A Political and Social History of Modern Europe Part 49

[Sidenote: Dislocation of Society in Eighteenth Century]

Such ideas were practical so long as society was comparatively static and fixed, but they were endangered as soon as the human world was conceived of as dynamic and progressive. The development of trade and industry, as has been emphasized, rapidly increased the numbers, wealth, and influence of the bourgeoisie, or middle cla.s.s, and quite naturally threw the social machine out of gear. The merchants, the lawyers, the doctors, the professors, the literary men, began to envy the n.o.bles and clergy, and in turn were envied by the poor townsfolk and by the downtrodden peasants. With the progress of learning and study, thoughtful persons of all cla.s.ses began to doubt whether the old order of politics and society was best suited to the new conditions and new relations. The "old regime" was for old needs; did it satisfy new requirements?

[Sidenote: Influence of Philosophy]

To this question the philosophers of the eighteenth century responded unequivocally in the negative. Scientists, of whom the period was full, had done much to exalt the notions that the universe is run in accordance with immutable laws of nature and that man must forever utilize his reasoning faculties. It was not long before the philosophers were applying the scientists' notions to social conditions. "Is this reasonable?" they asked, or, "Is that rational?"

Montesquieu insisted that divine-right monarchy is unreasonable.

Voltaire poked fun at the Church and the clergy for being irrational.

Rousseau claimed that cla.s.s inequalities have no basis in reason.

Beccaria taught that arbitrary or cruel interference with personal liberty is not in accordance with dictates of nature or reason.

Philosophy did not directly effect a change; it was merely an expression of a growing belief in the advisability of change. It reflected a conviction, deep in many minds, that the old political inst.i.tutions and social distinctions had served their purpose and should now be radically adapted to the new order. Every country in greater or less degree heard the radical philosophy, but it was in France that it was first heeded.

[Sidenote: The Revolution]

In France, between the years 1789 and 1799, occurred a series of events, by which the doctrine of democracy supplanted that of divine- right monarchy, and the theory of cla.s.s distinctions gave way to that of social equality. These events, taken together, const.i.tute what we term the French Revolution, and, inasmuch as they have profoundly affected all political thought and social action throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they are styled, by way of eminence, the Revolution.

[Sidenote: The Revolution French]

Why the Revolution started in France may be suggested by reference to certain points which have already been mentioned in the history of that country. France was the country which, above any other, had perfected the theory and practice of divine-right monarchy. In France had developed the sharpest contrasts between the various social cla.s.ses. It was likewise in France that the relatively high level of education and enlightenment had given great vogue to a peculiarly destructive criticism of political and social conditions. Louis XIV had erected his absolutism and had won for it foreign glory and prestige only by placing the severest burdens upon the French people. The exploitation of the state by the selfish, immoral Louis XV had served not to lighten those burdens but rather to set forth in boldest relief the inherent weaknesses of the "old regime." And Louis XVI, despite all manner of pious wishes and good intentions, had been unable to square conditions as they were with the operation of antique inst.i.tutions. One royal minister after another discovered to his chagrin that mere "reform" was worse than useless. A "revolution" would be required to sweep away the ma.s.s of abuses that in the course of centuries had adhered to the body politic.

[Sidenote: Differences between the French and English Revolutions]

At the outset, any idea of likening the French Revolution to the English Revolution of the preceding century must be dismissed. Of course the English had put one king to death and had expelled another, and had clearly limited the powers of the crown; they had "established parliamentary government." But the English Revolution did not set up genuine representative government, much less did it recognize the theory of democracy. Voting remained a special privilege, conferred on certain persons, not a natural right to be freely exercised by all. Nor was the English Revolution accompanied by a great social upheaval: it was in the first instance political, in the second instance religious and ecclesiastical; it was never distinctly social. To all intents and purposes, the same social cla.s.ses existed in the England of the eighteenth century as in the England of the sixteenth century, and, with the exception of the merchants, in much the same relation to one another.

[Sidenote: The French Revolution in Two Periods]

How radical and far-reaching was the French Revolution in contrast to that of England will become apparent as we review the course of events in France during the decade 1789-1799. A brief summary at the close of this chapter will aim to explain the significance of the Revolution.

Meanwhile, we shall devote our attention to a narrative of the main events.

The story falls naturally into two parts: First, 1789-1791, the comparatively peaceful transformation of the absolute, divine-right monarchy into a limited monarchy, accompanied by a definition of the rights of the individual and a profound change in the social order; second, 1792-1799, the transformation of the limited monarchy into a republic, attended by the first genuine trial of democracy, and attended likewise by foreign war and internal tumult. The story, in either of its parts, is not an easy one, for the reason that important roles are played simultaneously by five distinct groups of interested persons.

