This suggests that the poor peasantry were not equally treated by the state, for the bourgeoisie controlled the majority of the councils and in many rural areas, the lack of talented literate men caused rural councils to carry out their duties poorly. This would also have meant that these rural communities were not being administered properly, and so one could argue their treatment was unfair and they were not equal with the town councils.
Not only were the bourgeoisie in control of many of the councils, they also had an advantage when the state needed to sell church land. On 2nd November 1789 Church land was nationalised and assignats were introduced. The National Assembly had three main reasons for selling the Church land: to provide money for the State before fair taxation could be introduced the guarantee the success of the revolution and to make the clergy dependant on the state so they would support the new regime. Sales of land in 1791-2 were brisk and the main beneficiaries were the bourgeoisie. It could be argued in many ways, how the sale of Church land promoted equality in France. Firstly, it opened up much of the French lands to the populace – something that could be deemed as a move in the direction of equality. However, the sale of Church land and the removal of tithes significantly reduced the income of the Church and they were unable to provide relief for the poor and needy. There was an urgent need for a national organisation financed by taxation, to take over this role. The Assembly however could not afford to deal with such a large problem and it was left alone. This shows that again the poorer citizens of France no longer had the help once provided by the ancien regime nor the opportunities that the bourgeoisie had after the reforms. I believe this shows that although equality was presented by the reforms, it was not present in practice.
The reforms did however make the Church considerably fairer through the reforms. The Assembly wanted to create a Church that was free from foreign control, linked to the new system of local government, and linked closely to the State. In August 1789, the Assembly abolished the tithe, annates and pluralism and ended the don gratuit in favour of a fair taxation system. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was approved 12th July 1790. This reformed the organisation of the Church reduced the amount of bishoprics from 135 to 83 and attempted to extend democracy throughout the Church; all priests and bishops would have to be elected into their posts. I would say that these reforms did make the Church administration fairer but they increasingly alienated those with other beliefs such as the Church should be controlled by the Pope.
Taxation was another issue. The Assembly abolished indirect taxes, the state monopoly on growing, distributing and selling tobacco, the old direct taxes and tax farming. In January 1791, three new direct taxes came into affect, on which there were no exemptions or special privileges. This was inline with the principle of equality because it was intended citizens would pay according to their ability to do so. The system however could not work, it would have required a large amount of officials to access and collect tax – something the Assembly could not afford. Therefore, the ‘new’ tax rolls were based off those of the ancien regime, which meant people in certain areas would be paying more than other areas. This did not follow the principle of equality and was harshly unfair on much of the populace. It could be argued however that the poor did benefit from the tax reforms because the burden of tax fell upon producers rather than consumers with the abolition of indirect taxes. I would argue that the new taxation system, although fair in principle was not able to produce equality in practice.
The justice system in France went from being one of the most backward and corrupt in Europe to the most enlightened in two years. The penal code was made more humane as torture and mutilation were abolished. In addition, the numbers of crimes punishable by capital punishment were greatly reduced. March 1792 saw the introduction of a new approved method of execution, the guillotine. Justice became free and equal to all. This made it popular with all. Judges also had to be elected by active citizens who had been lawyers for five years to ensure all judges were well qualified. France also took the idea of having a jury from English law. With the ruling that somebody had to be brought to court within 24 hours of being charged and lettres de cachet being abolished created a far fairer system of justice and as a result gave the people of France greater liberty.
The reforms brought in by the National Assembly from 1789-93 were greatly intended to create a more equal state where birth and money were not defining factors. Despite this, the introduction of active citizens, although going somewhat in the way of giving the vote to the people, did not go far enough to provide equality en masse, many men could not afford to vote and women were disregarded. This led to the rich bourgeoisie gaining control, and so money rather than skill was a defining factor in who got into office. The reforms on taxation were effective in creating a fairer taxation system, although the entire country was not equal, with certain areas paying greater amounts of tax. The reformation of the Church and the economic hardships facing the young Assembly caused them to sell of Church land – greatly helping the bourgeoisie but caused the Church no longer to be able to care for the poor. I think that although the reforms were put in place with good intentions, they allowed the bourgeoisie to rise to power in government rather than creating equality. Equality would have taken a lot longer than three years of reforms to take place.
