What is the Third Estate? is a political essay published in the first weeks of 1789, following the convocation of the Estates General. It was penned by Emmanuel Sieyès, a mid-ranking churchman of liberal political views. Using plain language and uncomplicated arguments, What is the Third Estate? became one of the French Revolution’s most significant political essays. It convinced untold numbers of French citizens that the Third Estate not just of their right to political representation but also, their importance to the nation.

Summary

In late 1788, the French king Louis XVI announced the convocation of the Estates General, Bourbon France’s closest equivalent to a national parliament. The king also called for the submission of cahiers de doleance, or compilations of public opinion about the state of France and suggested improvements.

These announcements unleashed a flood of political opinion. In the wake of the king’s announcement, hundreds of essays and political pamphlets were published and circulated. Many speculated about the composition, procedure and possible outcomes of the Estates General. Some of these documents demanded equality and greater representation for the Third Estate, France’s common people. One pamphlet, written by a middle-ranking clergyman, inflamed these political aspirations more than any other.

Emmanuel Sieyès‘ Qu’est ce que le tiers etat? (‘What is the Third Estate?) struck a chord with France’s disgruntled lower classes. Asking three rhetorical questions and employing clear but forceful language, What is the Third Estate? seemed as rational and logical as it was compelling. It challenged traditional conceptions of nation and government while urging its readers not to accept hollow promises or compromises. What is the Third Estate? proved enormously popular and became what one historian calls “a script for revolution”.

Who was Emmanuel Sieyès?

The author of this remarkable document was Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, a free-thinking clergyman. Sieyès was born in south-eastern France in 1748. His parents had noble ancestry but by the time of his birth, Sieyès’ family was barely middle class. His father was a public servant and devout Catholic who wanted his children, including middle son Emmanuel, to enter the clergy.

Sieyès received a Jesuit education before relocating to Paris, where he entered a seminary in suburban Paris and studied theology at the prestigious Sorbonne. Sieyès was a mediocre theology student, often finishing with low grades. he showed a much greater interest in liberal political philosophy, particularly the works of John Locke. A voracious reader, in 1770 Sieyès compiled a list of hundreds of books he wished to read – if he ever had the money to buy them – and Enlightenment texts featured heavily in this list.

Despite his liberal views, Sieyès continued with his entry into the church, being ordained as an abbé (abbot) in 1772. His career in the clergy was moderately successful but far from happy. After waiting two years for a posting, Sieyès finally obtained a position in the diocese of Chartres. He eventually rose to the offices of vicar-general, cathedral canon and diocesan chancellor.

While his own career was progressing slowly, Sieyès became acutely aware of how churchmen of noble birth but mediocre talent or application were moving quickly up the ranks. As his dissatisfaction with the church grew, so too did Sieyès’ interest in the nation’s unfolding political crisis.

The Estates-General called

In August 1788, the king ordered the convocation of the Estates General, to sit in the middle of the following year. At this point, there was uncertainty about the composition and operation of the Estates General. The Estates General had not met since 1614, it had never followed consistent structures or procedures, and there was no constitutional instruction on what form it should take.

This uncertainty triggered a national discussion about the formation, operation and powers of the Estates General. In September 1788, the Paris parlement ruled the Estates General must adopt the same form as it had in 1614 – that is, with voting conducted by order rather than by head.

The following month Jacques Necker, who had proposed doubling the representation of the Third Estate at the Estates General, summoned an Assembly of Notables to provide advice on the matter. Government censorship was also relaxed, allowing interested parties to write openly and extensively about the forthcoming Estates General.

Sieyès pens What is the Third Estate?

All this inspired Sieyès to put pen to paper. In November 1788, he published Essai sur les privileges (‘Essay on the privileges’) which attacked the presence of privilege and exemptions in France’s society and political system. This was quickly followed by What is the Third Estate? in January 1789.

What is the Third Estate? was based on a simple premise: the Third Estate formed the majority of the nation and did the work of the nation, so it was entitled to political representation. As Thomas Paine had done in America with Common Sense in 1776, Sieyès kept the structure simple and used reasoning that was clear and accessible for ordinary readers.

In the most-quoted passage of What is the Third Estate?, he posted three rhetorical questions and answers:

“What is the Third Estate? Everything.
What has it been heretofore in the political order? Nothing.
What does it demand? To become something.”

Impact on the revolution

What is the Third Estate? became the most influential text of the early French Revolution. It crystallised the grievances of ordinary people in a rational and logical manner. It reminded the common French people they had been exploited and mistreated, both by an unrepresentative government and by a parasitic nobility that refused to pay its own way.

More importantly, What is the Third Estate? provided Third Estate representatives attending the Estates General with a set of objectives. Sieyès argued that Third Estate representation must be equal to or larger than the First and Second Estates combined. He called for voting at the Estates General to be conducted by head (that is, by a tally of individual deputies) rather than by order (the Estates voting in blocs).

These arguments shaped the demands of the Third Estate at the Estates General, culminating in their decision to break away to form the National Assembly. It is uncertain whether this would have occurred without the public debates and the impetus for change sparked by What is the Third Estate?

“Sieyès – who had an ear for what we would now call the sound-bite – gave a notorious answer to this question [of political representation]. In contrast to the other two orders, the nobility and priesthood, which he claimed were guardians of their own corporate privilege, the Third Estate had ‘no corporate interest to defend… it demands nothing less than to make the totality of citizens a single social body.’ It was, he claimed, not one order amongst others, but itself, alone, ‘the nation’: it was ‘everything’.”
Iain Hampsher-Monk, historian

What happened to Sieyès?

For Emmanuel Sieyès, the impact of What is the Third Estate? brought him considerable respect and popularity. In March 1789, he was elected to represent the Third Estate at the Estates-General, despite Sieyès being a member of the First Estate and having no experience as an advocate, debater or public speaker.

Sieyès rarely gave public addresses during the Estates General but worked diligently behind the scenes and was often consulted for advice or instruction. When the Third Estate and its allies re-formed as the National Assembly on June 17th, Sieyès personally introduced the motions to initiate this change. The rest of Sieyès’ political career never reached similar heights. He served in both the National Constituent Assembly and the National Convention, participating mainly in constitutional discussions and drafting.

Ultimately, Sieyès was not radical enough for the revolution he had helped unleash. He desired a constitutional monarchy and a bourgeois democracy rather than a popular republic, nor could not bring himself to attack the church as he had attacked the nobility.

1. What is the Third Estate? was one of the French Revolution’s most significant and influential political texts, shaping the course of events in 1789.

2. Its author was Emmanuel Sieyès, a middle-ranking clergyman and free thinker who had studied Enlightenment political philosophy and was frustrated by nobility and privilege.

3. Sieyès penned What is the Third Estate? in late 1788, in the midst of a ‘pamphlet war’ over the composition, procedures and outcomes of the Estates General.

4. In What is the Third Estate? Sieyès argued that commoners made up most of the nation and did most of its work, so therefore were the nation. He urged members of the Third Estate to demand a constitution and greater political representation.

5. The ideas contained in What is the Third Estate? were instrumental in shaping the events of 1789, particularly the formation of the National Assembly, while Sieyès himself became a political delegate in the new regime.

Extracts from What is the Third Estate? (1789)

Citation information
Title: ‘Sieyès and What is the Third Estate?‘
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/sieyes-what-is-the-third-estate/
Date published: October 20, 2019
Date updated: November 9, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

When Louis XVI‘s ministers proposed fiscal and taxation reforms in the 1780s, they were resisted by elements of the Ancien Régime. One significant institution to block these reforms was the parlements, France’s highest courts. By the late 1780s, this resistance had become a visible power struggle between the king and his parlements.

