Analyse the role of the rural and urban poor in the French Revolution.

“Is it a revolt?” “No, sire, it’s a revolution…”

The French Revolution has come to be regarded by historians as a watershed event that changed the course of European history irrevocably. As an event, it is unparalleled in terms of the havoc it created in the old European order that had existed for centuries and that it provided the world with the first glimpses of concepts like liberty, nationalism and radical democracy.

The Ancien Regime was the name given to the aristocratic socio- political system that existed in the period between the 15th and 18th centuries in France. The affairs of the State, particularly those of finance, were under the control of the ruler, and this was the chief weakness of Pre-Revolutionary France. Due to constant wars and debts that needed to be paid and the desire for the king to control the country, an administrative system was set up all over the State. The core of such a system was built up through methods of direct taxation with the help of omnicompetent administrators- intendants, in charge of one generalite each. These intendents were extremely unpopular due to their authoritarian ways.

 Structurally, society was comprised of the clergy, which constituted the realm of what was known as the ‘First Estate’ and the noblesse (nobles) which formed the ‘Second Estate’ and owned a majority of the landed property of France. The constitution of the Third Estate was the lower classes (workers and peasants) and the bourgeoisie.

The petty bourgeoisie were much poorer than their ‘upper’ counterparts and held very small landholdings. Their attitude towards the aristocracy was one that was more aspirational than hostile. The urban poor included wage-earners of different kinds, such as small tradesmen, master craftsmen, journeymen, apprentices, labourers and domestic servants; and unemployed people like beggars and vagabonds. The masses were affected by problems of rising food prices and so were inclined to see their overriding economic interest as one and, in times of shortage, to unite in common action against wholesalers, merchants and city authorities. It is because of this, among other factors, that there was to emerge later during the course of the Revolution, a combination of social forces in Paris to which was attached the common label of sans-culottes about which I will refer to later.

The largest component of the Third Estate was the peasantry. Strictly speaking there was no such thing as a clearly defined and cohesive peasant class, as the peasant’s economic and social status and degree of personal freedom varied widely from one part of France to another. The main grievance of the peasantry was that they bore a heavy burden of taxation. As a whole, it did not reject the Church, though it was against the misuse of the tithe, which they paid to the Church. Seigneurial dues included the cens (feudal rent in cash) and the champart (rent in kind) paid to the landowner; lods et ventes (rent due on sale or transfer of property); and payment for feudal monopolies or banalities, which compelled the peasant to use his lord’s facilities (mill, bakery etc.). Peasants also had an obligation to perform forced labour, known as corveé. The state added to these taxes. The taille and vingtiéme was paid almost entirely by the rural population. They also had to pay indirect taxes such as the salt tax (gabelle) and excises (aides).

Another major source of peasant discontent stemmed from the so-called “feudal reaction”. Impoverished nobles, especially the provincial ones with few other resources, attempted to counteract the decline in their income by squeezing the utmost out of their feudal rights to exact money from the peasantry. Specialists in feudal law (feudists) were employed by the landlords to revive obsolete feudal claims, or invent new ones, or to maximize the yield of existing ones, and to bring up-to-date the manorial rolls and records of feudal obligations (terriers).

The peasants also resented the coming of capitalism in the countryside. They had a deep-rooted distrust of private property and opposed enclosures, as they benefited large proprietors exclusively and deprived them of common lands. Moreover, capitalism had resulted in further differentiation among the peasantry, making the prosperous peasantry like the coqs de village unpopular. Thus, we can say that the peasantry opposed both the feudal and the capitalist landlords. However, this did not translate into an attack on the King, who was still seen as the protector of the people.

As can be seen in every aspect of the Ancien Regime, there was no equality in either the social, judicial or institutional spheres within the State. Monarchs had gained the obedience of their subjects by identifying their distinctive statuses and through a haphazard and gradual process of conquest and dynastic accumulation. While the taille or direct tax, followed by a poll tax, gabelle and indirect taxes were levied by the monarchy on the commoners in an attempt to increase the wealth in the treasury, another way of doing so was through ‘privileges’ accorded to various social classes. This could be in the form of exemptions in tax for the bourgeoisie, the advantages attached to being a noble, etc. The rights that were given to the nobles and clergy were known as ‘Prerogatives’ and were seen to be survivals of the earlier wealth and authority they enjoyed. The clergy, claiming it performed a service for society by communicating with God, paid no direct taxes while the nobility proclaimed itself to be defenders of the State, and so because they provided ‘free’ military service, didn’t pay the direct tax either. This meant that the burden of taxation fell disproportionately on the class that was least able to pay it- the peasantry. In medieval times, such seigniorial rights may have been justified by the existence of feudal lords, however in the eighteenth century, the commoners viewed this with a certain amount of resentment- burdening them through demands of payment, restricting their growth and development and impinging on their agricultural profits.

