Damiens’s Testimony to <i>Parlement</i>
During the course of his trial, Damiens was interrogated over fifty times by the magistrates of the <i>Parlement </i>of Paris and by the King’s prosecutors. The interrogators were concerned above all to determine if Damiens had accomplices and if so, what group was behind the attack. In this passage, Damiens testifies that his action had been prompted by "preachers of the Parlementary party," meaning those who criticized the excessive power of the court and the bishops. Attributing his actions to dissatisfaction with the state of the kingdom, Damiens then asks the King to show his concern for the hard–pressed French people by pardoning him.
Anonymous<i>, Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens</i> (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757).
1757
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/240/
240
Decree of the <i>Parlement</i> of Paris against Robert–François Damiens
After a three–month trial, the magistrates found Damiens guilty of parricide against the person of the King on 26 March 1757. In a final interrogation, Damiens is once again asked about accomplices. He then denies having them.
Anonymous, <i>Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens</i> (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757).
1757
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/241/
241
The Sentence against Damiens (1757)
Having found Damiens guilty, the judges ordered him punished in a gruesome public spectacle, with the intention of repressing symbolically, through his body, the threat to order that the judges perceived in his attack on the King. Such punishment, characteristic of the Middle Ages and early modern period was much opposed by the Enlightenment view that crime would be better handled by rehabilitating criminals’ minds rather than mutilating their bodies.
Anonymous, <i>Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens</i> (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757).
1757
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/242/
242
Remonstrance by the <i>Parlement</i> against the Denial of Sacraments in Orléans
In 1713, the Pope had issued a bull entitled<i> Unigenitus, </i>condemning as heretical 101 beliefs held by some French Catholic priests who were known as "Jansenists." To Jansenists, this bull, or "constitution," was the religious equivalent of absolutism—an order from on high that quashed all opposition. By contrast, the bishops of the Catholic Church in France, mostly from the Jesuit order, received the bull as an encouragement to attack the Jansenists on doctrinal matters and to diminish Jansenist influence in France. To this end, in 1730, the archbishop of the city of Orléans ordered that all clergy in his diocese should adhere to the bull, which many took to mean denying sacraments to Jansenists. When the priest of the parish of Saint–Catherine refused to read last rites to a parishioner, Madame Dupleix, the magistrates of the <i>Parlement</i> of Paris weighed in with the following "remonstrance," or protest, to the King (technically known as an "appeal against abuse" of power). In this remonstrance, the magistrates insist that the King fulfill his responsibility of defending all His Majesty’s subjects, including protecting Jansenists from Rome’s persecution. Despite this reliance on the monarchy, some no–so–subtle criticisms appear here.
Jules Flammermont,<i> Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, </i>vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 243–80.
July 24, 1731
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/243/
243
Remonstrance on the Refusal of Sacraments (1751)
In June 1749, the priest of the St.–Etienne–du–Mont parish in Paris, acting on instructions from the Archbishop of Paris, refused the Eucharist and last rites to one of his parishioners who could not produce a "certificate of confession" proving his adherence to the bull <i>Unigenitus</i>. The man, Charles Coffin, could not produce such a certificate, so the priest left him to die without benediction—setting off a mass of protests in the capital. The magistrates of the <i>Parlement</i> of Paris, who knew Coffin personally since he had served as rector at the church–run University of Paris and later was a clerk to the <i>Parlement</i> itself, joined in the protests, issuing this strongly worded "remonstrance" to the King.
Jules Flammermont, <i>Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle,</i> vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 414–43.
1751
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/244/
244
Remonstrance by the <i>Parlement</i> against the Denial of Sacraments in Paris (1753)
As the controversy over the refusal of sacraments came to dominate political and religious discussions in Paris, Versailles, and across the kingdom, the magistrates argued all the more strenuously that the King should compel the Archbishop to drop his intolerant attitude on the enforcement of <i>Unigenitus</i> and to allow greater diversity of opinion among French Catholics. To enforce this new policy, the magistrates appealed to the King’s sense of obligation—an obligation to uphold the traditions of the French monarchy, including the tradition of conferring with his subjects through the intermediaries of the Parlementary courts, and the tradition by which the King, rather than the Pope, oversaw the church in France to ensure that it served the interests of French men and women rather than those of the clergy alone.
