Part 16

[Footnote 309: In the French despatch of January 31: see p. 110.]

[Footnote 310: Zevort, pp. 138, 141, 142, 145, 146. Appendix, pp. 254-7, 257-9.]

[Footnote 311: See p. 104.]

[Footnote 312: The memoir is neglected by M. Zevort. It is noticed by M. de Broglie ("Marie Thérèse," I. p. 202, note) and rejected as possibly spurious and certainly unimportant. His principal reason is that he has not been able to find it among the ordinary sources, or to discover any reference to it by d'Argenson himself.

The writer believes that there is ample evidence to show where it might have been found; and also that, by M. de Broglie's own criterion, it should be one of the most important records of the time. The evidence is such as the historian, upon his own admission, would probably accept as conclusive. It is the critical question of d'Argenson's ministry, and is dealt with fully in Appendix A.]

[Footnote 313: D'Argenson became minister on November 18, 1744. The note of time given by Flassan is "au mois de février" (1745). From the references to the hesitation of the King of Poland, it may perhaps be placed immediately after the reception of Valori's first letters from Dresden, February 17 (Zevort, p. 140).]

[Footnote 314: Apart from the policy set forth in it, this memoir contains some important critical suggestions:

(_a_) The minister's determination to maintain Frederick in Silesia.

(_b_) His conception of peace as the primary object to which all others must contribute.

(_c_) His perfect knowledge of the real conditions of his negotiations with Augustus. It throws a new light upon the desperate persistency with which he tried to win over the Court of Dresden.]

[Footnote 315: Flassan, "Histoire de la Diplomatie Française," V. pp. 242-5.]

[Footnote 316: Zevort, Appendix, pp. 254-7.]

[Footnote 317: Ibid., p. 257.]

[Footnote 318: Ibid., Appendix, p. 361.]

[Footnote 319: At the end of April, when he had been pressing the negotiation for three months, d'Argenson had absolutely no faith in its success. See a very significant passage in Zevort, p. 280, which throws a light more than usually clear upon d'Argenson's view of his own position.]

[Footnote 320: Zevort, Appendix, p. 362.]

[Footnote 321: _Cf._ Zevort, p. 143, where d'Argenson is quoted as saying in March: "La sagesse et l'honneur veulent que nous soutenions le roi de Prusse avec toute l'ardeur la plus grande que nous ayons jamais embrassée aucune vue d'État."]

[Footnote 322: Ibid., p. 145.]

[Footnote 323: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 311.]

[Footnote 324: Ibid., I. p. 131.]

[Footnote 325: Ibid., I. pp. 290-3.]

[Footnote 326: Zevort, p. 145.]

[Footnote 327: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 303.]

[Footnote 328: Ibid., I. pp. 307-13.]

[Footnote 329: Ibid., I. p. 317.]

[Footnote 330: Ibid., I. p. 318.]

[Footnote 331: Zevort, pp. 144, 154.]

[Footnote 332: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," I. p. 309.]

[Footnote 333: Zevort, Appendix, p. 364, Frederick to Louis XV., May 2, 1745.]

[Footnote 334: Zevort, Appendix, p. 366, Memoir of Frederick, May 16.]

[Footnote 335: Ibid., Appendix, p. 367.]

[Footnote 336: Ibid., Appendix, p. 364.]

[Footnote 337: See p. 110.]

[Footnote 338: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. p. 58.]

[Footnote 339: Ibid., II. p. 90.]

[Footnote 340: Ibid., II. p. 93.]

[Footnote 341: Zevort, Appendix, p. 368.]

[Footnote 342: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. pp. 102-29.]

[Footnote 343: Ibid., II. pp. 130-42.]

[Footnote 344: Ibid., II. p. 144.]

[Footnote 345: Ibid., II. pp. 196, 197.]

[Footnote 346: Ibid., II. pp. 188, 189.]

[Footnote 347: As an example of the straits to which d'Argenson was reduced through the failure of the French Government to support his policy, we may cite some remarks of his to the French representative at Frankfort in reference to the retreat of Conti.

"It appears that the King of Poland, having always regarded the continuance of the French army in the neighbourhood of Frankfort as an obstacle to the success of the views which he has formed from the beginning in regard to the imperial crown, is on the point of declaring himself a candidate."

It is absurd to suppose that d'Argenson really meant this, or looked upon the retreat as a subject of congratulation. It was simply one of the kaleidoscopic movements by which events, affected as they were by successive disasters, might still be made to look beautiful.

