France did not experience an agricultural or industrial revolution during the eighteenth century, and in many ways it was very backward in comparison with other European nations, especially Britain, whose industry and agriculture had noticeably advanced during the 1800s due to landlords being willing to put money into developing new technology. French landlords had no interest in improving the output of their domain land since they were already comfortably well off, and the peasants who worked the land had too little capital and security to take risks on innovations. No one was willing to put money into machinery for improving output, such as seed drills. Peasants owned only one third of French land, even thought they cultivated almost half of it. The church, bourgeoisie and nobility who owned the rest were unwilling to put money into it. For this reason France made little to no progress in agriculture during the eighteenth century. The peasants began to resent their landlords because although they were living in poverty they were not being offered any prospects of improvement.
Instead of having a national judicial system which controlled law making and was in charge of punishing anyone who broke the laws, the landlord or ‘seigneur’ had the right to hold a court within his ‘seigneurie’. This system worked until the offence committed was against the seigneur, for example, one of the peasants in the seigneurie stole a sheep from the seigneur. In such an instance the peasant was unlikely to receive fair treatment and a just punishment for his crime because the seigneur would be acting in his own interest, rather than in the interest of fairness. The seigneur also had the right to collect ‘cens’ (money) and ‘champart’ (crops), and to monopolise the seigneurie’s flour mill, bread oven and grape press, serving to wring even more money out of the peasants who could already barely afford to keep themselves. The outdated system of justice made it difficult for the peasants to protest against harsh treatment by the seigneur, enabling him to protect his own interests. Towards the end of the ancient regime, the seigneurial system came under criticism from philosophers and economists alike. Philosophers believe that this kind of personal servitude was contrary to human dignity, and it was not right for men to have to act as virtual slaves in such a way. Economists on the other hand believed that the system countered economic progress because the seigneurs were not interested in advancing technology in order to increase produce from their seigneuries.
However it is not to say that France made no progress during the eighteenth century. Communications and transport improved as a national road network grew up, and extensive building and renovation programs were carried out in the cities. Industrial production in industries such as cotton, sugar and silk doubled over the eighteenth century and trade expanded in Europe as well as in France’s colonies. But these developments did nothing to hide the problems the country was facing. France was in serious debt having spent much money on fighting wars in both Europe and America. The only way for the government to make money was to put up prices on goods and increase taxation on the poor, who felt they were being exploited and called for a system of ‘progressive taxation’ whereby people were taxed in accordance with how much they earned. The taxes which were imposed restricted the growth of industry and trade and the increase in food prices led to riots among the lower classes. The French government did not seem to be able to manage their finances so that the economy would improve and the people would feel fairly treated.
In conclusion, the ancien regime was clearly an outdated, old fashioned system which was biased towards the wealthy and did nothing to improve the French economy. Instead of making France more powerful the ancien regime heightened tensions within the country and created unrest among the peasants who began to resent the government for taxing them, the landlords for treating them badly and the King for failing to do anything to rectify the situation, resulting in discontentment which increased over the years until it came to a head in the revolution of 1789.
