61 10 1079 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Sire: As your reign begins, we must make Your Majesty aware of the real state of the People, for their condition is lost in the brilliant spectacle of the court. It may even be that you have been led to form tragic misconceptions about the condition of the rest of the nation from the joy and affection shown by all those who could approach Your Majesty at your accession [to the throne]. . . . This nation, Sire, has always shown its enthusiasm and affection for its masters by making the greatest effort to maintain the splendor of their throne. Your Majesty must at least be made aware of what these enormous contributions have cost Your unfortunate People. . . . But there is an important truth, Sire, which it is our duty to bring to your attention. Taxes have been levied with impunity upon your subjects under the pretext that they are required in order to strengthen sovereign authority. A league has formed between the enemies of the courts and those who make the People suffer under the weight of arbitrary taxes. In order to replace the magistracy and its services, this league lent their support to its destruction. The sacrifice of the People to their cupidity was the result. . . . We would wish, Sire, that there were others besides ourselves who could acquaint you with these distressing truths. Why can Your Majesty not abandon today those fatal maxims of government, or just that policy introduced a century ago by jealous ministers, which has reduced all the Orders of the State to silence with the sole exception of the Magistracy? Why is it not possible for the nation to speak for itself about its most cherished interests? Then, Sire, we would most gladly turn over to others the task of informing you of the excesses committed by this very same ministry which wanted to destroy us! But since we alone still enjoy that ancient right of Frenchmen that allows us to speak to our kings and freely protest against infractions of the law and national rights, we must not show our enemies a generosity which would make us guilty before the entire nation. . . . France, and perhaps the whole of Europe, is burdened with the weight of taxes. The rivalry of the major powers has led them to spend enormous sums at every opportunity. This has made taxes necessary, and these taxes are redoubled due to the enormous national debt contracted during previous reigns. Your Majesty must remember that if your ancestors were covered with glory, the price for that glory is still being paid for by the present generation. . . . . Those who benefit from your benevolence and magnificence are always before your eyes, while the wretches robbed of their subsistence by harsh taxes go unseen. It has therefore become necessary to compare these two groups in order to see the shocking, but not exaggerated, condition of the People . . . [M]ay you always be a witness to it, Sire! . . . There would be a definite advantage for Your Majesty, and an immense one for the People, in simplifying the existing taxes and the laws ensuring their collection. . . . Allow us, Sire, to make use of the term "tyranny," odious as it is. Allow us to dispense with awkward circumlocutions when we have important truths to bring to your attention. The tyranny against which we are protesting today is exercised, without your knowledge, by emissaries of the administration, people totally unknown to Your Majesty. . . . We place the label of "tyranny" only on that type of administration that tends to deprive your subjects of the right of appeal which is so important for them and does not remove from your protection those who oppress the People. . . . It seems that such a form of government [tyranny] cannot exist in nations which have laws, customs and enlightenment. In civilized countries, even where the prince enjoys absolute power, the condition of the People should be very different. However absolute the authority may be, justice can be rendered by the deliberation of courts bound by fixed laws. If judges depart from these laws, one can appeal to higher courts, and finally to the sovereign. These appeals are possible because all the rules governing authority are written down, recorded, and introduced into the public records, because every citizen can find a knowledgeable defender, and because the public itself is the censor of the judges. And justice is not only rendered to individuals, but also to corporate bodies, communities, cities and entire provinces. And in order to be able to defend their rights, there should be assemblies and representatives. Thus, in a civilized country, even one subject to an absolute power, there ought to be no interest, either general or individual, which is not defended. All those entrusted with the exercise of sovereign power should be subject to three types of restraint: the law; appeal to higher authority; and public opinion. . . . Even in the most well-educated country, even during this century which has the most civilized customs, we are threatened with that form of government in which the sovereign cannot be enlightened, however sincerely he may want to be. France, like the rest of western Europe, was once governed by feudal law, but each kingdom has experienced different revolutions since that form of government was destroyed. . . . In France, the nation has always had a profound awareness of its rights and freedoms. Our tenets have been recognized by our kings on more than one occasion, and our leaders have even basked in the glory of being the sovereigns of a free People. However, the articles of this freedom have never been written down, and the real power, the power of arms, which under the feudal government was in the hands of the great nobles, has been totally concentrated in the hands of the King. Consequently when there have been great abuses of authority, the representatives of the nation have not been satisfied with merely complaining about bad administration. They have felt obliged to demand the nation's rights. They spoke not only of justice, but of liberty. In response to their efforts, the ministers, always quick to seize upon ways of shielding their administration from examination, have had the cleverness to call into question both the protesting bodies as well as the protests themselves. To appeal to the King against his ministers has been regarded as an attack on his authority. . . . The most powerful kings on earth have been persuaded that they must fear even the tears of a submissive People. . . . 1. An attempt has been made to abolish the real representatives of the nation. 2. The protests of those representatives whom it has been impossible to destroy have been rendered illusory. 