It was the lack of prudent reform of the absolutist monarchy

The French Monarchy had always been an absolutist one. The Crown always belonged to the closest and oldest male relative of his predecessor. The monarchy, and up to the revolution most people, believed that this was the divined right of God and that as a result the King was acting on behalf of God and his rules and laws were absolute just as God's. This was unchallenged, as France was a mostly catholic country with the Church playing a vital role in the social life of all French people. The 'Ancient Regime', as it was called from the mid 18th Century, began to deteriorate for many reasons, some within its control, others outside it.

There was a huge population growth in the 1700's. Between 1700 and 1789 the French population had risen by around six and a half million to nearly twenty-eight million1. However in conjunction to this food supply and growth did not increase. In fact over the years, it deteriorated.

This was due to both, the lack of reform, and bad timing. The poor harvests, which occurred after 1770, were not the fault of the monarchy. However, the fragmentation of peasant's holdings, and their decrease in size, which lead to poor productivity was due to lack of reform.In the mid and late 18th Century the peasants owned around a quarter to a third off all the land in France2.

However, population wise they made up more of the population than the rich. The absolutist monarchy could have given the third estate (this consisting of everyone except the monarchy, nobles, and the clergy) an increase in land and introduced reforms to somehow preserve the peasant's land rather than fragmenting it. The agricultural problem in France caused discontentment among many French people, this was blamed on the monarchy.France was agriculturally backwards, this was mainly due to the Industrial Revolution, which was taking place around the same time in Britain. The Industrial revolution took France's world status away.

Compared to Britain Frances machines were backward and limited, factories were few and far between and large-scale capital was lacking. The farming methods used were often unpractical. For example in northern provinces land was usually rested every third year and in the south every second3. Consequently, a huge amount of land at certain times was left unused. No form of rotation system was employed.

This can be blamed on the lack of involvement from the monarchy. Agriculture being the main economic basis of a country, this backwardness was partly to blame for the fall of the monarchy. Because of lacking food supply the prices of grain and other important materials and food rose. Wages were not able to keep up with this. Therefore, inflation quickly increased. Again, this could both be blamed upon the lack of monarchical reform.

However, it must be asked what the monarchy could have done and the fact is very little. The economy was suffering; as a result society soon became a victim also.Because of the population, growth there was a rise in unemployment, criminal activities, and deaths, this created widespread poverty. There was an increase in petty crimes, muggings, pick pocketing, poaching, and smuggling also.

Prostitution also increased dramatically, for example in the 1760's there were 25,000 prostitutes in Paris alone4, and this caused the widespread of many diseases. However begging became the biggest social problem. Living conditions also deteriorated. The government did try to provide relief. However, this was only done half-heartedly, they tried to establish workshops and workhouses.

Hospitals were also affected, as they were run by the church, and were speedily running out of room and funds. Working hours in pre revolution France were exceptionally long, with 16 hours for 6 days a week being common5. Louis XVI did impose reforms in the employment sector. He increases the control of guilds and introduced a livret (work-record which needed the employer's endorsement whenever they left). The workers did not see the guilds and the livret (introduced in 1781) as positive, as they felt it was a way of keeping them under control.Inflation which had been increasing steadily since the early 1700's caused real wages to disintegrate, this again caused the workers to blame the absolute monarchy.

Food shortages caused bread riots, which occurred before the revolution. Although this may sound absurd now, at the time "bread made up three quarters of most ordinary people's diet, and in normal times the poorest wage-earner might spend a third or even half of his income on it"6. The rise in its price, due to grain shortages, angered the peasants and poor, again they felt discontent with the monarchy, and began to question its rule.The rise in price left the poor with less to spend on living and food.

These social problems mostly effected the third estate, and soon caused them to disprove, or rather question the authority of the so called 'absolutist monarchy' which they realised where in fact not helping them at all. This effected at one time a third of the population. The so-called privileges of the other estates also made them question this idea. The worsening in social life and the economy made them blame the monarchy.

