AiCE Euro HIstory

This migration of working class saw their wages decline as prices raised. Bread usually formed about 75% of the French working-class diet. In normal times, a family would spend between 35 and 50% of its income on bread. After a bad harvest, when prices soared, fear of starvation took hold, and there was no money for heating and clothing. Increasing poverty, worsened by a decline in real wages, led to growing urban unrest, including bread riots. The police force had only limited numbers and found it difficult to maintain order. ot the Dower onal A hungry, highly taxed lower class who were not represented by politicians, in both town and countryside, was an important factor in the events that followed. The distance between the rich and the poor was growing. The poor saw those they paid taxes to - the aristocracy and the Church in particular - enjoying lives of luxury, but peasants had no means of redressing their grievances. The legal system worked against them, and was, in fact, another means of control. ple t Chly plots the on, their In French towns, the middle class was growing. Increasingly, these people were well educated and rich. By 1780, they owned around 20% of the land in France. They were involved in either commerce or industry, or in professions such as law and medicine. The vast majority of France's future revolutionary leaders came from middle class. Some were increasingly involved in aspects of local government and administration, but became frustrated by their powerlessness. In addition to having no political power, it was not possible for them to join the top levels of government, the military and the judiciary system. Only the higher nobility could expect to take up those jobs. While people in the middle class were not as heavily taxed as the peasantry, they did pay some taxes, and naturally resented a system where they had no say in how their money was spent. Many traditional middle-class career posts such as judges and tax collectors, began to be passed from father to son, or could be bought for cash. Jobs were no longer decided by ability. As a result, money influenced local administration and the law. These educated and increasingly angry members of the middle class were to play a decisive role in the coming events.

Real wages are..

The Church and the aristocracy:

The Roman Catholic Church, with over 130000 clergy, monks and nuns, was a very wealthy organisation. It owned 10% of the land across the country and paid no taxes. It controlled most of the education in France and also approved (or not) all publications. The Church was determined to maintain its control over as many aspects of French life as possible, and to keep hold of its wealth and benefits.

The most senior posts in the Church invariably went to members of the aristocracy, often totally inexperienced young men with little interest in performing their religious duties. As a result, many of the ordinary clergy from the lower classes - often hardworking and devout men determined to help their parishioners - could not progress to senior roles where they would be able to direct the Church towards carrying out what they considered to be its proper duties. Although the Church did not pay taxes, it did pay a contribution to the government. This contribution was paid, however, by the lower clergy and not the wealthy bishops. These factors led to a growing division between rich and poor within the clergy, the aristocrat and the commoner. This was one of the reasons why the Church was not able to present a united front to the revolutionary forces that later set out to destroy it.

The aristocracy dominated France. A tiny minority of the population owned around 30% of the land and most of the wealth. There were about 300000 members of this elite group. They paid virtually no taxes. They were also exempt from things like conscription for the army and responsibility for road repairs. Instead, they enjoyed a range of benefits, often created centuries earlier, such as being able to hunt wherever they wished.

They dominated all the key posts at court and in the government, the Church, the judiciary and the army. One of the reasons why the French army often performed badly was because the officers were noblemen and promotion came through noble rank rather than through ability or experience.

French aristocrats tended to be hostile to those involved in trade and commerce. Unlike the British aristocracy during the same period, who were deeply involved in innovation in agriculture, industry and commerce, and who usually accepted their sons marrying the rich daughters of middle-class industrialists, the French aristocracy tended to remain a group apart. Generally, they did not wish to associate with the lower classes in such matters as industry and commerce.

As in the clergy, there was a division between the 'higher' and 'lower' aristocracy. The highest levels of this social class lived at Versailles, the court of the king of France near Paris. Here, in this vast and splendid palace, they had access to power, influence, and the top jobs and pensions awarded by the king. They lived in an isolated and privileged environment and were determined to keep it. A talent for court politics and intrigue was the key to the top jobs, and administrative ability often had little to do with success. The 'poorer' or 'lower' nobility, while anxious to retain their privileges, often resented the power and wealth of the 'higher' nobility at Versailles. The lower nobility, like the case of the lower clergy, were a reason why the nobility did not act together to defend their power during the years of the revolution.

