THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
A POLITICAL HISTORY
THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION
A POLITICAL HISTORY
1789 — 1804
BY
A. AULARD
PROFESSOR OF LETTERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF THE THIRD EDITION
WITH A PREFACE, NOTES, AND HISTORICAL SUMMARY BY
BERNARD MIALL
IN FOUR VOLUMES
VOL. I. THE REVOLUTION UNDER THE MONARCHY
1789— 1792
T. FISHER UNWIN
LONDON : ADELPHI TERRACE
LEIPSIC : INSELSTRASSE 20
1910
(All rights reserved.)
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST
VOLUME
PAGE
Author's Preface ...... 9
Translator's Preface . . . . -19
I. THE MONARCHY. 1789-1792.
Chronological Summary . . . . -35
Biographical Notes . . . . -55
CHAPTER I.
Democratic and Republican Ideas before the
Revolution . . . . . -79
I. No Republican Party in France. Monarchical opinions
of Montesquieu, Voltaire, d'Argenson, Diderot, d'Holbach,
Helvetius, Rousseau, and Mably, among the illustrious
dead : of Raynal, Condorcet, Mirabeau, Sieyes, d'An-
CONTENTS
PAGE
traigues, La Fayette, and Camille Desmoulins, among the
celebrated and influential living. — II. Certain writers aim
at the introduction of republican institutions under the
Monarchy. — III. Increasing weakness of the Monarchy :
the opposition of Parliament. — IV. Parliament prevents
the absolute Monarchy from reforming itself, and op-
poses the establishment of Provincial Assemblies. — V.
English and American influence. — VI. How far are the
writers of the period democratic ? — VII. The democratic
and republican states of mind.
CHAPTER II.
Democratic and Republican Ideas at the Outset
of the Revolution ..... 127
I. Convocation of the Estates-General. The Cahiers. — II.
Formation of the National Assembly. — III. The taking
of the Bastille and the municipal revolution. — IV. The
Declaration of Rights. — V. Logical consequences of the
Declaration.
CHAPTER III.
The Middle Class and the People (" Bourgeoisie "
and Democracy) . . . . .161
I. Neither all the logical social consequences nor all the
logical political consequences ensue from the Declaration
of Rights. At this period there are neither Socialists nor
Republicans. — II. The organisation of the Monarchy. —
III. The organisation of the bourgeoisie as the privileged
middle class. The rule of the property-holders. — IV.
The Democratic movement. — V. The application of the
rule of the property-holders. — VI. The claims of the
Democrats are emphasised.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV.
FAUE
Formation of the Democratic Party and Birth of
the Republican Party (1790, 1791) . . . 212
I. The Democratic Party. — II. Federation. — III. The first
Republican Party : Mme. Robert, her paper and her salon.
— IV. First manifestations of Socialism. — V. Feminism. —
VI. The campaign against the rule of the bourgeoisie. —
VII. Signs of the times ; Republicanism from December,
1790, to June, 1791. — VIII. Humanitarian politics. — IX.
Summary.
CHAPTER V.
The Flight to Varennes and the Republican Move-
ment (June 2i-July 17, 1791) . . . 260'
I. The character of Louis XVI. Historic importance of
the flight to Varennes. — II. The attitude of the Constituent
Assembly. — III. The attitude of Paris. The people ; the
sections ; the clubs ; the press. — IV. The King's return
acts as a check on the Republican Party. — V. Polemics
on the question: "Republic or Monarchy?" — VI. The
Republican movement in the provinces. — VII. The Demo-
crats and the affair of the Champ de Mars.
CHAPTER VI.
The Republicans and the Democrats after the
Affair of the Champ de Mars . ^ . 315
I. Scission and reaction after July 17th. — II. Aggravation
of the bourgeois system. — III. The Assembly closes every
legitimate outlet for Democracy and Republicanism. —
IV. Restoration of the royal power.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII.
From the Meeting of the Second Assembly to
June 20, 1792 ...... 338
I. Elections to the Legislative Assembly and temporary
abdication of the Democratic and Republican parties. — II.
First acts and policy of the Assembly. — III. Public
opinion. — IV. The King's policy. Declaration of war
with Austria. Quarrel between the Assembly and the
King. — V. Anti- republican politics of Robespierre. —
VI. The day of June 20, 1792. — VII. Its consequences.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
In this Political History of the French Revolution, I
propose to show how the principles of the Declaration
of Rights were, between 1789 and 1804, put into
operation by the institutions of the time ; or interpreted
by speeches, by the press, by the policies of the various
political parties, and by the manifestations of public
opinion. Two of these principles, the principle of the
equality of rights, and the principle of national
sovereignty, were those most often invoked in the
elaboration of the new state politic. They are, his-
torically, the essential principles of the Revolution ;
variously conceived, differently applied, according to
the period. The chief object of this book is the narration
of the vicissitudes which these two principles underwent.
In other words, I wish to write the political history
of the Revolution from the point of view of the origin
and the development of Democracy and Republicanism.
Democracy is the logical consequence of the principle
of equality. Republicanism is the logical consequence
of the principle of national sovereignty. These two
consequences did not ensue at once. In place of
Democracy, the men of 1789 founded a middle-class
government, a suffrage of property -owners. In place
of the Republic, they organised a limited monarchy.
Not until August 10, 1792, did the French form them-
selves into a Democracy by establishing universal
suffrage. Not until September 22nd did they abolish
the Monarchy and create the Republic. The republi-
10 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
can form of government lasted, we may say, until
1804 — that is, until the time when the government
of the Republic was confided to an Emperor.
Democracy, however, was suppressed in 1795, by the
constitution of the year III, or, if not suppressed,
at least profoundly modified by a combination of
universal suffrage and suffrage with a property qualifi-
cation. To begin with the people as a whole was
required to surrender its rights in favour of one class
—the middle class, the bourgeoisie ; this bourgeois
regime was the period of the Directoire. Then the
entire people was required to abdicate its rights in
favour of one man, Napoleon Bonaparte, and this
plebiscitary republic was the period of the Consulate.
The history of Democracy and the Republic during
the Revolution falls naturally under four headings :
1. From 1789 to 1792 the period of the origins
of Democracy and the Republic — that is, of the
formation of the Democratic and Republican
parties under a constitutional monarchy by a
property-owners' suffrage.
2. From 1792 to 1795 was the period of the
Democratic Republic.
3. From 1795 to 1799 was tne period of the
Bourgeois Republic.
4. From 1799 to 1809 was the period of the
Plebiscitary Republic.
These transformations of the French state politic mani-
fest themselves in a multitude of facts, in a great
complexity of circumstance. " We have lived six
centuries in as many years," said Boissy d'Anglas, in
1795. For, in fact, as it proved impossible to reform
the old state of affairs pacifically and slowly, a sudden
and violent revolution was inevitable, and the work
of destruction, of change, and of reconstruction was
done in haste, almost at a blow ; work which must,
had matters followed a normal course, according to
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 11
precedents, domestic and foreign, have demanded very
many years for its consummation. Many as were the
facts, short as was the time, the complexity of circum-
stance entailed a still greater confusion. This com-
plexity arose from the fact that the Revolution, while
at work upon domestic organisation, had to sustain a
perpetual foreign war ; a war against almost the whole
of Europe ; a hazardous war, full of sudden and unfore-
seen vicissitudes ; and, simultaneously, to cope with
intermittent civil war as well. These conditions of
war, domestic and foreign, impressed on the develop-
ment and application of the principles of 1789 a
quality of feverish haste ; of makeshift, contradiction,
weakness, violence, especially from 1792 onwards.
The attempts to constitute the Democratic Republic
were made in a military camp ; under the stress of
victory or defeat ; in the fear of a sudden invasion,
or the enthusiasm of a victory achieved. Men had
at the same time to legislate rationally for the future,
for times of peace, and empirically for the present, for
war. These two motives became confused, in the minds
of men and in reality. In the various reconstructions
of the political edifice, there was neither unity of plan,
nor continuity of method, nor logical sequence.
Entangled though they be — these hosts of contradic-
tory and concurrent actions and circumstances — we may
yet, without much difficulty, contrive to perceive a
chronological sequence, successive general periods, and
a general trend of events. To extract facts from the
mass of things, and recount these facts, is less easy.
If no plan, no method be perceptible in the policies
of the men of the Revolution, the historian will find it
all the more difficult himself to devise a method
of selection in dealing with the lights and shadows, the
lives and values, of which he must compose the picture
of so complex, so fluent a reality. Yet we do see
matters more clearly than those contemporaries who
12 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
struggled in the dark ; all ignorant of the issue of
things, of the sequence of the drama ; who (not
unlike ourselves to-day, perhaps) gave weight to
matters of no consequence and ignored the significant
facts. Certainly the knowledge of results is no infal-
lible touchstone in the selection of facts, for the results
are not final ; the Revolution lives to-day in another
shape and under other conditions ; but we do at least
see partial results, periods accomplished, and a develop-
ment of things, which allow us to distinguish the
ephemeral from the lasting, to separate the facts which
have had their consequences in our history from those
of no particular significance.
The facts which we should select in Order to throw as
much light as possible on political evolution are those
which have had direct and evident influence upon that
evolution. Political institutions, the rule by property
suffrage, and the rule of the Monarchy ; universal
suffrage ; the Constitution of 1793 ; the revolutionary
government ; the Constitution of the year III ; the
Constitution of the year VIII ; the flux of ideas which
prepared, established, and modified these institutions ;
the parties ; their tendencies and their quarrels ; the
great currents of opinion ; the revolutions of public
feeling ; the elections ; plebiscites ; the revolt of the
new spirit against the spirit of the past, of new forces
against the forces of the ancien regime, of the lay
mind against the clerical, of the rational principle of
free examination against the Catholic principle of
authority — in these things more especially consists the
political life of France.
Other factors had their influence, but less directly :
battles, for example, and the doings of diplomatist
and financier. It is indispensable to know something
of these, but we may take a general view, and con-
cern ourselves chiefly with results. Thus, the victory
of Valmy, becoming known at the moment of the
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 13
establishment of the Republic, facilitated that establish-
ment, because it led to the retreat of the Prussians. If
we are aware of this result of the famous cannonade,
we know as much as will help us to an under-
standing of contemporary political history, and it would
be useless to place before you a picture of Dumouriez'
military operations. The Peace of Basle, in 1795,
hastened the establishment in France of a normal
domestic government ; it is enough to be aware of this
effect, without going into the details of the negotia-
tions or the clauses of the treaty. The discounting
of paper money and the difficulties of the Stock
Exchange brought about material conditions and a state
of mind which resulted, in Germinal and Prairial of
the year III, in two popular insurrections ; it is not
essential, in order to grasp this political result, to
enter into the downfall of the Revolutionary finances.
Military, financial, and diplomatic history I leave
on one side. I do not wish to disguise the fact that
this abstraction may seem dangerous, and I expose
myself to the reproach of having falsified history by
a process of mutilation. But every attempt at history
is necessarily an abstraction ; the retrospective efforts
of the mind can only embrace a portion of the immense
reality. It is an abstraction, even, to speak only of
one period ; and, in respect of that period, to speak
only of France ; and, in respect of the Revolution,
to speak only of politics. I have tried at least
thoroughly to elucidate the facts indispensable to a
knowledge of these politics, and, if I had also had to
elucidate the facts which have only an indirect bearing
on the matter, I should have been forced to give less
time and less space to the indispensable facts them-
selves. No historical work is sufficient to itself or to
the reader. This of mine, with the rest, presupposes
and demands the reading of others.
This is how I have chosen the facts. Now as to
the order in which I have presented them.
14 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
The chronological order seemed necessary, and I
have been able to follow it in almost the whole of
the first part of this work. For the period from 1789
to 1792 I had only to expose, as they came, the
manifestations of the democratic and republican ideas,
and to set them against the background of the con-
stitutional monarchy and the bourgeois system. In the
case of the three other periods, the democratic,
bourgeois, and plebiscitary republics, it would have
been difficult to explain at the same time and in the
same chronological sequence the political institutions,
the conflict of parties, and the vicissitudes of public
opinion. This would have been to allow the confusion
that exists in reality to enter into the narrative, especi-
ally in the case of the democratic republic. I thought
it best to present, turn by turn, each of these mani-
festations of the same political life, as it were, in
several parallel chronological series. I know the vicis-
situdes of public opinion and those of institutions are
connected, that they exist in a perpetual relation of
reciprocal influence, and whenever necessary I have
shown this connection. I have tried to demonstrate
that these various phenomena are separate only in
my book, not in reality ; that they are different aspects
of the same evolutionary process.
In this respect I have not hesitated, when necessary,
to repeat myself, and these repetitions will perhaps
correct the deceptive quality of so many abstractions ;
a quality to which I must resign myself, since only
by this means can I infuse into my recital a lucidity
which is not to be found in the facts, and since we
must, in order to perceive their concatenation, consider
the facts in groups, and in succession.
If neither my method nor my plan should give full
satisfaction, I hope at least that the reader will feel,
as regards my " documentation," a security born of
the nature of my subject. I should like here to state
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 15
that the reader need not fear that it may have been
materially impossible for me to make the acquaintance
of all the essential sources. With other subjects it
would have been otherwise. For instance, the economic
and social history of the Revolution is dispersed over
so many sources that it is actually impossible, in one
lifetime, to deal with them all, or even with the most
important. He who would write this history unaided
could only here and there attain the whole truth, and
would end by producing only a superficial sketch of
the whole, drawn at second or third hand. But in
the case of political history, if it be reduced to the
facts I have chosen, it is possible for a man, in the
course of twenty years, to read the laws of the Revolu-
tion, the principal journals, correspondences, delibera-
tions, speeches, election papers, and the biographies
of those who played a part in the political life
of the time. It is a little over twenty years since I
began this course of research. I began, in 1879, by
studying the speeches of the orators, and for the last
fourteen years, in the course of my lectures at the
Sorbonne, I have studied the institutions, the parties,
and the lives of the prominent actors. I have thus
had the time necessary to explore the sources of my
subject. If the form of this book smacks of improvisa-
tion, at least my researches have been lengthy, and
I believe on the whole complete. I do not think I
have overlooked a single important source, nor have
I made a single assertion that is not directly drawn
from these sources.
It only remains to speak of these sources.
I will not enumerate them in the form of a biblio-
graphical list ; they will be indicated, for the greater
part, either in the text or in the notes .
Briefly, these sources are as follows :
The laws, in their authentic and official form, are
to be found in the Baudoin Collection, in the Louvre,
16 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
in the Bulletin des Lois, in the proces-verbaux of the
legislative assemblies, and also, singly, in special
impressions These various collections complete one
another. But examples are so rare that one cannot
have them to hand in one's own study. I have, there-
fore, for daily use, relied on the impression published
by Duvergier, after having assured myself, by a large
number of verifications, that this reprint is faithful.
But Duvergier gives only a portion of the laws. I
have found those which he does not give in the official
texts already mentioned, which, excepting the Baudoin
Collection, are to be found in the Bibliotheque
Nationale. I have taken good care not to go to the
journals for these laws, for all, including the Moniteur,
reproduce them incorrectly.
Decrees of the Government, of the Committee of
Public Safety, of the executive Directory, and of the
Consuls, ministerial decisions, &c, have been taken
from the official texts, from the register and the minutes
of the Committee of Public Safety (which I have
recently published), from the Bulletin of the Conven-
tion, from the papers of the Executive Directory (un-
published, in the National Archives), from the
Redact ear, the organ of the Directory, and from the
Moniteur, the organ of the Consular Government.
Facts as to elections and popular votes I have taken
from the proces-verbaux, chiefly unpublished, in the
Archives .
With regard to political laws and institutions, this
choice of sources imposed itself ; there was no room
for hesitation. In the case of the history of the Assem-
blies, the parties, and public opinion, the choice was
not so simple.
One usually has recourse to memoirs in order to
study party life and opinion. But not only are there
very few memoirs which may be taken as absolutely
authentic : there are still fewer whose authors have
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 17
not thought more of the figure they cut than of the
truth. Written after the event, mostly under the
Restoration, they have one very serious failing in
common : I mean the distortion of memory which
disfigures almost every page. I have only made use
of memoirs as an exception, to confirm other testi-
mony rather than to contradict it ; and as I have
never used them without indicating my source, the
reader is warned that in such cases the information
is doubtful or accessory.
For such testimony to be credible it is not enough
that it should come from a contemporary ; it must have
been given at the time of the event to which it relates,
or very soon after, in the plenitude of memory.
To memoirs I prefer letters and the journals.
Letters are so rare that I was not embarrassed in
my choice. But the journals are very numerous. I
have chosen, for preference, those which were obviously
influential, those which were the organs of a party
or a prominent individual : such as the Mercure
Nationale, the organ of the young Republican party ;
or the Defenseur de la Constitution, the organ of
Robespierre.
The journals are not only the interpreters of opinion ;
they also give accounts of the debates in the Assem-
bliesj and they are alone in giving detailed accounts.
There were at that time no official reports, either verba-
tim or in summary. There is an official proces-verbal,
but so short and dry that it gives no idea of the conflicts
of the tribune. I have used the proces-verbal to deter-
mine the order of the debates, and as a frame to be filled
in, and I have then had recourse to the accounts in
the journals, especially in the Journal des Debats et des
Decrets and the Moniteur, as regards the Revolution
from 1790 onwards, and for certain periods the Point
du J our , the Journal logographique, and the Republi-
cain frangais have been used. There was no short-
voii. 1. 2
18 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
hand in those days. Sometimes the journalist gives a
speech from a manuscript left with him by the orator.
More often he reconstitutes the debates from notes
taken during the session ; opinions, from memory.
According to the occasion, I have used those accounts
which seemed to me to be the clearest, the com-
pletest, the most likely. Sometimes I have used several
accounts of one debate, indicating when I change from
source to source. When I cite no source, I have
usually employed the Moniteur.
Many speeches and reports were printed singly by
the orators themselves, at the order of the Assembly
or without it. I have used these impressions when-
ever I have met with them. A certain number of
these pieces have been reprinted in our times, in the
Archives parte me ntaires. But I have never had re-
course to these Archives for the debates in the
Assembly. The accounts of the sessions to be found
therein are without method, without comment, and
without indication of sources ; one does not know how
to take them. Although this collection is official in
its mode of publication, its accounts of the debates
are not official, and are not authentic.
I might say much more concerning my sources, but
I have often had occasion to criticise them by a word
or two in the footnotes, and the reader will doubtless
see, by the use I have made of them, what opinion
I hold of their value.
As for the state of mind in which I have written
this book, I will say only that I have tried, as fair
as in me lay, to write a historical work, and not to
advance a theory. I should wish my work to be
considered as an example of the application of the
historical method to the study of a period disfigured
by passion and by legend.
A. AULARD.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
I.
M. Aulard, one of the most eminent and untiring
students of the French Revolution, and Director of the
well-known periodical devoted to Revolutionary history,
La Revolution frangaise (in which so much of his work
appears), has here, as he tells us, as the result of twenty
years of research, given us only one special aspect of
a period.
" No historical work," he says, " is sufficient to itself
or to the reader. This of mine presupposes and
demands the reading of others."
To many readers of this book the history of the
French Revolution will be thoroughly familiar. But
in order to increase its interest for those who have
not the leisure or the inclination to read other histories
together with M. Aulard's, and have not a know-
ledge or a memory of the period sufficient to dispense
with such reading, it will be well to preface the author's
text with a brief sketch of the events leading up to
the Revolution, a few remarks on the causes and the
nature of the Revolution, and a chronological summary
of the chief events of the period covered by this book.
Again, for the general reader only, I have also added
some explanatory notes and brief biographical sketches
of the principal figures of the time.
19
20 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
Louis XVI was unfortunate in succeeding" to the
throne after two wholly unsatisfactory reigns ; un-
happy, too, in that his succession had been antici-
pated as the only chance of better things. He was
not the man for the times. As we know, he meant
well, but he did not well know what he should mean.
Slow, good, slightly stupid, adoring a masterful and
worldly wife, Louis XVI was the man to whom France
looked, in the spring of 1774, for the salvation she so
sorely needed.
The reign of Louis XIV saw arbitrary monarchy
definitely established. Many of the nobles, shorn of
their ancient power, had to live at Court to live at all ;
and so, being strong in numbers, had largely to fill
sinecures (to the utter prejudice of merit), save those
who still, by the exaction of their feudal rights, were
able to draw blood from a stone or a living from a
starving country. Nobles, Protestants, Parliaments,
liberty of life, liberty of conscience, all went down
before Louis XIV. Under his heir the bleeding of
France continued ; warfare under Louis XIV, war-
fare and debauchery under Louis XV ; warfare not
against enemies only, but against the intellect and
its liberty. Of the state of France in 1774, of
the state in which it lingered until 1789, I shall
say a few words later. Here it is enough to say that
France was a starving nation, on the verge of bank-
ruptcy from the simplest causes. The crowd of nobles
to be kept in feudal state ; of courtiers, of younger
sons, to be found sinecures, commissions, or offices';
the hosts of lawyers, and, not least, the Church, were
more than one poor country, partly cultivated by
obsolete methods, could possibly perpetually support.
Yet support them, for a time, she did, and to do so
contracted debts. The matter was no more complex
than this. Proper taxation, better cultivation ; it
sounds an easy reform, but led to the Revolution and
the Terror.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 21
Let us remember that the Middle Ages were hardly
over. Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu had secularised
the faculty of reason ; but if some few of the upper
classes reasoned and honoured philosophers, it was
largely as a fashion. The Latin is apt to separate his
theoretical principles from his prejudices ; only when
they coincide, or when he is ridden by a disinterested
theory, is he likely to act energetically. Individuals
of the middle classes in the cities, and some of the
younger nobles, were beginning to think ; even some of
the clergy. But the Court did not, could not think. It
craved, with the solidarity of common, if fiercely indi-
vidual, needs. The general mass of the bourgeoisie
could not think any more than it can to-day, although it
was then the fashion to respect the conclusions of reason,
not to laugh at them as eccentric or demode, as is the
modern fashion. As for the people, they had not as
yet learned that thinking was a human function.
It seems easy to-day to understand that a bankrupt
France, with a starving peasantry and a vast, unpro-
ductive, greedy aristocracy, could only be redeemed by
putting the idlers to productive work, giving the
peasants more land to till in a better way, and taxing
those who had the money to pay. It was not easy
then ; in short, it was not at once understood, nor was
it ever understood to be the only thing that mattered.
People believed that if one could find the right man,
the man who really understood finance, all would go
merrily ; every man of noble blood — that is, every
man, since the peasantry and the bourgeoisie were not
yet men — would find for himself and his sons to the third
and fourth generation titles, offices, sinecures, com-
missions, with ample pay and security of pay, and
a gentleman could live as he should. Even the people
believed in such a man ; were he found, their burdens
might be lightened ; they might even know justice.
Scylla and Charybdis were as nothing to this. On
22 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
the one hand, the leeches, demanding richer blood ;
on the other, the patient, crying for fewer leeches.
Who should perceive the paradox? who solve the
problem? Not Louis ; but he always hoped that others
could.
The history of Louis' reign is a tale of physicians,
called in, one after another, sometimes in consultation,
to attend to this case of a dying patient and the hungry
leeches. Surely the right man must be found I
Maurepas was the first : a pleasant, worldly old
gentleman of seventy-three. Under Louis XV he had
not done well, having opposed the Well-Beloved's
harem. Out of favour so long, whatever more natural
than that he should care not greatly for anything but
to warm himself in the kingly smile? He could not
last long : while he lasted, should he not be master?
Therefore, for ministers, rising men ; risen not high
enough for rivalry ; low enough to seek his favour and
support. As for the country — Louis must not be per-
plexed, the Court must be fed, the country must pay :
if not now, then after a good year or so.
Old M. Maurepas was honest in this — he knew his
limitations. Presiding over the Council, his apartments
communicating with the King's, he chose for the actual
direction of affairs Turgot, Malesherbes, and Necker ;
and his choice in one case might have saved France.
He repented — in time.
Malesherbes had the law in his blood, but he also
had a heart. He wished to give each his rights. Men
should think and worship as they chose ; if accused,
a man might even defend himself. Torture should
be abolished. Personal security should be established
by abolishing lettres de cachet ; no more should casual
enemies, inconvenient creditors, superfluous husbands,
or rebellious sons be cast into prison without trial,
without accusation, there to be left, and, usually,
forgotten.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 23
Turgot — who worked in conjunction with Malesherbes
— was the man for France ; the man who should have
saved her, preventing the Revolution. Maurepas, in
him, got more than he looked for. He was a thinker,
a statesman, an economist, a humane man. The
amelioration of the condition of the people seemed
to him more important than junketings at Court. He
proposed to carry on the Government by taxing those
who could pay : the nobles and clergy. Statute labour
should be abolished, that the peasant might give all
his energies to cultivation. Internal duties should be
abolished, that food might be cheap. Provincial
assemblies should accustom the people to self-govern-
ment, and prepare for the restoration of the Estates-
General, which would have the power and, he hoped, the
will, to tax all in proportion.
He would have taxed the peasants at once less
cruelly, have decreased feudal dues. Consequently
the nobles were against him. He would have de-
creased the work of the lawyers ; he would have
repealed unjust decrees ; so the Parliaments were his
enemies. He was a good and able man, and Louis
became aware of it and trusted him. So Maurepas
became afraid of him. He abrogated the Corn Laws,
would have broken the ring by which landowners pro-
duced and fattened on years of famine. The proposal
to tax the clergy, the nobles, the Parliament, to bleed
them as though they were peasants, was the end of
Turgot. The Court and Maurepas had their way ;
Louis dismissed the man who might have saved him
and with him France. But he did so unwillingly.
" Only you and I care anything about the people,"
he said.
Clugny followed, then Necker. Necker was a
banker ; an administrator, not a statesman. His
raison d'etre was to feed the Court. It is to his credit
that he exacted, before feeding it, fresh liberties for
24 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
the people. For he, too, was a reformer at heart,
moderate and cautious ; but his business, after all,
was that of magician ; he must fill the royal purse.
France was unwilling to be bled ; he was unwilling
to bleed her. A banker, he negotiated loans. To
do so he must publish accounts ; to pay them he must
establish a publicly administered revenue. His
accounts were published ; meanwhile he counselled
economy. Economy was too much for the courtiers,
so Necker followed Turgot. And Maurepas shortly
died.
The Court had so far managed Louis through this
amiable old man, whose rooms communicated with his
King's. Now the Queen took his place ; henceforth
the Court must act through her. It is reported that
she could not understand the popular distress where
bread was unobtainable, when brioche was so much
more palatable. Whether innocence or ignorance or
irony prompted the remark, she was a poor adviser
for a dull man. So far the ministers had intended
reforms, had preached economy, and had fallen before
the Court. Henceforth the Court appoints its own
men, and the deluge approaches fast.
Calonne, third after Necker, affected the purse of
a Fortunatus. In him the Court had a man after
its heart. No more scrimping ; they would spend
as they chose. No promises ; actual hard cash ;
pensions for the nobles, pay for the officers, fetes for
the Queen. Loan after loan was raised, and the
interest was paid.
Alas I the Golden Age did not, could not, last long.
The credit of the Government came to an end ; no
one would invest in further loans. So even Calonne
had to fall back on taxation.
The people this time would not pay'; times were
bad. The nobles could ; but there was no power in
the State to make them do so.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 25
Calonne decided that it was time to shift the
responsibility. He convoked the Notables ; they
gathered at Versailles in February, 1787. He was
going to ask, who had always given.
Let the actual state of things be put before these, the
heads of the country : they can put their heads to-
gether ; and, being what they are, what they commend
will be effected. Here was a way of shifting the
blame.
Calonne, in his opening speech, disclosed an
enormous deficit ; was blamed for it, justly and un-
gratefully'"; tried to blame others ; and recommended
a tax on land, payable by all alike. The Notables
had come with an appetite ; to share in the spoils, not
to provide them. Calonne was dismissed, and married
a rich widow ; he had not feathered his own nest.
Brienne, Archbishop of Sens, his opponent, was
chosen to succeed him. Brienne, having found the
Notables follow his lead against Calonne, believed him-
self indeed their leader. But where to lead? for he
had no plan. Office was his ambition ; but how to
keep it?
Meanwhile the Notables did something ; they
sanctioned the establishment of provincial assemblies
— necessary for the peaceful imposition of taxes ;
regulated the corn trade, abolished compulsory statute
labour, passed a Stamp Act, and dissolved. Going
each to his own place, the Notables did one thing :
made known throughout France the perilous state of
the Government and the miserable state of the people.
Parliament (the Court in Paris which registered
decrees before they could become law) saw a chance
in these days of increasing its powers. Brienne re-
quired the registration of the Stamp Act and a
demand for territorial subsidies. Parliament was
obdurate. Louis banished it to Troyes, of which it
soon grew tired.
26 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
Returning, having surrendered, it suffered a " bed
of justice," a visit from the King. For already
matters were so desperate with Brienne that he saw
nothing for it but further loans. To force the Parlia-
ment to register his edicts, the " bed of justice " was
announced. As a bribe Louis promised to publish
yearly accounts, to convoke the Estates -General within
five years, and to allow Protestant members to resume
their avocations. It was not enough ; Parliament
refused the loans.
Members were banished ; the royal Due d'Orleans
among them. Parliament passed a decree protesting
the illegality of lettres de cachet ; as for the banished
members, they must return. Louis annulled the decree.
Parliament declared itself incompetent to tax ; it de-
manded the Estates-General. Further, it decreed its
members inviolable, and any body that might seek to
usurp its functions incompetent.
Brienne sought Lanvignon, and took his advice. The
entire magistracy of France was exiled in a day, and
a plenary court was to take its place.
He reckoned without the people. Brittany, Beam,
Dauphine, Flanders, Languedoc, Provence, protested and
were ready to rise ; nobles, clergy, bourgeois, people :
all France protested. The plenary court could not
be formed, would not have been allowed to meet.
Brienne summoned an assembly of the clergy. They
also protested against his plenary court. Let the
Estates -General be summoned. They alone could
repair the finances and settle the struggle for power.
Foiled on all hands, Brienne gave way, and spoke
the word that started the Revolution. On August 8,
1788, the Estates-General were convoked for May,
1789. Necker was recalled, Parliament sat once
more, and France busied herself with preparing for
the elections.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 27
II.
The condition of France was briefly this : that she
was insolvent, enormously in debt, and hopelessly
unproductive.
Only a portion of her lands was under cultivation,
and that of the poorest kind ; indeed, the conditions
made cultivation almost impossible. And her crops
were almost her sole source of wealth. Manufactures
were few, the export trade small ; as for internal
commerce, the internal tariffs reduced it to the absolute
minimum. Her crops, raised on exhausted soil by
half-starved peasants, had supported for years an
enormous number of more or less idle clergy, nobles,
officers, and lawyers. The aristocracy increased by the
process of breeding, and the feudal dues were in-
creased ; as the lesser nobles and the gentry more
and more became sycophants of the Court, dependent
on the army, the law, and the Court itself (a state
of things brought about by the suppression of their
once unlimited power), heavier taxes had to be imposed.
Too large a proportion of the population was resolved
to live in luxury, and, if possible, in idleness. The
peasant was taxed until he barely lived ; the only
means of raising money was to tax him further, since
the nobles and clergy were privileged, and could not be
forced to pay taxes ; so not infrequently he died. No
one thought of relaxing his burdens to enable him to
pay more to the Government ; few thought of taxing
those who drew their wealth from him — the nobles
and clergy. Bankruptcy and revolution, or the re-
duction or taxation of the clergy and aristocracy, were
inevitable ; yet few seem to have realised as much.
The actual condition of the people can best be
realised by an inspection of the curious documents
known as cahiers — " quires of complaints and griev-
ances." The theory of the Estates was this : it was
28 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
a conference between the King and his people : the
people laid their troubles before the King, who made
them comfortable promises ; the King laid his troubles
before the people, that is, told them how much money
he required ; and the people, in their three Estates,
retired and discussed the ways and means of raising
the money. When the Court had obtained what it
wanted, the Estates were dissolved.
The people brought their troubles to the King in
all good faith. A hope was aroused in France such
as the people had never known.
An examination of the cahiers of the Third Estate
reveals an amazing state of affairs.
I do not propose here to attempt to give a com-
plete picture of the peasant's life ; there is space to
touch only on a few, a very few, of his grievances : they
are, in all conscience, enough.
First, let us take his tenure of land. The peasant
owned his land, as a rule, on a fief from his seigneur.
To begin with, he must work so many days in the
year for his seigneur, who could enforce the cultivation
of his fief.
Secondly, he paid all manner of feudal dues. These
dues were usually in kind, not invariably excessive.
But there was often a multiplicity of these dues, and
they were usually excessive ; and the seigneur, if short
of money, would sell one or more dues, or perhaps
the entire fief, to a money-lender or townsman ; so that
some peasants had to satisfy several masters at once.
The peasant could not plant what crops he pleased ;
so the rotation of crops was impossible, and the soil
was impoverished.
The seigneur had the right of keeping vast flocks
of pigeons. These fed on the peasant's crops. The
peasant must not scare them away. He had the right
to graze his cattle and horses on the peasant's hay.
The peasant must give notice when he wished to
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 29
get his crops in. While waiting for the notice to expire,
a storm might destroy his grapes or grain.
The seigneur's domains often abounded with game :
wild boars, deer, birds of all kinds, to say nothing
of wolves, foxes, and rabbits. The peasant must never
kill them, never drive them off his fields ; must let
them eat, trample his crops, kill his flocks and his
poultry. The seigneur can ride with all the hunt
through the peasant's standing corn.
The peasant can get his corn ground only at Jthe
seigneur's mills. These may be miles away, in one
case " across six fords." If the water be too low, he
must wait three days for the rain to fall before he may
go elsewhere. He may not even crush a handful of corn
at home between two stones .
He must take his grapes to the seigneur's vats,
his olives to the seigneur's press. Apparatus and helpers
are often so indifferent that the products are ruined. To
mill and press and vat he pays a heavy toll.
Of extra dues and exactions, some dated back six
hundred years. Sometimes there were titles ; if there
were none, and the seigneur wished to " revive " a due,
a notary could always be found to fabricate a title.
Merchants who bought such titles — often out of a
kind of snobbery — would farm them out or employ
collectors. Impositions led to litigation and perpetual
bitterness.
Often the seigneur had rights of justice. These he
would farm out ; the farmer lived by the fines inflicted.
For any offence against the seigneur — for snaring a
rabbit or scaring doves — the peasant was punished with
mediseval brutality. Breaking on the wheel and brand-
ing and the lash were common punishments, and the
galleys were always full.
Of the taxes, perhaps the most iniquitous was the
salt tax or gabelle. It was anything but uniform. And
lest a man should try to evade it by going without
30 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
salt, the law compelled him, on pain, of death or
mutilation, to buy enormous amounts of salt each year.
But he must not use table salt for salting pork or
beef ; he must buy different salt at a different price,
and have a written statement made out of the purpose
for which he required it.
In some parts he was forced to buy salt for fourteen
persons (one supposes on the supposition that he might
have fourteen children). In some places every person
over seven had to buy seven pounds of salt yearly.
None but the farmers of the tax might sell salt, and
they kept about half their takings for themselves. In
some places salt was really scarce, and no allowance
was made for children. Smuggling went on every-
where ; thousands were hanged or otherwise punished
every year.
The chief property tax was the taille. It was assessed
in an arbitrary manner, according to the supposed
capacity of a district.
At the least sign of prosperity the taille was in-
creased. Thus the cultivators of the land were kept
to one dead level of poverty ; could put nothing by ;
starved perforce in bad years, living on fern, beech-
leaves, and nettles ; and no one had any incentive to
take up or cultivate more land, as if he gained more
he would pay more. Whatever he did, the probability
was that he would still be kept at starvation level.
Worst of all, if otherwise unable to pay his tax the
peasant had his cattle taken away from him ; so that
a very large proportion of the peasantry were utterly
unable to manure their fields.
From time to time, Protestants were shot, on prin-
ciple or out of high spirits, or driven out of the
country. The peasant absolutely unable to pay his
tattle, or to buy large quantities of salt at a fancy
price, was evicted, and his hut or house pulled down.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 31
Justice was administered by men who gained by per-
secution in place of drawing salaries.
As for education : degrees could often be bought,
and examinations were a farce. Secondary education
hardly existed ; the Kingdom of Navarre " had no
house of public education." Royal edicts of 1695
and 1724 had prescribed the establishment of primary
schools in every parish; but in 1789 there was no
primary instruction whatever in a very large proportion
of the communes.1
Ignorant, hopeless, overburdened, with the weight
of the whole nation on his shoulders ; clad often in
only a rough woollen kilt with a leather girdle ; a mere
slave, put into the world to fatten his masters ; his
nerves harassed continually by every kind of tyranny ;
forced to work, under the whip, on the public roads
or in his seigneur's fields ; exasperated by the failure
or destruction of his crops, by the perpetual disappoint-
ment of such miserable hopes as he might foolishly
conceive ; subject to famine ; dying of starvation or
lingering on a diet of mildewed grain or leaves or
nettles : it is no wonder that the peasant saw, in the
Estates-General, which so generously represented his
own order, and was convoked by the blessed King him-
self to put an end to the woes of France — it is no wonder
that in the Estates he saw the millennium ; no wonder,
when time went by and nothing was done, when famine
returned, and the saviours of France were squabbling
over forms of government, when the nobles were urging
the King to render the Estates useless, and some (men
said) were intriguing with Austria, that he finally lost
all patience ; and fell, with his fellows, upon his tyrant's
chateau with pike and torch, destroying, with his hated
enemy's home, the feudal system itself.
1 See France d'apres les Cahiers de 178Q.
32 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
III.
Had the Estates been able at once to arrange a
system of fair and graduated taxation, to lessen the
burden of the peasants, and create incentives to better
and more extensive cultivation, the Revolution, as we
know it, might have been averted. But the Estates
could do nothing until their powers were settled and
verified. The deputies being mostly of independent
means, drawing eighteen francs a day, conscious of
playing a historical part, with theories to advance,
obsessed by fixed ideas, the verification of powers be-
came a struggle of parties, each claiming, not merely
the executive power, but its exclusive exercise. More-
over, the King, for a time the nobles as a whole, and
always the Court, instead of submitting to the inevitable,
and giving their attention to raising money and allevi-
ating distress, must needs fight for their own privileges,
not perceiving these to be based inevitably on the
common weal ; until the impatient people broke bounds
and became the masters ; finally mastering their very
leaders, and so precipitating the Terror.
BERNARD MIALL.
I
THE MONARCHY
1789 — 1792
VOL. I.
A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF
EVENTS FROM JANUARY, 1789,
TO JULY, 1792
BY THE TRANSLATOR
1789
January. The elections to the Estates-General begin. There are
nearly five million electors.
April. In Paris the elections are delayed by the Court party ; also
a tax of six francs is made a qualification of the suffrage.
The districts refuse the presidents nominated by the King.
27. The employees of a paper-maker, Reveillon, burn his effigy.
He has spoken of lowering wages, and is to be decorated.
28. The mob demand Reveillon's head of the electors sitting at
the Archbishop's palace. They burn his house, and the
Guards fire upon them. Many are killed. The riot does
not become general. It is thought to be instigated by
the Court, in the hope that it would become general, and
thus excuse repressive measures. It is desired to frighten
Paris, which is regarded as being too democratic. The
elections of the deputies for Paris are not completed till
May 20th.
May 3. The deputies arrive at Versailles. The King offends them
at the outset by making them enter his reception-room
according to precedence — that is, by orders, not province
by province.
