Part 19 (1/2)
[Footnote: It need hardly be pointed out that Sieyes falls short of the full measure of Rousseau's doctrine when he allows the law-making, or more correctly the const.i.tution-making power, to be delegated at all.]
The const.i.tution of the state is the body of rules by which these representatives are governed when they legislate or administer the public affairs. The const.i.tution is fundamental, not as binding the national will, but only as binding the bodies existing within the state.
The nation itself is free from all such bonds. No const.i.tution can control it. Its will cannot be limited. The nation a.s.sembling to consider its const.i.tution is not controlled by ordinary forms. Its delegates meeting for that especial purpose are independent of the const.i.tution. They represent the national will, and questions are settled by them not in accordance with const.i.tutional laws, but as they might be in a meeting of the whole nation were it small enough to be brought together in one place; that is to say, by a vote of the majority.[Footnote: Sieyes and his master do not see that if unanimity cannot be secured, and if const.i.tutional law be once done away, men are reduced under their system to a state of nature, and the will of a majority has no binding force but that of the strong arm.]
But where find the nation? Where it is: in the forty thousand parishes which comprise all the territory and all the inhabitants of the country.
They should have been arranged in groups of twenty or thirty parishes, and have thus formed representative districts, which should have united to make provinces, which should have sent true delegates, with special power to settle the const.i.tution of the Estates General.
This correct course has not been followed, but what now remains to be done? Let the Commons a.s.semble apart from the other orders. Let them join with the n.o.bility and the Clergy neither by orders, as a part of a legislature of three chambers, nor by heads, in one common a.s.sembly. Two courses are open. Either let them appeal to the nation for increased powers, which would be the most frank and generous way; or let them only consider the enormous difference that exists between the a.s.sembly of the Third Estate and that of the other two orders. ”The former represents twenty-five millions of men and deliberates on the interests of the nation. The other two, were they united, have received their powers from but about two hundred thousand individuals, and think only of their privileges. The Third Estate alone, you will say, cannot form the Estates General. So much the better! It will make a _National a.s.sembly_.”
I have considered this famous pamphlet at some length, because it was eminently timely, expressing, as it did, the doctrines and the aspirations of the subversionary party in France. I believe, and princ.i.p.ally on the evidence of the cahiers, that this party did not form a majority, or even, numerically, a very large minority, of the French nation. A const.i.tutional convention, organized from the Commons alone as Sieyes would have had it, if left to itself and uncontrolled by the Parisian mob, would undoubtedly have settled the question of a single chamber in a popular sense, but it would have preserved the privileges of the n.o.bility to an extent which would have disgusted the extremists, and perhaps have saved the country from years of violence and decades of reaction. But the people of violent ideas were predominant in Paris and in some of the towns, and were destined, for a time, to be the chief force in the French Revolution. The pa.s.sions of this party were love of equality and hatred of privilege. To men of this stamp despotism may be comparatively indifferent; liberty is a word of sweet sound, but little meaning. Sieyes hardly refers to the king in his pamphlet. ”The time is past,” he says, ”when the three orders, thinking only of defending themselves from ministerial despotism, were ready to unite against the common enemy.” This comparative indifference to the tyranny of the court was not the feeling of the country, but it was that of the enthusiasts.
Nothing is too bad according to these last, for men who hold privileges.
They have no right to a.s.semblies of their own, nor to a voice in the a.s.semblies of the people. To ask what place they should occupy in the social order ”is to ask what place should be a.s.signed in a sick body to the malignant humor which undermines and torments it.”
CHAPTER XXI.
THE CAHIERS.
It is seldom, indeed, that a great nation can express fully, frankly, and yet officially, all its complaints, wishes, and hopes in respect to its own government. Our knowledge of national ideas must generally be derived from the words of particular cla.s.ses of men: statesmen, politicians, authors, or writers in the newspapers. The ideas of these cla.s.ses are more or less in accord with those of the great ma.s.s of the people which they undertake to represent; yet their expressions are necessarily tinged by their own professional way of looking at things.