What were the parlements?

The parlements were the supreme courts of law in pre-revolutionary France. They served as the nation’s highest courts of appeal, in a similar way to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the High Court of Australia.

The parlements were ancient institutions that traced their history back to the 13th century. At the start of the 18th century, France had 13 different parlements, each with its own jurisdiction or area of operation. Each parlement was manned by at least 12 magistrates, all of whom were noblesse du robe and thus members of the Second Estate.

The 13 parlements were all equal, at least in theory, but the parlement of Paris – by virtue of its size, its proximity to the king and its interaction with the royal government – exercised more power and influence than the others.

A check on royal power

Historically, the parlements had often served as a check or limitation on royal power. While the parlements could not initiate new laws or amend or abolish existing laws, they neverthless played some role in the legislative process.

According to custom, the parlement of Paris scrutinised and registered new laws and royal edicts before their final adoption. This gave the Paris parlement the ability to block royal edicts, either as a protest against specific policies or as a means of exerting influence over the monarch.

If the parlement refused to register a law, it would publish a remonstrance (a written explanation of its concerns and objections to the law). If this occurred, the king could summon justices of the parlement to a lit de justice (‘bed of justice’, in essence, a royal session of the parlement). At a lit de justice, the king could formally override the remonstrance and order registration of the law. Alternatively, the king could use lettres de cachet to intimidate, exile or imprison magistrates of the parlement in order to force their compliance.

Louis XV versus the parlements

The relationship between the king and the parlements was an important aspect of French royal government in the 17th and 18th centuries. The reign of Louis XV (1715-1774) was frequently disrupted by tension and conflict with the parlements.

This became particularly severe in the last quarter of Louis XV’s reign when opposition from the parlements made governing almost impossible. From 1763, the Paris parlement blocked a series of royal reforms and policies, including a new instalment of the vingtième tax.

In 1766, Louis XV famously appeared at a session of the parlement and in the strongest terms informed its judges that his royal sovereignty was supreme. Five years later, Louis and his chancellor, Maupeou, moved to abolish the parlements altogether, replacing them with councils manned by appointed officials. The parlements were restored to their previous status when Louis XVI took the throne in 1774.

Blocking fiscal reforms

During Louis XVI’s reign, the Paris parlement consistently opposed the government’s fiscal policies. It objected to the raising of new loans, arguing that the national deficit should be managed by reducing expenditure. The lavish spending of the royal court – already under some public scrutiny – was also criticised by the parlement.

Meanwhile, the king’s controller-general of finances, Charles Calonne, was developing his own set of reforms to address the nation’s fiscal crisis. He hoped to increase government revenue by stimulating the economy and removing personal exemptions from taxation.

Calonne’s proposed reforms, drafted in 1786, included the imposition of a land tax – without any exemption for the First and Second Estates. Calonne knew the Paris parlement would block his reforms so he instead sought endorsement from an Assembly of Notables. The Notables rejected Calonne’s proposals and his reforms were abandoned.

Open confrontation

In April 1787, the king dismissed Calonne and replaced him with Etienne Brienne, previously the chairman of the Assembly of Notables. Brienne developed his own package of reforms that were quite similar to those of Calonnes. He hoped to stimulate France’s production and trade by winding back internal regulation, while abolishing the corvée, introducing a land tax and ending exemptions from personal taxation.

In June 1787, Brienne began passing these reforms as edicts. To his credit, Brienne convinced the Paris parlement to register the majority of his reforms. But the parlement refused to endorse any new tax, nor would it support radical changes to taxation exemptions. Those changes, the magistrates argued, were “contrary to the rights of the nation”. Changes of that magnitude, the parlement declared, could only be affirmed by an Estates General.

This defiance brought the parlements into open confrontation with the king. On August 6th 1787, Louis XVI, acting on Brienne’s advice, convened a lit de justice where he dissolved the Paris and Bordeaux parlements. Lettres de cachet were issued against these magistrates, sending them into exile at Troyes, 110 miles east of Paris.

Brienne believed that if the magistrates were detained in Troyes, well away from the public pressures of Paris, they would eventually back down. Instead, the exiled magistrates at Troyes wrote to France’s other parlements, urging them to refuse registration to any tax edicts.

Public attitudes

The king’s attack on the parlements also sparked a public backlash in Paris, with riotous assemblies and protests through the rest of August. In the end, the parlements won the day. On September 24th, the king allowed the magistrates to return to Paris, and their arrival in early October was met with public fanfare and celebration. Brienne’s taxation reforms, meanwhile, remained unregistered.

For the next eight months, the king, his ministers and the parlement of Paris engaged in a political tug-of-war. In January 1788, the parlement moved to declare lettres de cachet illegal; the king responded by summoning a lit de justice to nullify its decision. In early May, the parlement issued a ‘Declaration of the Fundamental Laws of France’, an attempt to assert its judicial independence; the king responded with lettres de cachet that ordered the arrest of two magistrates.

On May 8th, Louis XVI followed in the steps of his grandfather, Louis XV, and attempted to neuter the parlements altogether. All future edicts, the king ruled, would be registered by an appointed ‘plenary court’. This royal attack on the parlements triggered yet another wave of public violence. Riots broke out in Paris and in Grenoble locals pelted government soldiers with tiles. Protests against the king’s treatment of the parlements would continue for weeks and were only eased by the convocation of the Estates General (August 8th 1788).

“Historians tend to judge the parlements harshly, arguing in effect that they were chiefly responsible for the breakdown of the ancien regime. In a tenacious defence of privilege – not least their own – they lost sight of the larger constellation of problems confronting the monarchy. Yet this was not how public opinion viewed their stance. The parlements’ resistance to the royal will enjoyed huge support among the educated classes and it was sustained almost to the end… The parlement of Paris… was able to pose successfully as the champion of the law at a time when the absolute monarchy appeared completely reckless…”
P. M. Jones, historian

1. The parlements were the highest law courts and courts of appeal in France. The parlements were also responsible for registering royal laws and edicts, so they had a role in the legislative process.

2. France had 13 parlements, the most powerful of which was located in Paris. It often refused to register laws, outlining its reasons in remonstrances. The king could only force registration at a lit de justice.

3. The Paris parlement came into conflict with the monarchy in 1787-88, when it refused to register Brienne’s edicts implementing a new land tax.

4. The king responded by sending the Paris parlement into exile at Troyes, hoping to force their compliance, however this triggered significant public unrest and some violence.

5. The Paris parlement was eventually restored but conflict with the king and his ministers continued in the first half of 1788, culminating in the summoning of the Estates General.

Arthur Young on public views about the parlements (1792)

Citation information
Title: ‘The parlements‘
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/parlements/
Date published: October 9, 2019
Date updated: November 8, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

Before the revolution, French society was divided into three estates or orders. The First Estate contained around 130,000 ordained members of the Catholic church: from archbishops and bishops down to parish priests, monks, friars and nuns. With religion still a powerful force in 18th-century France, the clergy exerted considerable influence over matters of state and in French society. Despite inequalities and endemic corruption in its own ranks, the Third Estate also enjoyed substantial privileges and exemptions.

An ideological stronghold

The First Estate occupied a prestigious place in the social order. Belief in God, religion and the afterlife dominated late 18th century Europe, so for ordinary people the church and its clergy were the only avenues for understanding or accessing God and the afterlife. The church, therefore, had an ideological stronghold over the people and was an integral part of France’s social and political framework.

