diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then
50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the
rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express
their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and
called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,'
respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party
who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The
State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions;
government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To
meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a
premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with
joy--they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents'
eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The
gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of
archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants
for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for
several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves
in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. ... By this
time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in
the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties;
the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive
privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South
Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company
were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the
Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the
regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the
mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every
branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its
police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege
was followed by a new issue of shares. ... The shares of 500
franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became
impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the
Place Vendome. ... The excitement spread to England [where the
South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
... Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down
together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long
only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be
whispered that those in the secret were realizing their
profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole
edifice came down with a crash. ... No sooner was it evident
that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only
man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."
Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
volume 1, chapter 1.
A. Thiers,
The Mississippi Bubble.
W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 2, chapter 2.
C. Gayarre,
History of Louisiana, second series,
lecture 1.
Duke de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs:
abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15.
FRANCE: A. D. 1720.
The fortifying of Louisbourg.
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.
FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
Character and reign of Louis XV.
The King's mistresses and their courtiers
who conducted the government.
State and feeling of the nation.
After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of
about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of
the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de
Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in
1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen
years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his
own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at
any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's
mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France,
and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose
reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and
prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state
during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies
seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon,
Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and
Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon
and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the
ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de
Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most
distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour
from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died,
but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la
Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon
after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so,
nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."
W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 3.
"The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years,
but it was not without a considerable effect upon the
destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and
the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new
activity imparted to business during this period was an event
of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose
that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt
against the government and the institutions of the old regime.
The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth
century was possible, not because the condition of the people
had grown worse, but because it had become better. The
material development of that country, during the fifty years
that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no
parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation,
nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the
government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in
1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot
of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation
upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there
were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found
only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was
more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more
prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. ...
{1249}
Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both
social and political changes. ... But while social conditions
had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New
wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used.
Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than
in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal
privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law
of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. ... A
demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges
and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of
others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an
additional impetus from the writings of theorists,
philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of
literature in France during the eighteenth century was
important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of
political and social change was shown by the writers of the
period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. ...
The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared
the minds of the French people for political change, and
accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The
doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a
people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil
acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by
contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which
they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the
reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his
cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. ... Few
events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the
extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were
excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. ... A preacher
hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation
adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king
himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the
explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his
people, without having done anything for them, because the
French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.'
This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal
for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom
they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's
subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were
those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of
loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The
administration of the country was as despicable as the
character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been
suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always
preserved a commanding position in Europe. ... But now defeat
and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and
proud. ... The low profligacy into which the king had sunk,
the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress,
the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his
plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that
had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some
curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which
the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at
Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in
1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were
six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there
were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures
the decline in the affection and respect of the French people
for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had
thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."
J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapters 2-8.
J. Murray,
French Finance and Financiers under Louis XV.
FRANCE: A. D. 1725.
The alliance of Hanover.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
The Second Treaty of Vienna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).
"The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in
Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. ...
As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the
series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated
the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting
for it entered into an agreement against the maritime
supremacy of that power. ... The commercial privileges granted
to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts
to be intolerable."
L. von Ranke,
History of England,
book 22, chapter 4 (volume 5).
"It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
important document of the middle period of the 18th century
and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
wars--war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756--the simple
reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
attained its objects. ... The first two articles define the
nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
{1250}
Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
follows:--'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
letter of treaties'"--to which end the two kings make common
cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
and irrevocable Family Compact. ... Here is the explanation of
the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
allowed to creep into trade.'"
J. R. Seeley,
The House of Bourbon
(English History Review, January, 1886).
ALSO IN:
J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapter 22 (volume 2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
Final acquisition of Lorraine.
Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.
In the war with Austria which was brought about by the
question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D.
1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy,
while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her
moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own
interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached
Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick,
who had been called away from eight years of happy and
charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first
time in the French army their one great general of the coming
age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of
Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. ... He is best
known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish
much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with
the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists
constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far
from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and
Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734
French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had
sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's
grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his
grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged
Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French
generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill
his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony
and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to
be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an
almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on
the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on
the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By
skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and
without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their
army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince
Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and
having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before
Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the
trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed
away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.:
France never again saw his like till the genius of the
Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at
first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the
campaign, and that the French army must get back across the
Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and
Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire,
however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding
it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld,
who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold
on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg.
Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things
had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran
Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under
Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. ... Villars found it quite
easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for
Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once
began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the
campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking
interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw
up his command, and started for France: on the way he was
seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after
Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long
series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny
and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from
Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly
contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested
their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced
idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy
check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however
emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at
Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French
remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time
of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's
movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign
unimportant.
{1251}
As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the
French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available
force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able
to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don
Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of
joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards
then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the
two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards.
In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for
the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in
order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no
lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not
last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna
followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in
Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735)
were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and
Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be
erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France
obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus
Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to
the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French
administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as
an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in
the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the
Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the
Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the
much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely
united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 52 (volume 6).
FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
The Question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
French responsibility for the war.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741;
and 1741 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1741-1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741, to 1743.
FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (October).
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
"France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance
at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable
as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the
French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it
the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of
November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs,
it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference
to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia,
and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V.
transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant
Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and
Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of
Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested
from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the
Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even
something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain
circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which
case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and
also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was
to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
FRANCE: A. D. 1744-1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744, and 1745.
A. D. 1741-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
Germany and the Netherlands.
See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.
FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
valley and the West.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
New World.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Causes and provocations of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1755-1756;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Naval reverse on the Newfoundland coast.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1755-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in America.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
FRANCE: A. D. 1756 (May).
The Seven Years War: Minorca wrested from England.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
FRANCE: A. D. 1757-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.
FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
Count Lally's failure.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
FRANCE: A. D. 1760.
The Seven Years War: The surrender of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (August).
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
"On the 15th of August [1761] ... Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
privileges as the natives.
{1252}
Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
Spain. ... Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
The force of circumstances soon brought them to the measure.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 37 (volume 4).
FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
Proceedings against the Jesuits.
Their expulsion from the kingdom.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The Peace of Paris.
America lost, nothing gained.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.
FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
of Paris.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.
FRANCE: A. D. 1768.
Acquisition of Corsica.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
The Assembly of Notables.
The Parliament of Paris.
"Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his
propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good
disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very
early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and
consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his
confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian
princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who
possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the
Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to
his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early
period the long career of his vacillations. ... The public
voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of
the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with
firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and
profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans
of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none
besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.'
Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the
highest orders in the state, who were interested in
maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister
proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with
regret. During his whole life, which was only a long
martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right,
to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for
carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the
court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues
and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his
ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the
necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department
Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a
banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of
Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man,
fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. ...
Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means
to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. ... But it
required something more than financial artifices to put an end
to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to
reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him
than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his
plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781].
The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal;
everybody admitted it. ... The courtiers, who derived
advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an
end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without
its costing them a single sacrifice. ... The parliaments also
talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the
sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of
the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal
barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and
the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends,
applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious
enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of
affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained
the same. ... An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in
1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M.
d'Ormesson]. ... Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in
resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men,
and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. ...
That future which had been counted upon now approached: it
became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was
impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet
the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could
be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression
of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend
the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the
nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by
Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the
latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the
privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne,
therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly,
to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his
plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or
by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was
composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and
magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some
magistrates of the provinces. ... Very warm discussions
ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the
plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral
and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry
them into execution."
{1253}
Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de
Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the
promises which they had made, readily consented to all that
they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression
of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial
assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. ... Had M. de Brienne
known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he
actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented
to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and
without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the
adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from
them--all would probably have been over; the parliament,
pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. ...
Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays
occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted
only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to
gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by
which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long
discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the
'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of
corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the
land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten
the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish.
It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the
simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and
the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with
the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing
the first without entering into explanations respecting the
second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the
majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the
interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the
peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the
prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of
expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états'
(statements) exclaimed ... --'It is not statements, but
States-General that we want.' ... The utterance of a single
word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it
was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly
demanded."
A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21.
