Chapter IV: , VII (56)

"France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness.
Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving.
Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he
passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants
had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and
the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All
the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands,
in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French
generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to
defend their own frontier. … In 1710, while the Whig
ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when
it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one
more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions.
The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of
Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the
conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding
year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip
within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in
the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly
all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands,
including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even
Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy
the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from
Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question
of the Spanish succession. … The French troops had already
been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the
Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more
assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns
in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of
the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the
continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however,
insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson
by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the
negotiations were broken off."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 1._

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

{1246}

FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

FRANCE: A. D. 1714.
The desertion of the Catalans.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Death of Louis XIV.
The character of his reign.

Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years,
having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin,
governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had
extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality
in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the
exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as
responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the
judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the
exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all
rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no
responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience.
It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction
genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse,
which made him upset one after the other the twofold system
founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad
of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection
of the independence of states and European civilisation. At
the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years
had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in
Europe, impartial towards the various communions of
Christians, the different forms of governments, and the
internal revolutions of the states. Although France was
catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first
place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with
republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with
regicide England. No other interest but that of the
well-understood development of the national resources had
weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of
her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special
interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of
the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were
admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the
overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe,
which might be justly called the French system, and the
abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived
after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a
succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy
of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions
made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to
James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the
acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France,
preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of
misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb,
all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and
conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after
royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two
ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince
endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object
of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the
reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant
march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded
hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of
fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the
people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy
changed into distress,—the ruin of the finances, industry,
and agriculture—the exhaustion of all the resources of the
country,—the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the
dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a
bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the
enthusiasm of their confidence and love."

_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers
État or Third Estate in France,
chapter 9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Accession of King Louis XV.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.

"Louis XIV. … left France excessively exhausted. The State
was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
to enslave the wills and consciences of men. … The weight of
the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
a violent altercation.
{1247}
As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. …
Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
were necessities. … Louis XV. attained his majority February
13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
[Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."

_V. Duruy,
History of France,
chapters 52 and 55._

ALSO IN:
_W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 1, chapters 11-17,
and volume 2, chapters 1-3._

_F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapter 1._

_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency._

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1719.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
War with Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
John Law and his Mississippi Scheme.

"When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he
found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was
three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the
expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon
advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles,
less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. … In such
desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was
ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy
was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This
new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from,
half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue
and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above
six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks
broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of
keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic
stories. … He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great
school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system'
which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman
was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus,
duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes,
refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination
at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in
Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived
for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the
regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy
of his 'system' in his pocket. … There was a dash of daring
in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar
turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. …
Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point
correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man
not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes.
Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was
crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not
to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the
credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the
examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove
the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a
bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes
guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands,
exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of
taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to
be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General.
The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now
admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous
extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. … While
the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have
been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some
proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a
promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as
that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared;
then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed
to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in
silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a
promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on
the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient
of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake
public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of
the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not
calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in
the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been
elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his
name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into
insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been
adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each
were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the
assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which
should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the
revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of
merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the
farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was
to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The
regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a
proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be
received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four
per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was
formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and
obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the
trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the
Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same
monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now
resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact
received little attention.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

{1248}

"Louisiana was described as a paradise. … Shareholders in
the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of
trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a
country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état
were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi
scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were
declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken
with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were
sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new
diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then
50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the
rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express
their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and
called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,'
respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party
who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The
State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions;
government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To
meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a
premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with
joy—they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents'
eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The
gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of
archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants
for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for
several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves
in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. … By this
time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in
the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties;
the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive
privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South
Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company
were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the
Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the
regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the
mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every
branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its
police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege
was followed by a new issue of shares. … The shares of 500
franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became
impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the
Place Vendome. … The excitement spread to England [where the
South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].

See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

… Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down
together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long
only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be
whispered that those in the secret were realizing their
profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole
edifice came down with a crash. … No sooner was it evident
that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only
man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."

_Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
volume 1, chapter 1._

_A. Thiers,
The Mississippi Bubble._

_W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 2, chapter 2._

_C. Gayarre,
History of Louisiana, second series,
lecture 1._

_Duke de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs:
abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15._

FRANCE: A. D. 1720.
The fortifying of Louisbourg.

See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.

FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
Character and reign of Louis XV.
The King's mistresses and their courtiers
who conducted the government.
State and feeling of the nation.

After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of
about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of
the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de
Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in
1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen
years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his
own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at
any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's
mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France,
and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose
reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and
prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state
during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies
seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon,
Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and
Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon
and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the
ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de
Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most
distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour
from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died,
but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la
Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon
after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so,
nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."

_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 3._

"The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years,
but it was not without a considerable effect upon the
destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and
the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new
activity imparted to business during this period was an event
of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose
that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt
against the government and the institutions of the old regime.
The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth
century was possible, not because the condition of the people
had grown worse, but because it had become better. The
material development of that country, during the fifty years
that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no
parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation,
nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the
government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in
1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot
of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation
upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there
were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found
only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was
more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more
prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. …
{1249}
Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both
social and political changes. … But while social conditions
had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New
wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used.
Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than
in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal
privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law
of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. … A
demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges
and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of
others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an
additional impetus from the writings of theorists,
philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of
literature in France during the eighteenth century was
important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of
political and social change was shown by the writers of the
period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. …
The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared
the minds of the French people for political change, and
accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The
doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a
people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil
acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by
contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which
they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the
reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his
cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. … Few
events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the
extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were
excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. … A preacher
hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation
adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king
himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the
explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his
people, without having done anything for them, because the
French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.'
This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal
for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom
they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's
subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were
those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of
loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The
administration of the country was as despicable as the
character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been
suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always
preserved a commanding position in Europe. … But now defeat
and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and
proud. … The low profligacy into which the king had sunk,
the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress,
the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his
plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that
had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some
curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which
the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at
Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in
1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were
six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there
were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures
the decline in the affection and respect of the French people
for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had
thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."

