Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:22:13.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Noble as Landlord in the Region of Toulouse at the End of the Old Regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Robert Forster
Robert Forster
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Unlike the English country squire and the Prussian Junker, the French gentilhomme campagnard has been stereotyped by literature and history as idle, dull, and poor. Without rejecting Molière's picture of the court fop or La Bruyère's caricature of the proud but impoverished hobereau, attention must be turned toward the more typical provincial nobleman of the Old Regime. Here is a social type that was neither congenitally frivolous nor hopelessly rustic. Historical research, especially in local and private archives, is uncovering the existence of an active, shrewd, and prosperous landholding nobility who were not, as Arthur Young too often suggests, a thoroughly urbanized class of absentee proprietors leasing their domains at fixed money rents to bourgeois tenants. On the contrary, personal estate management not only was the best way of assuring a gentilhomme campagnard a good income but it was also recognized as his profession, and, in contrast to retail trade and purely. commercial speculation, a perfectly respectable noble enterprise.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 224 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reinhard, Marcel, Histoire de la population mondiale de 1700 à 1948(Paris, 1949)Google Scholar.

2 Archives Départmentales, Haute-Garonne, Series C-119, 120. Hereafter designated as A. D., followed by the series and number of the liasse or bundle.

3 A. D., C-116, 118.

4 This is but another confirmation of the general conclusions reached by Labrousse, C. E., Esquisse du mouvement des prix et des revenus en France au XVUl° slède (Paris, 1933), pp. 170–172, 610Google Scholar; Origines et aspects économiques et sociaux de la Révolution française, 1774–1791 (Paris: Centre de documentation universitaire [“Les Cours de Sorbonne”], n.d.), pp. 2–3, 6–10; and by Festy, O.L'agriculture pendant la Révolution française; les conditions de production et de récolie des céréales (Paris, 1947), pp. 12Google Scholar, 36–37.

5 Viala, L., La question des grains et leur commerce à Toulouse au XVIII° siècle, 1715–1789 (Toulouse, 1909), pp. 110–118Google Scholar. The setier de Toulouse was 2.64 bushels.

6 Lamouzèle, E., Toulouse au XVIII° siècle d'après les “Heures perdues” de Pierre Barthés (Toulouse, 1914)Google Scholar, February 1766, April 1773, June 1778.

7 A. D., G-492, “Etat des paroisses” (2 vols.; 1763).

8 A. D., C-1312–1330. These are noble tax declarations for the vingtième and include deductions for wages of maitres-valets.

9 Picot, , Lapeyrouse, Baron de, The Agriculture of a District in the South of France (London: J. Harding, 1819), p. 17Google Scholar. The maitre-valet on Picot's estate near Toulouse received “by custom” the same wage in 1818.

10 Thèron de Montaugè, L'agriculture et les classes rurales dans le pays toulousain depuis 1750 (Paris, 1869)Google Scholar, Part I.

11 Martin, H., Documents relatifs à la vente des biens nationaux, district de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1916–1924), pp. 516–517Google Scholar.

12 A. D., C-1331–1346. These are declarations for the vingtième by communities. Sixty of the seventy-five noble families held from ioo to 500 arpents (140 to 700 acres), only eight had less than 50 arpents (70 acres), and only one had more than 600 arpents (840 acres). There were 204 noble families on the capitation rolls of Toulouse in 1789. There is not sufficient data to extend the base beyond seventy-five noble estates, slightly over one third of the number of families with residences in the city of Toulouse.

13 Ibid. These calculations are based upon a five-to-one yield of wheat on seed and the market price for wheat at Toulouse in 1750. Cf. A. D., C-120, for the subdelegate's estimate of wheat yields in the diocese and Viala, La question des grains, pp. 110–118.

14 Young, Arthur, Voyages en France, 1786, 1788, 1789, ed. Henri, Sée (3 vols.; Paris, 1931), IGoogle Scholar, 105

15 Boutruche, R., La crise d'une société: seigneurs et paysans du Bordelais pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1947), pp. 285–294Google Scholar.