3. There is a desire even to make such protests impossible. To achieve this end, two kinds of secrecy have been introduced. One seeks to conceal the operations of the administration from the eyes of the nation and from Your Majesty himself. The other hides the identity of the administrators from the public. . . . The general assemblies of the nation have not been convoked for one hundred and sixty years, and for a long time before that they were very infrequent. We might even venture to say that they had become almost useless because they were not involved in setting of taxes, one of their most important roles. Several provinces had their own assemblies or provincial Estates [called Pays d'Etats]. Many have been deprived of this important privilege, and in the provinces where the assemblies of Estates still exist, their jurisdiction has been restricted within limits which become narrower every day. It would not be an overstatement to say that in our provinces there exists a sort of continuous warfare between the agents of arbitrary power and the representatives of the People, a war in which tyranny makes new conquests every day. The provinces which had no provincial Estates were called Pays d'Election. There, courts called "Elections" actually existed and were composed of persons elected by the province itself. They fulfilled some of the functions of the provincial Estates, at least in the matter of apportioning taxes. These courts still exist under the name of "Elections," but the name is all that remains of their original purpose. Their officials are no longer truly elected by the province, and those that are, are made to be almost totally dependent upon the intendants for the exercise of the functions remaining to them. . . . At least each corporate body and each community of citizens had retained the right to administer its own affairs. We cannot say that this right was part of the original constitution of the realm, because it goes back much further than that. It is a natural right, the right of reason. Nonetheless, even this has been taken away from your subjects. . . . Step by step we have come from the time when powerful ministers made it a political principle not to allow the national assembly to meet, to a time where the deliberations of the inhabitants of a village are declared void if they have not been authorized by the intendant. If a community has to make an expenditure it must obtain the consent of the intendant's sub-delegate, regardless of how small that expenditure may be. They must also follow the plan he has chosen, employ the workers he favors, and pay them as he decides. And if the community wishes to sue someone, its action must also be authorized by the intendant. The community's case must be pleaded before this first tribunal before being brought into the courts of justice, and if the intendant's opinion goes against the inhabitants, or if their adversary can bring influence to bear upon the intendant, the community is deprived of the ability to defend its rights. . . . However, it was necessary to give the nation some seeming satisfaction when the Estates were no longer being convened, so the kings announced that the courts of justice would take the place of the Estates and that the magistrates would be the representatives of the People. But after having given the magistrates this title in order to console the nation for the loss of its ancient and veritable representatives, every opportunity was taken to emphasize that the functions of the judges were limited to their own region and to matters of litigation. The same limits were also placed upon the right of representation. Thus, any possible abuse could be committed in the administration without the King ever learning about it from either the representatives of the People (since in most provinces they no longer exist), from the courts of justice (since they are dismissed as incompetent as soon as they venture to speak of administrative matters), or from individuals who have learned from severe examples that it is a crime to invoke the justice of their sovereign. Yet despite all these obstacles, public outcry, a type of protest which can never be totally extinguished, has always been feared by administrators. Perhaps they also fear that one day a king would, of his own accord, demand an accounting of the administration's secrets. Therefore, they wished to make such an accounting impossible, or at least to ensure that one could only be rendered by the administrators themselves, without any risk of contradiction. This is why they have gone to such lengths to introduce clandestine administration everywhere. . . . Sortable Date 1775-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mémoires pour servira l'histoire du droit public en France (Brussels, 1775). Description An account of the resource The Court of Aides was a special chamber of the Parlement 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 Parlements, 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 Parlements. 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 249 Title A name given to the resource Remonstrance of Court of Aides (1775) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/249/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1775 Economic Conditions Laws Monarchy Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document The Salic law, written and reformed under Clovis, had as its subject the overall policing of the State. It was written in parlement and in concert with the Frankish people, and the preamble of the law mentions that "Clovis agreed with the Franks to add several amendments to the Salic law," [Clodoveus unà cum Francis pertractavit, ui ad titulos aliquid ampliùs adderet]. This agreement thus became known as the "Conventions of Salic Law" [pactus Legis Salicoe]. . . . [In these edicts] one finds our fundamental maxim: that no edict has the force of law in the kingdom until it has been examined and registered in parlement since it is the custom of France, as Louis XI himself said, and whatever laws are not published in that way will have no value. It is again evident that our kings took great care in their laws and edicts to make it clear that everyone had been involved in the deliberations and that there had been consensus: We assembled, from all stations in life, have decided; it is the resolution of the King, the Princes, and the People. The combination of royal authority, together with the consideration and free consent of parlement, gave power to the edict that no force could break. Consequently, the Prince had unshakable proof that his commands were just, and the People knew that the obedience required of them was reasonable. The Monarch was reassured that he himself had not erred, or that a favorite counselor, himself possibly mistaken, had not misled him, and the People were reassured that they had only fair laws to obey. It was, in brief, mutual assurance—reciprocal confidence that bound the Prince and his subjects. As I have already mentioned, if under the second Race [dynasty] it was no longer possible to seek everyone's approval, in that not everyone was [represented] in Parlement this constitutive law of the Monarchy become no less solid because it continued to require the approval of all the members of the parlement. Besides, the deliberation of all Frenchmen was presumed by the deliberation of their representatives. Charlemagne, that greatest and most powerful of all our kings, was himself so aware of the importance of this general approval by the People and of the mutual confidence that resulted from equitable laws, that, in a remarkable arrangement, he worked in concert with his Parlement on laws so that it would be known that he had received universal approval. He ordered that the People's opinion be polled, no doubt each in his own jurisdiction, and that if they consented to the newly amended law, each private individual put his mark or seal upon it. [Ut populus interrogetur de capitulis quoe in Lege noviter addita sunt, & postquam omnes consenserint, suscriptiones vel manu firmationes suas in ipfis capitulis faciant.] This order was inserted into the Salic law itself, where it can still be read; and Charles the Bald made sure to renew its authorization by having it inserted into the preface that he wrote for it. But this arrangement became impractical, and those making up parlement in succeeding periods, in this respect, became entirely the representatives of past General Assemblies. It is in their collectivity that the fundamental law is concentrated, established by those same royal edicts which, during every period of monarchical