France, 1774-1815

Topic Content
Week 7 Learn Lesson 2

Introduction
At its outbreak in 1789, many people believed that the French Revolution
marked the dawn of an age of freedom and equality in France.
During the course of the revolution there were widespread changes in just about
every sphere of life in France.
At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church lost much of its power.
The French Revolution is generally divided into three = stages:
 The first stage, from 1789 to 1795.
 The second stage, up to 1799.
 The final stage was the rule of Napoleon, who took the title ‘First consul’
in 1799 and established himself as the country’s leader and became
emperor in 1804.

France pre-1789
Ruled by the absolute monarch, Louis XVI.
Population of approximately 27 million.
Significant regional differences across the
country, along with strong tradition for each
part of France to deal with local issues in its
own way.
Different legal systems which dated back for
centuries.
Regions had different systems of taxation and
there were also customs barriers between some
parts of France, preventing trade from moving
freely around the country.

1
The Ancien Regime; problems and policies of Louis XVI
French society was divided into estates prior to the French Revolution.
King Louis was the top of the social hierarchy followed by three estates.
The estate to which a person belonged was very important because it
determined that person’s rights, obligations and status.

2
The King
• King Louis XVI was at the top of the social hierarchy.
• Crowned king in 1775, he was young and inexperienced.
• Had a great sense of duty and many good intentions of ruling well.
• Inherited a system in which the king had absolute power.

The First Estate – The Roman Catholic Church

Over 130,000 members, approx. 1% of population.
Wealthy organisation which owned 10% of the land.
Paid no taxes.
Controlled most of the education and approved (or not) all publications.
The most senior posts in the Church went to the aristocracy, often totally
inexperienced young men lacking interest in performing their religious duties.
Ordinary clergy from the lower classes were unable to progress to more senior
roles.
Did not pay taxes but did pay a contribution to government, which was paid by
the lower clergy.
The Church had many privileges, including the collection of tithes (one-tenth of
a person’s income or produce) which was formally taken in support of the
Church and clergy.

3
The Second Estate – The Aristocracy
Approximately 300,000, 2% of the population.
Owned around 30% of the land and most of the wealth.
Paid virtually no taxes.
Exempt from things like conscription, and instead they enjoyed a range of
benefits such as being able to hunt where they wished.
Dominated all key posts at court, in the government, Church, judiciary and the
army.
Tended to be hostile to those involved in trade and commerce and did not want
to associate with the lower classes.
Similar to the clergy, there were divisions between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’
aristocracy. Highest lived at the Palace of Versailles in royal splendour, they
had access to power, influence, the top jobs and pensions.
The poorer while anxious to retain their privileges often resented the power and
wealth of the higher nobility at Versailles.

The Third Estate – Everyone else!

About 97% of the population belonged to this estate.
80% of French population were poor peasants.
A diverse group.
They paid most of the taxes and had limited rights.
They resented the wealth and power of the Church and the nobility.

4
Week 7 Learn Lesson 3
Rural Peasants Urban Workers

- 80% of the population were poor - Three good harvests in 19 years

peasants. (1770 – 1789) causing rural
- Agriculture was not highly poverty and hunger.
developed and inefficient. - Inadequate living for those in the
- Peasants farmed tiny plots of land countryside so many peasants
and their main aim was to grow moved to the towns.
enough food to survive. - Growing urban population was
- Had to maintain the road for their
5
 landlords (unpaid). poor and unskilled.
- Landlords could hunt on their - Existing urban class saw their
land. wages decline as food prices rose.
- Forced to use their landlords’ - Bread formed about 75% of the
wine presses and flour mills at working class diet, spending up to
high price. 50% of its income.
- After a bad harvest prices would
soar creating fears of starvation
and no money for other
necessities.
- A decline in real wages, which
led to industrial unrest including
bread riots made matters worse.

The Middle Classes

A growing class in towns.
Well educated and rich - they owned about 20% of the land.
Involved in commerce, industry, law or medicine.
Increasingly involved in local government and administration but frustrated at
their lack of power.
Not able to access top jobs in government, military and the judiciary.

