. 340. 4 Ibid. pp. 407-13.
• Ibid. p. 381.
dues.” The grievances and demands of the peasants as described in this document are familiar ; illégal increases of rent, the useof false measures.the refusai of the seigneurs to produce the original title-deeds.1 A letter of the 25th from the parish priest of Blandy (Seine-et-Oise) reports that refusais to pay the champart are almost certain to occur in his district at the harvest season ; the people suspect that there are no titles, and allégé that where the former seigneurs were ecclesiastical bodies the tithe was illegally added to the champart .* In the same month the department of the Creuse informed the Minister of War that anonymous letters were being sent to the magistrates, threatening them if they gave decisions in favour of paying the cens. “ In almost ail the cantons the peasants are refusing payment ; some even announce that they will destroy the person and property of whosoever shall dare to demand of it them.” 8 In April, the irrépressible people of the Lot began to stir again ; at Bourg-de-Visa, Miramont, and Saint-Urcisse there were risings in which properties were pillaged and burnt.4 There were fresh troubles in Brittany also ; at Châteaubriant, “ the popular fermentation ” was such that the steward of the Prince de Condé had to fly for his life.6 About Easter, the peasants of the Morbihan were everywhere withholding their dues.®
In May, conflicts in these same régions, the Creuse, the Lot, and Brittany, continued. There were riots at Bénévent and Grand-Bourg ; in the latter, chairs and benches were dragged from the church and destroyed ; the walls of gardens were demolished ; the destruction of the château that had formerly belonged to the chapter of Samt-Etienne-de-Limoges was only prevented by the arrivai of troops.7 At Castelnau-Montratier, two nobles,
1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 413. ' Ibid. p. 466.
* Duval, p. 60. 4 Aulard, p. 135.
1 Sée and Lésort, vol. ii. p. 312 note.
* Du Chatellier, vol. i. p. 422.
f Duval, p. 62.
the brothers De Ballnd, were besieged in their own house ; one committed suicide, the other was dragged a prisoner to Cahors and hanged by the people.1 The municipal officers of Saint-Germain-dü-Pinel (Ille-et-Vilaine) were obliged to déclaré that they would regard as “ disturbers of the public peace ” those who attacked the properties of the former seigneurs* In June, in the same department, the iron workers of the forges at Martigné-Ferchaud pillaged and destroyed the châteaux of Bois-Feillet and La Séguintère, which belonged to their employers.3 In July, there were fresh burnings and dévastations in the Lot, notably at Montclar, Saint-Urcisse, and Cahors.4 The curé of Raincheval (Somme) wrote to the feudal Committee that the attempts of the departmental administration to enforce the payment of the champart had driven the people to fury ; “ the case is urgent, there hâve been riotous assemblies for more than eight leagues round.” 6 Attempts to collect the same due led to revolts and refusais in the Yonne.6 Troubles in the departments of the Lot and the Creuse continued in August ; a report from the Mayor of La Soulteraine in the latter shows that anonymous letters were in circulation which called for an armed assembly to force the proprietors to produce their titles. This assembly actually took place on the 23rd, when the mayors of the participating communes, clad in their official scarves, marched at the head of their people. The rioters were dispersed by troops, and some 80 prisoners, from twelve different parishes, were taken.7 At Ichy (Seine-et-Marne) the inhabitants repelled by force every attempt to collect the champart .8 A letter from the municipality of Tulle shows that a similar State of affairs prevailed in the Corrèze. The members déclaré that “ their zeal and vigilance can no longer suffice for the
1 Aulard, p. 136. a Sée and Lésort, vol. i. p. 343 note.
• Ibid. vol. i. 419 note. * Aulard, p. 136.
* Sagnac and Caron, p. 278. • Ibid. p. 465.
7 Duval, pp. 63-7. 8 Sagnac, p. 413.
maintenance of order in the neighbouring rural districts ; every day the most sacred properties are violated, the fish-ponds pillaged, the monks insulted ; on the pretext of the abolition of tithes and the feudal System, those who demand dues that are not abolished are menaced ; insurrections, rare at first, are rapidly spreading ; the tribunals are forced to resort to temporisings that weaken the laws and encourage licence.” 1
What was the attitude of the National Assembly towards these incessant revolts of the peasants ? The question can best be answered by a short description of its législation on the subject. On 18 June 1790, it was decreed that the tithe, the champart, and ail other dues were to be paid in the accustomed manner. This was in answer to demands that money payments might be substituted for those in produce. The same decree forbade “ ail persons whatsoever to impede the collection of the tithes and champarts, whether by writings, speeches, threats, acts of violence or otherwise, on pain of being prosecuted as disturbers of public order.” In July, a discussion on certain anti-feudal disturbances in the 5eine-et-Marne resulted in a general decree which gave power to the local authorities to réquisition troops for use against agrarian insurgents. On 3 August, the Assembly, in a fresh decree, prayed the King " to give the most précisé and urgent orders that, throughout the realm, and particularly in the department of Loiret, the oourts shall prosecute and punish with the utmost severity ill those who . . . oppose themselves by violence, threats, or otherwise, to the payment of tithes, champarts, md other seigne urial rights which hâve not been suppressed without indemnity.” The municipalities were to be instructed “ to destroy ail exterior signs of insurrection and sédition,” a provision obviously aimed at the maypoles Df Périgord and Quercy. The Assembly’s action in December with regard to the upheavals in the last-named 1 Sagnac and Caron, p. 666.