"There is no doubt that the French administrative body, at the
time when Louis XVI. began to reign, was corrupt and
self-seeking. In the management of the finances and of the
army, illegitimate profits were made. But this was not the
worst evil from which the public service was suffering. France
was in fact governed by what in modern times is called 'a
ring.' The members of such an organization pretend to serve
the sovereign, or the public, and in some measure actually do
so; but their rewards are determined by intrigue and favor,
and are entirely disproportionate to their services. They
generally prefer jobbery to direct stealing, and will spend a
million of the state's money in a needless undertaking, in
order to divert a few thousands into their own pockets. They
hold together against all the world, while trying to
circumvent each other. Such a ring in old France was the
court. By such a ring will every country be governed, where
the sovereign who possesses the political power is weak in
moral character or careless of the public interest; whether
that sovereign be a monarch, a chamber, or the mass of the
people. Louis XVI., king of France and of Navarre, was more
dull than stupid, and weaker in will than in intellect. ... He
was ... thoroughly conscientious, and had a high sense of the
responsibility of his great calling. He was not indolent,
although heavy, and his courage, which was sorely tested, was
never broken. With these virtues he might have made a good
king, had he possessed firmness of will enough to support a
good minister, or to adhere to a good policy. But such
strength had not been given him. Totally incapable of standing
by himself, he leant successively, or simultaneously, on his
aunt, his wife, his ministers, his courtiers, as ready to
change his policy as his adviser. Yet it was part of his
weakness to be unwilling to believe himself under the guidance
of any particular person; he set a high value on his own
authority, and was inordinately jealous of it. No one,
therefore, could acquire a permanent influence. Thus a
well-meaning man became the worst of sovereigns. ... Louis XV.
had been led by his mistresses; Louis XVI. was turned about by
the last person who happened to speak to him. The courtiers,
in their turn, were swayed by their feelings, or their
interests. They formed parties and combinations, and intrigued
for or against each other. They made bargains, they gave and
took bribes. In all these intrigues, bribes, and bargains, the
court ladies had a great share. They were as corrupt as the
men, and as frivolous. It is probable that in no government
did women ever exercise so great an influence. The factions
into which the court was divided tended to group themselves
round certain rich and influential families. Such were the
Noailles, an ambitious and powerful house, with which
Lafayette was connected by marriage; the Broglies, one of whom
had held the thread of the secret diplomacy which Louis XV.
had carried on behind the backs of his acknowledged ministers;
the Polignacs, new people, creatures of Queen Marie
Antoinette; the Rohans, through the influence of whose great
name an unworthy member of the family was to rise to high
dignity in the church and the state, and then to cast a deep
shadow on the darkening popularity of that ill-starred
princess. Such families as these formed an upper class among
nobles. ... It is not easy, in looking at the French
government in the eighteenth century, to decide where the
working administration ended, and where the useless court that
answered no real purpose began. ... There was the department of
hunting and that of buildings, a separate one for royal
journeys, one for the guard, another for police, yet another
for ceremonies. There were five hundred officers 'of the
mouth,' table-bearers distinct from chair-bearers. There were
tradesmen, from apothecaries and armorers at one end of the
list to saddle-makers, tailors and violinists at the other. ...
The military and civil households of the king and of the
royal family are said to have consisted of about fifteen
thousand souls, and to have cost forty-five million francs per
annum. The holders of many of the places served but three
months apiece out of every year, so that four officers and
four salaries were required, instead of one. With such a
system as this we cannot wonder that the men who administered
the French government were generally incapable and
self-seeking. Most of them were politicians rather than
administrators, and cared more for their places than for their
country. Of the few conscientious and patriotic men who
obtained power, the greater number lost it very speedily."
E. J. Lowell,
The Eve of the French Revolution,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapters 9-11.
Mme. de Stael,
Considerations on the Principal Events
of the French Revolution,
chapters 3-10 (volume 1).
J. Necker,
On the French Revolution,
part. 1, section 1 (volume 1).
Condorcet,
Life of Turgot,
chapters 5-6.
L. Say,
Turgot,
chapters 5-7.
C. D. Yonge,
Life of Marie Antoinette,
chapters 8-21.
{1254}
FRANCE: A. D. 1778 (February).
Treaty with the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778,
and 1778 (FEBRUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1780 (July).
Fresh aid to the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).
FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
Disastrous naval defeat by Rodney.
Unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
The negotiation of Peace between Great Britain and the United
States of America.
Dissatisfaction of the French minister.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
The affair of the Diamond Necklace.
The chief actor in the affair of the diamond necklace, which
caused a great scandal and smirched the queen's name, was an
adventuress who called herself the Comtesse de Lamotte, and
claimed descent from Henry II., but who had been half servant,
half companion, to a lady of quality, and had picked up a
useful acquaintance with the manners and the gossip of court
society. "Madame de Lamotte's original patroness had a
visiting acquaintance with the Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan,
and in her company her protégée learned to know him also.