6
Not as heavily taxed as the peasantry but resented paying into a system they had
no say in.
Many traditional careers, for example, judges and tax collectors began to be
passed from father to son or could be bought for cash. Jobs were no longer
decided by ability.
Task:
Read the source and consider the following:
How is the court at Versailles portrayed by Arthur Young?
Do you think Young was correct in his statement that “good temper…
appears…so visible everywhere in France”? Why/why not?
Arthur Young, an English traveller through France in 1787, reports on
Versailles and Paris:
“Again to Versailles. In viewing the king’s apartment, which he had not left a
quarter of an hour, with those slight traits of disorder that showed he lived in it,
it was amusing to see the blackguard [dodgy] figures that were walking
uncontrolled about the palace, and even in his bedchamber; men whose rags
betrayed them to be in the last stage of poverty. Was I was the only person that
stared and wondered how the devil they got there?
It is impossible not to like this careless indifference and freedom from
suspicion. One loves the master of the house who would not be hurt or offended
at seeing his apartment thus occupied if he returned suddenly, for if there was
danger of this, the intrusion would be prevented. This is certainly a feature of
that good temper which appears to me so visible everywhere in France.”

7
Arthur Young, an English traveller through France in 1787, reports on
Versailles and Paris:
This great city [Paris] appears to be in many respects the most ineligible and
inconvenient for the residence of a person… of any that I have seen, and vastly
inferior to London. The streets are very narrow, and many of them crowded,
nine-tenths dirty, and all without foot pavements. Walking, which in London is
so pleasant and so clean that ladies do it every day, is here a toil and a fatigue to
a man, and an impossibility to a well-dressed woman. The coaches are
numerous, and what is much worse, there are an infinity of one-horse cabriolets,
which … render the streets exceedingly dangerous, without an incessant
caution. I saw a poor child run over and probably killed, and have been myself
many times blackened with the mud of the kennels.”
How does Arthur Young’s view of Paris compare to Versailles?
Would the ‘good temper mentioned earlier in the source exist across Paris?
How do you account for the differences?

8
Cartoon titled 'Le peuple sous l'ancien Regime'. Dated 19th Centur
Week 7 Explore lesson 1

9
King Louis XVI and the Parlements

10
[Link]
xvis-early-years/
[Link]

The Law and the Parlements

11
There was a hierarchy of royal courts stretching from the prevots, at the lowest
level, through 430 bailliage (sometimes known as seneschal) courts, to 13
parlements. The parlements were ancient institutions – ‘sovereign’ courts –
that traced their history back to the 13th century. At the start of the 18th
Century, 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, however 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.

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. Historically, the parlements had often served as a
check on royal power. While the parlements could not initiate or amend laws,
they did have an important role in the legislative process.

Each Parlement was manned by at least 12

magistrates all of whom had bought their
positions and became noblesse de robe (a noble
who had acquired office by purchase or through
a position; a member of the 2nd Estate in the
ancient regime). Whilst it was not a
requirement, intendants and Crown ministers
were often chosen from among these parlementaires. However, there had
been regular tension between kings and parlements throughout the 18th
Century. From 1763, the Paris Parlement had blocked a series of royal reforms
and policies and in 1771 Louis XV had tried to abolish the parlements
altogether. When Louis XVI took the throne in 1774 he restored them to their
previous status, but he did not find them easy to manage.

It was the parlements job to hear both civil and criminal cases that the local
courts could not solve. These parlements had also acquired other powers;
they controlled guilds, corporations (associations of people with mutual
interests, usually in business; guilds were specifically for members of the same
trade and their prime function was to maintain standards) and markets as well

12
as local government finances and law and order. So they too could come into
conflict with the intendants.