rule, required the opinion and the approval of parlement as an essential condition. They would refuse the title of Public Law to any edicts that they had not verified nor agreed to register. The end result is that in our new Government the parlement's consent continued to be as totally free as it was in the earliest parlements. . . . On the important point [of usurping the parlement's power], the King's laws [must] conform with the conscience, and in all cases he must be forbidden from doing otherwise. Consequently we should not think that the consent of parlement and the required registration of national law was ever merely a simple formality or empty ritual. In all periods, it has been a serious examination, an act of persuasion and of conscience which always required full and complete freedom. This right [of approval by the parlement] was born at the same time as the Monarchy and seemed to our kings to be so wise, so proper, that it made their thrones unshakable. By preventing all unjust use of their authority, when colonizing the Gauls, not only did the kings maintain the parlement's role as essential, the keystone upon which the rest depended, but they, in fact, commanded it. The kings themselves enjoined parlement to refuse them, even ordering that they be resisted if need be, and to pay no heed to any order contrary to Justice and the Law. And so, Sir, the parlement obeyed in appearing disobedient, since in their defiance, they were carrying out the orders of the kings themselves, and in disobeying they were fulfilling the law that he had ordered: that is . . . to disobey. Besides, the parlement said to Henry IV: "If it is disobedience to serve well, the parlement commits this misdeed regularly. When conflict exists between the absolute power of the King and the good of his service, [the parlement] judges one to be preferable to the other, not through disobedience but because it is the duty of parlement to discharge its office according to its conscience." Thus, when you ask me what the parlement's authority consisted of previously on the question of Edicts and the law, and what it consists of today, the answer is easy. It is today, Sire, all that it was in Clovis's time. Today, as then, the parlement's authority is but to do its duty in an unassailable way and to never do anything, nor register anything, contrary to the Law of the Kingdom and which is not in the true interest of the Monarch and the Monarchy, lest it receive a warning from its conscience. Parlement must know how to courageously say: "SIRE, that is not just, you cannot do that, nor should you." Sortable Date 1753-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Louis-Adrien Le Paige, Lettres historiques sur les fonctions essentielles du Parlement (Amsterdam, 1753), 82–83, 87–93, 96–97. Description An account of the resource Louis–Adrien Le Paige was the leading theoretician of Parlementary claims against the crown in the 1750s. His Historical Letters on the Essential Functions of the Parlement (1753) traced the history of the parlements 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 parlements, Le Paige makes the historical case that far from being creations of the crown to which they remained subordinate, the parlements 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 parlements were not being "disobedient" to the King in asserting their sovereignty. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 248 Title A name given to the resource Legislation and Public Police Powers (1753) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/248/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1753 Enlightenment Laws Monarchy Nobility Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Sire, At a time when a people who adores you are impatiently awaiting the pleasures of peace, are preparing to let the transports of their joy erupt, and to etch in bronze their gratitude for your benevolence, why is it necessary that an imposing combination of power and authority will not allow a glimpse of the respect that inspires them? . . . Sire, your parlement could not proceed to the registering of the disposition of your edict that orders the census and estimation of all the goods of the Kingdom, without first having some knowledge of the rules and instructions on how to conduct it. In addition, there currently exists a no-less efficient means of rectifying the arbitrary nature of the division of taxes—by bringing them all back under the jurisdiction of the regular tribunals and by having the different taxation roles remitted to the individual's Office of the Clerk of the Court. The first "twentieth" is a tax reserved for wartime but which nevertheless represents the idea of a tax that is indefinite in duration, and this can only stir up the most emphatic alarm in the minds of your subjects. Should your parlement not quickly solicit the goodness of your Majesty, not only to request that he set an imminent deadline for stopping the first "twentieth," but also to receive approval for its collection based on the notifications currently in effect, without their being able to be increased? The continuation of the second "twentieth" over six years is equally contrary to the promises that Your Majesty deigned to make, and to the state of poverty that the people have been reduced to. The "free gift" of the cities, in principle considered as a free and voluntary aid, is in fact prorogated against the explicit statement of Your Majesty. Additionally, your parlement has observed, with the most poignant sadness, illegal collections and the authorized misappropriation of public funds, even though the offenders were to be severely punished. Sire, how can your parlement not feel obligated to insist to Your Majesty on the fifth sous per livre on the farm taxes when they were created! And now with the return of peace, when your subjects should be able to foster the hope that this tax would be repealed, they have the pain of seeing that your Majesty is requiring a sixth. Sire, we dare show you that these accumulated taxes are causing immense harm to commerce and agriculture by their reduction of consumption. . . . When your Majesty deigned to set the guidelines for the liquidation of the State's debt, should your parlement not have shown you, Sire, the results of the city paying an annuity, the burden of which falls almost entirely on the inhabitants of this capital that already contributes in so many ways and so bountifully to the costs of the State? And should the parlement not also have warned you of the public disrepute they would receive because of this annuity? And if your Majesty has formed a plan to reimburse the life annuities . . . your parlement should have shown you, Sire, that it is time to arrange for the privilege of liquidating them when your finances allow. The measures of the edict . . . are very contrary to the rights of feudalism, to the acts and intentions of the founders, to the interest of creditors and, in general, to property rights. Besides, as a source of interest for Your Majesty's finances, it is so minor, and the possibility of fraud so great, that your parlement must beg your Majesty to repeal this edict. . . . Sire, to demonstrate the need to rely on economy and better administration, what more convincing or more heartrending proof is there to give to your Majesty than the Kingdom's state of decline? Sire this decline is evidenced by falling population, the desertion that leaves a portion of the land uncultivated, the increase in begging, the despondency and disappointment rife among the workers in the countryside. . . . And finally, Sire, it is also evidenced through the loss of the patriotic