The resource, perhaps, was a little ridiculous; but it is hard to see what he would have done without it.]

[Footnote 348: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," Appendix, II. pp. 407, 408.]

[Footnote 349: Ibid., II. p. 195.]

[Footnote 350: Ibid., II. p. 201.]

[Footnote 351: Ibid., II. p. 223.]

[Footnote 352: Ibid., I. p. 261.]

[Footnote 353: Ibid., II. p. 340.]

[Footnote 354: With this compare Zevort, p. 105, where d'Argenson is made the prime mover in measures which M. de Broglie proves he was deliberately doing his utmost to frustrate.]

[Footnote 355: De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. p. 341.]

[Footnote 356: Ibid., II. p. 342.]

[Footnote 357: Ibid., II. p. 298, &c.]

[Footnote 358: Ibid., II. p. 352.]

[Footnote 359: Ibid., II. p. 354, and Appendix, 410-13.]

[Footnote 360: Ibid., II. Appendix, pp. 408, 409. Reading this letter in the light of d'Argenson's general policy and of subsequent events, it is hard to find in it "the proof of the strange illusions by which d'Argenson was possessed" (Ibid., Appendix, II. p. 407).]

[Footnote 361: Ibid., II. p. 391.]

[Footnote 362: The principal authorities are: Zevort, "Le Ministère"; de Broglie, "Maurice de Saxe et le Marquis d'Argenson"; and d'Argenson, "Mémoires du Ministère" (Rathery, IV. and V.). Henceforth the references need not be given in detail.]

[Footnote 363: In particular, M. de Broglie's account becomes as excellent as it formerly seemed to be exceptionable. He is no longer fretted by d'Argenson's anti-Austrian policy.]

[Footnote 364: Even in one of the Balleroy letters he speaks of "une méchante confédération comme celle d'Italie"; and his ideal of Italian independence was inspired, partly at least, by the man who had introduced him to the study of foreign politics, the fallen minister Chauvelin.]

[Footnote 365: Journal (Rathery), II., III., _passim_.]

[Footnote 366: Champeaux, at this time agent at Geneva, was a friend of d'Argenson, and one of his old companions at the Entresol.]

[Footnote 367: The hope was perhaps suggested by Voltaire (de Broglie), who had sent to the Minister the few cheering words he received during the storm created by the disaster. The poet was in busy correspondence with d'Argenson, and upon documents demanding elegance and finish his accomplished pen was frequently employed.]

[Footnote 368: This account of Maurice's share in the incident is derived mainly from Count Vitzthum d'Eckstaedt's work, "Maurice de Saxe et Marie Josephe," 1867.]

[Footnote 369: Brühl to Saxe, November 16, 1746: Vitzthum, p. 93. Maurice's letters give some interesting glimpses of d'Argenson; _e.g._, he describes him to his brother, the King of Poland, as a man "not at all easy to govern" (p. 95), and again to the Queen as "a kind of bear" (p. 101). He tells Brühl that d'Argenson is "so 'bête' that the King [Louis XV.] is ashamed of him" (p. 109).]

[Footnote 370: Vitzthum, p. 110.]

[Footnote 371: In certain letters of doubtful authority, the ill-feeling is accounted for by the suggestion that Maria Theresa was corresponding with Madame de Pompadour, and that d'Argenson had intercepted the letters ("Correspondance sur la cour de Louis XV." Gaçon-Dufour, Paris. 1808).]

[Footnote 372: See "Correspondance de Louis XV. et le Maréchal de Noailles," ed. Camille Rousset. The Madame de Chatelus mentioned by Noailles was the lady to whom d'Argenson had been attached for sixteen years. He has left a rather striking description of her (see Journal, under date 1728). They occupied adjoining houses in the Rue de Gros Chenet, some drawings of which are to be found among d'Argenson's sketches (Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS. 6164).]

[Footnote 373: M. Vitzthum d'Eckstaedt concludes his account as follows:

"It was not for general incapacity that the Marquis d'Argenson was dismissed, nor for having forgotten one day to open the despatches from Genoa. It was because he was obstinately attached to a false policy, to a policy disapproved by Maurice de Saxe, who at this moment was governing France" (p. 152).]

[Footnote 374: "Le système des ridicules poursuit de même le ministre des affaires étrangères, qui, estimant peu les courtisans, est très reservé avec eux. Ces messieurs, pour le distinguer de son frère, l'appellent 'd'Argenson le Bête.' Les gens honnêtes ont nommé le ministre de la guerre 'd'Argenson l'intrigant'" ("Correspondance," Gaçon-Dufour, p. 90).