4. Procession of the Estates.
5. Opening of the Estates-General. Speeches are delivered
by the King, the Keeper of the Seals, and Necker. It is
evident that the Court is preoccupied exclusively with
money matters and taxation.
6. The Third Estate takes possession of the large hall, and
waits for the other two orders to join it. It insists that all
three orders shall vote together. A decree is passed by the
Council suppressing Mirabeau's Journal of the Estates-
General ; another forbids the publication of any- periodical
without permission. This amounts to a Censorship.
36 A CHRONOLOGICAL
May 7. Some members of the Third Estate invite the other orders
to join them. The nobility form themselves into an
assembly. The clergy wait.
12. Conferences to bring about union.
27. The clergy are invited to join the Third Estate.
June 10. The nobles and clergy are summoned for the last time.
Ten of the clergy go over.
15. Sieyes proposes that the Third Estate shall declare itself
the Assembly of the known and acknowledged representatives
of the French Nation.
16. Sieyes proposes the title of National Assembly.
17. The title is adopted ; the Assembly assumes the right of
taxation.
20. The great hall is closed by the King's orders on the
pretext of making ready for the Royal Session on the 22nd.
The Assembly goes to the Tennis Court and takes an oath
not to separate until it shall have established a Constitu-
tion. The clergy begin to join the Assembly.
23. The Royal Session is held : a day late. The King declares
that the actions of the Third Estate are null and void, and
that the Three Estates are to meet separately. During the
coming week the King has to give in, and requests the
nobles to join the Assembly.
25. Versailles is full of troops ; the Deputies are practically
prisoners. The Court hopes to overcome them. The electors
of Paris assemble to instruct their deputies. The French
Guards, confined to barracks, overpower their guards, and
fraternise with the people. On the 23rd the King had
refused to change the system of promotion by rank and
influence. There is great excitement in the Palais Royal
gardens. The Guards refuse to obey orders contrary to
those of the Assembly.
26. The King unwillingly grants the union of the Orders.
27. The union of the Three Estates takes place. Great popular
excitement.
29. Eleven Guards, sent to the Abbaye for taking the oath, were
to be removed to the Bicetre, a prison and hospital com-
bined, where the treatment of venereal diseases was
commenced by a flogging. Four thousand Parisians rush
to the Abbaye, break down the doors, and liberate the
victims. A body of cavalry sent to cut them down fra-
ternises with them. All proceed to the Palais Royal
gardens.
July 10. The Assembly requests the removal of the troops.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 37
July ii. The King refuses to remove the troops. Necker is dis-
missed. All this time Paris has been restless and sus-
picious.
12. The news of Necker's dismissal reaches Paris. Desmoulins
rallies the crowd in the Palais Royal ; a procession is
formed of armed citizens carrying busts of Necker and
the Due d'Orleans. They are charged by cavalry, and
dispersed. Other conflicts follow. German troops fire on
the people in the Tuileries gardens. The people demand
arms at the Hotel de Ville. After some delay a portion
of the crowd succeeds in finding arms. Some French
Guards kill some of the German cavalry.
13. Delegates from Paris entreat the Assembly to form a
" citizen guard," and describe the state of Paris. The
Assembly sends deputations to the King and to Paris ; the
first reproaches Louis with Necker's dismissal and insists
on the removal of the troops. The Assembly sits all night.
Paris is full of a starving population ; there is famine in
the provinces, and the country-folk are pouring into the
city. The electors of Paris decide to arm 60,000 Guards.
The roads are full of troops ; food cannot be got to Paris
without risk and difficulty.
The messengers return from Versailles with the King's
unsatisfactory answer. The people march to the Hotel
de Ville and offer to defend Paris. Some powder in the
Hotel de Ville is distributed. Guns are sought for ; 50,000
pikes are made. There is a general feeling that Paris will
be attacked by the order of the Court.
14. Guns are found at the Invalides, and the Bastille is
attacked and taken, the French Guards helping and bring-
ing their cannon. The Court spend the day in planning
an attack upon Paris. Officers arrive from Paris with the
news that the Bastille has fallen. Paris is discovered to
be on its guard ; the attack is given up.
15. Confusion at Versailles. The King at last enters the
Assembly and states that he has ordered the troops away
from Paris and Versailles. Versailles is overcome with
joy. The news reaches Paris in time to prevent a serious
collision between the troops and the people. A hundred
deputies take the news to Paris.
16. The Queen wishes the King to fly, and begin a civil war
at the head of his troops. The King has been closeted
with his ministers all night. The King is told that Paris
expects him, and writes inviting Necker to return.
38 A CHRONOLOGICAL
July 17. The King, surrounded by deputies, reaches Paris. He is
received at the Hotel de Ville. His speechless and his
somewhat sullen behaviour disappoints the people. He
returns to Versailles. His brother and many of the greater
princes and nobles take to flight.
20. Discussion in the Assembly as to the administration of
Paris.
August. About this time bands of armed men — "brigands" — are
prowling about the country. It is said that they are paid
enemies of the Revolution, destroying the crops in order to
starve the people. There is no order, no security in the
provinces. The people begin to arm themselves. In a
week's time the Assembly is told that three millions of
peasants are in arms. Once in arms, the people feel their
power. The towns arm, and take their local bastilles.
Seigneurs who have behaved with more than usual
brutality are attacked in their chateaux and killed. Then,
marching on the chateaux everywhere, the people demand
arms, burning title-deeds and feudal instruments, in
hundreds of cases burning the chateaux too.
(What was done by "brigands" and what by domiciled
peasants it would be hard to say. For a long time the
people had grown impatient ; the Assembly, from which
they had hoped so much, seemed to waste its time in
talking politics, and the King seemed to be their enemy.
They now refused to pay taxes, burned the Custom barriers,
pillaged the markets, and forced the municipalities to fix
maximum prices for bread.) Now all the old machinery
of government becomes utterly disorganised, and the
chateaux are going up in smoke and flames.
4. The Assembly, emboldened by the provincial revolution,
and the practical abolition of feudal rights, abolishes them
in theory. During the preceding days the more liberal
of the nobles have decided to abandon such rights.
Equality before the law and individual liberty are
established by decree.
6. The estates of the Church are claimed as national property
by Buzot.
8-1 1. The estates of the Church and the tithes are respectively
confiscated and abolished, provision being made for the
cures by maintaining tithes as a temporary measure.
All this time, and until September, Paris is without real
municipal government, police, or justice. The city is
starving as though in a state of siege. Purchases are made
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 39
by force of arms. In the meantime the Assembly is
discussing the royal veto. The Palais Royal wishes to send
deputations to Versailles : Loustallot wishes first to refer
the question of the veto to the people of Paris. A depu-
tation goes to the Hotel de Ville, and is refused a hearing.
Meanwhile the Court is conspiring to remove the King
to safety and to begin a civil war. The Assembly does
nothing of note, and is undecided in its behaviour.
Sept. 12. It is at last decided that the decrees of August 4th must
be presented for the King's sanction. It is reported that
the King intends to oppose them.
13. Mirabeau and others, fearing the King will refuse his
sanction, wish to dispense with the veto.
15. The King gives an unsatisfactory reply, criticising, but not
sanctioning, the decrees.
21. The King says he will order the publication of the
decrees, and hopes the Assembly will decree such laws as
he can sanction.
24. Necker presents a financial statement to the Assembly.
Two loans which had been decided upon of 113 millions
produce only 12 millions. The nation has no credit.
Necker suggests that every one should sacrifice 25 per
cent, of his income.
Oct. 1. Banquets are held at Versailles. Starvation continues in
Paris. The news of the banquets brings the discontent to
a head.
5. Ten thousand women, clamouring for bread, go first to the
Hotel de Ville, thence to Versailles. The people of Paris
follow in their thousands. The National Guards follow,
carrying La Fayette with them. They invade the Assembly.
Deputations go to the King. He at last accepts the decrees.
6. The next day the people invade the chateau, and force the
King to return to Paris with them. The King has been
forced to promise food, and bread-carts set out for Paris
amid the riots. The common people think the King's
presence will end the famine ; but the real reason for
bringing him in is to prevent his escape and the danger of
civil war. The royal family is henceforth in the keep-
ing of La Fayette.
9. On the 9th the King declares his intention of visiting the
provinces, thus veiling his intention to escape.
About this time the Jacobins begin to grow powerful.
The Assembly henceforth meets first in the Archbishop's
palace, then in the riding-hall near the Tuileries.
40 A CHRONOLOGICAL
In the following months, moved by the state of the
finances, fear of the Court, desire to stand well with the
people, and the original theories and ideals with which the
deputies came to Paris, the Assembly is employed in com-
pleting the Constitution, on the work of general reform,
and in establishing a federated government whose
principles shall be uniformity, local self-government, and
popular sovereignty. France is now divided into 83
departments and 374 districts ; and the appropriate
administrative bodies are created. The communes are
all unaltered, and are placed under the direction of munici-
palities. The qualifications of the suffrage are decided
upon. The Parliaments are abolished and courts of law
established ; internal Customs are removed. The external
tariff is modified. The old taxes are to remain in force till
others are voted (a task which should have been the first
work of the Assembly). Besides selling Church property,
the Assembly suppresses monasteries and convents, the
inmates being pensioned. A " Civil Constitution of the
Clergy " is promulgated, to come into force in the summer
of 1790.
Oct. 8-10. The debate begins on the confiscation of Church property.
14. Some of the clergy of Brittany threaten rebellion.
18. The municipalities make them take back their words.
22. The decree of the " three days' labour " is issued.
24. The clergy of Toulouse threaten civil war. Meanwhile the
wealthy clergy of Belgium, Brabant, and Flanders are
raising an army.
Nov. 3. The Assembly decrees that the estates of the clergy are at
the disposal of the nation and that the clergy, as an order,
no longer exist.
5. A law is passed, stating that " such tribunals as do not
register within three days shall be prosecuted for illegal
behaviour." This is necessary as the old courts are sitting
in many cases, and are guilty of barbarous atrocities. The
Parliaments are given " an indefinite vacation."
Dec. Of those that dare to resist the Parliament of Brittany is
most obstinate, as the reactionary nobles are gathering at
St. Malo. However, the people of Rennes, Vannes, and
St. Malo send word to the Assembly that they have dis-
covered the traitors. The Parliaments of Brittany and
Bordeaux are summoned to the Bar.
22. The Parliaments are suppressed.
The work of organising a system of justice is begun.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 41
The Parliament of Brittany argues for the divorce of
Brittany from France.
The Parliaments in general, being unable to defend
themselves, speak in defence of provincial Estates.
The municipalities everywhere demand the sole rights of
the people.
1790
Jan. ii. On this day the Parliament of Brittany is interdicted from
all public functions until it shall request to be allowed to
take the oath.
Confederation is now making rapid strides. At first
this federation is of a provincial nature. In January the
representatives of 150,000 National Guards of Brittany and
Anjou meet at Pontivy, in uniform, and establish a system
of confederation.
As such associations are formed, they become associated
also with each other. In the winter Dijon calls upon the
municipalities of Burgundy to hasten to the assistance
of starving Lyon, and to unite with Franche-Comte. In
all this there is nothing of the parochial spirit later stigma-
tised as Federalism. The federations begin by looking to
Paris as their head.
Feb. In this month there are disturbances and riots here and
there. Beggars spread abroad in bands. The feudal riots
begin again ; there is a reign of terror for the nobles, the
decrees of August 4th not being executed quickly
enough to satisfy the peasants. The National Guards as a
rule protect the nobles, and the risings are checked.
All this time plots and conspiracies have been carried on
in the Tuileries. Various schemes are formed, and dis-
covered, for getting the King to Metz, where the emigre
nobles are maintaining an army. The Tuileries are
watched night and day, so that by December the King is
really a prisoner. Mirabeau advises him to retire to
Rouen, and to head the Revolution. Marie Antoinette's
advice is uniformly disloyal ; she is, in fact, a mere agent
for Austria, and the creature of her own passion for
revenge.
The ImpartialsClub is founded, with the object of restor-
ing power to the Kings and to preserve Church property.
4. On the 4th the King repairs to the Assembly and compli-
ments it on its reforms, and declares himself above all
42 A CHRONOLOGICAL
the friend of the Constitution. The Assembly becomes
delirious, and escorts him to the Tuileries, where it is
received by the Queen in the presence of the Dauphin.
" I will teach him to cherish liberty,'' she says. Shortly
after this her brother, the Emperor, declares in a mani-
festo that he too is the friend of liberty.
The Assembly returns, and swears fidelity to the Con-
stitution which as yet does not exist.
Feb. 5-15. A succession of fetes takes place throughout the country.
People flock to take the oath.
18. Favras, an agent of Monsieur, the Comte de Provence, who
had undertaken to carry off the King, is hanged. Monsieur
denies all knowledge of him. Favras accuses nobody.
This is the first time a noble has been hanged.
March. Federation continues. In March, Brittany demands that
France shall send one man in every thousand to Paris.
Ineffectual attempts are made to cause collisions between
soldiery and people.
At Easter the clergy attempt to turn the people against
the Assembly.
April. The King is keeping up enormous establishments at
Treves and Turin ; Artois, Conde, Lambesc, and all the
emigre nobles are paid huge pensions. But the pensions of
the widows of poor officers are often unpaid or postponed.
The Assembly passes a decree early in the year prohibiting
this payment of emigrants. The King "forgets" to sanction
it and disobeys it. Cannes, reporter of the Committee of
Finances, reports that he cannot discover the application
of a sum of 60,000,000 francs. Thereupon the Assembly
decrees that the Keeper of the Seals must acquaint them
of the refusal or sanction of every decree within eight days.
1. Cannes replies to the protests aroused by this enactment
by printing the Red Book. This is a record of the utter
corruption of the aristocracy and the weakness of royalty.
It justifies the Revolution in the mind of all liberal France.
Ecclesiastical estates are now being sold. The munici-
palities, led by that of Paris, buy one half, to sell again ;
this property serves as security for paper money. Each
note has a lot of land assigned to it ; hence the notes are
called assignafs.
12. Dom Gerle suggests that the Assembly shall decree the
Catholic religion to be the religion of the nation. This
places the Assembly in an awkward position. The clergy
want the Assembly to refuse, so that they can protest to
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 43
the King and rouse all Catholics. Mirabeau, with adroit
eloquence, saves the situation, recalling the massacres of
St. Bartholomew's Day. The King makes it known that he
will receive no such protest. The Catholics attempt to set
the Catholic population against the Protestants.
April 18. Religious riots in Toulouse.
Protestants form armed confederations. Catholic plots
and confederations are formed all over the country.
May io. An inventory of the property of the religious communities
has been ordered. At Montauban the Catholics take ad-
vantage of the execution of this decree to fire on the
magistrates, the Guards, and the Protestants. All the
south is in a ferment. There is a counter-revolution at
Nimes. The bishops try to turn the cures, who receive
;£8o a year from the Assembly, against the Government
and the Civil Constitution.
30. A great Federal meeting takes place at Lyons, the National
Guard alone sending 50,000 men.
June 13. Froment tries to incite the Catholics of Nimes to a
disgraceful massacre of Protestants and revolutionists.
The affair fizzles out after some bloodshed, only a sixth
of the men he has organised following him. In return,
the soldiery and the people turn upon Froment's men and
exterminate them. At Aries and Avignon attempted risings
end in the victory of the Revolution. Throughout the
country the army shows itself loyal to the people. The
King forces Bouille to take the oath of fidelity to the
Revolution.
All this time France has been forestalling the law by
spontaneously organising local government and a system
of federation.
In May a great Federal meeting is held in Lyons ; the
Mayor and commune of Paris now request the Assembly
to convoke a general Confederation, which is granted ;
although the Jacobins fear the King may gain by it. The
expenses are to be defrayed by the various districts.
Hospitality is universal when the time comes. In this
month, moved by the universal enthusiasm, the Assembly
abolishes titles of nobility.
19. The " deputies of the human race," headed by Clootz,
demand a part in the Confederation fete.
July. The great meeting is to take place in the Champ de Mars,
which is turned into a huge amphitheatre. The people
themselves do most of the work, the men sent by the
44 A CHRONOLOGICAL
municipality being sulky, or perhaps bribed. Bands of
delegates — largely army and navy veterans — arrive, singing
the Qa ira. All Paris strives to take them in.
July 14. Many people camp out all night on the Champ de Mars
to ensure being present at the ceremony. It is wretchedly
wet. 160,000 are seated ; 150,000 stand ; in the field itself
are 50,000 Federal delegates ; of whom 14,000 National
Guards and delegates from the army and navy are to
perform evolutions. The hills of Chaillot and Passy are
crowded. To keep warm, the first arrivals begin to dance
the farandole in rondos of provinces. The King and
Queen come with La Fayette ; 200 priests approach the
altar ; 1,200 musicians play ; 40 cannon are fired. The
people swear the oath of fidelity.
27. The Assembly, learning that Louis has granted the
Austrians passage across French territory in order to
crush the revolution in Belgium, refuses it ; and 30,000
National Guards immediately march to oppose it effectually.
Europe forms an alliance against the Revolution, firstly
against that of Brabant.
The Federation not having alleviated the tendency to force
the poorer classes out of the State, the Jacobin societies
begin to spread. In two years 2,400 clubs have been
formed. This begins to give the Revolution another
character. So far, no great revolution had ever been
effected with so little bloodshed.
During the spring and summer soldiers have been
attempting to obtain their arrears of pay, stolen by their
officers. The officers employ bullies, skilled fencers, to
insult them and kill the most persistent in duels. The
officers are everywhere disloyal to the army and the
Government.
August. At Nancy the King's regiment asks its officers to settle
accounts, and is paid. A Swiss regiment sends two envoys
to the King's regiment asking for information. Their
officers, Swiss patricians, feudal lords, &c, having power
of life and death over their men, flog the envoys in open
parade before the French officers.
This Swiss regiment is popular in the army. On July 14,
1789, it had refused to fire on the people, thus paralysing
Besenval, and leaving Paris free to march on the Bastille.
The French promenade the two Swiss envoys around the
town and force their officers to pay them a heavy
indemnity.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 45
The officers improperly kept the cash-boxes of the
regiments at the treasurer's. The men take them back to
quarters. They are nearly empty. The men force the
officers to pay their arrears.
These disturbances are discussed in the Assembly.
Mirabeau very sensibly advocates dissolving the Army
and reconstituting it. La Fayette mistakenly causes a
decree to be passed stating that the King should appoint
inspectors of accounts from among the officers. He also
frightens the Jacobins with tales of a military insurrec-
tion. Bouille is put in command of the eastern regiments.
An officer from Besancon, a bully and duellist, is sent to
Nancy as inspector. Letters from the soldiers at Nancy to
the Assembly are intercepted. A false accusation against
the soldiers on the part of the municipality of Nancy is
read in the Assembly. They are commanded, by decree,
to declare their errors to their commanders.
Aug. 26. Malseigne, the inspector, arrives at Nancy with the decree.
He begins by insulting the Swiss, and has to fight his way
out. Bouille commands the Swiss to evacuate Nancy.
They refuse. He selects nearly five thousand troops,
chiefly Germans, with seven hundred royalist National
Guards. Two thousand loyal Guards rush into the town.
Malseigne takes refuge with some carbineers, who give him
up. Bouille writes to the Assembly for two deputies to
assist him, but does not wait for them.
31. Three deputations advance to meet Bouille outside Nancy,
to ask his conditions. He commands the regiments to
march out, give up Malseigne, and be judged by the
Assembly. The French regiments obey. The Swiss
remain, knowing that their own brutal officers will be
allowed to judge them. Some Guards go to their help.
Bouille enters the town under the fire of the poorer inhabi-
tants. Half the Swiss are killed at once ; of the rest
twenty-one are hanged by their officers, one is broken on
the wheel, fifty are sent to the galleys at Brest.
On the same day the Assembly agrees, too late, to give
impartial justice.
However, it publicly thanks Bouille on his return to
Paris. Louis refers to the slaughter as "an afflicting but
necessary affair." He recommends Bouille to "continue."
Loustallot dies a few days later — it has always been said,
of grief.
The Nancy massacre causes the municipalities and the
46 A CHRONOLOGICAL
National Guard to be suspected of being aristocratic in
their sympathies, and gives a great impetus to Jacobinism.
It was mistakenly said that the Guards had sided with
Bouille. There are reactionary conspiracies to cause
division among the Guards.
Sept. 2. Paris hears of the Nancy massacre. 40,000 men surround
the Tuileries and demand the retirement of the War
Minister, Latour-Dupin. Necker escapes from Paris, flies
next day. The Assembly takes over the Treasury.
Everywhere the nobles have been provoking the people
and the Guards. At Lahors two brothers, after killing
several people in the streets who wished to arrest them,
shut themselves up in their house and fire on the crowd,
killing many, till their house is burned. In the Assembly
a noble threatens Mirabeau with his cane. A bully follows
Charles de Lancette for two days, trying to provoke a
duel. Being accused of cowardice by the entire Right,
he fights the Due de Castries, and is wounded. The Due's
house is methodically dismantled by the people, a sentry
being placed over the King's portrait. La Fayette has to
look on. From this day the vengeance of the people
becomes a factor to be feared and reckoned with. Now
follows a period of uneasy tranquillity. Many foreigners
come to Paris as to a spectacle. But in secret Louis is
denouncing France to Europe, and the Jacobins are be-
coming powerfully organised in opposition to the nobles
and clergy. Paris is all day a mass of meetings.
Oct. 30. The Bishops publishing their Exposition de principes, an
attempt to terrorise the loyal clergy, the Jacobins decide
to run a journal, publishing extracts from the correspon-
dence of the main society with the provincial branches,
which will make public a vast number of accusations against
the nobles and clergy. They choose for editor Choderlos de
Laclos, the agent of the Due d'Orleans. This arrangement
is due to the fact that they need money ; Orleans supplies
it. During this period Robespierre, who has been rather
despised in the Assembly for his academical and didactic
dulness, begins to gain his prodigious ascendancy over the
Jacobins. The Cordeliers are also gaining in influence.
Among them are Danton, Desmoulins, and Marat. They
gain an enormous influence over the proletariat and the
mob pure and simple.
Nov. 19. Mirabeau opposes Robespierre's proposal that only active
citizens shall form the National Guard.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 47
Nov. 27. Priests are ordered to take the oath of the Constitution
within a week.
Dec. In this month Marat proposes to form an organisation of
spies to watch the Government. Failing, he becomes an
inquisition in himself. He begins to accustom the mob to
the ideas of blood and blind vengeance.
1791
Jan. 4. The clergy in the Assembly are put to the test of the oath.
Many refuse.
At the beginning of this year the effects of the error of
antagonising the proletariat by shutting them off from
citizenship and excluding them from the defence of their
country, thus abandoning them to Marat and other fire-
brands, begin to be felt. The Reign of Terror might
already be foretold. The Jacobins manage, by violence
and calumny, to destroy the Club of the Friends of the
Monarchical Constitution.
Feb. The King's aunts, at the end of this month, wish to emi-
grate, finding it difficult to keep their chaplains. The
King recommends them to go to Rome. First Mirabeau
and then all Paris becomes alarmed ; their departure
would increase the power of the emigres. However, the
Assembly allows them to proceed.
28. The men of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine turn out to de-
molish the Castle (prison) of Vincennes. La Fayette
and the Assembly are warned. A body of nobles guards
the King with daggers and sword-sticks (quite fatuously),
giving the day the name of the Day of Poignards. La
Fayette and Santerre turn out ; Santerre will not fire on the
people. La Fayette makes a few arrests and saves the day.
March. This is a time of suspicion and unfruitful commotion. The
question as to whether passive citizens shall bear arms is
revived — this time practically by the municipality nd
people, who set to work at their forges.
The party of the Left is slowly gaining in power and
provincial repute. Robespierre is Public Accuser in the
new Courts.
The King still meditates flight as his best means of action
and reaction. Many of the Departments would further
his flight, but not to Metz : they will not fight for emigres,
only for Louis as head of the Revolution. Mirabeau -is
much with the King. Had he lived it is impossible to
48 A CHRONOLOGICAL
guess what the course of the Revolution might have been.
But he sickens, is worn out with quackery and real illness,
April, and finally, after a battle with the Jacobins, and an attempt
to obtain fair treatment for emigres, he takes to his bed
2. and dies, apparently of colic or appendicitis — of course,
incorrectly treated.
4. Mirabeau's funeral takes place, the greatest public funeral
ever seen in France until that of Napoleon.
7. Robespierre, who assumes an imperious attitude now that
Mirabeau is dead, and who has his Jacobins behind him,
obtains the passage of a decree to the effect that no
member of the Assembly shall be raised to the Ministry
until four years after the Assembly is dissolved.
Five weeks later he is responsible for another decree
to the effect that members of the Assembly shall not be
elected for the following Assembly. For some reason the
Assembly quietly passes this decree also, although the two
decrees together ensure that France shall for some years
be entirely in inexperienced hands, and also that ministers
shall as far as possible deal with strangers in their sub-
sequent Governments ; that her greatest men (most of whom
were elected to the first Assembly) shall be thrust aside
for two or four years, and that the elections will be at the
mercy of the factions. These decrees hardly affect
Robespierre, whose power derives increasingly from the
Jacobins.
At the time of Mirabeau's death the party in favour of
the new Constitution found themselves in a dilemma.
Taxes were refused ; municipalities did what they chose ;
granaries were pillaged ; there was no discipline in the
army ; the clubs were usurping all authority ; in short, the
executive was almost inoperative. It had been necessary
to render it weak ; it was equally essential now, if the
Constitution were to be stable, to render it strong. Mean-
while the emigres at Basle, Coblentz, and elsewhere
threaten all the terrors of reaction. The King's brother
calls upon the Powers of Europe to restore Louis's authority.
In the midst of these conditions the primary assemblies
for the election of the Constituent Assembly are already
being convoked. It is a critical moment ; but the latent
stresses are precipitated by the action of the King.
In April the royal carriages were about to start for St.
Cloud, but were turned back by the National Guard. It
was suspected that other attempts would be made
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 49
June. Finally, on the night of June 20th, all preparations were
completed. Bouille was to receive the King and then to
march on Paris. The King, his sister, the Queen, the two
children, and their governess, drove out of Paris in a
hackney-coach to the rendezvous, where a large travelling-
carriage awaited them, with three soldiers dressed as
couriers. Louis was disguised as a valet.
The story of the attempted escape need not be re-told
here in detail. It is enough to say that the troops — some
Austrian — posted along the road excite suspicion ; at Chalons
all guess what is afoot. Sainte-Menehould is passed with
difficulty ; and an ex-dragoon, one Drouet, rides to Varennes
to intercept the party. Through a blunder of Louis', Drouet
is in time. Drouet rouses the mayor and a few guards,
and scares off the few hussars in the town : the mayor, a
grocer by trade, invites the royal family to enter his
house. The King makes futile attempts to " order his
carriage." All the roads are in a turmoil. Bouille arrives
too late ; the King is being taken back to Paris.
21. Intense alarm prevails in Paris when the King's flight is
known. An immediate invasion is feared, an invasion and
civil war in one, for the emigres are gathered on the
frontier, and royalists are expected to rise throughout
France.
Louis has not only betrayed his country ; he has left a
document proving that he can never be trusted to rule
according to the Constitution.
The Assembly does all that is necessary, and Paris re-
mains quiet.
25. Louis re-enters Paris, escorted by three deputies. He
is provisionally suspended. Some desire to maintain him
on the throne with better advisers ; some consider that he
has abdicated ; and a Republic is at last openly advocated.
The Centre joins Lameth's party in an attempt to preserve
the throne. It is finally decreed that the King shall be
considered as having abdicated if he retract his oath or
make war on France, but not otherwise. The Republicans
thereupon draw up a petition denying the sufficiency of the
Assembly, stating that the matter should be put before
July 17. the nation. This is carried by an immense crowd to the
Champ de Mars. La Fayette disperses the crowd, but
it returns in greater numbers. Two men found under
the altar, supposed spies, are killed. The mayor shows the
red flag and orders the multitude to disperse. Stones are
VOL. I. 4
50 A CHRONOLOGICAL
thrown ; the Guard fires, many are killed ; the crowd
scatters.
Aug. 27. Declaration of Pilnitz.
The Assembly nears its term of office. Taxes, criminal
law, public and constitutional affairs have all been dealt
with. It seems desirable to draw up the complete Constitu-
tion. The Constitution when completed is presented to
Louis, the suspension being interrupted.
Sept. 14. He accepts and engages to maintain it. At the end of the
30. month the Assembly dissolves.
Oct. 1. The Legislative Assembly meets ; 400 of the deputies are
advocates. Vergniaud, Condorcet, Brissot, and Carnot are
perhaps the most eminent members.
In Avignon (still Papal) the Papal nobles had set up gibbets.
June saw a rising of the people ; four aristocrats were hanged,
one on each of four gibbets. Emigration followed. The
Papal Legate leaves and returns. Petitions for union with
France are sent to the Assembly. Carpentras and Avignon
are at war. Jourdan, a dyer, with thousands of " Brigands
of Avignon," besieges Carpentras. Finally on September
14th the Assembly annexes Avignon and the Comtat.
16. On October 16th, however, one l'Escuyer goes to the
Cordeliers' Church to warn the Papal party to keep the
peace. A statue of the Virgin is said to have wept blood,
and Papal placards are seen posted about. L'Escuyer is
stabbed to death, chiefly by the scissors of female
worshippers. The municipality fills the dungeons with
aristocrats.
17-18. Jourdan establishes a court-martial and massacres the
prisoners. I n November the Assembly sends Commissioners
and troops; Jourdan escapes being cut down ; 130 bodies of
adults and children are found in a Papal oubliette ; finally
there is an amnesty.
Meanwhile there is a great deal of unrest in the country,
what with aristocrats in the south, priests everywhere,
patriot municipalities, and ambitious departmental direc-
tories. The autumn passes with nothing notable done ;
there are intrigues at the Tuileries, and Orleans is so grossly
insulted as finally to break with Louis altogether. There
are rumours of war ; Coblentz is a little Court in itself, so
many are the emigres waiting there to invade France.
28. Monsieur, Louis' brother, is invited to return within two
months, under heavy penalties.
Nov. 4. Petion is elected Mayor of Paris.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 51
Nov. 9. All emigres are declared suspect, and, unless they return
by January 1st, outlawed. Other severe decrees are
passed : the King vetoes all but the first. Decrees for
putting France into a state of defence have also been
vetoed.
29. The King is requested to demand that the German and
emigrant forces shall be dispersed under pain of war.
In a few days he states that the Elector of Treves and other
princes will see to it that all gatherings and hostile acts on
the part of emigres in their dominions must cease before
January 25th ; if they ignore his wishes he must declare
war.
Dec. 6. Narbonne is appointed Minister of War ; 150,000 men are
requisitioned ; 20,000,000 francs are voted. Three armies
are formed, under Rochambeau, Luckner, and La Fayette.
Monsieur and Conde are impeached. The Elector of Treves
engages to disperse the emigres. He makes but a pretence
of so doing. Austria will support him, and posts 50,000
men in Holland, 6,000 in Breisgau, and marches up
30,000 more.
1792
The Assembly requires the Emperor to give, before
February 10th, a precise statement of his intentions. In-
capable ministers are impeached. The King has to select a
Girondist ministry (in March). The Emperor finally gives
a wholly unsatisfactory reply : the Monarchy is to be re-
established on the basis of the royal seance of June 23, 1759,
the property of the Church is to be restored, Alsace to be
given back to the German princes and Avignon to the Pope.
War is now inevitable.
April 20. Louis repairs to the Assembly with his foreign minister,
Dumouriez, who explains the situation with regard to
Austria. Louis then, by the terms of the Constitution,
proposes war to the Assembly. On his withdrawal war
is accordingly declared, to the great joy of the country,
which at once begins to volunteer. Rochambeau has the
northern army, his frontier being from Dunkirk to Philippe-
ville; La Fayette the Centre, his frontier stretching to
Weissemburg ; Luckner has the army on the Rhine, his
frontier running from Weissemburg to Basle. The Alps
and Pyrenees, not yet in danger, are confided to Montes-
quieu.
Dumouriez determines to begin by invading Belgium.
52 A CHRONOLOGICAL
He thinks the Brabant patriots will join him. Dillon and
Biron are to march on Tournai and Mons respectively ; La
Fayette is to march from Metz to Stenai, Sedan, and Namur.
April 28. The columns are weak, the men undisciplined. Dillon
has just crossed the frontier and come into action when
his troops stampede, carry him off, and kill him. Biron's
men also retire in panic. La Fayette hears of this
at Bouvines, and, seeing that the invasion has failed,
retires. Rochambeau resigns, complaining that he receives
commands instead of being free to issue them. The frontier
from the sea to the Jura is now divided between La Fayette
and Luckner.
These checks are imputed to Dumouriez' unskilfulness.
A split occurs between the Gironde and the Feuillants.
The Jacobins accuse the counter-revolutionaries. The
latter hope to see the ancien regime restored.
June 8. The Assembly votes the formation of an armed camp
before Paris.
9. There is a skirmish at Maubeuge.
Louis, for some time urged to employ constitutional priests,
in order to put an end to religious agitation, cannot work
13. harmoniously with his ministers. On the 13th he dismisses
them on Dumouriez' advice. On the 19th he vetoes two
decrees, those concerning the non-juring priests and the
Federal camp.
20. On the 20th the people are greatly agitated ; under the
pretext of celebrating the anniversary of the Oath of the
Tennis Court, 8,000 men march to the hall of the Assembly,
asking permission to present a petition. They are intro-
duced. They complain of the inactivity of the armies, and
of the presence of traitors ; if the executive be at fault it
must be destroyed. The procession, now numbering 30,000
— men, Guards, women, children — defiles through the Hall
and proceeds to the Tuileries. The mob breaks in ; Louis
confronts them, and has to sit for hours on a balcony above
the people. He refuses to sanction the decrees, but adroitly
seizes and wears a red bonnet. Many deputies hurry to
protect him. At last Petion disperses the people. This
procession is known as that of the " Black Breeches." The
popular party arouses by this action the hostility of the
constitutionalists. Rochefoucauld wishes Louis to go to
Rouen, where the troops are loyalist. La Fayette wishes
him to lead the army. But Louis, expecting help from
Europe, treats with no one.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS 53
June 28. La Fayette, leaving his army to come to Paris, demands
the punishment of the " Black Breeches " and the destruc-
tion of the Jacobin party. He hopes to effect this with the
aid of the National Guards. He meets with no encourage-
ment and returns to his army, having lost much of his
popularity. Vergniaud, realising the danger of France,
advises deposition.
July 5. The Assembly declares France in danger ; all citizens
having served in the National Guard are called out and
all able-bodied men ; guns and pikes are served out,
and volunteers enrolled.
6. Petion is suspended on account of his action on June 20th.
7. The Bishop of Lyons, Lamourette, calls on all parties to
swear a fraternal oath and unite as brothers in the face
of danger. All swear and embrace, exchanging the historic
" Kiss of Lamourette."
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
BY THE TRANSLATOR
Brissot, Jean Pierre, was born at Chartres in 1754, anc*, like
many actors in the Revolution, was educated for the bar. How-
ever, like others, he abandoned the legal profession for that of letters.
His first books were a Theory of Criminal Law and a Bibliotheque des
Lois Criminelles. He was for four months imprisoned in the Bastille as
the supposed author of an attack on Marie Antoinette ; he was liberated
through the influence of the Due d'Orleans. Later on he nearly
renewed his acquaintance with the Bastille, but escaped in time to
England, later still visiting America.
At the outset of the Revolution he had a very wide reputation as a
jurist. He was a deputy for Paris in the National Assembly, where he
wielded considerable influence. His journal, the Patriote Francais, was
the organ of the early Republican party. Brissot became the leader of
the Girondists. He did not wish for the King's death, although a
republican ; but he voted for it, intending that an appeal to the nation
should save him. When his party in the Convention, the only party
with high ideals and principles, was attacked and destroyed by the
Jacobins, the latter affected to believe that Brissot had been bought
by the Court ; a ridiculous accusation, but any weapon would serve.
Brissot died, with twenty of his party, on October 31, 1793.
Condorcet was born in 1743, the child of a cavalry officer stationed
near St. Quentin, in Aisne. The oppressive clerical and aristocratic
exclusiveness of his early surroundings was so intense as naturally to
react on an original mind, with the result of making him the in-
veterate enemy of privilege and religion. Educated by Jesuits at
Rheims, then at the College of Navarre in Paris, he was a brilliant
scholar, and an essay on the integral calculus, written at the age of
twenty-two, gained him a seat in the Academy, of which, twelve
years later, he became permanent secretary.
He contributed largely to the Encyclopedic, and at the outbreak of the
55
56 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Revolution made a rapid reputation as a writer and speaker. He was
elected deputy to the Legislative Assembly of 1791, becoming presi-
dent in 1792. He voted against Louis' death, but in favour of the
severest punishment.
In the Convention he voted, as a rule, with the Girondists. Accused
by the extreme Left, he hid for eight months, but on changing his refuge
was arrested ; next day he was dead, whether by suicide was never
known with absolute certainty. Condorcet first applied the calculus of
probabilities to matters of jurisprudence and political science. He
based all virtue on moral sympathy. In his Perfedibilite du Genre
Humain, written during his period of hiding in Mme. Vernet's lodging-
house, he advocates equality of civil rights for both sexes, and claims
that the human race is indefinitely perfectible. It is said he was finally
tempted out by the fine April weather, and was captured when ex-
hausted and footsore, having been shut out at night by the friends to
whom he went from Vernet's. Lamartine declares that he always
carried poison.
Couthon was born in the Auvergne in 1756 ; he became an advo-
cate. He was a cripple, his legs being useless. He was deputy for
Puy de Dome in the Convention.
He has been represented as being, like Marat, always innately
ferocious. Here, it would seem, he has been wronged, at least on
one occasion ; when sent to Lyons to suppress the insurrection there, he
attempted to prevent useless and ferocious bloodshed, and withdrew
before the death-sentence was passed on the prisoners, for which he
was denounced. Later on he became more uncompromising.
He was a violent enemy of the Church and the Monarchy; voted
for Louis' death ; attached himself to Robespierre, and was one of
the Committee of Public Safety. He was given to raving against
England, and Pitt's supposed habit of buying all the enemies of
France.
He fell and was executed with Robespierre.
Danton was born at Arcis-sur-Aube in 1759. With Marat and
Desmoulins he formed the Cordeliers' Club.
Danton was the typical demagogue, the hero of the mob, because a
man of the people, and a superb, perhaps unconscious, actor. Claretie
calls him "a sort of middle-class Mirabeau, equally powerful, but
neither dissolute nor venal." As to his lack of venality, accounts differ ;
if he did take money from the Court he gave nothing for it.
Like Mirabeau, he was a man of powerful physique, black-browed,
Bashan-voiced, but extremely ill-favoured, with very small eyes and a
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 57
skin terribly disfigured by smallpox ; unlike Mirabeau, he lashed the
people into fury, remaining calm himself. The son of a farmer, he
was an unsuccessful advocate at the Chatelet in 1787. Mirabeau
"discovered" him, as we say; by 1792 he was a popular leader and
Minister of Justice. Force was his god. He had no definite policy ;
he was an opportunist without rigid principles, and without too much
compassion. He was of the people and with them, but only if he
could lead them. Lamartine — who is not unprejudiced — says he sold
himself every day to any and every party. However this may be,
he was a factor for evil in so far as he was in favour of revolution for
its own sake ; but in directing its forces into the channels of defence
he was undoubtedly the saviour of France. Intellect and audacity he
had ; but he was also subject to panic. But with all his dangerous
qualities he was not by any means a monster. Although he admitted the
necessity of the prison massacres, or at least condoned them, he had no
part in them. Later, when he had succeeded in crushing the Giron-
dists, he tried strenuously to stem the tide of blood ; but the forces he
had evoked were too much for him. " I prefer being guillotined to
guillotining," he said, during an absence from Paris, after a quarrel
with Robespierre and the Mountain. Marriage and experience seem to
have humanised him ; it is likely that he would have preferred to with-
draw from public life once the Terror was established. Summoned to
Paris, he was arrested. " They dare not," he said, when told that a
warrant was made out. " I leave the whole affair in a .frightful
mess. . . . None of them understands government. Robespierre will
follow me. . . . Better to catch fish than to meddle with the govern-
ment of men."
