The economic policies of Richelieu

Front matter

THE ECONOMIC POLICIES OF RICHELIEU

BY

FRANKLIN CHARLES PALM

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Richelieu is known chiefly by his political accomplishments. The aim of this thesis is to point out that he was an economic as well as a political statesman. The economic side of his career has been underestimated, and a study of this is important in order to attain a fair estimate of his character and accomplishments.

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

If one were to ask the average well informed man concerning the career of the Cardinal da Richelieu, the reply would be one which would convey an intelligent appreciation of the political acts of this great and interest in man, for tnese have been regarded as constituting; the dominant phase of his life. His genius along this line has been clearly brought out in his conduct of the French participation in the Thirty Years' War, his settlement of the religious question in France, and his relations with foreign powers, the nobility, the Pope, the Queen Mother, and other eager opponents of his ideas. "One is accustomed by habit to consider Richelieu in his struggle against Austria on the outside and the nobles and Protestants on the inside, as only a diplomat of keen and profound conceptions, a man of the state advancing to his designs with an unflinching- energy, t.ie founder of the absolute monarchy.""'"

Pigeonneau, Mist oi re du Commerce de la France, 3 vols., Paris, 1889, 375.

However, there is another side to his career which had no inconsiderable importance in directing and influencing his entire life and accomplishments, namely the economic phase of his administration. History has placed such an emphasis on the other part of his life that it is difficult even to ask if economic interests held any place in that spirit which was agitated by such great designs. For example, did Richelieu have an economic purpose in his capture of La Rochelle? Whas his aim in entering the Thirty Years' War purely political? Did the Cardinal have an economic philosophy? It is to be the purpose of this thesis to determine the economic elements which entered into the life and deeds of Richelieu, and thereby to establish the claim that this man was not only a magnificent political statesman, but was also fundamentally an economist, with all the crude but important economic conceptions of his time. In other words he was an economic statesman as well as a political statesman. To build Prance up as a strong economic and political unit was the goal of his ambition, which a premature death prevented him from reaching.

Before going further, it seems best to explain the term Economic Statesman. A man who holds sn important public office like the Cardinal's has two principal ways of developing his country and thus carrying out the requirement of his office; namely, to make her strong first politically and second economically. Both may be of equal importance and effect, and may interact on each other. In so far as he follows the theoretical principles of political science in carrying out the work of his administration, he is a political statesman, and in so far as he follows the theoretical principles of economics in that work he is an economic statesman.

The latter aspect of Richelieu' s achievements has been almost universally neglected. It is admitted that he was a great statesman and it seems only fair to include under that general title both the political and economic elements which entered into it,

A few writers have called attention to the general neglect of this aspect of Richelieu's activities. One says that "most historians have glided rapidly over the economic side of Richelieu's career. Other writers have claimed that there is a gap in our general histories and if Richelieu had despised or neglected these questions it would have been due to a weakness in his spirit. Yet, far from putting them back to second place, he has brought them to the front and has studied them v.ith passion. He certainly has not imparted second rate ideas in his treatment of commerce, the marine > and colonization,"^" Another writer, who has treated Richelieu's career from the administrative point of view, claims that the Cardinal's work as an administrator is not inferior to his political ability. He created in all directions a vigorous impulsion to national energy, which if continued along those lines would have produced wonderful results. The same writer in defending the case of

Caillet, J • , L '.administration en France sous le Minister e

du Cardinal de Richelieu. Paris, 1857, Introduction, T^lV

Richelieu as far as concerns his entire administrative career has succeeded in bringing to light the economic aspect of the man. In fact most of his administrative reforms were of direct or indirect economic importance. When Caillet proceeds to point out the fact that he centralized the monarchy and laid Prance open to administrative reforms, by ruining the political positions of the Protestants and the nobles, by giving the council of state a superior place, by diminishing the power of local government and establishing fixed duties in the generalities;^" he really indicates the first steps taken toward an economic reform of the country which Richelieu fully intended to carry through. Many difficulties, however, prevented the great minister from accomplishing all he desired. Most people have neglected to take these into consideration and thus he has been denied a fair judgment of his career upon the economic side.

