The

French
Revolution
and
Human
Rights
A
Brief
Documentary
History
Edited,Translated,andwithanIntroduction
byLynnHunt

Related
Titles
in
11IE
BEDFORD
SERIES
IN
IDSTORY
AND
CULTURE
Advisory
Editors:
Lynn
Hunt,
Unioersity
of
California,
Los
Angeles
David
W.
Blight,
Yale
University
Bonnie
G.
Smith,
Rutgers
University
Natalie
Zemon
Davis,
Princeton
University
Ernest
R
May,
Haruard
University
Louis
XIV
and
Absolutism:
A
Brief
History
with
Documents
(forthcoming)
William
Beik,
Emory
University

The
Enlightenment
Debate
on
Equality:
Wollstonecraft
versus
Rousseau
(forthcoming)
Edited
with
an
Introduction
by
Olwen
Hufton,
The
European
Institute
The
Dreyfus
Affair:
A
Brief
History
with
Documents
(forthcoming)
Michael
Burns,
Mount
Holyoke
College
THE
BEDFORD
SERIES
IN
HISTORY
AND
CULTURE
The
French
Revolution
and
Human
Rights
A
Brief

Documentary
History
Edited,
Translated,
and
with
an
Introduction
by
Lynn
Hunt
University
01Pennsylvania
BEDFORD/ST.
MARTIN'S
Boston
+
New
York

PREFACE
with
little
advance
notice.
Several
colleagues
in
French
history
read
the
manuscript
and
offered
invaluable,
detailed
suggestions
for
improvement:
Elizabeth
Colwill,
Suzanne
Desan,
Paul
Hanson,
Jeff
Horn,
and
Gary
Kates.
1am
grateful
to
them
for
pushing
me
to
reconsider
some
issues,
for
correcting
me
on
others,
and
for
suggesting
additions.
Professors
Desan,
Hanson,
and
Horn
studied

with
me
in
the
past,
so
this
is
hardly
the
first
time
that
1have
benefited
from
their
input
on
subjects
that
interest
usincommon.Professor
BryantRagan
Jr.,another
ofmyformer
students,
provided
me
with
some
very
useful
bibliographic
suggestions,
without
which
this
collection
would
have
been
much
less
interesting.
1
am
sure
that
1have
learned
as
much
from
my
students
(including
others
nothere
named)

overtheyears
astheyhavelearned
fromme,soitisonly
fitting
that
1dedicate
this
book
to
them.
1have
translated
allthe
documents
except
where
noted,
and
1am
solely
responsible
for
any
mistakes
or
infelicities
that
remain.
Research
tripstoFrance
wouldhavebeen
much
more
difficultformetoundertake
withoutthecontinuingsupportofmyAnnenberg
ChairattheUniversity
of
Pennsylvania.
A
National
Endowment
for
the
Humanities
fellowship
provided
funding
at
the
most
critical
time
in
the
preparation
of
this
collection,and1ammostgratefulforitshelpingettingmestarted

onthe
studyofhuman
rights.1wouldhavebeenforcedtospendevenmoretime
abroad
if
the
resources
at
the
Van
Pelt
Library
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
had
not
been
so
remarkable.
The
librarians
there,
especially
in
the
Rare
Book
Room
and
in
the
microform
collection,
provided
cheerful,
ready
assistance
on
countless
occasions.
Contents
Foreword
iii
Preface
v
PARTONE
Introduction:
The
Revolutionary
Origins
of
Human
Rights

1
PART1WO
The
Documents
33
1.
DefiningRightsbefore1789
35
Natural
Lawas
Defined
by
the
Encyclopedia
35
1.Diderot,
"Natural
Law,"
1755
Religious
Toleration
38
2.Voltaire,
Treatise
on
Toleration,
1763
3.
Edict
of
Toleration,
November
1787
4.
Letter
from
Rabaut
Saint
Etienne
on
the
Edict
of
Toleration,
December
6,
1787
5.Zalkind
Hourwitz,
Vindication
of
thejeus,
1789
Antislavery
Agitation
51
6.Abb
Raynal,
From
the

Philosophical
and
Political
History
ofthe
Settlements
and
Trade
ofthe
Europeans
in
the
East
and
WestIndies,
1770
35
38
40
44
48
51
vii

viii
CONTENTS
7.
Condorcet,
Reflections
on
Negro
Slavery,
1781
8.
Society
ofthe
Friends
of
Blacks,
Discourse
on
the
Necessity
01Establishing
in
Pars
a
Society
for
...
the
Abolition
01
the
Slave
Trade
and
01Negro
Slaoery,
1788
Women
Begin
to
Agitate
for
Rights
60
9.
"Petition
olWomen
cf
the
Third
Estate
to
the
King,
"
Ianuary
1,1789
Categories
of
Citizenship