[Sidenote: Role of the Court and the Privileged]

In the first place, the people who benefit by the political and social arrangements of the "old regime" will oppose its destruction. Among these friends of the "old regime" may be included the royal court, headed by the queen, Marie Antoinette, and by the king's brothers, the count of Provence and the count of Artois, and likewise the bulk of the higher clergy and the n.o.bles--the privileged cla.s.ses, generally. These persons cannot be expected to surrender their privileges without a struggle, especially since they have been long taught that such privileges are of divine sanction. Only dire necessity compels them to acquiesce in the convocation of the Estates-General and only the mildest measures of reform can be palatable to them. They hate and dread revolution or the thought of revolution. Yet at their expense the Revolution will be achieved.

[Sidenote: Role of the Bourgeoisie]

In the second place, the bourgeoisie, who have the most to lose if the "old regime" is continued and the most to gain if reforms are obtained, will const.i.tute the majority in all the legislative bodies which will a.s.semble in France between 1789 and 1799. Their legislative decrees will in large measure reflect their cla.s.s interests, and on one hand will terrify the court party and on the other will not fully satisfy the lower cla.s.ses. The real achievements of the Revolution, however, will be those of the bourgeois a.s.semblies.

[Sidenote: Role of the Urban Proletariat]

In the third place, the artisans and poverty-stricken populace of the cities, notably of Paris, will through bitter years lack for bread.

They will expect great things from the a.s.semblies and will revile the efforts of the court to impede the Revolution. They will shed blood at first to defend the freedom of the a.s.semblies from the court, subsequently to bring the a.s.semblies under their own domination.

Without their cooperation the Revolution will not be achieved.

[Sidenote: Role of the Peasantry]

In the fourth place, the dull, heavy peasants, in whom no one has. .h.i.therto suspected brains or pa.s.sions, long dumb under oppression, will now find speech and opinions and an unwonted strength. They will rise against their n.o.ble oppressors and burn castles and perhaps do murder.

They will force the astonished bourgeoisie and upper cla.s.ses to take notice of them and indirectly they will impress a significant social character upon the achievements of the Revolution.

[Sidenote: Role of the Foreign Powers]

Finally, the foreign monarchs must be watched, for they will be intensely interested in the story as it unfolds. If the French people be permitted with impunity to destroy the very basis of divine-right monarchy and to overturn the whole social fabric of the "old regime,"

how long, pray, will it be before Prussians, or Austrians, or Russians shall be doing likewise? With some thought for Louis XVI and a good deal of thought for themselves, the monarchs will call each other "brother" and will by and by send combined armies against the revolutionaries in France. At that very time the success of the Revolution will be achieved, for all cla.s.ses, save only the handful of the privileged, will unite in the cause of France, which incidentally becomes the cause of humanity. Bourgeoisie, townsfolk, peasants, will go to the front and revolutionary France will then be found in her armies. Thereby not only will the Revolution be saved in France, but in the end it will be communicated to the uttermost parts of Europe.

THE END OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE, 1789

[Sidenote: France on the Eve of the Revolution]

When the story opens, France is still the absolute, divine-right monarchy which Louis XIV had perfected and Louis XV had exploited. The social cla.s.ses are still in the time-honored position which has been described in Chapter XIII. But all is not well with the "old regime."

In the country districts the taxes are distressingly burdensome. In the cities there is scarcity of food side by side with starvation wages.

Among the bourgeoisie are envy of the upper cla.s.ses, an appreciation of the critical philosophy of the day, and a sincere admiration of what seem to be happier political and social conditions across the Channel in Great Britain. The public debt of France is enormous, and a large part of the national income must, therefore, be applied to the payment of interest: even the courtiers of Louis XVI find their pensions and favors and sinecures somewhat reduced. When the privileged cla.s.ses begin to feel the pinch of hard times, it is certain that the finances are in sore straits.

[Sidenote: Financial Embarra.s.sment]

In fact, all the great general causes of the French Revolution, which may be inferred from the two preceding chapters, may be narrowed down to the financial embarra.s.sment of the government of Louis XVI. The king and his ministers had already had recourse to every expedient consistent with the maintenance of the "old regime" save one, and that one--the convocation of the Estates-General--was now to be tried. It might be that the representatives of the three chief cla.s.ses of the realm would be able to offer suggestions to the court, whereby the finances could be improved and at the same time the divine-right monarchy and the divinely ordained social distinctions would be unimpaired.