Perhaps the most important right of these

parlements, however, was that of
registering each of the King’s edicts to
ensure its conformity with previous
legislation and provincial codes. 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. With
this also came a right to remonstrate
(complain): the parlements could question
and criticise decrees and force the King to think again by sending a
remonstrance (a document sent by Parlement to the monarch protesting
against a royal decree or details of that decree). Such rights gave the
parlements tremendous power – particularly the Paris Parlement which always
took the lead and acted first.

The King could overrule his parlements and force the acceptance of an edict in
a process known as the lit de justice (a royal session of the Paris Parlement for
the compulsory registration of royal edicts; literally, a “bed of justice”, the
name derives from the portable canopied throne created for this ceremony in
the 14th Century) – but to do so could lay him open to the charge of acting
despotically, so it was something no monarch wished to do too often.

From the information above:

1. Find evidence that would support the argument that the parlements had
more power than the French monarch.
2. Similarly, find evidence that the French monarch had more power than
the parlements of France.

13
 Jacques Necker

Research and create a

profile summary of
Necker. Include his
background, role(s) in
government and
popularity.

14
French Law
Although new laws were made by the King in Council, they did not always go
unchallenged by the parlements. Furthermore, judgements on older laws (for
example land rights) varied geographically. The southern third of France was
governed by written law adapted from the Roman legal system with very clear
and rigid rules. The rest of France, however, operated a system of common
law, based on customary practice. Although such customs had been gradually
written down since the 15th Century, they varied significantly from one region
to the next.

Week 7 Explore lesson 2

Starter - What can you infer from Source A about the Age of Enlightenment?

Source A
- A

Philosopher Lecturing on an Orrery by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1766

15
Pressures for change (social, economic, and political, including the
Enlightenment)
Changes in the social and intellectual life of France in the latter half of the
eighteenth century led to greater demands for change. The different demands
can be categorised in the following ways:

- Social pressures
- Economic
- Political (including new ideas)

Social pressures

Economic pressures
Rising debt
Extravagant spending in court
Increased taxes
Bad harvests
High unemployment

16
Rising food prices
War
Source B

Source C

Source D - An etching by
Isaac Cruikshank, 12th
November 1788 titled ‘Le
Defecit’.
Louis XVI (right) stands,
knock-kneed, pointing out
to Necker a pile of empty
treasure-chests.

Study the sources above and answer the questions below:

3) What can you infer from Source B about the state of France’s finances
between the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XVI?
4) What can you infer from Source C about the state of France in 1788?
5) According to Source D why was France operating at a deficit in 1788?

17
Political pressures
For many educated Frenchmen, the lack of political rights and change to
participate was very frustrating. The old parliament had not met since 1614.
The power of the monarchy had grown during the seventeenth century,
especially under Louis XIV (1660-1715) who had promoted absolutism. His
grand palace at Versailles was symbolic of the power of the central French state.
Alternative ideas of shared power and the participation of a wider political
community emerged during the 18th century. These reforming ideas were
18
promoted by influential thinkers (or philosophes) and were part of a wider
movement known as ‘the Enlightenment’.

Each of these men challenged established ideas, institutions and social

structures. They encouraged argument and debate on a wider range of major
public issues. Choose one man to research and make brief notes on, include
what they did and/or how they challenged old traditions.

Spreading ideas
Many of the enlightened ideas were widespread amongst the nobility through
the cafes and salons of Paris.
The questioning of existing authority reached down to artisans and workers in
the form of scandal-mongering pamphlets and cartoons.
The thinkers challenged and undermined and although they might not have been
revolutionaries themselves, their ideas and approaches did influence many who
would become revolutionaries.

19
The target of such satires were almost always the monarchy and the privileged –
the king was impotent, the queen promiscuous and the aristocracy perverted –
much of this criticism did a lot to undermine respect for the privileged orders
and the monarchy.