These letters are far from reflecting the very poor opinion of d'Argenson which is said to have been prevalent at Court. Such may have been the opinion of his political rivals and of the circle of Madame de Pompadour, to which d'Argenson, in person and principle, was consistently opposed. It might well have acquired the substance of a tradition, and have affected later criticism unduly.]

[Footnote 375: It is necessary to grasp this point if we are to avoid a frequent prejudice against d'Argenson, a prejudice which arises from regarding him as a man of very large pretensions and of very inadequate performance. There is no good ground for believing in his utter failure, or consequently in the hollowness of his pretensions.]

[Footnote 376: Perhaps it is necessary to reinforce this point. It is to be remembered that in any acutely critical period, wisdom is a matter of months or weeks. Never even for seven days can opinion safely be divorced from circumstance. It is quite true that a general view of the relations of France with the German powers during the last century and a half suggests that at the time with which we are concerned her traditional anti-Austrian policy was tending to become an anachronism; but we must be careful about making that general view the basis of particular conclusions. The available documents prove conclusively that whenever that tendency began to approach perceptibility and power, it was never in the course of d'Argenson's ministry, still less during the critical year 1745.

In and throughout that year France had but one competitor on the continent--Austria. The position of Prussia--if in connection with France and Austria we may assign her the dignity of a position--was in the highest degree precarious. No one knew it better than the Prussian king himself. There was probably not a moment in the course of the year when he did not feel himself to be within an ace of destruction; not an episode but betrays his anxiety for escape with honour. His efforts for peace in January; his desperate overtures at London after the death of the Emperor; his earnest, eloquent entreaties to maintain the Elector of Bavaria and the Prince of Conti; his dull bitterness and despair at the Convention of Augsburg and the withdrawal of the French from Germany; his continued pressure upon England, ending in the Treaty of Hanover; finally, his studious moderation when he appeared as a conqueror in Dresden; all point to but one conclusion. His position was, and he knew it be, desperate; and it was only the headlong courage of desperation that enabled him to see the year out safely.

The definitive rise of Prussia is probably to be dated from the Peace of Dresden, and not one moment before. Moreover it cannot have been immediately apparent. One year after the treaty of peace d'Argenson fell; and during that year Prussia was recovering from the effects of the war, and her ambitions and prospective power can have been present to the mind of Frederick alone. At what particular period her advance must have become sufficiently evident to affect the views of statesmen, only a profound study of that single question can disclose. Certain it is that it cannot have been at any period during d'Argenson's ministry, or more especially during the year 1745.

The truth of the matter appears to be this. Events were rapidly tending towards, though they had not yet reached, a condition of which d'Argenson had often dreamed. Prussia, if her power developed, might one day be strong enough to stand alone against the Austrian House; and France would be free to watch the contest, and might leave the rivals to ruin each other. But this was still in the future; and the time was yet apparently distant when a responsible French minister could entertain the idea of an Austrian alliance.

It is true that there was already an Austrian party in the Council; there is always such a party in any council. There are men who cannot resist the fascination of cheap success, who are devoted to a policy of ease with honour. They are not prominent in the ranks of statesmen.]

[Footnote 377: "Un grand homme qui manque" (De Broglie, "Marie Thérèse," II. Appendix, p. 2).]

[Footnote 378: The aspiration was not so absurd as it might seem. Could d'Argenson have acquired, by long acquaintance with affairs, that practical aptitude which his brother possessed, he might have been one of the greatest among men. He had a range of mind and a depth of character to which Count d'Argenson could lay no claim.]

[Footnote 379: Journal (Rathery), V. p. 142.]

[Footnote 380: Ibid., V. p. 314. December, 1748.]

[Footnote 381: The best account of the whole movement is to be found in Felix Rocquain, "L'esprit révolutionnaire avant la révolution."]

[Footnote 382: "La Philosophie."]

[Footnote 383: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 201, _cf._ Ibid., VI. p. 208. The sentence displays his frequent disregard of syntax in directness and force of expression.]

[Footnote 384: Ibid., VII. p. 199. April, 1752.]

[Footnote 385: Ibid., VI. p. 320. December, 1750.]

[Footnote 386: Ibid., VII. p. 23. November, 1751.]

[Footnote 387: Ibid., VII. p. 294. September, 1752.]

