I

Unlike most of the great political battles of the Old Regime, the struggle over the liberal reforms did not find the government on one side and the parlements on the other. There were parlements on both sides of the question. Nor were the courts that took a stand against liberalization along with the Paris Parlement united in their views or bound by a sense of common interest. There is no evidence that the opposition companies of Dijon, Bordeaux, Rennes, Rouen, and Paris coordinated their attacks or corresponded, as they did on many other issues, to plan strategy and exchange ideas. Each parlement was concerned specifically about the fate of its own resort. The Breton magistrates appear to have calculated their policy without regard to the situation of the other courts. Liberalism had deep roots in the Rennes Parlement and it was vigorously seconded by the Estates of Brittany, which had close ties with the court and which remained committed to the reforms at least until 1770. The Parlement hesitated a long while before moving against liberalization, and then tried to take a position which would not foreclose the possibility of a return to liberty when conditions improved. The Bordeaux court oscillated between liberal and police positions, depending far less on a global conception of political economy and administration than on short-term factors which affected the supply situation of the territory. If the Paris Parlement struck a more universal pose, it was because it habitually pretended to speak for the whole nation, to the chagrin of its sister-parlements, and because the provisioning of Paris depended upon circumstances throughout the kingdom.

The case of Rouen best illustrates the contradictions and the brittle solidarities which characterized inter-parlementary relations and grain policies. In the course of the public debate, the courts at Rouen and Paris became allies in the struggle against liberalization. Indeed, the Rouen Parlement launched the early assault with its usual vivacity and in a sense prepared the ground for Parisian intervention. Yet there were important differences in outlook between the parlements which should not be obscured by their common hostility to the liberal reforms. While they assailed liberalization, the Rouennais also attacked the policy by which the ministry systematically favored Parisian provisioning as if no one else had to fear or suffer the consequences of scarcity and steep prices.