King Louis XVI and the parlements:

The king was at the top of the social hierarchy. Louis XVI had been crowned in 1775, when he was young and inexperienced. He had a great sense of duty and many good intentions of ruling well. He inherited a system in which the king had absolute power, however, and he would have liked not just to keep, but to increase this power. His courtiers and ministers (they were usually the same thing) tended to be divided on the issue of the role of the monarch. Some wished to create an even more absolute monarch, in control of every part of French life, and to end the ability of local parlements to block orders from Versailles and any local autonomy. Traditionally, laws made by the king could not be carried out unless they were published by the parlements, so these courts were in a position to delay or prevent the implementation of royal wishes. Only lawyers of noble rank could be members, and they were usually more interested in preserving their own privileges than anything else.

Some wished to go back to a system in which the king had to consult the aristocracy on matters of policy and administration, thus reducing his power. A few, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment (see 'Pressures for change') wanted to reform the whole system and make it both more efficient and more inclusive, eliminating its most obvious failings. For example, the king appointed intendants to administer the localities, called departments, in France. The intendants were royal agents and their job was to carry out royal wishes in their departments. They were often hated by local parlements, however, who did their best to ignore and resist them.

Parlements: Judicial courts of appeal. There were 13 local porlements in France at this time, of which the one in Paris was the most powerful. They were not elected or representative bodies.

The divisions at court and within the aristocracy and clergy were often reflected when it came to local administration. There were bitter local rivalries, which made France a very difficult country to govern, and obviously in need of reform. These fundamental differences in outlook among the king's inner circle of courtiers made it difficult to find common ground when major decisions needed to be taken.

King Louis XVI was deeply religious and was determined to rule well. He was, however, weak and indecisive, and reluctant to accept the reality of the situation he found himself in. His resistance to reform after 1789 and his obvious lack of sympathy for the changes of 1789-90 ultimately led to his execution in 1793.

The Enlightenment

In the 18th century France was home to some of the greatest thinkers and writers of the period. They became part of an intellectual and philosophical movenerit known as the Enlightenment and they had a major influence on the whole revolutionary process in France. It can be difficult to assess the importance of abstract ideas on actual events, and Napoleon Bonaparte himself, were very well read and but it is known that many of the later revolutionary leaders, were influenced by the ideas of these thinkers.

Many of these writers did not just criticise what they saw happening in France; they also supported practical improvements. Some of the most important figures of the Enlightenment were:

Voltaire, who was very critical of the role, wealth and influence of the Church, and attacked religious intolerance. He was also critical of the entire French legal system and its frequent miscarriages of justice.

Montesquieu, who was critical of despotism and autocratic power. He wanted a system of checks and balances, where one part of a system of government, for example an elected parliament, could check the actions of ministers and the king. He was impressed by the British system, where parliament controlled law-making and could check the government. Montesquieu advocated the rule of law: that everyone should be equal before the law and subject to the law of the land.

Diderot, author of an encyclopaedia of 'sciences, arts and crafts, who was determined to advance knowledge. He was a great advocate of independent thinking, and was anxious to promote a critical and questioning attitude to everything.

Rousseau, who argued for more education, was a great thinker who wrote about power and liberty. He proposed many ideas on how there could be both authority and freedom for men in the same society.

Quesnay, who wrote on economics and argued against the constraints on the free production and movement of goods which existed at the time in France.

These men challenged established ideas, institutions and social structures. They encouraged argument and debate on a wide range of major public issues. They argued that there could be improvement in all areas of public life.

The writers wrote at a time when confidence in the French government was low. There was often famine and this led to riots. France in 1763 had just been humiliated in a major war with Britain and had lost most of its overseas empire, including Canada, to the victors. There was also little confidence in the young king crowned in 1775, and his Austrian wife, Marie Antoinette, was hated. Many of the future leaders who emerged during the revolution had read, thought about and debated the ideas of these great writers of the Enlightenment. When the Ancien Régime collapsed after 1789, it was these thinkers who provided ideas that led the way forward for the new governors of France.

