Campbell P. Power and Politics in Old Regime France, 1720-1745
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
POWER AND POLITICS IN OLD REGIME FRANCE
318
This book, by means of a highly detailed analysis of politics at the centre during
a neglected but typical period, has attempted to contribute to the wider debate on
the political culture of the regime. I have argued that the system was socio-political
and is to be understood more in terms of its continuities than a putative
transformation either in the late seventeenth century or in the 1750s. It can be
conceptualised as a baroque state in tension, whose internal stresses and centripetal
forces had to be constantly balanced, appeased, and managed if the state was to
survive. In addition to the bureaucracy, several techniques of control or political
management were crucial features of the preservation of royal power. Of these,
patronage and clientage, bluff, negotiation and compromise were the most
important. This model of politics is derived from work on the seventeenth century
and the study of the conduct of politics during the reign of Louis XV and seems to
correspond well to the nature of the crisis of 1787–8. These final conflicts should
therefore be regarded as very much an old regime crisis, and not as a necessarily
revolutionary one.
Yet it has not been my intention to discount the value of recent theoretical
developments. On the contrary, they provide a suggestive explanatory structure
that helps to reveal how existing political ideas, the developments in political
theories and in political language, in which words like nation, patrie and despotisme
become common, the growing realisation of the paradoxes of the regime and the
emergence of an informed public, all became instrumental in transforming a crisis
into a revolution. It is interesting to surmise that the existence and wide adoption of
alternative and Utopian social and political ideologies ensured that a collapse
turned into a revolution. When a power vacuum resulted from the political conflicts
of the 1780s, there was a concerted attempt to create an entirely new regime on the
ruins of the old one. The precise intellectual roots of this attempt, and the way the
project took shape during the political ferment of the late 1780s, rightly continue to
inspire historical debate.
319
APPENDIX 1
Ministers with bureaucratic responsibilities
during the ministry of the cardinal de Fleury
Dates in brackets are for birth and death. Other dates indicate the period of tenure
of office. Where ministers are also ministre d’état this is indicated.
Ghancelier de France
Daguesseau (1688–1751), from 2 Feb. 1717 until 27 Nov. 1750. He was in exile from
Feb. 1723 until 20 Aug. 1727 and his functions were exercised by the garde des sceaux.
This arrangement continued until 20 Feb. 1737.
Garde des sceaux
Fleuriau d’Armenonville (1661–1728) from 28 Feb. 1723 until 17 Aug. 1727.
Chauvelin (1685–1762), from 17 Aug. 1727 until 20 Feb. 1737; ministre d’état from
Aug. 1727.
Secrétaire d’état with the department of foreign affairs
Fleuriau de Morville (1686–1732), from 10 Aug. 1723 until 19 Aug. 1727; ministre
d’état by his functions as Foreign Secretary.
Chauvelin (1685–1762), from 17 Aug. 1727 until 20 Feb. 1737; ministre d’état from
Aug. 1727.
Amelot de Chaillou (1689–1749), from 20 Feb. until 26 Apr. 1744, ministre d’état.
Secrétaire d’état with the department of war
Le Blanc (1669–1728), from 24 Sep. 1718 until 1 Jun. 1723, and from 19 Jun. 1726
until his death on 19 May 1728.
Bauyn d’Angervilliers (1675–1740), from 22 May 1728 until his death on 15 Feb.
1740; ministre d’état from 30 Dec. 1729.
Le Tonnelier de Breteuil (1686–1743), from 1 Jul. 1723 until 16 Jun. 1726,
and then from 20 Feb. 1740 until his death on 7 Jan. 1743; ministre d’état from
3 Mar. 1741.
320
Voyer de Paulmy, comte d’Argenson (1696–1764), from 8 Jan. 1743 until 1 Feb.
1757; ministre d’état from 26 Aug. 1742.
Secrétaire d’état with the department of the marine
Phélypeaux, comte de Maurepas (1701–81), from 10 Aug. 1723 until 24 Apr. 1749.
He exercised effective control in this office from 7 Sep. 1725, and became ministre
d’état on 6 Jan. 1738.
Secrétaire d’état with the department of the maison du roi
Phélypeaux, comte de Maurepas (1701–81), from 8 Nov. 1715 until 24 Apr. 1749.