What could be seen in France in the latter part of the eighteenth century was stagnation in agricultural progress. Many in the countryside were unwilling to bring about progressive reforms because they felt this would jeopardise their means of livelihood. So, agrarian distress during this period was a result of the clash between the monarchy’s efforts to improve agricultural productivity and the determination of the peasants to retain their traditional methods of agriculture. The Physiocrats concluded that one of the causes of recurrent famines in France was the inadequate communications system and the reluctance of peasants to release their crops during times of shortage. Subsistence farmers were not interested in long term policies of increasing crop prices in order to stimulate agricultural growth, or of the division of the common land for this would result in a loss of their collective rights. The government took notice of the ideals of the Physiocrats and in 1761 an Agricultural Committee was established. Royal decrees were promulgated and ministers like Turgot and Calonne made efforts to break down state regulation over crop prices. This conflicted with the interests and views of the French peasantry. Many peasants had to engage in rural by-industry or work as agricultural day-labourers in order to supplement their incomes.

The years 1787 to 1789 saw a massive decline in the viability of agriculture. Poor harvests were to blame for the price of wheat and maize doubling within two years. The winter of 1788-89 was the harshest winter the French had seen in eighty years, and peasants had to rely on other means of running their homes, often leaving them with very little money for agriculture. This downfall of farming led to a massive relocation to the cities. Peasants, who no longer had an occupation or life in the countryside, took part in a centralization of the population. They were hoping for more opportunities within the cities but what they did not realise was the fact that the cities were in just as much trouble. Research carried out by Professor C.E. Labrousse showed that the peasants were the worst sufferers of eighteenth century changes, brought about by inflationary trends. Agricultural recession during 1776-1787 was accompanied by a slump in the textile industry due to the American War and a fodder crisis in 1785. So, France faced not only a financial and political crisis in 1787-1788 but an economic crisis as well.

The Estates General was formally opened by Louis the XVI at Versailles on the 5th of May 1789. It had been felt that a solution to the financial crisis could not be found till this was done, so the institution was summoned for the first time since 1614. Louis XVI ordered each of the three Estates to draw up a list of their grievances, known as the Cahier de doleances, in order for them to express their problems when the Estates General met. The chief concerns of the Third Estate, particularly the peasantry were regarding the financial burden on them, the privileges accorded to the other two orders, their exemption from paying taille and tithe, etc. Jacques Necker, a French statesman and finance minister, suggested that voting be done by order so the privileged classes could voluntarily resign their fiscal immunities. The Third Estate, at this point of time, was under the assumption that a massive administrative overhaul was to take place which would undermine the privileged classes. They demanded double representation. On the 6th of May, however, when the Third Estate reassembled, they discovered that the other two orders had already met separately, and that they had decided to verify their powers. The session was resumed on the 11th and the nobility projected itself as a separate chamber. The Third Estate realised that, despite double representation, the other two orders would still carry a majority since voting was based on one vote per order, not on heads. They now met as the ‘Communes’, and attempted at a verification of their own powers, inviting the other two orders, but not waiting for them. This was a move prompted by the Abbé Sieyès’ popular pamphlet ‘What is the Third Estate?’ They brought into being a ‘National Assembly’, which was one of ‘The People’. King Louis the XVI did his best to resist them, resulting in the incident of the ‘Tennis Court Oath’, but the Assembly resolved to not disband till a Constitution was created- this was to be done in the years 1791 (before which the Assembly was dissolved), 1793 and finally 1795. Upon gaining membership from the other orders, the Assembly was renamed the Constituent Assembly on July 9th 1789.

The Revolution, therefore, as one can see, was not only political and economic in nature, but can also be viewed in terms of a great social upheaval. It was an event in which common Frenchmen, from the towns and from the countryside, participated. Many journees, or popular insurrections and demonstrations broke out at regular intervals from 1789 in the towns as well as in the countryside. The peasantry, on its part, had participated in various rebellions in the past- the best example being that of the Jacquerie which had taken place during the Hundred Years’ War.

