Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:36:33.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The French Economy in 1700–1701: An Appraisal by the Deputies of Trade*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Warren C. Scoville
Warren C. Scoville
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Louis XIV created the Council of Trade on June 29, 1700, to advise the controller general and the secretary of the marine on economic matters. The Council was to examine

… all propositions and memoranda sent it, together with such matters and difficulties which may there arise concerning external and internal trade by land and by sea, as well as factories and manufactories, in order that His Majesty may take appropriate action on the reports which the said Council of Trade will make to him of its deliberations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1962 , pp. 231 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1962

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 The arrêt issued on this date has been reproduced by de Boislisle, A. M., Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux des finances avec les intendants des provinces, II (Paris, 1883), 476Google Scholar.

2 Bonnassieux, Pierre and Lelong, Eugène, Conseil de commerce et bureau du commerce, 1700–1791 (Paris, 1900), pp. lxiv ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Archives Nationales, F 12registre 51, fol. 4.

4 Fortunately, they have all been preserved in the manuscript section of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038.

5 Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fol. 405. See also fol. 168.

6 Ibid., fol. 38.

7 Ibid., fol. 37.

8 lbid., fol. 168.

9 Ibid., fols. 138–40, 195, 248.

10 Ibid., fols. 47–48.

11 Ibid., fol. 333.

12 Ibid., fol. 105

13 Ibid., fols. 45–46, 124–25, 225–26, 425–26.

14 Ibid., fol. 334.

15 Ibid., fols. 119, 125, 335, 407.

16 Ibid., fol. 339

17 Ibid., fol. 155.

18 Ibid., fols. 222–23.

19 Ibid., fols. 510–11, 516.

20 Ibid., fols. 66, 98, 139, 155, 156–57, 160, 165, 169, 176, 254, 255, 260–62, 268, 283, 285, 287–89, 406–7, 480.

21 Ibid., fols. 165, 264, 272–73, 316, 464.

22 Ibid., fol. 422.

23 Ibid., fols. 260–62.

24 Ibid., fols. 287–89.

25 Ibid., fols. 159–60.

26 Ibid., fols. 108–10, 225.

27 Ibid., fol. 225. The deputy from Nantes did not maintain this liberal view throughout his long memorandum. He condemned trade with the Levant and India, for example, because it drained France of specie, and I have already pointed out that he wanted to require Dutch merchants to buy at least as much in France as they sold there.

28 Ibid., fol. 111.

29 Ibid., fol. 339. Héron, nevertheless, joined with the others in criticizing the Levantine and Far Eastern trades because they occasioned an export of specie.

30 Ibid., fols. 106, 113–14, 145–48, 255, 507.

31 Peletier from Paris even suggested that such duties be abolished (ibid., fols. 96–97). The deputy from La Rochelle was so anxious to get import duties lowered on materials needed by French manufacturers that he was willing to have export duties on manufactures raised if the crown insisted on being compensated for the loss in revenue which might result from reducing the tariff on raw material imports (ibid., fol. 336).

32 Ibid., fols. 135, 139–40, 163–64, 239, 255, 431.

33 Ibid., fols. 112–13, 135–36.

34 Ibid., fols. 194–95.

35 Ibid., fol. 108.

36 Ibid., fols. 121, 181–84.

37 See, for example, the complaints of the Bordeaux and Nantes deputies (ibid., fols. 379–82, 453–54)

38 The deputy from Nantes refused to endorse the plan because he feared that Brittany would suffer if she relinquished her status as a “province reputedly foreign.”

39 Archives Nationales, F12registre 51, fols. 135–36, 207, 237; liasse 693.

40 The deputy from Bordeaux complained that not only were import duties not rebated on goods which were re-exported but that also, under certain circumstances, merchants had to pay export duties on them as well (Bibliothèquc Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 371–73).

41 Ibid., fols. 251, 297 ff., 450.

42 Ibid., fols. 128–29.

43 See, for example, ibid., fols. 94, 106, 111 ff., 158–59, 268 ff., 315–16, 437–38, 463–65, 517 ff.

44 Ibid., fol. 517.

45 Ibid., fol. 302.

46 bid., fol. 166.

47 Ibid., fols. 150, 268, 271.

48 ibid., fol. 148.

49 Ibid., fol. 268.

50 Ibid., fols. 130–33, 159, 274–75, 280, 302, 304–7, 309, 317, 439, 440.

51 Ibid., fols. 94, 148, 159, 271, 281 ff.

52 Ibid., fols. 133, 158, 272–73, 316, 438, 440–41, 464.

53 Ibid., fols. 111, 134, 158, 195–96, 263–64, 319–20, 415–16.

54 Joseph Fournicr, La Chambre de commerce de Marseille et ses représentants permanents à Paris (1599–1875). Étude historique et documents inédits (Marseille, 1920), pp. 49–50. Incidentally, the Council first sided with Fabre and on September 15, 1701, denied certain Atlantic seaports the right to trade with the Levant. Two years later it conceded them this right provided they pay the 20 per cent duty from which Marseille continued to be exempt. (Archives Nationales, F12registre 51, fols. 70–73; Ernest Lavisse and others, L'Histoire de France depuis les origines jusqu'a la révolution, VIII, Part 1 [Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1911], 258.)