He exercised some control in this office from 30 Mar. 1718, under the supervision
of his father-in-law La Vrillière, took full control on 7 Sep. 1725 and became ministre
d’état on 6 Jan. 1738.
Secrétaire d’état (with no department except provinces)
Phélypeaux, comte de Saint-Florentin (1705–77), from 17 Feb. 1723 until July 1775.
He exercised effective control in this office from 7 Sep. 1725.
Contrôleur général des finances
Dodun (1679–1736), from 21 Apr. 1722 until 14Jun. 1726.
Le Peletier Desforts (1675–1740), from 14Jun. 1726 until 19 Mar. 1730; he was
ministre d’état from 1 Jan. 1730 but ceased to be called to council after his retirement
on 19 Mar. 1730.
Orry (1689–1747), from 20 Mar. 1730 until 5 Dec. 1745; ministre d’état from 11
Nov. 1736.
Lieutenant général de police de Paris, technically not a ministerial function
Hérault (1691–1740), from 29 Aug. 1725 until 30 Dec. 1739, when he became the
intendant of Paris but died.
Feydeau de Marville (1705–1787), from 3Jan. 1740 until 1747.
APPENDIX 1
321
APPENDIX 2
The identity of the magistrates in the parti janséniste
Before identifying the theological persuasions of these counsellors, it is necessary to
tackle the thorny problem of definition and identification. Without doubt there is a
problem for historians with the identification of Jansenists in the parlement.
Augustin Gazier, the influential historian of Jansenism who first used the Le Paige
collection, was determined to imply that the involvement of the parlement was due
to its concern for justice. If he could establish that, then his beloved Jansenists were,
on the one hand, exonerated from accusations of involvement in the crisis of the
monarchy and, on the other hand, clearly correct to protest against Unigenitus. He
wrote: ‘Les parlementaires furent ce qu’on aurait appelé au temps de Port-Royal,
des amis du dehors, gallicans par tradition et d’une manière excessive que Bossuet
et Arnauld n’avaient pas admise, catholiques plus ou moins instruits et plus ou
moins piquants;leur jansénisme consistait surtout à ne pas aimer les jésuites’.
1
Most historians down to the present were misled by Gazier’s assertion. In a work
that is otherwise invaluable, Bluche claimed that to Jansenists ‘it is permissible to
add certain Gallicans who were especially obstinate in their opposition to the Bull
Unigenitus, fanatical appellants’.
2
But to do this confuses Gallicans and Jansenists and
obscures the very issue most in need of investigation, by assuming that an accurate
definition can be dispensed with. Until probably the middle years of the eighteenth
century, and certainly until the mid-1730s, the term Jansenist seems to have been
confined to people of doctrinal conviction—even if, as we have seen, the onset
of miracles tended to cloud the older issues.
3
Bluche deduced from a
comment by Barbier that there were really sixty magistrates ‘entêtés sur le
jansénisme’ .
4
In fact, it is not at all clear that Barbier, a lawyer who often used
the word ‘Jansenist’ carefully as a doctrinal appellation, meant that there were sixty
1 A.Gazier, Histoire générale du mouvement janséniste depuis ses origines jusqu’à nos jours, 2 vols, Paris, 1922, I,
cited in H.Légier Desgranges, Madame de Moysan et l’extravagante affaire de I’Hôpital général, 1749
1758, Paris, 1956, p. 57.
2 J.F.Bluche, Les magistrats du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1960, pp. 248–55.
3 Hence there was no reason why a Jansenist should not be ‘gallican’ in his attitude to Rome (the
early history of the sect shows that that depended more on Rome than on the Jansenists) but the
connection between a ‘Gallican’ viewpoint and the Jansenist doctrine was a contingent not a
necessary one.
4 Bluche, Les magistrats, op. cit., p. 250.
APPENDIX 2
322
Jansenists, only that there were sixty people on that particular day in the parlement
who sympathised with the Jansenist arguments. Of the thirty names given by
Bluche more than ten should be discounted and even this number was reached by
a less than rigorous method, as Van Kley has pointed out in his careful study.
5
Simple praise by the Jansenist newspaper the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques is not enough to
prove a Jansenist, because the editors showered compliments on anyone who
rendered service to their cause. Only a positive assertion of attachment to ‘la vérité’
should be accepted from this source.