spirit and, if we dare say, the fear of seeing oneself reborn into a future destined for heavier impositions that those that one endured oneself. . . . The sad result of inequality in the division of taxes, a nefarious source of the fortune of some and the ruin of others, is an inequality that is contrary to your justice and your beneficence. . . . Sire, your parlement must make the most adamant and the most respectful entreaties to your Majesty, and beg him to make the State's budget available so that it can be compared to the old peacetime budget so that it can be seen what your Majesty judges to be necessary to maintain the country's borders, police the state police, keep the peace, while protecting the peace, commerce, and the dignity of the throne. Actually, the increase of different types of taxes that fall on the lands and their produce, and on individuals and the actions of society, give rise to government control that is so diversified that a throng of officers would be needed just to make it profitable—officers whose salaries should remain in Your Majesty's coffers. . . . Sire, as long as you are seeing to this matter of reimbursing the State's debts, your parlement dares to hope that your Majesty will not resort to new loans . . . since the ever increasing number of loans is the cause of your finances being unsettled, and of excessive taxes. The King responded: I know the needs of my people, and am aware of all of the efforts that they have made during the duration of the war. When I decided on the edicts and on the statement that I had entered into the register, I had already thought about the points that my parlement brings to my attention in their remonstrances. I was constrained by necessity to provide for the expenses of the State and for its freedom. I cannot change anything in the plan that I have proposed. My parlement shall become aware of its usefulness when it is executed, and shall recognize my views that are aimed at relieving my people. Sortable Date 1763-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Jules Flammermont, Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, vol. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 323–44. Description An account of the resource 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 247 Title A name given to the resource Parlementary Remonstrance against Reforms of Royal Debts Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/247/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1763 Economic Conditions Laws Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Basically Sire, due to these utterances and the risks they pose for all of Your Majesty's subjects who are concerned with the success of the remonstrances that they lay before the throne, your parlement finds itself forced to respectfully remind you what one of your august predecessors, speaking through an envoy, said. "According to our government's constitution and former rulings by Most Christian Kings, kept thus far with religious exactness, nothing may have the force of public law in France, either for ecclesiastical or public matters, that has not been authorized and publicized by parlementary decree." Or what another of your predecessors also stated: that "verification by parlement is required and necessary, such that the measures applicable to the affairs of State remain in abeyance until they have been verified." These formal and authentic assertions emphatically contain the maxims that your parlement has always supported. These maxims were also tacitly stressed by another of our sovereigns when, in his presence, his minister came to parlement and said, "The need to verify edicts by parlement is one of the most sacred public laws, and one that the kings have always observed most religiously. This verification occurs by free vote, and it is illusory and contradictory to believe that the edicts which, in accordance with the laws of the kingdom are not open to execution until they have been brought and deliberated in the presence of the sovereign, are considered verified once the King has them read and published in his presence." If the registration of parlement's edicts is one of the most appropriate ways of imposing them on foreign nations, it is because these nations know that the constitution of the French monarchy is such that until these edicts have been verified and registered by the parlement, they are not legitimate. To reduce the focus on the registration by your parlement to the effect of contributing to its imposition on enemies, is to admit only the long-term consequences, rather than the immediate and appropriate effects from which it should stem. In this way, it distorts the nature of the registration and gives an opening for false impressions by which some would want to persuade Your Majesty that this registration can be supplanted by extraordinary means. Sire, it would be against the views and interests of Your Majesty to allow an attack on principles that are as old as the monarchy itself and that are intimately tied to the conservation of your very authority. These principles are as important to the preservation of the obedience you are due by the execution of duly verified laws, as they are useful to those subjects who owe you this obedience. And it is your parlement, more than those who are close to the throne, that is more capable of assembling the needs and the just demands of your subjects. Sire, we implore you to only see expressions of an unlimited faithfulness in all aspects of our respectful representation. It is with zeal, as well as discretion, that this faithfulness aims at deepening our understanding of all the aspects of the State that are capable of having an influence on the interests of Your Majesty and on those of your subjects. This faithfulness refuses to accept the registration of the above-mentioned edicts which, for reasons of order and public interest, are so essential, so powerful, so important, that it would be a reprehensible and fatal weakness to only try to be rid of them. Finally, this faithfulness insists on the conservation of the essential rights of the ministry that your parlement fulfills for the State, because the protection of these rights is the only guarantee for the State and of all Your Majesty's subjects. If, in doing its duty, your parlement dedicates itself to the strict obligation of usefully serving Your Majesty and the State by overcoming the obstacles that become a part of registering of the above-mentioned edicts, it could converge with Your Majesty's views with as much zeal and more satisfaction if it could present him with the projects which could be reconciled with the most important interests of which it must never lose sight. Your parlement thus begs you Sire, with all the more confidence, to find resources that agree with the feelings of your own heart and with the situation of your people. It is assured by Your Majesty's answer that none of the number of projects that could be approved will find the idea of new taxes on land, so fatal to the State, so justly disapproved by your parlement, when against its formal vow they were introduced in the Kingdom. And this insidious announcement, too widely divulged to the public, alarmed the magistrates as much as it did your parlement and all citizens. Sire, your parlement will not stop representing to you with the love and respect with which it is imbued for your sacred person. Among the projects to improve the finances, the one that is the surest, fairest, and the most worthy of Your Majesty, shall always be the affirmation and the progress of prudent savings by the administration. With this is also the reformation of the enormous abuses that render most of the treaties and companies that are created for your service as onerous for Your Majesty as they are onerous and ruinous for your subjects. Finally, there is the greater and greater reduction of useless expenses. Sire, if these reductions were as obvious as they are in agreement with Your Majesty's intentions, your subjects' courage would take on new force. The French nation, so noble, so generous and so attached to its kings, would raise the infallible means, would make the greatest efforts to save it through these reductions on the immense amounts raised from it if only they are used for the dignity of the throne, the effective service of Your Majesty, and the good of the State Respectfully, Sire, etc. The Parlement of Paris, 18 September 1759. The King, upon receiving these remonstrances, said only that he would study them and would make his intentions known to his parlement. Sortable Date 1759-09-18 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Jules Flammermont, Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, vol. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 243–66 Description An account of the resource Later in the 1750s, the Parlement 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 246 Title A name given to the resource Parlementary Remonstrance against the Third "Twentieth" Tax Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/246/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource September 18, 1759 Economic Conditions Laws Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Sire, The most essential interest of the Sovereign is to know the truth, and your parlement is tasked by the State to bring it to you. . . . Today it is a question of religion and the conservation of the State, both equally threatened by the alarming schism that has aroused our enthusiasm. This schism, too long overlooked, has sunk such deep roots and grows so rapidly each day that soon no barriers will be able to contain it. Sire, the normal course of justice has already been disrupted. The most necessary formalities are desecrated, the People are angry, the guilty emboldened, their judges demeaned, intimidated, contradicted, or even bound by inaction. The violent shocks that this schism has brought have caused us to uncover a dominion being reborn within your states. It is an arbitrary dominion that recognizes neither laws, nor sovereign, nor magistrates, and for which religion is nothing more than a pretext. It is a domination for which princely authority is no more than an instrument that it dares to use or reject according to its interests. The fundamental laws of the State are nothing more than an inconvenient yoke, and the legitimate freedom of citizens is nothing more that a fictitious right. . . . Laws are the sacred ties that bind and are the seal of this indissoluble commitment. Together the King, the State, and the Law form an inseparable trinity. Strengthening the King's throne and making its sovereignty inviolable, maintaining the obedience and tranquility of the subjects, assuring their rights and legitimate freedom, in a word, making the State eternal, formidable from without and serene within . . . these are the fruits that grow from strict obedience of the law. Based on reflection and the experiences of the greatest princes and the most consummate men, and dictated solely for the good of the state and the true interests of the Prince, only laws can protect the sovereign from surprises, inspire the public trust, and stop those from any rank of society from causing problems for the State. Never has there been a revolution that was not hatched by changing the law. Sire, there is neither a more important principle, nor one more generally accepted. Politicians, legal advisers, magistrates, even sovereigns themselves have all recognized that there can be a flourishing kingdom only by bringing together the subjects' obedience of the King, and King's obedience of the law. . . . Filled with the most poignant love for Your Majesty's sacred person and jealous of increasing in all your subjects the feelings that tie them to you, as if that was possible, your parlement can only fear that which attempts to divide them. In the hands of a Prince as fair, they will always respect the use of his supreme power. But allow us, Sire, to tell you that these sudden and shocking misfortunes, these bursts of dreadful wrath that only cause hardship and that herald nothing but austerity, can only spread terror. And the French, in whom love is the tenet and gauge of fidelity, become alarmed and troubled as soon as they fear their sovereign. If he is gentle with his People, it is more natural for them to feel and state over and over, "May justice and kindness keep the King, and may his throne be strengthened by clemency." Thus they become concerned, Sire, when they see themselves abandoned to the clerics and exposed to the arbitrary application of power mistakenly placed in the hands of the ecclesiastics. The power of the clerics will soon have no limits beyond those of their own organization, and will subjugate the People in a dominion rising from the ruins of their liberty. The clerics are capable of using the People's slavery for whatever purpose they desire. Your subjects see themselves being carried away, so to speak, to a realm so different from yours, and which, in their eyes, offers nothing but risks and uncertainty. Being taken to a realm that offers them nothing but a frightful spectacle of citizens already deprived of their legitimate freedom. They see houses desolated by the loss of their most important members, magistrates removed from office, entire families required to go elsewhere to receive asylum from captivity. Shuddering in this disgrace too often takes on the form of resentment and revenge towards one's adversaries! . . . Sire, we beg you not to let yourself be distracted from the real cause of so many ills: their principle is this infinite number of orders [from Rome] that have taken your religion by surprise. The only way to stop their flow is to stop ceding your authority to the clerics who abuse and compromise it. We witnessed this with unbelievable indecency when, in the grand hall of your parlement, a provincial bishop was on trial for influencing election results. He had used one of Your Majesty's orders that were countersigned by a minister that had been out of office for ten years. Sire, forgive your parlement for giving you these details. We know Your heart, and to present you the unfortunate people of your empire is to touch its most sensitive spot. Those subjects who the senior clerics oppress by their credibility. Those subjects who shudder in exile and prison without knowing the crime of which they are accused and without the means to prove their innocence. Should these subjects not rest assured of Your heart's generosity as soon as You hear their complaints? . . . Innocent Christians find themselves reduced to the cruel alternative of being regarded as indifferent to the sacraments if they do not request them, or undergoing a scandalous and unfair refusal if they do. Sire, it is time to show these ministers of the Church that they are abusing your indulgence and that your intention is not to authorize the schism that, for the happiness of your People, you have so often condemned. Sortable Date 1753-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Jules Flammermont, Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 506–614. Description An account of the resource 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 Unigenitus 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 245 Title A name