Religion also underpinned royal authority by reinforcing the king’s divine right to the throne. Members of the higher clergy, such as cardinals and archbishops, served as political advisors to the king. The state gave the Catholic church a virtual monopoly over religious matters; there were no other approved religions in France.

The church was also responsible for social policy and welfare, as well as carrying out some functions of the state. Its clergy conducted and registered marriages, baptisms and funerals; they delivered education to children and distributed charity to the poor. In rural areas, the local parish priest (or curé) was both a central figure and an influential leader in his community.

A repository of wealth

The church’s importance allowed it to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. The church owned roughly 10 percent of all land in France and collected revenue of around 150 million livres each year, mainly from tenant rents and tithes. Tithes were annual donations of goods or money, in effect a ‘church tax’ paid by its parishioners.

The church’s vast annual income was complemented by an exemption from state taxes. This exemption, however, was not without its challenges. Ministers in the royal government during the 17th and 18th centuries often demanded the church contribute a greater share toward the running of the state.

These demands could produce heightened tensions and fierce negotiations, particularly in times of war when the government was raising funds for its military needs. As a compromise, church leaders agreed to provide the state with a don gratuit (‘voluntary gift’), a payment made every five years. By the early 1700s, the First Estate was paying a don gratuit of between three and four million livres – a sizeable amount but still only around two percent of the church’s total revenue. The don gratuit was, in effect, a bribe, paid by the church to retain its tax-exempt status.

The higher clergy

The church’s considerable wealth tended to accumulate at the top, rather than filtering down to its lower tiers. Most of the church’s higher clergy – cardinals, archbishops and bishops – acquired significant levels of personal wealth from land rents, sinecures or simple graft or skimming off the top.

A great number of higher clergymen lived lives of opulence and extravagance, not dissimilar to affluent nobles in the Second Estate. Around two-thirds of bishops and archbishops had noble titles, either given as gifts from the crown or purchased venally. Church dioceses spent vast amounts of money building and maintaining huge cathedrals, such as Val-de-Grace and Notre Dame in Paris. These buildings overshadowed cities and towns, symbolising the church’s dominance over French society.

The clergy was not only exempt from paying personal taxation, they could not be called up for military service. Churchmen accused of serious crimes could only be tried in ecclesiastical courts – in other words, by fellow members of the clergy – rather than in civil courts.

“So long as the [French] population retained its keen awareness of the choice between eternal salvation and damnation in the next life, the prestige of the First Estate was assured, for the church alone provided the means to salvation… Its members occupied an important place at every level of society, from the humble country parish to the royal court itself; and politically the status of the First Estate reflected the power of religion in France and justified the royal title of His Most Christian Majesty.”
JH Shennan

Criticism of the church

While the First Estate’s hold over French society was not in serious jeopardy, it was being criticised on several fronts. The vast majority of French citizens remained devoutly religious, however, by the late 18th century French society was thrumming with dissatisfaction and criticism of the organised church. Enlightenment writings and ideas questioned the basis of the church’s power.

In particular, there was growing discontent with the higher clergy, dominated by a rising sense that many bishops and archbishops acted in their own personal interests rather than the interests of God or the church.

Evidence reveals a growing disenchantment and lack of trust in the church. By the late 1700s, fewer people were joining the priesthood or religious orders, while fewer people were leaving their estates to the church after death. A growing number of people drifted away from the Catholic church, either to Freemasonry, Protestant religions or religious apathy and indifference. Many who remained in the church believed it was in need of reform and purging of corruption.

Ordinary clergy

This rising dissatisfaction was not only confined to laymen. There was also growing unrest among the lower ranks of the clergy.

While all ordained persons belonged to the First Estate there was, nevertheless, a diversity of political and theological viewpoints in their ranks. Around one-third of all clergy were parish priests or curés. Most of these priests well educated, hardworking, compassionate and respected by the people in their parish. But parish priests were often disregarded by the higher clergy and poorly paid by the church.

During the 1700s a gulf began to emerge between some priests, who lived among the poor of the Third Estate and were witness to their sufferings, and the princes of the church. Many priests welcomed the summoning of the Estates General in mid-1789, where they were well represented (208 of the First Estate delegates at the Estates General were parish priests). In many cahiers de doleance the lower clergy called for greater democracy and consultation in church decision making, as well as a review of the church’s exemption from taxation.

The dissatisfaction and growing liberalism of the lower clergy would later by seen in their actions at the Estates General, when 149 of their deputies opted to join the Third Estate to form the National Assembly.

1. The First Estate was one of France’s three social orders. It contained all persons ordained in a Catholic religious order, from cardinals and archbishops down to priests, monks and nuns.

2. The First Estate wielded considerable ideological power and political influence in France, due to the strong religious beliefs of the majority of the population.

3. The church was also incredibly wealthy. It was a significant owner of land, collected rents and tithes, yet also avoided paying any significant amount of tax to the state.

4. On the eve of the French Revolution the church was subject to disillusionment and criticism, with many of its parishioners concerned about the corruption and failings of the clergy.

5. These criticisms could be found within the ranks of the church itself, with many members of the lower clergy demanding a greater say and more accountability.

Citation information
Title: ‘The First Estate’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/first-estate/
Date published: September 14, 2019
Date updated: November 5, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

The ideas and values of the revolution were expressed in many ways: through the visual arts, literature, music and popular culture, and in the ways people lived, dressed and communicated. French revolutionary culture was dominated by ideas of nationalism, progress, social unity and egalitarianism. The culture, style and symbols of the French Revolution were also used to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to creating a better nation. As the revolution radicalised, public shows of loyalty became particularly important, even potentially life-saving.

The tricolour cockade

One of the most famous symbols of the French Revolution was the cockade (French, cocarde), a tight knot of coloured ribbons pinned to one’s hat, tunic, lapel or sleeve. Cockades were a common device worn in the 18th century. Their colours were usually chosen to display one’s loyalty to a particular ruler, military leader or political group.

When Louis XVI returned to Paris on July 17th 1789, three days after the fall of the Bastille, he volunteered to wear a cockade of red and blue (the colours of Paris) to show his loyalty to the city. The traditional white of the Bourbon monarchy was added shortly after, reportedly by the Marquis de Lafayette, forming the famous tricolore (‘three colour’) cockade.

The tricolore became a prevalent and powerful symbol of the revolution, an emblem of national and class unity. In early October 1789 rumours reached Paris that the king’s soldiers had stomped tricolore cockades underfoot during a drunken party. The resulting outrage led to the march on Versailles, one of the most significant journées of the French Revolution.

Symbols of liberty

The French Revolution also borrowed symbols from classical mythology, the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. One of the most famous was the bonnet rouge or ‘liberty cap’.

This symbol, derived from the ancient Phrygian cap given to liberated slaves, had been used extensively during the American Revolution. A brimless bonnet of red wool or felt, the liberty cap symbolised freedom given to oppressed people. It was mainly worn by the urban working classes, particularly during the radical phase of the revolution.

Another American revolutionary symbol embraced by the French was the liberty tree, a symbol of fertility, growth and nature. Some art and visual propaganda featured Enlightenment symbols, like the Sun and the Eternal Flame (light), the fasces (strength through unity), the All-Seeing Eye (divinity), and pyramids and mountains (progress and elevation).

The symbology of the French Revolution also used human figures. The best known was Marianne, a female personification of the French nation not dissimilar to Britannia (Britain) or Lady Liberty (United States). Marianne was a young woman who depicted the new republic, a symbol of youth, regeneration and virtue.