However, one sure means of identification does exist: inclusion in the two-
volume Nécrologe des plus célèbres défenseurs et confesseurs de la vérité au dix-huitième siècle,
compiled by René Cerveau in 1760 and 1767. It is a Jansenist ‘book of saints’ and of
course ‘la vérité’ refers to their beliefs on grace.
6
For the most part it consists of a
selection, on religious grounds, from the obituaries published in the Nouvelles
ecclésiastiques. Therefore, if inclusion does indicate a real Jansenist, exclusion may not
mean the opposite, because mistakes and omissions are possible, and several
magistrates died after 1767 (when the Suite du Nécrologe was published) and so could
not have been included. To this source therefore should be added evidence that a
counsellor assiduously visited the church and churchyard of Saint-Médard at a time
when it was a noted centre for Jansenists because of the ‘miracles’, and the positive
assertion by the lawyer Barbier that a person was a Jansenist. By this method, which
is independent of the evidence in speeches by the magistrates, it is possible to
identify the Jansenists among the fourteen most active in the 1730s. For the present
study ‘Jansenist’ is taken to mean religious beliefs of Quesnellian, Figurist or older
Augustinian traditions—a definition which was current in the early eighteenth
century—or, failing that evidence, the belief that the Jansenist deacon Paris was a
saint whose miracles demonstrated the justice of his cause.
Six counsellors are cited in Cerveau: N.Le Clerc de Lesseville (c. 1658–1737),
conseiller d’honneur;
7
the abbé P.Guillebault (c. 1660–1732), of the third cham
5 D.K.Van Kley, The Jansenists and the Expulsion of the Jesuits from France, 1757–1765, New Haven, 1975.
The following method of identification owes a lot to his pioneering attempt to solve this problem,
in op. cit., pp. 43–7.
6 The term was habitually used by Jansenists to denote their doctrine, and therefore I disagree with
the interpretation placed upon it by J.McManners in ‘Jansenism and politics in the eighteenth
century’, Studies in Church History, XII, Church, Society and Politics, ed. D.Baker, 1975, pp. 253–73, esp.
pp. 260–1, 264. If his interpretation of ‘la vérité’ as ‘truth’ is not accepted then his argument, which
is an attempt to link the opposition to Unigenitus to the intellectual standards of the Enlightenment,
must be questioned. His quotation from Joachim Colbert on p. 264 is better read as a defence of
the miracles as demonstrating God’s intervention in favour of the Jansenist doctrine than as a
defence of honesty, truth or reason. The argument on the need to defend truth was used mainly to
justify a renewed appeal against Unigenitus after the declaration of 1720, and did exploit the
ambiguity of the usage, but the use of ‘vérité’ to denote the doctrine was more usual. McManners
appears to have antedated the development of links between the Enlightenment and Jansenism
that was in fact to take place in the 1750s.
7 He left a church during the reading of Vintimille’s mandement on the Bull in December 1729,
protested at the lit de justice to register the Bull in April 1730, and was exiled separately from other
magistrates in September 1732. ‘Ce digne magistral étoit d’ailleurs attentif à remplir tous ses
devoirs de Chrétien; il étoit humble, doux et appliqué à la prière’, Cerveau, Nécrologe, I, pp. 299–
300, citing the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques of 6 April 1737.
APPENDIX 2
323
ber of enquêtes;
8
L.B.Carré de Montgeron (1686–1754), of the second enquêtes;
9
N.
L.de Vrévin (c. 1655–1733), of the grand’chambre;
10
J.N.de Paris (1695–1737), of the
first enquêtes;
11
and the abbé R.Pucelle (1655–1745), of the grand’chambre. Pucelle is a
special case, for he is to be found in Cerveau, but there is no assertion of attachment
to ‘la vérité’ and in a letter to Fleury he specifically denied that he was a Jansenist,
nor is he recorded as a visitor to Saint-Médard. On the other hand, he was clearly
the leader of the partijanséniste in the parlement and in close contact with other
Jansenists: a Jansenist abbé was a close friend of his and he possessed a complete set
of the clandestine Nouvelles ecclésiastiques.