His great internal and external accomplishments seem impossible when one considers his poor physical health. Sick throughout his life, one wonders how he was able to carry out or even to conceive the things he did. Then there were the many external and internal difficulties to be removed, some of which indeed, were of a sort directly opposed to the material development of any nation, as the Huguenot situation, for example. Indeed, says one writer, the historian who studies the

Caillet, Introduction, I-IV. 2 Ibid., VI -IX.

government of the greatest statesman France ever had without considering at that time the gravity of the internal situation and the many difficulties of the internal organization; without appreciating the diversity of provinces, and the multiplicity of their franchises; without seeing the conflicts of religious beliefs, the variety of taxes, customs, etc. in permanent conflict; without considering the immense interests of the kingdom and the conditions of its power and security, will never comprehend either the power or the ability of this man, or the genius of his work.* Indeed the pressing need to encounter these many problems is best illustrated in the opening passages of Richelieu's Testament Politique, where he maintained that his first problems were to ruin the political power of the Huguenots, lower the pride of the nobles, reduce all rebellious subjects

to their duties, and raise the king's name again in foreign affairs, to the place where it ought to be. He then goes on to discuss some of the multitude of foreign troubles. The very fact that he had so many problems to encounter and still had time to carry out and plan some economic accomplishments, would seem to indicate that he laid or at least tried to lay especial emphasis on that side of his administration.

A good example of the difficulties encountered by

1 <

Th. Funck Bentano, Antoyne de Montcretien, Traicte de

l'oeconomie Politique, Introduction,XCI.

Richelieu, Testament Politique, Londres, 1770, pt.l>8

Richelieu is shown in the opposition of public opinion or sections of it. In fact in 16£6 he was accused of ruining the rights and interests of France by remaining at peace. This accusation was voiced by some so-called "libelles" in Germany, who saw no good in his actions.^ However it is interesting to notice that "theologians" in reply maintain that the reasons which guided the king and the Cardinal with regard to the so-called resolutions of peace are unrecognized by his opponents. "Why not praise what has been accomplished rather than condemn what has not been carried out? Since you bear the names of Christians would it not be better to judge those things which are beneath the surface rather than to condemn the surface indications?" In other words, criticised by some because he fostered wars, and by others because he made peace, his problems were very modern indeed, and it is no wonder that many sides of his career (the economic for example) have been submerged because of a mistaken perspective of the difficulties involved.

Because of this, it seems profitable to dwell for a while upon the economic activities of the man and to show that most phases of his administration were more or less influenced by concepts of that nature, as brought out by a study of his past deeds and accomplishments. However in doing so one must look upon history not only as a progressive development and as the continuous and uninterrupted growth of one vast organism, each century of which forms an organic part of the living whole and

Mercure Francois ^(1604-44), a Paris, XII, 516-18.

apart from that whole has no separate life or meaning, but one must also realize that in each cross section of this whole are found many separate threads, all of which are directly or indirectly related, and which as a sum total go to form that part of the whole which in turn is never ending. The economic thread is our problem. Let us examine its importance in the confusing unsolved period of the first half of the seventeenth century, the age of Richelieu.

Chapter II THE AGE OP MERCANTILISM

The seventeenth century was distinctly the age when mercantilism reached its height. It was the natural outcome of a series of historical events which caused men to grasp and understand the economic theories of this doctrine without realizing that they really were developing a distinct school of economic thought. However, it did not take men long to discover the philosophy behind it and to formulate this along definite lines, once it had become the cardinal feature of a nation's development. It is desirable to distinguish some of the important factors which led to the practice of mercantilistic ideas and the consequent theoretical formulation, because as will be shown, Richelieu based his entire administration on the principles of the mercantilistic doctrine and in doing so was one of the most enlightened exponents of that system.