63
10.Abb
Sieyes,
What
ls
the
Third
Estate?,
Ianuary
1789
55
58
60
63
2.
The
Declaration
ofthe
Rights
of
Man
and
Citizen,
1789
71
Debates
about
the
Declaration
of
Rights,
Iuly
and
August
1789
71
11.Marquis
de
Lafayette,
July
11,1789
12.Duke
Mathieu
de
Montmorency,
August
1,
1789
71
73
13.Malouet,
August
1,
1789
75
The
Declaration
77
14.
"Declaration

of
the
Rights
of
Man
and
Citizen,"
August
26,
1789
77
3.
Debates
over
Citizenship
and
Rights
during
the
Revolution
80
The
Poor
and
the
Propertied
80
15.Abb
Sieyes,
Preliminary
to
the
Frenen
Constitution,
August1789
16.Thouret,
Repon
on
the
Basis
01Political
Eligibility,
September
29,
1789
17.
Speecn
01Robespierre
Denouncing
the
New
Conditions
01Eligibility,
October
22,
1789
Religious
Minorities
and
Questionable

Professions
84
81
82
83
The
First
Controversies
84
18.Brunet
de
Latuque,
December
21,
1789
84
ix
CONTENTS
19.CountdeClermontTonnerre,
December
23,1789
86
20.Abb
Maury,
December
23,1789
88
21.
LetterfromFrenchActors,December24,1789
90
22.PrincedeBroglie,December
24,1789
91
The
Jewish
Question
93
23.
Petition
01the
Jews
01Paris,
Alsace,
and
Lorraine
to
the
National
Assembly,

Ianuary
28,
1790
93
24.LaFare,
Bishop
ofNancy,
Opinion
on
the
Admissibility
offews
to
Full
Civil
and
Political
Rights,
Spring
1790
97
25.
Admission
offews
to
Rights
of
Citizenship,
September
27,
1791
99
Free
Blacks
and
Slaves
101
26.
The
Abolition
01Negro
Slavery
or
Means
for
Ameliorating
Their
Lot,
1789
101
27.
Motion
Made
by
Vincent
Og

the
Younger
to
the
Assembly
01Colonists,
1789
103
28.Abb
Grgoire,
Memoir
in
Favor
01the
People
01Color
or
Mixed-Race
01Saint
Domingue,
1789
105
29.
Society
ofthe
Friends
ofBlacks,
Address
to
the
National
Assembly
in
Favor
of
the
Abolition
of
the
Slave
Trade,
February
5,
1790
106
30.
SpeechofBarnave,March8,1790
109
31.
Kersaint,
Discussion
of
Troubles
in
the
Colonies,

March
28,
1792
112
32.
Decree
01the
National
Convention
01February
4,
1794,
Abolishing
Slavery
in
Al!
the
Colonies
115
33.
Speecn
01Chaumette
Celebrating
the
Abolition
01Slaoery,
February
18,1794
116
Women
119
34.
Condorcet,
"On
the
Admission
olWomen
to
the
Rights
01Citizenship,"
July
1790
119
35.
Etta
PalmD'Aelders,
Discourse
on
the
Iniustice
01
the
Laws
in
Favor

01Men,
at
the
Expense
01Women,
December
30,
1790
122

CONTENTS
36.
Olympe
de
Gouges,
The
Declaration
of
the
Rights
olWoman,
September
1791
124
37.
Prudhornme,
"On
the
Influence
ofthe
Revolution
on
Women,"
February
12,1791
129
38.
Discussion
01Citizenship
under
the
Proposed
New
Constitution,
Apri129,
1793
132
39.Discussion
01Women
's
Political
Clubs
and
Their
Suppression,
October
29-30,
1793
135
40.
Chaumette,
Speech
at
the
General
Council
ofthe

City
Government
01Paris
Denouncing
Women
's
Political
Activism,
November
17,1793
138
Appendices
140
Chronology
140
Questions
for
Consideration
142
Selected
Bibliography
145
Index
147
PART
ONE
Introduction:
The
Revolutionary
Origins
of
Human
Rights
"Human
rights"
is
perhaps
the
most
discussed
and
least
understood
of
politicaltermsinthelatetwentieth
century.Evenitsprecisedefinitionis
uncertain:TociteonlytwoofthemostrecentIydebated
examples,
does
it

include
the
right
not
to
starve
and
the
right
to
a
protected
ethnic
identity?
In
the
eighteenth
century,
many
writers
distinguished
between
political
and
civil
rights:
Political
rights
guaranteed
equal
participation
in
voting,
officeholding,
and
other
aspects
of
political
participation;
civil
rights
guaranteed
equal
treatment
before
the
law
in
matters
conceming
marriage,
property,
and
inheritance,
that
is,
nonpolitical
matters.
In

the
twentieth
century
the
distinction
between
political
and
civil
rights
has
been
blurred
because,
increasingly,
people
assume
that
individuals
should
enjoy
both
(hence
the
more
general
term
human
rights),
and
other
rights
have
been
progressively
added
to
the
list:
the
right
to
nondiscrimination
in
employment
or
housing,
the
right
to
a
basic
level
of
welfare,
and
the
like.