But in the spring of 1789 all Frenchmen, with few exceptions, were called on to unite, not merely in choosing representatives, but in giving them minute instructions. The occasion was most solemn. The Estates General, the great central legislature of France, which had not met for nearly two centuries, was summoned to a.s.semble at Versailles. It should be the old body and something more. It was to partake of the nature of a const.i.tutional convention. It was not only to legislate, but to settle the principles of government. It was called by the king to advise and consent to all that might concern the needs of the state, the reform of abuses, the establishment of a fixed and lasting order in all parts of the administration, the general prosperity of his kingdom, and the welfare of all and each of his subjects.[Footnote: _Royal Letter of Convocation_, January 24, 1789, _A. P._ i. 611. The princ.i.p.al printed collection of cahiers, together with much preliminary matter, may be found in the first six volumes of the Archives Parlementaires, edited by MM. Mavidal et Laurent, Paris. The seventh volume consists of an index, which, although very imperfect, is necessary to an intelligent study of the cahiers. The cahiers printed in these volumes occupy about 4,000 large octavo pages in double column. These volumes will be referred to in this chapter and the next as A. P. Many cahiers and extracts from cahiers are also found printed in other places. I have not undertaken to give references to all the cahiers on which my conclusions are founded, but only to a few typical examples. The letters C., N., and T indicate the three orders. Where no such letter occurs the cahier is generally that of a town or village.]
The three orders of men, the Clergy, the n.o.bility, and the Commons, or Third Estate, were to hold their elections separately in every district, [Footnote: Saillage, senechaussee.] unless they should, by separate votes, agree to unite.[Footnote: The three orders did not often unite, but there is often evidence of communication between them. They all united at Bayonne, A. P. iii. 98. Montfort l'Amaury, A. P. iv. 37.
Rozieres, A. P. iv. 91. Fenestrange, A. P. v. 710. Mohon, A. P. v. 729.
The Clergy and the n.o.bility united at Lixheim, A. P. v. 713; the n.o.bility and the Third Estate at Peronne, A. P. v. 355.] In accordance with ancient custom they were to draw up pet.i.tions, complaints, and remonstrances, which were intended to form a basis for legislation.
These complaints were to be brought to the Estates, and were to serve as instructions, more or less positive, to the deputies who brought them.
They were known in French political language as Cahiers.
The cahiers of the Clergy and of the n.o.bility were drawn up in the electoral meetings which took place in every district. To these local a.s.semblies of the Clergy, all bishops, abbots, and parish priests, holding benefices, were summoned. Chapters and monasteries sent only representatives. The result of this arrangement was that the parish priests far outnumbered the regular ecclesiastics and dignitaries, and that the clerical cahiers oftenest express the wishes of the lower portion of the secular clergy. This preponderance of the lower clergy appears to have been foreseen and desired by the royal advisers. The king had expressed his wish to call to the a.s.semblies of the Clergy ”all those good and faithful pastors who are occupied closely and every day with the poverty and the a.s.sistance of the people and who are more intimately acquainted with its ills and its apprehensions.”[Footnote: Reglement du 24 Jan. 1789, A. P. i. 544. Parish priests were not allowed to leave their parishes to go to the a.s.semblies if more than two leagues distant, unless they left curates to do their work. But this provision did not keep enough of them away to alter the character of the a.s.semblies.]
To the local a.s.semblies of the n.o.bles, all Frenchmen of the order, not less than twenty-five years of age, were summoned. Men, women, or children possessing fiefs might appear by proxy. The latter provision did not suffice to take the meetings out of the control of the more numerous part of the order,--the poorer n.o.bility. To pride of race and intense loyalty to the king, these country gentlemen united distrust and dislike of the court, and the desire that all n.o.bles at least should have equal rights and chances. Their cahiers differ somewhat from place to place, but are wonderfully alike in general current.[Footnote: N., Perigord, A. P., v. 341.]
For the Third Estate a more complicated system was adopted. The franchise extended to every French subject, neither clerical nor n.o.ble, twenty-five years of age, and entered on the tax rolls.[Footnote: In Paris only, a small property qualification was exacted.] Every town, parish, or village, drew up its cahier and sent it, by deputies, either to the a.s.sembly of the district or to an intermediate a.s.sembly. Here a committee was appointed to consider all the local cahiers and consolidate them; those of the intermediate a.s.semblies being again worked over for the general cahier of the Third Estate of each electoral district. Thus the cahiers of the Commons finally carried to the Estates General at Versailles were less directly the expression of the opinions of the order from which they came than were the cahiers of the Clergy and of the n.o.bility. Fortunately, however, large numbers of the primary or village cahiers have been preserved and printed.