The mercantilistic age seems to fall in the period of transition from medieval to modern conditions, and really grew out of those changes. "In fact," says one writer, "the decomposition of medieval feudal life into modern existence is one of the two chief aspects of modern life."^ He goes on to say that the new system based on individual activity and scientific

1 Bridges, L. H., France Under Richelieu and Colbert, Edinburgh, 1866, 5-10.

conviction has superseded the old military activity and supernatural beliefs of the middle age. In other words he maintains that industry has been substituted for v-arfare. However it often seems better to put industry as another cause for warfare. Moreover the beginnings of the separation of church and state, the growth of commerce and industries, and the discovery of the new world with all its important consequences had a strong influence in developing the modern age to the detriment of the medieval age with its feudalistic basis of existence. It resulted in the growth of the state as the vital force which was to expel all the needless and unhappy phases of the past ages, and a new kind of feudalism came into existence in which the state, or its king, was the actual feudal lord and his subjects were his vassals. As a result when one reaches the stage in history where the state takes the lead in controlling the destinies of man, then appears the modern age and with it the so-called period of mercantilism.

As to a definition of the mercantilistic age, it may best be defined in terms of the state. "It is not," says Schmoller, "so much a doctrine of money or tariff barriers, protective duties, or navigation laws as it is a doctrine which involves something far greater, namely, the total transformation

that

of society, and its organization as well asAof the state and its institutions, in the replacing of a local and territorial policy by that of the state. Now followed a struggle between state and district against the great nobility, the towns, the corporations, and provinces, the economic as well as the political blending of the struggle of these isolated groups into large wholes, the struggle for uniform measures and coinage and for a well ordered currency and credit*"* In other words the mercantilistic doctrine was that philosophy which centered everything economic and political in the hands of the state. Centralization was the keynote of this system, which really required political and economic methods to carry it out.

In this connection, one discovers that Richelieu was really the first statesman to carry out this dominant idea to any great extent. He had a consistent policy which was plainly mercant ilistic, of a very enlightened sort, and he constantly adhered to it in spite of many hindrances. What better example of his efforts to centralize the government could be found than his appointment of the Intendants, or on the other hand his policy towards the Huguenots? "Richelieu's razing of the fortresses of the nobility has often been extolled as one of the most important steps toward internal freedom of intercourse within France." His active measures for the creation of a marine were among the most important contributions toward the development of an independent commercial policy in relation to other countries. "Mercantilism," says Schmoller again, "is nothing more than state making, in the replacing of a local territorial economic policy by that of the state." Who had a better policy than Richelieu, so far as these ideas are taken as the standard

Schmoller, G. , The Mercantile System, N. Y. 190£, 51 of the highest economic development?

Even though Richelieu was, as will be shown, one of the leading mercantilists of his time, in fact the first in France to put the theories into force by means of his office, he has, never theless, been neglected by most economic writers of the time, and a just economic interpretation of his administration has thus been lacking. For example one writer says, "between the administration of Sully and that of Colbert, was that of two priests, Richelieu and Mazarin, both wasteful of their means though from different motives. Colbert was the only minister who had a system settled, complete, and consistent in all its parts. " However one will note that men like Schmoller, Caillet, Deschamps, and Pigeonneau, in their respective works covering this period, seem to comprehend the importance of the man in other ways besides the political.

When one assumes the general definition of Schmoller, that mercantilism implies state-building, it is also necessary to realize that this general idea includes a series of theories which prevailed in various degrees in different minds. In the

first place, a tendency towards overestimating the importance

secondly

of possessing a large amount of the precious metals; Atowards an undue exaltation (a) of industry which works up material over industry which provides it, and (b) of foreign trade over domesticj thirdly, towards attaching too high a value to a dense population as an element of national strength; and fourthly, towards invoking the action of the state in furthering

1 Blanqui, L. A., History of Political Economy, N. Y. , 1880, artificially the attainments of several ends thus proposed as desirable."^" Thus the three earmarks of the mercantile Bystem are (1) Attention to commerce, whose importance was exaggerated, (2)

Favorable balance of trade, (3) Prohibition in duties, bounties,

p

and development of monopolies, etc. All these things led to the struggle of nations not only for political but for economic predominance. States became as it were artificial hothouses for the rearing of urban industries, etc. Most of these characteristics will be found existing in the administration of the great Cardinal.