The impact of the Enlightenment

Philosophes did not enjoy mass readership and even political pamphlets had a
limited circulation but as the spirit of criticism increased, so did censorship and
control.
The philosophes never offered a clear-cut programme of reform; nor did they
question the institution of the monarchy.
The ideas of the Enlightenment did not bring about a revolution – rather they
provided a framework within which it could take place i.e. once underway,
revolutionaries turned to the ideas of the Enlightenment for guidance.
20
6) Of the different pressures Louis faced, which do you think was the most
important? Why?
7) What sort of strategy might he have adopted to deal with these pressures?

21
Week 7 Explore 3
The reaction of Louis XVI to attempts to reforms by Jaques
Necker, 1777-1781
From 1777 to 1781, Necker was essentially
in control of France’s wealth.
Used loans to help fund the French debt and
raised interest rates rather than taxes.
Encouraged loans to finance French
involvement in the American Revolution.
In 1781, he published a work (Compte
rendu), in which he summarised the national
accounts to show transparency in
government.
However, the statistics presented were
completely false and misleading. He wanted
to show France in a strong financial position
when the reality was actually bleak.
He was forced to resign. (He was, however, re-
appointed in 1788).

Charles de Calonne
Necker was replaced by Calonne, an
experienced administrator, who made
three proposals:
- Reform the system of taxation
- Stimulate the economy
- Create confidence in France so it
could borrow money
The changes proposed were on a major
scale - introducing a land tax, payable by
all, including the Church, was likely to
have profound social effects.

22
Louis was persuaded to back the measures but other ministers (ranging from
those supportive of the parlements to those determined to uphold traditional
aristocratic privileges) opposed them.
To overcome the political deadlock, it was decided to put the measures to an
‘Assembly of Notables’.

THE ASSEMBLY OF NOTABLES

8) Read the information on the Assembly of Notables and then complete a
‘sketch chronology’ of the development of events between February 1787-
August 1788. You can only include individuals, dates, places, key terms and
statistics.
9) Challenge - who do you think was responsible for the political breakdown
between February 1787-August 1788?
The Assembly of Notables was an advisory council summoned by France’s
king, Louis XVI, during the fiscal crisis of the late 1780s. As its name suggests,
it was comprised of significant figures from the First and Second Estates. The
king hoped the Notables would endorse the tax reforms proposed by his
ministers. Instead, they blocked these reforms and recommended the
convocation of the Estates-General
Background
By the beginning of 1787, France’s fiscal crisis – the product of extravagant
spending, insufficient revenue and mounting debt – had pushed the nation to the
brink of bankruptcy. Louis XVI‘s ministers attempted to push through urgent
reforms but they were thwarted by opposition from the parlements.
On the advice of his financial chief Charles-Alexandre de Calonne, the king
called upon an ancient institution known as the Assembly of Notables. Two of
these assemblies were convened: the first in February 1787, the second in
November 1788.
Like the Estates-General, the Assembly of Notables had no constitutional
authority – but Calonne gambled on the Notables supporting his fiscal reforms,
an outcome that would give him the upper hand over the parlements. It was a
gamble that failed as the Notables also rejected his proposals.

Calonne’s reforms

23
Calonne’s solution to the fiscal crisis was more pragmatic than others. He
proposed significant cuts to government expenditure, removal of some trade
restrictions to free up commerce and the standardisation of indirect taxes like
the gabelle.
Most significantly, Calonne sought to limit the taxation privileges of the First
and Second Estates. He proposed a new tax on land, to be levied on landowners
based on the value of their holdings. This land tax would apply to all French
citizens, regardless of class or privilege.
Needless to say, Calonne’s proposed reforms were popular with most of the
Third Estate but were rejected by the church, the nobility and many wealthy
bourgeoisie. Realising the parlements would not support his proposed changes,
Calonne advised the king to convoke an Assembly of Notables.
First Notables since 1626
Like the Estates-General, the Assembly of Notables was an ancient but seldom-
used institution. It was a council of high-ranking nobles and clergymen
summoned at the king’s pleasure, usually in a time of crisis or uncertainty.
The function of the Assembly of Notables was to provide ideas and advice to
the crown. Only four of these Assemblies had been summoned in the previous
200 years, the most recent in 1626.
The Notables who gathered at Versailles in February 1787 contained 144 men,
only two of whom were not nobles or higher clergymen. Among their number
were 36 influential nobles, 14 bishops or archbishops and seven ‘Princes of the
Blood’, as well as magistrates from the parlements, provincial deputies and the
mayors of city governments.