The reaction of Louis XVI to attempts at reform Political and economic factors

Social and ideological factors played a major part in the start of the revolution in 1789, but politics and economics also played a key role. In 1778, the decision was made toform an alliance with the colonists in America who were fighting for independence from Frances's old enemy, Britain. France declared war against Britain, determined to regain not only the colonies that it had lost to Britain in 1763, such as Canada, but also the prestige lost as a result of the many military defeats it had suffered in the war.

A-R-J Turgot, an admirer of François Quesnay, was the finance minister when Louis became king in 1775. Hе warned against any more involvement in wars, arguing that 'the first gunshot will drive the state to bankruptcy', but he was ignored. The king took advice instead from the Comte de Vergennes, his foreign minister, who was interested in France's (and his own) prestige, and did not worry about such matters as cost. The cautious Turgot was dismissed in 1776. He predicted correctly that the war would do little harm to Britain, and instead would prevent the vital financial reforms that France needed so badly, with the risk of national bankruptcy.

In 1777, a new finance minister was appointed. This was Jacques Necker. He was an unusual choice, as he was not a French aristocrat, but a middle-class banker of Swiss origin and also a Protestant. Naturally, this meant that many people at Louis's court disliked him, notably the queen. The appointment of an outsider like Necker indicates that there was a growing awareness that French state finances were in a dreadful state.

Necker was born in Switzerland and trained as a banker, and was finance minister three times: 1777-81, 1788-89 and 1789-90. Some historians argue that in his first tenure he caused many of the problems which faced France in later years. However, when he was recalled to office in 1788, he was seen as the man able to solve France's economic problems. He was, however, unable to provide either an accurate picture of the royal finances or solutions to the financial problems facing France. In 1789, he fatefully advised the king to call the Estates General.

Necker promised to reform the financial system. Many people, unwisely as it turned out, had great confidence in him. He investigated and analysed France's finances, but he did not deliver reform. He funded the expensive war with Britain through borrowing at increasingly high interest rates. In 1781, he published - for the first time in France - a public account of the royal finances. However, in this report he claimed that these finances were in a good condition. They were not. He also hid the huge cost of the war with Britain. He was dismissed four months after the report was published. Government borrowing at high interest rates continued to increase.

The war with Britain came to an end in 1783. The United States became independent, but France gained nothing from the war except deeper national debt. There was now, however, an opportunity for financial reform and stability. With growing concern about the state of royal finances, another new finance minister, Charles de Calonne, was appointed in 1783. Initially, he declined to cut royal spending and simply borrowed more money to keep the government running, but he did start to plan important changes. He was aware that without change France would go bankrupt.

National debt: The amount of money borrowed by a state or country, often at very high rates of interest.

In 1786, with the cost of servicing the state's debts becoming too high, Calonne submitted a series of needed reforms to the king. He made three main proposals:

Reform the system of taxation by increasing taxes for the wealthy.

Stimulate the economy generally and encourage commerce and industry.

Create confidence in France and its economy so it could borrow more money at lower rates of interest.

The king, prepared from time to time to take an interest in matters of finance, approved the plans. The decision was taken, in the light of growing public concern and interest in the economy, to submit these proposals to the Assembly of Notables in the hope of gaining support for the measures. This body, made up of nobles and clergy (only 10 of the 144 members were not nobles) then met for the first time since 1626.

Calonne was in an impossible position. He was disliked by the vast majority of the Notables. He had little serious support from the king and the rest of the government. Many of those in a position of influence chose to believe Necker's earlier statement that all was well with the royal finances. In addition, the expensive war was over, so they thought the crisis was also over. Calonne had no idea how to manage the Notables, and, in fact, there was no clarity on what the Notables' role was. Was it just consultative? Was the Assembly there just to support changes? Did it have any authority? Most Notables recognised a need for some reforms, but they wanted to make sure that they, and the class that they represented, did not suffer from those reforms.