given to the resource Remonstrance by the Parlement against the Denial of Sacraments in Paris (1753) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/245/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1753 Enlightenment Laws Public Opinion Religion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document The arbitrary refusal of the sacraments given to the dying, notably confession or the right to name their own confessor, multiplies daily. These nascent scandals and difficulties are capable of destroying respect for religion, tainting the submission due to Your Highness and delivering a cruel blow to public peace. Your parlement, Sire, believes it is giving you one of the greatest proofs of its loyalty by representing to Your Majesty that now is the time to put into action the reform of equally pernicious abuses. We protest, Sire, in truth, that your parlement does not intend, and has never intended, to impinge on the Legitimate rights of [the Roman Catholic Church's] spiritual power. Full of the respect and veneration that all Christians must bear towards our religion, the parlement knows that is is only the Church which has the right to teach the faithful, to guide them on the path to salvation, to make decisions upon everything that concerns the dispensation and administration of the sacraments, and to determine the cases in which the faithful can participate and when they must be excluded. But the same respect with which a Christian magistrate recognizes the Church's legislative power, in that which concerns the passage of souls and the dispensation of our holy mysteries, forces him to perceive the necessity that these laws, once established, must be exactly observed. And what greater and more indispensable work could there be for a Christian king, than to carry out these duties? To the King alone belongs supreme power along with the ability to put into effect that which he commands; but this power derives from God; his principle duty therefore is to use this power to serve Him who bestows it. The voice of the Church is the voice of God. Its decrees, in that which is within the province of its power, are absolute laws to which all the faithful and, in particular, the ministers of religion must obey . . . if they stray, should the Christian monarch allow these laws to be trampled with impunity? The Church, whose power is entirely spiritual, does not have the exterior force to exact obedience. It is therefore necessary for the prince to come to its aid, to employ against offenders those weapons which God has placed in his hands; and while a prince might fear blame for undertaking this under the authority of the Church, it is, on the contrary, a tribute which he pays to the Church, in accordance with his views, by lending it the force which it does not have, to execute those laws which it has established. . . . When [the Church] abuses its power by unjustly refusing benefits to those who have a right to claim them, there must be a reclamation of the spirit that employs force to remind them [the clergy] of their work. The prince, by making use of his authority in this way, fulfills the dual protection which he owes, one to the Church to execute its orders, the other to his subjects so that they might enjoy the spiritual and material advantages that have belonged to them from the moment they had the good fortune to be born in his realm. . . . How many times, Sire, did princes, your predecessors, use their authority to curb the persecutions which some ministers of the Church wanted to exercise against their subjects by prohibitions, censures, or unjust excommunications? . . . The principles which govern your authority and your absolute sovereignty, are generally known, and no one dares to question them; we can hope that we shall never see anything arise to contradict this [situation]; but these fundamental truths, which constitute the essence of the sacred rights of your crown, demand that we, your magistrates, must always be alert against anything which could be a means to disturb them. . . . If, therefore, a high minister of the Church should one day undertake to resuscitate false doctrine and to reestablish opinions which are contrary to your authority. . . subordinate ministers . . . feared to openly contravene them. They would have to refuse to give the note of confession to those who were known not to agree with this instruction [from the Archbishop of Paris], and sick people, who would not be able to speak out, might find themselves, in that situation, deprived of those longed-for alleviations and sources of help at the point of death. What thing is more capable of making an impression on one of the faithful? Sortable Date 1751-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Jules Flammermont, Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 414–43. Description An account of the resource 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 Unigenitus. 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 Parlement 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 Parlement itself, joined in the protests, issuing this strongly worded "remonstrance" to the King. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 244 Title A name given to the resource Remonstrance on the Refusal of Sacraments (1751) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/244/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1751 Enlightenment Laws Public Opinion Religion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document How many times, whenever a public outcry echoed from all corners, has your parlement been ready to bring to the Sovereign its justifiable complaints against such obvious abuses as the Unigenitus Constitution? Touched by these public ills, only the justifiable fear of precipitously venturing facts of such importance when they have not yet been sufficiently proven in the judicial system could stop these dramatic steps. Living in the city of Orléans, in the parish of Saint-Catherine, a woman by the name of Dupleix saw that she was falling dangerously ill from a disease and would soon die from it. She had asked the parish priest to administer the last rites. The priest went to her, but before doing anything else he asked her to state that she had submitted to the decisions of the Church. Not satisfied with the answer of this dying woman, who wanted to live and die within the Catholic, apostolic and Roman faith, the priest persisted. He asked her if she had submitted to the Unigenitus Constitution and told her that he would not administer the last rites until she accepted the Constitution. Then he left. The illness became more threatening, and the priest was again summoned. The same questions, the same answers, the same refusal. There are two important questionings here . . . the direct questions and preconditions requiring the dying woman to declare that she had submitted to the Constitution, as well as the priest's refusals to administer the last rites until she had satisfied him. . . . The Church is necessarily a part of the body of the State. Any new danger from clerics, any enterprise that could lead to trouble for the State or shake the solid foundations of public tranquility, ties and commits ecclesiastics as members of the State and as subjects of Your Majesty. Whatever they may say, two combined issues equally involve the rights of the Church and of the State. Also, the execution of these rights and the state police power belong to Your Majesty, both as the protector of the Church or as Sovereign responsible for maintaining the peace of the kingdom. Such are the issues of marriage and vows. Such are the public scandals that Your