Chapter 20

Page: 288-304

Proposal to restore a noble class with titles; arguments of Voidel and Hatter in this regard; annoying suppressions and their continuations; assignats

Here, now, the work is finished. "The grand work is accomplished!" said the members of the constituent assembly. France is free and regenerated. Nothing can impede equal rights. Now there is no more nobility, no more peerage, and no more hereditary distinctions. And what is the result? This alleged equality and freedom produced a national hardness even more unpleasant than the loftiness of the nobles.

Voidel and Chapellier proposed restoring titles of noble distinction, not because they felt that abolishing them had been unreasonable, but because they were proteges of d'Orleans.

Guillaume said, on this subject: "Can we place on the throne a man unfamiliar with the constitution, of which, however,

(289)

he will be the defender and guardian; unfamiliar with the interests of the state, of which he is the representative; unfamiliar with the administration, of which he is the head; unfamiliar with any type of occupation, when he must take care of the safety of a great empire and the happiness of those who live within it; unaquainted with all the affairs of the people when he must deal with their greatest interests, and to hire those who will have the most significant positions of employment… Everywhere there are men who are not equal. It is necessary to recognize that they have a higher or lower standing, therefore let us seek which position public opinion assigns to them. I put before you the parents of the king - not to make an heirarchy out of the constitution, but nevertheless one that already exists within the state - a dynasty rooted in the throne whose branches cover the empire..."

Chapellier added: "One cannot conclude there is a conflict with the decree which states there will be neither distinctions nor privileges for any citizen because the king's family does have a certain privilege which is not common to other citizens, namely a political distinction for the well-being of the state."

(290)

Furthermore, there is a precedent: a decree by which, 'not only the free professions do not derogate, but still those who exert them have the right to contribute, with the nobles, for all unspecified positions...'

It was just, and this decree was viewed rather well because it tended to clean up the ignorance of the lords-casaniers, some of whom could hardly read, and it would raise spirits and produce good effects. After all, Esope, Phèdre, and Epictète had been slaves; the chancellor of the hospital, Faber, was not a noble; while Corneille, Racine, Molière, Boileau, Jean-Jacques had only the patents of nobility given them by nature.

As for the titles and coats-of-arms, one had to brace oneself for the effect this could have with the disorder in finances, and all the possible despotisms about it which one spoke of unceasingly, and also the hatred of Mirabeau against a noble class because he happened to loath it. But Rome had its knights, and it allowed a father to name his sons Lucius, Quintus, Ancus, Marcus while Rome flourished. This bode well for France in revolution. Furthermore it appeared reasonable that the nation could grant this

(291)

mark of respect as a reward to those who had earned it through merit and virtue.

I am not in favour of the modern nobility. In general it is sharp, and often ridiculous. For example, there was one instance where a woman had become a countess in the 'blink of an eye'. She happened to give birth prematurely, and her foetus had been placed in a flask. One night she was thirsty and reached for the flask in order to take a drink. Later when the chambermaid entered the room, she saw with alarm what had happened. "Oh, my goodness!" she said. "You swallowed Mr. Marquis!"

The old nobility, however, was simple, honest, and accessible. It did not haughtily refer to 'people of our kind', and it didn't speak with disdain about the commoner's status. one simply knew where one stood, and never deviated from it. This kind of nobility played an integral part in conserving a well-ordered body politic. Furthermore, there was an easy way to bring about a modern nobility, namely by enobling all the French people by allowing them to have a livery - as is the case in England. Then one would be free to say, as in Biscay where everyone is a noble: "Most illustrious shoe-maker, I wish you to make me a pair of shoes in such-and-such a manner..." This may appear odd

(292)

but no more so than this: I saw flashy gold-braided shoulder epaulettes being worn by men who didn't even have shoes! And I will never forget that a major used to serve me drinks at the table of his commanding officer. Similarly, Italians aren't too particular regarding the status of their officers. M. Dupaty recounts a tale when he was at a formal gathering with the commander of the Monaco. This officer left the meeting feeling like an old pair of shoes. When positions of rank or nobility are degraded, only little people wish to see a poor facsimile resurrected.