12
Either he was a Jansenist who lied when he
replied to an accusation by Fleury, or he was opposed to Unigenitus for purely legal
reasons. The former seems by far the more probable, and the letters written to him
by bishop Colbert of Montpellier certainly confirm the impression that he shared
the views of that indomitable bishop. Both L. Robert (166?–1745) a grand’chambrier
13
and the abbé A.J.Clément (1684–1747) of the second enquêtes were noted visitors to
Saint-Médard. The latter also corresponded with the Jansenist bishops of Senez and
Montpellier and visited Saint-Médard in the company of Titon and Paris, ‘aussi
conseillers et grands partisans’ according to Barbier.
14
Robert specifically went to
worship in the church on the anniversary of the death of the Jansenist saint, Paris.
Jean-Baptiste Titon (169?–1768) of the fifth chamber of enquêtes, was clearly a
Jansenist but died too late to be included by Cerveau. He made no secret of his
opinions, however:
8 Guillebault was refused the sacraments by his cure at the time of his death, but they were
administered by the vicaire. On 3 April 1730, he spoke against the condemnation of Article 91 in
Unigenitus and on 20 July 1731 was the principal speaker against evocation in a debate for
remonstrances. Cerveau, Nécrologe, I, p. 184.
9 After a libertine youth Carré de Montgeron was converted on 7 September 1731 on the tomb of
deacon Paris. ‘Ennemi de la Bulle, il 1’attaqua vivement’, and dared to present a book on miracles
to the King on 29 July 1737. He was subsequently imprisoned (Cerveau, Nécrologe, II, pp. 327–8).
In September I 732 he was exiled separately, probably because he had proposed on 12 August that
the parlement remain assembled—an unofficial strike.
10 ‘Fermement attaché à la Vérité, il en fut un des plus intrépides Defenseurs’, Cerveau, .Nécrologe, I,
p. 293.
11 ‘Attaché à la Vérité, il fut toujours opposé à la Bulle’, Cerveau, Nécrologe, I, p. 312. He died of his
austere and penitential habits. In the parlement, he denounced a royal decree of 6 April 1732 on
miracles, denounced the mandement of the archbishop of Paris and the Avertissement of the
archbishop of Marseille on miracles.
12 Cerveau, Nécrologe, II, p. 93; Barbier, Journal, ed. Charpentier, II, p. 104; Fleury to Pucelle,
December 1729, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1265, fols 15–20, and reply 1 January 1730, loc.
cit., 1266, fols 10–11; Bluche, Les magistrats, op. cit., p. 251, and Shennan, ‘The political role of the
parlement of Paris, 1715–1748’, PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1963, p. 149. Hénault left a
sketch of Pucelle in action, in which he remarked: ‘Tout le parti anti-constitutionnaire lui
fournissaient des mémoires, qu’il se rendait propres’—Mémoires, ed. Rousseau, Paris, 1911, pp.
319–20. See also the letters to Pucelle from Colbert, bishop of Montpellier, of 27 August 1720, 31
January 1731, 28 May 1732 and 14 January 1733, in Les œures de Messire Charles Joachim Colbert…, 3
vols, Cologne, 1740, III, pp. 60–1, 478, 543–4 and 564 respectively.
13 Barbier, Journal, II, p. 321.
14 Barbier, Journal, I, pp. 272–4; 111, p. 20. Notably, on 12 August 1732, when the crisis was at its
height, he denounced a controversial thesis which had been passed in the Sorbonne on 18 July. In
September 1732 he was exiled alone to the He de Ré. Clément was a ‘grand protecteur des
miracles de M.Paris’—Barbier, Journal, II, p. 350.
APPENDIX 2
324
M.Titon est un homme de quarante ans, qui a été plongé dans la débauche
pendant sa jeunesse, mais qui a change du tout au tout depuis quelques
années. II s’est jeté dans la plus haute devotion; visite, tous les mercredis, les
prisonniers, et, tous les samedis, les malades de l’Hôtel-Dieu. II est grand
janséniste, grand protecteur de M.Paris, et remplit exactement, avec cela, les
devoirs de sa charge.
15
Another who was omitted from Cerveau was C.F.Fornier de Montagny (1682–
1742) of the first enquêtes until 1735 when he entered the grand’chambre, but Barbier
described him as a ‘zélé janséniste’ and he went to Saint-Médard ‘to hear mass out
of devotion’.
