A Disruptive Force: The Growth of the Royal Bureaucracy

The spirit of communal independence and the readiness of communities to take the seigneur to court coincided with the intendant's more active intervention in village affairs. The institution of a court action was one area in which the intendant's supervision and consent were critical. The intendant's endorsement of a community's case frequently provided the final incentive for a community to stand firm against its seigneur. For example, in 1771 the intendant, mistrustful of the seigneur's efforts to rewrite the terrier, instructed the inhabitants of Thorey-sous-Charny to insist on examining the lord's titles. Intendant Amelot wrote to the subdelegate that a thorough investigation of the titles should be undertaken, "all the more rightly since it was already discovered that M. de Gamay intends to create certain droits which have never existed."^[69] In 1782, when giving permis-

[68] The changing language and strategy used in the late-eighteenth-century court cases between lord and peasant is still largely an unexplored area, research in which promises substantial rewards for those seeking to understand the Revolution. The problem is not the dearth but the abundance of sources. Access to the material is barred by its sheer volume and lack of organization. Because it has yet to find an archivist, the history of these cases has not found a historian. The facta collected in the Fonds Saverot and Fonds Carnot in Dijon's public library are the most important and best-cataloged source, but they are not complete enough to allow anything more than a preliminary treatment of the subject. Those collections rarely contain facta from both sides in a dispute. Nor do they present the decision of the judge. But they do suggest tendencies and raise questions. Thorough research of this unexplored area depends on the still uninventoried archives of the parlement.

[69] AD, C-1709, Thorey-sous-Charny, 1771: "Débats avec M. de Ganay, coseigneur de Thorey, au sujet de la reconnaissance de ses droits." Includes correspondence of subdelegate with the intendant.

sion to the inhabitants of Talmay to dispute the lord's four banal, the intendant suggested that since the community was going to court, they question as well "whether they must suffer the servitude of the right of passage that M. de Talmay claims to have in the meadow of the said place."^[70] After losing their case in the local bailliage court, the inhabitants of Saulx-le-Duc were reluctant to continue their suit disputing the lord's terrier . The community's lawyer, M. Pataille, wrote to the intendant asking him to persuade the community to carry its case to the next level of jurisdiction.^[71] Obviously, Pataille had some reason to believe that the intendant would support the community's case and could influence its decision.

The intendant's intervention on the side of peasant rights was equally direct in 1774, when M. de Flammerans, the seigneur of Missery, asked the inhabitants to sign a new terrier . Because the lord had refused to consider reducing an annual fee for guet et garde, the community hesitated and demanded more time so that a lawyer could review the titles. First, the community needed the intendant's permission to impose a taille négotialle to finance the preliminary review. The intendant's approval angered Flammerans. The subdelegate reported: "There was no recourse other than a tax. The inhabitants asked for it, [and] to refuse them the tax would have been to take away their means of self-defense; that is what determined the ordinance of September 30, 1774; and that was what angered M. de Flammerans because it put weapons into the hands of his inhabitants against him."

The review suggested that the legal basis of some of the articles in the new terrier was not verifiable from the lord's titles. The lord was unwilling to negotiate, however; he argued that his lawyers were experts who could not be mistaken. The community was left with no recourse but to seek satisfaction in court. It presented to the intendant a délibération in which fifty of fifty-eight inhabitants asked for permission to collect a tax to pay a lawyer to research the lord's titles. In endorsing this second request, the intendant further angered Flammerans, who

[70] AD, C-833, Talmay, 1782: Procès-verbal; comments from the intendant, p. 5.

[71] AD, C-1223, Saulx-le-Duc, 1782: Pataille to intendant.

then accused him of intriguing with the inhabitants of Missery. The lord decided to make a personal visit to Missery to persuade the inhabitants to abandon their suit. The subdelegate observed that apparently "M. de Flammerans, seeing that he had not been able to abuse the good faith of M. Amelot [the intendant], schemed in his parish. Besides, he was not afraid of showing himself to be soliciting for the opponents, though from decency he should not have appeared to take any side in this affair or to involve himself in it." Flammerans successfully intimidated forty-three inhabitants, who petitioned to have the case withdrawn. The intendant rejected that petition because he was certain the seigneur had pressured those forty-three inhabitants to sign. Since he was certain that the community's grievances were well founded, he ordered the inhabitants who did not sign to continue the suit and instructed them that communal funds could still be used to finance the case. The intendant commented: "The more one examines this affair, the more one sees reign the pettiness and spirit of intrigue that the seigneur of Missery has not feared exhibiting from the outset of this dispute and that was all the more ridiculous since he [the lord] was shown a délibération of fifty inhabitants who wished to sue against eight who did not."^[72]