If all the French people had been enobled, it would have spawned a huge industry making liverys which, in turn, would have generated great profits for the nation. Moreover, the menial people who have such a proclivity for insolence, would have had a distinctive mark to uphold with dignity. It would declare: "I am an active citizen." In other words, "I am free like you! I feed and equip you! I pay you 300 liv. to do my will, not yours!" But now there is an inversion in order as servants, given military ranks, are regarded as commanders and Masters.

Now there are no more orders of knighthood, no military fraternities,

(293)

no decorations. There are no more orders of chivalry. Is the nation better off now that it can't make a hero under the order of Malta, and there are no more military fraternities to call upon? Once they belonged to a sovereign with whom they were in accord. Then one did not have to make it an issue that property is inviolable since it never was violated. Now an edict says that property is the first national interest, but it never ceases to be invaded.

More decorations!
Why then did we have the fancy gilded shoulder epaulettes, the plaques, and the raised collars? The cross of St. Louis was a reward for long service or for military honors. It was a thing viewed with admiration and produced positive effects. A soldier who served for twenty years warranted some honourable acknowledgement of his military virtues.

No more feudalism.
Feudalism! The destruction of this social order was made by those who even found it to their advantage. Here is a case of cutting down a tree in order to eat its fruit. The quotas and rents were founded upon social conventions. One had to respect them to a certain point;

(294)

and there were even some very useful banalities, requested by whole communes, which had cost much.

More hunting rights!
The abolition of feudalism has created parasites and thieves. Yes, robbers - those who are armed and waiting to make a victim of some defenseless person passing by. And if questioned as to what they're doing, they say, "Oh, I'm just waiting for a rabbit to come by."

The dîme (tithe) levied on agriculture.
This was appropriate for some, but had to be handled with prudence. The abolition of the dîme made fortunes - most likely those of the people who proposed its suppression.

The dîme of the priest, however, could be restricted. It would be beneficial if all these tithes went to augment the incomes of those who barely made a living. But it was unjust amongst neighbouring priests because one might earn 4000 liv. while the other received only 100 ecus. As for the dîme of the seigneurs (landlords), it belonged at the bottom of the list. This one was worth the trouble to examine and think more about.

There is no more venality or hereditary public office.
Judges could have their dignity without having court cases paid for by those who are not involved in the lawsuits.

With regard to hereditary offices, this was not a bad thing that had to be remedied. It provided for the son of a man

(295)

to occupy his place - one who was perfectly familiar with the duties of the job before he took it over. Furthermore, the reimbursement of costs made inopportunely dug a large financial hole instead of filling it.

There are no more jurandes or corporations.
These associations had a kind of police which produced a type of order. Lawlessness has since replaced this order.

The Parlements (courts) had too much power.
It was necessary to bring them back to their origins and to limit their authority. In principle, they were just large bailliwicks.

With respect to the intendants, one could submit their decisions to the courts to force them to be just. They have now been replaced by departements, districts, and municipalities which are much more demanding and cost infinitely more money. Furthermore, they confound the courts by unceasingly confusing the judiciary and the administrative branch.

In all governments there must exist a static politic by which each branch has its designated place, and each lever has its boundary. Perfect harmony depends a lot on this so that it would be impossible to alter

(296)

any point of contact through power or resistance, without disturbing the balance of the whole. For example, taxes are now paid erratically because the order of the regulator and collector has been turned upside-down: "I am free," says the peasant, "therefore I will not pay." Patriotism now backs up his force and interest.

There is no longer a religious community.
The population will be able to gain from this, and it is a real benefit. But, in the meantime, the religious fathers of missions and the poor will lose. It would be better to let them die out over time. Nothing is easy anymore, but one could create protective hospices. For instance, an old monk, before dying, could have been admitted into a family and enriched it. A priest must be scrupulous, unwavering and religious, otherwise he is contemptable. The fact is, that among the priests, the decent ones were those who did not swear allegience to the national assembly.

