[Sidenote: "Rotation of Crops"]
There were some enterprising and prosperous landowners who used newer and better methods, and even wrote books about "husbandry," as agriculture was called. The Dutch, especially, learned to cultivate their narrow territory carefully, and from them English farmers learned many secrets of tillage. They grew clover and "artificial gra.s.ses"--such as rye--for their cattle, cultivated turnips for winter fodder, tilled the soil more thoroughly, used fertilizers more diligently, and even learned how to shift their crops from field to field according to a regular plan, so that the soil would not lose its fertility and would not have to be left idle or "fallow" every third year.
[Sidenote: Survival of Primitive Methods]
These new methods were all very fine for "gentlemen farmers," but for the average peasant the old "open-field" system was an effective barrier to progress. He could not plant new crops on his strips in the grain fields, for custom forbade it; he could not breed his cows scientifically, while they ran in with the rest of the village cattle.
At best he could only work hard and pray that his cows would not catch contagion from the rest, and that the weeds from his neighbor"s wheat- patch might not spread into his own, for between such patches there was neither wall nor fence.
[Sidenote: Survival of Serfdom]
[Sidenote: Sorry Condition of the Peasantry]
Primitive methods were not the only survivals of manorial life. Actual serfdom still prevailed in most of the countries of Europe except France [Footnote: Even in France, some serfdom still survived.] and England, and even in these countries nominal freedom lifted the peasantry but little above the common lot. It is true, indeed, that countless differences in the degree and conditions of servitude existed between Russians and Frenchmen, and even between peasants in the same country or village. The English or French plowman, perhaps, might not be sold to fight for other countries like the Hessians, nor could he be commanded to marry an undesired bride, as were of the tenants of a Russian n.o.bleman. But in a general way we may say that all the peasants of Europe suffered from much the same causes. With no voice in making the laws, they were liable to heavy fines or capital punishment for breaking the laws. Their advice was not asked when taxes were levied or apportioned, but upon them fell the heaviest burdens of the state.
It was vexatious to pay outrageous fees for the use of a lord"s mill, bridge, oven, or wine-press, to be haled to court for an imaginary offense, or to be called from one"s fields to war, or to work on the roads without pay. It was hard for the hungry serf to see the fat deer venturing into his very dooryard, and to remember that the master of the mansion house was so fond of the chase that he would not allow his game to be killed for food for vulgar plowmen.
But these and similar vexations sank into insignificance in comparison with the burdens of the taxes paid to lord, to church, and to king. In every country of Europe the peasants were taxed, directly or indirectly, for the support of the three pillars of the "old regime."
The form of such taxation in England differed widely from that in Hungary; in Sweden, from that in Spain. But beneath discrepancies of form, the system was essentially the same. Some idea of the triple taxation that everywhere bore so heavily upon the peasantry may be obtained from a brief resume of the financial obligations of an ordinary French peasant to his king, his Church, and his lord.
[Sidenote: Peasant Obligations to Landlord]
To the lord the serf owed often three days" labor a week, in addition to stated portions of grain and poultry. In place of servile work the freeman paid a "quit-rent," that is, a sum of money instead of the services which were considered to accompany the occupation of land.
Double rent was paid on the death of the peasant, and, if the farm was sold, one-fifth of the price went to the lord. Sometimes, however, a freeman held his land without quit-rent, but still had numerous obligations which had survived from medieval times, such as the annual sum paid for a "military protection" which he neither demanded nor received.
[Sidenote: Peasant Obligation to Church]
The second obligation was to the church--the t.i.the or tenth, which usually amounted every year to a twelfth or a fifteenth of the gross produce of the peasant"s land.
[Sidenote: Peasant Obligations to King and State]
Heaviest of all were the taxes levied by the king. The _taille_, or land tax, was the most important. The amount was not fixed, but was supposed to be proportional to the value of the peasant"s land and dwelling. In practice the tax-collectors often took as much as they could get. and a shrewd peasant would let his house go to pieces and pretend to be utterly dest.i.tute in order that the a.s.sessors might not increase the valuation of his property.
The other direct taxes were the poll tax, _i.e._, a certain sum which everybody alike must pay, and the income tax, usually a twentieth part of the income. Finally, there were indirect taxes, such as the salt _gabelle_. Thus, in certain provinces every person had to buy seven pounds of salt a year from the government salt-works at a price ten times its real value. Road-making, too, was the duty of the peasant, and the _corvee_, or labor on roads, often took several weeks in a year.
[Sidenote: Burden of Taxation on Peasants]
All these burdens--dues to the lord, t.i.thes to the church, taxes to the king--left the peasant but little for himself. It is so difficult to get exact figures that we can put no trust in the estimate of a famous writer that dues, t.i.thes, and taxes absorbed over four-fifths of the French peasant"s produce: nevertheless, we may be sure that the burden was very great. In a few favored districts of France and England farmers were able to pay their taxes and still live comfortably. But elsewhere the misery of the people was such as can hardly be imagined.