[Footnote 388: Ibid., VIII. p. 315. June, 1754.]

[Footnote 389: Ibid., VI. p. 26. August, 1749.]

[Footnote 390: Ibid., VI. p. 81. December, 1749.]

[Footnote 391: Ibid., VI. p. 390. April, 1751.]

[Footnote 392: Ibid., VII. p. 457. April, 1753.]

[Footnote 393: Ibid., VIII. p. 60. June, 1753.]

[Footnote 394: Ibid., VII. p. 106., _cf._ Ibid., 110, 111. February, 1752.]

[Footnote 395: The "Considérations." See Chap. VI.]

[Footnote 396: The "advanced" views privately held among the wealthier clergy are well known. On hearing of a diocesan sermon on the subject of "infidelity, d'Argenson observes that it is an absurd theme upon which to preach to the clergy of France. It was very necessary, however.]

[Footnote 397: D'Argenson did not disguise his sympathy with the "philosophers." When the Abbé de Prades was fleeing the country he took refuge in the neighbourhood of d'Argenson's château; and the latter wrote to his powerful brother to intercede for the indiscreet ecclesiastic (Journal, Rathery, VII. p. 57, note). D'Argenson was naturally proud too of his friendship with d'Alembert.]

[Footnote 398: Journal (Rathery), VII. p. 424. March, 1758.]

[Footnote 399: D'Argenson had a personal reason for ill-feeling against the Sorbonne. It proposed to condemn a "Histoire du droit public ecclésiastique français," published (1737) in two large quarto volumes by a Jesuit, de la Motte. It was based upon some papers which had been read by d'Argenson before the Entresol (Journal, Rathery, VI. p. 168), and afterwards given as an act of charity to la Motte, who was one of d'Argenson's old masters at the Collège Louis-le-Grand. The book was published without d'Argenson's sanction, but his share in the work was pretty generally known--far too generally for his peace of mind. _Cf._ p. 57.]

[Footnote 400: Journal (Rathery), VIII. p. 289. May, 1754.]

[Footnote 401: "Les deux philosophies."]

[Footnote 402: Journal (Rathery), VIII. p. 291.]

[Footnote 403: References to what appear to be the most important passages bearing on the great public questions of the time are given in Appendix D.]

[Footnote 404: As a brief and excellent example, we may take a criticism of sinking funds which English statesmen might have read with advantage:--

"Ces rentes tournantes qu'a introduites ici Duverney, à l'imitation de l'Angleterre, sont des précautions que le maître prend contre le maître; emprunteur, il fait impôt, et destine tous les ans une partie de cet impôt pour rembourser; par là il charge davantage ses finances et ses peuples tout à la fois; et, comme il ne dépense pas avec moins de facilité et de légèreté, il charge toujours davantage et les maltôtes ne cessent plus. _Un prince sage devrait prendre le fond d'amortissement sur ses épargnes seules_" (Journal, Rathery, V. p. 442).

D'Argenson's ideas on economics are marked by his usual acuteness and independence. He was not a member of the physiocratic school; and though he joined the Economists in deploring the sacrifice of agriculture to manufacturing industry, he did not share their peculiar views as to the exclusive value of land. He was one of the earliest and soundest of Free Traders, maintaining that commerce should not be interfered with except for purely fiscal purposes.]

[Footnote 405: See his sketches of Segrez in the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS. 6164.]

[Footnote 406: Journal (édit. Jannet), V. p. 245.]

[Footnote 407: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 57.]

[Footnote 408: "L'esprit public," p. 231.]

[Footnote 409: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 182. "Quoi qu'il n'y ait rien que de vertueux dans ce petit roman anglais."]

[Footnote 410: In January, 1747, d'Argenson was nominated by the King President of the "Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles-Lettres" (Journal, Rathery, V. p. 349). He gives an amusing account of his original election (Journal, Rathery, I. pp. 165-75). The only contribution of his we have been able to discover in the Journals of the Academy is a paper on French historians and the writing of history (XXVIII. pp. 626-46).]

[Footnote 411: Journal (Rathery), VI. p. 197. May 2, 1750.]

[Footnote 412: See Scherer, "Études," vol. III.]

[Footnote 413: Of M. Aubertin's notice ("L'esprit public") it is but little to say that it is by far the ablest criticism of d'Argenson at present existing. It is presumption even to praise a work so admirably performed. It presents one or two features which one may do oneself the honour to note.

(_a_) M. Aubertin seems to accept a little too readily the idea of d'Argenson's practical incapacity. He has not of course examined the events of his ministry.