More rejection
Unsurprisingly, the Notables did not respond well to Calonne’s reform package.
There was some in-principle agreement about the need for structural reform,
however, the Notables believed that any major changes – particularly those that
affected the privileges and power base of the Three Estates – must be debated
and approved by the Estates-General. Calonne’s prickly relationship with
members of the Assembly of Notables did not help the situation.
When it became clear the Notables would not endorse his proposals, Calonne
sought public support by publishing information about the fiscal crisis and his
attempts to resolve it.

24
This information exposed the urgent need for debt relief and tax reform,
highlighting the nation’s empty treasury and a deficit of 110 million livres in
1786. This infuriated both the Notables and the king, who dismissed Calonne on
April 7th.
Brienne also fails
Louis XVI replaced Calonne with Étienne Loménie de Brienne, the canny
Bishop of Toulouse.
Brienne seemed better placed to push through ambitious and unpopular fiscal
reforms. He was more measured in his speech and had fewer detractors than
Calonne. Brienne was also a favourite of Marie Antoinette, which gave him
some influence in the royal court.
In addition, Brienne was himself a member of the Assembly of Notables so he
had been a party to their earlier deliberations.
After consideration, Brienne presented the Notables with a reform package that
was not greatly different from Calonne’s. Brienne suggested a land tax on the
privileged orders and called for increased taxation contributions from the
church. He was able to persuade the parlements to register many of his minor
reforms, however, neither the parlements or the Notables would endorse a new
land tax or any changes to noble and ecclesiastical privilege.

Estates-General procedures
A second convocation of the Assembly of Notables was ordered by the king in
November 1788. This assembly was summoned shortly after the calling of the
Estates-General for May 1789.
This time, the king sought the Notables’ advice on political procedure rather
than taxation. He asked the Notables for guidance on how the Estates-General
should be selected, compiled and organised – and, most importantly, how it
should vote.
Their answer was straightforward: the Estates-General should adopt the same
procedures employed at its previous sitting in 1614. Each of the Three Estates
should meet separately. Each of the Estates should vote together, by order,
rather than allowing deputies to vote individually.

Third Estate outraged

25
This use of ancient procedure outraged members of the Third Estate, who
considered voting by order a means of asserting privilege. If the Estates voted
by order then the First and Second Estates would always vote together and the
Third Estate would always lose.
News of the Notables’ ruling reached the people in late November 1788. This
was around the time the king relaxed restrictions on the press, allowing greater
freedom of speech in publications and pamphlets. As a consequence, there was
a flood of political literature about voting procedures at the Estates-General and
the urgent need for political and fiscal reform
Some of this literature was moderate and thoughtful, some of it was radical or
obscene. A few pieces, like Emmanuel Sieyès’ What is the Third Estate?, had a
major influence on the political attitudes of France’s common class.
The Second Estate headed into the Estates-General hopeful of asserting their
political influence but they did not count on the determination of the Third
Estate. The ‘aristocratic revolution’ that forced the convocation of the Estates-
General was about to give way to a ‘bourgeois revolution’ that would conceive
a national assembly.

26
Cahiers de Doleances
Louis XVI announced the convocation of the Estates General in an August 1788
edict.
In January 1789, a further royal edict ordered the electors in each district to
compile a cahier de doléance.
The Cahiers as they were often known were the lists of grievances drawn up by
each of the three Estates in France, between March and April 1789.