In following out the policies of his administration one finds that Richelieu conformed on the whole pretty nearly to the common mercantile conception as portrayed above. In doing so he was especially fortunate in having some predecessors to guide him in his actions. Henry IV and his minister. Sully, laid the foundation or at least made the excavations for the economic system of that century. The economist Montchretien drew up in 1615 the first French work on the subject of economics. Its crude but timely ideas correspond to the theoretical basis for Richelieu's administration. It represented the thought of the time and so Richelieu, whether he read it or not, followed its precepts with astonishing accuracy.

For such reasons, before turning to a study of the

± Ingram, L. K. , History of Politi cal Economy, London, 1904, 36-37.

economic ideas and accomplishments of the Cardinal, which established the firm foundations of the economic system of France for the century, it seems best to consider briefly the activities of Henry IV and Sully, and then the work of Montchretien. For by that means one can understand the basis upon which Richelieu built, and just what he contributed towards the completion of the common conception held by all, a strong centralized economic unit, namely the state.

Chapter III THE ADMINI STRATI OK OF HENRY IV AND SULLY

The age of Henry IV and Sully contained the rise in France of a consciousness of the economic side of life. People were not really aware of its presence in the fifteenth century, but it was there. The progress of public peace and well being, the influence of the Italian custom, had given to the commerce of luxuries a start hitherto unknown. The age of discoveries had awakened the enterprise of the Norman mariners who began following in the tracks of the Portuguese and Spanish navigators about the same time as the English.^- Thus France began to assume a place of economic as well as political importance in the affairs of the world. As a consequence the men at the head of the government, whether they be kings or prime ministers, began to consider and solve matters which were primarily of economic importance, on that basis alone, and began to be influenced in their political policies by the economic results to be obtained thereby.

Louis XI, at the close of the fifteenth century, started the economic growth of France especially by his centralization and unification of the government. But it was left to Henry IV and Sully, who came in after the religious wars, at the end of the sixteenth century, to make the first direct efforts to solve the commercial problems confronting the French nation.

The first problem to be met was the proposition of securing internal peace. The edict of Nantes settled the matter so far as the religious strife was concerned. The nobles were also subdued by a combination of payments and force. Thus in a short time both Henry and Sully were ready to strengthen the economic position of France. Now at this time we have the peculiar situation where a king and his helper both had their own ideas on the subject and tried to carry them out regardless of the opinion of the other party. For example, Henry IV tried to make France, and especially Paris, the artistio and industrial center of the world, much to the disgust of Sully, who favored the encouragement of agriculture.1 As a consequence industry and agriculture underwent temporary expansion at this time.

In addition to the growth of industry and agriculture, commerce was restored. One writer says that this was the best part of the economic program of Henry IV, for the restoration of commerce was the complement and the condition of the regeneration of labor. In other words France began to assume the position of an important nation in the commercial world, and this growth was not to be only on the internal side.

Henry IV and Sully saw the importance of increased foreign commerce, colonies, and thus of a greater marine. Steps were taken in all these directions, but the untimely death of

Pigeonneau, II, £90.

Ibid., 290-291.

Henry IV in 1610 prevented the laying of the solid foundation

for these plans.

The thrifty, though not novel, financial policy of Sully

extinguished the debt of the nation and left a balance in the

which

treasury. Direct attempts Awere made to centralize the government, weaken the nobility, and make France a strong absolute nation on the economic side all cling to the common mercant ilistic theory.