Jules Flammermont, <i>Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle,</i> vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 506–614.
1753
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/245/
245
Parlementary Remonstrance against the Third "Twentieth" Tax
Later in the 1750s, the <i>Parlement</i> turned its attention from religious controversy to royal fiscal policy. With the outbreak of yet another war—the Seven Years’ (or French and Indian) War against Britain—the royal treasury needed even more revenues, and the King proposed adding, for the third time in a decade, a surtax of one–twentieth on all income from property, including normally exempt noble lands. The magistrates—many of them landowning nobles—opposed this idea, not by arguing that nobles should be exempt from taxes (an idea they believed fervently), but by claiming that the crown, by so drastically breaking with tradition, was violating the unwritten constitution of the kingdom. In response, the King held a special "seat of justice" ceremony the next day to enforce registration of the edicts.
Jules Flammermont, <i>Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle</i>, vol. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 243–66
September 18, 1759
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/246/
246
Parlementary Remonstrance against Reforms of Royal Debts
In 1763, with the Seven Years’ War having gone badly for France and the treasury facing ever greater shortfalls, the crown issued a series of new edicts on fiscal matters, necessary in large measure to pay off the war debts, which would extend the "twentieth" surtax (originally levied in 1750); add a new surtax on the "capitation" or "head tax" on all subjects of the King, including nobles; and create a special tax on revenues from non–real property (including royally issued bonds, held by most magistrates, judges, and provincial elites). Once again forced to register these measures under protest, the magistrates took the opportunity to upbraid the crown and to warn that once the current debts were retired the new taxes would have to be revoked.
Jules Flammermont, <i>Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle</i>, vol. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 323–44.
1763
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/247/
247
Legislation and Public Police Powers (1753)
Louis–Adrien Le Paige was the leading theoretician of Parlementary claims against the crown in the 1750s. His <i>Historical Letters on the Essential Functions of the Parlement</i> (1753) traced the history of the <i>parlements</i> from what he claimed to be their medieval origins—assemblies held by Frankish warriors to elect kings. Criticizing what he perceived to be the inadequate attention being paid by Louis XV to his <i>parlements</i>, Le Paige makes the historical case that far from being creations of the crown to which they remained subordinate, the <i>parlements</i> had actually created the monarchy—and thus should have the final say on all royal decrees. In this passage, Le Paige argues that because of this history, the <i>parlements</i> were not being "disobedient" to the King in asserting their sovereignty.
Louis-Adrien Le Paige, <i>Lettres historiques sur les fonctions essentielles du Parlement</i> (Amsterdam, 1753), 82–83, 87–93, 96–97.
1753
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/248/
248
Remonstrance of Court of Aides (1775)
The Court of Aides was a special chamber of the <i>Parlement</i> of Paris dealing with taxation. It, too, could issue "remonstrances" to protest against royal edicts that it opposed. In this remonstrance, the Court of Aides protests against reforms proposed by ministers to the newly crowned king, Louis XVI. The court argues generally for the right of the "nation"—as represented by the <i>Parlements, </i>naturally—to consent to all taxation. The court calls for greater "publicity" of the debate over taxation, so that a broader group of people could express themselves, as well as the <i>Parlements.</i> Although the crown tried to prevent this remonstrance from being published, it was widely circulated and undermined the new King’s efforts to establish good working relations between his ministers and the Parlementary courts. It also inspired such ministers as Turgot and then Necker to push for reforms of the monarchy from within.
<i>Mémoires pour servira l'histoire du droit public en France</i> (Brussels, 1775).
1775
https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/249/
249