- We demand that the tax band of the land at Vitry be altered. All the
adjoining lands are in the second band whilst ours, inferior as it is (half
liable to flooding, half stony) has been placed in the first band
- the total suppression of all privileges whatsoever
27
 - total destruction of all rabbits
- total abolition of the right to keep a dovecote
- herds to be forbidden entry to the meadows from March 1st
- the price of bread to be fixed at a lower price
- the export of grain to be absolutely forbidden
- suppression of the gabelle

Adapted from the cahier of the parish of Vitry-Sur-Seine, compiled in early

1789 for presentation to the Estates-General.

10) What can you infer from the source above about the grievances from the
Third Estate in South-eastern France?
11) Do you think these are radical demands in the context of France in 1789?

Cahiers
Most cahiers did not propose or demand radical political change, instead they
were framed politely and respectfully, expressing their loyalty, devotion and
supplication to Louis. They thanked the king for the opportunity to have their
say and expressed trust that he could reform and improve the nation.
There was a surprising level of agreement across the cahiers of all Three
Estates, particularly about social and political issues. The Three Estates
accepted the principle of constitutional reform and welcomed a move
representative government, in the guise of the Estates General.
The cahiers were more divided about the composition of the Estates General
and voting procedures. The clergy and nobility wanted ‘voting by order’ at the
Estates General, while the Third Estate sought ‘voting by head’.
The question of taxation reform was just as divisive. The peasantry and urban
workers were most concerned about unequal and rising levels of taxation,
particularly the tax on salt (gabelle).

28
Uncertain times
The announcement of the convening of the Estate General for the following
year triggered a national discussion about how the formation, operation and
powers 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 requirement for it to
take any specific form.
In December 1788 Necker (reappointed in the August after Brienne was
dismissed) persuaded Louis to double the number of Third Estate deputies.
12) Louis had doubled the number of Third Estate deputies but nothing was said
about voting by head. What problems might this cause when the Estate General
eventually met?

Week 7 Explore 4 Lesson

The meeting of the Estates General

Source E - The opening of the Estate General in Versailles, engraved by Isidore

Stanislas Helman after a drawing by Charles Monnet, painter to Louis XVI.

29
Published as part of a series of 1790 engravings titled ‘Short description of
fifteen prints on the main days of the Revolution.’

Source F
“The bodyguards and the Swiss guards were on duty at this Church. The
prayer stool for the King and queen, the chairs, all the seats for the royal
family and their retinue, as well as the vast canopy suspended from the vault,
were of purple velvet or of satin with gold-embroidered fleurs de lis (a symbol
for the royal court of arms).
The benches on the right were for the clergy, those on the left for the nobility
and places were reserved for the third estate near the choir. All these benches
were taken indiscriminately, just as the third estate felt inclined; they then
refused point blank to give them up to the nobility.
Once the King had arrived, Mass began. Sermon and Mass done, the King
went back to the Palace of Versailles by carriage, as did the Queen. There
were frequent shouts of “Long live the King!”; those of “Long live the
Queen!” were half-hearted.
No Queen of France has been less liked.”

Adapted from the journal of the marquis de Bombelles, a Court noble who
witnessed the Mass in the parish church of Notre Dame at Versailles, to
celebrate the opening of the Estates-General, 4th May 1789.
13) Read Source F and annotate Source E to show where each of the different
estates are sat.
14) What are your first impressions of the Estates-General?

Though its clear role was never determined the Estates General was the closest
thing France had to national law making and representative body.
It was made up of representatives from the three estates.
When Louis VXVI called the meeting of the Estates General On 5th May 1789,
it was the first time since 1614 that the body had met.
His predecessors had seen as a threat to their absolute power.

30
The First Estate consisted of Roman Catholic clergy, and it was by far the
smallest group represented in the Estates-General.
The Second Estate represented the nobility, which comprised less than 2 percent
of the French population.
The Third Estate represented the overwhelming majority of the French
population, from the wealthy urban elite to craftsmen and the peasantry.

15) Each Estate had an equal

vote. What problems do you think this could cause?

The meeting of the Estates General

Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in 1788, setting the date of its opening
for May 1, 1789. Because it had been so long since the Estates-General had
been brought together, there was a debate as to which procedures should be
followed.