The revolution’s artist

One man dominated the artistic culture of the French Revolution. Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) was a brilliant Paris-born artist, renowned for using classical stories and imagery as a vehicle for Enlightenment political values.

David supported the revolution from the outset, remaining in France while many of his fellow artists sought patronage abroad. Despite being a poor public speaker, he also became embroiled in politics, serving as a member of the National Convention, the Committee of General Security and the Committee of Public Education.

David is best remembered as the French Revolution’s painter-propagandist, the Jacobin artist whose works espoused radical revolutionary principles. Many of his paintings embodied the virtues and values of the new republic, including patriotism, egalitarianism, public service and self-sacrifice. David was not above distorting reality for political ends either, as reflected in his painting of the dead Marat (see below) or his oversight of the Festival of the Supreme Being in June 1794.

David’s famous works

David was a prolific artist but two of his works are remembered above all others. The first is David’s visual account of the Tennis Court Oath, a mural sponsored by the Jacobin club and the National Assembly but never finished to David’s satisfaction.

David’s drawing shows the significance and human drama of the event. Jean-Sylvain Bailly stands at the centre and administers the oath, while the other National Assembly deputies respond in a variety of ways, from pensive (Sieyès) to optimistic (Dom Gerle and the other clergymen) to exuberant (Robespierre). Above them, the curtains wave wildly, as if blown by the winds of political change.

Even better known is David’s dark but moving image of the vitriolic journalist Jean-Paul Marat. Using classical styling, David shows Marat in death as calmer, softer and more serene than he had been in life. His painting contains overtones of martyrdom and divinity, reminiscent of crucifixion scenes or Michelangelo’s Pieta.

To reinforce Marat’s alleged good character, David places a banknote and a letter in this hands, the letter reading “Give this banknote to the mother of five whose husband died defending the fatherland”.

“It was David’s task to portray this human wreck in a manner that aroused admiration. He removed all sign of skin disease and placed Marat’s body in an imaginary space. [It is] in a pose whose effect is particularly resonant: his limp arm hanging down, head lolling to one side and body half-leaning to face the spectator… This pose has been used for centuries to portray Christ’s descent from the Cross.”
Rose-Marie Hagen, art historian

Street fashion

The culture of the French Revolution was not confined to high art. The events of 1789-93 also changed how people lived, dressed and spoke.

Shifts in fashion were a noticeable outcome of the revolution. The ornate costumes of the aristocracy and haute bourgeouisie – a trapping of wealth and extravagance – had largely disappeared by 1791. Women stopped wearing hooped skirts and large headdresses, while men abandoned the use of powdered wigs (Maximilien Robespierre being one notable exception).

Simple and restrained dress – muslin frocks or dresses, neatly cut suits and tunics, modest wigs and hairstyles – became the order of the day. The red, white and blue tricolour remained popular as an expression of loyalty to the revolution; these colours were worn as cockades, ribbons or trimmings on a coat or tunic.

During the revolution’s most radical phase (1793-94) some Parisians replicated the trousers, tunics and simple headgear of the sans-culottes. Many of the sans-culottes dressed to mock and satirise victims of the Terror, shaving their heads or wearing a red ribbon around their throats.

Modes of address

The revolution also changed the way that individuals addressed and communicated with each other. In Paris and other cities and towns, traditional forms of address such as “Sire“, “Monsieur” and “Madame” were largely abandoned. The more egalitarian “Citoyen” and “Citoyenne” were used in their place.

Citizens also abandoned many of the formalities of pre-revolutionary society, including bows, curtseys and genuflection and the doffing of hats. The Scottish physician John Moore, who visited Paris during the revolution, wrote with some disapproval about this new way of doing things:

“There is in Paris at present a great affectation of that plainness in dress and simplicity of expression which is supposed to belong to republicans… People are saying ‘Tu’ or ‘Thou’ to each other. They have substituted the name ‘Citizen’ for ‘Monsieur’ when talking to or of any person, but more frequently, particularly in the National Assembly, they simply the use the surname… It has even been proposed in some of the newspapers that the custom of taking off the hat and bowing the head should be abolished, as [it is a remnant] of the ancient slavery and unbecoming the independent spirit of free men.”

Revolutionary music

The French Revolution also had its own soundtrack. The ideas of the Enlightenment and the revolutionary struggle were incorporated into poetry and song.

One of the first revolutionary songs was Ça Ira! (French for ‘it will be fine’), which appeared in the spring of 1790. The lyrics of Ça Ira! were optimistic and initially moderate, praising the National Assembly and the Marquis de Lafayette – but like the revolution itself, they changed over time, becoming more radical and violent. Another lively song that appeared in mid-1792 was La Carmagnole, which took aim at Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Swiss Guards.

The most famous of all revolutionary songs, however, was La Marseillaise, written by army engineer Rouget de Lisle after the outbreak of war with Austria in 1792. Written as a war song, La Marseillaise gained public popularity because of its broad sounds, its anthemic strains and the vigorous call to arms in its lyrics.

La Marseillaise was reportedly sung by some of the fédérés who stormed the Tuileries Palace in August 1792. It became a popular military song and was played wherever troops were being massed, mobilised or marched out. According to Lazare Carnot, a member of the Convention, La Marseillaise was so inspirational that it added 100,000 new recruits to the revolutionary army.

In July 1795, La Marseillaise was adopted as the national anthem of the French Republic, a title it still holds today.

1. The French Revolution was not only a political and ideological movement. Its ideas and values were also expressed in a variety of ways, including through symbolism, art, fashion and music.

2. The revolution was heavy with symbolism. Many, like the tricolore cockades and flags, were unique to France. Others were borrowed from ancient and classical symbolism and the American Revolution.

3. The revolution’s most famous artist was Jacques-Louis David, who sat in the National Convention, coordinated Jacobin festivals and painted works like the Tennis Court Oath and the evocative but propagandistic Death of Marat.

4. The revolution had an impact on the way that people dressed. The ornate costumes and hairstyles of the aristocracy were abandoned in favour of simpler forms of dress, and it became fashionable to mimic the dress of the sans-culottes.

5. Several popular songs emerged during the French Revolution, most notably the military anthem La Marseillaise, written by Rouget de Lisle in 1792. Ça Ira!, La Carmagnole and others were also widely sung.

Citation information
Title: ‘French revolutionary culture’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/revolutionary-culture/
Date published: September 30, 2019
Date updated: November 9, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

Political clubs were an important feature of the French Revolution from late 1789. Beginning as informal gatherings of like-minded political idealists in 1789, the political clubs gradually became more organised and ideologically driven, morphing into de facto political parties. The most prominent clubs included the Society of 1789, the Cordeliers and the Feuillants. The best known, however, was the Jacobin club, which became an important source of radicalism in 1791 and beyond.

Formation

Most political clubs began as another politically oriented social event, not unlike the salons, circles and literary associations of the 1780s, with like-minded people gathering to discuss political matters.

The first political clubs were formed early in the revolution and were relatively informal. As the revolution progressed, however, they became more organised and formalised. Most developed their own customs, procedures and membership requirements; they acquired a regular meeting place and members attended there regularly, sometimes every night.

Some clubs behaved in a similar fashion to modern-day political parties. Their members reviewed the day’s developments, debated issues, set agendas, decided policy and formulated strategy for the future. Many deputies in the various national legislatures were also members of political clubs; their actions in government were often influenced by what transpired in the clubs. The most famous of all political clubs, the Jacobins, would shape the course of the revolution between 1792 and 1794.

The Breton Club

The French Revolution’s first significant political club was the Breton Club. It began as an informal gathering of 44 Third Estate deputies at a Versailles café, before and after sessions of the Estates General.