The king was faced with an uncertain situation and tried to solve the problem by sacking Calonne in April 1787. Calonne was replaced by yet another finance minister, Etienne Brienne, who, as president of the Assembly of Notables was felt to have influence over its members. The king disliked and distrusted him, however, which meant that Brienne had limited royal support. When the Notables demanded an accurate account of the royal finances, the king refused and instead dismissed the Assembly. This caused great anxiety and protest among the educated public, and marked the start of the financial and political crisis that eventually led to the revolution itself.

The meeting and dismissal of the Notables showed:

just how deep France's financial crisis was

the many failings of the king and his court and government

that the public had not been given a true picture of the state of the royal finances

that there was real opposition in the country to the king and his government

that the public demanded change and greater involvement in government.

The beginnings of widespread revolt

Brienne had to raise money so he increased taxes and borrowed more, but found it very difficult to persuade bankers to lend to a state which many felt was near breakdown.

Attempts to gain support for increased taxes from the parlement of Paris - the most powerful of the country's parlements - failed. The parlement refused to support tax increases until they were given an accurate picture of the royal accounts. The king refused again, seeing such demands as an attack on his royal powers, and banished the parlement members to the provinces. The people of Paris were so angry at the king's action that both middle and lower classes, and huge crowds took to the streets in protest. This was the first sign of a potential alliance between the middle and lower classes against the king and the aristocracy.

The financial and political crisis continued throughput 1787 and 1788. The king recalled the Paris parlement and met with it in November 1787. He totally mismanaged it, having no grasp of why there was so much concern about the state's finances. The king undermined the ministers who were trying to negotiate and manage the parlement and, when the parlement refused to support the new taxes, the leaders of the 'opposition' were arrested and imprisoned in the Bastille, a royal fortress in Paris. The arrests resulted in countrywide protests, demonstrating the high level of public interest and support for reform.

Divisions were also emerging among the nobility and clergy over whether to support any change to their privileged and untaxed status, and it was clear too that the growing middle class was becoming increasingly alienated from the classes above.

The crisis worsened throughout 1788. There was widespread anger at the king's refusal to become involved in a civil war in the Netherlands. (The French felt the area was very much their sphere of interest and there was a risk of Austria increasing its power.) There was simply no money to pay for any intervention there. The lack of money, and the incompetence of the (noble) officer corps, meant that the army was viewed as potentially unreliable, even though it was the only way of keeping order in France. Thousands of pamphlets were by now being published throughout France, demanding social, economic and political change. The Paris parlement demanded complete constitutional change and was widely supported in this demand. By August 1788, it was clear that the state was virtually bankrupt and this was publicly admitted. However, Brienne, who was aware of the scale of the problem, and had some solutions, was dismissed by the king. This further reduced any confidence in the king and his court.

The tension and unrest was made worse by a series of hailstorms that summer which destroyed much of the harvest. Everyone knew that this would lead to a shortage of bread and higher prices. It would be a hard winter.

The king's solution was to recall Necker as finance minister. At his instigation, the decision was taken to summon the Estates General, which had not met since 1614, to solve France's problems.

Cahiers de doléances

the

Before the Estates General met, the districts of France were asked, as was customary, to put forward a list of issues they wanted the assembly to consider when it met. These lists were known as coher's die doléances in March 1789, the cater from Dourdan, in northem Frarice, contained the following, quite typical, demands

The clergy-the First Estate-asked

to retain all the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic Church

to ban the practice of any other religion

to give the Church complete control of all education

to ban all publications attacking the Church and give the Church full control over all publications

to retain freedom from taxation unless it decided to contribute

⚫ that there should be a reform of the local legal system to ensure fairer justice for all

that care should be taken to ensure adequate food supplies for all

that landlords should be prevented from imposing high charges on peasants and hunting on their lands.