_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapters 2-8._

_J. Murray,
French Finance and Financiers under Louis XV._

FRANCE: A. D. 1725.
The alliance of Hanover.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
The Second Treaty of Vienna.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).

"The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in
Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. …
As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the
series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated
the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting
for it entered into an agreement against the maritime
supremacy of that power. … The commercial privileges granted
to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts
to be intolerable."

_L. von Ranke,
History of England,
book 22, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

"It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
important document of the middle period of the 18th century
and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
wars—war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756—the simple
reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
attained its objects. … The first two articles define the
nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
{1250}
Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
follows:—'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
letter of treaties'"—to which end the two kings make common
cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
and irrevocable Family Compact. … Here is the explanation of
the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
allowed to creep into trade.'"

_J. R. Seeley,
The House of Bourbon
(English History Review, January, 1886)._

ALSO IN:
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapter 22 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
Final acquisition of Lorraine.
Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.

In the war with Austria which was brought about by the
question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D.
1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy,
while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her
moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own
interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached
Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick,
who had been called away from eight years of happy and
charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first
time in the French army their one great general of the coming
age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of
Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. … He is best
known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish
much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with
the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists
constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far
from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and
Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734
French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had
sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's
grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his
grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged
Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French
generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill
his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony
and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to
be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an
almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on
the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on
the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By
skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and
without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their
army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince
Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and
having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before
Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the
trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed
away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.:
France never again saw his like till the genius of the
Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at
first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the
campaign, and that the French army must get back across the
Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and
Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire,
however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding
it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld,
who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold
on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg.
Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things
had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran
Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under
Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. … Villars found it quite
easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for
Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once
began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the
campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking
interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw
up his command, and started for France: on the way he was
seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after
Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long
series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny
and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from
Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly
contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested
their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced
idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy
check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however
emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at
Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French
remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time
of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's
movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign
unimportant.
{1251}
As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the
French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available
force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able
to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don
Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of
joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards
then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the
two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards.
In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for
the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in
order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no
lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not
last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna
followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in
Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735)
were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and
Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be
erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France
obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus
Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to
the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French
administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as
an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in
the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the
Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the
Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the
much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely
united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."

_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 52 (volume 6)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
The Question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
French responsibility for the war.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741;
and 1741 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1741-1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741, to 1743.

FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (October).
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

"France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance
at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable
as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the
French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it
the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of
November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs,
it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference
to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia,
and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V.
transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant
Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and
Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of
Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested
from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the
Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even
something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain
circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which
case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and
also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was
to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."

_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

FRANCE: A. D. 1744-1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession in America.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744, and 1745.

A. D. 1741-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
Germany and the Netherlands.

See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
valley and the West.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
New World.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Causes and provocations of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A.D. 1755-1756;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Naval reverse on the Newfoundland coast.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1755-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in America.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

FRANCE: A. D. 1756 (May).
The Seven Years War: Minorca wrested from England.

See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

FRANCE: A. D. 1757-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.

FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
Count Lally's failure.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

FRANCE: A. D. 1760.
The Seven Years War: The surrender of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (August).
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

"On the 15th of August [1761] … Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
privileges as the natives.
{1252}
Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
Spain. … Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

The force of circumstances soon brought them to the measure.

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 37 (volume 4)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
Proceedings against the Jesuits.
Their expulsion from the kingdom.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The Peace of Paris.
America lost, nothing gained.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
of Paris.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

FRANCE: A. D. 1768.
Acquisition of Corsica.

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
The Assembly of Notables.
The Parliament of Paris.

"Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his
propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good
disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very
early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and
consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his
confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian
princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who
possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the
Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to
his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early
period the long career of his vacillations. … The public
voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of
the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with
firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and
profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans
of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none
besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.'
Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the
highest orders in the state, who were interested in
maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister
proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with
regret. During his whole life, which was only a long
martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right,
to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for
carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the
court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues
and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his
ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the
necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department
Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a
banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of
Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man,
fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. …
Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means
to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. … But it
required something more than financial artifices to put an end
to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to
reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him
than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his
plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781].
The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal;
everybody admitted it. … The courtiers, who derived
advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an
end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without
its costing them a single sacrifice. … The parliaments also
talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the
sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of
the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal
barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and
the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends,
applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious
enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of
affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained
the same. … An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in
1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M.
d'Ormesson]. … Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in
resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men,
and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. …
That future which had been counted upon now approached: it
became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was
impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet
the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could
be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression
of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend
the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the
nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by
Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the
latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the
privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne,
therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly,
to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his
plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or
by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was
composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and
magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some
magistrates of the provinces. … Very warm discussions
ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the
plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral
and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry
them into execution."
{1253}
Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de
Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the
promises which they had made, readily consented to all that
they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression
of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial
assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. … Had M. de Brienne
known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he
actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented
to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and
without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the
adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from
them—all would probably have been over; the parliament,
pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. …
Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays
occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted
only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to
gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by
which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long
discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the
'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of
corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the
land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten
the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish.
It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the
simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and
the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with
the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing
the first without entering into explanations respecting the
second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the
majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the
interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the
peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the
prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of
expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états'
(statements) exclaimed … —'It is not statements, but
States-General that we want.' … The utterance of a single
word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it
was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly
demanded."

_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21._