At first, most of the deputies who attended these interludes were from Brittany, hence the name of the club. Their meetings often discussed provincial issues as well as the proceedings at the Estates General. By early June, however, the Bretons had opened their meetings to deputies from other regions, as well as a few liberal aristocrats.

Breton Club meetings were attended by influential figures like Honore Mirabeau, Emmanuel Sieyès, Isaac Le Chapelier, Antoine Barnave and Maximilien Robespierre. Members of the Breton Club supported liberal political reforms including voting by head, the adoption of a constitution and the formation of a national assembly.

During the events of June 1789, the Breton Club was assembling more frequently and gathering before each session of the Estates General in order to discuss strategy.

The shift to Paris

Numbers at the Breton Club dwindled in July, following the formation of the National Assembly. Those members not from Brittany soon drifted away from the club, their mission apparently accomplished. By the time the Estates General was dissolved, the club was again in the hands of deputies from Brittany.

In early October 1789, following the march of Parisians on Versailles, Louis XVI and the National Constituent Assembly relocated to Paris.

With the revolution now shifted to the capital, Breton Club deputies began assembling again here, meeting in a Dominican monastery on the Rue Saint-Honoré, not far from the Tuileries. They adopted the formal title Société des amis de la Constitution (‘Society of the Friends of the Constitution’). The popular press, however, scornfully referred to them as the Jacobins, a local colloquialism for Dominican monks.

The Jacobin club

Over the next few months, the Jacobins evolved and expanded their group. The club adopted a set of rules written by Antoine Barnave (February 1790) and a manifesto outlining the club’s purposes.

At first, membership of the Jacobin club was restricted to deputies in the Assembly. By the spring of 1790, dozens of individuals outside the legislature were being invited to join. Members had to be ‘active citizens’ and pay an annual fee of 24 livres, which confined Jacobin membership to the middle and upper classes. By May 1790, the club had around 1,500 members. In October, the Jacobins opened their meetings to members of the public, who were permitted to sit in the galleries and listen to speeches and debates.

Club meetings were held four times a week and followed a planned agenda, addressing constitutional issues and questions currently before the National Constituent Assembly. Through 1790 and early 1791 the Jacobins remained faithful to the constitution and constitutional monarchy, though a minority of its members harboured more radical political views.

“From the outset, the ideal Jacobin was a man of independence, courage and heroism, who stood firm against the egoist ‘vampires’ and ‘parasites’ of the aristocracy, and considered only the public good – in short, a man of virtue… Nine-tenths of the Jacobins were commoners but their leaders were from the social elite of the old regime… Most of these men had been members of the Society of Thirty and, later, the Breton Club. For many months they dominated Jacobin politics, exercising a near monopoly over the offices of president and secretaries for the Jacobins.”
Marisa Linton, historian

The Society of 1789

As the revolution progressed, new clubs emerged on the right of the political spectrum. In April 1790, a group of constitutional monarchists, frustrated by growing radicalism, abandoned the Jacobins to form their own group called the Society of 1789.

According to contemporary observers, the Society of 1789 numbered around 300 men, including 40 to 50 deputies from the National Constituent Assembly. Membership was exclusive and individual members were either politically powerful or independently rich. Among the more notable members of the Society of 1789 were the Marquis de Lafayette, Honore Mirabeau, Jean-Sylvain Bailly, Emmanuel Sieyès, the Marquis de Condorcet and Isaac Le Chapelier.

Meetings of the Society were not unlike social gatherings of the Parisian elite, with fine dining followed by brandy and wine, served on a balcony overlooking the Palais Royal. The Jacobins came to despise the Society of 1789, considering them a remnant of the privilege and elitism of the Ancien Régime.

The Cordeliers

Another group to emerge during this period was the Société des Amis des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (‘Society of the Friends of the Rights of Man and Citizen’). It began as a group of representatives from the Cordeliers district, an unruly working class area near the left bank of the River Seine. They began meeting in April 1790 and were quickly dubbed the Society of Cordeliers.

Politically, the Cordeliers were the most radical of the political clubs during 1790 and 1791. They were more populist than the Jacobins: membership was open to all and membership fees were kept low (one livre and four sous per annum).

Cordeliers’ meetings were chiefly concerned with grievances and criticisms. Their focus was on the protection of individual rights and freedoms; “Liberty, equality, fraternity” was the club’s slogan. They were sympathetic to working-class interests and were alert to abuses and corruption. The Cordeliers also maintained a watching brief on the draft constitution and expressed strong criticisms of its formation of ‘active’ and ‘passive’ citizens.

The role of clubs in 1791

The flight to Varennes and the king’s arrest and return to Paris had a profound effect on the political clubs of Paris.

Inside the Jacobin club, the king’s actions opened a rift between the Republicans and Monarchiens (constitutional monarchists). During the summer of 1791, the Monarchiens abandoned the Jacobins and established a new group called the Feuillants. They were joined there by members of the Society of 1789, which by this time had fallen away.

The Feuillants sought to create a Jacobin-style club to attract political moderates. Their aim was to provide an antidote to the growing republicanism and radicalism in Paris, and to influence developments in the National Constituent Assembly. But while the Feuillants were well represented inside the legislature, they failed to attract much support on the streets of Paris.

The remaining Jacobins also suffered from low numbers. By November 1791, their membership had halved to just 1,200. Their numbers recovered through 1792 as the club came under the influence of prominent Republicans like Jacques Brissot and Maximilien Robespierre.

1. Political clubs were groups of like-minded people who met socially, outside the legislatures and formal political bodies, to discuss and debate political issues and events.

2. These clubs began informally as social gatherings, however, they evolved over time, to the point where they functioned as de facto political parties, setting agendas and shaping decisions in the legislature.

3. The first of these groups was the Breton Club, which met at Versailles during the Estates General. After moving to Paris in late 1789 this group evolved into the Jacobin Club.

4. Other clubs active during the first years of the revolution included the Society of 1789 (aristocratic and wealthy constitutional monarchists) and the Cordeliers (a populist and democratic group based in working-class Paris).

5. The Jacobin Club remained moderate and supportive of a constitutional monarchy until the club split in July 1791. Its constitutional monarchists left to form the Feuillants, while those who remained fell under the influence of republicans like Brissot and Robespierre.

The National Assembly debates political clubs (September 1791)

Citation information
Title: ‘The political clubs’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/political-clubs/
Date published: September 12, 2019
Date updated: November 10, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

France’s taxation regime was a significant cause of revolutionary sentiment. The nation’s taxation burden was carried almost entirely by the Third Estate. As contemporary writing and propaganda suggests, many taxpayers felt overburdened and frustrated by this lack of equality. This article outlines how France’s tax regime operated, who paid tax, how it was collected and the problems this created.

Excessive, inefficient, unfair

Taxation was a significant problem in late 18th-century France. According to conventional wisdom, the Ancien Régime’s taxation regime was excessive, inefficient and unfair.

It was excessive because France had become one of the highest-taxing states in Europe, chiefly because of its warmongering, its growing bureaucracy and high spending. It was inefficient because many taxes were collected by a network of private contractors dubbed ‘tax farmers’, a system that encouraged graft, corruption and tax avoidance.

It was unfair because the bulk of the nation’s direct taxation was levied on the Third Estate. France’s common people, who could least afford to pay, believed they were shouldering most of the nation’s tax burden while the privileged First and Second Estates paid little or nothing, despite their comparatively greater wealth.