The nobility - the Second Estate - asked that:

only the king should have power to make laws

there should be no change in the system of taxation without consent of the Estates General

the distinction between the three orders of the Estates General be strengthened

the system of voting by Estates should remain

care be taken to ensure the supply of grain

fewer restrictions be placed on agriculture and industry

there should be reform of the legal system.

The Third Estate - in theory the rest of the French people, but in practice the middle class - asked that:

⚫the national debt be paid off

all taxes should be shared equally

The meeting of the Estates General

On 5 May 1789, for the first time since 1614, members of the Estates General of France gathered at the royal palace of Versailles. There was a background of large-scale and widespread social, economic and political unrest, as well as the prospect of national bankruptcy.

The Estates General was the nearest thing that France had to a national law-making and representative body, although its precise role had never been clearly determined. Louis XVI's immediate predecessors had not called it to meet as they saw it as a threat to their absolute power. Great hopes rested on the outcomes of this meeting, both on the part of the monarch and court on one side, and by the mass of the French people on the other. There had been immense interest in choosing its members, particularly from the middle class. Problems were to arise, however, as many of the aims were very conflicting.

The three Estates - the clergy, the nobility and the commoners met in different parts of the palace, but each had an equal vote when it came to making decisions. The king and his ministers expected the First and Second Estates to support them if the Third Estate tried to make any radical changes.

The opening meetings did not go well either for the king or for those who desired reform. The king's main concern was to find a solution to his financial problems. Some of the educated middle class wanted a more extensive overhaul of government, politics, society and the economy. Some clergy and noblemen were prepared to accept a few of these major changes.

Many more, unrepresented, people just wanted basic improvements to their lives, such as lower taxes, rents and bread prices.

The first two Estates refused to support any of the demands for reform made by the Third Estate. They were more concerned with protecting their privileges than in dealing with the real problems the country was facing. There was also the further complication that the First and Second Estates were divided among themselves over whether or not to cooperate with the Third Estate. Some clergy and noblemen were aware that, unless there was reform, the anger boiling up from below might have dangerous consequences. There was no clear leadership from the court and king on any issue.

On 17 June 1789, the Third Estate, tired of royal indecision and the selfish attitude of the other two Estates, made a decisive move. The members agreed to change their name to the 'National Assembly'. By this action, they were saying that sovereignty, the supreme or final power within France, now lay with the people of France, represented by this Assembly. Sovereign power was no longer with the monarchy. The Assembly was, in effect, announcing that it was now in charge of France. It assumed control of the system of national taxation as an example of this newly acquired power. When the king tried to stop the Assembly by closing its meeting room, its members simply gathered in a nearby building, a covered tennis court. There, in what became known as the 'Tennis Court Oath', they decided to continue meeting until they had established a new, reformed constitution that would resolve their grievances. This was to be the first, critical, step on the road to revolution.

Tensions rise in France

In 1789, a series of events drove the process in an even more radical direction. In the countryside and towns, there was real hunger because of the poor harvest of the previous year, creating a tense situation. Although Necker warned him to be cautious, the king made some unhelpful

decisions:

He refused to give any power to the National Assembly and insisted that the Estates General continue to act in the way he expected, with the First and Second Estates outvoting the Third.

He moved troops into both Paris and Versailles. This was seen by many as an attempt to stop any reforms by force.

He dismissed Necker, whom many had felt was the one man capable of bringing in sensible reforms and solving France's economic problems. This resulted in even previously moderate members of all three Estates beginning to see that Louis himself was the problem. He would never reform French government unless he was forced to do so.

Responses to Louis XVI's actions

The Storming of the Bastille

The turning point, when the reform movement became a revolution, occurred on 14 July 1789. The old royal fortress in Paris, the Bastille, was attacked by a Parisian mob who feared the reforms they hoped for were not going to happen.

The Bastille was seen as a symbol of royal tyranny, although it actually contained few prisoners, troops or arms. During the attack, the Bastille was destroyed and its governor killed. The event was highly significant, demonstrating the anger of the Paris working class and their determination to achieve change.

