Agricultural History Review, Volume 57 Part 1 (2009), p. 149

This book attempts to explore the workings of seigneurial justice in rural France on the eve of revolution. It aims to rebut notions that the seignuerial system was in decline or had been replaced by more central, royal courts. In doing so it offers an interesting analysis of social relations in the French countryside. There are similarities and differences with the administration of justice in Bourbon France and Hanoverian England and Hayhoe’s study offers an interesting comparative perspective for any scholar working in the field of criminal justice history in both countries.

Enlightened feudalism is structured in two main sections. The first sets out to demonstrate the role of seigneurial justice in rural affairs while the second looks at the ways in which the system changed or developed in the late eighteenth century. One of the central conclusions that Hayhoe reaches is that ‘seignueurial justice functioned effectively to allow village communities to regulate themselves’, and that villagers preferred the mediation of their local lord to that of the central state. This localized view of ‘justice’ – where individuals choose to bring their complaints before a respected authority figure who was connected to them (by long established ties of fealty and patriarchy) rather than some distant, and distinctly urban, outside authority – echoes very loudly with the role of justices of the peace in England at this time.

The peasants of northern Burgundy were also very familiar with the process of ‘going to Law’ as Hayhoe’s careful study of individual villages reveals. He rightly points out that the numbers of cases that reached the courts represents but the tip of a legal iceberg, for most people would have attempted to resolve their differences without recourse to the formality of law. However, as the author makes clear, most ‘property-owning families could expect to be involved in a court case at least once or twice per decade, and virtually everyone [was] likely [to have] had a friend or relative who [had] been to court within the previous year or two’. Hayhoe might find it interesting to look at comparative caseloads from English petty sessions in the period, especially in Bath, London and the Essex countryside. Here too lower middling and plebeian persons were very familiar with the process of restorative justice and the mediation of disputes.

Hayhoe’s work demonstrates that rural communities in Burgundy in this period were keen to regulate their own affairs as much as possible. Thus we see that they made important decisions about the use of common land, taxation and the election of local officials. They appeared at the assizes to prosecute and participate in the judicial process and were, like their contemporaries in England at this time, seemingly well versed in the intricacies of the law. Villagers welcomed the authority that the courts could bring, recognizing that the factional nature of village life could be divisive and hamper less formal attempts at conflict resolution. However, when attempts were made to impose unwelcome policies on rural communities (such as the prohibition on drinking alcohol in public), these were strongly resisted. As France neared revolution in 1789, it would seem that relations between the seigneurs and the village communities were more strained, with less acceptance of the right of these aristocrats to use the justice system to control and tax their populations.

This a well researched and impressive study which offers a fascinating view of rural France in the mid-to-late eighteenth century.