Unsurprisingly, grievances about the Ancien Régime’s unbalanced and inequitable taxation regime became a significant cause of the French Revolution. But were these grievances valid?

Origins of the taxation crisis

France’s issues with taxation date back to the reign of Louis XIV (1643-1715). National expenditure increased markedly during the reign of the ‘Sun King’, driven by military spending, participation in several wars, the expansion of the state bureaucracy and extravagant spending on Versailles and the royal court.

Funding for these policies was left to Jean-Baptise Colbert, Louis XIV’s innovative comptroller-general [treasurer] in the mid-1600s. Colbert sought to strengthen the national treasury by increasing revenue and curtailing unnecessary spending.

To achieve this, Colbert reclaimed lands, abolished thousands of pointless royal offices, implemented mercantilist policies to generate income from France’s colonies, encouraged the growth of domestic production and passed laws to regulate domestic trade. These reforms were effective and government revenues grew rapidly during his ministry.

These increases did not match the king’s increased spending, however, and by the 1670s France was again in fiscal trouble. Colbert returned to the desperate revenue measures he had previously abandoned, such as selling royal lands and venal offices, acquiring loans from foreign bankers and raising new taxes.

‘Tax farmers’

Colbert also tried increasing tax revenue by improving systems of collection. Most tax revenues were collected by hundreds of private ‘tax farmers’ (state-contracted debt collectors). In 1680, Colbert created the Ferme Générale (‘General Farm’), an attempt to streamline tax collection by reducing the number of tax farmers.

When Colbert died in 1683, the government was receiving almost 93.5 million livres in net revenue – more than triple the 32 million livres it was receiving when he became controller-general in 1661.

After Colbert’s death, however, control of the national finances passed to less capable men. By 1715, annual tax receipts had plummeted to less than 31 million livres. This revenue shortfall would plague the nation for the rest of the 18th century.

Forms of taxation

There were two categories of tax in pre-revolutionary France: direct taxes and indirect taxes. Direct taxes were levied on individuals and collected by royal officials. Indirect taxes took the form of duties and excises on goods and were collected by ‘tax farmers’.

By the 1780s, indirect taxes made up almost half the government’s taxation revenue while direct taxes accounted for about one-third. In addition to royal taxes, some members of the Third Estate made obligatory payments to their lord and the Catholic church. Peasants living in a seigneurie, for example, paid a cens (land royalty) and champart (a share of the harvest) to their lord.

France’s peasants were also subject to the corvée, an obligation to provide unpaid labour on infrastructure such as roads. Many peasants also paid a tithe or dime: a share of the harvest given to the Catholic church. While not formally state taxes, these obligations were often considered part of the taxation regime.

Direct taxes

The taille was the oldest of France’s state taxes. It was also the royal government‘s most lucrative impost, bringing in about 20 million livres a year. The taille was first levied in the 15th century to meet the costs of the Hundred Years’ War. It was intended as a payment for military service, so the Second Estate (who fought) and the First Estate (who could not fight) were exempted from payment.

The taille was calculated according to the value of property owned and income received. This was done arbitrarily, however, and the amount could vary significantly from year to year. The taille was also easy to evade, particularly for city dwellers, which meant the burden fell mostly on peasants and rural landholders. This inconsistency made the taille the most unpopular of all royal taxes. A pamphlet published in 1694 said of this direct tax:

“The great evil of the taille is the unequal manner in which people are assessed by the authorities and the collectors, who favour their own friends to the detriment of the rest. Industry is taxed, so are talent, exertion and success. Every improvement a farmer makes on his ground exposes him to a heavier taille. A poor cobbler or other artisan, who has nothing in the world but his labour, is assessed four or five crowns a year. A baker at Gonesse, near Paris, who has not an inch of land, is assessed for his personal estate 1,200 French crowns.”

The capitation was a poll tax or ‘head tax’ levied on every adult citizen. It was first introduced in 1695 as a wartime measure. At first, the capitation was levied progressively, each individual paying an amount determined by their profession. There were 22 different payments levels, ranging from one livre to 2,000 livres. The clergy was exempted from the capitation. Members of the nobility were not exempt, though over time they found ways to greatly reduce the amount paid.

French citizens in the 18th century were also subject to income taxes. Like the capitation, these taxes were raised to offset the costs of France’s imperial wars. The first of these income taxes was the dixième, levied by Louis XIV in 1710 at the rate of one-tenth of annual income. It was replaced by the vingtième (one-twentieth of annual income) in 1749. The vingtième was renewed at the beginning of the Seven Years’ War in 1756 and again in 1760. Most expected the tax to be withdrawn when this war ended in 1763 but Louis XVI’s cash-strapped ministers continued to renew it, despite opposition from the parlements and constant grumbling from the people.

Indirect taxes

The gabelle was a duty payable on salt. Used chiefly as a food preservative and also in manufacturing and industry, salt was an essential commodity in 18th century France. The gabelle applied to all purchases of salt, whether for private or commercial use. To prevent smuggling, black-marketeering and avoidance of the gabelle, salt was sold in minimum amounts at official stores.

The gabelle was unevenly applied, however, and varied wildly from place to place. The amount of gabelle payable in and around Paris could be as much as ten sous (half a livre) per pound, while provinces in France’s south and east paid much smaller amounts or were entirely exempted. By the 1780s, the gabelle raised more than 55 million livres per annum, or more than 10 percent of the royal government’s taxation revenue. The gabelle was widely unpopular because it was payable by everyone, including peasants. It was also very difficult to avoid.

The importing or trade of food, drink and consumer goods was also taxed indirectly, in the form of excises, customs duties and tariffs. Wine, the most popular alcoholic drink in 18th century France, was subject to a heavy excise called the aide. A similar excise called tabac applied to the sale of tobacco. The traites were a series of customs duties, payable by merchants importing goods from abroad or from one province to another. The octroi was a municipal tariff on goods entering large cities, particularly Paris.

These duties and excises affected merchants, traders and businessmen more than individuals. Indirect taxes were so important that many French cities maintained their high medieval walls, forcing goods coming into the city to pass through the gates where they were inspected and taxed.

Abuse and corruption

“The Farmers-General purchased the privilege of collecting taxes and paying state debts for the various government departments. Taxes thus passed through private hands, and some of it wound up in private pockets. There was no central bank to provide economic stability, only a group of businessmen who sought to find the best balance between a functioning government and their own profits… Given exceptional powers to collect the money, tax-farmers bore arms, conducted searches and imprisoned uncooperative citizens. The money collected over and above that specified in the contract with the government went to the tax farm.”
James Maxwell Anderson, historian

Most indirect taxes were gathered by 40 fermiers-généraux or ‘tax-farmers’: wealthy individuals who acquired the right to collect taxes on behalf of the government. This was such a profitable enterprise that each fermier-généraux paid the royal government up to 80 million livres for a six-year lease. In good economic times, when production and trading were up, some tax-farmers made several million livres per year.

This privatised and unregulated method of tax collection was naturally open to abuse and corruption. The collection methods used by the fermiers-généraux and their agents could be arbitrary, heavy-handed and sometimes brutal.

By the reign of Louis XVI, the fermiers-généraux had become one of the wealthiest groups in France. They purchased grand homes along Paris’ Place Vendôme, venal offices and noble titles. What they could not buy was respect. The fermiers-généraux was one of the most hated institutions in 18th century France, cursed for their ruthlessness and condemned for their greed. Many attributed the nation’s financial woes not to the king or his ministers but to the avarice and corruption of the fermiers-généraux and their employees.

Did taxes significantly increase?