Despite
-or
perhaps
because
of-its
vagueness,
the
concept
of
human
rights
commands
widespread
public
support,
especially
in
the
Westem
world
but
also
worldwide.
In
1948,
the
United
Nations
made
1

THE
REVOLUTIONARY
ORIGINS
OF
HUMAN
RIGHTS
humanrightsthestandardofinternationaljustice
byadoptingaUniversal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights.
It
proclaimed
that
"recognition
of
the
inherentdignityandoftheequalandinalienablerightsofallmembers
of
thehuman
familyisthefoundation
offreedom,
justice
andpeace
inthe
world."!
This
broad
claim
summarizes
the
essence
of
the
concept
of
human
rightsasithasdevelopedsincetheseventeenth
century.Todeclarethe
existence
andpoliticalrelevance
ofhuman
rights
inthisfashionimplies
that(1)allhumanbeingshavecertaininherentrightssim1byvi
f
g,einghuman. ..andJlQ!.byvirtueoftheirstatusinsociety;(2)these
rights
are
consequently
imagined
as
"natural,"
as

stemming
from
human
nature
itself,
and
they
have
in
the
past
often
been
called
"natural
rights":
(3)
rights
belong
therefore
to
individuals
and
not
to
any
social
group,
whether
asex,arace,anethnicity,agroupoffamilies,asocialclass,an
occupational
group,
a
nation,
or
the
like;
(4)
these
rights
must
be
made
equallyavailablebylawtoallindividuals
andcannot
bedenied
aslongas
an
individuallives
under
the
law;
(5)
the
legitimacy
of
any
government

restsonitsabilitytoguarantee
therightsofallitsmembers.
hese
conditions
might
seem
stra~htforward
to
us
now,
but
they
im
lyabreakwithallthetraditionalideasofgovernment
dominantinthe
:V0rld
before
the
end
of
the
eighteenth
century
and
continuing
in
influenceinmanyplaceseventoday.
Traditionally,
rulersexercised
supreme
power
because
something
about
their
persons
(royal
birth,
military
success,
or
religious
leadership)
made
them
closer
to
God
than
ordinary
mortals,
and
whole
groups
within
society
(such
as
nobles)
enjoyed

certainprivilegesdepending
onthecustomsandtraditionsoftbecountry.
Privilegesde
endedonsocialrank
inaverticalhierarchydistinguishing
higher
from
10weLgroups,
whereas
human
rights
rest
on
an
implicitly
horizontal
conception
ofsocietyinwhichallpolitically
activeindividuals
possess
the
same
rights
by
thir
nature
as
humans.
-Several
contrasts
follow
om
the
fundamental
differences
in
the
way
society
is
conceived.
People
who
believe
in
human
rights
emphasize
the
sanctityoftheindividual,imagined
tobelikeallotherindividuals;traditional
governments
stressed
the
sanctity
of
one
individual,

the
king
or
queen,
and
the
importance
of
social
differences.
The
notion
of
human
rights
tends
to
favor
democracy;
traditional
ideas
of
social
difference
~porte
anstocracy
andmonarchy.
Religioncouldanddidjusti:fyboth
conceptions;
but
in
the
long
run
the
believers
in
human
rights
often
insistedonaseparation
between
church
andstate,whereas
upholders
of
traditional
ideas
argued
for
a
close
connection
between
religion
and
politics.
Thus
human
rights

was
an
idea
with
great
consequences;
more
THE
REVOLUTIONARY
ORIGINS
OF
HUMAN
RIGHTS
than
any
other
notion,
it
has
defined
the
nature
of
modern
politics
and
socie
.
In
theory,
according
to
the
UN
declar
.
9
eo
le
are
euallyentitledtohumanrihts.Article1ofthe.declaration
assertedthat
"AlIhuman
beings
are
born
free
and
equal
in
dignity
and
rights."
The

applicationofthetheoryisfarfromperfect,ofcourse,
evenattheendof
the
twentieth
century.
And
the
theory
itselfhas
been
questioned
in
some
quarters.
Ever
since
the
concept
of
human
rights
emerged
in
the
late
seventeenth
and
eighteenth
centuries,
there
has
been
persistent
debate
about
its
value
and
pertinence.
In
the
early
nineteenth
century,
for
example,
the
English
political
philosopher
and
social
reformer
Jeremy
Bentham
insisted
that
"Natural
rights
is

simple
nonsense;
natural
and
imprescriptible
rights
(an
American
phrase),
rhetorical
nonsense,
nonsense
upon
stilts.?
Later
in
the
nineteenth
century
some
argued
that
rights
belonged
only
to
communities
or
nations,
not
individuals.
More
recently,
some
nations
have
rejected
the
relevance
of
human
rights
to
theirlands,arguingthathumanrightsisonlyaWestern
notionandhence
unsuited
to
other
cultures.
Butevenwhenandwheretheideaofrightsgainedacceptance-as
intheBritishNorthAmericancoloniesoftheeighteenthcentury-the
meaning
ofthoserights
became
asubjectofintense
debate
(and,inthe
United

