The Parlements and Constitutional Crisis

The parlements' resistance to royal authority created recurring constitutional crises that paralyzed effective governance. These sovereign courts, staffed by nobles who had purchased their offices, claimed to defend fundamental laws and public welfare against royal despotism. Their actual motivation—protecting their own privileges and those of their class—mattered less than their success in positioning themselves as constitutional opposition.

The Jansenist controversy provided the parlements' initial vehicle for opposing royal authority. When Louis XV, following Jesuit advice, attempted to enforce the papal bull Unigenitus condemning Jansenism, the parlements refused registration, claiming religious persecution violated fundamental laws. The Parlement of Paris's Grand Remonstrances (1753) asserted sweeping claims about parliamentary authority to verify royal legislation's conformity with natural law and national tradition.

Chancellor Maupeou's coup (1771) represented the monarchy's most serious attempt to break parliamentary opposition. Exiling recalcitrant magistrates and replacing the Parlement of Paris with more compliant courts, Maupeou aimed to create a judiciary that would register royal edicts without obstruction. This "revolution" initially succeeded, allowing fiscal reforms previously blocked. However, Louis XV's death and Louis XVI's recall of the old parlements demonstrated the monarchy's ultimate weakness—its dependence on personalities rather than institutions.

The parlements' propaganda proved remarkably effective in shaping public opinion. Their published remonstrances, theoretically secret but widely circulated, articulated constitutionalist arguments that educated opinion found compelling. Their portrayal of themselves as defending liberty against despotism, however self-serving, resonated with Enlightenment values. Their resistance to new taxes appeared patriotic even when motivated by privilege. This success in mobilizing opinion demonstrated new political realities that absolute monarchy could not accommodate.