The Fall of the Stuarts

Century

INTRODUCTION

SECTION I. -- Wars.

THE history of western Europe in the seventeenth century is a history of wars.

Wars destroy the morals of mankind by habituating them to refer everything to force, and by necessitating them so often to dispense with the ordinary suggestions of sympathy and justice. This is true of wars in general; but the demoralizing effect is much greater if wars are civil wars; or religious wars--wars, that is, between fellow-citizens to serve the ends of some political party, or to enforce the observance of some political truth; or wars between fellow-Christians to force all to follow some religious creed. Moral virtues are in these cases uprooted; military virtues, which may exist in the most depraved man or state, flourish.

The era of the great Protestant Revolution ushered in the period of religious wars, France was devastated by religious and civil wars combined in the latter half of the sixteenth, and in the beginning of the seventeenth century. It took part in the Thirty Years' War of Germany (1618-1648); it was again the theatre of the civil war of the Fronde, in which aimless attempts were made to oppose the absolutism of the French crown (1648- 1653). Germany was almost ruined by its great civil and religious Thirty Years' War. England had also suffered in its great civil and partly religious war, which ended in 1648, with the execution of Charles I.

The great principle of religious toleration was unknown in the sixteenth century, and taught without success by a few great thinkers in the seventeenth century. Men believed great truths, by believing which they thought they secured their salvation, and they deemed it their bounden duty to make others believe, in order that they too might be saved. So not merely were wars undertaken for the sake of religious tenets, but within the several countries there were persecutions of Christians by Christians, of Englishmen by Englishmen, Frenchmen by Frenchmen, Germans by Germans.

Nevertheless it is only through the fire of religious and civil wars, and of religious persecutions, that the cause of religious and civil liberty comes out triumphant. The fall of the Stuarts, of which we shall treat, is an event in the successful struggle for civil and religious liberty.

The latter half of the seventeenth century was occupied by wars of a less demoralizing character than civil and religious wars; by wars undertaken by one man, Louis XIV., to obtain certain personal ends, These ends were the supremacy of Western Europe, the Imperial crown, and the succession to the throne of Spain. Of what befell Louis in his attempts to secure the supremacy of Western Europe, and how the balance of power was eventually righted, we shall also treat.

SECTION II.--Peace of Nimwegen, 1678.

The sovereigns of the principal states of Europe in 1678 were: -- Leopold of Hapsburg, Emperor; Louis XIV., King of France; Charles II., King of England; Charles II., King of Spain; William, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder or Governor of the United Provinces of Holland.

Holland and England were the great naval powers; France coming next to them, and then Spain. Louis XIV. having designs on the independence of the United Provinces of Holland, prevailed on Charles II. of England to join him in declaring war on Holland in 1672. In England the war was so unpopular that when a parliament was summoned in 1673 in order to vote supplies to carry on the war, the majority in it, opposed to the policy of Charles and his ministers, drove the ministry from power, declined to vote further supplies and forced the king in 1674 to make peace with Holland.

The Emperor Leopold and Charles II., King of Spain, alarmed for the safety of their dominions, which were threatened by the success of Louis against Holland, concluded an alliance with the United Provinces.

Although the private intrigues of Louis XIV. with the King of England kept that country neutral, the sympathies of the English nation were so strongly excited on behalf of the Dutch and their Stadtholder William of Orange, that it became evident to both Louis and Charles that this neutral position could not long be maintained. Louis, by the aid of his ambassador, Barillon, attempted to foment dissensions amongst the popular party in the parliament by bribery, the means which he had hitherto effectually employed with Charles and his ministers. But his success was not sufficient to warrant him in advising Charles to oppose the wishes of the nation. In 1677 William of Orange married Mary, elder of the two daughters of James, the Duke of York and heir presumptive of Charles II., and thus had claims of relationship on Charles, which in the seventeenth century, were considered by politicians more binding than they are now. Charles and Louis consequently, agreed that the former should become the mediator for a peace, by which France should profit, Holland should not suffer, and the pride of the English should be gratified by the prominent position which their country should occupy in the negotiations. After many difficulties, overcome chiefly by the diplomatic tact of Sir William Temple, the English ambassador at the Hague on the one hand, and by that of the plenipotentiary of Louis on the other, a treaty was signed August 10, 1678.

This treaty put an end to the war. It was called the Peace of Nimwegen, (Nimeguen), from the small town on the frontier between Holland and Germany were it was signed. The treaty was drawn up in French, although Latin had hitherto been the diplomatic language, and this is an important fact in diplomatic history, as marking the claim of supremacy in Europe put forth by France.