States,
ultimately
the
subject
ofacivilwarinthe
1860s).Inmany
waysthepoliticalhistoryoftheWestern
worldsincetheearlyeighteenth
century
has
been
dominated
by
the
issue
of
rights:
Do
they
exist,
what
arethey,whoenjoysthem,andwhatmeansarejustifiedinprotecting
and
establishing
them?Theconceptofrightshasconstantlyexpandedsince
its
first
articulations:
From
its
origins
in
discussion
about
the
rights
of
propertied
menandreligiousminorities,
ithasslowlybutalmostinevitablygrowntoincludewomen,
nonwhites,
andeveryotherkindofminority
from
homosexuals
to
the
disabled.
Most
debates
about
rights
originated
in
the
eighteenth
century,
and
now

r~re
d'
cussions
ofhem
more
explicit,
more
divisive,
or
more
influentialthaninrevolutionary
Franceinthe1790s.Theanswers
given
then
to
the
most
fundamental
questions
about
rights
remained
relevant
throughout
the
nineteenth
and
twentieth
centuries.
The
framers
o
the
UN
declaration
of
1948
closel
followed
the
model
established
by
the
Fr~
Declaration
of
the
Rights
of
Man
and
Citizen
of
1789,
while
substitutin
"human"
for
the

more
ambiguous
"man"
throughout.
Article
1oftheFrenchdeclarationof1789decreed,for.
tancethat"Menare
O"and
remain
freeandequalinrights,"virtuallytheidenticallanguage
ofthe
first
article
ofthe
1948declaration.

1
Defining
Rights
before
1789
NATURAL
IAW
AS
DEFINED
BY
THE
ENCYCLOPEDIA,
1755
1
DIDEROT
"Natural
Law"
1755
The
writers
01
the
French
Enlightenment
made
much
01
the
concept
01
natural
law
or
natural
right
(the
French
word
droit
covers
both
meanings).
As

this
selection
from
the
Encyclopedia
demonstrates,
natural
law
provided
the
most
basic
foundation
for
all
human
society,
that
is,
it
defined
what
was
naturally
just
for
all
humans,
regardless
01country
or
time
periodoEnlightenment
writers
focused
on
naturallaw
as
a
way
01criticizing
particular
French
laws
that
they
saw
as
incompatible
with
those
more
fundamental
human
rights.
Our
modern
notion
01human
rights

derives
from
this
earlier
notion
01
natural
law
or
right,
that
sense
01justice
common
to
all
peoptes.
When
they
initiated
the
project
01compiling
a
French
Encyc1opedia,
Denis
Diderot
and
[ean
d'Alembert
had
various
aims.
They
took
on
as
collaborators
all
the
well-known
writers
01
the
day,
many
01
whom
had
been
in
trouble
with
the
authorities

in
the
pasto
Their
proclaimed
purpose
was
to
present
all
the
knowledge
available
to
humankind
in
a
form
that
Source:
Denis
Diderot
and
Iean
Le
Rond
d'A1embert,
eds.,
Encyclopdie
ou
Dictionnaire
raisonn
des
sciences,
arls,
et
des
mtiers,
17vols.(1751-80),
vol.
5(Paris:ChezBriasson,
1755):115-16.
35

DEFINING
RlGHTS
BEFORE
1789
could
be
readily
passed
on
tofuture
generations.
But
they
also
intended
to
use
that
knowledge
as
a
means
01
challenging
and
reshaping
the
status
quo.
They
believed
that
knowledge
would
lead
inevitably
to
"enlightenment,"
thatis,actionbasedonreasonratherthanon
superstition,
bigotry,
or
religious
fanaticism.
Diderot
himself
wrote
this
brief
article,
thereby
underlining
the
importance
01the

concepto
The
article
does
not
have
the
satirical
bite
01some
01the
others
in
the
Encyclopedia,
yet
careful
reading
uncovers
a
frontal
challenge
to
the
Frenen
legal
order
01
the
mid-eighteenth
century.
When
grounding
universal
justice
and
the
good
society,
natural
law
or
right
requires
no
reference
to
kings,
aristocracy,
or
deference
to
one's
social
betters
-indeed,
to
special
privilege
01any

kind.
The
philosophy
01naturallaw
-and
here
its
deuelopmeni
into
the
eighteenth-century
idea
01the
"general
will"
-implied
legally
equal
individuals
joining
together
in
a
society
based
only
on
universal
human
characteristics.
Articles
such
as
these
immediately
drew
the
attention
01
censors
and
police.
The
gouernment
and
the
Catholic
Church
both
banned
the
Encyclopedia
and
persecuted
its
editors,
but
the
commotion
only

attracted
more
readers
to
clandestine
and
pirated
editions.
NATURALLAW.Theuseofthistermissofamiliarthatthere
isalmost
no
one
who
would
not
be
convinced
inside
himself
that
the
thing
is
obviously
known
to
him.
This
interior
feeling
is
common
both
to
the
philosopher
and
to
the
man
who
has
not
reflected
at
a11....
[The
article
thenadvances
aseriesofpropositions.]
2.
Ourexistence
isimpoverished,
contentious,
andanxious.Wehave
passions

and
needs.
We
want
to
be
happy;
and
every
moment
unjust
and
passion-driven
man
feels
himself
driven
to
do
to
another
what
he
would
notwishtohavedonetohimself.Itisajudgment
thathepronounces
at
the
bottom
ofhis
soul
and
from
which
he
cannot
escape.
He
sees
his
own
meanness
andhehastoconfessittohimselforaccordtoeveryoneelse
thesameauthoritythathearrogates
tohimself
....
4.
Iseefirstofallonethingthatseemstometobeacknowledged
both
bygoodandevilpersons:thatwemustreasonineverythingbecause
man
isnotsimplyananimalbutananimalwhoreasons.There
areconsequently
inthe
question
athand
means
fordiscovering
the
truth.