16 Jurriand, E., Histoire de la novelle 118 dans le pays de droit écrit (Paris, 1889), p. 396Google Scholar.

17 A. D., E-1707–1708 (Escouloubre); A. D., Fonds de Gardouch, 973, 979.

18 A. D., E-1708.

19 A. D., C-103. De Gillety's personal debts totaled 10,000 livres.

20 Brissaud, J., A History of French Private Law (Boston, 1912), pp. 726, 732Google Scholar.

21 A. D., C-104.

22 Ibid.

23 Brissaud, History of French Private Law, p. 732 n.; Boislisle, A. M., Correspondance des contróleurs-généraux avec les intendants des provinces, 1683–1715 (3 vols.; Paris, 1874), III, Letter No. 1849Google Scholar, July 1, 1715.

24 Archives du Châseau de Pinsaguel [Private papers hereafter cited as Pinsaguel], D-110.

25 A. D., Gardouch, 1009.

26 A. D., E-1696, 1712–1713, 1725 (Escouloubre); E-635 (Barneval); E-641 (Fourquevaux); E-642 (Cambon); E-647 (Blagnac); E-1461 (Riquet-Caraman).

27 A. D., E-1727 (Escouloubre); Gardouch, 966; C-1312–1330; de Fortanier, Jean R., Les droits seigneuriaux dans la sénéchaussée et comté de Lauragais, 1553–1789 (Toulouse, 1932)Google Scholar.

28 A. D., E-1713 (Escouloubre); Archives notariales, Haute-Garonne, Register 18063, 18082 [hereafter, A. Not., followed by register number]; A. D., Gardouch, 982; Pinsaguel, A-12; A. D., E-647 (Blagnac); Mile F. Rocaries, “Un cas de réaction seigneuriale: la communauté et les seigneurs de Montesquieu-Volvestre” (Diplôme présenté à la Faculté des Lettres de Toulouse, 1954), pp. 131 ff.; A. D., E-1461 (Riquet-Caraman).

29 A D., E-647. These plots were often less than one arpent (1.39 acres).

30 A. Not., 91 (August 5, 1724).

31 A. D., E-647.

32 A. D., E-641.

33 A. D., E-1712–1713; A. Not, 18082 (Jan. 17, 1756), 18063 (Aug. 7, 1774).

34 A. Not., 18082 (Nov. 7, 1757). This is a “foreclosure” by Castel-Labarthe. Proof of this type of foreclosure requires either the contract of sale and the cancellation of the debt in the same document or definite evidence that they were related. Such evidence is rare. One can only speculate about the many noble families whose tenants owed them considerable sums and whose domains became subsequently larger.

35 François de Boutaric, Traité des droits seigneuriaux et des matières féodales (Toulouse, 1751)

36 A. D., E-1712–1713; A. Not., 18060–61, 18066.

37 Rocaries, “Un cas de réaction seigneuriale,” pp. 155–160.

38 Pinsaguel, A-4, 16, 24; A. Not., 18061 (July 2, 1769).

39 A. D., E-1461.

40 A. Not., 18061, 18117.

41 A. D., Gardouch, 1009.

42 See n. 25, above; A. Not, 18082.

43 An investigation of loans by Toulousan noble families to the province of Languedoc, to the municipality of Toulouse, and to the communities of the diocese of Toulouse reveals relatively small investments in any of these rentes. A. D., C-2245, 2249, 359, 1516–1517.

44 A. D., C-1331–1346; Martin, Documents relatifs à la vente des biens nationaux, pp. 147–247, 251–315. Unfortunately series Q (biens des émigrés) was almost completely destroyed by fire in 1943. Martin's work does not include the district of Villefranche, an important part of the old civil diocese. The Escouloubre papers demonstrate precisely the process of regrouping. A. D., E-I711, 1752.