The Storming of the Bastille inspired an even greater breakdown of law and order throughout France, in what became known as the 'Great Fear' of the summer of 1789. There was a mass refusal to pay taxes. Grain shipments were attacked and the grain stolen. The homes of noblemen were looted and their owners attacked. Town leaders who opposed reform were killed. With the king still reluctant to act decisively, and many of his courtiers fleeing the court and the country, it was again the representatives of the Third Estate at Versailles who seized the initiative and acted.

The August Decrees

In what became known as the 'August Decrees', the France. It abolished: Assembly did away with what was left of feudalism in

from taxes all the privileges of the nobles, such as their exemption

the duties that a peasant owed to his noble landlord, land unpaid such as paying taxes to him and having to work his

7 No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law.

8 The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary.

ple, organised the ignorance, an are the sole orruption of forth in a solemn nd sacred ation, being The Social body, rights and duties cognises and che auspices of s of man and of

9 As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty.

10 No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views.

11 The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12 The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

do everything the exercise has no limits other members me same rights. ned by law.

13 A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14 All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15 Society has the right to require of every publicto decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15 Society has the right to require of every public official an account of his administration.

16 A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17 Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

With these principles in mind, the Assembly then started to put its reform ideas into practice. The king and his courtiers continued to do nothing, so the Assembly acted In October 1789, it decided on the principles on which government in France should be based. This was the Decree of the Fundamental Principles of Government and it shows the Assembly setting out their wishes for a new constitution for France.

The king was unwilling to accept this radical change to the system of government and limitation of his powers, but events soon forced him to change his mind. In October 1789, food prices started to rise and there was a serious shortage of bread in Paris. Rumours spread that troops known for their loyalty to the king had arrived at Versailles and were being lavishly entertained. Fears grew that these troops would be used to restore all royal power and abolish the National Assembly. Meanwhile, many cheap and radical newspapers in Paris demanded that the king should not close the Assembly and that he make changes to the way in which France was governed.

The women's march on Versailles:

On the morning of 5 October, alarms sounded in Paris and crowds of women began to march from Paris to the royal palace at Versailles. Initially there were about 7000 and they had managed to obtain some weapons. They first invaded the National Assembly, which was still debating its reaction to the king's unwillingness to accept constitutional demands. To pacify this mob the Assembly sent some deputies and a number of women nominated by the marchers to the king, and they persuaded him to accept the August Decrees. Public anger and pressure had clearly worked.

This concession did not satisfy the women protesters, however, and with their numbers growing by the hour, they demanded that the king and the royal family returned with them to Paris. When the king did not reply immediately, the crowd simply broke into the palace and insisted on it. The king and his family were escorted by a crowd of 60000 to Paris, where they remained, as one commentator said, 'more like prisoners than princes'. Force had won out. The Parisian crowd, more radical than was the case in the rest of France, was determined that there should be revolutionary change. The king had been forcibly removed to Paris, where radical influences were very strong, and the National Assembly would follow him. The fact that the decision-maker in France, the National Assembly, met in Paris from then on was profoundly significant and had a major influence on events.

Much of the royal power and authority had now gone. France had been transformed, almost overnight, from a medieval, semi-feudal state into something quite different. No one yet new how different. The Ancien Régime was no more. It was a remarkable work of destruction. A new system of government and social order now had to be created, and there were many different ideas on what forms these might take. In dealing with one problem, the Assembly had created many more, and this, in turn, led to even greater instability.

1.2 Why were French governments unstable from 1790 to 1795?

There were various reasons for instability in France between 1790 and 1795. There was still a lack of agreement among decision-makers over who should govern the country and how it should be governed. This was further complicated by a deep antagonism between Paris and the many regions of France which resented domination by Paris. The serious social and economic problems discussed in the previous section continued, and, when war broke out against Austria in 1792, this worsened the situation as well as creating additional problems.

The period saw a very large number of radical changes in a very short period of time. These ranged from the abolition of the monarchy and aristocracy and vast religious changes to a new calendar with different names for the months.

Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary groups: their views and aims

The destruction of the old system had taken place in theory, but two major problems remained in practice. The first was to get the king to accept the changes, and the second was whether the Assembly was capable of carrying out these great decisions. There had to be a new type of government created in France. Most members of the Third Estate agreed broadly on four important issues

France should still have a monarch, but it should not be an absolute monarchy. There had to be limits to royal power. Sovereignty now lay elsewhere and power had to be shared with the people.

Aristocratic and Church privileges should be abolished, and jobs should go to the most able candidates, not just to aristocrats.

There should be a fair system of taxation.

ce. and of a new s of sues:

There should be proper accountability in government and a fairer system of justice.

Ot be val ad to

However, no one had a clear plan of how this might be achieved. There were no obvious leaders and no real understanding of what the majority of the French people really wanted. Political life like this had not really existed in France before 1789 and members of the Assembly were inexperienced in making laws and deciding national policy. They were not helped by the many members of the nobility and clergy who were totally opposed to any change.

In the course of 1790, and in the absence of any leadership from the king or his ministers, the Assembly started the work of reconstruction and change. Their focus was on the four areas that had been of most concern to the majority of the French people before 1789:

The unfair system of taxation

The inefficient and corrupt system of local government, largely controlled by the aristocracy

The out-of-date justice system

. The role, status and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.

Many of the changes that the Assembly introduced in 1790 lasted for many years after the revolution. They did not, however, address many of the problems which concerned the poorest people in France, particularly the high price of food. This failing was to cause more instability.

The unfair system of taxation

The inefficient and corrupt system of local government, largely controlled by the aristocracy

The out-of-date justice system

The role, status and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.

The principal revolutionary groups

The representatives who met in the Assembly in 1790 were mostly men of property, often lawyers. Many were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. They soon realised that an individual member of the Assembly could achieve little on his own, and the only way that decisions could be made and laws passed was by joining a group of like-minded Assembly members. These groups were known as 'clubs', and members would meet separately from the Assembly to discuss political matters. Three main groups emerged, like modern political parties, representing conservatives, moderate reformers and radical reformers within the Assembly.

The best known - and most influential - of these political clubs was the Jacobins. The group formed in 1789, was open to all citizens and had linked groups all across of France. It was powerful in Paris and strong connections with the Parisian working classes. The Jacobins were the most radical of the three groups, arguing strongly for the execution of the king and the end of the aristocracy and the Roman Catholic Church in France. This is evidenced in Figure 1.5, in which the aristocracy and the Church (represented by the priest) are shown to react in fear to a member of the working class. The Jacobins were largely responsible for the Terror in 1793-94.

The Feuillants, a group formed in 1791, was also known as the Society of the Friends of the Constitution. They were conservative, and sat on the right of the Assembly. They were strong supporters of a constitutional monarchy and opposed the decision to go to war with Austria in 1792. They were strong opponents of the much more radical Jacobins. Many of the Feuillants were executed by the Jacobins during the Terror.

The third club was the Girondins. They acquired this name as some of the members came from the Gironde region of France. This group was also formed in 1791. They were moderate republicans and voted in favour of the war with Austria in 1792. They were not as radical as the Jacobins and were not so concerned with political, social and economic equality. Some opposed the execution of the king and felt that the Paris 'mob' was too influential, wanting more consideration of the wishes of the people of all of France. Many Girondins would also be executed in the Terror.

Failures of the counter-revolutionary groups

Although many French people opposed both the revolution and the revolutionaries, and there were several attempts to restore the Bourbon monarchy to the throne of France, all were unsuccessful.

One reason for this was a lack of realism on the part of those who wished to restore the monarchy. Louis XVI, his wife and the rest of his courtiers simply failed to realise the depth of feeling in France against the system of government which existed before 1789. The king could not accept that there had to be major limits to his powers and that in future he would have to rule with the consent of his people. His heir, a sickly boy, died at the age of ten in 1795, two years after his father's execution. The next in line to the throne, the future Louis XVIII, issued the Declaration of Verona from his exile in Italy in the same year, insisting that the Ancien Régime, with the three separate Estates, should be restored. He failed to take advice that the majority of French people would never willingly give in to the former authority, whose power they had so resented.