Intendants often intervened to help communities resist requests for guet et garde . In 1766 the inhabitants of Chazelle were asked by their seigneur, M. Voisenet, to repair the doors of the château. The seigneur even agreed to contribute half of the expenses if the village agreed to rebuild the door totally in iron. He further promised to discharge them from all repairs for one hundred years. Despite these inducements, Intendant Amelot ordered the community to delay until an expert could report on the state of the doors and advise the best way to repair them.^[73] In 1774 the subdelegate commented that the request by the seigneur of Missery for guet et garde should be treated with caution since the seigneur had transformed the structure into a "château agréable"

[72] AD, C-1651, Missery, 1774: Debates with the seigneur over the "reconnaissance générale des droits seigneuriaux."

[73] AD, C-1649, Chazelle, 1766: Procès-verbal containing "Débats avec le seigneur et les habitants de Chazelle-l'Echo, au sujet des réparations de la porte et des menus emparements du château."

at the inhabitants' expense. "The changes to the château," the subdelegate argued, "had altered the nature of the place, and since it could no longer offer shelter to the inhabitants, they should be liberated from all maintenance expenses." He said he thought the community could find legal grounds for refusing payment. Nevertheless, the village inhabitants feared the seigneur might increase the amount of his request and were about to consent. The intendant objected. He insisted that as protection for the community, at least an eighteen-year limit be placed upon the seigneur's right to ask again for payment. To further protect the inhabitants, the intendant ordered a survey of the present state of the moat, as well as an additional report once the work was completed. After the affair was terminated, the subdelegate made clear that he strongly objected to the seigneur's request: "The continuation of guet et garde is of dubious utility. Public tranquility does not require the maintenance of those old fortresses, most of which today have become no more than country residences; their present appointments in no way correspond to their original functions."^[74] In 1781 the community of Chauvirey reported that it would pay the charges requested for guet et garde "to avoid legal costs that could be considerable." Intendant Feydeau remarked to the inhabitants of Diancy and Jonchery, who, unlike those of Chauvirey, had refused to pay, that they had taken a much wiser course in seeking legal consultation. He added that "it seems the inhabitants of Chauvirey would acquit themselves without reflection. It is the wisdom of the tutors of communities to stop them." The intendant insisted that acquiescence to the lord now would only invite new charges later, so he ordered the community of Chauvirey to obtain the advice of two lawyers.^[75] In 1782 the seigneurial agent at the château of Vianges requested contributions from the fourteen villages that once had depended on the château for protection in times of danger. The intendant was incensed. He wrote to the subdelegate:

I notice that he [the seigneurial agent] has actively but uselessly prosecuted these communities. It would have been easy to avoid those prosecu-

[74] AD, C-1651, Missery: Subdelegate to intendant, 24 Feb. 1777.

[75] AD, C-655: Judgment of the intendant, 1781. "Obligation des habitants de Jonchery et de Chauvirey, de contribuer aux menus emparements du château de Vianges."

tions if only I had been consulted directly. I am persuaded that Madame la marquise de Vianges would disapprove if only she were informed. Please inform her agent that I am very ill-disposed toward his conduct and that I recommend that he does not put any further money into pursuing his object. The expenses will only fatigue the communities without procuring for him the funds he desires. After all, he can only receive payment if I authorize the community to raise the funds. Thus, you should try to make him understand that the interests of his constituents require that he address me, and not the inhabitants.^[76]

The intendant wanted to protect communities from unreasonable imposts, but he also wanted to prevent future lawsuits that would drain communal resources. Consenting to an illegal reconnaissance or an unsound claim to triage would only lead to future conflicts. Thus, the intendant encouraged communities to be sure that seigneurial claims were well established in the hope that such issues might be resolved once and for all. It was to this end, and not to foment trouble between lord and peasant, that intendants recommended that communities ask a lawyer to examine and to verify the lord's titles before agreeing to a claim to triage or reconnaissance . For example, in 1781 the intendant recommended that to prevent future strife, the community of Villers-la-Faye carefully investigate the lord's titles before consenting to his claim to one-third of the communal woods under the right of triage . The intendant wrote: "It is much better that the inhabitants require from now on the verification of the seigneur's titles than to cede to him what he requests today." It would be much better to be sure now than to be sorry later. He added, "I painfully observe communities sustaining lawsuits, but I must not allow them to give up their properties without just cause."^[77]

The preceding examples would seem to indicate that the intendants were unsympathetic to feudal exactions such as seigneurial banalités . Although they strongly believed in protecting private property, the intendants would probably have distinguished between feudal property and purely economic property such as rent. Such distinctions were already being made by the

[76] AD, C-1646, Bar-le-Regulier: Intendant to subdelegate, March 1782. "Imposition pour la réparation des ponts et fossés du château de Vianges."