Prince Louis, who had helped to receive Marie Antoinette at
Strasburg, had been the French ambassador at Vienna, where he
had disgusted and incensed Maria Theresa by his worldliness,
profligacy, and arrogance. She had at last procured his
withdrawal, and her letters expressing a positive terror lest
he should come near Marie Antoinette and acquire an influence
over her, were not without their effect. He was not allowed to
appear at Court, and for ten long years fretted and fumed
under a sense of the royal displeasure. ... He was now a man
bordering on fifty, grey-headed, rosy, 'pursy,' with nothing
save his blue blood and the great offices which he disgraced
to recommend him. Madame de Lamotte, hovering about Paris and
Versailles, where she had lodgings in La Belle Inage, tried to
make her own of backstairs gossip, and picked up a hint or
two. Suddenly a great idea struck her, founded on the history
of a magnificent necklace dangled before bright eyes, over
which many an excitable imagination gloated. The Queen had a
court jeweller, Bœhmer, who had formerly been jeweller to the
King of Saxony at Dresden. ... For a period of years he had
been collecting and assorting the stones which should form an
incomparable necklace, in row upon row, pendants and tassels
of lustrous diamonds, till the price reached the royal pitch
of from eighty to ninety thousand pounds English money. This
costly 'collar,' according to rumour, was ... meant, in the
beginning, for the Comtesse du Barry. In the end, it ... was
offered with confidence to the Queen. ... She declined to
buy--she had enough diamonds. ... There was nothing for it but
that Bœhmer should 'hawk' his necklace in every Court of
Europe, without success, till the German declared himself
ruined, and passionately protested that, if the Queen would
not buy the diamonds, there was no resource for him save to
throw himself into the Seine. But there was a resource,
unhappily for Bœhmer, unhappily for all concerned, most so for
the poor Queen. Madame de Lamotte, in keeping up her
acquaintance with Prince Louis de Rohan, began to hint darkly
that there might be ways of winning the royal favour. She
threw out cunning words about the degree of importance and
trust to which she had attained in the highest quarters at
Versailles; about the emptiness of the Queen's exchequer, with
consequent difficulties in the discharge of her charities;
about the secret royal desire for the famous necklace, which
the King would not enable Marie Antoinette to obtain. The
blinded and besotted Cardinal drank in these insinuations. The
black art was called in to deepen his convictions. In an age
when many men, especially many churchmen, believed in nothing,
in spite of their professions, naturally they were given over
to believe a lie. Cagliostro, astrologer and modern magician,
was flourishing in Paris, and by circles and signs he promised
the priest, De Rohan, progress in the only suit he had at
heart. Still the dupe was not so infatuated as to require no
proof of the validity of these momentous implications, and
proof was not wanting; notes were handed to him, to be
afterwards shown to Bœhmer, graciously acknowledging his
devotion, and authorising him to buy for the Queen the diamond
necklace. These notes were apparently written in the Queen's
hand (that school-girl's scrawl of which Maria Theresa was
wont to complain); but they were signed 'Marie Antoinette de
France,' a signature which so great a man as the Cardinal
ought to have known was never employed by the Queen, for the
very good reason that the termination 'de France' belonged to
the children and not to the wife of the sovereign. Even a
further assurance that all was right was granted. The
Cardinal, trembling in a fever of hope and expectation, was
told that a private interview with the Queen would be
vouchsafed to him at midnight in the Park of Versailles. At
the appointed hour, on the night of the 28th of July, 1784, De
Rohan, in a blue greatcoat and slouched hat, was stationed,
amidst shrouding, sultry darkness, in the neighbourhood of the
palace. Madame de Lamotte, in a black domino, hovered near to
give the signal of the Queen's approach. The whisper was
given, 'In the Hornbeam Arbour,' and the Cardinal hurried to
the spot, where he could dimly descry a tall lady in white,
with chestnut hair, blue eyes, and a commanding air, if he
could really have seen all these well-known attributes. He
knelt, but before he could do more than mutter a word of
homage and gratitude, the black domino was at his side again
with another vehement whisper, 'On vient' (They come).
{1255}
The lady in white dropped a rose, with the significant words,
'Vous savez ce que cela veut dire' (You know what that means),
and vanished before the 'Vite, vite' ('Quick, quick ') of the
black domino, for the sound of approaching footsteps was
supposed to indicate the approach of Madame and the Comtesse
d'Artois, and the Cardinal, in his turn, had to flee from
detection. What more could be required to convince a man of
the good faith of the lady. ... Bœhmer received a hint that he
might sell his necklace, through the Prince Cardinal Louis de
Rohan, to one of the great ones of the earth, who was to
remain in obscurity. The jeweller drew out his terms--sixteen
hundred thousand livres, to be paid in five equal instalments
over a year and a-half--to which he and Prince Louis affixed
their signatures. This paper Madame de Lamotte carried to
Versailles, and brought it back with the words written on the
margin, 'Bon Marie Antoinette de France.' In the meantime,
Bœhmer, the better to keep the secret, gave out that he had
sold the necklace to the Grand Turk for his favourite Sultana.