The cahiers of the Third Estate differ far more among themselves than do those of the upper orders. Some of them, drawn up in the villages, are very simple, dealing merely with local grievances and the woes of peasant life. The long absence of the lord of the place causes more loss to one village than even the price of salt, or than the taille, with which the people are overburdened. Then follows the enumeration of broken bridges, of pastures overflowed because the bed of the stream is obstructed, of robbery and violence and refusal of justice, with no one to protect the poor, nor to direct repairs and improvements.[Footnote: Paroisse de Longpont, A. P., v. 334.]
In another place we have the touching humility of the peasant. ”The inhabitants of this parish have no other complaints to make than those which are common to folk of their rank and condition, namely, that they pay too many taxes of different kinds already; that they would wish that the disorder of the finances might not be the cause of new burdens upon them, because they were not able to bear any more, having a great deal of trouble to pay those which are now levied, but that it much rather belonged to those who are rich to contribute toward setting up the affairs of the kingdom.
”As for remonstrances, they have no other wishes nor other desires than peace and public tranquillity: that they wish the a.s.sembly of the Estates General may restore the order of the finances, and bring about in France the order and prosperity of the state; that they are not skillful enough about the matters which are to be treated in the said a.s.sembly to give their opinion, and they trust to the intelligence and the good intentions of those who will be sent there as deputies.
”Finally, that they know no means of providing for the necessities of the state, but a great economy in expenses and reciprocal love between the king and his subjects.”[Footnote: Paroisse de Pas-Saint-Lomer, A.
P., v. 334.]
Not many of the cahiers are so modest as this one. Some of them are many pages long, arranged under heads, divided into numbered paragraphs.
These contain a general scheme of legislation, and often also particular and local pet.i.tions. They ask that such a lawsuit be reviewed, that such a dispute be favorably settled. Many localities complain, not only that the country in general is overtaxed, but that their particular neighborhood pays more than its share. Their soil is poor, they say, water is scarce or too plenty. The cahiers of the country villages contain more complaints of feudal exactions, while those of the towns and of the electoral districts give more s.p.a.ce to political and social reforms.
Many models of cahiers were prepared in Paris and sent to the country towns. Thus the famous Abbe Sieyes, whose violent doctrines were considered in the last chapter, composed and distributed a form. It was brought to Chaumont in Champagne by the Viscount of Laval, who undertook to manage the election in that town in the interest of democracy and the Duke of Orleans. Dinners and b.a.l.l.s were given to the voters; promises were made. The badges of an order of canonesses, which the duke proposed to found, were distributed among the ladies. The abbe's cahier was accepted, but the peasants of Champagne appended to its demands for const.i.tutional reforms the pet.i.tion that their dogs might not be obliged to carry a log fastened to their collars to prevent their running after game, and that they themselves might be allowed to have guns to kill the wolves.[Footnote: Beugnot, Memoires, i. 110.]
Some of the cahiers were entirely of home manufacture, drawn up by the lawyer or the priest of the village. The people of Essy-les-Nancy, in Lorraine, describe the process. ”Each one of us proposed what he thought proper, and then we chose our deputies, Imbert Perrin and Joseph Jacques, whom we thought best able well to represent us. The only thing left was to express our wishes well, and to draw up the official report of the meeting. But our priest, in whom we trust, who feels our woes so well, and who expresses our feelings so rightly, had been obliged to go away. We said: `We must wait for him; we will first beg his a.s.sistant to begin, and then, when the priest comes back, we will give him the whole thing to correct, and have our affairs ready to be taken to the a.s.sembly of the district.' He came back in fact; we asked him to draw it all up.
We told him all we wanted. He kept writing, and scratching out, and writing over, until we saw that he had got our ideas. Everything seemed ready for the fifteenth. But we heard that the district a.s.sembly would be put off until the thirtieth. We said to him: `Sir, wait again, let us profit by the delay, we shall think of something more, you will add it;'
he consented.”[Footnote: Mathieu, 423.]