45 Bloch, Marc, Les caractè;res originaux de l'histoire rurale française (Paris, 1952), p. 140Google Scholar.

46 Montaugé, L'agriculture et les classes rurales dans les pays toulousain, pp. 65–69; Dutil, L., L'état économique du Languedoc à la fin de l'Ancien Régime, 1750–1789 (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar; Viguier, P., Du colonage partiaire dans le Lauragais (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar. Many maîtres-valets received only 8 setiers (22 bushels) of grain (half wheat, half maize) and 12 livres coin. A. D., E-641, C-1312–1330.

47 A. D., C-1312–1330. A steward received between two and three hundred livres annually plus maintenance.

48 Ibid. There is some evidence of the extension of this system in the eighteenth century. The Baron de Lapeyrouse, assuming direction of the family estate in 1774, removed all of the sharecroppers and replaced them with maîtres-valets on his nine farms. Picot, Baron de Lapey-rouse, The Agriculture of a District in the South of France, p. 18.

49 A. D., E-647. Assuming a yield of 100 setiers of wheat on this parcel, Caseneuve received 21 setiers after deductions and the seigneur received 49 setiers, or 71 per cent of the net harvest.

50 A. D., E-641. The rise of the price of wool from about 34 livres per quintal (107 lb.) in 1760 to 58 livres per quintal in 1786 encouraged the Marquis to sell all of the wool on his own account. These are prices at the markets at Villefranche and Montastruc.

51 A. Not., 82, 90–92, 18083–18117 (1757–1786). These references include twenty-four contracts of métayage, ten for the period 1685–1725 and fourteen for the period 1757–1786. Cf. Viguier, Du colonage partiaire, for eighteenth-century mutations in sharecropping contracts.

52 A. D., C-1331–1346.

53 A. D., Gardouch, 973, 1002; A. Not., 18063, 18066, 18073, 18117; A. D., E-1461 (Caraman).

54 Whether the 150 per cent increase in rent actually reduced the tenant's profit depends on the ratio of total income to rent. For example, if the ratio of income to rent were 3:1, the tenant would show an increase in profit between 1745 and 1785. If the ratio were 2:1, however, he would show a decrease of profit. Consider the following models:

Given the size of the estates under examination, the second model would come closer to the facts. It is doubtful that the ratio of income to rent on these two estates could be even as high as 2:1 in 1745. Hence, a progressive diminution of profit seems very probable.

55 A. D., C-109, “Responses of the Communities on the State of the Forage,” January 1786, Vicillevigne and Montesquieu-Lauragais.

56 Ibid., “Response of Mourvilles-Basses.”

57 Ibid., Subdelegate to the Intendant, January 11, 1786.

58 Ibid., “Responses of the Communities.”

59 A. D., C-1312–1330.

60 Féral, P., “L'introduction de l'assolement triennal en Gascogne,” Annales du Midi, LXII (1950), 249–258Google Scholar.

61 In 1787 Young and Parmentier discussed the question of the effects of maize on the soil without reaching any definite conclusion. Young, Voyages en France, III, 1146.

62 Ibid., II, 643.

63 A. D., C-109, “Response of Lanta.”

64 A. D., E-1752.

65 A. D., C-1O9, “Response of St-Martin-Doides.”

66 A. D., C-1320, “Lacroix-Falgarde”; C–1326, “Pinsaguel.”

67 Isambert, et al., Recueil général des anciennes his françaises dcpuis l'an 420 jusqu'à la Révolution de 1789 (32 vols.; Paris, 1822–1828), XXII, 461–463Google Scholar.

68 A. D., C-108.

69 ibid.

70 A. D., C-109, “Response of Lanta.”

71 Appolis, Emile, “La question de la vainc pâture en Langucdoc au XVIII° siècle,” Annales historiques de la Révolution française, X (1938), 97–132Google Scholar.

72 A. D., C-108.