In addition, bitter internal divisions weakened the royalists. Among the 40000 émigrés who fled France there was no agreement about either their aims or how to achieve them. Some wanted a restoration of the former monarchy, with all powers and privileges returned to the nobles and clergy. Others felt that concessions had to be made and that there must be a constitutional monarchy which operated within limits. Some advocated killing all the revolutionaries; others argued for conciliation. Some of the émigrés refused to associate with others as they were not 'noble' enough. Like Louis XVI, they underestimated the loyalty of many to the revolution and assumed that if they returned to France, much of the population would rise up to support them.

Opposition to the revolution within France was also badly divided and had different aims. Some activists were more anxious to restore the position of the Church than the king. Regions such as Brittany were willing to fight against the revolution, but their inhabitants would not go so far as to leave their homes and advance on Paris to overthrow it. Some people simply hated change and feared that different would mean worse.

As well as the divisions among supporters, the royalists lacked effective leadership. There was no charismatic figure with clear and realistic aims around whom all those who opposed the revolution could rally. Louis XVI was incompetent and mistrusted, and was sent to the guillotine in 1793. The young Louis XVII died in 1795. Louis XVIII had a talent for alienating people and no real leadership skills. It was only after the defeat of Napoleon and the invasion of France by his enemies for Louis XVIII to be placed on the throne in 1814.

The royalists also lacked effective foreign support. At different times, Austria, Prussia, the Netherlands and Britain fought against revolutionary France, but none was able to defeat it. This was partly because France, despite initial difficulties caused by many of the officers becoming émigrés, proved still to have one of the best armies in Europe. Servicemen were now promoted on grounds of ability not of birth. In 1792, when Prussia and Austria invaded, they were driven back at the Battle of Valmy by the revolutionary army. It was a huge boost to revolutionary morale. As one invader wrote: 'The enemy has formidable artillery and their army is not as contemptible as we thought it would be. Nobody is coming over to join us as we had hoped and we have not noticed that opinions have changed in the territories we have invaded.' The French army proved superior to all driving the Austrians out of the region that is now Belgium and then successfully invading Italy. Britain proved to be the most durable of opponents, but it had no strong army and was probably more interested in weakening France and seizing its remaining colonies than in putting a Bourbon back on the throne. The one major expedition against France - the Quiberon expedition in 1795, in which the British landed émigrés joined with local rebels - was smashed by General Hoche, and nearly 700 royalist supporters were shot.

Many people in France welcomed the gains of the revolution. This vital fact just did not seem to occur to those who wanted the monarchy to return. When Napoleon seized power after the end of the Directory (see 'Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to overthrow the Directory in 1799?'), he took enormous care to ensure that privilege did not return and that equality before the law remained.

Finally, the Terror and the ruthless actions by the revolutionary armies deterred many from supporting the royalists. After 1793, many counter-revolutionaries were executed and their property was seized.

Until a monarch was prepared to understand that too many people in France stood against a return to the way the country had been governed before 1789, there would be no king for France.

The aims of the revolutionary groups: reform of taxation, local government, justice and the Church

To solve the immediate financial crisis, the Assembly decided to try two policies until a better and fairer system of taxation could be created. It would sell off the lands and valuables which had belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and it issued a temporary paper currency called assignats. This worked reasonably well in the short term and brought some financial stability. A new system of income tax was also designed, so that the burden of taxation fell on those best able to pay: the rich. The hated taxes on consumption, such as the 'Gabelle', a tax on salt which the poor were particularly angry about, were abolished. A new tax on land, which, of course, fell on the owners of property, was introduced. These changes dealt with one of the greatest grievances which existed before 1789. There were no more tax exemptions for the rich. Taxation was to be based largely on wealth and property.