Majesty always has an interest in suppressing and that the regulations accomplish for a number of royal cases. Such would be the abuse that the clerics could achieve with the power that is confided to them for administering the sacraments. From that point, there would be intervention and competition between the two powers in certain cases to conduct the clerics' trial in accordance with the laws of the kingdom. From that point, there would begin a means of recourse to the sovereign's authority or appeals as abuses, almost as old as the monarchy and that has been so useful to preceding kings, conserving the rights of your throne and our freedoms which always provide it the greatest support. To contest the sovereign's rights in these important matters under the pretext that they deal directly or indirectly with the spirituality or administration of the sacraments, would be to attack the most permanent maxims and open a sure and easy way for clerics to increase their power and ruin royal authority. And in all of these cases your parlement, tasked by you and under your authority with watching over the public peace in the kingdom, has the right and obligation to propose legitimate solutions to this task as circumstances warrant and as soon as necessary. If a confessor, unworthy of the sanctity of his ministry, got carried away to the point of profaning the sacraments in order to seduce the person confessing, whether it be on a spiritual or administrative matter, who could doubt that this abuse of the holy mysteries did not constitute an external and public crime which would immediately subject him to temporal law and the legitimate authority of the magistrates who exercise this justice in Your name? . . . Sire, we know that the love of your People and the zeal and fidelity of your parlement is sufficient to prevent and ward off these extreme ills which we can only remember with sorrow. But the enslavement of the principles that strengthen royal authority and the tranquility of the State are the same in all of these cases mentioned above. The sovereign to whom providence has confided the government of this great kingdom is, by the sole title of king and the right of his crown, also the defender of the Church. To defend the Church is to defend its legitimate rights and its ancient canons, and to have them executed by the clerics themselves in the entire expanse of his realm. From this defense comes the title of external bishop that is accorded to emperors and sovereigns. From this defense comes many examples of trials against clerics who, while teaching the truth of the Gospel, by their spurious enthusiasm slandered and personally attacked those where listening to them. This defense is often reiterated in the decrees and laws against causing public scandals by the indiscreet refusal of those who work in front of the altar. The strict observance of these ancient canons, which make up the fundamental basis of our freedoms, also make up the laws of the State. This observance is still in the hands of Your Majesty, and as soon as the clerics infringe on it, He is in his rights and has the obligation to provide it with his authority. . . . These immutable principles have always been the solid foundation of the monarchy, and your parlement is tasked by you with watching over the public order. It has learned however that under the direction of a few bishops the priests of their dioceses are trying to establish the Constitution as a rule of faith, or at least all of the characteristics of such. They are attempting to remove the communion of the faithful from the heart of the Church, as well as all participation in the sacraments by those of your subjects who do not state above all else that they accept the Constitution purely and simply. Your parlement has the proof, acquired through judicial inquiry and by similar depositions given by honest witnesses, that under this pretext the parish priest of Saint-Catherine persists in repeatedly refusing to allow a sick woman to die without the sacraments. This woman states that she wants to die in the communion of the Catholic, apostolic and roman Church. The threat of her imminent death increases every second. Based on new complaints, your parlement again sends back a request to the bishop of the diocese to provide the sacrament. At the same time, it is forced to again remind him of the need to warn us of anything that he deals with that could tend to disrupt the peace of the Church and State. . . . What will the consequences be when clerics can use fear to wring declarations that they have no right to require from people who would never declare as much if they were fully conscious and with their full faculties? With such suspect and dangerous ways as these to spread the rights of the Constitution, would it not be more proper to destroy them than to strengthen them? . . . Respectfully, Parlement, 24 July 1731 Signed: Portail. Sortable Date 1731-07-24 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Jules Flammermont, Remonstrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1888–98), 243–80. Description An account of the resource In 1713, the Pope had issued a bull entitled Unigenitus, 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 Parlement 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 243 Title A name given to the resource Remonstrance by the Parlement against the Denial of Sacraments in Orléans Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/243/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource July 24, 1731 Enlightenment Laws Provinces Public Opinion Religion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document The Parlement declares "the said Robert-François Damiens has been convicted of having committed a very mean, very terrible, and very dreadful parricidal crime against the King. The said Damiens is sentenced to pay for his crime in front of the main gate of the Church of Paris. He will be taken there in a tipcart naked and will hold a burning wax torch weighing two pounds. There, on his knees, he will say and declare that he had committed a very mean, very terrible and very dreadful parricide, and that he had hurt the King. . . . He will repent and ask God, the King and Justice to forgive him. When this will be done, he will be taken in the same tipcart to the Place de Grève and will be put on a scaffold. Then his breasts, arms, thighs, and legs will be tortured. While holding the knife with which he committed the said Parricide, his right hand will be burnt. On his tortured body parts, melted lead, boiling oil, burning pitch, and melted wax and sulfur will be thrown. Then four horses will pull him apart until he is dismembered. His limbs will be thrown on the stake, and his ashes will be spread. All his belongings, furniture, housings, wherever they are, will be confiscated and given to the King. Before the execution, the said Damiens will be asked to tell the names of his accomplices. His house will not be demolished, but nothing will be allowed to be built on this same house." Sortable Date 1757-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anonymous, Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757). Description An account of the resource 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 242 Title A name given to the resource The Sentence against Damiens (1757) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/242/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1757 Laws Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document We, clerks, had the convict escorted to the Place de Grève. There, in the presence of the people, I read for the last time, the judgment, which was