He made no effort to escape. Brought before Fouquier-Tinville,
with Desmoulins and others, his defence was superb in audacity ; it so
moved the people that a decree was passed to shut his mouth ; " those
who had insulted justice must not speak." At the scaffold he broke
down' for a moment at the thought of his wife. " No weakness,
Danton ! " he said ; then, turning to the headsman, bade him show his
head to the people. " It is worth showing," he said. " He played the
great man," says Lamartine, " but was not one." None the less, he was
a giant. He was temperamental, not intellectual ; enthusiastic, not
virtuous ; like the Caesar of Brutus, ambitious.
Desmoulins, Camille, was born in Picardy in 1760. He was a
fellow-student with Robespierre in Paris ; but owing to a stammer he
did not practise law. In 1788 he began to write pamphlets. In
1789 he was present at the taking of the Bastille, having become
famous two days earlier by haranguing the Palais Royal crowd, and
leading forth the procession of the Green Cockades.
58 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
A singularly brilliant writer, he was without rival as a polemical
journalist. Satire, invective, logic, irony, sarcasm, grace — he was the
unrivalled master of them all.
A member of the Convention, he voted for Louis' death. With
Danton, he attacked the Girondists ; with Danton, he quarrelled with
the Mountain on account of its ferocity. He published the Vieux
Cordelier in the hope of checking useless bloodshed. Robespierre was
still friendly with him, but now became alarmed. He was arrested
with Danton, and died on the scaffold with him.
Diderot, famous chiefly as the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedic,
was one of the great influences of the century, and a man of astound-
ing versatility and energy. He was hardly an artist, having no love of
brevity, little sense of form, little literary conscience, so that few of
his individual works have lived. To appreciate his greatness and his
influence on his times (apart from the Encyclopedic) one would have to
read the entire mass of his work ; even so, a friend of his stated that
he who had only read his work could not appreciate the half of
him. Much of his influence was felt in correspondence and con-
versation.
A careless, prolific, versatile man of letters, who wrote for friends
as well as for himself, much of his work being lost in anonymity, or
under other names, he was a novelist, dramatist, dramatic critic, one
of the first art critics, a literary critic, a philosopher, and the fore-
runner of the Romanticists and Naturalists. He was an atheist, or
perhaps a pantheist ; a lover of truth above all, but, after the manner
of his time, not free from sentimentality and cant. Unequal in level,
his work is full of original ideas, astonishing psychological insight, and
a humour all his own.
His people had been cutlers for two hundred years, at Langus, in
Champagne, where he was born. Trained at a Jesuit school, he was
intended for the Church, but later seems to have had the alternative,
while studying in Paris, of medicine or the law, an alternative which
he refused, with the result that his father left him to his own resources.
He taught, and did literary hack-work, and at thirty-two married a
seamstress. He was reconciled to his father after the birth of a son,
and his wife and child went to live at Langus. He promptly formed
other ties, his attachment to Mile. Voland lasting till her death.
Meanwhile, his opinions were getting him into trouble. The Parlia-
ment of Paris ordered his Pensees Philosophiques to be burned
(1746) ; his Lettres sur les Aveugles earned him three years in
prison.
On his re-emerging into the world, Le Breton, a bookseller, offered
him the opportunity of his life : the direction, at a regular salary, of the
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 59
famous Encyclopedie Franfais, a task which occupied him for twenty
years.
In his old age he was threatened with the loss of his library ; but
Catherine II. of Russia purchased it, left it in his hands, and paid him
a salary as caretaker. He paid her a visit of five months in 1773,
returning via the Hague, where he spent four months. Only one of
his four children was left him. He spent his last years in educating
her, in study, and in giving advice and help to those who needed it,
dying suddenly in 1784.
One of the best known of his works is La Religieuse — what we should
now call a study of sexual perversion, seen by innocent eyes, written
to expose certain evils of the religious life. Apart from the unsavoury
subject, the story — supposed to be told by a young girl of good
family — is a good example of Diderot's qualities : psychological in-
sight, a true dramatic sense — the narration being admirably in
character — and a certain dry, delicate humour. A good friend, a
charming companion, a giant in output, a marvellous conversationalist,
he was one of the great influences of the century. His letters give
a vivid picture of life in the philosophical salons, notably that of
d'Holbach.
Fayette, La, Marquis de, was born at Chavaignac, in Auvergne,
in 1757. At sixteen he married the daughter of the Due d'Ayen. At
the age of twenty he fitted out two vessels with arms and provisions
and sailed for America, arriving at Boston. He was employed by
Washington throughout the War of Independence. On his return to
France he was the popular idol. Louis created him a general. He
took into the Assembly his prestige as commander of the National
Guard. He was witty and courtly, not an orator after the revolu-
tionary style. At the Federation of 1790 his influence was enormous ;
he was head of the armed nation. His power waned because he could
not see that the Republic must rid itself of the throne. On the King's
flight Barnave had to defend him against suspicion. La Fayette
himself assumed the responsibility of ordering the King's arrest.
He saved himself from death at the hands of the suspicious populace
by sheer courage and confidence. He retired from the National
Guard shortly after this, and was beaten by Petion in the election of
the Mayor of Paris. He was given command of the army of the
Centre at the outbreak of the war. He protested against the " Black
Breeches " demonstration of June 20th, but returned to his army foiled.
He wished the King to join him ; but Louis, hoping for the defeat of
his own armies, refused. On the triumph of the Jacobins and the
downfall of the Constitution he was arrested on his way to Holland,
whence he meant to escape to America, and was years in prison.
60 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
His public life was over until 1830, when the new Revolution called
him to the fore ; once more he commanded the National Guard, and
was instrumental in placing Louis Philippe, son of the Due d'Orleans,
on the throne. He died in 1834. A certain chivalrous scrupulosity
kept him from seizing opportunities that would have led a less
honourable man to triumph and dictatorship.
Freron, Elie Catherine, was born at Quimper in 1718. He was
a Professor at the College Louis le Grand. He was a defender of the
Church and the Monarchy, and an adversary of the Encyclopaedists.
Voltaire ridiculed him in L'Ecossaise. He died in 1776.
Hebert, Jacques Rene, was born in Alencon in 1755. He went to
Paris as a domestic, and was several times dismissed for dishonesty.
Naturally he became a Jacobin, and was made editor of Le Pere
Duchesne, which was started by the Jacobins to oust the Constitutional
paper of the same name. As editor of this paper he became one of
the heroes of the rabble, beating even Marat in the matter of disgust-
ing abuse and ribaldry.
After August 10th he became one of the Revolutionary Council.
He was largely responsible for the September prison massacres. He
was also one of Marie Antoinette's examiners, a place he filled with
peculiar disgrace to himself. He assisted in converting Notre Dame
into the Temple of Reason and his followers were known as the
Enragis. Robespierre eventually found him in the way and he was
executed in March, 1794, with some of his followers.
Robespierre's apparent reason for getting rid of him was this : he
proposed secretly a triumvirate, to be composed of Danton, Hebert,
and himself. Hebert refused. After this Hebert openly criticised the
Committee of Public Safety, thinking himself " in the centre of his
commune," with the mob behind him, safe. His wife, a liberated nun,
feared Robespierre, and with reason. On the way to the scaffold the
mob turned on him and insulted him.
Herbois, Jean Marie Collot d', was born in Paris in 1750. He
began life as a provincial play-actor. The Revolution brought him to
Paris.
He was one of the most atrocious of all the actors in the Revolution ;
a coarse, loud-voiced, vindictive, ferocious person, who, like Marat
was naturally popular with the lowest elements of Paris.
He first attracted attention by his Almanack de Pere Gerard ; Paris
returned him to the Convention. He was President of the Convention
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 61
in 1793, and a member of the Committee of Public Safety — perhaps,
with Billaud-Varennes, the leading spirit.
At Lyons, in November, 1793, where he had formerly been hissed off
the stage, he revenged himself by the guillotine and grapeshot.
At length his popularity with the mob became too great ; Robes-
pierre became envious, or perhaps disgusted, for the ex-mummer's
manners were coarse, and Robespierre's almost priggish ; and he was
inferior to Robespierre in intellect. At all events, d'Herbois broke
into a meeting of the Committee one day, coming from the Jacobins,
with the statement that Couthon, Saint-Just, and Robespierre were
plotting to form a triumvirate and to assassinate the other seven
members. He pretended that Saint-Just had an unfavourable report
in his pocket, attacked him, and had to be dragged off. Saint-Just
refused to stay where he was suspected. Those left behind saw that
they must pull down Robespierre or lose their heads. As we know,
they destroyed Robespierre. Whether d'Herbois' panic was real or
part of an adroit plot has never become quite apparent.
In the reaction following the downfall of Robespierre's party Collot
d'Herbois was expelled from the Convention, and was banished. He
died in Cayenne two years later. He was one of those criminal,
violent, ferocious figures made possible by the existence of a central
democratic government in a city containing a large population only
half-civilised, under imperfect restraint, full of embittered memories
and the thirst for revenge ; a population one party or another was
certain, sooner or later, to have recourse to, in order to defeat or
terrorise its enemies, or to carry out its promises to the democracy ;
a party sometimes exploited, but always feared by the bourgeois
deputies and the intellectuals.
Marat, Jean Paul, was one of the innately bloodthirsty figures of
the Revolution ; his affection for the guillotine did not spring entirely
either from fear or from genuine fanaticism, although increased
thereby.
He was born in Neuchatel, in 1743, his father being a physician, a
native of Cagliari ; his mother, a German Protestant. He studied
medicine at Bordeaux : went to Paris, Holland, London (where he ^vO-1
practised), and visited Edinburgh. He was made M.D. of St.
Andrews.
In 1773 he published a Philosophical Essay on Man, in English, which
two years later he republished at Amsterdam in a greatly enlarged
form. His chief motive in writing the book seems to have been to
attack every eminent man of whose reputation he was jealous. His
theories are arbitrary and absurd; he attacks Helvetius, Descartes,
and Newton ; states that the soul depends on the body and resides in
62 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
the meninges : that the medium of intercourse between the soul and
the body is a nervous fluid, which is not gelatinous because spirit,
which stimulates the nerves, does not contain gelatine ; and much of
equal value. Franklin was another whose reputation he attacked.
It is said that to confute him Marat produced a sample of resin which
conducted electricity. Charles discovered that it contained a wire or
needle ! — whereupon Marat drew his sword ; Charles broke it, and a
scuffle ensued. It seems that Marat was incapable of understanding
many of the theories he attacked. He seems to have been a gigantic
egoist, a true megalomaniac ; convinced that he should cut a great
figure of some sort in the world, but without the talent or character
for such a part.
Other works of his were The Chains of Slavery, Plan de Legislation
Criminelle, Nouvelles Decouvertes sur la Lumiere, and Medicine Galante,
an essay in pornography.
He was twenty when Rousseau retired to Neuchatel. Marat's
mother seems to have been partly responsible for the idea that he was
to become a great man. The excitement and enthusiasm with which
Rousseau was welcomed confirmed his ambition. According to
Michelet, he became Rousseau's ape ; certainly he became his
disciple.
In 1772 he seems to have been teaching French in Edinburgh, to
which city he returned in 1775. In 1777 he was made brevet-physician
to the guards — or some say to the stables — of the Comte d'Artois,
a post he held till 1786. His scientific work during this time attracted
the passing attention of Franklin and Goethe.
At the outbreak of the Revolution he established his paper L 'Ami du
Peuple. From the first it was full of scandal and personalities. He
soon began a series of denunciations ; almost every one, in his eyes,
was a traitor, therefore to be killed by any good patriot. At last he
used to publish lists of persons in each number, stating that it was the
duty of the people to assassinate them. Sometimes the hint was taken.
La Fayette's police tried to find his press. Twice he hid in London,
once in the sewers of Paris. He attributed a loathsome disease which
he contracted to the latter adventure, but it probably had another
cause. He married one Simonne Evrard, and had an intrigue with
the deserted wife of a dissipated and diseased noble
His monotonous violence always found a public, in the violent and
unoccupied mobs of Paris. The number of heads which he thought
should be cut off to save France advanced from 600 to 270,000.
His activity was increased by the necessity of living a confined life,
in hiding from the police, though he does not seem to have been in
much real danger.
He was largely responsible for the execrable massacres of Septem-
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 63
ber. He was elected a member of the Convention. His following
was the more blackguardly section of the mob : he never had a party
in the Convention. When the Republic was established the Ami du
Peuple became the Journal de la Republique francaise. After Louis'
execution he furiously attacked the Girondins. Their accusation of
Marat failed. The charge was one of inciting to rebellion. He soon
had his revenge. Accused of plotting to make the departments
independent of the capital — in short, of Federalism — and of inciting
to civil war, thirty-one of the Girondist deputies were arrested in
June. __Marat was clamouring for a dictatorship — there were certainly
very good reasons for a strong central government — and prepared to
hunt down such Girondists as had fled to the country. A young girl of
noble birth — Charlotte d'Armans, then Charlotte Corday — came up to
Paris from Caen, purchased a large sheath-knife, drove to Marat's
house, where he was writing, lying in a bath, insisted on seeing him,
pretending to be anxious to betray the Girondists in Caen, and stabbed
him to the heart. "I killed one man," she said, "to save a hundred
thousand, a villain to save innocents, a savage wild beast to give
repose to my country. I was a Republican before the Revolution."
She died cheerfully, having avenged the fall of the party she revered
— the only body of men then remaining capable of founding a civilised
government. JVlarat's body was buried in the Pantheon, to be thrown
out fifteen months later.
In appearance Marat was short, squat, and ugly, with a wide, bony,
flat-nosed face. He possessed undoubted industry, disinterestedness
of a kind, though he gratified many personal hatreds, and unflagging
ardour ; but he had no very definite policy, except to be the idol of the
scum of Paris — the cheapest method of obtaining power, which was
what he mostly cared for. He hated every eminent man who really
deserved his reputation. He was probably insane in some respects.
His disease and his unnatural life aggravated his lust of revenge and of
personal prominence. His only rival in foul-mouthed violence was
Hebert, who surpassed him in his Pere Duchesne. He undoubtedly was
largely responsible for the worst features of the Terror, and increased
the power of the mob.
Mirabeau was the son of a Provencal family, originally refugees
from Florence. His father was known as the Friend of Man, and
certainly had a very lively sympathy for the victims of the feudal
system, whose condition he very graphically describes. But as a
father the old Marquis was impossible. Most of Mirabeau's youth he
spent in various prisons, committed by his father, who used no less
than sixty lettres de cachet on those who incurred his wrath.
Released, by his father, to marry an heiress, he was soon back in
64 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
prison at Pontarlier, where he wrote his Lettres a Sophie. Released
again, he carried off an old man's wife, and fled to Holland. There
however, he was seized again, and the lovers were both immured, he
in Vincennes, the woman in a convent.
In prison he became a writer. At length, liberated before the
assembly of the Estates, he was returned as deputy for Aix.
A true man of the South, with something of the Roman in him and
something of the factious, bitter, mediaeval Florentine ; a man of
gigantic physique, though half broken by excess and prison ; a volcano
of energy ; thick-set, beetle-browed, short-headed, he was truly an
astonishing figure, and for the brief two years before his death was
perhaps the greatest man in France.
His greatness was that of character, of personality, of energy, of
what is called magnetism. Emotionally he was gigantic, intellectually
he was not a giant. He was an orator : he carried away, not only his
hearers, but himself. He was what Lamartine calls " a volunteer
of democracy." He spoke, not as one of the people, but rather as one
destined to be their benefactor and saviour.
He took pay from the King, and did his utmost to uphold the throne ;
probably from conviction. But he was the first to oppose the King if
the latter offered to derogate from Mirabeau's conception of him as
" deputy of the nation." A man of unimpeachable sincerity, his
venality, so called, was probably no more than necessity. He was
idolised by the people of Paris, and immensely popular in the
Assembly. Freed by his father's death, he made the Revolution his
life-work. As regards the King, his idea was that Louis, by coming
over to the Revolution, should safeguard both it and himself, a
thoroughly sound and statesmanlike conception. The last thing he did
was to protest against the proposal to stop emigration by confiscating
the property of the emigres. He died, worn out, on March 2, 1791. All
Paris followed his body ; all France mourned. Henceforth the
Revolution guided men, instead of being itself directed.
Montesquieu died in 1755, thirty-four years before the Revolution ;
his magnum opus, De V Esprit des Lois, was published in Geneva in 1748.
Born in 1689, Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede (son of Jaques,
second son of the Baron de Montesquieu), became Councillor of the
Parliament of Bordeaux at the age of twenty-five ; two years later he
was President. He was an earnest student of natural science, and a
disciple of Newton ; he read papers before the Bordeaux Academy
of Sciences which show a wide interest in science and an original
mind. Owing to defective sight, however, he had to abandon
technical research.
In 1726 he sold his appointment in order to settle in Paris. Between
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 65
1726 and 1729 he travelled and studied in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and
Holland. In Holland he met Lord Chesterfield and went to England
in his company. Here he studied the English Constitution, frequenting
the best political society. The remainder of his life was spent between
society and his study, partly in Paris and partly in Bordeaux. The
title of Montesquieu he assumed in 1716, upon succeeding to his
uncle's estates.
His principal literary works are: Discours Academique ; various
scientific papers ; Lettres Persanes, a satire on French morals and
manners, cast in the form of letters interchanged between two Persian
travellers in France and their friends at home. This book contains
a great deal of original thought, and the nucleus of his later ideas on
government, &c. Montesquieu was perhaps the first writer to insist
on the significance of climate in matters of religion and government.
Considerations sur les Causes de la Grandeur des Romains et de leur
Decadence (1734) : a history of the political evolution of Rome from
its origins to the fall of Byzantium, the first application of the
scientific method to history — a book by no means obsolete in its
conclusions.
De I'Esprit des Lois: published in Geneva, 1748. This was his life's
work, and it forms the foundation of the scientific and ethnological
treatment of law and government. This is a book that has had an
immense influence on modern thought. It was read in England even
more than in France. It contains a masterly analysis of the principles
of the English Constitution, which Montesquieu unreservedly admired,
and wished to see established in his own country.
Orleans, Due d\ — Louis-Philippe-Joseph, Due d'Orleans, and
father of a future King of France, was a member of the younger
branch of the royal house. His is, in some ways, a somewhat enigmati-
cal figure, and it is difficult to decide whether he had real principles,
or whether he was merely ambitious and actuated by his enmity
towards the Court and a desire to stand well with the people.
When the first signs of the Revolution became apparent he was
about forty ; at twenty he was physically attractive, graceful, a
good horseman, and a patron of the arts ; but in a few years de-
bauchery and consequent disease played havoc with his looks and his
physique.
He married a wealthy and popular heiress, the only daughter of the
Due de Penthievre.
The Due de Penthievre was hereditary grand-amiral of France.
Louis-Philippe demanded the reversion of the title, but was refused.
However, he joined the fleet as a volunteer, and was present at one
battle, when he was accused of cowardice, it seems untruly. He
VOL. I. 5
66 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
was so continually calumniated by the Court, who hated his demo-
cratic leanings, that a just estimate of his character is difficult.
On the moral side, however, we do know that he was boon com-
panion to the Comte d'Artois ; that the Queen feared his influence ;
that finally, after being accused of introducing the Prince de Lamballe
to ladies of pleasure who should have been in hospital, he lived a
somewhat retired life, broken by constant visits to England. In
England he was intimate with the Prince of Wales, and probably had
a considerable influence over him, which, perhaps, was hardly for his
good in some ways, though Orleans certainly inclined him towards
Liberalism.
The Palais Royal, as the Orleans palace was re-christened, played
a part of the greatest importance in the history of the Revolution.
Besides allowing all the riff-raff and free-lances of Paris to use the
wardens as their Parliament, Orleans made his salon the resort of such
men as Buffon, Voltaire, Rousseau, Gibbon, and Franklin, of Sieyes,
Laclos, Raynal, and other advanced thinkers.
Elected to the Estates-General, he left his place among the royal
princes and walked among the deputies, thus and otherwise winning
his name of Philippe Egalite. Had he been an abler and worse or a
better man, there is no doubt whatever that he might, on Louis'
removal, have won the crown. Nominated President of the Assembly,
he refused the honour. When Necker was dismissed, his bust, with
that of the Due, was commandeered from an image-seller's shop in
the Palais Royal gardens, and borne through the streets, the result
being bloodshed. Whether he lacked courage or ambition, or was
really loyal to Louis in a personal way, we can hardly say ; certain
it is that he never took steps to displace Louis, but hung in the wind,
as it were, as though waiting for the people to bear him up to the
throne. But the people, not finding him a leader to their taste, never
did so.
La Fayette suspected the Due after October 5th and 6th, and
accused him to the King and Queen, and exacted from him a promise
to go to London. This promise he afterwards refused to keep ; subse-
quently in an interview with Louis he agreed to go as a kind of
royalist spy. But Mirabeau and his backers again persuaded him to
refuse. La Fayette, however, triumphed, and he went. On his
return he was nominated Admiral by the King.
His own account of his actions, which may be true, was that
residence in England had convinced him of the advantages of a free
constitutional government, and that he did his utmost, at considerable
cost (he was often exiled from Paris) to bring this about ; but that
when he found his popularity likely to be a danger to the throne he
withdrew as far as possible from the public view. Finally, however,
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 67
after suffering the most atrocious insults at the Tuileries, which the
King and Queen took no pains to disavow, although they were not in
reality responsible for them, he broke with the Girondists and went
over to the extreme Left.
Under the Convention his position began to be insecure. He voted
for Louis' death, probably to save his own head — for no aristocrat,
much less a Bourbon, was safe in France — but possibly from a genuine
sense of Louis' treachery. But this did not save him ; Desmoulins
finally denounced him, and he drifted from prison to prison. Four
years later he was tried ; the trial was a mere form, the accusation
hopelessly vague, the conclusion a foregone result. He died bravely, a
freethinker to the last, or perhaps till all but the last ; for, whether
as a form or in sincerity, he knelt to a priest for a moment before
ascending the scaffold.
It is probable that at first he had dreams of a crown. Afterwards,
to quote Lamartine, " he wished to reconcile himself with the King,
touched by his misfortunes ; but the insults of courtiers repulsed him.
He sought refuge in extreme opinion, to find himself hated and dis-
trusted by the popular leaders, who would not forgive him his name.
Danton deserted him ; Robespierre affected to fear him ; Marat
denounced him. Desmoulins pointed him out to the Terrorists ;
the Girondists accused him, the Montagnards sent him to the
scaffold."
Whether his vote for Louis' death was a matter of conscience or
cowardice, who can say ? He seems to have believed fervently in the
Revolution, [in himself but little. If he was a debauche, he was
royal, which in those days meant debauchery or pietism. He was
probably a better man than history has painted him.
Paine, Thomas, who through his influence on the American
Revolution exerted a considerable influence on the genius of the French
Revolution, and who also took a personal part in the latter, was the son
of an English staymaker. He was born in Thetford, Norfolk, England,
in 1737. His father had been a Quaker. By 1774 he had tried his
hand at staymaking, served as a marine, taught school, acted as
exciseman, sold tobacco, and had married twice, losing one wife,
divorcing the other. In 1774 he sailed for Philadelphia with letters
from Franklin.
His first work, a pamphlet entitled Common Sense, in favour of
complete separation and independence, had, according to no less an
authority than Washington, a very great influence on American opinion.
A year later he published his Crisis. He served as a private at
Trenton, and was later made Secretary to the Committee of Foreign
Affairs ; a post he held only two years, being accused of selling
68 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
information. Next he was clerk to the Legislature of Pennsylvania.
In 1785 Congress gave him £600 and a farm. In 1787 he was
back in England, and in 1791-2 published the Rights of Man,
a reply to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Between
one and two million copies were sold. One unfortunate was trans-
ported for distributing this book ; but Paine, having been elected
deputy for Pas-de-Calais to the Convention, escaped to Paris. At
Louis' trial he proposed that Louis should find an asylum in America.
He voted with the Gironde ; presently offended Robespierre ; was im-
prisoned in 1794, just as he had finished the first part of his Age of
Reason. The second part appeared next year, the third in 1807. This
work was deistical, attacking both Atheism and Christianity. Its
violence of tone as much as its matter alienated most of his former
admirers.
In 1795 he resumed his seat in the Convention. Sickening at French
politics, or disappointed with his place in them, he studied and lived
quietly for some time, returning to America in 1802. He died in 1809.
In 1819 Cobbett removed his remains to England; in 1847 they were
lost sight of. He was a man of stupendous ignorance and his language
was brutal and violent ; but his style was trenchant, pure, and forcible.
He was a typical self-made demagogue ; his influence was greater than
the man. We may note that when sent to Paris to beg help for
America, Louis XVI had given to him and Franklin £250,000 ; yet he
was not content with voting for Louis' death, but, his French being
imperfect, wrote the Convention a violent and insulting letter on the
subject.
Robespierre, Maximilien Marie Isidore. — Robespierre's family
was said to be of Irish origin, and for some generations his people
had been lawyers. He was born at Arras in 1758. His mother died
when he was nine, his father two years later ; the four children were
brought up by their mother's father.
Robespierre was a promising boy, distinguishing himself at Arras
and at the College Louis-le-Grand, where Desmoulins became his
friend and disciple. Admitted to practise at the age of twenty-three,
in 1782 he was appointed judge of the Criminal Court by the Bishop of
Arras.
We are told that he resigned his place to avoid passing a death-
sentence. At first sight this seems remarkable in a man who afterwards
became a wholesale murderer.
This inconsistency, and all that was enigmatical in his character, is
probably due to the fact that there was no real Robespierre. He was a
fanatical worshipper of Rousseau — that is, a subtle and self-conscious
sentimentalist ; the Robespierre of history is an actor with an eye on
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 69
two audiences — one, the people ; the other, the person he supposes to
be Robespierre ; a pupil of Rousseau's and the modern equivalent of
an ancient philosopher-republican. It is doubtful if he was ever
spontaneously sincere.
At Arras he was fairly popular ; he had " sensibility " and a taste for
verses. He was sent to the Estates-General as a deputy of the Third
Estate.
He was absolutely sincere in one way ; that is, he absolutely con-
vinced and deluded himself. His deadly earnestness and his " noble "
language were derided in the earlier, more genial days of the
Revolution, but as soon as the " masses " felt their power — the masses,
devoid of humour as usual, and infected with fixed ideas, the slaves
of phrases and "eloquence" — those qualities soon began to gain him
respect and admiration. Mirabeau said, " He will go far, he believes
what he says." Very often what he said had no meaning ; but he
believed it none the less. In the Jacobins, as was natural, his influence
grew by leaps and bounds. The outside mob of patriots — honest,
unwashed citizens — became absolutely grotesque and ridiculous in
their admiration of him ; crowning him in the street with oak-
leaves, weeping and being wept on by the "incorruptible virgin."
For incorruptibility was his great card, his sincerest pose.
As soon as Mirabeau died, he proposed a decree preventing any
deputy from taking office as minister for four years, and a little later
carried a motion disabling any deputy from election to the next
Assembly.
His purpose was ostensibly to prevent any one from obtaining too
much influence, too great a popularity; to discourage ambition, as a
safeguard against tyranny. Of course the effect of such an arrange-
ment was to ensure that France should never have any well-defined,
settled, statesmanlike policy, that her affairs would usually be in
prentice hands — thus facilitating his own aggrandisement as a director
of the Revolution.
Robespierre was then appointed Public Accuser. After the affair of
the Champ de Mars (July 17, 1791) Robespierre was in a state of
hysterical, abject panic. He crept from hiding to the Jacobins ; they,
instead of despising him, swore to defend him or to die with him. At
the close of the Constituent Assembly in September he and Petion
were carried home by the mob, " exhorting it to remember its
dignity."
He retired to Arras, sold his possessions, and returned to the house
of a carpenter, one Duplay, who had hidden him in July. The Duplay
family seem to have loved and revered him ; between him and the
eldest daughter there was a love affair.
His life was frugal and sober in the extreme ; he was abstemious,
70 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
reserved, solitary, living in one small room ; but always dressing with
the greatest care, in a blue coat and yellow breeches, white stockings
and buckled shoes. In person he was small and fragile, and wore
spectacles ; his cheek-bones were high, his lips thick, his complexion
bilious. Carlyle calls him " the Sea-green," appearing to think that
his coat and complexion were of that colour, the fact being that a
lady of his acquaintance described him as having greenish veins on the
temples.
In the new Assembly — in which, of course, he had no seat — the
Girondists, under Brissot and Vergnia'ud, were inclined for war.
Robespierre hated war, and was continually attacking the Girondists at
the Jacobins.
He does not seem to have been responsible for the horrible massacres
of September ; indeed, his peculiar sensibility was as yet greatly
affected at the idea that one of a certain slaughtered batch was
"innocent." He was first deputy for Paris in the Convention. The
Girondists attacking him, he united his party with Danton's. Robes-
pierre opposed the idea of an appeal to the people concerning the
King's fate. After the King's death the Jacobins triumphed.
In April, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was instituted, and
practically ruled France. Robespierre was elected to it in July. The
ideals of Couthon and Saint-Just were his ; but Collot d'Herbois and
Billaud-Varennes and the rest were not entirely in agreement with
him ; and it is just possible that he was never the dictator he seemed —
that they used him, and then, when he appeared likely to become
dangerous, accused him of conspiring with Couthon and Saint-Just to
form a triumvirate, and brought him to the guillotine. On the other
hand, their fears, which seem to have been genuine at the last, may
have been so from the first.
Robespierre's power always came from the Jacobin Club. He
himself was the dupe of the phrases with which he intoxicated the
mob ; but his lack of humour finally betrayed him.
He now enters upon his ferocious phase, influenced perhaps by his
colleagues as well as by fear and envy. In October, 1793, the Giron-
dists were executed. Next, in March, 1794, Hebert and his party were
disposed of — well and good ; then Danton, which was not so well, for
Danton was sick of bloodshed ; and then Desmoulins, his own personal
friend, his devoted admirer. Robespierre, like Marat, seems to have
conceived a vindictive and bloody hatred of those he knew to be
greater than himself, or likely to stand in his way.
Danton prophesied his fall. He had only four more months to
live. He filled all the Committees, all places of power, with his
creatures. Saint-Just he sent with orders to the armies in the East.
He controlled the Revolutionary Tribunal and turned it into a mere
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 71
machine for assassination by Couthon's measure, that no counsel or
witness could be called if the jury arrived at a verdict " otherwise."
The sentences went on merrily after this, averaging nearly 900 a
month.
Robespierre's popularity now began to wane. Apart from the fact
that all either feared him or grovelled before him, his sense of propor-
tion departed. He was accompanied by a voluntary bodyguard. He
proposed a Spartan constitution, breaking up the family. He proposed
a new religion and a new morality. He made the Convention agree
to acknowledge a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul ; and
these were to be celebrated by thirty-six festivals. The first was on
June 5th. Robespierre, in violet for once, burned paper images of
the new Republican vices. An old woman by the name of Theot, who
believed herself to be the mother of God, professed to find in the
Book of Revelation that Robespierre was the Messiah.
Two days later Couthon proposed four Revolutionary Tribunals, and
an easier Law of Suspects. The world was to be cleared of anti-
Robespierrists.
After this Robespierre was somewhat retiring. He did not appear in
the Convention till July 26th. He made a vague speech, accusing
every one ; only he was incorruptible. Remedy — more blood. A
deputy moved that the speech should be printed. The order was
passed — and revoked. Robespierre, chilled by a dubious reception,
went away discouraged.
The end comes next day. Saint-Just is interrupted ; Tallien cries :
" Last night, at the Jacobins, I trembled for the Republic. ... If the
Convention dare not strike the tyrant, I dare, and if need be, will ! "
and he brandishes a knife. There are cries of "Tyranny ! Dictatorship !
Triumvirate !" All the night before Robespierre's enemies, feeling their
heads but loosely knit to their shoulders, have gone to and fro in
consultation. Robespierre tries to speak; is shouted down. "Presi-
dent of Assassins ! " he screams, but his voice breaks. " The blood of
Danton chokes him ! " cries one Gamier. One Louchet demands his
arrest. Robespierre junior and Lebas stand forward, claiming to share
his arrest.
Paris failed to support the Jacobins in their attempts at rescue. Sent
to prison, allowed to break away and seek refuge in the Hotel de
Ville, he and his fellows — including Saint-Just and Couthon — were
declared outlawed. The National Guard was turned out ; the police
broke into the room ; Robespierre's jaw was shattered by a bullet. For
a time he lay half-conscious, in the Hall of the Convention, execrated,
in torment. At the scaffold the bandage was torn brutally off his face ;
he screamed. His head fell; Saint-Just followed him. In a few days
the Terror was at an end.
72 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Roland, Mme., and Jean Marie Roland de la Platiere. —
Marie-Jeanne Philipon was born in Paris, 1754, her father being an
engraver and unlucky speculator. She was an eager reader, even as a
child reading everything that came her way, but in especial Plutarch,
Buff on, Bossuet, Helvetius, and finally Rousseau. Plutarch prepared
her for republicanism ; but Rousseau was for a long time her idol. At
the age of twenty-six she married Roland, an inspector of manufactures
at Amiens. Roland drew up the cahier for the Agricultural Society at
Lyons, and in 1791 went to Paris in the interests of the municipality,
settling in Paris a year later. Mme. Roland, with her beauty and
intellect, soon founded a salon, including all the prominent members of
the Girondist party, and, at the outset, Danton and Robespierre.
In 1792 Roland became Minister of the Interior, but was soon
dismissed for reproving the King for his refusal to give his sanction
to the decree banishing the non-juring priests. During the King's
imprisonment he was recalled, and protested strongly against the
September massacres, and took part in the final attempt to create a
strong moderate party. On their arrest Roland escaped and fled to
Rouen ; next day Mme. Roland was taken to the Abbaye ; released,
and again imprisoned, this time in Sainte-Pelagie. During the five
months left her she wrote her Memoires, and read in Plutarch and
Tacitus. She was beheaded on November 8, 1793. She asked that a
printer, who was with her, and had lost his nerve, might be executed
first, that he might not suffer the shock of seeing her beheaded.
" O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name ! " are said to
have been her last words. A week later Roland fell on his sword.
Mme. Roland's Memoires relate chiefly to her youth. Her letters,
to Bancal des Issarts and others, and to Buzot, whom she loved,
were published by Dauban (1867). Hers was one of the noblest
and purest characters of the time ; what success and influence her
husband attained he owed largely to her. He was devoted to her, and
she to him; but the man she loved was Buzot. She confessed her
attachment to her husband, and her relations with Buzot were blameless.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. — It is impossible in this brief space
to give any but the most meagre account of this extraordinary person :
a man half insane, of odious character and sordid life, who nevertheless
was one of the great political and literary influences of the eighteenth
century.
He was born in Geneva, in 1712, his father being a disreputable
dancing-master and watchmaker, who when Rousseau was only ten
had to flee the city to escape the consequences of a brawl. His uncle
sent him to a lawyer, who dismissed him as a fool, and to an engraver,
whose cruelty developed his cunning and cowardice. The rest of his
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 73
life consisted of wanderings, interspersed with periods of rest, when
he usually lived on a mistress. He was generally dismissed from his
situations — and he took service as footman, general servant, tutor,
secretary, and worked at copying music. The later years of his life
were made wretched by delusions that he was watched and spied on,
and that he had powerful enemies. He lived many years with a
servant-girl, all his children by her being sent to a foundling hospital.
Turin, Paris, Vienna, and London knew him ; a Madame de Warens, a
spy, whose lover he was for nine years, the French Ambassador in Venice,
Diderot, Madame d'Epinay, the Duke of Luxemburg, George Keith, Earl
Marischal to Frederic, David Hume, Mirabeau, the Prince de Conti,
and M. de Girardin, were among those who employed or befriended
him, sheltered him, or lent him houses. Besides writing and copying
music he made lace, and composed a successful opera.
His life — sordid, dishonest, immoral, suspicious — was in utter
contrast to his work. Although he wrote the most meticulous con-
fessions, he regarded himself not only as a supreme genius, but as
a man of impeccable character.
His first work of importance was a Discourse on Arts and Sciences,
(1749), written to obtain a prize offered by the Dijon Academy. It
attacks art, science, and in fact all culture, as the source and sign of all
human corruption. Four years later, after a successful opera, he wrote
a Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, arguing that civilisation is
degradation, and that the brutish primitive life, without letters or art,
is the perfect state : that wealth is a crime, and government a tyranny.
In 1760 the New Heloise appeared ; inordinately dull, inflated, and
pointless to modern readers, but greatly to the taste of his sentimental
and artificial age. He became famous, and followed his success by the
Social Contract, published in Amsterdam, and, two months later, by Emile.
Emile was condemned, so was Rousseau. He fled to Neuchatel ; but
finally, while in the Val de Travers, the villagers became violently
hostile to him as a heretic; then, driven from Berne, he fled to England,
remaining there until he became convinced that the Government
sought his life.
In the Contrat Social Rousseau advances the theory that the original
members of society surrendered their will to the general will to obtain
protection ; that the community is the sovereign, and that no laws are
binding unless sanctioned by the whole people. Emile is largely con-
cerned with the education of children. Both works had a vast influence.
His Confessions followed ; then Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques, and
Reveries die Promeneur Solitaire.
The descriptions of Nature in many of his works went far to bring
about the romantic and naturalistic schools. Politically his works
did more service by their boldness in breaking down barriers and
74 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
despising conventions, and by occasional insight amounting to genius,
than by their actual intellectual value. In religion he was a theist, and
inspired Robespierre with his State religion. His faults were the
outcome of a miserable youth, and a temperament unbalanced to the
point of insanity. He died in a cottage given him by Girardin ; not
without suspicion of suicide. His Therese, his menagere, had caused
him endless trouble, and delusions were multiplying ; he believed that
every one he met hated him and was spying on him, even to the
children.
His attacks on society and on art are those of a fanatic, but there
is much truth in his criticisms, and they were needed at the time ; in
fact, they were far more justifiable at the time than we can easily
realise now.
Saint-Just, Louis Antoine Leon Florelle de. — Saint-Just was
born near Nevus in 1767, and was educated by the Oratorians at
Soissons. He studied law, but soon began to write, being a confirmed
disciple of Rousseau. At nineteen he went to Paris with his mother's
plate, and was imprisoned for six months at her request.
In 1791 he published an essay on V Esprit de la Revolution. In 1792
he was returned to the Convention as one of the deputies for Aisne,
being then twenty-four years of age.
His first speeches were attacks on the Monarchy. He spoke long
and eloquently in favour of Louis' immediate execution.
A devoted follower of Robespierre, he was sent on missions to the
eastern armies, urging them on and encouraging them.
Full of fanatical ideals, anxious to see France a republic on the
model of Sparta, a supporter in all things of Robespierre, Saint-Just
was dangerous through an insane attachment to his ideals ; he was
all intellect and prejudice, and utterly inhuman. His slight figure,
straight black hair, large blue eyes, and bold features, his cold, reserved
manner, and simple habits and clothing, made him, together with his
youth, a striking and individual figure. It was he who began the
attacks on Hebert which sent first him and then the Dantonists to
the guillotine.