However, one can not designate either Henry IV or Sully as an ideal exponent of the doctrine of mercantilsm. There was as yet no theoretical exposition of this commercial doctrine, and neither Henry IV nor Sully left any evidence that they had any conception of an economic doctrine which should guide them in their work. They seem to do only those things which the condition of the times required. For example the progress of discoveries made them desire a part in this work. The building of large marines made them desire to construct a French navy. They had no general idea which would be defined as mercant ilistic . In fact they disagreed on many points vital to the doctrine. For example Sully was for freedom of trade. He realized that some countries were best able to raise certain products.1 Another writer of the time, named Laffemas, believed that home industries should be built up, to the exclusion of others. The king compromised on both ideas. Also one must admit that the Utopian

o Cm

idea of universal peace orAleague of nations fostered by one of these men is scarcely a doctrine which would come from a man dominated by the national self-centered doctrines of mercantilism. So, in some ways, Henry IV and Sully were ahead of the mercantilists, while in other ways they were not up to the advanced ideas of that philosophy. It took two men to try to meet the difficulties confronting France at that time and in doing so they followed no set theory exactly, nor did they succeed in obtaining any important permanent result. However, there was one important consequence of their accomplishments and that was the economic work of Montchretien entitled Le Traite a 1 'Eeonomie Politique . He realized that these rules were to a certain extent carrying out the doctrine of a logical economic scheme and as a consequence he wrote the first theoretical treatise on the subject. Consideration of this will be deferred until the next chapter.

In considering this brief review of the accomplishments of Henry IV and Sully one might say that they laid, in a more or less haphazard and incomplete way, the foundations which Richelieu and Colbert were to complete or ruin. One writer aptly sums up the work of Henry IV as follows: "He did his best to facilitate the downfall of the old system (feudal) and to encourage the new. He tried to remove the shackles upon industry and commerce; to improve the finances and found trans -Atlantic colonies, etc. He looked forward to a common European arbitration agreement, of a universal peace, and to accomplish this which might be by others defined as a policy of the balance of power, he set in motion the movement against the forces of retardation, namely Austria and Spain."1 In other words the policy of Henry IV was directed in one way along the line of international relations, and thus, while attention was given to the building up of the state, it was not the central theme of his administration. However, all of these excellent and well planned policies were ended when Henry IV was killed in 1610, and fourteen years of economic, as well as political stagnation, were to follow.

When this great man died his task was far from achieved! Another writer says that "the death of Henry IV was deplorable in that the brilliant impulse which he had impressed on the economic life of the country were stopped and existed no more."^ However this was not so, for one can find in the treatise of Montchretien a clear presentation of the doctrine of the time, and this work had a definite influence on the economic future of France. Yet, in a practical sense, the tasks of Henry IV were incomplete. "The peasants existed but that was all; credit and commerce reestablished itself with difficulty; the systems of roads and canals were only outlined; colonial experiences only begun and habits of order, of economy, and of honesty, which Sully had introduced into the financial administration, had not yet become traditions, etc."

It would be interesting to speculate upon what might have happened if Richelieu had succeeded Henry IV in 1610. But

2 *

Gouraud, C. M. , Historie de la Politique Commercial de la Prance et son influence sur le progress de la*""Richesse Publique, Paris, T854, 174-175.

as it actually happened, the government declined greatly under Marie de Medici. She was not able to understand or follow the good policy of her husband* The money saved by Sully was spent, taxes went up, colonies and the marine were neglected, and the new colonial policy was saved only through the energy and ability of Champlain.

There was an attempt to remedy the unfortunate conditions by a meeting of the Estates General in 1614. Called to establish good order by honorable methods, protection was to be given to the poor people as well as aid to the rich. Richelieu was there as a member of the clergy. As the orator of that body he mentioned no reform. However the nobles desired treatment befitting a nobleman and the merchants or middle class asked for reforms in behalf of the overburdened poor people. Some significant demands were made in the cahiers, as for example, the establishment of a new council near the person of the king, besides persons of blood, etc. The suspension of the sale of offices and the right of paulette was desired, the establishment

of a commission to look over the finances, and lastly, the sup-

p

pression of pensions as soon as possible. The king promised to carry these propositions out to the best of his ability. One thus sees that four years after the death of Henry IV a reaction against the poor government of the time and the unfortunate economic conditions of the age was taking place. All this had an fo Isambert, Recueil General des Anciennes Lois ffrancaises, Paris, 1829, XVI, 52-59.