(_b_) He regrets that d'Argenson should have occupied himself with his practical ambitions, instead of confining himself to the region of Speculation. It seems clear that to a man of d'Argenson's temperament, speculative was dependent on practical activity; and that had he resigned himself to be a mere thinker, his power as a thinker would have been destroyed completely. We have to accept d'Argenson upon his own terms as a practical reformer before we can hope to do him justice.]

[Footnote 414: Note to the "Contrat Social" (Book iv.).]

[Footnote 415: Both editions were afterwards reprinted.]

[Footnote 416: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MSS. 2334, 2335, 2337, and 2338.]

[Footnote 417: Other notable features of the scheme are:--

(_a_) Principles of taxation. Total exemption for raw materials; light taxes upon permanent stock and plant; the burden of taxation to fall upon articles of consumption (Article XV.).

(_b_) Distribution of Revenue. Three-fourths of all revenue to go to the Government, one-fourth to be retained for local purposes (Article XV.).

(_c_) The reduction of the Intendancies, to an extent "smaller than the present 'Généralités'"; if the present reduction succeeds, it may proceed further, until the Intendancy shall comprise no more than two hundred parishes, and the Sub-delegacy no more than twenty.

(_d_) The Intendant shall retain a single post no longer than three years; by this means he will be prevented from establishing local connections to the prejudice of the public service, and be inspired to exert what ability he possesses by the hope of obtaining a more lucrative place.]

[Footnote 418: We have to guard against confounding d'Argenson's philosophical disquisitions with his definite project of reform. He held himself bound to establish principles as well as to formulate proposals, and he expressly declares that the writer of such a work as his must seek the counsels of perfection, however distant they may seem at the moment from the realm of practical politics. And herein is d'Argenson's greatness as a political thinker, that he never fails to see, or to see the distinction between, what is best in principle and what is possible in practice.

Thus, he denounces the "pernicious system" of the traffic in judicial positions; but in his definite Plan of 1764 (1737) he says not a word of it, owing to the practical difficulty of reimbursing those whose interests would be sacrificed to the reform. He goes no further than to provide, in Article 51, against the growth of the abuse in connection with the new municipal offices which he proposes to create. In course of time however he became convinced that the nation would be benefitted, and that funds might be raised for compensating office-holders, by the sale of the Crown lands; and accordingly in the Plan of 1784 (1755), the practical difficulty being overcome, the "pernicious system," untouched by the project of 1764 (1737), is swept away at a stroke.

Again, as to the nobility. It is true that in Chapter VIII. Article 2, pp. 305-8 [1764 (1737)], d'Argenson formulates certain objections to the principle of a hereditary noble class; and further, that he dilates elsewhere upon the harm done by the survival of the vexatious feudal privileges exacted by the noblesse. Yet in his definite Plan he neither touches the nobility as a class, nor does he lay a finger upon any of the privileges pertaining to it. On the contrary, the continuance of the seigneurial jurisdictions, which are deliberately abolished in the later scheme of 1784 (1755), is incidentally recognised, p. 221 (1764).

The facts with regard to the three classes mentioned by M. Martin may be stated as follows:--

(_a_) The bureaucracy.

By the Plan of 1764 (1737) the ministry, the administrative councils, the Intendants, the Sub-delegates, in a word, the great standing bureaucratic organisation, was to continue intact. It was even strengthened. It is true that in the scheme of 1784 (1755) its lower ranks were relaxed; but with that scheme we are not concerned, as it is not noticed by M. Martin.

(_b_) The judicial aristocracy.

By neither of d'Argenson's Plans was the existence of the judicial aristocracies affected in the least. In that of 1764 (1737) the functions of the Parlements are even extended (Article 42). It is true that he attacks the system of purchase upon which the Companies were organised; but that system is untouched by the earlier Plan, and is only abolished [in 1784 (1755)] when means have been found of replacing it, and of compensating those who were subjected to forfeiture.

(_c_) The noblesse.

Under the scheme of 1764 (1737) the nobility had nothing to fear. Their privileges, even those which d'Argenson disliked most strongly, are maintained intact. It is only in the Plan of 1784 (1755) that the high seigneurial jurisdictions are suppressed, and that the nobles are made to share with the roturiers in the ordinary burdens of the state. Even then their honorary distinctions are scrupulously conserved; the more powerful of them are created Peers of their several Provinces; and express provision is made for the continued magnificence of the Royal Household.