In 1794 he proposed to the Convention Robespierre's scheme for the
reconstitution of society, a rechauffe of Spartan laws and traditions.
Boys were to be taken from their parents, and educated by the State ;
no marriage was to be proclaimed until fruitful ; friendship was to be
a public obligation, and a man must publicly declare his friends.
Naturally all this involved an absolute dictator : Robespierre. Saint-
Just was arrested with Robespierre, and died with him, silent and
unmoved.
He is a typical example of the Frenchman — or for that matter of the
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 75
youthful enthusiast of whatever country — possessed by a fixed idea to
the point of fanaticism, and to the exclusion of humour, a sense of
proportion, experience, logic, foresight, or humanity. He was a man
of action — courageous, pitiless, uncompromising. Couthon, Saint-Just,
and Robespierre formed the famous " triumvirate " within the Com-
mittee of Public Safety.
Sieyes, Emmanuel Joseph, Comte de, afterwards Abbe, was
born at Frejus, in 1748, of a bourgeois family. Like so many eminent
men of his time, he was educated by the Jesuits of his native town ; then
by the Doctrinaires at Draguignan. He entered the Church on account
of weak health, but had wished to become an engineer. As a student
of theology his originality caused some apprehension. Canon of
Treguier, then Chancellor and Vicar-General of Chartres, sent from
Chartres to the Chambre Superieure of the Clergy, he published just
before the Estates-General were convened three very remarkable
pamphlets, which at once made his name a household word ; Views on
the means of Execution, an Essay on Privilege, and What is the Third
Estate? "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it
hitherto been ? Nothing. What does it wish to be ? Something."
A deputy for Paris, he proposed the motion that sent the final invita-
tion to the noblesse and clergy to join the Third Estate. A week later
the Third Estate adopted the title of National Assembly on his motion.
Inimical to all privileges, his mind was characterised by fearless logic ;
his eloquence was incisive. The establishment of departmental
administration was largely the work of Sieyes. In the National Con-
vention he sat with the Centre. He voted for Louis' death. Later, he
preserved a disdainful silence, despising the rant and brutality of his
colleagues. During the Terror he lived as unobtrusively as possible.
He opposed the Constitution of the year III. He would not at first sit
on the Directoire, but accepted a mission to Berlin (1798) and on his
return next year was elected a member of the Directoire. He had
long ceased to regard the Republic with anything but despair, and
began to cast about for a dictator. With Napoleon, when the latter
returned from Egypt, he planned the revolution which ended in the
Consulate of Sieyes, Bonaparte, and Ducos. He found, however, that
Bonaparte was too much for him, and threw up his consulship. He
was given, on his retirement, the title of count, an estate, and a sum
of 600,000 francs. Later he was offered the dignity of President of
the Senate, but refused it. A disappointed man, he lived a private life,
and on the Restoration was exiled to Belgium, returning after fifteen
years, at the time of the Revolution of 1830. He died at Paris in 1836,
aged eighty-eight.
A reserved, solitary man, he had absolute faith in his own intellectual
76 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
conclusions. He was too inflexibly reasonable, so that humanity bitterly
disappointed him.
Tallien, Jean Lambert. — Tallien was born in Paris in 1769. He
began life as a lawyer's clerk, entered a printing establishment,
became a journalist, and in 1791 started a Jacobin sheet, L 'Ami des
Citoyens. He was one of the leaders in the attack on the Tuileries in
August, and became secretary to the insurrectionary commune. He
was not innocent of complicity in the September massacres, and
elected to the Convention, proved himself violent and intemperate,
and of course voted for Louis' death. He was one of the Com-
mittee of General Security, and concerned in the downfall of the
Girondists.
He was sent to Bordeaux in September, when he crushed the insur-
rection by means of the guillotine. He was recalled to Paris, and made
President of the Convention. Robespierre disapproved of him, perhaps
envied his profligacy — his behaviour in Bordeaux was shameless — and
Tallien, recognising his danger, began the attack upon Robespierre in
the Convention, offering to kill him if nobody else would. He helped
to suppress the Revolutionary Tribunal and the Jacobins and the
Terrorists generally. He married Comtesse Therese de Fontenay, one
of his Bordeaux victims. After the close of the Convention he began
to lose influence, and she left him for a banker. Napoleon took him to
Cairo ; but General Menou dismissed him. Coming home, he was
captured by an English man-of-war. The Whigs made much of him
(1801) — one presumes for his share in Robespierre's overthrow. Return-
ing to Paris, he was sent as consul to Alicante. He died in poverty, in
Paris, in 1820.
Vergniaud, Pierre Victurnien. — Vergniaud was the son of
a small Limoges merchant ; he was born in 1753. Turgot, then
Intendant of Limousin, thought him promising, and procured him a
scholarship at the College du Plessis in Paris.
Vergniaud studied and abandoned divinity, and entered the civil
service, but after a while returned to Limoges. Finally settling at
Bordeaux, he soon obtained a considerable law practice.
He was elected to the National Assembly in 1791. His principles
were those of national unity and a strong central government ; he
especially saw the danger of allowing a rupture between the depart-
ments and the capital. A magnificent orator and a man of high
character, he was virtually the leader of the Girondists. He was un-
ambitious, hated intrigue, and was hardly a statesman. He died with
the rest of the Girondist leaders, being the last to mount the scaffold,
singing the " Marseillaise" to the last moment.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 77
Voltaire, Francois Marie Arouet de, one of the greatest of
Frenchmen, was born in 1694, in Paris. His father was employed in
the Chambre des Comptes. His mother, who died when he was quite
young, had been a friend of Ninon de l'Enclos.
He was taught to despise religion by the Abbe de Chateauneuf, his
godfather. He was a promising student ; Ninon de l'Enclos left him
;£8o to buy books with. He refused the law, and moved in a cultured,
reckless, dissipated set, from which his father removed him by sending
him to the Hague in the suite of the French Ambassador ; but an intrigue
with a young lady soon led to his recall. Satires and lampoons led to
banishment, and a year of the Bastille. On emerging he changed his
name of Arouet for that of Voltaire (an anagram on Arouet, l.j.) ;
it was then that he wrote his (Edipe, a triumphant success. Other
plays and poems followed, and the Queen (Louis XV's) was smiling on
him, when a member of the house of Rohan had him beaten by bravos
in revenge for a lampoon which he had written, on being insulted in a
snobbish manner by the aristocrat. Voltaire challenged him, as he
could not get legal redress, and the Bastille again received him ; but
he was soon banished to England, where he arrived in 1726. There he
knew, among others, Bolingbroke, Pope, Chesterfield, the Herveys,
the Duchess of Marlborough, &c, and studied Locke and Newton and
the English poets. He dedicated the Henriade to Queen Caroline.
Returning, he made money in the lottery, by speculation, and by
army contracts. He formed an attachment to a Mme. du Chatelet, a
highly accomplished lady, and retired with her to her chateau ; the
next few years were prolific in literary output and scientific research.
Here he began his correspondence with Frederic of Prussia. A new
play performed at the Dauphin's marriage won the favour of Louis
XV and the Pompadour, and he was elected to the Academy and
received a Court appointment ; but his stay at Court was varied by
temporary forced exiles. In 1749 his mistress died in childbirth, the
child being that of a new lover. Voltaire now accepted a standing
invitation of Frederic's to go to Berlin, where he was made a Cham-
berlain, and received a large pension ; but in 1753 his criticisms of
Maupertuis, whom Frederic had advanced, and certain financial dealings
disclosed by a lawsuit, resulted in a quarrel and his departure from
Berlin. At Frankfort he was arrested and imprisoned, Frederic having
instructed his representative there to recover a private volume of his
poems from the Frenchman. The arrest seems to have been a blunder.
In 1755 he settled near Geneva, and continued his literary work. When
the Encyclopedic was suspended, and a work of Voltaire's on natural
religion burned in Paris, he began the famous series of attacks on
Christianity. He also rescued many victims of fanaticism from the
clutches of the law. Although an adversary of Christianity, atheists
78 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
regarded him as reactionary. He resumed his correspondence with
Frederic and began one with Catherine of Russia, whom he urged to
expel the Turks from Europe. He became immensely wealthy,
farmed, bred horses and poultry, and established a watch-making
industry. In his eighty-fourth year he visited Paris to produce his
tragedy Irene. He had a loyal, a frantic welcome ; but the excitement
brought on an illness which overdoses of opiates aggravated. He died
in May, 1778, requesting two priests who came to him to let him die
in peace.
He wrote histories, philosophical works, satires, dramas, novels, poems.
His great life-work was his attack upon Christian bigotry and fanati-
cism, and his chief influence was to teach men to refuse authority, to
use their reason in all things, and to tolerate the ideas of others.
CHAPTER I
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN IDEAS BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION
I. No Republican Party in France. Monarchical opinions of Montes-
quieu, Voltaire, d'Argenson, Diderot, d'Holbach, Helvetius,
Rousseau, and Mably, among the illustrious dead : of Raynal,
Condorcet, Mirabeau, Sieyes, d'Antraigues, La Fayette, and
Camille Desmoulins, among the celebrated and influential living. —
II. Certain writers aim at the introduction of republican institu-
tions under the Monarchy. — III. Increasing weakness of the
Monarchy ; the opposition of Parliament. — IV. Parliament pre-
vents the absolute Monarchy from reforming itself, and opposes
the establishment of Provincial Assemblies.— V. English and
American influence. — VI. How far are the writers of the period
democratic? — VII. The democratic and republican states of mind.
On August 10, 1792, the Legislative Assembly, in
establishing universal suffrage, constituted France a
democratic State, and the Convention, in establishing
the Republic, on the following September 22nd, gave
to this democracy the form of government which, in
the eyes of the Convention, was logically expedient.
Can we say that by these two acts a preconceived
system was brought into being? Many have thought
so ; many of our teachers and writers, with much
eloquence, have advanced the theory that democracy
and the Republic sprang, fully fledged, from the
eighteenth-century philosophy, from the works of the
Encyclopaedists, from the doctrine of the precursors
of the Revolution. Let us see if the facts, and the
written word, justify these assertions.
79
80 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
I.
One prime and important fact is this : that in 1789,
at the time of the convocation of the Estates-General,
there was no Republican party in France.
Now the best testimony to be found as to con-
temporary French opinion is contained in the cahiers l
in which the people embodie'd their grievances and their
desires. Of these we' have many, different in origin
and in kind, and in none is a republic demanded, nor
even a change of dynasty ; 2 and I think my study
1 The cahiers or " quires " of grievances, presented to the King by
the deputies of the Four Estates, are of great and peculiar interest,
and form one of the chief sources of information as to the condition of
feudal France at the time of the Revolution. These cahiers were drawn
up, it would appear, sometimes at the meetings of the primary electors
and sometimes at the secondary meetings. Properly, the parishes and
bailiwicks sent primary cahiers, and these were incorporated into
district cahiers. The nobles and clergy elected their deputies directly.
The cahiers form an extraordinary body of information as to the in-
tolerable grievances of the peasants and the privileges of the nobles. A
perusal of some of these documents is a sufficient explanation of the
feudal riots. At first one marvels that the rising did not occur earlier ;
but a consideration of the cahiers (see pp. 27-32) leads one to a curious
conclusion : that it was not in spite of the dawning of a new hope, but
because of it, that the peasantry finally revolted. Their training had
made hope unendurable. Disappointment and hope were equally
strange to the French peasant. Compelled to labour severely, no hope
resided in extremer labour ; for earning more, more was taken from
him ; the dead level of precarious subsistence was barely maintained.
When at last the hope of liberty dawned, it found the peasant un-
disciplined save in apathy. His hope grew almost to a certainty; then
appeared to fail. King and Court were against him ; the Third Estate,
in whom were all his hopes, did little but talk, and might after all be
beaten. The thought of return to the old hopeless servitude appalled
him ; he had been taught to hope, and what to hope for ; with hope
he had learned despair. The attacks of the Assembly upon feudality
decreased instead of fortifying his patience ; the)' encouraged his in-
evitable impulse. Hence the feudal riots occurred when for the first
time (at first sight) there was no longer cause for revolt. — [Trans.]
* Nevertheless, we read in the Memoir es of Beugnot (1866, vol. i.
p. 116) : "The writer [of a petition from a commune in the neighbour-
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY WRITERS 81
of these justifies the assertion that in none is there
found any criticism, even indirect, of the King's conduct.
It would seem that none of the petitioners dream of
attributing their stated grievances to the Monarchy,
nor even to the King. In all these documents the
French are seen imbued with an ardent royalism, a
warm devotion to the person of Louis XVI. Above
all, in documents of the more humble kind, petitions
from parishes, and the like, there is a note of confi-
dence, love, and gratitude. " Our good King ! The
King our father ! " — so the peasants and the workers
address him. The nobles and the clergy, less in-
genuously enthusiastic, appear equally loyal.1
There were few Frenchmen, even among the en-
lightened, the critics, and the philosophers, who did
not, in approaching the King, experience some emotion ;
who were not dazzled by the sight of the royal person.
We may the better judge of the intensity of this feeling
when we have noted how powerful it still was, and
how general, in the early days of the Revolution, when
the people had already tasted victory, and when the
ill-will displayed by Louis must have diminished his
hood of Chateauvillain] ends with this insolent phrase : ' In the case
of the lord our King refusing, un-king him ! '" Even if we accept his
statement — and Beugnot's memory was not always reliable — it is clear
from his very words that the document was, of its kind, unique.
1 The Abbe Maury wrote to Necker (March 19, 1789) that the Due
d'Orleans, in his Instructions, denounced the King to the Three Estates
as their common enemy (Boutte, Convocation, vol. iii. p. 82). But the
rashest language of the author of the Instructions consisted in his saying
that the bailiwicks " should conduct themselves accordingly as the
common weal might prescribe, rather than according to the regulations
which had been transmitted to them, as the Kings of France had
never been in the habit of prefacing by any such regulations their
letters of convocation" (Instructions donnees par S. A. S. Monseigneur
le due d'Orleans a ses representants aux bailliages, 1789, 8vo). It was a
very general opinion that one might interpret the royal regulations
according to one's fancy, or violate them even, without failing in
respect and loyalty to the King.
VOL. I. 6
82 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
popularity. On July 15, 1789, when the King repaired
to the hall of the National Assembly, his presence
excited a delirious enthusiasm, an enthusiasm which an
eye-witness, the future member of Convention Thibau-
deau, describes as follows : " All self-possession was
lost. The delirium was at its height. A fellow-
countryman of mine, Choquin, sitting hard by, stood
up, stretched out his arms, his eyes full of tears,
ejaculating his pent-up emotion, then suddenly col-
lapsed, struck all of a heap, babbling ' Long live the
King ! ' He was not the only one to be seized by
such a paroxysm. Even I myself, although I with-
stood the contagion, could not defend myself from a
certain degree of emotion. After the President's reply,
the King left the hall ; the deputies flung after him,
surrounded him, bustled about him, and escorted him
back to the chateau, through a crowd as amazed as
their representatives and stricken with the same
vertigo." 1 One deputy, a certain Blanc, suffocated by
excitement, fell dead in the hall.
Even in Paris, where the populace had the reputa-
tion of having nothing to learn in the matter of
insolence, no one, whether of the bourgeoisie, the
artisans, or the poorest of wage-earners, offered to raise
this cry of " The Republic ! " which the Cardinal de
Retz had heard in 1649 (as he says in his memoirs)
at the time when England was a republic.
If we allow that in 1789 the people were not republi-
cans, yet it will hardly be believed that no Republican
party was to be met with in the clubs, salons, lodges,
and academies — in the higher intellectual circles in
which the mind of France renewed itself so boldly.
None the less, there is no testimony, no indication,
of any concerted, nor even of any individual design,
at that time, to establish the republic in France.
For example, the Freemasons, according to all our
1 A. C. Thibaudeau, Biographie, Mcmoires. Paris and Niort.
THE PHILOSOPHERS 83
authentic knowledge of their political ideas, were
monarchists, frankly monarchists. They wished to
reform the Monarchy, not to destroy it.
And the writers of the time, the philosophers, the
encyclopaedists? Their boldness in every form of
speculation has hardly been excelled. But was a single
one of them in favour of constituting France a republic?
Among those who were, indeed, dead before 1789,
but of whom we may truly say that they were the
leaders of the living, who can be named as having
counselled the substitution of a republic for the
Monarchy?
Montesquieu? His preference was for a monarchy
after the English pattern.
Voltaire? His ideal — intermittently at least — was a
benevolent reforming despot.
D'Argenson? He praises the abstract republic, but
only in order to infuse into the Monarchy what was
good in the republic.
Diderot, d'Holbach, Helvetius? They declaim
against kings, but, explicitly or implicitly, they do
not mention the idea of establishing a republic in
France.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau? A theorist of popular
sovereignty, an admirer of the Genevan Republic, he
held that republicanism was suited only to a small
country, and the hypothesis of a French Republic
seemed to him absurd.
Mably, the Mably of whom the men of 1789 were
so full — was he the prophet and adviser of the
Revolution? He declares himself a royalist : in royalty
he sees the sole efficacious means of preventing class
or party tyranny.
As for Turgot, he concerned himself only with the
organisation of the Monarchy.
Not one of all these illustrious dead, living still
so vital a life in the minds of men, had upheld, for
84 ID^AS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
Frenchmen and for France, the republic, even as a
remote ideal. On the contrary, for them the Monarchy
was the essential instrument of progress in the future,
as it had been in the past.
And again, those thinkers and writers who in 1789
were still living agreed in ignoring the idea of a
French Republic.
A very famous man, greatly admired, one to whom
all men inclined their ears, was the Abbe Raynal.
He, in his Histoire philosophique des deux I tides
(1770), had put forth all manner of aspirations, raised
all manner of questions, excepting that of establishing
a republic in France. Is he more of a republican under
Louis XVI than he was under Louis XV? By no
means. In 1781, in a famous work on the American
Revolution, he puts Frenchmen on their guard against
the enthusiasm which that revolution had evoked in
their hearts, and he gives voice to prophecies,
pessimistic enough, concerning the future of the young
Republic1
Condorcet, the greatest thinker of the day (if not
the most influential) : he who, in 1791, was to become
the theorist of the Republic — Condorcet, whom one
may set among the fathers, the founders of the French
Republic, did not, before the Revolution, regard the
republican form of government as one either possible
or desirable in France. He was not even willing,
in 1788, that the royal despotism should be censured^1
1 Revolution de I' Amerique, by Abbe Raynal, London, 1781, 8vo. In
the article on Raynal in the Biographie Midland it is denied that this
book is the work of Raynal, and Querard echoes the assertion, but
without giving any reason. The style, the ideas, are those of Raynal.
The book was published in his name. Tom Paine published a refuta-
tion of the book : Raynal did not disavow his paternity, and no con-
temporary that I know of ever expressed a doubt that Raynal was the
author.
* Lettres d'nn citoyen des Etats-Unis a un Fraucais, sur les affaires
presentes, by M. le Marquis de C, Philadelphia.
THE PAMPHLETEERS 85
and in the establishment (could it be perfected) of
the Provincial Assemblies he saw the regeneration
of France.
As for the multitude of pamphleteers who, on the
eve of the institution of the Estates -General, and even
afterwards, expressed, with courageous frankness, their
social and political ideas : who among them cried
out for a republic? Not Mirabeau, who was always
so resolute a royalist. Not Sieyes ; who, in his theories
of national rights, the rights of the Third Estate, proved
himself a monarchist, and remained a monarchist as
long as the Monarchy survived, and even after a Re-
publican party was in existence. Cerutti desired a
thoroughly liberal Monarchy. I am well aware that
a few lampooners managed to get themselves accused
of republicanism — for example, d'Antraigues, whose
well-known Memoire sur les Iitats Generaux began
with these words : "It was doubtless in order to
afford the most heroic of virtues a mother-country
worthy of them that Heaven willed that there should
be republics, and it was perhaps to punish the ambi-
tion of men that Heaven has permitted them to erect
great empires, to raise up for themselves kings and
masters." But this goodly beginning was followed
by the most royalistic conclusions, and the next per-
formance of the author was to turn his coat, becoming
a rigid aristocrat. Another and anonymous pamph-
let, entitled " Le Bon sens" l which was known to
be the work of Kersaint, a future member of the Con-
vention, appeared to be of a republican character.
But here is the boldest phrase it contains : " Could a
King exist in a good government? Yes ; but if men
were more virtuous they would need no King." Is
not this as good as saying that the French were not,
in 1789, ripe for a republic?
Even the men whom we shall see, in 1792, as
1 Le Bon sens, far un gentilJwmme Breton, 1788, 4to.
86 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
founders and organisers of the Republic — Robespierre,
Saint-Just, Vergniaud, Danton, Brissot, Collot d'Her-
bois, the most famous of the future members of the
Convention — were at this time monarchists.
La Fayette is cited as the type of French Republi-
can before the Revolution. Certainly the American
Revolution had " republicanised " him, and he vaguely
hoped, without saying so in public,1 that at some time
in the future France would adopt the political system
of the United States. But in 1789, as in 1830, he
was an upholder of royalty, and we shall find him
helping, perhaps more than any other Frenchman, to
delay the advent of a republic in France.
And Camille Desmoulins? "There were perhaps
ten of us republicans in Paris on July 12, 1789."
So he writes in 1793.2 This is as much as to say,
1 I should point out that there is documentary evidence which seems
to contradict this assertion. Under the Directory, in the year VI, at
the time of an action brought against Durand-Maillane, there was
found among this politician's papers the following note respecting
La Fayette — a note which was then published by several journals,
among them by the Ami des Lois of the 19th of Germinal of the year
VI : " All those who were in America with him will give evidence
that they have heard him say publicly, and more than once : ' When
shall I see myself the Washington of France ? ' His ambition was to
make his country a federal republic." Even if we admit that La
Fayette did actually state that his ambition was to be the Washington
of France, it is by no means proved that he said at the same time that
he wished to make France a federal republic, or a republic of any kind.
To be a Washington under the sovereignty of Louis XVI — this rather
is the dream that appears in his acts, his words, and his authentic
writings : and in this he was in agreement with Washington himself,
who, with many other Americans, looked unfavourably upon the de-
struction of the kingdom in France. In any case, in spite of the in-
direct and belated evidence of Durand-Maillane, I do not believe that
a single instance can be cited in which La Fayette expressed the
ambition to establish, actually and at that time, a republic in
France.
2 Fragment de I'histoire secrete de la Revolution, reprinted in his Works,
ed. Jules Claretie, vol. i. p. 309. Desmoulins adds in a footnote :
NO REPUBLICAN PARTY 87
" I was a Republican before the taking of the Bastille,
and almost alone in my opinions." Ah, well ! Camille
Desmoulins, during the elections of the Estates-General,
wrote an ode comparing Louis XVI to Trajan ; that
is to say, he put aside his dream of a republic
in 1789.
Is it, then, an exaggeration to say that, on the
eve of and even during the commencement of the Revo-
lution, not only was there no Republican party in
France, not only was there no concerted scheme to
suppress the Monarchy from that time forward, but also
that not a single individual is known to have expressed
in public any such purpose or desire? Hardly. And
why is this the case?
Because the power of royalty had been, or had
seemed to be, at one and the same time the cementing
bond of that national unity then in sight of formation,
and the historical instrument of all reform for the
general good ; because the King had been regarded
as the adversary of feudalism and of local tyranny,
and the protector of peasant communities against all
forms of aristocracy. This idea is expressed in a
hundred different forms : for example, we shall find
Mounier, on July 9, 1789, saying to the Constituent
Assembly, in the name of the Committee of Constitu-
tion : " Men have never ceased to appeal to it [the
power of the sovereign] against injustice, and even
in periods of the darkest ignorance, in all parts of
the Empire, the oppressed and weak have always turned
"These republicans were for the most part young men, who, nourished
on the study of Cicero at college, were thereby impassioned in the
cause of liberty. We were educated in the ideas of Rome and Athens,
and in the pride of republicanism, only to live abjectly under a
monarchy, in the reign, so to speak, of a Claudian or a Vitellius. Unwise
and fatuous Government, to suppose that we, filled with enthusiasm
for the elders of the Capitol, could regard without horror the vampires
of Versailles, or admire the past without condemning the present ;
ulteriora mirari,pmsentia secufura.
88 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
towards the throne, as to the protector entrusted with
their defence." Who should dream of a republic at
the time when the King, by convening the Estates -
General, appeared to be taking the initiative in the
desired revolution?
An insane hypothesis truly, that a sudden attack
could then, in 1789, have overturned the throne I The
estrangement of the provinces which formed the French
kingdom ; the resurrection of feudalism ; the omnipo-
tence of local petty tyrants ; a war, perhaps, foreign
or civil — these might have done so. Almost one
might say, without paradox, that in 1789 the more
of a revolutionary a man was, so he was also a more
rigid monarchist, because it seemed that the eventual
unification of France, which was one of the ends and
one of the means of the Revolution, could only be
brought about under the auspices of the hereditary
leader of the nation.
II.
How is it, in spite of so many documents, so many
undoubted facts, that there was ever a retrospective
belief in the existence of a Republican party in France
before the year 1789, in a deliberate scheme to put an
end to the Monarchy?
The fact is that there arose, among such of the
French as did not wish for the Republic, a republican
state of mind, which was expressed by republican words
and attitudes.'
1 A fact which has contributed to this equivocal state of things, and
which has helped the illusion, is the frequent employment of the word
"republican" in order to denote, not those who wished to establish a
republic in France (for there were none) but those who hated
despotism, who upheld the rights of the nation, and who desired a
general social reform — in short, the constitution of a free government.
For example, it was in such a sense that Gouverneur Morris, conversing
with Barnave, said to him, at the beginning of the Revolution, " You
THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE 89
If all Frenchmen were at one in wishing to main-
tain the Monarchy, they were not agreed as to the
manner of regulating the royal authority, and we may
go so far as to say that they did not all see the throne
with the same eyes.
The masses of the people, in their unreasoned
loyalty, did not, it would appear, discern the excesses
of the royal prerogative. No doubt the commissaries
were unpopular. But complaints of " ministerial
despotism," as they preferred to call it, came from
the nobles, the bourgeoisie, the rich and enlightened
classes, rather than from the peasantry. The latter
more especially lamented a " feudal despotism," be-
cause, in fact, they were the greatest sufferers
from it.
Far from regarding the King as responsible for the
conduct of his agents, the people would say that
his agents deceived the King, that they annulled or
hampered his power of doing good. The popular
idea was to deliver the King from these unjust
stewards in order that he might be enlightened, the
are far more of a republican than I " (Mallet du Pan, Memoires, vol. i.
p. 240). Barnave, in fact, was always a monarchist. At the same time,
when Gouverneur Morris notes in his diary (March, 1789) that he has
dined with Mme. de Tesse, with " republicans of the first water," or
when, two days later, he writes to the Marquis de la Luzerne : " Re-
publicanism is a moral influenza," I see no reason to believe that he is
alluding to any attempt to destroy the Monarchy. When Marmontel
says {Memoires, ed. Tourneux, vol. iii. p. 178) that the body of ad-
vocates was by nature republican, he clearly indicates the sense in
which the word was employed previously to 1789. It was even used
in order to denote those who, at Court, did not observe the rules of
etiquette with sufficient rigour. Thus, d'Argenson wrote on March 22,
1738 : "The Queen likes to play at lansquenet of a Sunday, and as a
rule can find no one to play against ; the lack of attentiveness and
propriety on the part of the courtiers is ridiculous. People are be-
coming republican even at Court ; they are losing all respect for
royalty, and their esteem is conditioned too wholly by their needs and
the authority of others."
90 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
better to direct his omnipotent power, to the profit of
the nation, against the remnants of feudalism. The
masses were beginning to have a certain idea of their
rights, yet, so far were they from thinking to restrain
his loyal omnipotence, that it was precisely on that
omnipotence that all their hopes were based. One
petition said that, in order that all should go well, it
was only necessary for the King to cry : "To me, my
people! "
Enlightened Frenchmen, on the other hand, knowing
well what manner of men Louis XIV and XV had
been, feared the abuse of the royal power, and
were not all reassured by the paternal character
of Louis XVI's despotism. They wished to restrain,
by means of political institutions, this fantastic and
capricious power, so that it should no longer be
dangerous to liberty, while leaving it sufficient force
to destroy the aristocracy and what remained of the
feudal system, thus making France a nation. To
ensure that the King should govern according to the
laws — this was what they called " organising the
Monarchy."
The way to this organisation of the Monarchy was
prepared by the writers of the eighteenth century.
They, with the logical spirit natural to the French,
did not attempt merely to prevent abuses and to
regulate the exercise of sovereign power ; they dis-
cussed the very essence of this power, of the pretended
right Divine ; they sapped the Catholic faith by which
the throne was propped, sought publicly for the origins
of sovereignty and authority, in history, in the assent
of subjects, and in the national will.
Thus, without desiring to establish a republic, and
solely with a view to " organising " the Monarchy, they
attacked the monarchical principle, and put in circula-
tion republican ideals of such a nature that, although
in 1789 no one wished for a republic, yet whoever
thought at all was impregnated with these republican
DEFINITIONS OF A REPUBLIC 91
ideas ; and this is why, in 1792, when circumstances
made the Republic necessary, there was a sufficient
number of thinking men prepared to accept, and to
force on others, a form of government of which they
had already adopted the principles.
A few examples will show the diffusion and elabora-
tion of republican ideas before the Revolution.
Perhaps the republican frame of mind has always
existed in France, in one form or another, since the
beginning of the Renaissance. But one may say that
in its modern form it dates from the period of the
Regency, from the time of the anti -absolutist reaction
which followed the death of Louis XIV ; it was then
that this spirit began to manifest itself among educated
Frenchmen, to last, not for a time only, but during the
whole century.
In 1694 the French Academy, in its Dictionary,
after having defined the word republicain, was moved
to add : " It is sometimes employed in an evil sense,
when it signifies 'mutinous,' 'seditious'; one who
holds opinions in opposition to the monarchical state
in which he lives." In the edition of 17 18, this phrase,
so ill-disposed to republicans, is suppressed ; and the
edition of 1740 gives honourable examples of the usage
of the word, such as " republican mind, spirit, republi-
can system, republican maxims," and also, " He is
a true, an eminent republican." '
And what was the then current idea of a republic?
The French Academy defined a republic as " a
State governed by many " — a State, in fact, pre-
cisely the opposite of that they desired to maintain,
since all were unanimous in desiring to live under a
monarch.
But Montesquieu, in 1748, in his I1 Esprit des Lois,
defined a republic otherwise : " The republican form
of government," he says, " is that in which the people
1 There are the same definitions and examples 'in the edition of 1762.
92 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
as a whole, or one party only of the people, exercises
the sovereign power." This definition became classic.
In 1765 it was reproduced in the article on
"Republics" in the Encyclopedle l (vol. xiv.), which
consists entirely of quotations from Montesquieu.
Could not such a republic exist under a king?
Montesquieu does not think so^; but Mably does — when,
for instance, he dreams of a " republican monarchy "fj
and the same idea is held by those whom we shall
find, in 1789, speaking of a " monarchical democracy."
Montesquieu undoubtedly pronounces against a
republic, and is of opinion that in a republic " the
laws are evaded with greater danger than they can
be violated by a prince, who, being always the chief
citizen of the State, has the greatest interest in
its conservation. None the less, we see how he else-
where commends the republican form of government,
as when he says that virtue is its very mainspring,
while a monarchy is founded upon respect and honour";
or when, in approval of the popular elections, he writes :
"It is an admirable thing that the people should select
those to whom they are bound to confide some part
of their authority."
It was after reading Montesquieu that Frenchmen
1 The Encyclopedic was originally projected by a bookseller, Le
Breton, who in the first place intended, it seems, to publish little more
than an amplified translation of Chambers's Cyclop<zdia<(ij2j). Diderot,
however, to whom he offered the editorship, aimed at a work almost
entirely French, and also one which should be a weapon in the hands
of the philosophical, or materialist, party. All the important writers of
the time contributed. For twenty years the issue of the volumes
proceeded, in spite of prohibitions, threatened prosecutions, dangers
of imprisonment or exile, and the defection of D'Alembert, who, origin-
ally Diderot's colleague, found the obstacles too much for him. The
organ of advanced thought, it was afterwards frequently reprinted,
recast or summarised, out of France, and was the basis of many later
and smaller compilations. The word encyclopediste came to be used
as denoting a disciple of the naturalistic school of philosophy and the
liberal or scientific school of politics. — [Trans.]
FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN SPIRIT 93
became accustomed to regard the republican form of
government — which they did not desire to see in
France — as. a theoretically noble and interesting
form.
This theorist of the Monarchy thus found that he
had deprived monarchical government of some of its
prestige ; and, by his views upon the separation of
the three forms of authority, he touched royalty itself
to the quick — that royalty which pretended, by Divine
right, to concentrate all authority in itself.
In this manner did Montesquieu, so admired, so
widely read, contribute towards the development of
republican ideas and the formation of the republican
spirit.1
As for Voltaire, he assuredly is no republican"; he
does not even accept Montesquieu's theory that a
republic is founded on virtue ; we find him writing
in 1752: "A republic is by no means founded on
virtue;; it is founded on the ambition of each and
all ; upon pride, which seeks to curb pride ; upon
the desire of domination, which will not suffer the
domination of others. Hence are derived laws which
as far as possible conserve equality ; we have a society
in which the members, of equal appetites, eat at the
same table, until the advent of one more powerful
and more voracious, who takes all for himself and
leaves the crumbs of the feast to the others." 2 But,
with his usual openness of mind, Voltaire examines the
question from every side?; and in the same year (1752)
he speaks very favourably indeed of republics. "A
republican," he says, " is always more deeply attached
to his country than a subject can be to his ; for the
reason that one desires one's own welfare before that
1 During the Revolution, Montesquieu was often praised as the fore-
runner of the Republic. See, in the Chronique de Paris of May 4, 8.
and 9, 1793, a series of articles entitled Montesquieu republicain.
* (Euvres, publ. Gamier, vol. xxiii. p. 534 ; xix. p. 387.
94 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
of one's master." « In his article on " Democracy " in
the Dictionnaire philosophique, he weighs the evidence
on either side (to Voltaire " republic " and " demo-
cracy " are apparently synonymous), but inclines to
favour the republican as being practically " the most
natural form of government." He ends by saying :
" The question is heard every day, whether a republican
government is preferable to a monarchy. The dis-
cussion always ends with the admission that the govern-
ment of human beings is a very difficult business."
Elsewhere he states that " he has it in his mind that
offensive wars made the first kings, defensive wars the
first republics." 2 Truly enough, a defensive war made
the Republic of 1792.
We must not overlook the fact that Brutus (1730)
is a republican tragedy, nor that it was revived as
such, with enthusiasm, under the French Republic. As
firm a monarchist as Montesquieu, Voltaire no less
than he does honour to the republican system which
he did not wish to see in France. His attacks upon
the Christian faith, his militant rationalism, his influ-
ence on the polite society of his time — an influence
so powerful as to turn it, to a great extent, against
religion — herein lies his principal contribution to the
elaboration of republican ideals. At the sound of his
irony the Church tottered, and with it the throne.
He was no democrat. It is likely enough that he
would have regarded the advent of democracy with
horror. No one, however, has done more than
he to popularise the idea that man should be guided
by reason, not by a mystical authority"; and this idea
is the very essence of republicanism .3 Jean -Jacques
1 (Euvres, publ. Gamier, vol. xxiii. p. 527.
* Ibid., vol. xxvii. p. 334.
3 When once the Republic was established, Voltaire was regarded as
one of the precursors of this form of government. During the session
of the Council of Five Hundred (18th of Floreal, year IV) the deputy
ROUSSEAU AND REPUBLICANISM 95
Rousseau, in his Contrat social, had written " that, in
general, government by democracy was suited to small
States, government by aristocracy to those of medium
size, and government by Monarchy to large States."
He further stated " that there is no form of govern-
ment so liable to civil wars and internecine tumult as
the democratic or popular," and that " if there existed
a nation of gods, they would govern themselves by a
democracy : so perfect a government is unsuited to man-
kind." But he was preparing for the ruin of the
monarchical system when he said that " the two
principal objects of every system of legislation should
be liberty and equality." Prudent and reserved though
he was in theory, he preached revolt by his conduct,
in his speeches, and in his romantic writings — revolt,
in the name of Nature, against the vicious and artificial
Hardy declared "that Voltaire was the prime founder of the Republic."
The journal giving this report, the Conrrier republicain of the 19th of
Floreal, year IV, adds that shouts of laughter followed this declaration :
but the Courtier was republican only by name, and the laughter following
Hardy's declaration undoubtedly proceeded from royalists in disguise,
since the statement was entirely consistent with the gratitude which
the Republicans felt for the author of Brutus. Even before the
Republic there are instances of writers who regarded Voltaire as a
republican. For example : referring to the reaction which followed
the events of July 17, 1791, the Revolutions de Paris remarks: "Yes,
Voltaire should have been hanged, for he was a Republican " (No. 113,
September 3-10, 1791, vol. ix. p. 431). The influence of Voltaire on
the Revolution in general is one of those facts which have been most
often proclaimed by the Revolution itself. In 1791 Gudin de la
Brenellerie, in his Reponse d'un ami des grands hommes aux envieux de
la gloire de Voltaire, speaking of the removal of the remains of Voltaire
to the Pantheon, expresses himself thus : " He acted as did the people
of France : he took the Bastille before laying the foundations of the
Constitution. For if he had not overthrown all the fortresses of
stupidity, if he had not broken all the chains that strangled our
intellect, never, never had we been able to raise ourselves to the height
of the great ideals that we to-day possess." And further on : " Father
of the liberty of thought, he is the father of political liberty, which
without him had never existed."
96 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
social system of his time?; and, although fundamentally
a Christian,1 he replaced the mystical ideals of charity
and humility by the republican ideal of fraternity.
If Mably is a supporter of monarchies, it is because
the sovereign power " prevents the tyranny of class
or party." At the same time, in his eyes the chief
constituent principle of society is equality, and to his
thinking the passion for equality is the one human
sentiment that must never be outraged. The sovereign
is the people of France. He believes he can find proof
in history to the effect that the French formerly had
legislative assemblies whose will the monarchs merely
put into execution. This " republican monarchy," as
he calls it, was realised by Charlemagne ! — and this
extraordinary historian finds that there existed, under
Charlemagne, a Constituent Assembly.2 " Princes,"
he says, " are the administrators, not the masters, of
the nation." If he accepts, in theory, the separation
of the executive and legislative powers, it is not in
order to balance them the one against the other, but
to establish the subordination of the executive to the
legislative power. The executive power he wishes to
enfeeble ; for which reason he would divide it into
several departments, and have all magistrates elected
by the people. He would have the King a mere
phantom, and, although he labels it a monarchy, the
State he organises on paper is in reality a republic,
A ,
1 See my book, Le Culte de la raison et le culte de I'Etrc supreme,
p. 252.
' This fantastic idea of a liberal, half-republican, constitutional
Charlemagne haunted the men of the eighteenth century as well as
Mably. Thus La Fayette, in his Correspondance (Belgium ed., August,
1788, p. 237), would wish " the King to appear, like Charlemagne, in
the midst 'of his people, voluntarily assembled." It was this liberal
Charlemagne that such of the men of 1789 as took a hand in the coup
d'etat of Brumaire the 18th thought to rediscover in Napoleon
Bonaparte, and the historical romancing of Mably was not un-
connected with the success of Csesarism in France.