[77] AD, C-1551, Villers-la-Faye, July 1781: "Contestation avec le seigneur au suiet du droit de triage."

Parlement of Paris, but there was a tendency for the Parlement of Dijon to refuse to cite the precedents of the Parisian parlement. Leaders of the Burgundian parlement, such as its last premier président, Bouhier, opposed following the lead of Paris and insisted that all rulings of courts in Burgundy be consistent with Burgundian customs. Despite such strong opposition from the parlementary magistrates, lawyers in Dijon cited decisions handed down by the Parlement of Paris on behalf of their clients. From the evidence it is not clear whether the intendants consistently supported one side or the other in these broader disputes over the autonomy of Burgundian jurisprudence. Such tactics as citing the precedents of the Parisian parlement had at least their tacit approval, for the intendants authorized many cases that were built upon arguments originating in the Parisian court. This is not to say that the intendants believed the Parlement of Paris should dictate the laws of the nation. It does suggest that, in decisions concerning the seigneurs' right to collect dues in general, the intendants favored the most liberal jurisprudence.^[78]

The growth of the intendant's power had a far-reaching influence on relationships between lord and peasant. We have just seen the effect on such relationships of the intendant's direct and immediate support of communal rights. More significant is that the king's servants were increasing their power at the expense of seigneurial authority. By the second half of the eighteenth century, whenever matters concerning village finances were at issue, the community could bypass its lord and correspond directly with the king's bureaucratic representative in the province. This trend paved the way for the collapse of the seigneur's leadership of the village. In the late eighteenth century, the lord and his agents had little contact with the daily routines of village government. The village syndic was now directly responsible to the intendant and not to the seigneurial judge. The bureaucracy never became so strong and efficient that it could eliminate entirely the seigneur's local role, but it was strong enough to give the peasants an alternative to his authority in the

[78] See AD, C-833, 1782: Procès-verbal, p. 2. Also AD, C-747, Cheuge, March 1789: "Débat avec le fermier du seigneur pour la banalité du four," with decision of the intendant.

village. As a result of being able to choose between two alternatives, the community became more assertive.

In the early seventeenth century, Burgundian seigneurs still protected their peasants against marauding armies, brigands, and even royal taxes. The seigneurs provided, as well, a wide range of administrative and judicial services, and in the Estates of Burgundy, they represented the villages before the king. In the eighteenth century, seigneurs performed few such services. Moreover, many of the seigneur's administrative functions were now performed by the intendant. And, in a complete reversal of roles, the intendant was beginning to protect inhabitants from seigneurial exactions. In many areas, the intendant's protection was more extensive than the seigneurs' had ever been. The intendant attempted to find ways to indemnify communities that were victims of natural disasters.^[79] By improving market communications, the intendant sought to guarantee food supplies in time of shortage. In the seventeenth century, the devastation of roaming mercenary soldiers, living off the land, had been more serious than that of plague or famine, and these men were often the harbinger of both. Now the intendant imposed strict discipline on the troops and kept them out of the villages.

Since the intendant and his subdelegate had taken over many of the seigneurie's administrative functions, contact between the village inhabitants and the seigneurie had degenerated into disputes with the estate managers and the wealthy fermiers (seigneurial revenue collectors) who cultivated his domain. They were outsiders whose interests clashed with those of the village. Stating that suits against the lord were contrary to their interests, they often refused to share the costs. The village argued that all who possessed communal rights or shared the use of communal properties had a stake in the outcome. In 1774 three inhabitants of St. Martin-de-la-Mer who described themselves as

[79] In fact, communities had come to expect aid from the intendant. In 1786 the curé of Talant wrote to the intendant that the winegrowers in his parish were "ruined this year by harvesting the grapes at exorbitant cost and by not selling nonquality wine, which remains in the cellars. They await impatiently that the goodness of a wise and swift government come to their aid and obtain for them the means that it [the government] decides will be the best to relieve them from the misery into which they have fallen" (AD, C-15, subdelegation of Dijon, parish of Talant).

