|
The tribulations of Guillaume Pelletier, agent of
Nicolas-Noël Boutet in the department of Ourthe.
It is right that
Frenchman Nicolas Noël Boutet (1761-1833) is considered one of the
greatest master gunmakers of all time.
He does not owe this
reputation to a particular invention because technically, he adopted
known systems.
His merit is to have
in his armoury, sophisticated craftsmanship and unparalleled skill by
instituting qualitative criteria of a rare requirement.
But the professional
skills that the former gunsmith to Louis XVI possessed in the highest
degree, he also had the chance to be able to officially meter in the
service of his protector, Napoleon Bonaparte.
Boutet was the great
inspirer and creator of the ‘Empire’ style in luxury armory and we know
combines Napoleon intended to impose its mark on all aspects of French
civilization which he had modeled.
Placed in 1793 as
‘artist manager’ (i.e., technical director), head of the Manufacture de
Versailles (1), Boutet manufactured military and civilian weapons in
this new national workshop.
The regime of the
state authority was hardly conducive however, to financial success.
Also, in 1803, the
state authority was abolished and Versailles became a company and the
concession was granted for 18 years, to Boutet.
Until the end of the
Empire, it produced weapons of war but also luxury: pistols, rifles,
shotguns and knives that are still admired by the whole world.
To achieve his
mission, which consisted, in particular, to provide the French head of
state a quantity of arms to serve as diplomatic gifts or honorary
awards, the ‘artist manager’ was authorized in 1794, to recruit the best
artisans, train and mentor recruits or recruits workers who constituted
the strength of the workshop.
Thus, taking advantage
of the unification of the former principality of Liège in “one and
indivisible republic” on July 27, 1794, Boutet engaged many armorers of
this region, who went to Versailles to learn the methods and new ways of
France.
The fact is generally
known, although information is lacking on the temporary or permanent
emigration of the Liège workforce.
One effect of this
movement was the penetration of the official French style on the banks
of the Meuse.
It is only to see the
weapons of the leading manufacturers of Liège under the Empire, Berleur,
Pecklers, Lambert dit Biron, to appreciate the influence of the school
of Boutet.
What is less known, on
the contrary, are the illegal attempts of the latter to make later, the
work armurière Liege industry to its advantage even though the latter
had been organized on site in an autonomous government business.
The relative abundance
of documents, dating from the French administration (1794-1814), kept in
Liège and Paris, sheds light on this episode ignored by industrial
history (2).
We know that the
production of small arms military was progressively established under
the Republic and the French Empire in a state monopoly that was
exercised in the armourers centers heirs of a former factory or having a
traditional skilled workforce.
It was Versailles,
Saint-Etienne, Tulle, Maubeuge, Charleville, Mutzig, Roanne,
Klingenthall for knives as well as Liege, Culembourg (Netherlands) and
Turin.
The workers, who
usually worked at home, were placed under the supervision of an
artillery officer, responsible for enforcing official norms of
production, and under the direction of an entrepreneur financier who
engaged the workforce and undertook investments in materials and tools,
for perception of a commission.
In Liege, a “War
Weapons of Manufacture Nationale” was founded in 1799 by businessman
Jean Gosuin.
At first, the other
manufacturers also retained the right to supply weapons to the Republic,
but despite their repeated protests, Gosuin linked with his son,
obtained the monopoly for it on March 24, 1801 for a term of six years.
This regime of the
factory by exclusive privilege removed any competition in favour of
Gosuin and assured it of orders for the state at fixed prices.
We will not dwell on
the effects of this system and its effectiveness, already covered
elsewhere (3).
We intend to attach
ourselves to the most hidden aspects of managing this company.
It is in 1804 that
Nicolas Noël Boutet intervenes for the first time at the Manufacture
(now Imperial) Weapons of Liege.
In effect, on 22
September of this year, without waiting for the expiry of his contract
until 1807 with the Ministry of War, the businessman Jean Gosuin
secretly subleases for nine years, buildings and tools of the factory,
owned at the famous <artist manager> Versailles.
They agree for form,
to leave the affair under the name of Gosuin until the expiry date of
the legal contract.
Then N.N. Boutet will
appoint his son Pierre Nicolas (1789-1816).
Boutet, who acts
remotely, puts at the head of the company Versaillais of thirty years,
Guillaume Pelletier, as head of production.
This one takes up the
post in Liege on 25 October 1804 and takes up residence with his wife
and children on the first floor of the headquarters of the <recipe> of
the Manufacture, Quai Saint-Léonard.
Initially Boutet had
combined with a certain Cormeré, sharing with him the down payment and
benefits.
