On the Eve of Revolution: The Cahiers of 1789 History of European of Civilization, Department of History, University of Chicago George Anesi – February 16, 2006
In response to growing political unrest in France, Louis XVI called the EstatesGeneral in August 1788, the first time the body had been summoned since 1614. As elections to the Estates-General commenced, each estate—clergy, nobles, and peasants— prepared cahiers de doléances, or grievances, that were to voice their specific concerns over the current state of affairs in France, and to serve as guides for the representatives they sent to the legislative body. As a whole, the grievances reveal a striking illustration of the political and social climate at the time. Most obvious, and common to all three estates, was a true sense of crisis regarding the stability and reputation of the French state as a result of increasing instances of cronyism, inefficiencies, and annoyances. The main culprit, according the grievances spanning the social spectrum, was the exercising of arbitrary power which had turned the government into a stage for gaining financial and political power, rather than as a tool for ensuring citizens’ rights and wellbeing. What is evident in grievances from all three estates is that none of them wanted the true spirit of France to change. They all wanted France to remain a strong monarchy, and were more worried about abuses of power that had crept into the system, rather than anything that was inherent to the system. Even the Third Estate, clearly the estate most burdened with excessive taxation and invasive laws, addressed their grievances “to a beloved monarch” and were “desiring to cooperate with the whole nation in repairing the successive misfortunes which have overwhelmed it, and with the hope of reviving once more its ancient glory…the happiness of the nation must…depend upon that of its king, upon the stability of the monarchy, and upon the preservation of the orders which
compose it and of the fundamental laws which govern it.” (Robinson, Readings in European History, 397). There is nothing here about uprooting the structure of the government. On the contrary, this rhetoric, from France’s lowest class, is strongly worded in favor of preserving France’s institutions, and in uprooting only the “misfortunes.” Among the misfortunes cited most frequently across the social spectrum was that of excessive taxation. In the words of the clergy, “[I]t will be necessary for the States General, in order to bring within reasonable limits the burden of taxation, which has become excessive…” (Whitcombe, Original Sources of European History, 4). Generally speaking, what people of all estates objected to were taxes clearly designed to earn the collector money, rather than raise funds for legitimate government spending, and in the process, put serious if not impossible burdens on those paying the tax. On top of most “to abolish” lists was a tax on salt. In the “Cahier of the Clergy of Troyes,” written in March of 1789, number twenty-two in a list of “Objectives Common to the Three Orders” reads, “To suppress the excise and salt taxes as disastrous for the people.” (Beik, The French Revolution, 59). The salt tax, specifically, is further referenced in grievances drafted by members of the second and third estates as well. The salt tax was one of many taxes and regulations, imposed mainly on members of the Third Estate, which represented annoyances in citizens’ everyday lives and inefficiencies in the daily workings of the nation itself. Peasants cited in their objectives the abolitions “of the registry-duties; of the free-hold tax; of the government stamp upon iron; of the stamps upon gold and silver; of the interprovincial customs duties…” (Whitcombe, 31). It is clear from these types of lists that profit-minded bureaucrats had hijacked the government, and instead of instituting policies in the citizens’ best interests,
had introduced legislation with their own financial interests in mind, at the expense of the citizens. Every opportunity to institute a tax—and in many cases, multiple taxes—was taken. Taxes were slapped on every kind of product, travel, and activity. Life for much of the French population had become unbearable. At the root of this problem were the bureaucrats within the French government that had established cronyism as the status quo. The engine behind the structure was a systematic effort to restrict entry into positions of power from those not already involved, and to pass legislation that benefited only those in the hard-to-get positions. Restricted entry most frequently took the form of offices that were either purchasable or could only be filled by someone of sufficient social status. The “Cahier of the Nobility of Crépy” includes a demand that, “[t]he Nobility no longer be purchasable; that it be obtained only through useful and distinguished services.” (Beik, 52). Once inside the corrupt world, benefits were received in the form of revenue from instituting the excessive taxes, and then exemptions from having to pay those very taxes yourself. This obvious corruption did terrible things to the reputation of the nobles, and inspired them in various grievances to officially surrender the exemptions. The nobility demanded an end to excessive taxes—“That the Estates General consider how to make the capitalists pay taxes in proportion to their affluence and luxury”—and because, “[t]he defense of the country is the principle duty of the Nobility…the Order of the Nobility declares that it renounces all pecuniary privileges…” (Beik, 51). Much of the concern surrounding the corruption stemmed from the economic troubles it had inflicted upon France. The incredible inefficiencies that were introduced, and the poverty and debt forced onto the peasants,