16
A president of the second enquêtes, J.F.Ogier d’Enonville (1703–75)
also died too late to be in the Nécrologe but he was described by the fanatical convert
Carré de Montgeron as ‘respectable in all ways’ and ‘enlightened by God himself,
which surely allows us to include him in the sect.
17
Thus, of the fourteen who were prominent in plenary sessions, eleven can on the
grounds of reasonable evidence be classed as Jansenists, while a further three
Jansenists who spoke little can be identified. The remaining three counsellors are
difficult cases because there is no firm evidence either that they were, or were not,
Jansenists. With Robert, L.Dupré (?—1754), of the fourth enquêtes, featured less
prominently than the others and is not mentioned anywhere except in the various
accounts of the proceedings. L.Davy de La Fautrière (1700–56), in the third enquêtes,
was one of the foremost opponents of the royal policy. He has, in fact, been described
as a Jansenist by two historians, but their evidence is far from conclusive.
18
Previously
a member of the Club de l’Entresol, he was one of those figures not uncommon in
ancien régime politics, a man of considerable talent whose legitimate ambition had been
frustrated.
19
It may be that his long service to the Jansenists entitles us to conclude that
he was of their number, for a career man would surely have abandoned an
unsuccessful cause later in the 1730s—or perhaps like Carré de Montgeron he was
converted after 1730? He never profited from his opposition, because he died still a
counsellor of the third enquêtes after thirty years’ service.
15 Barbier, Journal, II, p. 272. He was imprisoned in May 1732 for suggesting that the First President be
instructed to deliver to the King the speech which a different president had given in 1626 after defying
the crown. Pucelle was imprisoned at the same time for trying to present this speech to the King when
the First President failed to do so. Titon abandoned Jansenism in the early 1750s and became an
informer for the cornte d’Argenson: d’Argenson, Journal et mémories, ed.Rathery, VII, p. 177.
16 Barbier, Journal historique et anecdotique du règne de Louis XV, ed. A.de la Villegille, 4 vols, Paris, 1847–
56, II, p. 11. (This edition, generally less satisfactory, nevertheless contains some minor passages,
descriptions or expressions not in the Charpentier edition.) Marais, Journal et mémoires, IV, pp. 343–
4. He was exiled individually in September 1732, partly because he had opined for iterative
remonstrances on the declaration of 18 August 1732.
17 Bluche, Les magistrats, p. 252.
18 P.Chevallier, ‘Les idées religieuses de Davy de La Fautrière’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth
Century, LXVII, 1969, pp. 229–41; and Bluche, Les magistrats, op.cit., p. 252.
19 D’Argenson, Journal et mémoires, ed. Rathery, I, p. 106: ‘II arriva encore cet automne que M.de la
Fautrière qui a beaucoup d’esprit, de savoir et de courage, ayant perdu son père, a été refus en cour
sur une légère grace qu’il demandait, il s’est extrèmement mutiné contre le ministère et il ne
menage rien dans ses avis sur les dernières affaires. II est â côté de l’abbé Pucelle’.
APPENDIX 2
325
Finally, there is the somewhat similar case of P.Thomé (1690–1752). Although
Bluche described him as a ‘janséniste notoire’, the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques described
him only as ‘souvent distingué par son zèle pour le bien public’.
20
Yet, he was one of
the most frequent and spirited speakers against abuses of ecclesiastical authority.
Either he was a Jansenist, or a magistrate who was simply doing his duty and
perhaps specialised in canon law. The fact that a satirical engraving of the parlement
in 1738 portrayed him as the undisputed leader of the first enquêtes could indicate
that he liked the attention brought him by adherence to a controversial cause.
21
It is,
however, certain that he took part in meetings of the inner core of the parti janséniste
when deciding on tactics in the parlement.
22
Another magistrate, Pierre Nicolas
Robert de Saint-Vincent, of the second enquêtes may well have been Jansenist, but
there is no record of his active participation in debates. This is in marked contrast
with his son who was received into the parlement in 1748 and very soon became,
with Lambert, Le Febvre de Saint-Hilaire and the abbé Chauvelin, a leading light of
the parti janséniste. Another believer in the miracles at the tomb of deacon Paris
figured only occasionally in the records of the debates: Charles-Robert Boutin, of
the first enquêtes (from 1741). There is some evidence that P.Dupré de Saint-Maur of
the second enquêtes and J.Delpech de Méréville of the grand’chambre were Jansenists,
but not enough to be sure.