There is a personal tax, and this is a great gain.
Ah, but in the process indirect taxes were destroyed which were mines

(297)

that were much more fertile. So, how do you expect to carry out the functions of a government fraught with difficulties? Is it necessary to invoke the executive power? But you already stripped him of that capacity! Is it therefore necessary to use force against the taxpayers? Obviously the disadvantages are without number. When collecting money from the masses, couldn't more success be expected when people are accustomed to paying taxes without even realizing it? This is obvious. Furthermore, nothing stops during these impositions - one simply draws from one's purse or wallet without giving it any thought.

There are no more excise taxes on salt and tobacco.
Initially, our saltworks merited particular attention. one could not guess whether cheap foreign salt and tobacco might exhaust our cash at the borders, so some import duty had to be levied. It was decided, however, that these taxes would be replaced with another. So, in the end this operation didn't produce any relief. Besides, wasn't it better to have salt priced at 6 sous, and tobacco at 25 or 30? These were the same prices being charged by smugglers. To abolish domestic seizures; to lessen the rigor of the laws, and then to spread a similar disgrace by a word other than 'smuggler' - that would be a man who would declare himself to be a scoundrel in exercising that profession.

(298)

Everyone would have been content as things were before, and even without smuggling the products would not have diminished.

There is no more drinker's tax.
Far from improving matters, the people have lost much. Now liquor is much more expensive. Indeed, the abuse of those paying this tax was revolting, I am convinced of that. It was necessary to destroy the inquisitorial vexations of those who had drunk too much, and what constituted 'enough', and the pub searches; but it was effective in preventing the frauds of innkeepers.

There are no more fermiers-general.
Victory! Yes, a great victory! They were vampires and leeches who lived on the blood of the people. But in good politics doesn't one have to admire a machine organized like that of the ferme-generale? It was a masterpiece of administration that operated for more than a century. Every potentate admired its order and how it functioned.

(299)

Never could one imagine a more capable method of management. The big and small cogwheels were geared so finely that an error of a single penny would be revealed. This machine animated the circulation of cash. It had its veins, its arteries, and its ramifications; Paris was the heart which pumped the money back and forth to a region more than 30 thousand square leagues in area. It could slip in injustices, but I defy the worst enemy of the fermiers-general to cite a single instance of one that emanated from his advice. For 10 or 12 years the regulations were mild. There isn't one senior officer who cannot attest to this truth by his own decisions. I must exclude some rascals, fired or driven out like some bad eggs who later were turned into denouncers and were listened to, like those who listened to servants who denounced their masters. In fact, the company liked neither people who were painstaking, troublesome, or greedy. It saw the big picture and hated legal hassels. I can't say there weren't bad things going on occasionally, but they were followed only by

(300)

the intransigence of the receivers, controllers or directors. Often they owed their birth to the dishonesty of employees, among whom were rascals which are to be found everywhere.

As for the rest, the company was not a judge in its cause, and lost the occasional bad court case. Everyone could request mercy and it answered with exactitude, seldom refusing. But always it imposed moderate conditions. Myself, I pled the cause of one hundred unfortunates, and did I win them all? If the nobles had privileges which weighed heavily on the people, nothing was simpler than to make them pay the taxes because of their wealth. As for their prerogatives, one could ascribe a great deal of that simply to customs and honor.

Formerly, in Switzerland, one obtained the title of noble only after having given evidence of courage, probity, attachment to his duties, and finally to civil virtues and morals. This is why a count de Hapsbourg finished an act with these words, (which I translate from Latin): "...Whereas we, including Rudolf Eberhard, no longer avail ourselves of our seal,

(301)

we declare publicly that we borrow that from our brother, Count Godefroy."

