[412] See Scherer, "Études," vol. III.
[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.
[414] Note to the "Contrat Social" (Book iv.).
[415] Both editions were afterwards reprinted.
[416] Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MSS. 2334, 2335, 2337, and 2338.
[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. #/
[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.