[Sidenote: Convocation of the Estates-General]

With this idea of simple reform in mind, Louis XVI in 1788 summoned the Estates-General to meet at Versailles the following May. The Estates- General were certainly not a revolutionary body. Though for a hundred and seventy-five years the French monarchs had been able to do without them, they were in theory still a legitimate part of the old-time government. Summoned by King Philip the Fair in 1302, they had been thenceforth convoked at irregular intervals until 1614. Their organization had been in three separate bodies, representing by election the three estates of the realm--clergy, n.o.bility, and commoners (Third Estate). Each estate voted as a unit, and two out of the three estates were sufficient to carry a measure. It usually happened that the clergy and n.o.bility joined forces to outvote the commoners. The powers of the Estates-General had always been advisory rather than legislative, and the kings had frequently ignored or violated the enactments of the a.s.sembly. In its powers as well as in its organization, the Estates-General differed essentially from the Parliament of England. By the Estates-General the ultimate supremacy of the royal authority had never been seriously questioned.

[Sidenote: Election of the Estates-General]

The elections to the Estates-General were held in accordance with ancient usage throughout France in the winter of 1788-1789. Also, in accordance with custom, the electors were invited by the king to prepare reports on the condition of the locality with which they were familiar and to indicate what abuses, if any, existed, and what remedies, in their opinion, were advisable.

[Sidenote: The Cahiers]

By the time the elections were complete, it was apparent that the majority of the French people desired and expected a greater measure of reform than their sovereign had antic.i.p.ated. The reports and lists of grievances that had been drafted in every part of the country were astounding. To be sure, these doc.u.ments, called _cahiers_, were not revolutionary in wording: with wonderful uniformity they expressed loyalty to the monarchy and fidelity to the king: in not a single one out of the thousand _cahiers_ was there a threat of violent change. But in spirit the _cahiers_ were eloquent. All of them reflected the idea which philosophy had made popular that reason demanded fundamental, thoroughgoing reforms in government and society.

Those of the Third Estate were particularly insistent upon the social inequalities and abuses long a.s.sociated with the "old regime." It was clear that if the elected representatives of the Third Estate carried out the instructions of their const.i.tuents, the voting of additional taxes to the government would be delayed until a thorough investigation had been made and many grievances had been redressed.

[Sidenote: The Third Estate]

On the whole, it was probable that the elected representatives of the Third Estate would heed the _cahiers_. They were educated and brainy men. Two-thirds of them were lawyers or judges; many, also, were scholars; only ten could possibly be considered as belonging to the lower cla.s.ses. A goodly number admired the governmental system of Great Britain, in which the royal power had been reduced; the cla.s.s interests of all of them were directly opposed to the prevailing policies of the French monarchy. The Third Estate was too intelligent to follow blindly or unhesitatingly the dictates of the court.

In the earliest history of the Estates-General, the Third Estate had been of comparatively slight importance either in society or in politics, and Philip the Fair had proclaimed that the duty of its members was "to hear, receive, approve, and perform what should be commanded of them by the king." But between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries the relative social importance of the bourgeoisie had enormously increased. The cla.s.s was more numerous, wealthier, more enlightened, and more experienced in the conduct of business. It became clearer with the lapse of time that it, more than n.o.bility or clergy, deserved the right of representing the bulk of the nation. This right Louis XVI had seemed in part to recognize by providing that the number of elected representatives of the Third Estate should equal the combined numbers of those of the First and Second Estates. The commoners naturally drew the deduction from the royal concession that they were to exercise paramount political influence in the Estates- General of 1789.

The Third Estate, as elected in the winter of 1788-1789, was fortunate in possessing two very capable leaders, Mirabeau and Sieyes, both of whom belonged by office or birth to the upper cla.s.ses, but who had gladly accepted election as deputies of the unprivileged cla.s.ses. With two such leaders, it was extremely doubtful whether the Third Estate would tamely submit to playing an inferior role in future.

[Sidenote: Mirabeau]

Mirabeau (1749-1791) was the son of a bluff but good-hearted old marquis who was not very successful in bringing up his family. Young Mirabeau had been so immoral and unruly that his father had repeatedly obtained _lettres de cachet_ from the king in order that prison bars might keep him out of mischief. Released many times only to fall into new excesses, Mirabeau found at last in the French Revolution an opportunity for expressing his sincere belief in const.i.tutional government and an outlet for his almost superhuman energy. From the convocation of the Estates-General to his death in 1791, he was one of the most prominent men in France. His gigantic physique, half-broken by disease and imprisonment, his s.h.a.ggy eyebrows, his heavy head, gave him an impressive, though sinister, appearance. And for quickness in perceiving at once a problem and its solution, as well as for gifts of reverberating oratory, he was unsurpa.s.sed.

[Sidenote: Sieyes]

Of less force but greater tact was the priest, Sieyes (1748-1836), whose lack of devotion to Christianity and the clerical calling was matched by a zealous regard for the skeptical and critical philosophy of the day and for the practical arts of politics and diplomacy. It was a pamphlet of Sieyes that, on the eve of the a.s.sembling of the Estates- General, furnished the Third Estate with its platform and program.

"What is the Third Estate?" asks Sieyes. "It is everything," he replies. "What has it been hitherto in the political order? Nothing!