Whoever
refuses
to
lookfor
the
truth
renounces
human
status
and
must
be
treated
by
the
rest
ofhis
species
likeaferocious
beast;
oncethetruth
isdiscovered,
whoever
refuses
toconformtoitiseithermadorbadinamoralsense
....
NATURALLAWASDEFINED
BYTHEENCYCLOPEDlA
7.
Itistothegeneral
willthattheindividualmustaddress
himselfto
learnhowto
beaman,
citizen,subject,father,
child,andwhenitissuitable
toliveortodie.Itfixesthe
limitsona11duties.
Youhavethemost
sacred
natural
right
toeverything
thatisnotdisputed
bytherestofthespecies.
Thegeneralwillenlightensyouonthenatureofyourthoughts
andyour
desires.
Everything
that
you
conceive,
everything
that
you
meditate
upon
willbegood,grand,elevated,sublime,ifitisinthegeneral

andcommon
interest.
...
Te11yourself
often:
I
am
aman,
and
I
have
no
other
true,
inalienable
natural
rights
than
those
ofhumanity.
8.
But,youwillsaytome,where
isthisgeneral
wi11kept?Where
can
Iconsult
it?Intheprinciples
ofwrittenlawofa11theorganized
nations;
inthesocialactionsofsavageandbarbarous
peoples;inthetacitconventionsheldincommonbytheenemiesofhumankind;
andeveninindignation
and
resentment,
those
two
passions
that
nature
seems
to
have
placedina11creatures
includinganimalstomakeupfortheshortcomings
in
sociallaws
and
in
public
vengeance.
9.
If
you
meditate
attentively
therefore
on
everything
said
in

the
preceding,
youwillremainconvinced
1)
thatthe
manwhoonlylistens
to
hisprivatewillisthe
enemy
ofthehuman
race;2)thatineveryindividual
thegeneralwillisapureactofunderstanding
thatreasonsinthesilence
ofthepassions
aboutwhatmancandemand
ofhisfellowmanandabout
whathisfellowmanhastherighttodemand
ofhim;3)thatthisattention
tothegeneral
willofthespecies
andtoshared
wants
istheruleofconduct
ofoneindividualrelativetoanother
inthesamesociety,ofanindividual
towardthesocietyofwhichheisamember,
andofthesocietyofwhich
heisamember
towardothersocieties;4)thatsubmission
tothegeneral
willisthebasisofa11societies,withoutexcepting
thoseformedforcrime.
Indeed,
virtue
is
so
attractive
that
thieves
respect
its
image
even
inside
their
dens!
5)
that
the
laws
should
be
made
for
everyone,
and
not
for
one
persono

DEFINING
RIGHTS
BEFORE
1789
RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION
2
VOLTAIRE
Treatise
on
Toleration
1763
Voltaire
was
the
pen
name
01Francois
Marie
Arouet
0694-1778),
perhaps
the
single
best-known
writer
01the
Enlightenment.
As
early
as
1723,
he
made
a
name
for
himself
as
a
proponent
01
religious
toleration
when
he
published

a
long
poem
about
French
King
Henry
IV
and
the
sixteenthcentury
wars
01religion
between
Catholics
and
Calvinists
(LaHenriade).
Visits
to
England
and
the
Dutch
Republic
in
the
1720s
impressed
on
him
the
political
benefits
that
could
be
reaped
from
religious
pluralismo
His
involvement
in
the
Calas
Affair
in
the
1760s
turned
it
into
a
European
scandal.
He
wrote
his

treatise
on
toleration
to
link
the
Calas
case
to
more
general
issues
01religious
freedom.
He
did
not
argue
for
granting
political
rights
to
members
01every
religion,
but
he
did
insist
on
the
virtues
01the
freedom
to
practice
one's
chosen
religion
without
persecution.
He
grounded
thisfreedom
on
naturallaw.
Even
this
was
toomuch
for
French
authorities,
who
promptly
banned
the

work.
Short
Account
of
the
Death
of
Jean
Calas
ThemurderofCalas,whichwasperpetrated
withtheswordofjusticeat
Toulouse
on
March
9,
1762,
is
one
of
the
most
singular
events
that
deserve
theattention
ofourownandoflaterages.Wequicklyforgetthe
longlistofthedeadwhohaveperished
inourbattles.Itistheinevitable
fateofwar;thosewhodiebytheswordmightthemselves
haveinflicted
death
on
their
enemies,
and
did
not
die
without
the
means
of
defending
themselves.
When
the
risk
and
the
advantage
are
equal
astonishment
ceases,
and

