Note 418 — VI. 1737-1755. The "Considérations"—The Plan of 1737—The Plan of 1755.
Reading edition
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.
As to the destruction of the nobility, nothing could have been further from d'Argenson's mind. He was himself a nobleman; and, if he had none of the prejudice, he had all the pride of his class. He advocates the suppression of old feudal privileges in the belief that they can be regretted by none but those whose devotion to the dignity of their order amounts to madness, "jusqu'à la folie" [p. 126 (1784)]. He repudiates the intention of debasing an aristocracy; in his own words, "il n'est question que d'extirper une satrapie roturière et odieuse" [p. 312 (1764)]. His only quarrel is with the nobleman's claims to "le droit de chasse sur ses voisins, source de querelles et d'insultes; les droits considérables de mutation et de reliefs en cas de vente et même de succession collatérale, par où les terres mal administrées passent plus difficilement dans des mains qui les cultiveroient mieux; l'exercice de la justice seigneuriale négligé partout et pratiqué par une race de gens avides, toujours occupés à exciter l'habitant simple à plaider; enfin tous ces différens droits, procés, chicanes, vieilles recherches, empèchement à la bonne culture des terres, rétrécissement de l'abondance, obstacle au bonheur de la campagne" [pp. 120-21 (1784), cf. pp. 119-20 (1764)]. These d'Argenson would have swept away; and in doing so he would have reduced the French nobility, or rather he would have raised it, to the position actually occupied by one of the most powerful aristocracies in the world, the nobility of England.
No more cruelly keen-sighted man than d'Argenson ever lived. He only differs from most men of equal vision in that his clear perception of life as it was did not breed in him disgust and cynical acceptance. His mind could command two worlds, the real and the ideal; but only intimate knowledge can follow him at will into either, or avoid the critical gaucherie of mistaking aspiration for illusion.