STRENGTHENING THE MONARCHY 97
and even so he wished to make it a communistic
republic.1
As for Diderot, d'Holbach, and Helvetius, if they did
not demand a republic, they none the less enfeebled
and discredited sovereignty, whether by abusing it or
by undermining Christianity.
From the writings of these philosophers one idea
stands out, an idea that quickly became almost general :
that the nation is above the King ; and is not this a
republican idea? Although these writers wish to main-
tain the Monarchy, they habitually speak of the republi-
can system in honourable terms. A posthumous work of
d'Argenson's, Considerations sur le Gouvernement,
published in 1765, recommends the fortification of the
Monarchy by an " infusion " of republican institutions ;
and d'Argenson praises the government which he does
not desire for his own country in terms so sympathetic
as to invite misconception, so greatly does this work 2
of royalist tendencies, which was much read at the time,
do honour to the republican idea. 3 As for writers who
1 For information as to the political theories of Mably the reader is
recommended to the excellent work in which M. W. Guerrier has
reviewed them {JJ Abbe de Mably moraliste et politique, 1886, 8vo). The
idea of a " republican monarchy " was also expressed by Cerutti, in this
famous sentence from his Memoire sur le peuple francais : " The
monarch is the perpetual and hereditary dictator of the republic."
2 In the monarchical convictions of this writer there are no moments
of self-contradiction ; not even in the eccentricities in the vein of
Montaigne which we find in his other posthumous works. Thus we
read in his Memoire (Jannet, vol. v. p. 274) : " The republican govern-
ment in its primitive purity is untenable ; therefore it is bad . . . while
a monarchy continually perfects itself."
3 I should like to insist on this work of d'Argenson's, which had a
very great influence. The aim of its author is to fortify the Monarchy,
by introducing " the good features of republics." " One will find," he
says, " that all things that make the good of a republic will augmen
the authority of the monarch, instead of attacking it in any wise"
(p. 289). The question is not one of diminishing the legislative
authority of the monarch, but of contributing to it. Instead of having
all things done by officers of the Court, he would have certain matters
VOL. I. 7
98 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
were living and were read in 1789, such as Raynal,
Condorcet, Mirabeau, Sieves, ' d'Antraigues, Cerutti,
Mounier, it is enough to say of these also, monarchists
though they were, that they indirectly undermined the
principle of monarchy ; and thus, without wishing it
or realising it, prepared the way for the Republic, since
the greater number of their readers found in their
writings, or derived from them, at all events, the idea
that the law can only be the expression of the general
will.1
executed by public officers. " It would be necessary to make an
attempt at admitting the public more fully to the government of the
public, and to observe the result" (p. 255). No Estates-General : no
Provincial Assemblies : these would be dangerous to sovereignty. In
the communes only he would introduce popular and municipal
magistrates (p. 207), thus elected : the commune would nominate the
candidates, and the intendants and sub-delegates would select the
functionaries from among these candidates ; a system something like
that of the year VIII. The kingdom would be divided into depart-
ments (sic), smaller than are the generality of such divisions (p. 237).
It is in this manner that d'Argenson praises republics, and in particular
he praises with enthusiasm the Dutch Republic, which he calls
"purely democratic." Thus (p. 62) he expresses himself in these
remarkable terms : " If we travel in parts where a republic is
neighbour to a monarchy, we find that there are always frontier
districts in which the territories of the two Governments intermingle ;
we shall easily know the territories of the republic from those of the
Monarchy, by the excellent condition of the public works, even of
individual estates and holdings ; these are neglected, those well cared
for and flourishing." The same ideas are also to be found expressed
in various passages of d'Argenson's Journal — for example, in vol. iii.
p. 313 (in Jannet's edition, not in that of Rathery).
1 Hear how Condorcet, in his Reflexions sur les pouvoirs et instructions
a donner par les provinces a leurs deputes aux Etats generaux (1789)
explains what would constitute the royal power in the Monarchy of
his desire : " Society is . . . eminently and exclusively itself the
governing power. It has the right to reject all power which does not
issue from itself ; it creates and modifies the laws which it finds it
necessary to observe, and it confines their execution to one or many of
its members. In France, since the dawn of our Constitution, this
power has been placed in the hands of the Prince. His person is
THE KING A SUBJECT 99
The idea that the King should be only a citizen
subject to the law, causing the law to be executed,
had gradually become popularised ; of its popularity
there is endless proof. When Voltaire wrote, in his
tragedy of Don Pedre (1775) :
"A king is but a man with name august,
First subject of the laws ; and, by law, just,"
he knew well that he would win applause. And if
it be objected that this tragedy was not presented, that
these lines were not actually heard by the theatre-going
public, I will cite the line borrowed by Favart from a
poem by Louis Racine, published in 1744, which drew
applause in the Trois Sultanes, at the Theatre des
Italiens, on April 9, 1761 :
" Each citizen a king, under a citizen king."
That such maxims were applauded in the theatre, nearly
thirty years before the Revolution, that the Government
was obliged to tolerate them : does not this prove that
public opinion had already, so to say, despoiled the
King and his kingship of the mystical principle of
sovereignty? And is not this idea of the " citizen
king," so unanimously applauded, one of the most
startling signs of the republicanisation of the general
mind?
sacred, because his authority is legitimate, and because he is the holder of
the power of all the citizens, that he may execute the laws. Thus, in our
Monarchy, the nation declares the general will ; the general will makes
the law. The law makes the prince and the executive power. The
executive power makes the law respected, and acts according to the
laws." Mounier, in his Considerations (1789), says that all authority
comes from the nation, which makes its laws through its representa-
tives. One single person executes these laws ; he must be one only,
and, in order to be powerful, he should be hereditary.
100 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
III.
All these writers of whom I have been speaking,
whether living or dead, were the interpreters, rather
than the authors, of a state of mind which began, among
cultivated persons, to manifest itself as early as the
middle eighteenth century. Towards the middle years
of the century the faults and the vices of Louis XVI
induced, in the minds of those who led opinion, a free
criticism of the Monarchy. At this time especially we
find d'Argenson noting in his journal the spread of
republican ideas.1 Literature accepts these republican
ideas from society, and returns them embellished and
reinforced.
The lack of reverence for royalty grew from the
spectacle of royalty's weakness, a weakness appearing
more especially in the quarrel between the Crown and
the Parliament,2 which influenced the mind even more
than did the writings of the thinkers of the time.
1 "January 30, 1750. Every day republicanism wins over men of
philosophic mind. As proof, the Monarchy is regarded with horror."
And further : " Whispers are heard of liberty, of republicanism.
Already they gain possession of men's minds. ... It may be that
already certain minds have conceived a new form of government "
(ed. Jannet, vol. iii. p. 313 ; vol. v. pp. 346, 348).
3 The French parlements were not Parliaments in our sense of
the word, but bodies of men, mostly jurists, who registered — that is,
reduced to writing and sanctioned — the edicts of the King. They had,
nominally, the right to refuse to register, or at least they did sometimes
so refuse. If it was worth the King's while he would descend upon
the refractory Parliament, his visit being called a " bed of justice," and
command them to register, which they had to do. Another way of
dealing with the Parliament of Paris in especial was to send it into
exile — to some very uncomfortable and distant and provincial town —
which usually reduced it to obedience. Just before the Revolution,
the Paris Parliament protesting the illegality of letires de cachet, the
Parliaments throughout France were deprived of their power of
registration. Remonstrants from all parts of France hurried to Paris ;
those from Brittany formed a club, meeting in the old Jacobin convent
in the St. Honore, which was the beginning of the Jacobin Club. As
THE KING AND THE PARLIAMENTS 101
We know that Louis XIV had so regulated the
right of remonstrance as to make it impracticable and
illusory. This regulation the Regent suppressed, and
the Parliament of Paris became once more the leading
voice in the chorus of opposition. This Parliament,
which drew its recruits, often hereditary, almost entirely
from the rich middle classes, was a body representa-
tive of the middle class, although among its legal
members were many gentlemen of the highest nobility.
We find, to be sure, that the middle-class members of
the Parliament are Christians and royalists, but Chris-
tian after their own fashion — that is, Jansenist or
Gallican ; royalists also in their own way ; that is, they
wish the prince to govern by the laws they themselves
have registered, laws of which they profess to be the
guardians and interpreters. They take the place, or
profess to do so, of the Estates-General ; they are the
advocates of the nation before the face of majesty.
From the time of publication of the Lettres his-
toriques of Lepaige (1753), the Parliament of Paris set
up a claim to be the inheritor of the Merovingian assem-
blies, called, in the mediaeval documents, parlamentum.
It allied itself in federation with the other Parliaments,
or rather it asserted that there was only one Parlia-
ment, distributed through the country ; it proclaimed
the unity and indivisibility of Parliament. The Parlia-
ment was a national Government, mature and complete ;
it was the national Senate ; and the first President liked
to assume the attitude of the leader of a Senate who
had obtained his power " not from the King," says
d'Argenson, " but from the nation." As to the
sovereign power — from being the agent of this power,
men trained in affairs, and having a knowledge of the law, were
needed to make a backing for the Third Estate, many ex-mcmbers
of the Parliaments were to be found in the National Assemblies, and
doubtless contributed to the occasional formality, indirectness, and
over-caution of some of their measures. — [Trans.]
U3RARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
102 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
the Parliament assumed the part of censor, regulator,
and interpreter of opinion. And in so far as it opposes
the despotism of the Ministry we find it really does
interpret the opinion of the middle class, and also of
a portion of the nobility, without whom, or in opposition
to whom, the King would be unable to govern.
Here we see why this opposition is so powerful, why
it alarms and exasperates the King, yet cannot be
crushed by him. Twice did Louis XV, and once did
Louis XVI, make the attempt to replace the Parlia-
ments by other and more docile institutions ; three
times the attempt was checkmated, royalty had perforce
to give way, to repudiate its design, and recall the
Parliaments.
Yet the Parliament is by no means hostile to royalty.
As against the Papal Court it is the defender of the
rights of the Crown and the " liberties " of the Gallican
Church. Neither is it hostile to religion, protecting it,
indeed, by judgments against the philosophers. But
it undermines the prestige of religion by the rudeness
with which it sometimes treats the clergy, as when in
1756 it burns in the Place de Greve a mandamus of
the Archbishop of Paris, or when it forces the priests
to administer the Sacraments to Jansenists. It lessens
the majesty of royalty, not alone by the measures
taken against the royal despotism, but by the very
zeal with which, in the face of the wishes and the
weakness of the King, it serves those interests of
the Crown which were menaced by the Church in the
whole affair of the Jansenist party and the bull
Unigenitus. Wishing only to fortify the royal power,
it presents the spectacle of a political anarchy.
But as regards fundamentals, there is neither strife
nor difference between Crown and Parliament, and Par-
liament has no thought of modifying the nature of the
royal power. Let us recall the affair of the Parliament
of Besancon (1759), one party of whose members were
THE PARLIAMENTS 103
exiled, and the very lively remonstrances of the Parlia-
ment of Paris, which spoke of the rights of the nation,
on this occasion, in phrases that were almost republican.
There was a solemn dialogue between the Crown and
the Parliament upon the nature of the royal power. The
King said to the Parliament (these words were published
in a special number of the Gazette l) :
"The right or law of the nation [in the 'remonstrances'] is spoken
of as if it were a distinct thing from the laws of which the King is the
source and principle, and as if it were by this right that the laws should
protect citizens against what you choose to call the irregular ways of
absolute power. All subjects of the King, in general as in particular,
rest in his hands and in the shelter of his royal authority, concerning
which he knows that the spirit of justice and of reason should be
inseparable from it ; and when, in this spirit, he does at need use the
absolute power which appertains to him, it is nothing more or less
than the course which it is necessary to follow."
The Parliament, while still maintaining its grievances,
reiterating its remonstrances, and continuing to speak
of the " right, or law, of the nation," 2 which is that
the laws should be executed, replied to the King that
it was in perfect agreement with him as to the definition
of the royal power. The Parliament, it says, " has never
ceased and will never cease to announce to your peoples
that the government is the attribute of sovereignty,
that all authority of command resides in the hand of
the sovereign ; that of such authority you, sire, are
the principal, the source, and the dispenser ; that the
legislative power is a right essential and incommuni-
cable, concentred in your person, and that you hold
it, sire, only from the Crown ; that it is by the same
title that you possess the universality, the plenitude,
and indivisibility of authority." 3 But these principles
1 No. 15, April 11, 1759.
2 Droit de nation ; there is no precise English idiom ; " prerogative
of the nation " nearly conveys the meaning. — [Trans.]
3 Flammermont, Remontrances, vol. ii. p. 194.
104 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
being thus admitted and proclaimed, the Parliament is
only more ardent in setting a limit to the royal authority,
and this quarrel has a considerable influence on men's
minds, because it is public, at a time when there is
no political tribune, no political journals. The remon-
strances, printed and offered for sale, are spread far
and wide ; they are read with avidity in all the cities
of France. The " Roman " eloquence of the Parlia-
ment is greatly admired. The Parliament is popular,
although often reactionary, although hostile to the
philosophers, and egoistically in love with its privileges.
When the King suspends it, sends it into exile, or
seeks to destroy it, the cities take its part ; there are
riots, intervention of troops ; on several occasions, and
in particular at the time of the affair of the Parliament
of Maupeou, it seems as if revolution were on the point
of breaking forth.
The Parliament by no means limits itself to brave
words ; it is definitely disobedient, notably in the last
quarrel (1787-88), when it declares null, void, and
illegal the acts of the royal authority, and when, being
threatened with suppression, the members take oath
to accept no place in any body but the Parliament
itself, as it were in anticipation and in rehearsal of
the declaration of the Tennis Court. The same day
(May 3, 1788), on the pretext of defining the prin-
ciples of the Monarchy, the Parliament sketches the
plan of a Constitution in which the Estates -General
would vote the subsidies, while the courts would have
the right of verifying, in each province, the wishes
of the King, ordering their registration only in so far
as they were consistent with the constitutional law of
the several provinces, as well as with the fundamental
laws of the State.1 We need not recount the familiar
1 M. Carre has given the text of this part of the proceedings of the
Parliament after the original MS. in the Arch. Nat. See the Revolution
francaise (the review), vol. xxxiii. p. 371.
THE PARLIAMENT VICTORIOUS 105
episodes of this notorious quarrel : the arrest of
Goislard and of d'Jipremesnil ; the edict of the greater
bailiwicks, and of the plenary court ; the " bed of
justice " ; the protest of Parliament in the name of
the rights of the nation ; the declaration that the acts
of the King were " absurd in their combinations,
despotic in their principles, tyrannical in their effects " ;
the tyrannous actions of the King ; the lettres de
cachet,1 the incarcerations, and so forth. It is enough
to say that royalty capitulated through need of money,
and that this last and conspicuous victory of the Parlia-
ments— which were so soon to discredit themselves by
demanding, in the matter of convoking the Estates-
General, the feudal forms of 16142 — lessened the
prestige of royalty yet further in the eyes of the
bourgeoisie, damaging it as greatly as did royalty itself 3
(the mass of the rural population were not in posses-
sion of the facts) ; and it was thus that the Parliaments
were, in the eighteenth century, a school of republi-
canism, at least of an aristocratic kind. 4
1 Lettres de cachet were dispensed with a prodigality characteristic of
the inhumanity of the times. Intended to allow the Crown to dispose
in an arbitrary way of inconvenient persons, they fell into the hands of
all possessed of money or influence who desired to use them. The
victim of a lettre de cachet never came to trial ; he was often forgotten,
and died in prison ; there was no appeal. It was in the power of any
one in favour with a minister or a king's mistress to obtain as many
lettres de cachet as he required. They played a part analogous to the
private asylums of early Victorian days, but of course a far larger part ;
inconvenient enemies, creditors, slanderers, relatives with money, &c,
were easily disposed of. Of course, rank and privilege regulated their
use ; privileged persons could only be disposed of by the King himself.
Louis XV put away a minister whose wealth and whose chateau he
envied, a few days after the unhappy man had welcomed his monarch
to a marvellous fete on the opening of his house. — [Trans.]
2 See, in Buchez, vol. i. p. 254, the pamphlet entitled, Le Catechism e
des Parlements.
3 See Choudieu, Memoires, edited by M. Barrucaud, pp. 8-9.
4 On September 24, 1788, the Advocate-General Seguier said of the
Parliaments : " They have been described as republican assemblies,
106 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
IV.
This role, let me repeat, was one which the Parlia-
ments played in spite of themselves, for they were the
adversaries of every serious attempt at reforming the
ancle n regime. They wished for their own profit to
preserve the status quo. If they paved the way for the
Revolution, and, indirectly, for the Republic, it was
not only because they belittled royalty by the fact
of their disobedience, but also because they prevented
the Monarchy from evolving, and from founding new
institutions in accordance with the spirit of the times.
For instance, they opposed as well as they were
able the establishment of Provincial Assemblies.
The importance of this establishment, exaggerated,
it may be, by some writers, such as Leonce de Lavergne,
for one, was nevertheless real enough.
It was an attempt to transform a despotism, pro-
gressively, without violent revolution, into a constitu-
tional monarchy.
To call upon the nation gradually to participate in
the government, in such a way as finally to establish,
by means of almost insensible changes, some sort of
representative government — this was the conception of
Turgot, and one which the King would at first have
none of, because it was put before him as a complete
scheme, which alarmed him precisely because it entailed
an absolute change. Later on Necker and Brienne
essayed to make him accept it in part, on the grounds
of financial expediency.
affecting independence ; they have been accused, before the whole
nation, of being ambitious, and of seeking to establish an aristocracy
in the heart of the French aristocracy." He protests against this
accusation ; but, in formulating it in these words, he characterises
plainly the kind of impression which the parliamentary opposition
created in the general mind. — See also Chateaubriand on the influence
of Parliaments, in his Mcmoires d' outre-tomb e, vol. i. pp. 236-7.
PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLIES 107
The deficit having become serious, the only means
of obtaining further subsidies appeared to be to grant
the nation an appearance of decentralisation and of free
institutions, of some kind of deliberative assemblies,
from which would be obtained an increase of taxation.1
It was with this in view that two Provincial Assem-
blies were established in 1779, one in Berry and one
in Haute-Guyenne ; and in 1787 this experiment was
applied to all such provinces as had not Estates,2
and was developed into a system ; that is to say, in
each district returning a Provincial Assembly, there
were :
1 . In every community 3 having no municipality, a
Municipal Assembly composed of the overlord
(seigneur) and the cure, who were members
ex officio, and of citizens elected by a property-
owners' suffrage.
2. Secondary Assemblies, known as District, Elec-
tive, or Departmental Assemblies, springing
from the Municipal Assemblies by a semi-
electoral method.
3. A Provincial Assembly, of which at the outset
the King appointed half the members ; these
would complete their number ; then, three years
later, there would commence an annual replace-
ment of one quarter of the members, and this
quarter would be elected by the Secondary
Assemblies.
4. Intermediary commissions, overseeing and carry-
ing out the execution of decisions in the intervals
between sessions.
What decisions?
The Provincial Assemblies were specially entrusted
with the distribution and assessment of imposts, and
1 Vingtiemes, or a five per cent, tithe or tax. — [Trans.]
2 All but certain border provinces. — [Trans.]
3 Commune ; village, scattered community, or borough. — [Trans.]
108 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
with the public works ; they expressed wishes and
made representations. Their functions and their juris-
diction were somewhat greater than those of our
Councils General.
The King even stated, in the edict of 1787, that
these arrangements might be improved, and it was
believed that later on the edifice would be crowned by
a National Assembly, issuing from the Provincial
Assemblies, and also that the electoral method would
become more democratic : a hope which arose from
the fact that in these Assemblies votes were counted
per member, not according to rank.
Twenty of these Assemblies were in working order
at the end of 1787 and the commencement of 1788 ;
their intermediary commissions performed their duties
until July, 1790, at which time they relinquished their
powers to the Departmental Directories.
This experiment was welcomed with joy by the
philosophers, notably by Condorcet ; ' they believed it
the dawn of a pacific revolution. To this hope the
Assemblies did in part respond ; they prepared a fairer
assessment and a better distribution of the taxes ; they
expressed useful aims ; they made instructive inquiries ;
they seemed animated with a passion for the public
weal.2
However, there was a strong current of opinion
against them :
1 . Because in the first place they were obliged to
vote an increase of taxation (one Assembly,
that of Touraine, curtly refused ; others
obtained an abatement).
1 See his Essai sur la constitution et lesfonctions des Assemblies provin-
ciates, Paris, 1788, 2 vol. 8vo.
2 Read, for example, the speech of the Due d'Havre (who showed
himself such a blind reactionary during the Revolution) before the
Assembly of Picardy (see Leonce de Lavergne, p. 132), and the begin-
ning as well as the conclusion of the Report of the Procurator-Syndics
of Champagne, session of November and December, 1787.
PROVINCIAL ESTATES 109
2. Because the Parliaments decried them. At the
outset they hesitated or refused to register
edicts. Then they prevented several Provin-
cial Assemblies from assembling ; those of
Basse-Guyenne, Aunis, and Saintonge, and
that of Franche-Comte\ The Assembly of Dau-
phine succeeded in sitting only for a few days.
The tactics employed by the Parliaments were to
uphold the ancient Provincial Estates as being prefer-
able to Assemblies which had an appearance of being
nominated by the King — as being more independent,
and the better able to diminish, or at least to prevent
the increase of taxation. So well did these tactics
answer that the old aristocratic Provincial Estates, for-
merly so unpopular, were called for on all sides.
Royalty suffered a terrible rebuff. The King yielded
to the Parliament of Besancon, and convoked the
Estates of Franche-Comte (November, 1785).
He yielded also to the Parliament of Besancon — or
rather there was in Dauphine a veritable insurrection,
a spontaneous and revolutionary assemblage of the
Three Estates of the province at Vizille (July, 1788),
in which the Third Estate was in the majority, and
in which the rights of man and of the nation were
proclaimed ; while a demand was made for the ancient
Estates, though reformed, and of a less aristocratic
type. The King granted this demand by a decision of
Council, October 22, 1788.
This news profoundly stirred the whole nation. From
all parts came demands for Provincial Estates like
those of Dauphine.
In the cahiers of 1789 these demands are expressed
as a general request, even in the cahiers of the
bailiwick of Berry, which for ten years had enjoyed
the type and model of a Provincial Assembly.1
1 The cahier of the Third Estate of the bailiwick of Berry demands
that " Provincial Estates shall be established in Berry, organised in
110 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
Thus the liberties conceded by the King were dis-
dainfully refused, owing to the influence of the Parlia-
ments. The demand went up for Provincial Estates,
and, without either understanding or intention, a
tendency was created towards a federation of the pro-
vinces, constituted as so many republics, which would
have sent representatives to the Estates-General.
We see, in fact, that in 1789 royalty is powerless
either to obtain the money it requires for subsistence,
or to obtain the acceptance of the benefits which it
offers in the hope of obtaining this money. The
Monarchy is disobeyed and baffled by those who are
still loyal and believe in the possibility of its ameliora-
tion. The rural masses, in almost every part, are
ignorant, suffer, and are silent. Among the educated
classes, among a portion of the nobility, among the
middle classes and the townsfolk, there is a movement
of almost universal revolt, and, thanks to the Parlia-
ment, an anarchy almost universal. All these rebels
wish to maintain the Monarchy, and all are blindly
striking it mortal blows. All France, wholly
monarchical, is unwittingly becoming republican.1
the same manner as those newly established in the province of
Dauphine" (Arch. pari. vol. ii. p. 324). The nobility make the same
request (Ibid. p. 319).
1 In 1796, in his Correspondance politique pour servir a Yhistoire du
republicanisme francais, Mallet du Pan writes : " It would be an error
to suppose that the spirit of Republicanism has sprung up in France
only since the Revolution. The independence of manners, the relaxa-
tion of respect, the inconsistency of authority, the impetuous ardour of
opinions in a country in which lack of reflection immediately manufac-
tures opinion from prejudice, and, finally, inoculation from America,
spread the republican leaven throughout the reasoning classes of the
country. Most of the malcontents called themselves democrats, as
most of them are to-day in the rest of Europe. Only the people were
untouched by this effervescence " (quoted in the Memoires of Mallet
du Pan, Sayons, vol. i. p. 239). In the same sense Danton, at the
tribune of the Convention (August 13, 1793), declares, "The Republic
was in the minds of men twenty years before its proclamation."
THE EXAMPLE OF ENGLAND 111
V.
England and America had of course an influence
on the formation of republican ideas in the France
of the eighteenth century.
All men of culture were familiar with the history
of England, and knew all that was then to be known
of the history of the English Rebellion of the seven-
teenth century, and of the English Republic, the
Commonwealth .
But they saw that, after all, this English Republic,
to whose establishment Cromwell and the greater part
of his countrymen had with difficulty resigned them-
selves, had been maintained only by fear, and for a
short period only, afterwards to disappear completely.1
Among the writings of the English republicans (fre-
quently translated into French — several were re-
published in 1763 by the English Radical, T. Hollis)
they read more especially Locke, who had so great
an influence over the eighteenth-century philosophers,
and Sidney, whose name was a household word in
France, ,and was incessantly quoted with the names of
the heroes of Republican Rome. In these writings
they found nothing to induce the decided and immediate
refusal of monarchical government, but rather the
advice that they should content themselves with a
compromise between the democratic principles of the
" Agreement of the People " and the monarchical prin-
ciple. They found therein praise of a constitutional,
representative, limited monarchy. They were led to
desire a similar compromise for France, although the
English parliamentary system was perhaps less popular
in France on account of the spectacle it presented from
the beginning of the reign of George III.
America, in a more immediate and far more
1 See the lessons drawn by M. Seignobos from the English Revolu-
tion, in the Revue des cours et des conferences, March 9-23, 1899.
112 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
efficacious manner, contributed as a living example to
the republicanisation of French opinion.
The enthusiasm which the French people exhibited
in the matter of the American War of Independence was
born in part of their hatred of England, but also of their
hatred of despotism in general. The cause of the
insurgents was regarded as the cause of the human
family, the cause of liberty itself. No doubt the
English colonists were merely fighting for their own
independence'; but they were breaking with a
monarchy, and in order to form themselves into a
republic. Moreover, they would no longer tolerate a
king, and were launching anathemas at royalty. The
bold phrases of Thomas Paine's republican pamphlet,
Common Sense, resounded throughout France.1
Franklin, in a letter, dated May, 1777, speaks in the
following terms of the passionate interest with which
American affairs are followed in France :
"All Europe is on our side of the question, as far as applause
and good wishes can carry them. Those who live under arbitrary
power do nevertheless approve of liberty, and wish for it ; they almost
despair of recovering it in Europe ; they read the translations of our
separate colony Constitutions with rapture. ... It is a common
observation here, that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that
we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." 2
1 Paine's boldness, however, was not of a Gallic type. It was as much
in the name of the Bible as in the name of reason that Paine attacked
the institution of royalt)', which he found repugnant, and inconsistent
with natural equality. The transition from the arguments of common
sense to those of the rustical sense is illustrated by this sentence, which
is very characteristic of the style in which the book is written : " As
the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on
the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority
of scripture ; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and
the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings."
Numerous quotations from the Bible follow (Common Sense, London,
1776, 8vo).
2 Franklin's Lelters.
THE EXAMPLE OF AMERICA 113
The number of editions in French of the various
American Constitutions proves the truth of Franklin's
words. The American War inspired the French to
produce a very great number of narratives, histories,
books of travel, and prints.1 The grave and reasonable
republicans of whom Franklin was a type inspired
both love and admiration. Republican America became
as much the fashion as monarchist England, and even
more so.2
We have here no passing infatuation, but a deep
and lasting influence. We shall see that the French
Revolution, differing in many respects so widely from
the American, is none the less obsessed by memories
of the latter '• France does not forget that America
had Declarations of Independence, National Con-
ventions, Committees of Public Safety, Committees of
General Security. Part of the very political vocabu-
lary of the French Revolution is American.
The most important fact of all in the history of
republican ideas is that twenty years before the French
Revolution all enlightened Frenchmen had read, either
in the original (for a knowledge of the English
language was then very general in France) or in one
of the numerous French translations, the text of the
Constitution of the United States.
What an impression the Declaration of Indepen-
dence of July 4, 1776, must have made upon the
French reader of Mably, and subject of an absolute
monarch ! Let us recall one of the celebrated
passages :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien-
1 There is a list of them at the Bibl. Nat., in the catalogue of series Ps.
2 Chateaubriand says : " The height of fashion and elegance was to
be American in the city, English at Court, and Prussian in the army "
(Memoires d'outre-tombe, ed. Bin, vol. i. p. 232).
VOL. I. 8
114 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes ; and accordingly all experience
hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security."
It was the perusal of this Declaration that decided
La Fayette to sail for America. His heart, he says,
was enlisted. And the hearts of the greater number
of educated Frenchmen, whether nobles or commons,
were enlisted also. Later, we find Mirabeau, in his
Lettres de cachet, writing (in 1782) : " All Europe has
applauded the sublime manifesto of the United States
of America. ... I ask if of the thirty -two princes
of the third nation on earth, upwards of two -thirds have
not been far more guilty towards their subjects than the
kings of Great Britain towards their colonies."
The Declaration of Independence was preceded by
the Declaration of Rights of the People of Virginia
(June 1, 1776), which may almost be regarded as the
future Declaration of Rights of the French people.
Herein we read that all authority pertains to, and con-
sequently emanates from, the people ; that no right
can be hereditary ; that the three orders should be
separate and distinct ; that the liberty of the press
may not be restrained ; and that the military must be
strictly subordinate to the civil authority. This would
LA FAYETTE 115
seem to be the very incarnation of the theories of the
French writers — the thoughts of Mably embodied, mili-
tant. The enthusiasm of the friends of liberty and the
French patriots may be imagined. It is from the com-
mencement of the American Revolution that their ideas
begin to seem attainable and capable of realisation ; it
is from this time that their spirit becomes irresistible.1
La Fayette calls this " the American era." 2 Scarcely
arrived in America, he writes to one of his friends
at home : "I have always considered a king to be
more or less useless ; from henceforth he will be a
far sorrier figure than ever before." 3 In his house in
Paris, in 1783, he installed a large engrossment of
the American Declaration of Rights, with a vacant
space beside it awaiting the Declaration of the Rights
of France ; and he affected, both in speaking and
writing, the phrase, " We other republicans." 4 " In the
military reviews under Louis XVI," Charavay writes,
in 1799 "La Fayette was to be seen wearing" the
American uniform, of which the baldrick, according
to a fairly usual custom, was decorated with an emblem
according to the choice of each officer ; and the King,
having asked for an explanation of the matter, dis-
covered that in this case the emblem was a tree of
liberty planted above a crown and a broken sceptre."
True ; but when La Fayette put off his American
uniform he became a monarchist once more, and, as
we have already noted, did not believe it possible to
establish a republic in France. The fact is that even
1 See the correspondence of La Fayette, and the Memoires historiques
sur le XVIII' siecle, by Garat, vol. ii. p. 319.
2 We have already seen what Mallet du Pan says of " American
inoculation." Chateaubriand expressed the same idea, when he spoke
of " a republic of a kind not hitherto known announcing a change in
the spirit of man" {Memoires d'outre-tombe, vol. i. p. 351).
3 Memoires, the Brussels edition, vol. i. p. 405.
* Etienne Charavay, Le general La Fayette, p. 19 (letter of June
19, 1777)-
116 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
such Frenchmen as were most deeply infected with
Americanism saw plainly enough the difference
between the two countries.1
America had no feudal system ; was not burdened
by its past ; the English colonies, in effect, were
republics under viceregal governors. They expelled
the governors, replacing them by governors 2 appointed
by themselves. One can hardly say of these colonies
that their aim was to become republics ; they were
that already. But they made their internal liberties
the foundations of their independence. It was not
(so said our forefathers) a matter of installing a
republic in a great State ; it was a case of small
States allying themselves, yet without forming a
great nation ; the States were rather thirteen allied
nations .
In France the Revolution was conceived in advance
as national and united ; any attempt, for example, to
create thirty or so allied republics would have been
to prevent the Revolution at the outset, to maintain
and aggravate feudalism. We shall see that federalism
becomes the crime of crimes against the Revolution,
as notably in the case of the Girondists.
No one, then, at this period, was dreaming of
Americanising France, or of constituting it as a federal
1 Mounier, in his Considerations sur le gouvernement (1789), p. 18, has
well explained these differences, and states why the French of that
period had no thought of establishing the American system in France.
However, the same M. Mounier, in 1792, in his Recherches sur les
causes quiont empeche les Francais de devenir libres, vol. i. p. 260, speaks of
a party which " regarded the federative republics of America as the
best model," and which would, " if it were impossible to suppress
royalty, render it useless, in order thus to prepare for its destruction."
He pretends that this party had a secret committee and carried on
secret correspondence, but he adds that he was totally unaware of its
existence before the meeting of the Estates General.
2 They also expelled the royalist party ; perhaps 80,000 persons out
of two millions of inhabitants.
THE EXAMPLE OF AMERICA 117
republic. But since the American War there had
existed a general admiration for American institutions,
which undoubtedly issued from English thought, de-
riving from Locke and the Republicans of 1 648, yet
which, by their form and character, might have been
the offspring of the French school of thought. The
republic from which (says d'Argenson) all the good
must be taken in order to infuse it into the Monarchy
is no longer a chimera ; it exists in the New World ;
Frenchmen have given their blood that it may live ;
it is the friend and ally of France. If it be impossible
to introduce this republic in France, at least all such
of its characteristics may be adopted as are compatible
with the history and the present situation of the country.
When the Constituent Assembly decided to make a
Declaration of Rights, it declared, through the medium
of the Archbishop of Bordeaux, reporter of the Com-
mittee of Constitution (July 27, 1789), that in this
it would follow the example of America : " This noble
idea, conceived in another hemisphere, should, by
preference, be transplanted among us at once. We
have co-operated in the events which have established
liberty in North America ; she shows us on what
principles we should base the conservation of our own ;
and the New World, into which hitherto we have borne
only a sword, teaches us to-day to guard ourselves
from the danger of carrying it to our own hurt." We
might say that we see, in the mind's eye, floating
over the edifice raised by the Constituent Assembly,
the American and the British colours side by side.1
1 Chateaubriand (Memoires d 'outre-tomb e, vol. i. p. 295), speaking of
French society in 1789-90, says: "Near a man in a French suit of
clothes, with powdered head, a sword at his side, a hat under his arm,
shod in pumps and silken stockings, walked a man with hair cut close
and without powder, wearing an English coat and an American
cravat."
118 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
VI.
We see that all these various influences, at home
and abroad, provoked a tide of opinion in favour not
of a republic, but of a republican monarchy, accord-
ing to the ideas and formulae of Mably.
And these monarchical republicans, were they demo-
crats? Did they believe that the people as a whole
should or could be called upon to govern themselves,
through those whom they themselves should elect and
give their mandate?
No. It seemed to them that the populace was
still too ignorant to be called as a whole into political
life.
There were schools, there were instructors. . . . But
did the clergy, who were the dispensers of education,
give a sufficient education to all classes of the people?
Facts prove that the people, above all the rural masses,
were grossly ignorant.1 If we cannot collect any general
statistics of literacy and illiteracy in France on the
eve of the Revolution, partial statistics are to be found
in certain cahiers and documents referring to elections.
In the bailiwick of Nemours, the parish of Chavannes
boasted of 47 primary electors, of whom as follows :
10 signed their names and 37 niade a cross, giving
79 per cent, of illiterates. In the seneschalry of
Draguignan, at Fayose, out of 460 electors, 89 only
could sign their names ; at Verigny, only 14 out of 66,
and the first and second consul were among those who
could not sign.2 Let us pass to the West of France.
At Taillebourg the sub -delegate states that there are
not more than three persons able to read and write.2
1 See p. 31 of this volume.
2 See Mireur, Cahier des dolcances des communeautes de la senechaussee
de Draguignan (Draguignan, 1889, i2mo).
3 Tholin, Cahiers d'Agen, p. 126. See Champion, La France d'apres les
cahiers, p. 209.
EDUCATION AND RELIGION 119
Even the deputies sent to the bailiwick assemblies by
the parish assemblies cannot all read and write ; the
election papers often prove this — for example, at
Clermont-Ferrand.1
The clergy themselves admit that primary instruc-
tion is lacking throughout a great part of the
kingdom. The cahier of the clergy of Gex regrets
that , " there should be no small schools in the
villages ; they are to be found scarcely anywhere."
The clergy of Dax say : " The country districts are
destitute of any means for the instruction of youth." 2
We see that ignorance before the Revolution was far
grosser than to-day, and that the illiterate mass
seemed inert and insensible to the philosophical
propaganda.
While Voltaire was dechristianising a large part of
polite society, the people, even in Paris, were still
extremely pious. In February, 1766, Louis XV, un-
popular as he was, was loudly acclaimed because he
knelt, on the Pont-Neuf, before the Holy Sacrament.
The thinking classes treated the people as weaker
brethren, and, as a rule, did not seek to make reason
accessible to them. They seemed to hold the opinion
that a religion was necessary for the people, especially if
they were to be kept from revolting, and so troubling
the meditations of wise men. Irreligion should be the
privilege of the middle classes and the nobles ■ it
should not be allowed to spread to the country
districts. Buffon, at Montbard, went conspicuously to
Mass, and required his guests to do the same .3
These fine spirits not seldom allow their contempt
for the masses to appear.
But let us consider those who pass for democrats.
1 Champion, La France d'apres les cahiers, p. 209.
a Champion, ibid.
3 Herault de Sechelles, Voyage a Montbard, edited by Aulard, Paris,
1890, 8vo, pp. 28, 29.
120 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
Mably does not consider it easy " to form a reasonable
society out of the omnium-gatherum of blockheads,
fools, and absurd and infuriated persons who must of
necessity enter into its composition." He speaks with
disgust of the class of citizens, who doubtless are in
the majority, who are incapable of raising the level of
their thoughts above their senses ; to them the most
craven party necessarily appears the wisest.
Condorcet rails against the ferocity and ignorance
of the populace. He bemoans the fact that the popu-
lace of the capital should possess any influence.1 But
he at least has hopes, or seems to hope, that the
populace may be transformed into a people by
education. (
La Fayette, in his correspondence, speaks with hatred
and contempt of " the mocking insolence of the people
of the cities, always ready, to be sure, to scatter before a
detachment of the guard" (October 9, 1787). Accord-
ing to him, the people have not the least desire to die
for the cause of liberty, as in America ; they are
stupefied, enervated by poverty and ignorance.
So it seems that there are two Frances — the France
of the literate and that of the illiterate ; or rather, as
we shall see, that of the rich and that of the poor.
The one is full of pity for the other ; it dispenses
charity with a sympathy which at the same time delights
in rustic tableaux, and it is genuinely moved by social
injustice ; but its pity is often scornful, and far from
regarding the peasantry as real or possible equals.2
The nation is the France of rich or lettered men ;
opinion is the opinion of the rich or lettered. These
two Frances are practically ignorant of each other ; they
1 Guerrier, p. 83.
3 The horror with which enlightened patriots regarded the lower
classes of the people is continually evident, even after the beginning
of the Revolution. See, for instance, the Correspondance of Gaultier de
Biauzat, published by M. F. Mege, vol. ii. pp. 246, 250.
MABLY ON DEMOCRACY 121
do not touch each other, they are as if separated by
a gulf.