The necklace was, in fact, delivered to Prince Louis and by
him entrusted to Madame Lamotte, from whose hands it passed
--not into the Queen's. Having been taken to pieces, it was
sent in all haste out of the kingdom, while the Cardinal,
according to his own account, was still played with. ... It
goes without saying that no payment, except a small offer of
interest on the thirty thousand, was forthcoming. The Cardinal
and Bœhmer were betrayed into wrath, dismay, and despair.
Bœhmer took it upon him to apply, in respectful terms, to her
Majesty for payment; and when she said the whole thing was a
mistake, the man must be mad, and caused her words to be
written to him, he sought an interview with Madame Campan, the
first woman of the bedchamber, at her house at Crespy, where
he had been dining, and in the gardens there, in the middle of
a thunder-shower, astounded her with his version of the story.
... The Cardinal was taken to the Bastille. More arrests
followed, including those of Madame de Lamotte, staying
quietly in her house at Bar-sur-Aube, and the girl Gay
d'Oliva, an unhappy girl, tall and fair haired, taken from the
streets of Paris, and brought to the park of Versailles to
personate the Queen. It was said the Queen wept passionately
over the scandal--well she might. The court in which the case
was tried might prove the forgery, as in fact it did, though
not in the way she expected; but every Court in Europe would
ring with the story, and she had made deadly enemies, if not
of the Church itself, of the great houses of De Rohan, De
Soubise, De Guéménée, De Marsan, and their multitude of
allies. The process lasted nine months, and every exertion was
made for the deliverance of the princely culprit. ... The
result of the trial was that, though the Queen's signature was
declared false, Madame de Lamotte was sentenced to be whipped,
branded, and imprisoned for life, her husband was condemned to
the galleys, and a man called Villette de Retaux, who was the
actual fabricator of the Queen's handwriting, was sentenced to
be banished for life. The Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan was
fully acquitted, with permission to publish what defence he
chose to write of his conduct. When he left the court, he was
escorted by great crowds, hurrahing over his acquittal,
because it was supposed to cover the Court with
mortification."
Sarah Tytler,
Marie Antoinette,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
T. Carlyle,
The Diamond Necklace
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 5).
H. Vizetelly,
The Story of the Diamond Necklace.
FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
Struggle of the Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
The demand for a meeting of the States-General yielded to.
Double representation of the Third Estate conceded.
The make-up of the States-General as elected by the three
Estates.
Banished to Troyes (August, 1787), in consequence of its
refusal to register two edicts relating to the stamp-duty and
the land-tax, the Parliament of Paris "grew weary of exile,
and the minister recalled it on condition that the two edicts
should be passed. But this was only a suspension of
hostilities; the necessities of the crown soon rendered the
struggle more obstinate and violent. The minister had to make
fresh applications for money; his existence depended on the
issue of several successive loans to the amount of
440,000,000. It was necessary to obtain the enrolment of them.
Brienne, expecting opposition from the parliament, procured
the enrolment of this edict, by a 'bed of justice,' and to
conciliate the magistracy and public opinion, the protestants
were restored to their rights in the same sitting, and Louis
XVI. promised an annual publication of the state of finances,
and the convocation of the states-general before the end of
five years. But these concessions were no longer sufficient:
parliament refused the enrolment, and rose against the
ministerial tyranny. Some of its members, among others the
duke of Orleans, were banished. Parliament protested by a
decree against 'lettres de cachet,' and required the recall of
its members. This decree was annulled by the king, and
confirmed by parliament. The warfare increased. The magistracy
of Paris was supported by all the magistracy of France, and
encouraged by public opinion. It proclaimed the rights of the
nation, and its own incompetence in matters of taxation; and,
become liberal from interest, and rendered generous by
oppression, it exclaimed against arbitrary imprisonment, and
demanded regularly convoked states-general. After this act of
courage, it decreed the irremovability of its members, and the
incompetence of any who might usurp their functions. This bold
manifesto was followed by the arrest of two members,
d'Eprémenil and Goislard, by the reform of the body, and the
establishment of a plenary court. Brienne understood that the