The agreement was
short: it ended in September 1805 after this associate had quarrelled
with the artillery officer who assured functions of the factory.
Cormeré was reimbursed
and removed permanently.
The 23rd of the same
month, Boutet founded a new company under the name: "Boutet and son and
company”.
The capital is 300,000
francs, divided into thirteen actions shared by the two founding
partners: Cornut de la Fontaine and Blondel de Latte, who is designated
as a director and responsible in Paris for the connection of the firm.
Pelletier, confirmed
as “chief construction manager”, maintains good relations with Blondel
de Latte.
The situation
deteriorates however when he leaves the company in April 1806 for
unknown reasons, and the manager’s post passes to Cornut de la Fontaine.
The latter is based on
a certain Laval, who works at Liège as “accountant and bookkeeper” of
the factory and resents the tutelage of Pelletier.
On June 19, Boutet
comes to the factory accompanied by an authorized representative of
Cornut, Saint-Julien, who offers encouragement to Laval, gives him a
gratuity, considerable at the time, of 500 francs but does not hide his
hostility towards the head of manufacturing.
Pelletier returns it
to him and will not hesitate to say about him that it “imagines probably
be like the time he was called Julien, Chairman of the Revolutionary
Committee” and that “became saint since we have a sovereign” (that is to
say from the Empire).
Soon after, Cornut de
la Fontaine goes to discharge Pelletier from office, as well as in the
Boutet firm as head of ‘Manufacture of identical plates’, a mechanical
workshop installed since September 23, 1804 in the former convent of the
Dominicans of Liege.
Pelletier recovers
from it - strangely enough since he is the person who has resigned for
several months – to Blondel de Latte.
For the rest, he
ignores the injunctions of Paris and continues his work at the
Manufacture d'Armes.
Warning shot 19
August: Laval learns, not without malice, that according to the last
letter of Saint-Julien, the War Minister would have asked Gosuin to
revoke it to have made illegal shipments to other manufactures.
In fact, this practice
was fairly common at the time: it consisted, for the plants that have
excess production, to help some others to reach their quota by
delivering their surplus of finished products.
They name cases where
Liège has supplied guns to Culembourg, cannons in Mutzig and Charleville
plaques elsewhere (1804-1806). This…
….time, Pelletier was
suspected of secretly selling 300 guns and 600 bayonets to Roanne
businessman - Tamisier. However, he defended this accusation, claiming
instead that he had refused. The government saw this as detrimental to
the effectiveness of arsenals?? and hid too well some deficiencies.
Eager to vindicate
himself, on August 2, 1806 Pelletier left for Paris but the War
Department would not listen.
Out of desperation, he
took advantage of his stay in the capital to purchase a share in the
company of Boutet Son & Co for 20,000 francs.
He gains further
support, hoping to become his authorized representative. Finally, he
gains the confidence of Boutet. Believing this reinforced his position,
he then attempts a reconciliation with Cornut de la Fontaine but it is a
failure.
Meanwhile, Pelletier’s
situation had deteriorated in the department of the Ourthe.
On August 30, the
inspector of artillery denounced the Minister of War for fraud and
embezzlement that was committed last year at Liege Manufacture de Liège.
Boutet was designated
as the main driver of these malpractices with the complicity of Gosuin
who had surreptitiously sublet the company to enable it to exempt Liège
products to its advantage and to the detriment of its shareholders and
the state.
The inspector
suggested, therefore, to grant the company from Liège to Auguste-Henri
Cornut de la Fontaine for six years under surety of his father- hostile
shareholder Pelletier.
On the 18th
of September, the minister agreed.
Cornut de la Fontaine
would now lead Liege until the fall of Napoleon.
Around the same time,
the inspector of the Liege Arms Factory (proof house) was declared
bankrupt……
Meanwhile, a news
story came out that was to heighten the antagonism and show how passions
were exacerbated. In the absence of Pelletier who was always in Paris,
the accountant - Laval visits his wife on the first floor administrative
office of the factory in quay Saint Leonard. He evicts her and the
children on the grounds that her husband no longer has a place there
anymore.
Following this
manoeuvre, on 16 September Nicolas Hyacinthe Casteigne, main clerk in
the proofing house and another employee, Louis René Pieul, go to
Pelletier’s wife and summon Laval to come and explain the reasons for
his conduct towards her.
Laval complies by
displaying a letter from Cornut de la Fontaine ordering him to do so.
The tone heats up and
they resort to insults and almost physical violence, because Laval
threatens one of the men “to throw him out of the window”.
Finally the accountant
calls the guard but the military, probably on duty at the factory,
refrain from intervening in the private quarrel.