31
The King agreed to retain many of the divisive customs which were the norm in
1614 but intolerable to the Third Estate at a time when the concept of equality
was central to public debate.
The most controversial and significant decision remained that of the nature
of voting. If the estates voted by order, the nobles and the clergy could
together outvote the commons by 2 to 1. If, on the other hand, each
delegate was to have one vote, the majority would prevail.
The number of delegates elected was about 1,200, half of whom formed the
Third Estate. The First and Second Estates had 300 each.
But French society had changed since 1614, and these Estates-General were not
like those of 1614. Members of the nobility were not required to stand for
election to the Second Estate and many were elected to the Third Estate.
The total number of nobles in the three Estates was about 400. Noble
representatives of the Third Estate were among the most passionate
revolutionaries, including Jean Joseph Mounier and the comte de Mirabeau.
On May 5, 1789, the Estates-General convened. The following day, the Third
Estate discovered that the royal decree granting double representation also
upheld the traditional voting by orders.
The apparent intent of the King and his advisers was for everyone to get
directly to the matter of taxes, but by trying to avoid the issue of representation
they had gravely misjudged the situation.
The Third Estate wanted the estates to meet as one body and for each delegate
to have one vote. The other two estates, while having their own grievances
against royal absolutism, believed – correctly, as history would prove – that
they would lose more power to the Third Estate than they stood to gain from the
King.
Necker sympathized with the Third Estate in this matter but lacked astuteness as
a politician. He decided to let the impasse play out to the point of stalemate
before he would enter the fray.
As a result, by the time the King yielded to the demand of the Third Estate, it
seemed to be a concession wrung from the monarchy rather than a gift that
would have convinced the populace of the King’s goodwill.
The suggestion to summon the Estates General came from the Assembly of
Notables installed by the King in February 1787. It had not met since 1614. The

32
usual business of registering the King’s edicts as law was performed by the
Parlement of Paris.
In 1787, it refused to cooperate with Charles Alexandre de Calonne’s program
of badly needed financial reform, due to the special interests of its noble
members.
On June 17, with the failure of efforts to reconcile the three estates, the
Communes – or the Commons, as the Third Estate called itself now – declared
themselves redefined as the National Assembly, an assembly not of the estates
but of the people. They invited the other orders to join them but made it clear
that they intended to conduct the nation’s affairs with or without them. The
King tried to resist.
On June 20, he ordered to close the hall where the National Assembly met, but
deliberations moved to a nearby tennis court, where they proceeded to swear the
Tennis Court Oath by which they agreed not to separate until they had settled
the constitution of France.
Two days later, removed from the tennis court as well, the Assembly met in the
Church of Saint Louis, where the majority of the representatives of the clergy
joined them.
After a failed attempt to keep the three estates separate, that part of the deputies
of the nobles who still stood apart joined the National Assembly at the request
of the King. The Estates-General ceased to exist, becoming the National
Assembly.
Using the information above, answer the following questions:
16) On what date did the Estate General meet?
17) What was the main reason for calling the Estate General?
18) What became the focus of the meeting?
19) On June 17 what did the Third Estate (Commune) declare?

33
Spiralling out of control
The King at last was forced to act and called for a séance royale (royal session)
where he would propose a series of reforms.
On the morning of June 20th, 1789, deputies in the newly formed National
Assembly gathered to enter the meeting hall only to find the doors locked and
guarded by royal troops.
Interpreting this as a hostile move by King Louis XVI and his ministers, the
National Assembly proceeded to the nearest available space an indoor tennis
court.
Here they swore an oath not to disperse until they had given France a
constitution and claimed that the king had no power to dissolve them.
The Tennis Court Oath

34
 Source G

20) Study the extract. Why does it suggest the Tennis Court Oath was
significant?

35
Jacques-Louis David, The Tennis Court Oath (1791), Musée National du
Château, Versailles.
21) How does the artist seek to portray the importance and drama of this event?
22) What key figures can we pick out?
23) How are they shown?

36