even
pity
is
enfeebled.
But
when
an
innocent
father
is
given
Source:
Voltaire,
Toleration
and
Other
Essays,
trans.
Ioseph
McCabe
(New
York:
G.
P.
Putnam's
Sons,
1912),
1-2,26-28,30-31.
TREATISE
ON
TOLERATION
intothehandsoferror,ofpassion,oroffanaticism;whentheaccused
has
nodefencebuthisvirtue;whenthosewhodispose
ofhisMeronnorisk
butthat
ofmaking
amistake;
when
theycanslaywithimpunitybyalegal
decree-thenthevoiceofthegeneralpublicisheard,andeachfearsfor
himself.
They
see
that
no
man's
life
is
safe
before
a
court
that

has
been
set
up
to
guard
the
welfare
of
citizens,
and
every
voice
is
raised
in
a
demand
ofvengeance
....
How
Toleration
May
Be
Admitted
1venture
to
think
that
some
enlightened
and
magnanimous
minister,
some
humane
and
wise
prelate,
some
prince
who
puts
his
interest
in
the
number
ofhissubjectsandhisgloryintheirwelfare,maydeigntoglance
at
this
inartistic
and
defective
paper.
...

WehaveJewsatBordeaux
andMetzandinAlsace;wehaveLutherans,
Molinists,
and
Jansenists;
can
we
not
suffer
and
control
Calvinists
on
muchthesameterms
asthose
onwhichCatholics
aretolerated
atLondon
[who
did
not
enjoy
political
rights
but
could
practice
their
religin]?
The
moresectsthere
are,thelessdanger
ineach.Multiplicityenfeebles
them.
They
are
all
restrained
by
just
laws
which
forbid
disorderly
meeting
s,
insults,
and
sedition,
and
are
ever
enforced
by
the
community.

Weknowthatmanyfathers
offamilies,whohavemadelargefortunes
in
foreign
lands,
are
ready
to
return
to
their
country
[the
Calvinist
refugees
l.Theyaskonlytheprotectionofnaturallaw,
thevalidityoftheir
marriages,
security
as
to
the
condition
of
their
children,
the
right
to
inheritfromtheirfathers,andtheenfranchisement
oftheirpersons.They
ask
not
for
public
chapels,
or
the
right
to
municipal
offices
and
dignities.
Catholics
have
not
these
things
in
England
and
other
countries.
It
is
not
aquestion
ofgivingimmense
privilegesandsecurepositionstoafaction,

butofallowingapeacefulpeopletolive,andofmoderating
thelawsonce,
but
no
longer,
necessary.
It
is
not
our
place
to
tell
the
ministry
what
is
to
be
done;
we
do
but
ask
consideration
for
the
unfortunate
....
Thegreatmeanstoreduce
thenumber
offanatics,ifanyremain,
isto
submitthatdiseaseofthemindtothetreatment
ofreason,whichslowly,
but
infallibly,
enlightens
men.
Reason
is
gentle
and
humane.
It
inspires
liberality,suppresses
discord,andstrengthens
virtue;ithasmorepower
to
make
obedience
to
the
laws
attractive
than
force

has
to
compel.
...
Whether
Intolerance
Is
of
Natural
and
Human
Law
Naturallaw
is
that
indicated
to
men
by
nature
....
Human
law
must
in
every
case
be
based
on
naturallaw.
AlIover
the
earth
the
great
principle

40
DEFINING
RIGHTS
BEFORE
1789
ofbothis:Donotuntoothers
whatyouwouldthattheydonotuntoyou.
Now,invirtueofthisprincipIe,onemancannot
saytoanother:
"Believe
what
I
believe,
and
what
thou
canst
not
believe,
or
thou
shalt
perish."
ThusdomenspeakinPortugal,
Spain,andGoa.
Insomeothercountries
they
are
now
content
to
say:
"Believe,
or
I
detest
thee;
believe,
or
I
will
do
thee
all
the
harm
I
can.
Monster,
thou
sharest
not
my
religion,
and
therefore
hast

no
religion;
thou
shalt
be
a
thing
of
horror
to
thy
neighbours,
thy
city,
and
thy
province."
If
it
were
a
point
of
human
law
to
behave
thus,
the
]apanese
should
detest
the
Chinese,
whoshould
abhor
the
Siamese;
theSiamese,
inturn,
should
persecute
the
Tibetans,
who
should
fall
upon
the
Hindus.
A
Mogul
should
tear
out
the
heart
of

the
first
Malabarian
he
met;
the
Malabarian
should
slay
the
Persian,
who
might
massacre
the
Turk;
andallofthemshouldflingthemselves
againsttheChristians,whohave
so
long
devoured
each
other.
Thesupposed
rightofintolerance
isabsurdandbarbarie.Itistheright
ofthe
tiger;nay,itisfarworse,
fortigers
dobuttear
inorderto
havefood,
while
we
rend
each
other
for
paragraphs.
3
Edict
01
Tolera
tio
n
Nouember
1787
Calvinistshadalongandtumultuous
historyinFrance.Theyfirstgained
the
right
to