The results of the treaty were that the United Provinces of Holland retained their integrity, Maestricht being restored to them, so that the boundaries of the state governed by William of Orange were almost identical with those of the present kingdom of the Netherlands. France, however, kept its conquest of Senegal and Guiana, and these settlements were the sole loss of Holland at the conclusion of a terrible war which had threatened to annihilate her. The United Provinces agreed to be neutral in any war which might continue between France and any other powers, and guaranteed the neutrality of Spain. Treaties of commerce between France and Holland, conferring equal privileges on both nations for twenty-five years, were also signed. France gained from Spain, a declining power, and therefore the principal suffers, Franche Comté (part of the old duchy of Burgundy, now forming the French departments of Haute Saône, Doubs, and Jura); and the towns of St. Omer, Valenciennes, Gassel, and the adjacent districts, sometimes called French Flanders, and forming the department of the Nord. Spain retained that part of her dominions in the Netherlands which is almost conterminous with the present kingdom of Belgium. Lothringen (Lorraine) was restored to its duke, and again formed one of the states of the Empire, although practically deprived of its independence by being obliged to keep up for Louis four military roads, each two miles broad, and also to give up its two fortified towns, Nancy and Longwy. It was at the time of the peace of Nimwegen that the power of France, and the glory of Louis XIV., were at their height.

SECTION III. -- Louis XIV. and France.

Louis XIV. was, when the peace of Nimwegen was signed, forty years old; his figure was handsome, his manners were engaging, although at the same time dignified. He had an excellent constitution, and was able to endure fatigue, cold and hunger. He was not easily moved to anger, nor easily dispirited. These being his natural gifts, he himself, in his Mémoires historiques, tells us the chief motives which influenced his actions.

He had the most exalted idea of the kingly office. It is the will of God, wrote he, who has given kings to men, that they should be revered as His vicegerents, He having reserved to Himself alone the right to scrutinize their conduct.It is the will of God that every subject should yield to his sovereign an implicit obedience.All property within the nation belongs to the king by virtue of his title.Kings are absolute lords. L'Etat--c'est moi. (The State--I am the State.) His ambition was unbounded. Self-aggrandizement, he writes, is at once the noblest and most agreeable occupation of kings. Magnificence in daily life, and in pleasures, involving the greatest extravagance, was thus upheld by him--A large expenditure is the almsgiving of kings.

His habitual disregard of treaties was not the result of dishonesty or fickleness, but was the deliberate design of one who preferred pleasant manners to sincerity, who condemned a noble to exile with a sweet smile, and bowed with infinite grace to a courtier who before night fall was on the road to prison. In dispensing, he says, with the exact observance of treaties, we do not violate them; for the language of such instruments is not to be understood literally. We must employ in our, treaties a conventional phraseology, just as we use complimentary expressions in society. They are indispensable to our intercourse with one another, but they always mean much less than they say.

Louis' intellectual powers were good, but not extraordinary. He was a man of strong opinions, of strong will, of strong health, a practical man of business, but not an originator, a governor rather than a statesman.

His private life was regulated by his pleasures; he, as a king, was subject to none of those laws which rule the lives of ordinary mortals, but his desires were never too strong to make him forget his ambitious designs.

From his mother, Anne of Austria, daughter of Philip III. of Spain, he inherited the Spanish fondness for ceremony and etiquette. Most of the European monarchs copied Louis, and many of the silly and unmeaning ceremonies still practiced in some continental courts may thus be traced to a Spanish source.

Louis was a sincere Roman Catholic, but he never allowed his religious feelings to weaken his belief in the prerogatives of a king. He kept the temporalities of the Church in his own disposal. He was for all practical purposes as much the head of the Gallican Church, the Church of France, as Henry VIII. had been of the English Church.

His most trusted ministers were Colbert and Louvois; but, as Louis was an absolute monarch, they were responsible to no one but their master; both alike were ministers dependent on his will, but they were directly opposed to each other on all questions of home or foreign policy. There was an unceasing struggle between Colbert and Louvois. During the war just ended, Colbert was continually advising Louis to make peace; and, now that the peace was concluded, Louvois was continually urging him to renew the war. This difference which existed between them was a natural result of their respective duties. To Colbert was entrusted by Louis the direction of finance, commerce, public works, and the colonies; to Louvois was given the post of minister of war.

On one point Colbert and Louvois was agreed, and that was in the employment of Vauban, the great master of the art of fortification. By Vauban 300 French fortresses were either built, repaired, or enlarged. These fortresses were designed chiefly for the defence of the French frontiers, which offered, and more particularly), on the north-east, many vulnerable points. Colbert for his part looked on the money expended in carying out Vauban's plans, as sunk in insuring against the possibility of a war, which might be brought about by the temptation offered to a strong power of overrunning the north-eastern provinces of France, some of the richest provinces of the kingdom.

Colbert was a man of unimpeachable integrity, of great industry, and of bold and inventive genius. His political theories may now appear antiquated, but they prevailed universally for many generations, and by some French statesmen of the present day Colbert is considered the great authority on all national financial questions. His leading idea was to protect native produce and industry by placing heavy duties on exports, so heavy as to be almost prohibitory, and in some cases stopping importation altogether. To give an example. He allowed corn to be exported only when there had been an abundant harvest. If he anticipated a deficiency, the export was not permitted. Hence no agriculturist cared to cultivate poor land, but threw it out of cultivation, and the results of this were that there was a large extent of waste ground in France, and that the agriculturists were very poor. The poverty of the agriculturists again prevented their being customers of the manufacturers, and thus there was a loss of trade to the manufacturers.