According to folklore, French revolutionary ideas were embraced by a Third Estate that felt overburdened and crushed by a hefty tax burden. This perspective is found in contemporary visual propaganda, which depicts commoners carrying the weight of the nobility and clergy.

Based on this, it is reasonable to believe French taxes were increased significantly through the 1700s – but this was not the case. Taxes rose in some areas (Paris most notably) and fell in others. Overall levels of taxation increased in the half-century preceding the revolution but on its own, this increase was not large enough to incite revolution on its own.

As Gail Bossenga puts it: “the real problem with French taxation seems not to have been its crushing weight but its inequities, inefficiencies and imperviousness to true reform”. In the public mind, taxation with no regard for equality, efficiency or accountability was just as intolerable as being grossly overtaxed.

1. Taxation is considered an important cause of the French Revolution. The accepted view is during the 1700s, France’s taxation regime became excessive, inefficient and unfair.

2. The French were subject to a range of direct taxes (payable to the royal government) and indirect taxes (payable on items like salt, wine and tobacco) as well as feudal payments.

3. Direct taxes were collected by royal officials, while indirect taxes were collected by the fermiers-généraux or ‘tax-farmers’, an unpopular group accused of rampant greed and corruption.

4. Tax liabilities varied widely across France. The gabelle or salt tax, for example, was levied at much higher amounts in Paris and surrounding provinces than in southern France. The nobility and clergy were also exempt from some direct taxes.

5. A commonly-held view in the 1780s was that the Third Estate was being overtaxed and forced to carry the tax burden of the First and Second Estate. While the reality was more complex, it was clear the taxation regime was in dire need of reform.

Citation information
Title: ‘Taxation as a cause of revolution’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/taxation/
Date published: September 11, 2019
Date updated: November 7, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

French revolutionary ideas were influenced by the political systems and experiences of other nations. The most significant of these influences was the American Revolution. Ending just as revolutionary tensions in France were building, the American Revolution provided the French with both a valuable source of revolutionary ideas and a working example of how a successful and moderate revolution might unfold.

The Americans rebel

In 1775, following a decade of tension and disputes over taxation and political representation, the 13 British colonies in eastern North America rebelled and declared their independence from the mother country. After eight years of war, the American colonies emerged victorious. They formed an independent republic called the United States of America. This new nation was founded upon three documents: a declaration of independence, a constitution and a bill of rights.

The American Revolution became an exemplar for those seeking change in France. It provided reformers with a working example of a successful revolution leading to the creation of a new state build on Enlightenment values. It also facilitated the spread of revolutionary ideas in France.

Ironically, France’s King Louis XVI and his government had actively supported the American Revolution, providing the American rebels with financial aid and military support. France’s contributions to the American Revolutionary War placed even greater pressure on the national treasury and helped facilitate the fiscal crisis of the 1780s.

The French in North America

France had its own interests in North America, dating back to the 1500s when French colonisers attempted a number of failed settlements along the eastern coast. The French eventually gained a foothold in the north (modern day Newfoundland) and the south (Louisiana, named for King Louis XIV).

French colonists in North America prospered and by the mid-1700s they occupied large swathes of the continent, including its southern coastline, the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys, the Great Lakes and the eastern half of modern-day Canada. Collectively, these possessions were known as New France. The British, in contrast, held a much smaller sliver of territory, a string of 13 small colonies clustered along the eastern coastline.

With British and French colonists living in close proximity, tensions in America were often high. Whenever Britain and France went to war in Europe, as they did several times in the 17th and 18th centuries, their colonists in America would follow suit.

Changes in the mid-1700s

The balance of power in North America changed dramatically after France’s defeat in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763, known in America as the French and Indian War). As a consequence of this defeat and the treaty negotiations that followed, France surrendered most of its North American territory to Britain. The French government spent the next 15 years yearning for revenge and the recovery of its former colonies.

The British were not without their own problems. The costs of waging the Seven Years’ War pushed the British government into considerable debt. Britain’s acquisition of vast new territories in North America brought with it new costs and obligations for managing settlement, administration and defence.

In London, British ministers decided to offset these new expenses by tightening foreign trade and the collection of duties on imports and exports. They also levied a new tax, a stamp duty, on the British colonies in North America. Though considered minor at the time, they were policies the British government would live to regret.

From protests to war

The American colonists, having lived a century in comparative isolation from Britain, resented the imposition of British taxes and trade restrictions. To justify their opposition to British policy, the Americans turned to political theory and Enlightenment ideas.

Taxation without political representation was illegal, they argued. Because no American sat in the British parliament, the parliament had no right to tax Americans. Taxing citizens without representation and impinging on their right to free trade also conflicted with John Locke’s doctrine of natural rights.

Opposition to British policy began as debates and vocal criticism but soon hardened into non-compliance, defiance, confrontation and acts of violence. In December 1773, rebels in Boston, Massachusetts stormed British ships and tipped a fortune of privately owned tea into the sea. London responded to this wilful vandalism with punitive measures, including the closure of Boston Harbour and the imposition of a military government in Massachusetts.

Outraged Americans began mobilising to defend themselves from British aggression and within 18 months, Britain and her former colonies were at war. On July 4th 1776, the American revolutionaries, through the pen of Thomas Jefferson, declared their independence with a stirring synthesis of Enlightenment ideas and values:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [And] whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”

Revolution fascinates France

The events in America fascinated France. The politically minded salons and clubs thrummed with news of events across the Atlantic. American revolutionaries like Benjamin Franklin (already idolised in France for his scientific discoveries), Thomas Jefferson and George Washington became household names. Revolutionary tracts by American philosophes like Jefferson and Thomas Paine were eagerly sought and studied intently.

The French government also rejoiced at events in America, though for political rather than ideological reasons. Louis XVI and his ministers were delighted at the difficulties experienced by their British rivals. If British authority in North America collapsed, France may be presented with an opportunity to regain her former colonies.

Short of money, munitions and naval power, the American revolutionaries lobbied Versailles for a military alliance. The king and his ministers resisted these calls at first. Instead, they quietly provided the American revolutionaries with financial aid and logistic support.

French involvement

In the first three years of the American Revolutionary War, dozens of French military officers and noblemen travelled abroad to serve with the Americans as volunteers. Their motives for doing so varied. Some were inspired by the ideas of the American Revolution; some were young officers craving a taste of battle; others were more experienced soldiers yearning for revenge against the British.

The most famous of these volunteers was Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette. The son of a colonel killed in battle, Lafayette followed his late father into the military and became a cavalry officer.

In 1777, Lafayette ignored the orders of his superiors and set sail for America, where he had been promised a generalship, despite still being in his teens. By September 1777, the young Frenchman was working as an aide to George Washington, the commander in chief of the American Continental Army.

Lafayette acquitted himself well in battle and was given his own divisional command. He became close friends with Washington, who some historians suggest came to consider Lafayette as an adopted son.

“While [Lafayette] set out to win glory on the field of battle, the ‘American spirit’ impressed itself on his mind and made him a champion of the cause, turning this young and prestigious scion of the French nobility into a central figure of liberal and reformist thought prior to the revolution. As early as his first visit to America, he became an enthusiastic supporter of equal rights and a champion of the civic spirit demonstrated by American citizens.”
François Furet, historian

The Paris Commune was the municipal or city government of Paris, formed during the insurrection of July 1789. Dominated by liberal moderate figures in its first three years, the Commune was overthrown and replaced on August 1792, becoming more representative of working-class interests and political radicalism. From this point, the Commune became an important body in a fast-radicalising revolution.