worship
according
to
their
creed
in
1598
when
King
Henry
IV
issued
the
Edict
01Nantes
to
end
the
wars
01religion
between
Catholics
and
Calvinists.
Louis
XIV
revoked
that
edict
in
1685
and
initiated
a
massive
campaign
toforcibly
convert
all
01the
Calvinists
in
France.
For
more
than
a
century,
public
worship
by
Calvinists
remained
illegal,
although
many
uiorshiped
in
prvate
and

some
became
leading
merchants
or
businessmen
in
their
local
communities.
Finally,
in
1787,
Louis
XVI's
gouernment
proposed
a
new
edict
01toleration
(the
decision
became
official
in
january
1788).
It
granted
Calvinists
civil
rights,
including
the
Source:
Edit
concernant
ceux
qui
ne
font
pas
profession
de
la
religion
catholique
(Nov.
28,
1787),
Recueil
gnral
des
anciennes
lois
francaises,
depuis

l'an
420
jusqu'
la
Rvolution
de
1789,ed.FrancoisAndrIsambert,
29vols.(paris:Belin-le-Prieur,1821-33),vol.28,Du
1er
janvier
1785
au
5
mai
1789
(paris,
1827),472-82.
EDICT
OF
TOLERATIO
right
to
practice
their
religion,
but
no
political
rghts.
Although
the
reference
to
non-Catholics
might
seem
to
promise
a
broader
toleration
including
other
groups
as
well,
the
edict
applied
only
to
Calvinists,
for
jewish
andLutheran
communities

werecoveredbyseparatelegislation.Thepreamble
to
the
edict,
with
its
evasive
and
tormented
logic,
shows
the
many
pressures
felt
by
the
government
as
it
tried
to
navigate
between
the
demands
01a
pouertul
Catholic
Church
and
a
long-oppressedminority
that
had
the
support
01many
influential
writers
and
jurists.
WhenLouisXIVsolemnlyprohibited
inallofthelandsandterritories
under
his
authority
the
public
exercise
of
any
religion
other
than
the
Catholicreligion,thehopeofbringing
aroundhispeopletothedesirable

unity
of
the
same
worship,
supported
by
the
deceptive
appearances
of
conversions,
kept
this
great
king
from
following
the
plan
that
he
had
formed
in
his
councils
for
legally
registering
the
births,
deaths,
and
marriages
of
those
of
his
subjects
who
could
not
be
admitted
to
the
sacraments
of
the
church.
Following
the
example
of
our
august
predecessors,
wewillalwaysfavorwithallourpowerthemeansofinstruction
and

persuasion
that
will
tend
to
link
all
our
subjects
by
the
common
profession
of
our
kingdom's
ancient
faith
[Catholicism],
and
we
will
proscribe,
with
the
most
severe
attention,
all
those
violent
routes
[of
forcedconversion]
whiehareascontrary
totheprincipIesofreason
and
humanity
astheyaretothetruespiritofChristianity.
But,
while
waiting
for
divine
Providence
to
bless
our
efforts
and
effect
this
happy
revolution
[the
conversion
of
all

non-Catholics],
justice
and
theinterest
ofourkingdom
donotpermitustoexcludeanylongerfrom
therightsofcivilstatusthoseofoursubjectsorresidentforeigners
inour
empirewhodonotprofess
theCatholicreligion.
Arather
longexperience
has
shown
that
harsh
ordeaIs
are
insufficient
to
convert
them:
we
should
therefore
no
longer
suffer
that
our
laws
punish
them
unnecessarily
for
themisfortune
oftheirbirthbydeprivingthem
oftherights
thatnature
constantly
claims
for
them.
We
have
considered
that
the
Protestants,
thus
deprived
of
alllegal
existence,
were
faced
with
an

impossible
choiee
between
profaning
the
sacraments
bysimulatedconversions
orcompromising
thestatusoftheir
children
by
contracting
marriages
that
were
inherently
null
and
void
according
to
the
legislation
of
our
kingdom.
The
regulations
have
even
assumed
that
there
were
only
Catholics
in
our
states;
and
this
fiction,
todayinadmissible,
hasservedasamotiveforthesilenceofthelawwhieh
wouldnothavebeenabletolegallyrecognize
followersofanother
belief