In proclaiming, then, the " sovereignty of the
people," men had no idea of founding a true demo-
cracy ; they had no intention of confiding the govern-
ment of the nation to what we call universal suffrage :
a thing so strange to the thinkers of the eighteenth
century that it had not, so far, even a name.1 I cannot
think of a single case of a man of the thinking classes
demanding political rights for all,2 and nearly all
thinking men expressed themselves definitely as against
such a claim.
Mably, in reference to the class which he calls " the
more numerous," writes as follows : " Admire with
me the Author of Creation, who seems to have destined
— I should say rather who has actually destined — these
dregs of humanity to serve, if I may so speak, only as
ballast to the vessel of society." He has a horror
of democracy, as we shall hear : "In a despotism or
an aristocracy there is a lack of movement ; in a demo-
cracy movement is continual, and often becomes con-
vulsive. Democracy gives us citizens ready to devote
themselves to the public welfare, it affords the mind
opportunities of heroism ; but these tides of opportunity,
instead of being controlled by rules and ideals, are
agitated by passions and prejudices. Do not expect this
populace-king to have a character : it can be only fickle
and inconsiderate. It will never be content, because
always plunged in excess. Its liberty can only be
sustained by continual revolutions. All the laws and
1 At least in France. It had been demanded, under that name, by
the English Radicals, since 1770 or thereabouts.
2 I should say, however, that in a work attributed to Condorcet {De
V influence de la Revolution d Amerique sur I' Europe, reprinted in his
(Euvres, vol. viii.) the opinion of " republican zealots," that the right to
vote is the first of all rights, is mentioned for the purpose of disagree-
ing with it. But I have nowhere found a trace of this opinion, which
was, perhaps, only expressed in conversation.
122 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
institutions which it may conceive for the purpose of
conserving its liberty are so many blunders by which it
seeks to repair other faults, and it is thus always ex-
posed to the danger of becoming the dupe of a crafty
tyrant or of succumbing to the authority of a Senate
which will establish an aristocracy." Moral : Admit to
the government of the State only men possessed of
heritable property, for they alone possess a mother-
country. «
Rousseau? He, truly, is the theorist of democracy.
But he, in the Contrat social, says that democracy can
only embrace a portion of the people. He desires to
give, or rather he sees with admiration that Geneva
does give, the preponderance to " the middle order
between the rich and the poor." 2 The rich man keeps
the law in his purse ; the poor man puts his bread
before his liberty .3 " In the greater number of States,"
he says again, " internal disorders come from a stupid
and brutalised people ; heated in the first place by
insupportable grievances, then secretly inflamed and in-
cited to mutiny by adroit marplots, invested with an
authority they seek to prolong." 4 He admires the
middle-class government of Geneva : " It is the sanest
party in the Republic, the only one of which one may
feel sure that it can never, in its conduct of affairs,
aim at any other objective than the good of all." 5
So it is impossible to put forward J. J. Rousseau
as a partisan of universal suffrage, or a democrat after
our French fashion of to-day.6
1 Guerrier, pp. 186, 189, 193.
2 Lettres de la montagne, 1st ed. vol. ii. p. 204.
3 Ibid. p. 206. Andre Chenier, in 1790 ((Euvres, p. 4), does no more
than comment on all this.
* Ibid. p. 204. s Ibid. p. 205.
6 See Champion, Esprit de la Revolution, p. 23. In 1790 Rousseau
opposed the French democrats with all his might in a remarkable
anonymous pamphlet entitled, Jean-Jacques Rousseau aristocrate
(Paris, 1790, 8vo).
CIVIC RIGHTS 123
Condorcet also would admit none but property-owners
to the rights of a citizen.1 He would, no doubt, admit
all owners of property, even the very smallest ; but
none the less he would admit owners only.2 This is
what he calls " a well-ordered democracy." 3
" For him who possesses no land whatever," says
Turgot, " the mother-country can be only a matter of
sentiment, opinion, or the happy prejudice of child-
hood.'^ He would have the village municipalities com-
posed of owners of land, the municipalities of towns
of the owners of houses. Wealth, for him, is the basis
of citizen rights ; a very rich man should have several
votes, a man of medium wealth one vote, a poorer
man a quarter or a fifth of a vote ; finally — no posses-
sions, no vote.
And in 1787, when a general application of Turgot's
plan was tried, none were admitted to the parish
assemblies who did not pay at least ten livres of
direct taxation, and none were eligible to the new
municipal assemblies who did not pay at least thirty
livres.
The well-known example of the United States had
doubtless given support to these ideas.
All the Constitutions of the thirteen American States
state, or allow it to be inferred, that no man can be
free, and consequently worthy of exercising civic rights,
unless he possess a certain degree of wealth. Thus, the
Constitution of Massachusetts states that the Senate
and the House of Representatives are to be elected
by male inhabitants, aged twenty-one years or upwards,
possessing a freehold in the Republic of three pounds
sterling of revenue, or property of some kind to the
1 (Euvres, vol. ix. p. t 19, et seq.
2 At least to the discussion of certain laws. He would apparently
admit the introduction of the poor in some matters (p. 139).
3 (Euvres, vol. ix. p. 405.
* (Euvres, vol. ii. p. 511.
124 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
value of sixty pounds sterling. We find analogous
clauses, with a higher or lower suffrage, in all the
other Constitutions.
There was prevalent, then, in 1789, a theory which
was consecrated by its application in America, that only
the more wealthy citizens should administer the State,
and enjoy political rights ; and especially should they
own a portion of the soil, since, according to the prin-
ciples of physiocracy, the soil alone is productive.
The most thoroughly democratic of theoricians go so
far as to be willing to admit, to the " nation," all
owners of property whatsoever, or even those who,
without being proprietors, earn sufficient to make them
truly free. But the poor man is excluded by all from
the class of active citizens ; he is banished from the
State politic.
When, therefore, we find writers stating that the
people is the sovereign, they are actually speaking of a
portion only of the people, the portion which owns
property, and is literate — the middle class, the bour-
geoisie. This division of the nation into two classes,
the property-owners and the proletariat, citizens active
and citizens passive, had already been established in
theory when the Constituent Assembly established it
in reality. f
Yet the same writers, who no more wish for a demo-
cracy than they do for a republic, are preparing for
the advent of democracy by the very fact of proclaim-
ing that all men have equal rights, that sovereignty
resides in the people ; 1 and this idea reaches even the
1 It must be remembered that we must guard against the mistake of
supposing that the idea of the sovereignty of the people dates from the
eighteenth century. Without going back to the writers of antiquity,
or even to St. Thomas, Bellarmin, or Suares, it was well known in the
eighteenth century that this idea had been proclaimed and applied in
the English Rebellion, and it was because they knew this, and conse-
DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLICANISM 125
submerged masses of the rural population, which they
regard as being deaf and insensible to their prophecies.
As a matter of fact, democracy will become popular
before republicanism, and the one, existing first as a
political party, will lead to the triumph of the other,
and the demands directed by democracy against the
middle classes allied with Louis XVI will end, through
universal suffrage, in the Republic.
VII.
To sum up : no one on the eve of the Revolution
had ever dreamed of the establishment of a republic
in, France : it was a form of government that seemed
impossible in a great State in course of unification.
It was through the King that men sought to establish
a free government. Men wished to organise the
monarchy, not to destroy it. No one dreamed of
calling the ignorant mass of the people to political
life ; the necessary revolution was to be brought about
by the better class of the nation, the educated, pro-
perty-owning class. It was believed that the people,
blind and inconstant as they were thought, could only
prove an instrument of reaction in the hands of the
privileged. However, the future date of democracy was
announced in the proclamation of the principle of the
sovereignty of the people : and the republic, the logical
form of democracy, was prepared by the diffusion of
republican ideas — for example, from America ; by the
sight of an impotent monarchy, and by the continual
proclamation of the necessity of a violent revolution,
which, undertaken in order to reform the monarchy, was
to expose its very existence to the dangers of a general
upheaval. The ruling classes of society were steeped
quently for historical reasons, that so many of the writers of the
eighteenth century proclaimed the sovereignty of the people.
126 IDEAS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION
in republicanism. Such a state of mind was so pre-
valent that if the King, in whom men saw the his-
torically indispensable guide to a new France, were to
fail in his mission, or discard, for example, his
authority as hereditary defender of French indepen-
dence, a republic would be accepted without dislike
and without enthusiasm, first by the better class, and
then by the mass of the nation.
CHAPTER II
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN IDEAS AT THE OUTSET
OF THE REVOLUTION
I. Convocation of the Estates-General. The Cahiers. — II. Formation
of the National Assembly. — III. The taking of the Bastille and the
municipal revolution. — IV. The Declaration of Rights. — V. Logical
consequences of the Declaration.
The first events of the Revolution did not immediately
result in the formation of a republican or a democratic
party. But, although the French were not at the time
fully conscious of the fact, these first episodes set the
nation upon a road which led inevitably to democracy
and a republic. We shall see how the nation engaged
in such a course when it was, in its own eyes, taking
the opposite course ; and first we must roughly picture
the circumstances under which the monarchy and the
bourgeoisie then existed.
I.
We have seen that in 1789 there appeared to be two
Frances ; the enlightened France and the ignorant
France, a rich France and a poor France. As for
the political rights which the publicists of the day
were demanding, it was only for the well-to-do and
the educated that these rights were claimed. Owners
of property were to be " active citizens " ; they alone
127
128 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
having the right to vote. Those without property were
to be " passive citizens.'1 In short, " the nation is the
bourgeoisie."
Between the bourgeoisie and the people there is a
gulf. The richer classes exaggerate the stupidity and
obliviousness of the people — above all, of the rural
masses. There is ill-feeling and misunderstanding be-
tween the two classes. To clear up this misunderstand-
ing will require a conference, a general meeting and
mingling of the middle classes with the people as a
whole.
Such a result will follow the convocation of the
Estates-General.1 '
At the Parish Assemblies the Third Estate is ad-
mitted almost without exception, under a slight property
restriction, to fulfil the condition of being " included
1 The Estates-General, although theoretically part of the Government
of France, were seldom convoked at any time, and had not now been
assembled since 1614.
The Estates-General was a body consisting of three bodies or
Estates : one, the representatives of the Nobles ; one, the representa-
tives of the clergy, and one, the famous Third Estate, usually larger
than the other two, the representatives of the Commons, or people.
Owing to the time which had elapsed since the Estates had met the
utmost vagueness prevailed concerning the means of election and
convocation, and their duties and powers. But it was finally decided
that they should be elected in the following manner : in the country
each 200 hearths chose two representatives, and in the towns
each 100 inhabitants. These representatives formed a primary
assembly, meeting in the chief town of each province. There they
drafted their quires, or grievances, and elected the delegates who
should proceed with them to Versailles.
The Estates had no legislative powers. They were to assemble
before the King and present their grievances : the King would make
vague promises and inform them of the subjects on which they were
to deliberate. They were then dismissed, each Estate to sit separ-
ately ; but this deliberation was actually supposed to amount to mere
obedience.
The cahiers are of great interest and importance, and are gradually
being published. — [Trans.]
THE SUFFRAGE 120
in the roll of taxpayers." > This is very nearly universal
suffrage .
Had royalty established this suffrage, so contrary to
the ideas of the century, for the very reasons that
induced the philosophers and the writers in favour of
reform to reject it? Did the King hope, in the poor
and ignorant masses, to find an element of resistance
against the new and revolutionary ideas of the middle
class? 2 I have not found any documentary evidence
1 Article 23 of the general regulation of January 24, 1789, admitted
to these assemblies " all inhabitants composing the Third Estate, born
French or naturalised, twenty-five years of age, domiciled and in-
cluded in the roll of assessments, for the purpose of co-operating in
drawing up the cahiers and nominating the deputies." In Paris, the
Government seemed a little less anxious to bestow the right of suffrage
upon the poor. The regulation of April 13, 1789, for the city of Paris,
(Article 13) enacts that, to be admitted to the Assembly of his
quarter, a man must justify his pretensions by virtue of office held,
by membership of a recognised profession, by some commission or
employment, or freedom of a guild or company, or else by a receipt
or notice of poll-tax amounting to not less than six livres in principal.
Notwithstanding this restriction, which is local and exceptional, we
hardly exaggerate in saying that almost the entire Third Estate was
called to the Parish Assemblies. In fact, if it happened that a good
many Frenchmen of the Third Estate did not appear or take
part in the electoral proceedings, such defections were the result,
as a rule, neither of the King's will, nor of the negligence of
the defaulters, but of faults in the administrative and judicial orga-
nisation ; moreover, in the chaos of the ancien regime nothing was
ever effected in a regular or uniform manner. Whatever may have
been the number of these abstentions, for the most part involuntary,
we may say that this was one of the largest, most important and im-
posing national consultations that have ever taken place in France.
2 It must be noted that Frenchmen of the Third Estate were
obliged to go and vote. Article 24 of the regulation : " Not later than
a week after the notification and publication of the letters of con-
vocation, all the inhabitants composing the Third Estate of cities,
boroughs, parishes, and country communities, having separate asses-
ment, will be required to assemble in the manner hereafter prescribed,
in order to draw up the cahier of their complaints and grievances, and
to name deputies who shall present the said cahiers at the place and on
the day which will have been indicated by the act of notification and
convocation which they will have received."
vol. i. 9
130 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
which will allow me to answer this question precisely,
but to me it does not seem impossible that the King
did have some confused idea of appealing to universal
suffrage against the opposition of the middle class, to
darkness against light.
If such a calculation did really exist, it was dis-
proved by the event.
To be sure, the cahiers are more timid than the
books and pamphlets of the time ; but as a general
thing they demand a Constitution, and a Constitution
is the end of absolutism — it is, to some extent, the
Revolution.
Moreover, there are cahiers which are bold in the
extreme.
However, neither the hopes of royalty nor the fears
of the bourgeoisie were realised — supposing that such
hopes and fears existed.
In any case, we must note how the misunderstanding
between the bourgeoisie and the people was dissipated
or diminished on the occasion of convocation and the
drawing up of the cahiers.
Collaboration took place between the bourgeoisie
and the people in the drafting of the cahiers of the
first degree, or the parish cahiers; and in general
we must not, in the case of rural communities, regard
these cahiers as the personal work of peasants. It
was usually a man of the middle classes who held the
pen, and in most localities, even in the most rustic,
there were a few educated men. The majority of the
parish cahiers that we possess testify to a considerable
amount of culture — a culture higher than that of the
provincial middle classes of to-day.
If the cahier is not dictated by peasants, it is at
least read to and approved by them. There is an
assembly at which peasants and middle classes mingle
together, chat with one another, and publicly discuss
and debate. It is the first time such a colloquy has
PEASANT AND BOURGEOIS 131
taken place ; the occasion is a fraternal one, and the
classes are quickly in agreement. The middle-class
man sees that the peasant is more intelligent or less
imbecile than he had supposed ; that — by what obscure
channels who knows? — the spirit of the times has
touched him. The peasants, once they have met to-
gether, soon rise to the idea of a common interest ;
they have the sense that they are many and powerful,
and they obtain, from the middle classes, a percep-
tion of their rights. For them this Parish Assembly
is a civic apprenticeship.1
We must not picture the whole peasantry rising
at once to the revolutionary idea of the mother-
country. But they take the Convocation seriously ;
they feel that it will bring about an event which
will be beneficial to themselves, and they conceive
an image of the King, an image which is a reflec-
tion of the idea of country. To them, it appears
in deadly earnest that the King is going to concern
himself with the cure of the ills which afflict them ;
it is in earnest that they recount these ills, or, rather,
accept the account of them that the gentlemen of the
village write for them ; and when they sign with a
cross at the bottom of the document, they have no
fear that this cross will subject them to surcharges
of taxation and the nuisance of collectors. By no
means ; their signature is an act of confidence and
hope.
We have here no longer the vile populace, slighted
and feared by Mably, Rousseau, and Condorcet. But
it is not as yet the sovereign people. They are men
who at last are counting on being treated as men ;
1 It is the same with the workers of the cities. Etienne Dumont,
passing through Montreuil-sur-Mer at the time of the assembly of this
town, pedantically criticises the inexperience of the inhabitants, but
sees in these assemblies " the first-fruits of democracy " (Souvenirs
sur Mirabeau, published 1832, but compiled in 1799)
132 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
almost candidates for the dignity of citizen ; and who,
to-morrow, by an electric impulse issuing, at the fall of
the Bastille, from Paris, will feel themselves animated
by an impetus of union and agglomeration from which
will issue the new nation, the new France.
Let us repeat that the middle classes also have found
somewhat to learn at these assemblies — namely, to be
less scornful of the poor and the ignorant. It is true
that men will still declaim against the populace, and
the middle class will even establish itself as a caste
politically privileged. But enlightened Frenchmen will
n,o longer, after this royal experiment in universal
suffrage, be unanimous in declaring the unlettered to
be incapable of exercising political rights. A demo-
cratic party is about to declare itself, and will soon
be fully formed. The method of convening the Third
Estate at the Estates-General allows us almost to fore-
tell the advent of universal suffrage, and, as a conse-
quence, the establishment of the Republic, the national
form of Democracy.
II.
If the King had hoped that the deputies of the
Third Estate, elected by the universal suffrage of the
ignorant, would not dare to undertake any serious
attacks upon despotism, he was very quickly un-
deceived.
The Court, no doubt, believed that these delegates,
elected by so many different peoples, bearers of vague
or discordant mandates, and often instructed to pro-
cure the preservation of local privileges, whether of
country or town, would be hopelessly divided by their
particularist tendencies — that, for example, between
these Provengals and those Bretons, this southern and
that western people, there would be rivalries and
DIVISION IN THE ESTATES 133
quarrels. And the cahiers lead us to expect such
dissensions .
It so fell out, on the contrary, that once met to-
gether in a single chamber at Versailles, during the
long period of marking time which lasted from May 5,
1789, until the middle days of June, there sprang up
among these deputies of the Third Estate a sense of
solidarity. Better than this : in looking at one another,
speaking one with the other, touching hands, these
delegates of the different peoples of France began to
feel that they were citizens of a single nation, French-
men before all else, and they give voice to this feel-
ing, and men perceive it at work, and the sentiment
of a united patriotism begins to spread through France.
This nation, suddenly brought to birth in the Salle
des Menus, is one, and its desire also is one — to govern
itself.
The King felt himself threatened, in so far as he
was King according to the ancien regime . The nobility
and the higher clergy felt the threat also, for they
held their privileges according to the ancien regime.
The nobles and the Crown, formerly enemies, effected
an immediate reconciliation, without preface, without
phrases, without reason given. The common danger
brought them together. An intelligent King who had
inherited the spirit of Henri IV had evaded the perilous
embraces of his " faithful nobles," instantly making
the necessary concessions to his " faithful commons,"
and had remained King after the new fashion ; King,
it is true, in another sense, but King nevertheless, and
a King even more powerful than ever before, supported
as he would have been by the people which was the
nation. Louis XVI was drawn by the Court into an
alliance with the old state of things, an alliance which
was to end in the overthrow of royalty.
At the very outset he had, by a humiliating cere-
mony, wounded the Third Estate, who came to him
full of affection.
134 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
By his very first words, on the other hand, he con-
tradicted himself, and denied his promises of reform ;
denied the royal programme contained in the Report
of Council of December 27, 1788, in which he had
approved of the views and principles of the Report
of Necker — that is to say, a complete revolution, pacific
and controlled, which, had it taken place in time,
would have prevented a violent and perilous revolt.1
This, officially, was the opinion and the policy of
the King. In reality he had no opinion, no programme.
He allowed promises to be wrested from him because
he needed money, and because Necker, in that matter,
was the indispensable, influential man.
This absolute King has neither initiative nor effec-
tive power. Men harass him, wring concessions from
him ; Parliament, Necker, the Court, press upon him
in turn. He contradicts himself incessantly, breaking
his engagements under the stress of the moment.
Every one is aware of this ; sensible folk do not
regard his promises seriously. He seems to have no
personal, individual existence. It is on this very im-
personality of the King that the partisans of the Revolu-
tion found their hopes ; they think that in order to
succeed they have only to advise the King with
consistency and overwhelming insistence.
Reasonable, this ; but there are permanent council-
lors who cannot be removed — the Queen and the
Comte d'Artois, the Royal Family, the Court. Always
at hand, the permanent influence is theirs, and it is
retrograde. The King, who agrees with no one, feels
entirely at one with them. His instincts are kindly,
but he is, in his own way, as jealous of his absolute
power as was ever Louis XIV. At heart, he wishes
to maintain royalty by Divine right precisely as it is,
and he is as great an absolutist as he is a pietist.
1 See my study on the Programme royal aux elections de 178Q, in my
Eludes etlecons sur la Revolution francaise, first series, pp. 41-54.
THE KING SPEAKS 135
But there is no visible sign of this policy of conserva-
tion. He dodges, manoeuvres, shilly-shallies, from day
to day. He is a hypocrite because he is weak. Mallet
du Pan, as early as December, 1787, wrote in ,his
private diary :
" From one day to the next they change their ideas and systems
of politics at Versailles. No rules, no principles. The sun never rises
three days at Versailles to shine on the same intention. The un-
certainty of weakness and total incapacity."1
The promises of the Report of Council had a very
definite air. They were rendered from the first un-
realisable, by the care which was taken to decide
nothing definite as to the manner in which the Estates-
General should deliberate. Although in the Provincial
Assemblies the deputies voted per head, this method
of voting was not prescribed for the National Assembly,
yet no other was prescribed. The Estates will decide.
Or rather, they will not decide ; they will quarrel
over the matter, and their lack of harmony will anni-
hilate them. Yes ; but in this case there will be no
subsidies, and it was to obtain these that the Estates
were convoked. What then? What was desired it is
impossible to say ; perhaps it was not known ; perhaps
they counted on chance.
Then, in the opening session of May 5, 1789, when
there is an opportunity of striking an important blow,
of assuming the direction of men's minds and of wants
— of orientating the course of evolution, as we should
say — the King no longer speaks of his promises of
reform, but of his rights. He declares that he com-
mands the nation, that he will maintain intact his
authority and the principles of the monarchy. He
wishes for the welfare of his subjects, but the latter
need hope for nothing but sentiments. It was thus
1 Mallet du Pan, Memoires, ed. Sayons, vol. i. p. 136.
136 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
that recently, when the Parliament said Justice, he
replied, Mercy.
And the Estates had the pleasure of hearing a
diffuse and tedious Report of Necker's, from which
the Court had forced him to discard the essentials of
the programme of December 27th.
Then commenced those long preparatory speeches
between the three Orders, on the question of voting
per head, with reference to the verification of their
powers. We know how the Third grew bolder, feeling
that it was the Nation ; while the Nobles girded them-
selves for the defence of their privileges and of the
Clergy ; the majority of the cures and several bishops
made common cause with the Third Estate.
On June 1 7th the Third Estate declared itself the
National Assembly. Since we are recounting the
origins of the Republic, we must here recall the un-
consciously republican manner in which this Assembly
immediately performed an act of sovereignty in the
name of the Nation. It consented provisionally that
the imposts and " contributions," however illegally
established and collected, should continue to be raised
in the same manner as before, but this only until
the day when the Assembly should separate. Then
it announced its intention of dealing with the question
of finances, but only after it should, in concert with
his Majesty, have fixed the principles of the national
regeneration. And setting to work at once, it named,
on the 19th, four Committees.
Whatever might be thought of the insolence of these
words, hear and enact, nothing should have pre-
vented the King, who had heard many insolent words,
from accepting the accomplished fact and turning it
to his profit, by ordering the two privileged Orders
from henceforward to join the National Assembly. It
was to the interest of the King, who would thus become
the director and regulator of the new order of things,
KING AND NOBLES 137
to shake off the aristocracy, his historic enemy, and
to procure himself, along with an enormous popularity,
the means of being a free and active King, in place
of remaining the oppressed and impotent monarch that
he had hitherto been.
But, despite all this, following on the day of
June 1 7th, there was sealed the unexpected, and, if
we may say so, the anti-historic alliance of the King
and the Nobles. The retreat of Louis XVI at Marly,
after the death of the Dauphin, had delivered him
over absolutely to the influence of the Queen and
the Comte d'Artois. He yielded to the supplications
of the Nobles, and also (we know how great was his
piety) to those of the Archbishop of Paris, and decided
to resist the Third Estate, to annul the resolution of
the 17th, and to order the separation of the Orders
in the Estates-General.
A Royal Session was announced ; but instead of
prompt action there was delay. The Hall of the Third
Estate was closed for the preparations for the Session.
This led to the Oath of the Tennis Court « (June 20th),
which apparently was refused by none of the twenty-
four deputies 2 who had voted against the resolution
of June 1 7th — an oath of resistance, an oath to
create a Constitution in spite of all. 3 And on the
1 On Saturday morning, June 20th, the National Assembly, upon
arriving at the Salle des Menus, found it in the hands of the carpenters,
who were at work on a platform for the Royal Session. Guards
(Gardes Francaises) were at the door. Admission was refused, save
to bring away papers.
The indignant deputies discussed the matter in the rain. Some
suggested assembling at Marly, under the King's window ; but word
came that the President had gone to the tennis-court of the rue Saint-
Francois. Thither the Assembly followed. It was an ordinary open
tennis-court, having four walls and covered galleries, which were filled
with spectators ; even the surrounding housetops were covered. —
[Trans.]
2 We have no list of these deputies.
3 See, in my Etudes et Icgons sur la Revolution, first series, pp. 57-70,
138 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
22nd the majority of the Clergy joined the Third
Estate.
The Royal Session took place on the 23rd. The
King made important concessions, which, before his
alliance with the Nobles, would perhaps have been
welcomed with enthusiasm. But he speaks as an
absolute monarch giving orders, annuls the edict of
the 17th, and forbids the three Orders to vote per
head, except on insignificant matters. Finally he bids
the deputies separate at once, in separate Orders.
Will the King be obeyed? Here is a portentous
moment ! But men had by now formed quite a habit
of disobeying the King ; and the " beds of justice "
had not overcome the resistance of the Parliaments.1
Men knew by experience that a " No," if spoken
firmly enough, would make the King retreat ; his defeat
of 1788 was in the memory of all. Were the repre-
sentatives of the Nation to show less energy than
the councillors of the Parliament? Hence the speech
of Mirabeau — the "bayonet speech"; — hence the
unanimous declaration of the Assembly that it will
persist in its suppressed precedents, and the decree
making inviolable the persons of the deputies.
What was the King to do? He had given his orders
in such a tone that it seemed he could do nothing
but order out his troops. He does nothing at all.
The Abbe Jallet tells us that on being notified of
the article on the pact of the Jen, de Paume. Undoubtedly the
deputies of the Third Estate had no thought, in this affair, of destroy-
ing the monarchy. But later, when circumstances had led to its
destruction, they were regarded as the precursors of the republic.
In the Report which he made to the convention, Brumaire 7, year II,
advising them to buy the Maison du Jeu de Paume, Marie-Joseph
Chenier says that taking this oath these first representatives of the
people's will " decreed the republic from afar " (Monitenr, reprint,
vol. xviii. p. 284).
1 Etienne Dumont (p. 96) notes the influence of the example set by
the Parliament.
LOUIS LOSES HIS CHANCE 139
the attitude of the Assembly, he cried, " Oh, well,
confound it, let them stick where they are ! " *
Four days later, on June 27th, he commanded the
Nobles to rejoin the National Assembly, and thus him-
self solemnly consecrated the decree of June 17th,
which he had solemnly annulled on the 23rd.
In this manner he proclaimed himself defeated in
a most undignified manner, and put himself in the
train of the Revolution of which he might have been
the leader. The shrewder minds saw plainly from
that moment what a mortal blow royalty had received.
Etienne Dumont heard Mirabeau exclaim1 : " This is
how kings are led to the scaffold ! " And, according
to Malouet,2 Mirabeau already foresaw " the invasion
of the democracy " — that is to say, the Republic.
III.
The decree of June 27th was regarded, not as a
rupture of the alliance between the King and the
Nobles, but as an expedient, a forced concession, a
means of marking time. There was an appearance
of surrender ; but troops were recalled from the
frontiers.
The deputies hastened to fulfil their functions. They
considered they had received from their constituents an
imperative mandate to the effect that they should not
grant a penny of subsidy until they had established a
Constitution.2 No later than July 6th they nominated
a Committee of Constitution (of thirty members). On
the 9th, in the name of this Committee, Mounier brought
1 "Eh Men, f , qu'ils restent !" (Journal, p. 99).
2 Report by Mounier, July 9, 1789, p. 7 (included in the Prods-verbal,
vol. i) : " Our constituents have forbidden us to grant subsidies before
the establishment of the Constitution. We shall therefore obey the
nation and occupy ourselves unceasingly with this important work."
140 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
forward a draft proposal, divided into clauses, in which
he undertook to define precisely the rights of the nation
and those of the King ; firstly, by a Declaration of
Rights (of which La Fayette, in his own name, pre-
sented a first draft on the iith) ; and, secondly, by
an exposition of " the constitutional principles of
the monarchy."
The Court, on their side, hastened to prepare for
the coup d'etat, with a view to dissolving the National
Assembly. An army of foreign mercenaries, with
ample artillery, blockaded the Assembly, cutting it off
from Paris.
The Assembly, on July 8th and 9th, demands
that the King shall dismiss the troops.
The King refuses, haughtily (July 11th), and
ironically proposes to the Assembly that it should be
transferred to Noyon or to Soissons ; then, throwing
off the mask, dismisses Necker and forms a Ministry
by a coup d'etat.
The Assembly takes up an excellent position, de-
claring that the dismissed ministers take with them
its esteem and regrets ; " that the ministers and the
civil and military agents of authority are responsible
for any undertaking contrary to the rights of the nation
and the decrees of this Assembly "fj thus placing the
responsibility on the King's present ministers and
councillors, " no matter of what rank they may be "-;
and it further proclaims that it insists upon the decrees
of June 17th, 20th, and 23rd, and demands once more
the dismissal of the troops.
War is declared. On the one hand is the King,
resting on his privileges"; on the other, the National
Assembly, which represents the nation. In this duel
between Might and Right, or, if it be preferred,
between the Past and the Future, between the politics
of the status quo and the politics of progress and evolu-
tion, the cause of the Right seems defeated in advance.
THE ASSEMBLY IN DANGER 141
The King has only to give the word to the foreign
mercenaries, to imprison the heads of the Assembly,
and to send the others home to their provinces. What
resistance could the members have offered? A Roman
attitude, a historic phrase, had been powerless to turn
aside a bayonet.
But the dispersal of the Assembly would not have
met with the approval of France, and this approval
was indispensable if Royalty were to obtain the money
which it had not, and without which it could not exist.
The King would have been compelled, later on, to con-
voke another Estates-General. But in the meantime
the old state of things continued ; the Revolution was
adjourned.
A kind of miracle was required before the National
Assembly could extricate itself from this dangerous
position ; an army was needed to oppose the army of
the King.
This miracle, we know, took place, in the shape of
the spontaneous intervention of Paris.
The Court was scarcely on its guard against Paris,
since it had convoked the Assembly in the nearest
town. Paris, which lived on the luxury of the ancien
regime — was Paris, thought the Court, likely to rise
in aid of a revolution that might perhaps be its ruin?
And if there were an insurrection, would it be serious?
What could be hoped or feared from this insolent
populace, ready, so they said, to scatter in flight before
a handful of halberdiers, a populace despised by the
very philosophers? The agitators of the Palais Royal,1
1 A large, enclosed garden was attached to the Orleans palace. In
the surrounding wings were cafes, a book-shop, an image-seller's, &c.
The Due made great alterations in this garden. It was formerly
well timbered, full of avenues and shrubberies, which at night were
the resort of women of ill-fame ; the trees were in great part cut down ;
parterres of flowers were planted ; a cannon fired by the sun, numerous
fountains, and so forth, were introduced ; finally a large wooden shed
142 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
the hare-brained, bawling, unarmed mobs — how should
such as these drive back the seasoned Royal troops?
To the wits of the Court, Paris appeared, as we have
said, as a negligible quantity.
Ah, well ! Paris rose as one man[; armed herself ;
took the Bastille'; threw up breastworks ; formed an
armed camp, an insurgent commune; and the King
was beaten, and forced to make submission ; if not
sincere, at least complete. The whole history of
France was changed by the intervention of Paris —
Paris, followed by the whole of France.
I need not here relate in detail the story of the
Revolution (municipal in form) which the taking of
the Bastille brought about, in July and August, 1789,
first in the cities and then in the country.1 I will
only point out that it was a capital factor among the
factors which prepared the advent of democracy and
the Republic.
It is true that the municipal revolution is not
effected to the sound of " Long live the Republic ! "
No such cry is heard, either in Paris or in the
provinces. On the contrary, the cry that is often
heard is " Long live the King ! " even when the
peasants are attacking the chateaux.2 Everywhere
with platform was built for the use of popular orators. Here all the
minor journalists, free-lances, and idlers of Paris congregated ; it was
the people's Parliament. Here Desmoulins instituted the green
cockade on July 12th, using the leaves from the trees, when the busts
of Orleans and Necker were borne in procession through the streets.
— [Trans.]
1 I have given a brief sketch of the matter in vol. viii of the
Histoire generate, published under the direction of MM. Lavisse and
Rambaud.
2 There was no desire even for a change of monarchs. Although busts
of the Duke of Orleans were carried through Paris on the eve of the
taking of the Bastille, I do not find that any agitator had proposed to
set this prince on the throne. In 1821 Chateaubriand wrote in his
Memoir es d'outre-tombe that in Paris, on July 14, 1789, men were shout-
ing : " Long live Louis the Seventeenth ! " Has not his memory,
THE ASSEMBLY SOVEREIGN 143
it is believed that the King will profit by the down-
fall of " feudal despotism," the scourge of the
country districts, and of " ministerial despotism," the
scourge of the cities. The masses are unaware that
the King has betrayed the " nation " for the sake of
the alliance with the Nobles, and the educated classes,
who are not unaware of the fact, remain royalists
nevertheless. The King is still, in the eyes of all
men, the personification of the nation into which the
thirty thousand communes are incorporated. But in
reality the King is not the director of this movement ;
it takes place irrespective of the King. What could
be more essentially republican than the act of this
nation, which, having turned the old state of things
upside down, sets to work at governing itself, the whole
nation up and in arms?
The situation has changed indeed. In place of an
Assembly blockaded by an army of mercenaries, an
Assembly protected by millions of armed Frenchmen I
Yesterday its tone was one of mournful dignity and
a kind of hopeless courage. To-day it speaks as a
sovereign body-; its acts are sovereign ; it forms a
Committee of Inquiry and a Committee of Reports,
which are, as it were, rough drafts of the Committees
of Public Welfare and of General Security. Even the
idea of the Revolutionary Tribunal is already apparent
in the proposal to form a tribunal for judging crimes
against the nation, which in the meantime the Assembly
itself will judge.
The old privileged institutions all bow before the
majesty of the new sovereign : the Parliament of Paris,
the Court of Accounts, the Chambers of Excise, the
University — all defile before the Bar of the Assembly,
exact as it usually was, in this case deceived him ? His testimony
is uncorroborated ; his voice is isolated and without echo. These are
his words : " They were shouting : ' Long live Necker ! Long live the
Duke of Orleans!' and among these cries one heard one bolder and
more startling : 'Long live Louis the Seventeenth !'"
144 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
bringing, as it were, the homage of the Past. And
the cities of France come also to bring the homage
of the Future.
Despite all this, would the Assembly have dared or
desired to make a clean sweep of the old rule? Such
a course was contrary to the views of the philosophers,
all of whom had disapproved of a radical revolution.
The Assembly even debated the question of taking
measures of repression against the partial insurrec-
tions which it heard had broken out here and there,
when it learned that these insurrections were all along
the line victorious, and that the feudal system had fallen
to the ground.
Then the tide of enthusiasm and revolt, which, coming
first from Paris, had swept all France, broke on the
Assembly itself; ; and on the night of August 4, 1789,
ratifying the accomplished fact, it declared the feudal
system abolished.
And the nation which had done these things, the
nation of whom the Assembly was no more than the
interpreter, was still, as Gregoire had stated at the
session of July 14th, the " idolater of its King." And
the members had no more idea of destroying royalty
after the municipal revolution than they had had before
it. The declarations of August 4th proclaimed
Louis XVI the restorer of French liberty.1
1 Even those who were aware of the unwillingness and hesitations
of Louis XVI still had hopes of changing his heart by force of
affection, and even thought they had succeeded, as was shown by the
"general joy" which broke out in the Assembly a few hours before it
made the famous declarations of August 4th, when it heard read this
letter of the King: "August 4, 1789. I believe, Gentlemen, that I am
responding to the sentiments of confidence which ought to be supreme
between us, in apprising you directly of the manner in which I have
just filled the vacant places in my Ministry. I give the seals to
Monseigneur the Archbishop of Bordeaux, the portfolio of Benefices
to Monseigneur the Archbishop of Vienne, and the Department of
War to M. de La Tour-du-Pin Paulin, and I call into my council M. the
THE MUNICIPAL REVOLUTION 145
Another proclamation, that of August ioth, conse-
crated the municipal revolution, and submitted the royal
power to a new and serious check, breaking the very
sword of the King. The Assembly decided, among
other matters :
" That the soldiers shall swear, in the presence of the entire regi-
ment under arms, never to abandon their colours, and to be faithful to
the Nation, the King, and the Law ;
" That the officers shall swear, before the municipal authorities, in
the presence of their troops, to remain faithful to the Nation, the King,
and the Law, and never to employ those who shall be under their
orders against the citizens, except at the requisition of the civil and
municipal authorities, which requisition shall always be read to the
assembled troops." *
IV.
Such were the principal events which, at the outset
of the Revolution, caused the supreme power to slip
from the hands of the King into those of the nation ;
and which, through the municipal revolution, estab-
lished in France a republican condition of things :
not thirty thousand independent republics, not an
anarchy, but thirty thousand communes, united to form
a nation under the actual sovereignty of the French
people : in other words, a kind of united republic in
process of formation, in which the King would no
longer have more than a nominal authority.
The Constituent Assembly had partially ratified this
state of things by the declarations of August 4th and
Marshal de Beaveau. The selections which I make from your Assembly,
announce my desire of maintaining between us the most friendly and
confident harmony. (Signed) Louis" {Point du Jour, vol. ii. pp. 23, 24).
1 The wording of this decree was slightly modified on August 13th,
but without altering either the sense or the substance. It received the
greatest publicity. The Assembly charged the cures to make it known
to their parishioners, and to ensure its execution by their words and
their powers of influence.
VOL. I. 10
146 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
ioth. It ratified it also by the Declaration of
Rights"; then modified it, in a conservative, or rather
reactionary, manner, by organising the monarchy and
by establishing the bourgeoisie as a politically privi-
leged class.
We will first examine the Declaration of Rights,
which is the most remarkable fact in the history of the
growth of democratic and republican ideas.
A new Committee of Constitution of eight members
was nominated on July 14th. It made its first two
reports on July 27th and 28th, through the medium
of Champion de Cice and Mounier. The public debate
began on August 1st, the question being whether or
no a Declaration should precede the Constitution. Here
we may usefully recall the fact that every one was
unanimously agreed that the way must be cleared by
a " declaration of rights of man and citizen." This
was a matter of proclaiming, in the French tongue,
the same principles that the Anglo-Americans had
proclaimed.
No one, or scarcely a soul, contested the truth of
these principles, in favour of which there was a wide
and profound current of opinion.
It was by no means by a piece of puerile pedantry
that the Committee of Constitution proposed to inscribe
these principles before the Constitution. It was a
political move and an act of war. To proclaim them
at this moment was to settle the principles from which
the Constitution should issue. It was to strike the
supreme blow at absolute power. It was to consecrate,
to ratify the Revolution.