Another principle of Colbert's finance, now everywhere recognized as a pernicious principle, was the forbidding, as much as possible, gold and silver to be sent out of the kingdom. Coin, was, therefore, everywhere hoarded, and this practice has continued in the rural districts of France even to the present day. Colbert did not perceive that if there was a deficiency of gold or silver in France, and coin consequently became dearer, there would be a rush of coin from other countries, where it was more abundant, and consequently cheaper, to supply that deficiency.

In the chief European nations, in England, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, there existed guilds, or companies, at the head of each trade and manufacture. These corporations regulated the practice of their trades, and fixed the prices to be paid to the laborers, and to be received for goods. They were often possessed of great wealth, and were of influence in the State. Their power was now beginning to decline, owing to various reasons, amongst others to greater freedom of communication. But Colbert endeavored in France to prop up their failing influence. He promulgated edicts enforcing the regulations of the guilds; and these regulations were minute, pedantic, and tyrannical. The result was that trades and manufacturers were artificially fostered; that they did not follow the natural wants of the population, as they do when perfect freedom is allowed them, but became producers and distributors of luxuries rather than of necessaries. During Colbert's ministry, there were 17,300 persons engaged in manufacturing lace, a luxury; whilst 60,400 were all that were employed in woollen manufacture.

Colbert was extremely rigorous against those who usurped privileges to which they were not legally entitled. This was in keeping with his action in upholding the authority of the guilds. There were certain privileges claimed by the nobility, which were assumed by some who had no legal right to do so. All such pretenders were punished by fines and imprisonments. He also endeavored to introduce a uniform tariff throughout the kingdom. In this he only partially succeeded, an newly acquired provinces claimed privileges which had been reserved for them when they were added to France. With more complete success he reorganized the navy of France, and first raised it to the strength of a great maritime power. He codified the French laws. He carried out some magnificent public works; the most noteworthy of which is the great canal of Languedoc, connecting the Mediterranean and Atlantic, completed under his influence by the engineer, Pierre Paul de Riquet.

Slavery existed in the West Indian colonies of France, as in those of all other European nations. To Colbert's honor be it stated that, by the Code Noir introduce by him, the evils attendant on slavery were greatly mitigated, and the relations thus establish between master and slave were not nearly so unrighteous as those which existed in the colonies of other States.

All Colbert's financial projects had been deranged during the war just ended. The first period of his ministry, previous to 1672, had been styled by him a period of construction; the second, from 1672 to 1678, had been a period of destruction, owing to the expenses of the war; the third period he fondly hoped would be one of reconstruction, but this hope was not destined to be realized. In the years 1681 and 1682, Colbert redeemed 90 millions of livres of national debts; in the same years Louis incurred debts to the amount of 100 millions.

To meet the expenses of the war, it had been necessary to raise large sums by taxation. There was a tax on landed property and persons called the taille, and almost every necessary of life was also taxed, even pewter vessels. One of the most hated of these taxes was that on salt, called the gabelle. These burdens were borne almost exclusively by the producing and laboring classes, for among the many privileges of the nobility was that of large exemption from taxation. Those, therefore, paid least who could best afford to pay most. Distress among the tax-paying classes was universal. Popular tumults arose in numerous districts and were put down with great severity. The wretched peasants were reduced to eating grass and the bark of trees; and famine slew thousands.

The system under which a great portion of the land in France was cultivated, which is called métairie, is an evil one. The métayer, (medietarius, middleman) or occupier of the land, was provided by the owner with seed, cattle, and agricultural implements, and in return, besides paying all taxes, gave half the gross produce to the land-owner. Though an advance on the serf system it did not invite peasants to spend money on the improvement of the land, and so produced poor cultivation. Half the produce was also too large a rent. The métayer grew as little corn as possible, and fed his geese in his wheat fields, for his half of the gross produce was insufficent to pay for the labor of cultivation. The farms of the métayers were very small, in reality but peasant-holdings. The relations existing between the peasant- farmer and his lord were very different from those existing in England between the village laborer and the squire. The French lord (seigneur) visited his estates only for retrenchment or to squeeze out larger yieldings from his métayers.He lived at the court. The magnificence and extravagance of Louis XIV. were imitated on a smaller scale by all the nobility. Life in the country was looked on by a seignur as exile. The responsibilities of a landlord were not recognised by him. He sought advancement at court, and for this advancement he intrigued and bribed. Even military service he seldom undertook from patriotic motives, but as a means of procuring court favor. When once a nobleman had secured a firm standing and influence at court, he made use of his position to replenish his fortune by selling his influence to less fortunate aspirants.

The hereditary and exclusive privileges of the nobility and place-holders were so valuable that Louis and his ministers increased the revenue by the sale of the titles and offices which conferred such privileges. By degrees monopolies were created. To such an extent was this system carried, that the privilege of exercising the meanest callings, such as those of porters, or of mutes at funerals, was reserved to certain families, in consideration of a large money payment.

In the provincial estates and parliaments of France existed the elements of civil liberty. The local government of each province was entrusted to its estate. The estate met in assembly in the three orders of clergy, nobility, and commons. It raised the revenue required by the king, had authority to borrow money, and superintended the expenditure