£0

important influence upon the problems confronting Richelieu, then a member of the Estates General.

Indeed when one studies the effect of the mal administration, he sees that the foreigners during this period took a

latter

place on the markets which rendered tlieA still more sensible of the distance which separated France fromthem. "Disorder stopped any progress, Concini ruined the finances, Delor/nes had all he could do to supervise and put down the revolts of the nobles and Protestants and, as the inevitable voice of the people appeared, the good intentions of the monarchy went up in smoke."1 At this critical time in French history arose one of those few men to whom it is given to modify largely the life of humanity, to increase and aid the speed of progress and to hasten the arrival of a new civilization. That man was Armand Duplessis, at first bishop of Luzon and later Cardinal de Richelieu. At first a favorite of the queen, the unfortunate administration paved the way for him. In 1624 he assumed control of affairs and "Louis XIII," says one writer, "not void of insight, not without a sense of duty, but timid, melancholy, frivolous, pietistic, equally unambitious and incapable of power, handed over the helm

to this man and from that time until 1642 Richelieu was sole dictat or of France." Thus it was the duty of that great man to obliterate the misfortunes of the immediate past and build upon the foundations laid by Henry IV and Sully. Before considering how he went about doing this, it is desirable to consider the work of Mont Chretien, which had a strong influence upon the policy of Richelieu.

Chapter IV MONTCHRETIEN 1 S ECONOMIC IDEAS AS RELATED TO CARDINAL RICHELIEU'S

Montchretien seems to have been the only French contributor to economic theory in the period. A brief survey of his work will lead to an acquaintance with the rise of commercial doctrines in France, and will reveal a good economic picture of France in the early seventeenth century, as well as of other nations at that time. It will appear also that Richelieu was largely dominated by the views expressed by Montchretien either directly or indirectly as being typical of the age.

As said before,1 the death of Henry IV meant an industrial crisis both of a commercial and a monetary nature. Troubles which he had settled appeared again. Foreign states disregarded treaties with France, excluded French commerce, sunk French vessels, and imposed unfair duties upon French vessels entering their ports, in spite of the privileges they had in French harbors. At such a time Montchretien wrote his book. He based his ideas upon the accomplishments of Henry IV. Richelieu and Colbert in turn carried out the industrial and commercial conceptions depicted in his work. He saw the trouble and

^ See page 18. ,

2 Montchretien, Antoyne de. Trait e de 1 'E conomie Politique. Paris, 1889, Introduction, LXZXIX.

suggested the remedy. Another event has a certain signif icance» seeing that it took place about the time that Montchretien wrote his treatise. It was the meeting of the Estates General in 1614.

The result of this gathering was not of much account. Richelieu, in his Memoirs, says that the assembly ended as it begun, by doing nothing of advantage for either the king or the public. "It was a financial burden in itself, "he claims, "while the corruption it opposed still continued."^- However he fails to mention the fact that the king promised to carry out the reforms asked by the assembly and failed to do so. But the interesting things about the whole event are that it indicates a reaction against the bad conditions of the time, that Richelieu was present at the meeting and thus realized what was wrong, and, finally, that Montchretien published his book at that time, in which he planned a solution for the troubles. The Cardinal must have been strongly influenced by these tv/o events and his later actions indicate that he was. Thus, at the very beginning of his career the economic problems were placed before him alongside of the beneficial, practical beginnings of Henry IV and Sully, so that he could not help but be influenced by all these things. It is important, indeed, that the ideas were furnished by an assembly of the people, and by the first French economist. Surely the modern world in a commercial sense, both practically and theoretically, began for France at that period.