Nor was it only in puerile pedantry that a few de-
fenders of the royal authority proposed an adjournment ;
they knew that the American Revolution had begun in
this manner, and that the Revolution had ended by the
Americans ridding themselves of their King.
Was the sovereignty to pass from the King to the
THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 147
people by law, as it had done in fact? This was the
burning question of the moment ; it was, indeed, the
question of the whole Revolution.
The royalist drafters of the Declaration were in no
way dismayed by the republican character of the
Declaration. One of the reporters of the Committee
of Constitution took care to point out that it was an
imitation of the American Declaration ; > he was the
Archbishop of Bordeaux. Did he, personally, approve
of the basis of the Declaration — a basis not merely
republican, but philosophical, rationalistic? Yes ; since
in his report he says : " The members of your Com-
mittee are all taken up with this important Declara-
tion of Rights. Essentially, they scarcely differ ;
superficially, they differ considerably."
We must understand, however, that even if all were
agreed to accept, or, at least, not to contest, the prin-
ciples of the Declaration, some would certainly inquire,
above all at the outset, while they were not completely
certain that the municipal revolution had triumphed
through all the land, whether it were prudent to pro-
claim these principles as a body of doctrine. The
opinion of the Assembly was at first uncertain in this
respect; and the discussions in the committee-rooms
and corners would have led one even to foresee a
decision in the negative. Gaultier de Biauzat wrote
to his constituents, on July 29th : " We decided, in
my study, this evening, that it would be useless and
dangerous to insert a Declaration of the Rights of
Man in a Constitution." 2 And Barere, at first himself
undecided, printed in his paper, the Point da Jour:
' The first day of the debates it appeared doubtful
if they would adopt even the idea of a Declaration
of Rights separate from the Constitution." 3
1 As to the American opinion of the movement see the Point du
Jour, vol. ii. pp. 9 and 15.
8 Correspondance, edited by Fr. Mege, vol. ii. p. 214.
3 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 20.
148 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
Many of the bourgeoisie, then on the eve of granting
themselves political privileges, hesitated to proclaim the
rights of the proletariat. They did not contest these
rights-'; they did think it imprudent to shout them in
the ears of the proletariat, for the reason that they were
willing only for the partial application of these rights,
reserving the political exercise of them for themselves.
It was the nobles who carried the Assembly with
them, the young and enthusiastic nobles. The Comte
de Montmorency says (August i, 1 7 59) :
"... The object of every political constitution, as of all social
unions, can only be the conservation of the rights of the man and the
citizen. The representatives of the people owe to themselves that
they may more clearly perceive their path ; they owe to their con-
stituents, who must know and judge their motives; their successors,
who will enjoy the results of their work while perfecting it, and other
nations, who can appreciate their example, and use it to their own
advantage ; they owe, finally, to their native land, as an indispensable
preliminary of the Constitution, a Declaration of the Rights of the Man
and the Citizen. It is a truth in support of which the thought of
America immediately presents itself. . . ." x
The Comte de Castellane sees in the Declaration
the true weapon to be used against the royal caprices
and the system of lettres de cachet:
" Gentlemen, we cannot doubt that this detestable invention has
come into being solely through the state of ignorance in which the
people are plunged concerning their rights. We know they have
never sanctioned such a thing. Never have the French run mad all at
the same time and said to their King: 'We give you an arbitrary
power over our persons ; we wish to be free only till the moment it
suits you to make slaves of us, and our children too shall be slaves of
your children ; you may, at your will, tear us from our families, immure
us in your prisons, where we shall be confided to the care of a jailer
chosen by you, who, mighty in his infamy, will himself be above the
reach of the law. If despair, or the interest of your mistress, or one of
your favourites, turns this abode of horror into our tomb, no one will
hear our dying voice ; your will, actual or supposed, will have rendered
all just: you alone will be our accuser, our judge, and executioner.'"
' Courrier de Provence, xxii. p. 12.
THE DECLARATION CRITICISED 149
Laws against despotism can only be enforced by the
people. Therefore the rights of the people must be
proclaimed. If the objection be raised that " at this
very moment the multitude is committing excesses,"
Castellane replies " that the best means of arresting
licence is to lay the foundations of liberty."
Republican language indeed ! And we must not
suppose that such deputies as were hostile to a
Declaration spoke in a different tone ; for the Bishop
of Langres went so far as to say that the subject of
a monarchy and the citizen of a republic had the
same rights.1
And the adversaries of any Declaration whatever :
what were they saying? Let us see how the Courrier
de Provence sums up their opinion : 2
" Messieurs Creniere and Grandin, the Due de Levis, and the Bishop
of Langres have strongly insisted on the inconveniences which would,
according to them, follow an exposition of the rights of the man and
the citizen in a monarchy, in which the present state of things is so
often in direct opposition to such rights that the people might abuse
them. Here is a curtain which it would be imprudent to raise of a
sudden. Here is a secret which must be kept from the people, until a
good Constitution shall have altered their condition so that they may
understand without danger. A wise man does not awaken a sleep-
walker who is passing between two precipices, for instead of saving he
would risk destroying him. These gentlemen have not expressed
themselves in these words ; but we give the sense of such objections as
have struck us," &c.3
And Malouet says/ during the session of August 3rd :
" Why transport a man to the summit of a mountain, there to show
him all the kingdom of his rights, when we are obliged, afterwards, to
1 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 4.
2 Courrier de Provence, No. xxii. p. 22.
3 This is fundamentally the opinion of Mirabeau, although his journal
joins the chorus of the supporters of a Declaration.
* Lucas-Montigny, Memoires de Mirabeau, Brussels, vol. x. p. 66,
attributes this remark to Mounier.
150 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
make him descend, to assign him boundaries, and to cast him back into
the real world, where he will find obstacles at every step ? " *
When the Assembly learned, on August 4th, that
the Revolution was victorious on all hands, it ceased
to give ear to these objections, and, ratifying the
popular victory, it decreed, a few hours before voting
the abolition of the feudal system, that the Constitution
should be preceded by a Declaration of Rights, and
that there would not be a Declaration of Duties.
From La Fayette, Sieyes, Mounier, Target, &c,
there emanated several proposals, dissimilar in outward
form, but similar as regards their principles. On
August 1 2th the Assembly named a Committee of five
members whose duty it was to reduce these proposals
to one single project. On the 17th the Committee
1 To learn the opinion of those adversaries of the Declaration who
were not members of the Assembly we must read the article by
Rivarol in the Journal politique national of August 2, 1789. ..." Woe
to them who trouble the foundations of a people ! There is no century
of enlightenment for the populace : it is neither French, nor English,
nor Spanish : the populace is always and in all countries the same :
always anthropophagous ! " " You are at this moment on the point of
giving settled laws and an eternal Constitution to a great nation, and
you wish this Constitution to be preceded by a Declaration pure and
simple of the rights of man. Legislators though you are, and the
founders of a new order of things, you wish to pass before you in
review the metaphysics which the legislators of old had always the
wisdom to hide in the foundations of their edifices. Ah ! do not be
wiser than Nature ! If you hope for a great nation to rejoice in the
shade and be nourished by the fruits of the tree you are planting, do
not leave its roots naked to the air ! Have a care that these men, to
whom you have spoken of their rights, but never of their duties, these
men who have no longer anything to fear from the royal authority, who
understand nothing of the legislative operations of a National Assembly,
concerning which they have conceived exaggerated hopes — have a care
lest they wish to pass from natural to social equality, from the hatred
of rank to that of authority : lest, their hands red with the blood of the
nobles, they wish also to massacre their magistrates." It must be noted
that Rivarol does not contest the truth of the principles whose appli-
cation he fears.
THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 151
presented its report through the medium of Mirabeau —
a report which seemed very badly drawn up. Mira-
beau, secretly hostile to any Declaration whatever, pro-
posed to adjourn it until after the promulgation of
the Constitution. On the 1 8th it was sent to the
various departments » of the executive of the Assembly,
and each bureau prepared a draft proposal. On the
19th the Assembly took as basis the proposal of the
sixth bureau, on which it voted, with important amend-
ments, from the 20th to the 26th.
The result was practically a new draft, far better
than the text of the sixth bureau or the other pro-
posals. We are met, indeed, with an almost incredible
phenomenon : that these twelve hundred deputies, of
whom, when quietly at work, whether alone or in little
groups, we may fairly say that a concise and luminous
expression was beyond them, should find the true
phrases — dignified, brief, noble — in the tumult of a
public discussion ; and that it was by means of im-
provised strokes of amendment that the edifice of the
Declaration of Rights was elaborated in the course
of a week. Thus, the very Mounier who, whether in
his personal project for a Declaration, or in the pro-
posal which he presented in the name of the Committee
of July 28th, could only find the feeblest phrases, was
able in full and public session of the Assembly to
improvise and to obtain the acceptance of the powerful
phrases of the preamble and the first three Articles.2
He is no longer merely Mounier the lawyer, isolated,
inharmonious, uncertain of the success of the Revolu-
tion, and labouring, by the light of his lamp, to draw
his thoughts from his mind ; he is the member of a
powerful body ; he represents a victorious nation, and
finds himself the interpreter of life and reality.
Other amendments were improvised with no less
1 Bureaux:
2 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 178.
152 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
success by Alexandre de Lameth, Lally-Tollendal, and
Talleyrand.1
As a rule, these amendments were attempts to be
more concise. Sometimes, however, they were attempts
at explanation, not for reasons of taste or rhetoric, but
for reasons of fact and historical truth.
For instance, Article 14 of the draft of the sixth
bureau, which served as the basis of the discussion,
was conceived in these terms :
" No citizen shall be accused or disturbed in the use of his property,
nor hindered in the enjoyment of his liberty, except by virtue of the
law, according to the forms prescribed and in the cases foreseen by
the law."
This, as against an arbitrary despotism rendered so
powerful and so many-sided by use and wont and the
inherited habit of suffering, was little enough. The
Assembly, inspired by the victories of the nation, felt
the need of a more explicit wording, and the final
wording, unanimously adopted,2 sprang as it were
spontaneously from the shock of twenty amendments .3
The result is in Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the Declara-
tion (voted August 21, 1789).
In reading this discussion in the contemporary
reports, one gains an impression of a nation, which by
1 Point du Jour, vol. ii. pp. 180, 185, 186.
2 Ibid., vol. ii. p. 193.
3 Barere says (in the Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 191) : " To appreciate
the labours of the National Assembly, it will suffice to compare the
first draft with that which issued from the shock of differing opinions."
The whole discussion on this subject, in the same journal (pp. 191 to
165), is well worth reading. We read that " Messieurs Target, de
Bonnay, and du Port, having formed a kind of coalition, have
collaborated in redrafting the three essential Articles which have been
substituted for Article 14 of the project." I find only two Articles of
the sixth bureau which were adopted as they were first — namely, 12 and
16 (in the first draft, 20 and 24). Article 11 (on the liberty of the Press)
was the personal and impromptu work of the Due de La Rochefoucauld.
THE DECLARATION REPUBLICAN 153
its spontaneous acts has become sovereign, dictating
the Declaration to its representatives.
This Declaration, inspired by a monarchist nation,
drafted by monarchist deputies, is almost wholly
republican.
No question is raised concerning1 royalty ; there is
not the slightest allusion to the royal power, nor even
to the utility of the monarchy.
On the contrary, everything about it is entirely anti-
monarchical ; firstly, the very fact that there is a
Declaration : American, republican in its nature ; the
formula of a recent and successful republican revolt ;
finally, and above all, the affirmation that the nation
is the preponderating party ; that it governs itself,
not only in reality, but by law. One might say that
here the fact preceded the law, and legitimised it,
historically speaking ; the law legitimised the fact from
the rational point of view.
I have said that the Declaration is almost entirely
republican. It is not republican in one point, and
one point only : in the matter of the liberty of the
conscience, in which the drafters of the Declaration
were not guided by purely rationalistic principles.
It is well known that, in the preamble, a Supreme
Being is invoked : ..." In the presence of and under
the auspices of the Supreme Being « . . ."
The draft of the sixth bureau contains the words :
" In the presence of the Supreme Legislator of the
Universe." Laborde de Mereville (August 20th) de-
clared that there was no question of the Deity :
" Man,'2 he says, " holds his rights from Nature ; he
does not receive them from any one." But the National
Assembly invoked the Supreme Being, without any
opposition save that of Laborde de Mereville.2 This,
1 There was no question of a Supreme Being in the draft presented
by Mirabeau in the name of the Commission of Five.
2 See the accounts of Barere and Le Hodey.
154 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
it would seem, for three principal reasons. Firstly,
because almost all Frenchmen of the time, even if
anti-Christian, were deists ; secondly, because the mass
of the people was sincerely Catholic ; thirdly, because
this mystic formula, in the preamble of the great revolu-
tionary proclamation, was the price of the collabora-
tion of the clergy in the Declaration of Rights.
It is true that on August 25th the Assembly refused
to vote for the motion of the Abbe d'Eymar, declar-
ing the Roman Catholic religion to be the State
religion ; l but on occasion 2 it declared itself Catholic
probably to please the " patriot priests " among
its members, and also with regard to the senti-
ment of the masses, especially the rural population.
It did not think proper even to place the Catholic
religion on a par with other religions, and Voulland
was allowed to speak at the tribune, without con-
tradiction, of the convenience of having a " dominant
religion," and to represent the Catholic religion as
being " founded on an ethic too pure ever to hold
anything but the first place." 3 For these reasons,
instead of proclaiming the liberty of the conscience,
it limited itself to proclaiming toleration (August 23rd),
by means of Article 10, in the following words : " No
man shall be troubled on account of his opinions,
even his religious opinions, provided that their mani-
festation does not disturb the public order as established
by the law."
Mirabeau, on August 22nd, had spoken eloquently
against this tolerance: " I am not going to preach
toleration ; the most illimitable religious liberty is,
in my eyes, a right so sacred that the word tolerance,
which is intended to express it, seems to me in a
1 Courrier de Provence, No. xxxiv.
3 For instance, on April 13, 1790, when it refused a motion by Dom
Gerle similar to that of the Abbe d'Eymar.
3 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 199.
TOLERANCE 155
certain sense to be itself tyrannical, since the existence
of the authority which has the power to tolerate is
oppressive to the liberty of thought, by the very
fact that it tolerates, and therefore would be capable
of not tolerating." « When the clause had been voted,
the Courrier de Provence exclaimed : " We cannot
conceal our sorrow that the National Assembly, instead
of stifling the germ of intolerance, has placed it in
reserve, as it were, in a Declaration of the Rights
of Man." And the journalist (is it perhaps Mirabeau
himself?) shows that this clause would permit the
refusal of public worship to non-Catholics.2
However, except for the fact that it does not pro-
claim liberty of conscience, the Declaration of Rights
is definitely republican and democratic.
The Declaration may be considered from two points
of view : as destroying the past, or as constructing the
future.
To-day, in retrospection, we consider it especially
from the second point of view — that is to say, as
the political and social programme of France from
the year 1789. The men of the Revolution considered
it especially from the first point of view, as the
notification of the decease of the old style of govern-
ment ; and, as the preamble infers, as a safeguard
1 Mirabeau peint par lui-mcme, vol. i. p. 237.
2 {Courrier de Provence, No. xxxi. p. 48.) This article ends in a eulogy
of " the Protestant sect, a sect essentially peaceable, favourable to human
reason and to the wealth of nations, a friend to civil liberty, the clergy
of which have no ruler, and form a body of citizens, of moral officers,
subsidised by the State ; occupied with the education of the young,
and interested by the family spirit itself to maintain morals and the
prosperity of the State." See also, with regard to Clause 10, the Revolu-
tions de Paris, No. viii. pp. 2, 3.
156 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
against the possible resurrection of the old style, just
as the Americans had drawn up their Declaration of
Rights as an engine of war against the King of
England and the despotic system.
As to the other point of view, from which the Declara-
tion is regarded as the programme of a reorganisation
of society, the members of the Assembly left it pur-
posely in semi -obscurity, because it was to some extent
inconsistent with the middle-class government they were
about to establish.
The principle of the equality of rights is democracy ;
it is universal suffrage, to speak of the political effects
of the principle alone, and the Assembly was about to
establish a property-owners' suffrage.
The principle of the sovereignty of the nation is
republicanism, and the Assembly intended to maintain
the monarchy.
These consequences were foreseen, not by the masses,
but by the members of the Assembly and by educated
folk. And it was precisely on this account that the
middle class hesitated to issue a Declaration of Rights.
Once made, it was masked by a " veil " according
to the word then popular, and there existed a " politics
of the veil." " I am going to tear the veil ! " was
often cried by an excited orator, such as from time
to time made himself a tribune of the people. But
this was the exception. There was at first no organised
party which demanded the immediate application of
the essential principle of the Declaration, which comes
back to the statement that there was at the outset
neither a Republican nor a Democratic party.
When the faults of the King had torn the " veil,"
when the pact between the nation and the King was
definitely broken, experience led the French to apply
the consequences of the Declaration, by means of the
regime of 1792-3 — that is to say, by means of Demo-
cracy and the Republic.
FIRST PRINCIPLES FORSAKEN 157
The men of 1792 and 1793 have been called
renegades with respect to the principles of 1789.1 They
certainly violated, for the time being, the liberty of
the press and of the individual, and the guarantees
of legal and normal justice. They did so because
the Revolution was in a state of war against Europe ;
they did it for the sake of the new order, and as
against the old ; they did so to save the essential
principles of the Declaration. But what has been for-
gotten is that they were the first of all to apply these
essential principles — equality of rights and the
sovereignty of the nation — by establishing universal
suffrage and the Republic, and by organising and put-
ting in working order a democracy which, outside the
limits of the country, realised the royal dream by the
acquisition of the left bank of the Rhine, and which
in the country itself proclaimed the liberty of conscience,
separated Church and State, and sought to govern
according to the lights of reason and justice.
The backsliders from the principles of 1789 were
not the men of 1793, who, on the contrary, applied
these principles. (And was it not just because they
applied them that the fine flower of the reactionaries
branded them with the epithet " renegades "?)
Logically, there would seem to be no reason why we
should not rather apply the term to the men of 1789,
who, after having proclaimed the equality of rights,
divided the nation into " citizens active and citizens
passive," and replaced the ancient ranks of the privi-
leged by a new privileged class, the middle class or
bourgeoisie.
But it is nearer the truth to say that there were
no renegades ; only worthy Frenchmen who acted for
the best, in different circumstances, and at different
moments in our political revolution.
1 The expression is used by M. Saint-Rene Taillandier in his Les
Renegats de 1789, 1877, 8vo.
158 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
So far I have spoken only of the political conse-
quences of the Declaration of Rights. There were
also economic and social consequences, which must
be examined and depicted, not with the eloquence and
feeling of a party man, but with the impersonality
of a historian.
These consequences, which later will be known by
the name of Socialism, remained obscure far longer
than the political consequences ; and even to-day only
a minority of Frenchmen have torn this " veil," which
the majority seek, on the other hand, to bind more
firmly and thickly with sentiments of religious respect
and fear.
What is it precisely, this principle or dogma of
equality, the object of the first clause of the Declara-
tion?
Did the drafters of the clause wish to say that all
men are born equally endowed as to mind and body?
No : this absurdity was only attributed to them, later
on, by absurd adversaries.
Did they wish to say that it is desirable that insti-
tutions should correct, as far as possible, the inequalities
of nature — that is, tend to restore all men to an
average type of physical and intellectual force? This
would be to lower the level, to check evolution. This
interpretation was claimed, but later on, by others.
The evident sense of this clause is this : that to
natural inequalities it is not fair and equitable that
institutions should add artificial inequalities. One man
is born more vigorous, more intelligent, than another.
Is it just that he should also find, in his cradle as
it were, a sum of money or a landed property, which
doubles or trebles through life his force of attack
and defence in the struggle for life? Is it just that
a man born imbecile or evilly disposed should inherit
means which will render his imbecility or his wicked-
ness still more maleficent? Is it just that there should
ECONOMIC PRIVILEGE 159
be, by act of law, men rich by birth and men poor
by birth? (Article 2, while establishing the rights of
property, did not say that property should be un-
equally divided.)
Take the bourgeois, the man who received, at his
birth, an economic privilege and a political privilege ;
in 1792 the people will strip him of his political privi-
lege. Would it not be logical to relieve him of his
economic privilege as well?
Such an idea scarcely occurred, at first, to any one.
A first revolution, social and economic, had taken place,
or was about to do so, through the destruction of
the feudal system, the abolition of the right of primo-
geniture, the sale of the national properties, and a
less unjust constitution and partition of property. The
generality of Frenchmen were satisfied with this revolu-
tion, and saw no farther ; the most crying injustice,
their more serious complaints, having just been righted.^,
It was when other sufferings, born of the new order
of things, began to make themselves felt, that men
began to think of demanding the completest conse-
quences of the Declaration of Rights. And as it was
a minority which actually suffered — workmen of the
towns, reduced to poverty by the economic conditions
produced by the continuation of the war — it was a
minority which demanded such consequences and at-
tempted to rebel ; the more so because the bourgeoisie,
in the year III, had resumed their political powers.
Babeuf preached communism, and, representing only a
minority, was easily defeated.
How, later on, the development of machinery, the
changed relations of capital and labour, were to bring
about the movement known as Socialism, a movement
which has not yet come to a head, because it has
not had the assent of the mass of the nation — this
is a subject we cannot at this moment discuss.
What I do wish to demonstrate is that one is wrong
160 IDEAS AT OUTSET OF THE REVOLUTION
in opposing socialism with the principles of 1789. It
is the same sort of mistake which confounds the
Declaration of Rights with the monarchical and middle-
class Constitution of 1789. Socialism, to be sure,
is in violent contradiction to the social system estab-
lished in 1789 ; but it was the consequence, the logical,
extreme, (and, if you will, dangerous) consequence of
the principles of 1789, which was demanded by Babeuf,
the theorician of equality.
In any case the democratic and social republic is
to be found in the Declaration ; all the principles of
which have not even yet been applied, and of which
the future programme passes far beyond the limits
of our generation, and it may be of many generations
yet to follow.
CHAPTER III
THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
(BOURGEOISIE AND DEMOCRACY)
I. Neither all the logical social consequences, nor all the logical
political consequences, ensue from the Declaration of Rights. At
this period there are neither Socialists nor Republicans. — II.
The organisation of the monarchy. — III. The organisation of
the bourgeoisie as the privileged middle class. The rule of
the property-holders. — IV. The Democratic movement. — V. The
application of the rule of the property-holders. — VI. The claims
of the Democrats are emphasised.
I.
We have seen that in the Declaration of Rights, debated
and voted on from August 20-26, 1789, an entire
republic, democratic and social, is implicitly immanent.
But the men of the time were careful not to apply
all its principles, were wary of consummating all its
consequences.
In reality they limited themselves to legalising what
the nation had already done ; to ratifying the destruc-
tion and the acquisition already accomplished.
From an economic point of view they were content
with the social revolution proclaimed on the night of
August 4th : with the abolition of feudality. Certain
methods or means of possession and of tenure were
modified. The soil was freed (at least in principle) and
vol. 1. 11 iGi
162 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
man was liberated. Soon we shall see the right of
primogeniture abolished ; rules respecting inheritance
and the further subdivision of land will be established ;
and the sale of the national possessions by lots and
parcels will hasten this subdivision.
But so far there is no attack upon the principle of
inheritance itself, although it might be shown to be
logically in contradiction to the first article of the
Declaration, which enacts that men are born with equal
rights.
The idea of an equal partition of the soil among all
men, or of the general or partiaL socialisation of landed
property, capital, and instruments of labour, is an idea
which then, in 1789, was upheld by no one ; or if it
were formulated, it was without influence, and none of
the parties or groups accepted it.1 What we to-day call
socialism, and was then called " the agrarian law," was
a doctrine so far from popular, so little widespread,
that the most conservative writers of the time did not
even take the trouble of criticising it or of withering
it with their anathemas.2
To understand to what extent even the boldest spirits,
in the early times of the Revolution, hated socialism as
understood by us, one has only to read, in the France
libre of Camille Desmoulins, an imaginary dialogue
between the Nobles and the Commons. The Nobles
criticise the idea of deciding everything by majorities.
" What ! " they say, " if the majority of the nation
wished an agrarian lawy at that rate we should have to
1 Perhaps one might from this period find socialistic demands in the
writings of the Abbe Fauchet. But what of the writers whose work
actually appeared in 1789 ? Nothing could be more confused than
the bibliography of the various pamphlets, periodic or otherwise, of
Fauchet, Bonneville, and their group.
2 It happened in 1789 that the danger of the agrarian law was
mentioned at the tribune of the Assembly, but only hypothetically.
Thus the Abbe Maury stated that the spoliation of the clergy might
legitimise " all the insurrections of the agrarian law " (October 13, 1789).
ORGANISING THE MONARCHY 163
submit to it ! " The Commons, something embarrassed
by this objection, reply that property exists in the primi-
tive social compact, which is above the general will ;
adding that, as a matter of fact, as non-proprietors
cannot be electors, it is impossible that the " agrarian
law " should be passed.1
Both then, and for some time to come, we shall
find a unanimous agreement to avoid any further
supplement of the social revolution.
From the political point of view there is no demand
for a republic ; all are agreed to preserve the monarchy.
But how shall the monarchy be organised? This is
the rock on which the parties split. No one asks
for the re-establishment of absolutism. Public opinion
ranges from the desire for an extremely powerful king,
participating in the making of laws, having the last
word in all things, to the idea of an annihilated
monarch, a figure-head, a kind of president of a
republic.
That the France of 1789 did not want a republic
is proved and evident. But was there not a repub-
lican party in Paris, among the demagogues who met
in the garden of the Palais Royal? Were there not
at least individual manifestations of republicanism?
I see no trace of such a party, such manifestations.
I have searched thoroughly, and I have found only
one Frenchman who at this time called himself a re-
publican : it was Camille Desmoulins. In his France
libre> written at the end of June, 1789, and placed
on sale on the July 1 7th following, he declares his
preference for a republic before a monarchy, and,
making his political confession, he owns to having
praised Louis XVI in an Ode to the Estates-General.
Up till June 23rd, the personal virtues of the monarch
had rallied Camille to the monarchy. But the " Royal
Session " disillusioned him. Most decidedly all kings
1 Camille Desmoulins, (Euvres, ed. by Claretie, vol. i. pp. 84, 85.
164 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
are the enemies of the people, and we must have no
more royalty. All the same, feeling alone in his
opinions, he does not insist on the immediate upheaval
of the throne, and we shall soon see him assisting
with his pen the patriots who, like Robespierre, are
seeking to better the monarchy. The Procurator-
General of the Lantern is still, in 1789, in spite of
his sallies against royalty, resigned to the monarchy.
And the other agitators of the Palais Royal — Danton,
and the worthy Saint-Huruge? They are royalists,
as are the people whose passions they excite. And
Marat? His influence at present is small, but it will
be so great to-morrow that we must note his opinions
of to-day. He draws up a plan of a Constitution ;
it is a monarchical Constitution.1 He expressly accepts
hereditary monarchy. He wishes to place the King
" in a happy disability to do harm." But he desires
an inviolable king : " The prince," he says, " must
not be sought except in his ministers ; his person will
be sacred." And he boasts that he has " traced the
outline of the only form of monarchical government
which can be suited to a great nation, educated in its
rights and jealous of its liberty." If, at this period, he
loves Rousseau he adores Montesquieu, whom he finds
" most heroic," and whom he salutes with a ]ong apos-
trophe of love and gratitude.
Would it be possible, among the innumerable pam-
phlets of this period, for a seeker more patient or
more experienced than myself one day to find a mani-
festation of republican politics other than that of Camille
Desmoulins? Perhaps ; but I can affirm that I myself
have found no other ; and if any other occurred,
whether in the press or the clubs, it passed unregarded
of public opinion.
No gazette, no journal, however advanced, not even
the Patriot e of Brissot, calls for a republic, nor for
1 Marat, Le Constitution, Paris, 1789.
FRANCE STILL MONARCHICAL 165
another king. Later on the Revolutions de Paris will
be democratic, later still republican. But in Septem-
ber, 1789, it is a royalist journal, devoted to Louis
XVI. Thus we read in it, in respect of a royal letter
which asks the archbishops and bishops to come to the
assistance of the State with their prayers and exhorta-
tions : "A wise man said that the nations would be
happy when the philosophers were kings or the kings
philosophers. We are, then, on the eve of being happy,
for never has prince spoken to his people, or of his
people, with so much philosophy as Louis XVI." ' And
the same journal 2 states, with satisfaction, that at the
Theatre Frangaise, on September 9th, the public de-
manded the repetition of these lines from the tragedy
of Marie de Brabant, by Imbert :
" Oh for a King ! — the idol of all France were he —
The feudal hydra's might to vanquish ; oh, might he
Under one single law his happy people bring,
To serve, instead of twenty tyrants, one good King ! " 3
And in the National Assembly? Was there a republican
party? were there isolated republicans? So it has been
believed ; so it has been said. We have already quoted,
from Mallet du Pan, the remark made by the United
States Ambassador, Gouverneur Morris, who, conversing
with Barnave during the first days of the Revolution,
said to him1 : " You are far more of a republican than
I." But he was alluding to the republican state of
mind which I have already characterised, not to any
1 Revolutions de Paris, No. ix. p. 10.
2 Ibid. p. 30.
3 " Puisse un roi, quelque jour Pidole de la France,
De l'hydre feodale abattre la puissance,
Et voir l'heureux Francais, sous une seule loi,
Au lieu de vingt tyrans ne servir qu'un bon roi I"
166 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
project of establishing a republic in France. And
Barnave, a firm royalist, theorist and apologist of the
monarchy under all circumstances, never showed the
slightest sign of being anything but monarchical.
Members of the Assembly, such as Mounier » and
Ferrieres,2 did retrospectively believe, through a kind
of logical deformation of the memory, that there was,
in 1789, a republican party in the Assembly, with a
secret committee ; but we have not a single fact in
confirmation of such assertions.
Another member, Barere, stated in print, in the year
III, that he had not " awaited the tocsin of July
the 11th and beheld the Revolution of August the 10th
before becoming a patriot and loving the Republic."
Now he did not say this with regard to the needs of
his cause, for at that time, under the reaction of
Thermidor, he rather had cause to defend himself
against the charge of having ever been a demagogue :
he made the statement out of a sincere mental illusion ;
he had forgotten the chronology of the evolution of his
own opinions .3
To these fantastic allegations let us oppose the im-
portant and little known testimony of a contemporary,
which proves that no member of the Assembly ever
said, at this time, that he was a republican, nor ever
allowed himself to be taken for such ; I speak of
Rabaut Saint -fetienne, a speech of whose was printed
by order of the Assembly.
On August 28, 1789, they had begun, in the
Assembly, to debate on the first article of the draft of
1 Recherches sur les causes, &c, vol. i. p. 260.
2 Memoires, 1st ed. vol. i. p. 203.
3 I believe the Jacobins of Dole were the prey of a like illusion
when they wrote to the National Convention, September 29, 1792 :
" We were already Republicans before the taking of the Bastille ;
we had an abhorrence of kings ..."
ATTACHMENT TO THE MONARCHY 167
the Committee of Constitution, ratifying the monarchy ;
afterwards they passed on to other matters. On Sep-
tember ist, speaking of the royal sanction, Saint -Etienne
spoke as follows : «
"It is impossible to think that any one in this Assembly can have
conceived the ridiculous project of converting the kingdom into a
republic. Every one knows that the republican form of government
is hardly convenient and suitable for a small State, and experience has
taught us that every republic ends by becoming subject to the
aristocracy or to a despotism. Also the French have from all time
been attached to the sacred and venerable antiquity of the institution
of monarchy ; they are attached to the august blood of their kings,
for whom they have plentifully shed their own ; and they revere the
benevolent prince whom they have proclaimed the restorer of French
liberty. It is towards the throne as a consoler that the eyes of the
afflicted peoples always turn ; and whatever may be the ills under
which they groan, a word, a single word, the magical charm of which
can only be explained by their love — the paternal name of king —
suffices to lead them back to hope.2 The French Government, then, is
monarchical ; and when this maxim has been pronounced in this hall,
all that I ask is that the word ' monarchy ' should be defined."
1 Opinion de Rabant Saint-Etienne sur la motion suivante de M. le
vicomte de Noailles (relative to this sanction). This opinion is contained
in the Proces-verbal de la Constituante, vol. iv.
2 Nothing could be truer. The name of the King, joined with
that of the National Assembly, sufficed, in the early days of the
Revolution, to calm the most troubled spirits. Two of the King's
commissaries tell as follows how, in January, 1791, there appeared a
seditious rising of peasants in the department of Lot : " Sire, we
experience a very pleasant satisfaction in telling you that your name
and that of the National Assembly produced a sudden impression
on their minds which, without surprising us, filled us with emotion.
Hardly had we pronounced those names, which must never more
be separated, than feelings of joy, happiness, and gratitude were
painted on the faces of all ; these names, in short, which recalled so
many acts of benevolence and justice, were, for the worthy country-
folk, the best of all arguments, and more than once served us in
touching their hearts and convincing their reason " (Rapport de MM.
J. Godard et L. Robin, p. 29).
168 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
Against these words, both heard and read, no one
protested, either in the Assembly or out of it. Thus,
from the height of the tribune, an orator incited the
republicans to show themselves, and they did not show
themselves, not a single one.1 Thus all the Frenchmen
who acclaimed the republican Declaration of Rights
were monarchists, so that there was never even a passing
discussion as to the nature of the government.
II.
The debate on the Constitution took place, then,
entirely between monarchists, and bore entirely on the
question of the organisation of the monarchy. It com-
menced on August 28th and ended on October 2nd.
It began with the reading and examination of the
first article of the draft submitted by Mounier on
July 28th : " The French Government is monarchical ;
it is essentially directed by the law ; there is no
authority whatever superior to the law ; the King
reigns only by law, and, when he does not command in
the name of the law, he cannot require obedience."
The motives for preserving the monarchy had been
briefly exposed in a brief report drawn up by Mounier
on July 9th. Therein he stated that there had been a
king for fourteen centuries ; that " the sceptre was not
created by force, but by the will of the nation " ; that
the French " had always felt the need of a king " ;
1 Could it be said that they were keeping their tactics dark ? We
read in the Memoires of Ferrieres (1st ed. vol. i. p. 203): "The first
article excited long debates, but not on the essential principles ;
whatever desire the revolutionaries may have had to annihilate the
monarchical government and replace it by a republic, they were
not then sufficiently powerful to dare to allow their intentions to
see daylight." But Ferrieres wrote this during the Directory (his
Memoires appeared in the year VII), so that his reminiscences were
of a certain age.
MONARCHY OR DEMOCRACY? 169
and in Article 2, on " the order of work," which fol-
lowed this report of July 9th, are the words : " The
monarchical form of government is especially suited
to a large population."
The debate which immediately followed bore in no
way on the monarchical principle, but on the appli-
cations of this principle. The Abbe d'Eymar, as we
have seen, demanded (without success) that the first
article should have for object the declaration of the
Catholic religion as the dominant religion. Demeunier
was in favour of the words : " France is a monarchy
qualified by the laws." Malouet, bolder than the rest,
proposed as the opening phrase, "The general will
of the French people is that its government should be
a monarchy." According to him the royal power,
emanating from the nation, should be subordinated to
the nation. Adrien du Port would have preferred to
hear the rights of the nation mentioned first, and
WimpfTen was in favour of the words, " The govern-
ment of France is a royal democracy." Robespierre
intervened only to propose " rules for a free and peace-
able discussion, and one as extended as may be re-
quired by the different points of the constitution." 1
It was seen that there was no agreeing on the de-
finition of the monarchy ; it was thought that before
defining it it would be better to organise it ; so,
adjourning the first article, the essential characteristics
of this organisation were decided on ; the respective
rights of the nation and the King (Mounier's third
report, August 31st). Rules were passed successively
on the questions of the veto, the permanence of the
Assembly, the unity of the legislative power (a single
Chamber), the inviolability of the royal person, the
mode of inheriting the crown, and finally, on Septem-
1 Courriet de Provence, No. xxxiv. ; Patriote francais, No. xxx. ; Point
du Jour, vol. ii. p. 236.
170 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
ber 22nd, returning to the first article, it was voted
that " the French Government is monarchical."
Lovers of coincidence might remark that the
monarchy was thus approved three years to a day
before the establishment of the republic. What is
more important is that the vote was recorded, without
comment, without astonishment or any kind of protest,
by all the newspapers that mentioned it, including those
of Brissot, Gorsas, Barere, and Marat.1
We cannot repeat it too often : here is the
monarchy consecrated, as it were, by the Assembly,
and the republic rejected, without even the honour
of a debate.
The inviolability of the royal person was voted
unanimously by acclamation, and Marat, even after
reflection, found no fault with anything except the fact
of having defined the prerogatives of the prince before
settling the rights of the nation.2
But the republic of which none showed the least desire
to speak was so largely " infused " 3 into the monarchy
that the " inviolable " King had now hardly any of
the powers of a king. 4
Here is the entire article, voted on September 22,
1789:
" The French Government is monarchical ; there is in France no
authority whatever superior to the law ; the King reigns only by the
law, and it is only by virtue of the laws that he can exact obedience."
1 See the Patriote francais, No. Hi. ; Gorsas, p. 417 ; Barere, vol. iii.
p. 76; Marat, No. xiii. p. 117.
2 Ami du Penple, No. vi. p. 59, and No. xii. p. no.
3 According to the phrase and the advice of d'Argenson.
4 The fragile character of an institution at the same time republican
and monarchist, was, according to the retrospective testimony of
Du Pont (of Nemours), foreseen by certain deputies, who declared :
" You have woven the fabric of a republic ; you wish to embroider a
monarchy upon it ; the needle will break, and you risk wearing out
the stuff " (see VHistorien, 1st of Frimaire, year IV, p. 12, Bibl. Nat.).
THE MONARCHY SUBORDINATE 171
Clear enough ; yet there was a feeling that it was
not yet sufficiently clear, that the Divine right of the
King might appear to be insufficiently abolished. So
the very next day, on the motion of Freteau, this
article was voted :
" All powers emanate eventually from the nation, and can only so
emanate."
This had already been said in the Declaration ; « it
is here repeated, to make it perfectly clear that the
monarchy is subordinate to the nation ; and, the better
still to affirm this subordination, this Article 2 becomes
Article 1, preceding that which ratifies the monarchy.
This, according to Gorsas,2 was voted unanimously
and with applause.
But if we wish to understand the true spirit in which
the Constituent Assembly organised the monarchy, we
must remember that by the nation it meant a new
privileged class, the class we call the bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie wanted a king who should be well
in hand, but who should preserve sufficient power to
defend them against democracy.
So they give the King the right of veto ; but they
allow him only a " suspensive veto " ; that is, the veto
would cease to operate " when the two Legislatures
following that which has presented the decree shall
have successively presented the same decree in the same
terms." 3 ,
The effect of this would be that if the King, rely-
ing on a current of democratic opinion, attempted to
shake off the guardianship of the bourgeoisie, he would
1 Article 3 of the Declaration : " The principle of all sovereignty
resides essentially in the nation ; no body of men, no individual, can
exercise any authority that does not emanate expressly from the nation."
2 Courrier de Versailles a Paris et de Paris a Versailles, vol. iii. p. 434.
3 Each Legislature was to last two years.
172 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
find himself thwarted. Consequently the absolute veto
was rejected : not solely from a revolutionary point of
view, but also for anti-democratic reasons.