With the best of harvests they could barely provide for their families, and a dry summer or long winter would bring them to want. There was only the coa.r.s.est of bread--and little of that; meat was a luxury; and delicacies were for the rich. We read how starving peasants in France tried to appease their hunger with roots and herbs, and in hard times succ.u.mbed by thousands to famine. One-roomed mud huts with leaky thatched roofs, bare and windowless, were good enough dwellings for these tillers of the soil. In the dark corners of the dirt-floors lurked germs of pestilence and death. Fuel was expensive, and the bitter winter nights must have found many a peasant shivering supperless on his bed of straw.
True, the gloom of such conditions was relieved here and there by a prosperous village or a well-to-do peasant. But, speaking in a general way, the sufferings of the poorer European peasants and serfs can hardly be exaggerated. It was they who in large part had paid for the wars, theaters, palaces, and pleasures of the courts of Europe.
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
[Sidenote: Growth of Towns]
Let us now turn our eyes from the country to the city, for in the towns are to be found the bourgeoisie, the cla.s.s in which we are most interested. The steady expansion of commerce and industry during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had been attended by a remarkable development of town life. Little villages had grown, until in 1787 there were 78 towns of over 10,000 inhabitants each. London, the greatest city in Europe, had increased in population from about half a million in 1685 to over a million in 1800. Paris was at least half as large; Amsterdam was a great city; and several German towns like Hamburg, Bremen, and Frankfort were important trading centers.
The towns had begun to lose some of their medieval characteristics.
They had spread out beyond their cramping walls; roomy streets and pleasant squares made the newer sections more attractive. The old fortifications, no longer needed for protection, served now as promenades. City thoroughfares were kept cleaner, sometimes well paved with cobbles; and at night the feeble but cheerful glow of oil street- lamps lessened the terrors of the belated burgher who had been at the theater or listened to protracted debates at the great town hall.
[Sidenote: Industry Gild Regulation]
The life of the town was nourished by industry and commerce. Industry in the eighteenth century meant far more than baking bread, making clothes, cobbling shoes, and fashioning furniture for use in the town; it meant the production on a large scale of goods to sell in distant places,--cloth, clocks, shoes, beads, dishes, hats, b.u.t.tons, and what not. Many of these articles were still manufactured under the regulations of the old craft gilds. For although the gild system was pretty well broken up in England, it still maintained its hold on the Continent. In France the division of crafts had become so complicated that innumerable bickerings arose between cobblers" gilds and shoemakers" gilds, between watch-makers and clock-makers. In Germany conditions were worse. The gilds, now aristocratic and practically hereditary corporations, used their power to prevent all compet.i.tion, to keep their apprentices and journeymen working for little or nothing, to insure high profits, and to prevent any technical improvements which might conceivably injure them. "A hatter who improved his wares by mixing silk with the wool was attacked by all the other hatters; the inventor of sheet lead was opposed by the plumbers; a man who had made a success in print-cloths was forced to return to antiquated methods by the dyers."
[Sidenote: Government Regulation of Industry: Mercantilism]
To gild regulation was added government regulation. It will be remembered that many seventeenth-century statesmen had urged their kings to make laws for the greater prosperity of industry, and that Colbert had given the cla.s.sic expression in France to the mercantilist idea that wealth could be cultivated by regulating and encouraging manufactures. In order that French dyers might acquire a reputation for thorough work, he issued over three hundred articles of instruction for the better conduct of the dyeing business. In an age when unscrupulous English merchants were hurting the market with poorly woven fabrics, French weavers were given careful orders about the quality of the thread, the breadth of the cloth, and the fineness of the weave. It is said that in 1787 the regulations for French manufactures filled eight volumes in quarto; and other governments, while less thorough, were equally convinced of the wisdom of such a policy.
The mercantilist was not content with making rules for established industries. In justice to him it should be explained that he was anxious to plant new trades. Privileges, t.i.tles of n.o.bility, exemption from taxation, generous grants of money, and other favors were accorded to enterprising business men who undertook to introduce new branches of manufacture.
In general, however, the efforts of such mercantilists as Colbert have been adversely criticized by economists. The regulations caused much inconvenience and loss to many manufacturers, and the privileges granted to new enterprises often favored unstable and unsuitable industries at the expense of more natural and valuable trades. It is impossible to estimate the value to France of Colbert"s pet industries, and equally impossible to see what would have happened had industry been allowed free rein. But we must not entirely condemn the system simply because its faults are so obvious and its benefits so hard to ascertain.
[Sidenote: Restrictions on Commerce]
Commerce, like industry, was subject to restrictions and impeded by antiquated customs. Merchants traversing the country were hindered by poor roads; at frequent intervals they must pay toll before pa.s.sing a knight"s castle, a bridge, or a town gate. Customs duties were levied on commerce between the provinces of a single kingdom. And the cost of transportation was thus made so high that the price of a cask of wine pa.s.sing from the Orleanais to Normandy--two provinces in northwestern France--increased twenty-fold.