first done by the Enforcer of High Justice. Then the convict was put and tied up on the scaffold. First his hand was burnt while he was holding the knife with which he committed the parricide. We came closer to the convict, exhorted him again to tell us the names of his accomplices, and we told him that the President of the Court and the Court Administrator would come if he had any statements to make. The convict told us that he had no accomplices or statements to make. At this time, the convict had his breasts, arms, thighs, and legs tortured. Then melted lead, boiling oil, burning pitch, and melted wax and sulfur were thrown on these parts. During the whole torture, the convict screamed several times: "My God, give me strength, give me strength. Lord, my God, have pity on me. Lord, my God, I am suffering so much. Lord, my God, give me patience." Then four horses pulled the convict [in the four cardinal directions], and after a while he was dismembered. His limbs were then thrown on the stake. We reported everything to the President and the Administrator, and stayed at the Place de Grève until everything was over. Sortable Date 1757-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anonymous, Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757). Description An account of the resource 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 241 Title A name given to the resource Decree of the Parlement of Paris against Robert–François Damiens Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/241/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1757 Laws Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document He said his name is Robert-François Damiens and he is a forty-two-year-old servant living in the City of Paris. When he was questioned about telling when he had made plans to kill the King, he answered he planned on doing it three years ago and because of the Archbishop's bad behavior. When asked if somebody had inspired his plan, he said he had been inspired by everybody around him. When asked if he had told somebody about this project, either in Paris, in Artois, or in a foreign country, he said no. He had wanted to say it but would not say it here. When asked if he had said to Playouft instead of Poperingue that he could not adapt to this country and that he would come back to France and said: "Yes, I will come back there, I will die there, and the Greatest of the earth will also die," he admitted he said these words. . . . When asked if any secular or legitimate Priest had inspired this dreadful plan, he answered that nobody had inspired him to it, but he had heard many ecclesiastics talk dangerously. When asked about the dangerous things these ecclesiastics were talking about, he answered that he heard them saying that the King was risking a lot for not preventing the Archbishop's actions. . . . When asked what he had understood in this following statement: "What a pity that your Subjects had tendered their resignations, they were the only ones who created this conspiracy," he answered that the conspiracy could not come from the Parlement, but from the Archbishop who started it by refusing sacraments. . . . When asked why and how long ago he had stopped making religious acts, he answered that he used to do them in the different places when he was a servant but he stopped three or four years ago, since the Archbishop's turmoil. When he was told that the Archbishop's actions could never have made a man like him commit this crime, he answered that he had nothing else to say except that if the Archbishop had not refused some Sacraments, these things would not have happened. When asked if he, his family or friends had been refused Sacraments, he answered no. When asked about the idea he has concerning Religion, he answered that no one should refuse Sacraments to good people who pray in Churches every day, from morning to evening. When asked if he thinks that Religion allows one to kill Kings, he answered that he had nothing to say about it. When he was told that his silence proves that he thought that it is was allowable for him to kill Kings in some cases, he said he had nothing to say. . . . When asked if he had any regret of having committed this dreadful crime and had any desire to save his soul, he said he regretted it and that he hopes God will forgive him. When asked how he thinks God will forgive him, since he does not want to confess his accomplices, he answered he does not have any accomplices and cannot tell their names. . . . After having read all this, the prisoner persisted in saying his answers were real and true, and he also persisted by not wanting to answer, and he signed his name, Damiens. At this time, the prisoner was tied up. When asked who had suggested him this crime, he answered the Archbishop did, because of his bad actions, and he added: forgive me. When asked who his accomplices were, he said he was alone. When asked who was talking to him under the vault of the Versailles Chapel, he answered that it was the one he told us about. When asked about the people he had seen in Paris, he answered no one. When he was told this is only the beginning of some hard time, and he could stop everything by telling the names of his accomplices, he screamed: "Ah, this Archbishop, what a rascal!" When asked about what he was promised or what money he had received, he answered that no one promised or gave him anything. The Archbishop's refusal to give Sacraments was the cause. . . . *** He was told he could not have committed the crime he was accused of, that he was pushed into doing it by other people. He was summoned to tell us the names, nicknames, positions, and addresses of the people who had pushed him into killing the King. He answered he could not give a precise answer to this question. He only declared that he had met priests in Arras and Paris who belonged to the Parlement, and the poor treatments these same Priests have received and the poverty of the French people had convinced him to kill the King. However, he said that if the King wanted to spare his life, he will give more detailed explanations. He was summoned to tell us the names, nicknames, positions, addresses of the priests and lay people with whom he talked about Religion and other topics. He answered he would never tell their names, even if he was thrown in Hell or in a blazing fire. He was asked if he had said . . . that the Dauphin had to be warned and that he should be careful, or go out because the same thing that happened to the King could also happen to him. He answered yes. He was asked if he had said that six months after his death, more important events will occur, and that the Dauphin will perish along with many other people. He answered yes. He was asked if he knew the persons who will be involved in these actions. He answered he will only tell their names to the Chief Provost, after the King promises to pardon him. He only asked to have his life spared and not to be chained. He knows he deserves to die . . . [but] he submits to the King's will from whom he asks forgiveness. Sortable Date 1757-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anonymous, Pièces originales et procédures du procès, fait à Robert-François Damiens (Paris: Pierre Guillaume Simon, 1757). Description An account of the resource During the course of his trial, Damiens was interrogated over fifty times by the magistrates of the Parlement 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 240 Title A name given to the resource Damiens’s Testimony to Parlement Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/240/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1757 Laws Monarchy Text