A barometer of the revolution

The Commune played an important role in the life of the capital. Not only did it provide civic functions like tax collection, services and public works, the Paris Commune was also a democratic assembly where the ordinary people of Paris were represented. This gave the Commune a great deal of sway. It also made it a barometer of political and revolutionary sentiment.

During the French Revolution, membership of the Commune council reflected the political will of the people of Paris. In its first three years, the Commune was dominated by the urban bourgeoisie and liberal-moderates like Jean-Sylvain Bailly. After the journée of August 10th 1792, control of the Commune was seized by radical Jacobins like Georges Danton, Camille Desmoulins and Jacques Hébert.

From this point the Commune became directly representative of the Paris sections and sans-culottes. The actions of this radical Commune challenged the authority of the national government and shaped the violence of 1792-94.

Origins of municipal government

The municipal government of Paris had its origins in the mid-14th century when the city was effectively run by merchants.

By the 1780s, the Paris city council was called the Bureau de la Ville. It was headed by the Prévôt des Marchands (‘Provost of Merchants’), the city’s de facto mayor. Despite his title, the Provost was no longer a merchant – in fact, most provosts were career public servants and administrators.

Both the Provost and the Bureau were housed in the Hôtel de Ville, an imposing Renaissance-style building on the banks of the River Seine. They carried out similar functions to modern city governments: managing the city’s budget, collecting municipal taxes and determining expenditure; overseeing the construction and repair of infrastructure like roads, bridges, wells and fountains; organising rubbish collection; naming streets, gathering census information and keeping records.

The Provost and the Bureau had a few guards at their disposal but no permanent police force.

A violent takeover

The events of 1789 caused more disruption and unrest in Paris than elsewhere in France. Much of this unrest originated in Paris’ districts. Royal edicts in early 1789 had divided the city into 60 districts, solely for the purpose of electing the Estates General. These districts had no other function but in the turmoil of 1789, they mobilised to topple the city’s municipal government.

As was common in the revolution, this was achieved with violence. On July 14th, shortly after the Bastille was breached in eastern Paris, an armed mob from the districts gathered on the steps of the Hôtel de Ville. Once assembled, the crowd demanded to hear from Jacques de Flesselles, the incumbent Provost of Merchants.

Flesselles emerged from the building and began to address the crowd but was quickly gunned down by an unknown assassin. Like the Bastille governor Bernard De Launay, Flesselles’ body was dismembered and his head paraded through Paris on a pike. Unsurprisingly, Bureau officials fled the Hôtel de Ville immediately, leaving both the building and municipal government to the mob.

Royal acceptance of the Commune

The following day, July 15th, electors from the 60 districts of Paris assembled to form a new municipal government. Jean-Sylvain Bailly, famous for his contributions to astronomy and his leadership of the Third Estate at the Estates-General, was elected as the city’s first mayor. The Commune council was chosen, comprised of deputies elected from the 60 districts of Paris.

On July 17th, Louis XVI travelled from Versailles to Paris on a goodwill visit to meet the new municipal government. The king’s visit proceeded well, despite a shot being fired at the royal carriage as it passed through the districts. Louis was met by members of the Commune, led by Bailly, who presented the king with keys to the city.

The king also attended the Hôtel de Ville, where he was presented with a large red and blue cockade; he attached it to his coat without hesitation. This gesture prompted applause, cheering and shouts of “Vive le roi!”. Later, the king agreed to dismiss his conservative ministers and reappoint Jacques Necker to his cabinet. The French monarch, it seemed, had accepted the Paris Commune and the will of his people.

The murder of Foullon

The events of July 17th, however, did not end the bloodlust in Paris. On July 22nd, some Parisians discovered one of the king’s ministers, Joseph-François Foullon de Doué, hiding in the city.

Foullon was a wanted man, for two significant reasons. The king, after dismissing the popular Jacques Necker on July 11th, had nominated Foullon as his replacement. Parisian newspapers had also accused Foullon, probably falsely, of declaring that hungry people should eat hay.

The captured Foullon was taken under guard to the Hôtel de Ville and for a time it seemed the mob would spare him. But despite speeches from Bailly and Lafayette, a frenzied mob snatched Foullon and strangled the old man in front of the Commune. His head was removed, stuffed with hay and placed atop a pike; the rest of his body was stripped and hacked to pieces.

Foullon’s body parts were then paraded around Paris. They passed Gouverneur Morris, an American revolutionary politician who was visiting France. “Gracious God, what a people!” Morris later wrote in a letter to Lafayette. “Have we gone backward centuries to pagan atrocities? And you talk of making this people the supreme authority in France? Your party is mad!”

Reorganising Paris

By late July, the unrest in Paris had settled and the new Commune began fulfilling the duties of a municipal government. Various committees were formed to oversee administration, public works, police, markets and food supplies. Special committees were formed to manage the demolition of the Bastille and the sale of its contents for poor relief.

On May 21st 1790, the National Constituent Assembly passed a law formally establishing the Commune as the governing body of Paris. This law also reorganised the city’s electoral divisions, abolishing the 60 districts created in 1789 and replacing them with 48 larger sections. These sections sent three deputies each, 144 in total, to the Commune’s General Council, where they sat for a two-year term.

The Commune also retained complete control of the National Guard, as well as a small police force or gendarmerie.

“The Commune of August 10th did not suddenly materialise out of thin air. Some sans-culottes had held office since 1790, a few even since 1789… On the whole, Commune members were a fair cross-section of working-class Paris, together with a few well-known orators from the clubs, and one or two unsavoury characters… Brought to power by force of arms, the [August 1792] Commune was able to exploit its capital of terror.”
François Furet, historian

The revolutionary Commune

The Commune remained in control of the capital through the revolution. This was particularly true after the journée of August 10th 1792, when mobs attacked the Tuileries and radicals like Georges Danton, Camille Desmoulins and Jacques Hébert seized control of the Commune and its council.

This new body, which described itself as a ‘revolutionary Commune’, was strongly influenced by the sectional assemblies and the sans-culottes. This revolutionary Commune frequently challenged the power of the national government – first the Legislative Assembly, then the National Convention. Members of the Commune had a hand in both the September Massacres (1792) and the insurrection that led to the expulsion of the Girondins from the Convention (June 1793).

For a time, Paris was ruled by an alliance between the Commune, the Jacobins and the sans-culottes. But the power of the Commune began to wane in early 1794. The assassination of Jean-Paul Marat (July 1793) and the executions of Hébert (March 1794) and Danton (April 1794) robbed the Commune of some of its most influential leaders. Meanwhile, the growing power of the Committee of Public Safety negated much of the Commune’s influence.

1. The Paris Commune was the municipal government of the French capital, formed after the overthrow of the city’s Bureau and Provost of Merchants on July 14th 1789.

2. The first Paris Commune was filled with bourgeois delegates and headed by Jean-Sylvain Bailly. It worked to establish a municipal government in Paris, hearing petitions and providing services.

3. The formal authority of the Commune came from a May 21st 1790 decree, which divided Paris into 48 sections. Each section elected three delegates to the Commune’s General Council.

4. The leadership of the Commune changed significantly on August 10th 1792, when radical Jacobins like Danton, Desmoulins and Hébert gained control of the council and declared themselves a ‘revolutionary Commune’.

5. From this point, the Commune became closely associated with the sections, the Jacobins and the sans-culottes, its actions contributing to revolutionary violence and challenging the authority of the national government.

Citation information
Title: ‘The Paris Commune’‘
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/paris-commune/
Date published: October 2, 2019
Date updated: November 9, 2023
Date accessed: May 17, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.