province has already been described. Finally, in June 1791, the législature called the peasants to order with brutal directness, in a further decree. “ It is time,” it said, “ for the citizens whose industry fertilises the fields and nourishes the empire to return to duty, and render to property the homage that they owe it.” After a long exposition of the famous theory of categories, the decree continues : “ Thus, there is no more excuse for unjust refusais of payment, and whosoever is guilty of such a refusai must expect to be considered by ail as a rebel against the law, as a usurper of the property of others, as a bad citizen and a common enemy.” In short, the more vigorously the peasants rebelled, the more determinedly did the Assembly entrench itself in its System.1
On some minor points only did it attempt to meet the popular demands. The decree of 19 June 1790 which abolished hereditary nobility also forbade the use of armorial bearings ; that of 13 April 1791 ordered the seigneurs to withdraw their benches from the churches within two months, and abolished the exclusive right to hâve weather-cocks on their houses formerly possessed by them.a Thus, the honorific privilèges of the nobility, so irritating to the peasants, were definitively swept away. But only one concession of économie importance was made. The decree of 14 November 1790 permitted the vassals on Church lands which had become the property of the nation to redeem the annual, separately from the casual dues. This very real benefit was thus confined to a minority of the peasant-class.*
The course of events had culminated in a deadlock.
•'*— The peasants were determined not to acquiesce in the maintenance of the feudal System ; the Assembly was equally determined not to modify its policy in any serious fashion. The remainder of this book must be devoted to showing how a solution of the problems was finally
1 Aulard, pp. 152-7, » Ibid. pp. 173-3.
* Ibid. p. 188,
Lchieved ; but before beginning the last section of our larrative two points of interest remain to be discussed.
M. Aulard has urged that the revolts against paynent of the feudal dues which hâve filled so large a place n our survey of the years 1790 and 1791 were exceptions, rery frequent exceptions, but exceptions nevertheless. Iis view seems to be that the majority of the peasants ontinued, however grudgingly, to fulfil their legal obliations.1 To disagree with so eminent an authority is a Toceeding of some temerity, and, indeed, as M. Aulard ays, the means which would enable us to pronounce a nal judgment do not at présent exist. Only a tithe of he documents received by the feudal Committee has been rinted ; many régional historians confine themselves to urely political events and leave these village struggles nmentioned. At the same time, the evidence brought Dgether in these pages, incomplète as it admittedly is, an hardly be held to point to M. Aulard’s conclusion. It ; apparent that few régions of France were untroubled y the résistance, more or less violent, of the peasants to tie maintenance of the feudal System ; in some départ îents that résistance seems to hâve been practically niversal. M. Aulard has certainly shown that the gents of one great nobleman, the Duc de Cossé-Brissac, antinued to collect his dues at least until July 1792, but is obvious from the correspondence which establishes iis fact that much résistance was encountered.2 It îems probable, then, ail things considered, that the System f agrarian feudalism was pretty thoroughly underdned by the direct action of the peasants before the tate stepped in to complété its overthrow by constituonal means.
One considération which may be held to point to a ifferent conclusion must, in candour, be mentioned. [. Aulard has proved that on the domains which passed om the hands of the Church to those of the State, the ‘ Aulard, p. 191. ! pp. 193-8,
feudal rights were levied, and levied with much vigour, until the complété abolition of feudalism in 1793. 1 But the importance of this tact, considérable as it is, must not be exaggerated. It is difficult to arrive at a trustworthy estimate of the amount of land held by the Church before the Révolution, but the figures quoted above from Loutchisky suggest that it was much smaller than is usually supposed. Only a minority, and probably not a large minority, of the peasants can hâve been affected by the change of ownership.
Before closing this chapter, we may ask what proportion of the people actually redeemed the feudal dues ? The matter has never been systematically studied, and the facts on which an answer can be based are few. Such as they are, however, they possess considérable interest. Many of the purchasers of Church property did redeem the feudal rights which weighed upon it. In the départ ment of the Yonne, during 1791, payments for this object were made of the total value of 33,460 livres ; from 1 January to 25 August 1792, 44,044 livres were received in the same area.2 From 6 October 1790 to 15 October 1791, the revenue from this source in the district of Aix was 108,000 livres .* It is probable that the comparative frequency of rédemptions on State property was due (apart from the effects of the decree of November 1790) to the fact that much of it was purchased by middle-class townspeople seeking an opportunity for investments, who had both the will and the means to relieve themselves of the feudal encumbrances. But payments to former seigneurs seem to hâve been few. In Provence, some of the communities purchased the feudal monopolies when proper titles were produced, but “apart from this,” says M. Viguier, “the rédemptions were nul!” The Directory of the Bouches-du-Rhône made vigorous but fruitless efforts to persuade the peasants to purchase. When the commune of Istres
1 Aulard, chap. v. a Ibid. p. 185. * Viguier, p. 262.
ught permission to obtain a loan, this was granted on mdition that the first use made of the money should î the purchase of the rights of the former lord.1 In ecember 1791, the active citizens of Lourmarin, in the me department, declared that during the twenty-one onths which had elapsed since the passing of the decree i feudalism, not a single individual had purehased the les with which he was burdened.2 On the other hand, ;ertain number of rédemptions did take place in Berry.3
1 Viguier, p. 261. * Sagnac and Caron, p. 280.
* Bruneau, p. 327.