Assignats: there is no more currency.
Because of the shortages of cash it was necessary to produce a replacement for it. Fine! But your mismanagement is the reason for this shortage, so it wasn't necessary to proclaim that this annoying outcome was some kind of great advantage - a fertile mine. Yes, a fertile mine which foreign speculators aimed to exploit - and it's not an insignificant disadvantage. Yes, the state had to be saved, but the state was only sick and in need of only mild remedies. Is this the way to save the nation - to spread indiscriminantly a paper which, shortly after its introduction, made the nation lose 500 percent, destroyed confidence, and excessively inflated the price of food products?

Before the war I noted that the exchange with England was 5 times instead of 30. Thus with one ecu the English can buy 6 times as much as before. Other exchange rates are in the same proportion. This is the reason why our industry isn't going at its former vigour. The English believed these boons, really destructors, to be marks of their prosperity.

Mirabeau himself believed little in the viability of this medium, so that when one reproached him

(302)

for having spoken so lightly on the matter of assignats, he replied, "I would have been much more forceful if I had spoken against them!" So this is how this famous scoundrel amused himself with the influence that he had usurped.

The French people will never believe in paper money which one is forced to take for a face value that is not backed up by precious metals. England has banknotes which circulate, but they are on a par with metals and therefore are sought after. Assignats, on the other hand, ruin those who live on their incomes. The merchant, the craftsman and journeyman can receive compensation through barter, but the average worker doesn't have this option. They are compensated by misery. It's true that the assignats made a fortune for those who had large cash boxes, especially the bankers. They spread convenience in Paris, and for this reason this large city boosted the revolution with great enthusiasm. Paris is the haven of the richest people; when the state doesn't pay them they, in turn, pay their employees badly and the workmen become dissatisfied. When it pays, the people feel it. Besides,

(303)

the inhabitants of Paris (close to the hearth of graces) always manage to be on the receiving end. Thus it's no mystery that Paris is the center of all the great movements. But the population of the capital is only 1/30 that of France. Thus it was not reasonable to formulate a revolution simply to benefit Parisians.

How did these assignats diminish the nation when they went into circulation? Because one wanted to force those who had wallets to purchase ecclesiastical property. This was a great injustice. Why authorize employers to pay badly what one owes, and also force wealthy people to buy what isn't appropriate?

For example, A trader is owed 100,000 liv. which represents half of his foundation. He is not in debt and therefore owes nothing. Now he gets paid off in assignats and his fortune is drastically reduced. What! Now he has to buy goods on which he cannot make the profit he needs to establish his children! So he has to go out of business! 'Ah, but it's a question of extinguishing the national debt...' Not at all! In the course of the revolution this excellent goal is not one of the stated objectives. One simply wants to rule like the tyrants of Athens, and this point can only be reached by levelling fortunes. Now wealth is made to vanish through depreciation, and later it will be stolen

(304)

openly - I predict it, and I have the data that supports my forecast [I wrote this in October, 1793].

Here is the course by which assignats arrived at a state of discredit at a time when there wasn't in circulation enough medium of exchange to satisfy the real or phony absence of cash:

1. concern that gave birth to the revolutionary movements;
2. progressive deterioration of manufacturing;
3. the drop in foreign exchanges, to our disadvantage.

Here were the first blows of the axe. Then followed the expenses of the war, and successively an arbitrary emission of these assignats with inflated value, waste and squandering, the imprudence of proconsuls who didn't want to receive this paper for payment even during the change-over. This resulted in drawing down the gold supply, money, and valuable commodities because foreigners who received this paper for next-to-nothing sought to convert it into something of value. No assignat could circulate out of France, even if it was endorsed. It had a bad effect on commerce.

(305)

All this fiat currency returned to France. The regions near the borders of neighbouring countries pushed it back to the interior, and the inhabitants of the interior, in turn, threw it back to where it had originated [Paris].

Here, I believe, is the brief history of this worthless paper. It richly deserves the censure that has been raised against it.