From our past study of the commercial and colonial wars of the eighteenth century, especially those between France and Great Britain, we have already learned that mercantilist ideas were still dominant in foreign commerce. We have noted the heavy protective tariffs which were designed to shut out foreign compet.i.tion. We have discussed the Navigation Acts, by means of which England encouraged her ship-owners.
We have also mentioned the absorption, by specially chartered companies, of the profits of the lucrative European trade with the Indies. The East India Company, the Hudson"s Bay Company, the Dutch East India Company, and the French _Compagnie des Indes_ were but a few famous examples of the chartered companies which still practically monopolized the trade of most non-European countries.
[Sidenote: Great Growth of Commerce]
Customs and companies may have been injurious in many respects, but commerce grew out of all bounds. The New World gave furs, timber, tobacco, cotton, rice, sugar, rum, mola.s.ses, coffee, dyes, gold, and silver, in return for negro slaves, manufactures, and Oriental wares; and the broad Atlantic highways were traversed by many hundreds of heavily laden ships. The spices, jewels, tea, and textiles of the Far East made rich cargoes for well-built East Indiamen. Important, too, was the traffic which occupied English and Dutch merchant fleets in the Baltic; and the flags of many nations were carried by traders coastwise along all the sh.o.r.es of Europe. Great Britain at the opening of the eighteenth century possessed a foreign commerce estimated at $60,000,000, and that of France was at least two-thirds as great.
During the century the volume of commerce was probably more than quadrupled.
It is difficult to realize the tremendous importance of this expansion of commerce and industry. It had erected colonial empires, caused wars, lured millions of peasants from their farms, and built populous cities.
But most important of all--it had given strength to the bourgeoisie.
[Sidenote: Rise of the Bourgeoisie]
Merchants, bankers, wholesalers, rich gild-masters, and even less opulent shopkeepers, formed a distinct "middle cla.s.s," between the privileged clergy and n.o.bility on the one hand, and the oppressed peasant and artisan, or manual laborer, on the other. The middle cla.s.s, often called by the French word _bourgeoisie_ because it dwelt in towns or _bourgs_, was strongest in England, the foremost commercial nation of Europe, was somewhat weaker in France, and very much weaker in less commercial countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Russia.
If the bourgeoisie was all-powerful in the world of business, it was influential in other spheres. Lawyers came almost exclusively from commercial families. Judges, local magistrates, keepers of prisons, government secretaries, intendants, all the world of officialdom was thronged with scions of bourgeois families. The better and older middle-cla.s.s families prided themselves on their wealth, influence, and culture. They read the latest books on science and philosophy; they sometimes criticized the religious ideas of the past; and they eagerly discussed questions of const.i.tutional law and political economy.
[Sidenote: Ambition of the Bourgeoisie]
Ambition came quite naturally with wealth and learning. The bourgeoisie wanted power and privilege commensurate with their place in business and administration. It seemed unbearable that a foppish n.o.ble whose only claims to respect were a moldy castle and a worm-eaten patent of n.o.bility should everywhere take precedence over men of means and brains. Why should the highest social distinctions, the richest sinecures, and the posts of greatest honor in the army and at court be closed to men of ign.o.ble birth, as if a man were any better for the possession of a high-sounding t.i.tle?
Moreover, the bourgeoisie desired a more direct say in politics. In England, to be sure, the sons of rich merchants were frequently admitted to the n.o.bility, and commercial interests were pretty well represented in Parliament. In France, however, the feudal n.o.bility was more arrogant and exclusive, and the government less in harmony with middle-cla.s.s notions. The extravagant and wasteful administration of royal money was censured by every good business man. It was argued that if France might only have bourgeois representation in a national parliament to regulate finance and to see that customs duties, trade- laws, and foreign relations were managed in accordance with business interests, then all would be well.
THE PRIVILEGED CLa.s.sES
Thus far, in a.n.a.lyzing social and economic conditions in the eighteenth century, we have concerned ourselves with the lowest cla.s.s, the peasants and day laborers, and with the middle cla.s.s or bourgeoisie-- the "Third Estate" of France and the "Commons" of Great Britain. All of these were technically unprivileged or ign.o.ble cla.s.ses. The highest place in society was reserved for the cla.s.ses of the privileged, the clergy and the n.o.bility, const.i.tuting the First and the Second Estates, respectively. And it is to these that we must now direct our attention.
[Sidenote: Small Number of "Privileged"]
The privileged cla.s.ses formed a very small minority of the population.
Of the 25,000,000 inhabitants of France, probably less than 150,000 were n.o.bles and 130,000 clerics; about one out of every hundred of the people was therefore privileged.