Between December 1788 and March 1790, many peasant uprisings took place, each having a clear sense of direction and purpose. One of the most well defined rural revolts took place in the bocage district of Lower Normandy where between 21st July and 3rd August, at least two dozen chateaux were visited by mobs of armed peasants. These mobs, however, refrained from looting or attacking the nobles, for, as Lefebvre pointed out, this was not a class war. They concentrated their energies towards destroying feudal charters and deeds so as to prevent the noblemen from returning to the countryside. P.M Jones brings to light recent evidence that showcases an agrarian revolt with its epicentre in the South West of France. From December 1789 to early 1790, as many as one hundred chateaux were invaded by peasant mobs. This was a region where seigniorial dues were particularly high and had witnessed insurgency dating back to the seventeenth century.

Rural disturbance had begun in the form of grain riots- a small consumers’ movement which saw attacks on millers, granaries and food convoys, it had, which over time assumed the proportions of a widespread rural revolt against game laws, hunting rights, royal taxes, tithes and seigneurial dues. It was accompanied by the strange phenomenon known as “la Grande Peur” (the Great Fear) – the peasant suspicion of an aristocratic conspiracy meant to unleash brigands in the countryside to sabotage their produce – itself a product of the economic crisis and of the revolution in Paris. Not only did the peasants refuse pay taxes, but taking defensive measures, they attacked chateaus and destroyed records of feudal dues, which is often taken as symbolic of their attack on the feudal order. The peasant revolts of 1789 were also significantly directed against capitalism in the countryside – where common rights were reclaimed in the course of peasant insurrection. Also, they were led by persons bearing orders purporting to come from the King himself; and there seems little doubt that the peasants believed that, in settling accounts with their seigneurs, they were carrying out the King’s wishes, if not his specific instructions. Peasant action in a sense determined the legislation of the revolutionary government at the cost of the interests of some bourgeois proprietors, reflected in the abolition of seigneurial dues between August 4th-11th 1789, primarily prompted by fear of peasant revolt and thus the need to pacify the countryside.

The popular movements of the rural and urban poor had an autonomous course and objective, and were not, as one may be inclined to think similar just because of the economic status being dealt with. The similarity one can witness is that a large section of the peasantry had to buy their food in the market, where they would encounter their urban counterparts. Also, like the rural poor, the members of the community of urban poor had a sense of ‘moral economy’. With an increase in the price of grain and bread, the food riots that took place had a certain direction and weren’t anarchic- the concept of ‘taxation populaire’ was employed, where people paid what they felt was the just price for goods.

On the 11th of July, Louis XVI, under the guidance of his privy council, dismissed Necker. When Parisians heard the news of Necker’s dismissal on the 12th of July, they feared this to be a coup on the part of the conservatives, for Necker had been sympathetic to them to a certain extent. What added to the chaos were the troops brought to Versailles, thought to be attempting a shutdown of the Constituent Assembly. During the course of the next few days a number of Swiss and German soldiers from foreign regiments were stationed around Paris and Versailles. The incident of the Storming of the Bastille took place on the morning of July 14th, 1789, whereby Parisians demand the supply of gunpowder. The Bastille had been seen by many as a symbol of arbitrary power. Following this, the Constituent Assembly became the effective government in France, with royal power no longer being obeyed.

The march of Parisian women, who complained of high prices and scarcity of bread to Versailles exerted pressure on Louis XVI to return to Paris and accept the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, firmly establishing the Revolution. In fact, the popular movements through their fusion with the political revolution were critical in the success of the ongoing political struggle

The urban movements were more closely allied to the political ideals of the revolutionary clubs that the Revolution had fostered. But when the elite intellectual culture of Enlightenment percolated down to the lower classes, assumed a different nature and began to attack the very salón society which fostered the philosophers. Guided by a moralistic sense of frugal virtue, consciously juxtaposed with aristocratic decadence, or rather the exaggerated myth of it, the lower class attacked the aristocratic elite with a savagery that cannot be otherwise explained. The popular results also tended to be anti-clerical, attacking Church symbols. This ‘De-Christianising’ campaign was vehemently opposed by various groups of conservative women. However, the constant underlying motive of most popular movements was concerned with economic circumstances – the revolt against the increasing price of bread or wages declining in their purchasing power in a worsening inflationary situation. Labrousse has shown that the cost of living went up by 45% during the years 1771-89. Coupled with this was a resentment towards the rich, and large property, which it was feared would wipe the lower urban classes out of existence.