On a social level the gap between rich and poor increased.The rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. This not only caused discontent and frictions between the estates but also proved to be a problem economically. The poor, who were getting poorer could not afford to pay the large amount of taxes imposed o them, while most of the rich could not be taxed as they were in the 1st or 2nd estates and therefore had privileges preventing them from paying. However some of the 1st and 2nd estates were prepared to have fewer privileges if they had more of a say in the running of the country and policies.

However the monarchy, being an absolutist one was not about to allow this to happen. Taxes rose during the Seven year war, they were doubled in 1756 and tripled in 17607. Indirect taxes were also raised and surtaxes were created. These charges were not reduced after the war in peacetime. This caused more people to question the monarchy's right to tax as it wished. The rise in taxes caused much friction as the people saw no improvements in their lives, the society or the country as a whole.

Transport for example was also poor and could be seen as backward.For example roads needed improving and more canals needed to be built. As well as taxes people needed to pay tithes to the church, designated for upkeep, improvements, and so on. This was about 8 per cent of people's wages. Again, this needed reform, which was not provided.

As well as this there was the Corvee, which was "forced labour for road construction and maintenance"8. This made the economic situation worse, as it left the country with fewer peasants in the countryside. This contributed to the fall in food production. Again, the reform needed was not supplied.The financial crisis in France in the late 1780's is viewed by Forrest to have been "triggered by France's costly participation in the American War of Independence". 9 After the success of the war, America became a free country.

France had got involved as the war was against Britain, France's enemy. However it was a mistake to do so. The war was fought for independence; it was to break away from the monarchical rule of Britain, however France was ruled by a monarchy. The war increased protest against the monarchy and made the whole of Europe more revolutionary.Many reform programmes were proposed to the king by his ministers to ease the economic situation.

However they were rejected either by the monarchy or the people. The chancellor Maupeou, perhaps, imposed one of the biggest reforms, in the early 1770's. He provoked the French parliament into no co-operation and then replaced them with others more in favour of his ideas. He also set up new systems in the parliament and the courts, which made them more subordinate. However, there was much protest against this and the monarchy could not convince the public to except it.Consequently Maupeou was dismissed and the old system was introduced.

This was wise as "If Louis XVI had kept Maupeou in power, and preserved his reforms, he would have been called a tyrant seventeen years before he was"10. This constant rejection of reforms left the monarchy without a clear economic policy and the possibility of bankruptcy. The fall in the French Empire did not help matters. By the 1770's, Frances colonies had decreased significantly.

She had been practically expelled from India; while in the Caribbean she had preserved some land.However, the upkeep of such areas as Saint-Domingue (Haiti) proved more costly than the gains just like it did for Britain and their colonies 200 years later. This put strains on the already weak economy. Although the trade among the remaining colonies of France and other nations and empires prospered the interior of France did not see the improvements, the people just saw food production shortages, a weak economy, and poor communication. In conclusion on the whole I agree with the statement that the lack of reform was primarily responsible for the fall of the absolutist monarchy.

However the monarchy did try several reforms, some where not revolutionary enough to appease the people of France, and others simply failed and were not liked by the people. However in several cases the monarchy did nothing to try to satisfy its people or solve problems. For example there were no reforms in the agricultural sector, when it was agriculture, which was the backbone of the French economy. This was a disastrous mistake for the monarchy, as it caused France to loose its power status, and the country deteriorated as a whole, socially and economically as well as agriculturally.

However the fall of the monarchy was not all due to the monarchy's lack of reform. The nation was beginning to realise that the status of the monarchy being absolute was not necessarily correct, and so they began to stand up and protest against the status of the monarchy. This occurred from the peasants protesting against the 1st and 2nd estates and the use of absolution, and even by nobles who wanted to keep their privileges and be involved in governing the country.Consequently there were other occurrences, which were to blame for the fall of the monarchy; this involved the widespread belief in protest, the loss of trust in absolutism, and the political, economical and agricultural situation in Europe at the time.

However some of these problems could have been eased by reform, which was not forthcoming. Others factors were outside the control of the monarchy. However primarily it was the lack of reform, which was responsible for the disintegration of the absolutist monarchy.