55 Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 476 ff. Actually, two thirds of what the deputy called “duties and fees” were shipping costs and brokerage payments.

56 Ibid., fols. 134, 197, 265, 444–45. 449.

57 Ibid., fols. 134–35. See also Ibid., fols. III-12.

58 Ibid., fols. 159, 287. See also Ibid., fols. 58, 170.

59 Ibid., fol. 504.

60 Ibid., fols. 136–37, 164, 246–48, 249–50, 411–13.

61 Ibid., fols. 135–36, 163–64, 194, 195, 255, 335–36, 431–32.

62 Ibid., fols. 98–99, 137.

63 Ibid., fols. 448, 456 ff.; Archives Nationales, F12 641. See also Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 136–37.

64 Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 163, 506–7.

65 Ibid., fols. 89–90, 93–95, 106–7, 119–24. 148, 153, 159, 165–66, 172–73, 179 ff., 190, 192, 215–16, 234 ff., 271, 281 ff., 326–27, 329–30, 348–55, 388–89, 391–93, 397–99, 442, 451–52, 455, 503, 513, 517.

66 Ibid., fol. 122.

67 Ibid., fol. 89.

68 Ibid., fol. 442.

69 Ibid., fols. 87–88, 95–96, 114–15, 151–53, 160, 166, 173–74, 229–34, 321–22, 425–26, 441–43, 520.

70 Ibid., fol. 232.

71 Ibid., fols. 230–32, passim.

72 Ibid., fols. 124, 172–73.

73 Ibid., fols. 14–15, 62–63, 156, 164, 247, 346, 434, 467, 476, 506. See also Warren C. Scoville, The Persecution of Huguenots and French Economic Development, 1680–1720 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960).

74 Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 103, 133, 165, 174, 175, 272, 315, 423. 435–36, 460, 464, 493 ff.

75 Ibid., fols., 286–87, 483 ff.

76 Ibid., fol. 346.

77 Ibid., fol. 105.

78 Ibid., fols. 465–66.

79 Ibid., fols. 322–23.

80 Ibid., fols. 266–67.

81 Ibid., fols. 91–94.

82 His colleagues from Languedoc and Lyon concurred (Ibid., fols. 166, 169–70, 184, 187, 207, 237 ff., 453 ff.; Archives Nationales, F12 641; G7 1683).

83 Archives Nationales, F12registre 51, fols. 15, 26, 62, 89–90, 93.

84 Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds français, MS 8038, fols. 249, 310–11, 339–40. Since Saint-Malo had no refineries, its merchants and shippers were anxious to increase the volume of their traffic with the sugar isles. La Motte-Gaillard, therefore, insisted that the colonies be allowed to ship either raw or refined sugar to any part of Europe.

85 The Council of Trade, however, did arrange for the deputies to meet with tax farmers in the hope that they would be able to reconcile many of their differences (Archives Nationales, F12registre 51, fols. 180–81).

86 Ibid., F12registre 51, fol. 60.

87 Ibid., F12registre 51, fol. 37.

88 Ibid., F12registre 51, fols. 54–57.

89 Ibid., F12registre 51, fols. 40, 45.

90 Ibid., F12registre 52, fol. 81.

91 Ibid., F12registres 51, fol. 64; 52, fol. 82.

92 Lyon complied in 1702, Rouen and Toulouse in 1703, Bordeaux in 1705, Lille in 1714, and La Rochelle in 1719. Montpellier and Bayonne also received permission to form chambers in 1704 and 1726, respectively. Nantes and Saint-Malo did not accept the invitation. (Ibid., F12registres 51, fols. 32–35, 61–62, 63, 74, 117, 118, 181, 182–83; 52, fol. 66; Léon Biollay, Études économiques sur le XVIIIe siècle. Le Pacte de famine et l'Administration du commerce au XVIIIe siècle [Paris, 1885], p. 309, n. 1; Germain Martin, La Grande industrie sous le règne de Louis XIV [Paris, 1898], p. 267; Ernest Pariset, La Chambre de commerce de Lyon. Étude faite sur les registres de ses délibérations. 1702–1791 [Lyon, 1886], p. 22 and note.)

93 Archives Nationales, F12registres 51, fols. 27, 28, 29–32, 106–7, 109; 52, fol. 30. The Council of Trade, on April 8, 1701, had endorsed the deputies’ proposal that the king “accord merchants some mark of honor and distinction in order to persuade them and their children to remain in business.” The arrêt the king signed did not go that far, yet it was broader than the one Colbert had obtained in August 1669. The 1669 order allowed nobles to engage only in maritime trade; the 1701 arrêt allowed them to participate in overland trade as well.