"lessees, or cultivators of the seigneur's land," along with the farmer of the lord's revenues, refused to pay the costs of the community's lawsuit against its seigneur, which the community had lost. These four claimed that they were "so completely recognized as outsiders that the community has never called them for any assembly." They added that they were "being forced to pay a portion of the fees of a lawsuit, from which they will never be able to draw any advantage and from which they will profit if the seigneur wins." The community insisted that

It seems hard on a fermier to be forced to take sides against his seigneur for the sole purpose of preserving the public good; it seems equally hard on an individual to be constrained to join a lawsuit for the preservation of communal rights when his residence is only accidental and momentary. But these considerations must cease from the moment that the fermiers or the seigneur's representatives enjoy the same rights as the other inhabitants; everything that relates to the public good is shared with them, and it is just by virtue of their participation in the advantages that result from tenancy that they contribute to the expense of maintaining these rights. It is a charge that falls on the entire body, of which he is a part.

The four claimed that, as "fermiers of the seigneurie," they did not enjoy the same rights as the other inhabitants; they enjoyed only those rights belonging to the seigneur. Nine years later, the court ruled in the community's favor because determination of who should pay the taille négotialle for the court costs was based on the rolls for the taille royale . "It is necessary to order that the imposition be made in proportion to an individual's tax assessment and that it be demanded from all the individuals included on the tax rolls."^[80] This decision of the court invited the four to countersue on the grounds that since they paid the taille royale, they should enjoy the other privileges that the community enjoyed. This case was typical. The lord's fermier usually did not have incolate rights (privileges associated with village residency) and therefore could not use communal properties. Yet the community expected him to help pay the costs of lawsuits, as did the other inhabitants. Such disputes only

[80] AD, C-1662, Saint Martin-de-la-Mer, May 1774 to 21 June 1775, 24 Feb. 1776, 27 June 1776, 23 July 1776, 11 Jan. 1777 to 1783: Procès-verbal. A similar dispute arose in 1781 in Flagey-les-Auxonnes.

intensified the antagonism between the fermier and the community; they are a further indication that the community and the seigneurie were moving in opposite directions.

Considering the increase in the intendant's activities, it should be no surprise that in the late 1760s, petitions by communities to the intendant often began, "You who are the protector of communities."^[81] This sentiment and expression had once been reserved for the seigneur alone. Not only had the intendant replaced the seigneur as the community's protector, but he was now the village's link with the crown; the lord no longer acted as mediator between the king and the village. It was by petitioning the intendant that a community gained access to the king's authority. The lord still belonged to a social elite headed by the king as first gentleman of gentlemen, but in the province the intendant alone represented the king's preeminent authority as sovereign.

The events after 1789 suggest that what the communities had come to expect from the intendant perhaps exceeded what the intendant could actually do for them. Help in limiting or abolishing seigneurial exactions was foremost among these expectations. In January 1770, when the new seigneur of Grenant made unprecedented demands on the community, the inhabitants wrote to the intendant, asking him to "interpose your powerful authority to make these persecutions stop and to see that justice is done."^[82] Communities even criticized the intendant for supporting those seigneurial rights that remained intact. For example, in 1785 the cure of Thorey-sous-Charny wrote to the intendant protesting the seigneur's doubling of his parish's dues under droit d'indire . He emphasized that "we have only one resource [referring to the intendant's protection] . . . [and can

[81] For example, in 1772 the inhabitants of Bligny began a letter to the intendant with "You are the protector of communities" (AD, C-906).

[82] AD, C-659, Grenant, 1770: Letter from community to intendant, signed by "les habitans sachant signer [the inhabitants who know how to sign their names]." The document seems to have been sent door to door and signed secretly. It was not the result of an assembly meeting, since the new seigneur did not allow the village assembly to meet; he hoped in this way to block resistance to his program of reinforcing the collection of seigneurial dues. The subdelegate explained the inhabitants' plight to the intendant: "They could not oppose him as a community because they were forbidden to assemble, and . . . to discuss anything would continually expose each of them to the threat of lawsuits, which would ruin them to the point that they would have to leave the area."

make only] one last effort against tyranny." The curé was disturbed because the intendant had not seemed eager for the community to seek redress in the courts; he expected that in the name of justice the intendant would intervene on the community's behalf. By not doing so, he warned, "the protector of communities is made out to be the oppressor."^[83] The implication here was that if the intendant failed to aid communities, he was supporting seigneurial rights.