The sans-culottes were a group of commoners in Paris, originating from the lower classes, mostly urban labourers who belonged to the Revolutionary Army. It is difficult to define them as one particular class because over time it grew into a coalition of diverse social groups. Ostensibly, they differentiated themselves from the upper strata of the erstwhile Third Estate by wearing pantaloons, as opposed to culottes or fancy knee breeches, hence the name sans culottes. Behaviourally, they refused to accept a subordinate position in society. From June 1793 to February 1794, the Parisian sans culottes helped in consolidating the revolutionary movement. They became important symbols of passion and patriotism for the Frenchman during the French Revolution. They were united by the common economic problems they faced and their hatred of wealth. The sans-culottes demanded that the revolutionary government immediately increase wages, fix prices, end food shortages, punish hoarders and most important, deal with the existence of counter-revolutionaries. In terms of their social ideals, they wanted laws to prevent extremes of both wealth and property. Their vision was of a nation of small shopkeepers and small farmers. They therefore favoured a democratic republic in which the voice of the common man could be heard. They participated in a variety of journees, such as the storming of the Bastille in July, the march of women to Paris to bring the monarchy back in October, the massacre at Champ de Mars, in July 1971 which was seen as the first true uprising against anti-imperialism, etc.

Eric Hobsbawm calls them the main “striking force of the revolution” and notes that the composition of the sans culottes was mostly of the labouring poor, shopkeepers, artisans, etc. It has been noted that during Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, the membership of the sans culottes expanded to include public functionaries and educated men, who did so to demonstrate their patriotism. Jacques Rene Herbert, a popular revolutionary, published a popular newletter- Pere Duchesne which was an important instrument in popularising the image of the typical sans culotte as a man in Revolutionary attire, holding a musket and smoking a pipe. The woodcut of this image was present on the front page. Herbert was guillotined in 1974, there was a marked decline in the influence of the sans culottes subsequently. This however, had lead to the fall of the Jacobin dictatorship in 1794. The end of their public role came about in 1795 after their defeat in several popular uprisings.

When one talks about the legacy of the revolution for the rural and urban poor, one must keep in mind the differences in the desires that both groups had. The Jacobin government completely abolished feudalism by 1793. The peasants had desired a greater possession of land and during the revolution, a lot of land was newly up for sale as land of the Church and many nobles had been confiscated. This resulted in an increase in the amount of land that the peasantry owned by about 30-40%. However, this is not necessarily good for modernisation because what one witnessed then was the rise of a class of small peasants who owned small land holdings, not enough to produce an amount that would be economically beneficial. The uprisings, while being anti-feudalism, were not pro-capitalist as there still existed a lot of hostility in the countryside towards capitalism by the peasants who feared for their livelihoods. There is also absolutely no doubt amongst historians that the insurrections had led to the politicisation of the peasantry, for the rebellions could no longer be seen as simple ‘food riots’.

As for the urban elements, there had long been an assumption that the protesting crowds was made up of criminals and the anti-social elements of society. However, Lefebvre, Soboul and Rude have all done pioneering work in this field. According to them, initially due to a decline in growth and the economy, there had been great unemployment in society, this, though, did not mean that criminal elements had overtaken the movement in urban areas for the leaders of the movement came from respectable sections of the lower classes. Leadership of the movement originated from the old city centres, not the newly settled areas, this is why collective feelings of trust existed amongst the protestors in certain areas.

The French Revolution, therefore, marked a great step in the politicisation of the French people despite them not receiving a great many number of civil or political liberties. The Constitutions of 1791 and 1795 were similar in the sense that there was no monarchical rule during this period, and it was only the Constitution of 1793 that provided suffrage to adult males, but it was never truly enforced. Therefore, to conclude, it can be stated that while many historians still view the crowd of the French Revolution with a certain amount of disinterest, there is growing academic research on them, their objectives, the important role they played and the legacy that they left behind.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Sutherland, D.M.G., France 1789-1815: Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Fontana Press, London, 1985.
  • Kafker, Frank and Laux, James, The French Revolution: Conflicting Interpretations, Ranhom House, New York.
  • Salvemini, Gaetano, The French Revolution 1788-1792, Jonathan Cape Ltd., London, 1954.
  • Goodwin,Albert, The French Revolution, Harper and Row Publishers, London, 1962.
  • Shennan, J.H., France Before the Revolution, Lancaster Pamphlets, 1983.
  • Roberts, J.M, The French Revolution, Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Furet, François, Interpreting the French Revolution Cambridge University Press, 1981.
  • Lefebvre, Georges, The Coming of the French Revolution,Princeton University Press, 2005
  • Hobsbawm, Eric, The Age of Revolution 1789-1848, Vintage Books, New York, 1996.
  • Hampson, Norman, A Social History of the French Revolution, Routledge, London, 2006.
  • Jones, P.M, The Peasantry in the French Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 1988.