were severely weakening the French economy and France’s reputation as a European power. What much of this boiled down to was the very visible reality that the government was no longer serving the interests of its citizens. It was not doing the job it existed to do. As a predictable result of this, all three estates included strong emphasis in their grievances on reforms directed towards setting France back on the correct path. Specifically, they advocated laws, including taxes, which were consented to by the nation, and a complete overhaul of the civil and criminal codes. Members of the Second Estate declared in a cahier, “That no general and permanent law may be decreed except with the consent of the three Orders, under the express sanction of the paternal authority of the King.” While still granting the king a veto, and maintaining France as a monarchy, the citizens’ demands were clear: we want to make our own laws. They demanded further that “the civil and criminal code be reformed.” (Beik, 52). These demands were catch-all, in that they essentially stipulated that the citizens of all estates were to make their own laws. They could therefore root out the corruption, but maintain the monarchy as they pleased. All of these governmental abuses were symptoms of the true crisis that all three estates saw brewing in France. The government was no longer serving the interests of the people. While the three estates saw basically eye-to-eye on this front, the grievances were by no means absent disagreements; each estate had certain unique demands of the new legislative body. The clergy, sensing that great social change could be nearing on the horizon, made sure to emphasize their desire for Catholicism to remain the official state religion, and for members of the First Estate to have the responsibility, and the right, to
educate the nation’s youth as they saw fit. “The Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion shall be the only one taught, professed, and publicly authorized; its services and teachings shall be uniform throughout the Kingdom.” (Beik, 60). In addition, while acknowledging that great freedoms of the press might be very well be close by, the clergy cited their support for certain obvious restrictions on immoral and anti-religious writings. “If the Estates General believes liberty of the press to be a consequence of individual liberty, at least let there be established penalties against authors of books contrary to religion and good morals…” (Beik, 62). The nobility, also sensing the possibility of social upheaval, seemed fine giving up various financial rights, but were adamant about maintaining their so-called “honorific distinctions.” It is somewhat vague what was meant by this, but assumption indicates something close to the role of modern-day British royals. The Third Estate, which compromised a strong majority of the French population, embraced virtually all of the reforms proposed by the other estates, but in addition, demanded a change to the very way the Estates-General functioned: voting by head, rather than by order. “In order to assure to the third estate the influence to which it is entitled in view of the number of its members, the amount of its contributions to the public treasury…its votes in the assembly should be taken and counted by head.” (Robinson, 399). This was particularly important for the Third Estate, because its large numbers would command much more power if voting were done by head. It would also stop any two estates from allying and controlling the National Assembly; if two estates always voted together, their say would also have the upper hand, and given past precedent, it was by far more likely that the nobles and the clergy would align than for
the Third Estate to gain a partner. This might have been the precise point which kept the nobles advocating for voting by estate. In the “Cahier of the Nobility of Crépy,” the demand is made, “in order not to obstruct any suffrages, it is essential that voting be by Order.” (Beik, 51). For the Third Estate, this issue, if anything, was motivated most by nightmares of class hostility. For years, French peasants had been abused by the upper orders, and in the upheaval of the French Revolution, they weren’t going to miss a chance at reaching for enough power to end the mistreatment. Overall, the first phase of the French Revolution was a time of intensive and painful self-evaluation on the part of the French people. Something was clearly wrong with their government, and no French citizen wanted the prowess of the nation to falter because of it. The grievances compiled in the run-up to the National Assembly’s elections were the result of this self-evaluation, and give remarkable insight into both what the citizens were most concerned about, and how well the first part of the revolution actually addressed their concerns. Across the three estates, French citizens united their minds in demanding an end to the annoyances and inefficiencies, in the form of laws and taxes, which were making life unlivable and were dragging the French economy down with them. These annoyances were the result of cronyism and arbitrary, unchecked power, and motivated grievances demanding legislative authority be put into the hands of the people. The demands of the French citizens serve as a turning point in the events of the French Revolution and also show evidence of enlightenment thought gaining ground in the French populace. Much of the demands show clear enlightenment influences: freedoms of the press and religion, albeit still limited, safety for person and property, notions of
equality and government transparency, and perhaps above all else, a clear movement away from absolute power and towards representative government. In the end, many of the people’s grievances were answered by the events of the beginnings of the French Revolution. On August 11, 1789, the National Assembly unambiguously abolished the feudal system that had ruled France for years. The first item in its “Decree of August 11” reads, “The National Assembly entirely destroys the feudal regime.” (Decree of August 11, Readings in Western Civilization, 228). With it, the National Assembly started the process of reforming taxation to be equal and proportional, abolishing the sale of public offices and tax exemptions, and instituting equal representation in the Estates-General. It looked as if the revolution was realizing the people’s demands.