42
DEFINING
RIGHTS
BEFORE
1789
inFrancewithouteither
banishing
themfromthelandsofourauthority
orprovidingrightawayfortheircivilstatus.Principlessocontrary
tothe
prosperity
and
tranquility
of
our
kingdom
would
have
multiplied
the
emigrations
and
would
have
excited
continual
troubles
within
families,
if
wehadnotprovisionallyprofitedfromthejurisprudence
ofourcourtsto
thrust
aside
greedy
relatives
who
contested
the
children's
rights
to
the
inheritance
oftheirfathers[relyingonthelawsagainstCalvinists
l.
Such
a
situation
has
for
a
long
time
demanded
our
intervention

to
put
an
end
to
these
dangerous
contradictions
between
the
rights
of
nature
and
the
dispositions
ofthelaw.
We
wanted
to
proceed
in
this
matter
under
consideration
with
all
thematurity
required
bytheimportance
ofthedecision.Ourresolution
had
already
been
fixed
in
our
councils,
and
we
proposed
to
meditate
for
some
time
still
about
the
legal
form
it
should
take;
but
the
circumstances

appeared
to
us
propitious
for
multiplying
the
advantages
that
we
hoped
to
gain
from
our
new
law,
and
we
have
determined
to
hasten
the
moment
of
publishing
it.
It
may
not
be
in
our
power
to
put
a
stop
to
the
different
sects
in
our
states,
but
we
will
never
suffer
them
to
be
a
source
of
discord
between
our

subjects.
We
have
taken
the
most
efficaciousmeasures
topreventtheformationofharrnfulorganizations.
The
Catholic
religion
that
we
have
the
good
fortune
to
profess
will
alone
enjoy
in
our
kingdom
the
rights
and
honors
of
public
worship,
while
our
other,
non-Catholic
subjects,
deprived
of
all
influence
on
the
established
order
in
our
state,
declared
in
advance
and
forever
ineligible
for
forming
a
separate
body
within

our
kingdom,
and
subject
to
the
ordinary
police[andnottheir
ownclergy
1fortheobservation
ofreligious
festival
days,
will
only
get
from
the
law
what
natural
right
does
not
permit
us
to
refuse
them,
to
register
their
births,
their
marriages,
and
their
deaths,
in
order
to
enjoy,
like
all
our
other
subjects,
the
civil
effects
that
result
from
this.
Article
1.
TheCatholic,Apostolic,andRomanreligionwillcontinueto
enjoy

alone,
in
our
kingdom,
the
right
to
public
worship,
and
the
birth,
marriage,
and
death
of
those
of
our
subjects
who
profess
it
will
only
be
registered,
in
all
cases,
according
to
the
rites
and
practices
of
the
said
religion
as
authorized
by
our
regulations.
We
will
permit
nonetheless
to
those
of
our
subjects
who
profess
another
religion

than
the
Catholic,
Apostolic,
and
Roman
religion,
whether
they
are
currently
resident
in
our
state
or
establish
themselves
there
afterwards,
to
enjoy
all
the
goods
and
rights
that
currently
can
or
willinthefuturebelong
tothemasaproperty
titleortitleofsuccessorEDICT
OFTOLERATION
ship,
and
to
pursue
their
commerce,
arts,
crafts,
and
professions
without
beingtroubled
ordisturbed
onthepretext
oftheirreligion.
We
except
nevertheless
from

these
professions
all
the
offices
of
the
judiciary,
controlled
either
by
the
crown
or
the
seigneurs
[nobles
controllinglocaljudicial
officesl,municipalities
having
regular
offices
and
judicialfunctions,
andallthose
placesthatincludepublicteaching.
Article
2.
Asaconsequencethoseofoursubjectsorforeignersresident
inourkingdom
whoarenotoftheCatholicreligionwillbeabletocontract
marriages
intheformhereafter
prescribed;
wewishthesemarriages
and
theirchildren,
inthecaseofthosewhocontracted
themaccordingtothe
saidform,tohavethesameeffectsincivilsocietyasthosecontracted
and
celebrated
in
the
ordinary
way
by
our
Catholic
subjects.
Article
3.
Wedonotintendnevertheless
thatthosewhowillprofessa
religion
other

than
the
Catholic
religion
be
able
to
consider
themselves
as
forming
in
our
kingdom
any
particular
body,
community
or
association,
nor
that
they
be
able
under
such
a
designation
to
formulate
any
collective
demands,
make
any
representations,
take
any
deliberations,
make
any
acquisitions,
or
take
any
other
such
acts.
We
very
expressly
prohibit
any
judge,
registrar,
notary,
lawyer,
or
other

public
official
to
respond,
receive,
or
sign
such
demands,
representations,
deliberations
orotheractsonpainofsuspension;
andweforbidanyofoursubjectsto
claim
themselves
authorized
by
the
said
alleged
communities
or
associations
on
pain
of
being
considered
instigators
and
protectors
of
illegal
assemblies
and
associations
and
as
such
punishable
according
to
the
rigor
ofthe
regulations.
Article
4.
Norwillthosewhoconsiderthemselvesministersorpastors
ofanotherreligionthantheCatholicreligionbeabletorepresent
themselves
as
such
in
any
act,
wear
in

public
any
clothing
different
from
that
ofothers
ofthesamereligion,orappropriate
forthemselves
anyprerogative
or
distinction;
we
forbid
them
in
particular
from
interfering
in
the
issuance
of
certificates
of
marriage,
birth
or
death,
and
we
declare
any
suchcertificatestobefromthismoment
nullandvoid,withoutourjudges
or
any
others
giving
them
consideration
in
any
case
whatsoever.
[Thirty-three
other
articles
followed,
most
of
them
concerned
with
regulating
the
celebration
ofnon-Catholic

marriages.]