23
The fact that not all members of the group were
devoted Jansenists, and that it was possible to be a Jansenist and not take part in the
fray, is a reminder that religious faith was only a part of the range of motivations a
magistrate might have. Opposition might be tempered by the usual concerns of
judges for family, career and loyalty to the monarch.
20 Bluche, L’origine des magistrats, p. 248.
21 Barbier, Journal, III, pp. 130–1.
22 B.P.R., L.P. 17, p. 1172.
23 On 30 July 1732, in an assemblée des chambres on the occasion of the reception of a new counsellor,
Delpech spoke ‘plein de zèle et de religion’, supporting Clément and Carré de Montgeron: Nouvelles
ecclésiastiques, 1732, p. 162.
326
APPENDIX 3
Chronological table of events in the Paris
parlement, 1730–2
1713 Papal Bull Unigenitus—Jansenism condemned
1714 Paris parlement resists Unigenitus; qualified registration
1718 Pope condemns policy of compromise—resistance to Unigenitus continues
1720 Royal declaration on Unigenitus—isolates extremists in the dispute
24 Mar. 1730 Royal declaration of Unigenitus as a law of state—very antiJansenist
3 Apr. 1730 Lit de justice to register this declaration
1730 Evocations from parlement of cases affecting status of Unigenitus
Oct. 1730 Maraimberg’s Mémoire pour les Sieurs Samson published, with 40 lawyers’
names, defending Paris parlement’s jurisdiction
30 Oct. 1730 Royal arrêt bans the Mémoire as containing ‘criminal’ propositions
25 Nov. 1730 After negotiations between lawyers and ministry, a royal arrêt
compromises with the lawyers
9 Jan. 1731 Remonstrances on royal evocations
5 Mar. 1731 Parlement issues arrêt against Vintimille’s attack on Maraimberg’s
Mémoire
10 Mar. 1731 Royal imposition of silence on matters relating to Unigenitus
22 June 1731 Royal circular letter to bishops insists that the Bull is not a ‘régle de
foi’ and proposes other descriptions. Room for manoeuvre
23 Aug.–26 Nov. 1731 Parisian lawyers strike over archbishop of Paris’ mandement
28 Apr. 1731 Arrêté from parlement against bishop of Orléans on subject of refusal
of sacraments to Jansenists
25 July 1731 Remonstrances on arrêt du conseil which annulled parlement’s arrêt
30 July 1731 Royal arrêt annuls parlement’s arrêt of 5 Mar. 1731
18 Aug. 1731 Iterative remonstrances
3 Sep. 1731 Remonstrances on evocation of appeal in parlement against
ordonnance of archbishop of Paris favouring Unigenitus
7 Sep. 1731 Arrêt by parlement confirming Gallican maxims in state: immediate
royal annulment
Nov. 1731–Jan. 1732 Struggle by parlement to be allowed to debate this response;
in December the King refuses audience to hear grievances of parlement
3 May 1732 Mandement of archbishop of Paris condemning Nouvelles ecclésiastiques
and approving of Unigenitus, ‘reçu par toute l’église‘, refused by some curés
327
8 May 1732 Parlement warned not to interfere, nor to deliberate on the warning
12 May 1732 Parlement’s refusal to concur
13 May 1732 Repeated warning and then, on 14th and 15th, arrest of two
counsellors
16–26 May 1732 Judicial strike, in which the parlement is supported by the lawyers
13 June 1732 Parlement condemns mandement of 3 May
16 June 1732 Exile of four consellors
20 June–10 July 1732 Resignation of seven chambers of the parlement
4 Aug. 1732 Remonstrances on state of parlement
18 Aug. 1732 Severe royal disciplinary declaration on the parlement. Lawyers
strike
3 Sep. 1732 Lit de justice to register declaration—parlement still refused it
7 Sep. 1732 Exile of 139 counsellors to undesirable places in France
7 Sep.–12 Nov. 1732 Judicial vacations, during which there are secret negotiations
11 Nov. 1732 Lettre de cachet recalling exiles
4 Dec. 1732 On humble plea of parlement, disciplinary declaration of 18 Aug.
suspended
APPENDIX 3