Finally the District
Commissioner soothes her mind and agrees to give her eight days to make
a decision.
Informed of the
incident, Pelletier returned to Liege on September 24 and the
authorisation granted by his associates remains in place and they
continued to reside in the factory.
He was to learn that
three days before, Pieul and Laval had again confronted one another -
but this time with blows of their canes – while they spent their Sunday
in the Sans-souci Tavern.
The illusions of
Guillaume Pelletier were shattered when, the day after his return, he
received the news that Boutet, Son and Co had been dissolved on
September 15 and Cornut had appointed his son, still a minor,
businessman of the Imperial Factory of Weapons of Liège.
It was the logical
result of a scheme hatched in Paris and the decision recommended by the
inspector of artillery then ratified by the Minister of War.
On October 14th
1806, the State Councillor in charge of the first district gave the
order to the prefect of the Ourthe to stop Pelletier.
The reasons given were
serious: embezzlement at the expense of the government, slander against
officers and employees of the factory, murder attempt on Laval through
Pieul and Casteigne.
Three days later, the
prefect incarcerates the three suspects in secret. They are subjected to
interrogation from where it emerges that the charges against Pelletier
lose gravity and gain accuracy.
Finally, two
grievances are against him: he owes money to the workers of the factory,
he did work for Boutet without paying them and he is engaged in poaching
of artisans always in favour of the same beneficiary. Aggravating
circumstances that leave not doubt about the machination of “Artist
Manager” of Versailles.
At the time of his arrest, Pelletier was found
carrying a letter from Boutet, dated 23rd
September, begging him to recruit the most Liège workers possible for
his workshop.
The debts of the
accused, carefully calculated by Laval, amounted to 5633.30 francs of
which 4.144,80 francs to the detriment of the Factory.
They were audited by
the seizure of action/deed? which Pelletier had purchased in the ancient
society.
Curiously, there was
no trial and the accused were released and deported in early November
1806.
Pelletier tries to
exculpate himself by sending a large pleading to the prefect but nothing
helped. He left Liège the following day to go to Paris.
They do not note it in
the department of the Ourthe until the following year, but when he
reappears in Liège in June 1808, he carries a 40-day leave granted by
Boutet who is then employed at the Manufacture de Versailles.
He is also accompanied
by Pieul, his former deputy. The two men are again the subject of a
warrant because they tried to poach workers from the Fabrique d’Armes de
Liège in order to induce them to follow them to Essen and that would
lead to the bankruptcy of the latter in 1811.
Their illicit mission
would also have some success since, in 1809, the 150 workers of the
factory were mostly Rhine Liege.
Pelletier’s case is
certainly gloomy. The knowledge that we have at the moment is based on
forty documents often with suspicious bias but whose shortcomings lead
us to read between the lines to pierce hidden agendas.
The integrity of none
of the protagonists is not unscathed??
The double game of
Pelletier does not seem suspicious itself: Placed at the head of the
factory of Liège, he certainly fulfils his task but devotes himself to
parallel activities in a region where the workforce is numerous and the
government monopoly unpopular.
The goal of Cornut de
la Fontaine, to be less ambiguous, is none the less shameful: to take
over the business to his advantage only.
The intentions of
Nicolas Noël Boutet appear more clear: he seeks to take advantage of the
Liègeoise armory at the expense of legal institutions that provide the
framework for this industry.
The Gosuin complicity
is evident and it is questionable how much he was not aware of the plans
of the master arquebusier of Versailles when it concludes with the
secret contract making him abandon the factory of Liège (or leaving him
the abandoned factory??).
And yet, was this
arrangement so confidential?
Boutet attempts to
justify these suspicious associations by pleading a tacit agreement of
the Minister of War.
Without official
support, would we also have to print a letterhead bearing the words:
“French Empire – War – Imperial Manufacture of Liege War Weapons. Boutet
and Son and Company” even if the legal contract of Gosuin had not ended?
Admittedly Gosuin and
Boutet enjoyed the favour of the regime and that they never seemed to
threaten sanctions?? during the investigation of the Pelletier case.
Even this?? kept secret with his alleged
accomplices so that no statement becomes public, ends up being released
as if we had not wanted to shed light on the actions of the past two
years.
The seizure of the
action of Pelletier strongly resembles a transaction as though one had
sought to dismiss the person concerned to reduce him to silence??
But that is an
assumption. Undoubtedly Nicolas Noël Boutet, genius artist who had so
much talent for carving and inlaying wood, chiselling and polishing iron
or cast gold and silver, also had the gift of reconciling men.
Cl. Gaier
|