This was a matter that Paris did not fully under-
stand, when she rose against the absolute veto. But
it was plain to Mirabeau, when in his speech of Septem-
ber ist he spoke of the absolute veto as a means of
preventing the formation of an aristocracy equally
hostile to the monarch and the people. " The King,"
he said, " is the perpetual representative of the people,
just as the deputies are its representatives elected at
certain periods." Of this " royal democracy " l the
people of Paris understood nothing, neither those who
applauded it nor those who hissed it. To-day we
can well appreciate the political idea of Mirabeau :
the idea of the King relying on the people as against
the new privileged class, the bourgeoisie, as formerly
he had relied on the people as against the ancient
privileged class, the nobles.
The King understands nothing of this. He continues
to make common cause with the nobles, whose power
is dying, and the cause of the people appears to be
confounded with that of the bourgeoisie, to such an
extent that in disputes between the bourgeoisie and
the King, the people always takes the part of the
bourgeoisie.
Thus, the popular feeling against the system of two
Chambers — proposed by Mounier and the Committee of
Constitution — was really profitable only to the bour-
geoisie, who, understanding what was really to their
1 Wimpffen's phrase was famous long afterwards. Even under
Louis-Philippe, it incommoded and frightened the partisans of the
middle-class regime. Thus Roger-Collard, in 1831, in the debate
on the hereditary peerage, said from the tribune : " Let us speak
plainly : royal democracy, whether or not it chooses to retain its
shadow of royal, is, or very soon will be, democracy pure and simple "
(see this speech in the Vie politique de Royer-Collard by M. de
Barante, vol. ii. p. 469).
THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE KING 173
advantage better than Mounier, rejected the idea of
an upper Chamber in order to rid the political field
of the nobles ; but later, in the year III, they re-
sumed, to their advantage, the idea of an Upper Cham-
ber, when the nobles, who were abroad or in prison,
were no longer to be feared.
At the same time, such apparently democratic
measures as the permanence of the legislative body,
and the refusal of the right of dissolution to the King,
were undertaken only to render the King powerless
against the bourgeoisie.
To prevent the democratisation of the King, to
ensure that he existed only by and for the middle-class
nation — here was a part of the intentions of the authors
of these Articles of Constitution.
If in the Declaration of Rights there existed in
embryo the democratic and social republic, so in the
Constitution we may say there was the germ of a
property-holders' republic.
If, on the other hand, we set aside for the moment
this question of democracy and the middle classes, we
may remark that these involuntary republican tendencies
are to be found, not only in the text of the
monarchical Constitution of 1789, but also and especially
in the manner in which the Assembly demands the
assent of the King to the Constitution. The Assembly
wished him to accept it without giving him the right
to repulse it, and without permitting him to exercise
in this matter his right of sanction. We must examine
the theory which Mounier expounds in his report of
August 31st :
" I should also," he says, " anticipate a false interpretation of the
royal sanction proposed by the Committee. It means to speak of
the sanction established by the Constitution, and not for the Constitu-
tion— that is to say, of the sanction necessary for simple legislative
functions.
" The King would not have the right to oppose the establishment of
174 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
the Constitution — that is to say, of the liberty of his people. Neverthe-
less he must sign and ratify the Constitution for himself and his
successors. Being interested in the propositions which it contains,
he might require alterations to be made ; but, if they were contrary to
the liberty of the public, the National Assembly would have as
resource, not only the refusal of taxation, but also recourse to its
constituents, for the nation has certainly the right to make use of any
means necessary to obtain its freedom. The Committee has been of
opinion that one should not even consider the question of whether the
King will ratify the Constitution, and that the sanction should be
inserted in the Constitution itself, on account of the laws which would
then be established."
On September iith Guillotin inquired: "Can the
King refuse his consent to the Constitution? " Mounier
and Freteau replied that it was, at that moment, dan-
gerous and inopportune to concern oneself with this
question, " which all minds were agreed on," J and,
the previous question having been put, the Assembly,
says the proces-verbal, voted " that the present was not
the time for considering it."
The meaning of this vote was expressed more clearly
by Mirabeau, who stated, at the tribune, " that if the
Assembly had thrown a religious veil over the great
truth that a Constitution does not require to be
sanctioned, it was because there was reason to believe
that, under the circumstances, this truth was dangerous
to enunciate ; but that the principle remained always
the same, and that it must never be abandoned." 2
The articles once voted, it was decreed (October ist)
that the Declaration and the Constitution should be
1 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 335. According to Le Hodey (vol. iii.
p. 398), Mounier meant : "The King has no consent to give to the Con-
stitution ; it is anterior to the monarchy." And Freteau, according to
the same writer, meant that, were the King's consent demanded, he
might reply that he would give it only when it had been ratified by
his people — "that then the constituents would become judges of the
constitution, from which great evils might result."
2 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 375.
THE KING FAILS THE REVOLUTION 175
" presented for the acceptance of the King " ; and the
debates which preceded the voting of this decree made
it plain that the word acceptance was understood
in this way : that the King could not oppose his
veto.1
Thus the Assembly does not admit that the King
can, either in law or in fact, reject the Constitution ;
it intends to force it on him.
What could be more republican than this?
The King has paid dearly indeed for his fault of
deserting his political duty as leader of opinion, as
pilot of the coming Revolution. We see him now
reduced to play a passive and humiliating part, one
which the cahiers neither foresaw nor demanded. 2
1 See the report of this discussion, Point du Jour, vol. lii. p. 185,
and the reflections of Barere, p. 186. The Journal of Le Hodey
(vol. iv. p. 331) said that this vote did not settle the important question
of the veto in the matter of the Constitution. But he did not doubt
the intentions of the Assembly ; it merely avoided settling the question
by a formal decree.
2 We may note here that it was now the reactionaries who quoted
the cahiers, and quoted them, moreover, against the revolutionaries.
Members hardly had the courage now, at the tribune, to speak as
though authorised by the cahiers. Thus, during the session of De-
cember 7, 1789, during a debate on the question of increasing the value
of the mark of silver, the Marquis de Foucauld-Lardimalie said, with
a smile : " I am obliged, here, to quote my unhappy cahier." The
journalist Le Hodey (vol. vi. p. 319), who mentions this incident
(Point du Jour, vol. v. p. 39), adds this remark : " The Assembly
regards the cahiers as a fairy-tale, and can rarely refrain from laughter
when a deputy tries to argue from his. The reason is, that these
gentlemen have gone beyond these matters ; circumstances have so
ordered it." In the fragmentary memoirs entitled, Extraits de mon
Journal (published September, 1791) the Member of Assembly Felix
Faulcon writes as follows : " I will not say that the greater part of these
cahiers were contradictory, that the one forbade what the other com-
manded, and that if each deputy had literally confined himself to his
cahier, and tied himself down to it, it would have been impossible to do
anything whatever, or to attempt anything but the most monstrous
and incoherent of tasks ; I shall not seek to maintain (though I could
easily prove) that there is not one of all our operations that has not
176 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
In this pass he behaved as he had always behaved,
whether towards the Parliaments or the Assembly itself.
He had a sudden fit of anger, then gave in.
On October ist, when the articles and the Declara-
tion were presented for his (forced !) acceptation, he
stated that he would reply to them later. Then the
Court prepared a coup d'etat. On October 5th it
announced that it accepted the Constitutional Articles
only with reserve, and that it refused to pronounce
itself concerning the Declaration of Rights. Then
Paris intervened ; an armed multitude came to
Versailles, and the King, intimidated, gave his uncon-
ditional acceptance. The people led him to Paris,
where he was obliged to remain in residence, half
a prisoner, and the Assembly followed him.1
been demanded by one cahier at least, often by many, and that they
have all, in addition, been sanctioned by the will of the nation, mani-
fested repeatedly in the countless addresses of confidence. . . . But
truly, to-day, when in two years our horizon has been so prodigiously
enlarged, how can any one still have the impudence to say that we
ought to lay the foundations of a free Constitution on principles which
were dictated under the shadow and in the fear of despotism ? How
should men bent under the yoke of an all-pervading oppression dare to
express themselves with perfect candour ? How should they have
dared an open attack on the abuses of the feudal system at a time when
one of the electors of a Norman bailiwick was proceeded against by
order of the Parliament of Rouen, because, in a primary assembly, he
had been blasphemously inspired to speak certain truths concerning
des ci-devant our nobles ?" (Chapter XXXII, March 28, 1791, p. 83.)
1 The people of Paris had then no more idea of dethroning the King
than they had on July 14. They wished solely to take him to Paris, in
order to have him under their eyes, and in the hope that with better
counsellors he might be a better King. It was a question of putting the
King at the head of the Revolution, of imposing on him a part which
he evaded, and not of overturning the throne. The insurgents of
October 5 and 6 were still royalists. There would be no need, after all I
have said, to remind the reader that at this period of this popular insur-
rection there were no republicans in the National Assembly, but for the
existence of a well-known anecdote of the session of October 5 in
which the monarchist Mounier, then President, is once more exhibited
in a republican light. Mirabeau having in private conversation urged
THE ASSEMBLY VICTORIOUS 177
Here, then, is the Assembly once more victorious
over the King, and victorious once more thanks to
the people of Paris. Here it is, in Paris, at the
mercy of the people. Henceforth it will have as much
fear of democracy as of absolutism ; and hence its
see-saw politics, now against the King, now against
the people.
Against the King is issued the decree of
October 8th, which changes his title from " King
of France and of Navarre " to " King of the
French."
Then it creates him a King with two faces, or rather,
a King of two essences : Louis, by the grace of God
and the constitutional law of the State, King of the
French; « thus combining, in the same empirical
formula, the old mystical principle and the new rational
principle ; the old absolutist and feudal system and
the Revolution. It is against democracy, this appeal
to the " grace of God." It is against the King, and
in favour of the middle class, this invocation of the
" constitutional law." This contradiction is an
example of what was called " mystery " in the political
jargon of the day, and it was not considered the act
of a good patriot to throw too much light on the
matter. It is what Mirabeau once, in a speech of
September 18, 1789, called "making up for the
quickness of the crossing." 2
Against the King, too, is the departmental organisa-
tion (December 22, 1789), in which there is no place
him to conclude the session, he replied : " Paris is marching on us ;
well, so much the better ; we shall be a republic all the sooner "
(Histoire de la Revolution, by two Friends of Liberty, vol. ii. p. 319,
published in 1790). But cannot one see that Mounier speaks ironically ?
Does his " so much the better" mean more than this : "all the better
for the fire-eaters ; their wishes will be granted to overflowing " ?
1 October 10th.
3 Mirabeau peint par lui-meme, vol. i. p. 360.
VOL. I. 12
178 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
for any agent of the central power, but a kind of
administrative anarchy.1
Against the people is the law of municipal organisa-
tion (December 14th).
This law is spoken of as if it had created, or at
least re-established, the municipal life of France, and
as if it were a law of popular tendencies. Quite the
reverse is true. The Revolution in municipal forms,
from July to August, 1789, was democratic ; the people
had installed themselves as masters in the public place,
or in the church, deliberating there under arms. The
law of December 14th restrained this liberty, suppress-
ing municipal democracy ; it allowed the citizens of the
communes to meet once only, and for one object only :
the nomination of the municipal officers, and of the
electors ; and this it allowed only to "active citizens."
There were to be no more even of those general
assemblies of the population which the old state of
things convened here and there in certain cases. The
entire municipal life was legally concentrated in the
municipality, chosen among the richer citizens, by a
suffrage of citizens holding property. However, this
law conceded to " active citizens " (Article 62) the
right " to meet peaceably and without arms in private
assemblies in order to draw up petitions and addresses."
Such assemblies took the place, up to a certain point,
of the old assemblies of the inhabitants ; they became,
indeed, one of the important factors of municipal life.
There were the Jacobin clubs, which maintained the
Revolution, unified France, and indirectly, and at first
without intending it, contributed to the advent of Demo-
cracy and the Republic.
1 Thus, the councillors and directors of departments were invited, by
the law of March 15, 1791 (Article 24) to denounce to the Legislature
such orders of the King as seemed to them contrary to the laws.
PRIVILEGES OF THE MIDDLE CLASS 179
III.
We have seen how the National Assembly organised
the Monarchy. Let us see how it organised the middle
class as a class with special political privileges.
The reader will not have forgotten that the philo-
sophers and political writers of the eighteenth century
were unanimously — not excepting Rousseau — against
the idea of establishing in France a democracy, as we
understand it — the rule of universal suffrage ; and the
French had been still further encouraged to repudiate
the idea of such a democracy by the example of the
American English, who had established in their
republican States a property-owners' suffrage.
At the beginning of the Revolution the same state
of mind still existed.
Thus, in June, 1789, Camille Desmoulins writes : r
" The first men to unite themselves in a society saw from the first
that the state of primitive equality could not subsist for long ; that, in
succeeding assemblies, some of the associates would no longer have the
same interest in keeping the social pact, the guarantee of the safe
possession of property ; and they would take care to put it out of the
power of the latter class to break this pact. In this spirit legislators
have deleted from the body politic the class of people whom we call
proletariats, as good only to breed children and to recruit society ; 2 they
have relegated them to a division without influence over the assemblies
of the people. Exiled from the great affairs of life by a thousand tasks
or needs, and in a continual dependence, this division can never be
dominant in the State. The very sentiment of their own condition
keeps them away from all assemblies. Will the servant think as the
master does, and the beggar with him on whose alms he lives ? "
A few weeks later Camille Desmoulins had changed
his opinion. He was not alone in so doing. There
1 La France libre. CEuvres of C. Desmoulins, vol. i. p. 85.
2 It is curious to find Desmoulins writing as though society could or
should be chiefly recruited from the poor, inefficient, sick, or criminal !
—[Trans.]
180 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
were soon voices in favour of universal suffrage, and
in favour of democracy, even among the disciples of
Rousseau ; even among those who, like Robespierre,
adored Rousseau.
Why?
Because a new factor came into being — the filling
of the stage, the assumption of the toga, by the people,
who, united to the middle classes, had triumphed over
the Bastille, and effected the municipal revolution
throughout all France.
Was it just or possible to relegate to the category
of proletariats the workers who had beaten back the
King's troops in the open streets ; the peasants who
had triumphed over feudalism ; this body of French-
men in arms?
This, however, is what the Assembly did. But it
was no longer one of those reforms concerning which
all patriots are united, and which seem the result of
the force of events.
The establishment of the rule of property-holders
was effected only after complicated and uproarious de-
bates, and led to a schism between the men of the
Revolution. Henceforward there is a democratic party
and a bourgeois party, nameless as yet and half un-
conscious of themselves, and it is in the first that we
must look for the elements of the future Republican
party.
Let us try to elucidate this fact, which is ill under-
stood, of the establishment of a regime of property-
holders, the political organisation of the middle class,
of the bourgeois franchise.
In the report made by Mounier, in the name of
the Committee of Constitution, on July 9, 1789, there
was nothing whatever, or little enough, concerning the
property-holders' franchise : only a vague protest
against " placing arbitrary authority in the hands of
the multitude." Perhaps the bourgeoisie still had
PASSIVE AND ACTIVE CITIZENS 181
need of the " multitude " to overcome the royal
despotism.
After the taking of the Bastille, when the bourgeoisie
had vanquished this despotism by means of the multi-
tudes of Paris, the idea of eliminating from political
life the poorer part of the nation saw the light ; and
on July 20th and 21st Sieyes read to the Committee
of Constitution a work entitled, Preliminaries of the
Constitution: a reasoned Examination and Exposition
of the Rights of Man and Citizen,1 in which he dis-
tinguished natural and civil rights, which he called
passive rights, from political rights, which he called
active rights. " All the inhabitants of a country,"
he said, " should enjoy therein the rights of a passive
citizen; all have a right to the protection of their
persons, their property, their liberty, &c, but all have
not the right to take part in the formation of public
authority ; all are not active citizens. Women — at
least in the present state of things — children, foreigners,
and, again, those who in no way contribute to the
public establishment, should not have any active in-
fluence in public matters. All may enjoy the
advantages of society ; but only those who contribute
to the public establishment are, as it were, true share-
holders in the great social undertaking. These alone
are truly active citizens, true members of the associa-
tion." How will he distinguish these " true share-
holders "? He does not say ; he does not formally
mention the conditions of the property suffrage. But
one sees clearly what he is driving at. And it is in vain
that he cries : " The equality of political rights is
a fundamental principle ; it is sacred " ; and so forth.
By this, evidently, he means only that all active citizens
ought to enjoy the same political rights. In any case,
it was he who first made use, in this connection, of
the words active and passive, and he who first pro-
1 Paris, Baudoin, 1789 (also the Proces-vcrbal, vol. ii.).
182 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
posed these formulae, from which the entire bourgeoisie
organisation was presently to spring.
Only when the defeat of the ancien regime became
definitive were the proposals for a property suffrage
officially r announced ; in a report which Lally-Tollendal
drew up in the name of the Committee of Constitu-
tion, on August 31, 1789, in proposing a system
of two Chambers, he demanded that the members of
the " Chamber of Representatives " should be pro-
prietors ; because, said he, such are more independent.
In order not to exclude merit, he demanded merely
the possession of some real estate : " This," he added,
" will be to prove less exacting than the English, and
even than the Americans, who, in requiring the posses-
sion of freehold, have determined a fixed minimum
value." But as for the Upper Chamber, " each Senator
will have to prove his title to territorial property of
determined value (determined by the National
Assembly)."
Lally spoke only of conditions of eligibility.
Mounier, in a report and a proposal which he sub-
mitted on the same day (August 31st), says that "to
possess the right to elect, a man must have been
domiciled for a year in the district of election, and must
pay a direct tax equal in value to three days' labour."
As for eligibility, his advice is slightly different from
that of Lally ; he suggests that, in order to be eligible
to " the Legislative Body," one should have had " for a
period of at least a year possession of real estate
within the kingdom." 2
The Assembly hesitated visibly in the face of
violating in this way the first article of the Declara-
tion of Rights. It would not have been possible to
1 There is nothing concerning the matter in Mounier's report of
July 28th.
2 His motives are explained in another report (September 4th) but
in an obscure and uninteresting manner.
DEBATE ON THE SUFFRAGE 183
insert the electoral system in the Constitutional Articles
decreed in September ; it was relegated to the scheme
for the administrative division of the kingdom.
This scheme was the object of a report submitted
by Thouret on September 29th. He calculated that,
the population of France being approximately twenty-
six millions, there should not be more than about
4,400,000 electors. To be an active citizen, according
to Thouret's scheme, a man must pay the State the
equivalent of three days' labour ; to be eligible for
the Assembly of the Commune, and that of the De-
partment, the condition was to be the value of ten
days' labour '; to be eligible to the National Assembly,
the condition would be the payment of a direct tax
equal in value to a mark of silver. The whole system
was proposed by Thouret, briefly and dryly, and un-
supported by arguments.
On October 20th the debate opened on the conditions
required of a man before he could be reckoned an
" active " citizen.
Montlosier demanded the suppression of the words
" active " and " passive." But he wished the right
of suffrage to be confined to the heads of families.
Le Grand wished the condition to be limited to the
value of a single day's work.1
The discussion dragged on, as though the Assembly
were ashamed of eliminating the populace, the victors
of the Bastille, from the State. A Parisian riot (on the
murder of the baker Francois) very conveniently fur-
nished the bourgeoisie with arguments against the
people; on October 21st martial law was voted for
the benefit of the middle class which proclaimed it.
The discussion was resumed on the 22nd, more lively
and impassioned now, and one sees the bourgeois and
the democrats at grips at last.
1 Point dn Jour, vol. iii. p. 489.
184 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
" M. the Abbe Gregoire," says a contemporary journalist, " rose, with
his usual patriotic vehemence, to protest against this condition.
' Money,' he said, ' is a mainspring in the matter of administration ; but
the virtues must hold their place in society. The condition of a
certain tax proposed by the Committee of Constitution is an excellent
means of placing us once more under the aristocracy of riches. It is
time to honour the poor ; the poor man has a citizen's duties to fulfil,
however small his fortune ; it is enough that his heart is French. ' " *
Adrien du Port, who was one of the leaders of
the bourgeoisie, also spoke, in the name of the Declara-
tion of Rights, against any restriction of the suffrage ;
and Defermon spoke to the same effect.2 Reubell
thought differently ; but it seemed to him that the words
" days of labour " presented " a humiliating idea,"
and " just as the Committee proposed a tax of the
value of a silver mark as the condition of eligi-
bility to the National Assembly, it was only consistent
to require the payment of an ounce of silver for
eligibility to the primary assemblies." 3 Gaultier de
Biauzat, going further, demanded a qualification of two
ounces .4 M. Noussitou said that in Beam they had
never considered the amount of a man's taxes as a
qualification, but his standing as a man of enlightened
mind. M. Robespierre drew from the Declaration of
Rights the proof that a citizen had no need to pay a
tax in order to exercise political rights, without which
rights individual liberty would not exist." 5
Du Pont (de Nemours), " imbued with the idea
1 Le Hodey, vol. v. pp. 147-8. According to Gorsas (Courrier, vol. v.
p. 77), Gregoire said that to be an elector or eligible " it was needful
only to be a good citizen, to have a sound judgment, and a French
heart."
2 Point du Jour, vol. ii. p. 416.
3 Ibid., vol. iii. p. 415.
4 Le Hodey, vol. v. p. 149.
5 Point du Jour, vol. iii. p. 415. A more extended analysis of this
speech of Robespierre will be found in Le Hodey, vol. v. p. 149, and in
Gorsas, vol. v. p. 78.
UNIVERSAL OR QUALIFIED SUFFRAGE? 185
that property is the fundamental basis of society," '
gives advice of a mixed nature : every man should be
eligible, but in order to be an elector he must be a
proprietor.2
Demeunier defends the proposal of the Committee.
" In the payment of three days' labour there resides a
motive for emulation and encouragement ; and in-
capacity would be only temporary ; the non -proprietor
would sooner or later become a proprietor." 3 Already
we hear the " Get rich ! " of Guizot.
To sum up : five deputies — Gregoire, Adrien du Port,
Defermon, Noussitou, and Robespierre — demanded
universal suffrage. What was the numerical import-
ance of the minority in whose name they spoke? We
do not know, and there was no numerical vote. But
the minority must have been a small one, for we find
the most advanced " patriots " resigning themselves
to the property suffrage. Thus we shall find Petion,
on the following October 29th, saying at the tribune :
" From one point of view, I used to say that every
citizen should partake of political rights ; from another,
especially where the nation in question is ancient and
corrupt, I can see the necessity of the exception pro-
posed by your Committee of Constitution."
The article was voted forthwith, and became the
third of the first section of the decree of December 22,
1789. It reads as follows :
"The qualities which are essential in an active citizen are: (1) he
must be French ; (2) he must be at least twenty-five years of age ;
(3) he must have been actually domiciled in the canton for at least a
year ; (4) he must pay direct taxation to the value (local) of three days'
labour ; (5) he must not be in a state of domesticity — that is, a hired
servant." 4
J Point du Jour, vol. iii. p. 415.
2 Le Hodey, vol. v. p. 149. 3 Ibid., p. 151.
4 On this question of the political incapacity of servants, see the
Point du Jour, vol. iii. pp. 458-60. The decree of March 20 and
186 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
How, and at what rate, was the day's work to be
valued? In the first place, the municipal authorities
had to make this valuation.1 Some arrived at too
high a figure. For instance, the Committee of Soissons
fixed it at 20 sols,2 although the average figure for a
day's work in that city was actually only 12 sols. It
seems that elsewhere the price was fixed at more than
20 sols. Thus, on January 15, 1790, the following
decree was enacted :
" The National Assembly, considering the fact that, forced as it is to
impose certain conditions as to the quality of active citizen, it ought
to make these conditions as easy for the people to fulfil as possible, and
that the value of three days' labour, required from the active citizen,
should not be fixed according to the industrial day, which is sus-
ceptible to many variations, but according to the agricultural day, has
decreed . . . that in the valuation of the day's work from this point of
view the sum of 20 sols must not be exceeded."
It was only by exception that the municipalities
tended to increase the " price of a day's work," to
" aristocratise " the suffrage. We shall see presently
that in general the tendency was to fix the price lower
than the real value — to " democratise " the suffrage ;
and this tendency provoked certain observations and
23 and April 19, 1790, enacts, in Article 7, that " stewards, managers,
former feodists, secretaries, carters, or foremen employed by land-
owners, freeholders, or tenant farmers [metayers : in the strict meaning
of the word the land is held on condition of giving the proprietor half
the produce — Trans.], shall not be reputed domestics or hired ser-
vants if otherwise they meet the other required conditions."
1 Before the application of municipal law, the price of the day's
labour was fixed by the revolutionary municipalities which were
spontaneously established in July and August, 1789, or by the
" Committees " which were formed in the towns. The decree of
February 11, 1790, confides the task of valuation to the new munici-
palities. Later, by the decree of January 13, 1791, Article 11, this
function is passed on to the administrations of districts and depart-
ments.
2 Sol = sou, or halfpenny. — [Trans.]
THE PRICE OF CITIZENSHIP 187
instructions from the Committee of Constitution
(March 30, 1790). It was stated "that, if the
municipalities have the power to value the day's work
at a sum less than 20 sols, they must not reduce
this sum to any ridiculous extent, in order to increase
their influence." For instance, for a valuation lower
than 10 sols they ought to refer to the National
Assembly.
The question of the three days' work came once
more before the Assembly during the session of
October 23, 1790, when it discussed the proposal re-
lating to taxes on movable property and a kind of poll-
tax, which became the law on January 13, 1791. The
Committee of Constitution then attempted to democra-
tise the suffrage to some extent, and proposed, through
Defermon, to make all who had any resources what-
ever, except " labourers of the lowest class," pay a
tax equivalent to the value of three days' work. The
labourers could pay the tax voluntarily, when they would
become active citizens. It was practically universal
suffrage that the Committee was thus attempting to
establish by indirect means. But the Assembly pro-
tested against the clause permitting the voluntary
payment of the three days' tax ; it affected to fear
corruption ; and the preliminary question was put
to the vote amidst an uproar. Roederer insisted that
the remainder of the article should be redrafted so
as to exclude as great a proportion of labourers as was
possible. Robespierre delivered a democratic speech.1
This is what the Assembly voted :
" The tax of three days' labour will be paid by all those who possess
any fixed or movable wealth, or who, reduced to their daily work,
1 Point du Jour, vol. xv. pp. 333-5 ; Monitcur, reprint, vol. vi. p. 191.
We find that Robespierre and Roederer, both members of the extreme
Left of the Constituent Assembly, were not then in agreement on this
important question of the right of suffrage.
188 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
exercise a trade or calling which affords them a salary larger than that
fixed by the Department as the value of a day's work in the territory of
their municipality." '
This enlarged a little the basis originally decided on.
For example, in a commune where the tax of the day's
work was fixed at 1 5 sols, a labourer who earned
16 sols a day would become an elector.
Other measures were or had already been taken to
make the suffrage yet a little wider. Thus, in Paris,
the Committee of Constitution authorised " the admis-
sion to the primary assemblies of all members of the
National Guard having served at their own expense,
without any tax being required of them."2 The law
of February 28, 1790, enacted that soldiers and sailors
of the navy who had served at least sixteen years should
be electors and eligible without any other requirements .3
Finally, it seems that ecclesiastics were admitted as
active citizens to the primary assemblies without being
subject to the three days' tax .4
We have official statistics of the " active " popula-
tion of France. Out of twenty -six millions of in-
habitants (which was believed to be the population)
1 This became Article 13, heading 2, of the law of January 13, 1791.
2 I have not been able to find this decree of the Committee of
Constitution. But allusion is made to it in the above terms by
Desmousseaux, substitute adjutant of the procurator of the Commune,
in a letter of June 10, 1791, in which he demands of the Committee if
it is necessary to follow the same rules for the formation of primary
assemblies, in view of the elections for the next National Assembly
(Arch. Nat. D. iv. dossier 1425, piece 25). We have not the Com-
mittee's reply.
3 In the order of August 12, 1790, § vi. Article 20.
4 This is implied by a speech by Robespierre, but I have found
neither law nor decree dealing with the subject. These were
Robespierre's words : " You have granted them [the rights of active
citizens] to ministers of worship, when they cannot fulfil the pecuniary
conditions exacted by your decrees" ((Euvres, Laponneraye, vol. i.
P- 173)-
CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY 189
there were 4,298,360 active citizens, if we may believe
the figures given in the decree of May 28, 1 79 1 .
Such were the conditions required of the primary
voter, the man allowed to take part in the primary
assemblies, the " active citizen." l
It remained to fix the conditions of eligibility. The
Committee of Constitution proposed to exact the pay-
ment of a tax equal to the local value of ten days of
work : (1) from those who wished to be nominated as
electors !by the primary assemblies ; (2) from those
who wished to be eligible as members of a Depart-
mental Assembly ; (3) from those who wished to be
eligible as members of a District Assembly ; (4) from
those who wished to be eligible to the Municipal
Assemblies. The debate opened on October 28, 1789,
and was closed the same day, by the adoption of the pro-
posal of the Committee.2 There was a certain incon-
siderable amount of opposition. Du Pont thought there
should be no property restrictions whatever concerning
the right to be elected, and Montlosier agreed with him :
" Jean-Jacques Rousseau," 3 he said, " would never have
managed to get elected." 4 Vivian, on the contrary,
demanded that the law should require, as well as the
other condition, the possession of "a sufficient real
estate." 5 The democratic deputies do not seem to
have come into action on this occasion ; 6 they were
1 Let me note here that the primary assemblies were the judges of
the capacity and title of citizens as active or passive. See the decrees
of December 22, 1789, and February 3, 1790.
2 Point du Jour, vol. hi. pp. 478-80.
3 Gorsas, Courrier, vol. v. p. 169.
4 As an example of the regulations by which a State refuses the
services of men admirably adapted to serve it, certain regulations of
the English War Office will recur to the reader which would, had they
been in force earlier, have kept some of our greatest generals out of
the army ; and entrance to the navy is even more restricted. — [Trans.]
s Gorsas, Courrier, vol. v. p. 170.
6 Mirabeau, who was hostile to the idea of creating a privileged
middle class, nevertheless stated, or at least allowed it to be stated, in
190 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
reserving themselves for the debate on the value of
the silver mark.
This debate on the mark of silver — that is, on the
conditions of eligibility to the National Assembly —
began on October 29, 1789.'
The Committee of Constitution, giving way in the
matter of insisting upon real estate, demanded " that
the question be considered of requiring the payment
of a land tax equal to the value of a mark of silver, as
a condition of eligibility to the quality of a repre-
sentative in the National Assemblies."
Petion protested against all property restrictions as
affecting eligibility. " We must," he said, " have con-
fidence that the electors will make a choice of
virtue." 2
Another deputy, harking back to the original idea
of the Committee, demanded that the requirement
should be the possession of an estate, as well as the
payment of the mark .3
Ramel de Nogaret claimed an exception in favour
of the sons of a family who, in the districts where
certain laws obtained, could not, so long as their father
was living, possess the required amount of property.
The Abbe Thibault observed that the condition pf
possessing landed estate would perhaps, in the future,
render all the clergy ineligible ; and he also said that,
to his mind, a mark of silver was too much.
Demeunier defended the proposal of the Committee,
but his arguments are not of particular interest.
his journal, the Conrrier de Provence, No. lix. p. 13, that the law
concerning the ten days' work was " one very apt to encourage and to
honour a laborious industry."
1 For this debate I follow the P rock-verbal, which at this point is
lucid and well kept, adding the names of the orators and extracts
from their speeches from the gazettes of Barere and Le Hodey.
2 Point du Jour, vol. iii. p. 488.
3 According to Le Hodey, the author of this motion was " M. le
President." Camus was then presiding.
CONDITIONS OF THE SUFFRAGE 191
Cazales said : " The man of commerce can easily
transport his fortune ; the capitalist, the banker, the
man of means is cosmopolitan ; the landowner alone
is the true citizen ; he is chained to the soil ; his
interest is its fertility ; it is for him to deliberate on
the question of imposts." And he gave England as
an example, where, to be a Member of the House
of Commons, a man had to enjoy an income of £300.
He claimed that the landed property which those
eligible must possess should bring in an income of
at least £50.!
Reubell and Defermon replied to Cazales, upholding
the proposal of the Committee.
Barere spoke against the requirements of landed
property, and, supported by a few others, proposed
to substitute for the condition of a tax of a silver
mark the payment of a tax of the local value of thirty
days' labour. Other speakers demanded that this tax
should be paid in kind.
Finally, Prieur (of Marne), referring to Petion's
proposal, suggested the suppression of any condition
whatever save that of the confidence of the electors ;
and, supported by Mirabeau, he demanded priority for
his motion. The Assembly voted against the priority.
The first amendment proposed was one in favour
of requiring landed property, of whatever value, as well
as the tax of a silver mark : this was adopted. The
minority, including Gregoire and part of the clergy,
demanded a fresh vote, which was refused.
Second amendment : What value shall be fixed
as regards the real estate? Decreed that the matter
need not be considered.
Third amendment : To assess the tax in days of work,
or in corn. Decreed that it shall be valued in silver,
by weight.
Fourth amendment : That the tax should be assessed
1 Point du Jour, vol. iii. p. 487.
192 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
at half a mark, or at two ounces of silver only. Decreed
that it shall be assessed at a mark.
The President then read the decreed article :
"In order to be eligible to the National Assembly, the candidate
must pay a direct tax equivalent to the value of a mark of silver, and
must in addition be possessed of real estate."
The vote was protested ; it was claimed that the
Assembly had not voted on the essential principle and
on the completed whole, and so forth.1 The Assembly
took the vote, and found " that all was decided." The
opposition insisted. The question of sons of a family
was revived, and inspired a speech by Barere,2 and
the Assembly, once more going to the vote, decreed
" that the decree had been legally passed." Imme-
diately the discussion recommenced, confused and
violent, as though the Assembly had pangs of remorse.
In the end it reversed its judgment, and, appealing
to the vote for the third time, decided to " refer the
debate back to the first day, leaving matters as they
were."
The debate was resumed on November 3rd. There
were fresh speeches in favour of sons of families,
new attempts to pass the decree. Finally, the Assembly
definitely confirmed it.
The Committee of Constitution soon attempted to
mitigate the anti-democratic effects of the decree con-
cerning the silver mark, and the property suffrage in
general. On December 3, 1789, between two other
additional Articles dealing with election matters, it pro-
posed an Article 6, framed as follows :
1 See Gorsas as to the uproar in the Assembly at this time (vol. v.
P- 175)-
2 Robespierre (Point du Jour, vol. iii. p. 494) expressed himself as
against the exception in favour of sons of a family. Why ? Did he
feel that this exception would strengthen the middle classes ? See
Le Hodey, vol. v. p. 256.
DEBATES ON THE SUFFRAGE 193
" The conditions of eligibility, relative to the direct tax declared
essential as due from the active citizen, whether elector or eligible,
will be counted as fulfilled by every citizen who, during two consecu-
tive years, shall have paid voluntarily a civic tribute equal to the value
of the tax."
This proposition raised a tempest of protestations.
The Committee was hooted. " A thousand voices,"
says Gorsas,1 " shouted as one, accusing the Committee
of deliberate cunning." Others cried that corruption
would debauch the suffrage. The Committee recoils ;
it amends the article, so that now it applies only to
those eligible. Mirabeau upholds this new reading.2
The article, put to the vote, is rejected. The minority
protest the vote, and a vote is taken by roll-call ; the
article is definitively rejected by a majority of a few
votes .3
The Committee is not discouraged ; on December 7th
it proposes an Article 8, which dispenses with the
property qualification in the matter of eligibility,
whether to the administrative assemblies or to the
National Assembly, in the case of citizens who obtain
a suffrage of three-quarters. There is another
uproarious debate .4 Vivian, speaking of the citizens
excluded from the ranks of the eligible, cries : " Let
them become proprietors, and then nothing need prevent
them from enjoying their rights." Roederer and
Castellane speak in favour of the proposal of the Com-
mittee. After a not very conclusive vote, a nominal
appeal is made, and the article is rejected by 453
votes against 443.5
1 Courrier, vol. vi. p. 332. 2 Point du Jour, vol. v. p. 6.
3 The Prods-verbal does not give the figures. The Point du Join
says the majority was 14. Le Hodey, vol. vi. p. 26, gives 442 against
436 ; Gorsas, vol. vi. p. 339, 449 against 428.
4 The best account of it is to be found in the Courrier de Provence,
vol. iv. No. lxxvi.
5 These figures are not from the Proces-verbal, which gives none, but
from the Point du Jour, vol. v. p. 40, the Courrier de Provence,
VOL. I. 13
194 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
The question of the mark of silver was very ably
reintroduced and reopened by Robespierre, during the
session of January 25, 1790. * "In Artois," he said,
" the direct personal tax is unknown, because the poll-
tax or capitation has there been converted by the
administration of the estates into vingtiemes and land-
taxes." In Artois, consequently, one could pay the
tax of the mark of silver only if a landed proprietor ;
and the greater part of the inhabitants would thus
find themselves disfranchised, politically disinherited.
Robespierre did not, however, demand a special measure
for Artois ; the proposed decree which he read had for
its object the adjournment of the application of the
condition of the mark of silver until such time as the
Assembly should have revised the then existing system
of taxation.
Like all democratic proposals, that of Robespierre
angered the majority. There were protests, hootings,
uproar, " volcanic and hurricanic," as said Le Hodey.
The previous question was protested. Charles de
Lameth demanded that it should be discussed, but also
that it should be adjourned to another day. A deputy 2
obtained leave to refer it back to the Committee of
Constitution, which was instructed to prepare a decree.
Robespierre gained his cause. In effect, the decree of
February 2, 1790, enacted (Article 6) that in districts
where no direct or personal taxes were paid, there
would be no property qualifications required to render
the inhabitants active and eligible citizens, until the
reorganisation of the system of taxation"; the sole ex-
No. lxxvi. p. 13, the Journal of Le Hodey, vol. vi. p. 331, the
Patriote franpais, No. lxxii. p. 2, and the Courtier of Gorsas, vol. vi.
p. 392. Gorsas adds that certain deputies said that "the majority was
actually 460 against 433."
1 Point du Jour, vol. vi. pp. 184, 185 ; Le Hodey, vol. viii. pp. 61-64.
* The Point du Jour says Dumetz. There was no member of the
name : perhaps Beaumez.
THE BOURGEOISIE TRIUMPHANT 195
ceptions were : "in the towns, citizens who, having
neither property nor other known means, have no trade
or profession either ; and in the country, those who
have no real estate, or who are not tenants or farmers
{metayers) of a farm with a rent of thirty livres."
The new organisation of the taxes was not settled
by law until January 13, 1 79 1 .
It follows from the facts and dates above mentioned
that in part of France the administrative, judicial, and
ecclesiastic elections took place under an almost
universal suffrage ; but in the case of the elections to
the Legislative Assembly the property-owners' suffrage
was applied in all its rigour : the values were exacted
of three and ten days' labour, and the silver mark.
Such was the legal organisation of the property-
owners' suffrage ; and in this manner the bourgeoisie
formed themselves into a politically privileged class.1
IV.
How did public opinion welcome the property
suffrage and the privilege of the middle class?
Let us confess at the outset that there was not at
first any very lively protest against the actual principle
of the property qualification. People accepted, as a
general thing, the distinction between active and passive
citizens'; or, at least, they resigned themselves to it.
1 It is incredible how these facts, public as they are, were forgotten
and distorted. Thus, a man who was present at the Revolution, and
who never passed for a fool, Royer-Collard, imagined later on that the
Constitution of 1791 was democratic. He said, in the tribune, in
183 1 : "Twice has democracy been sovereign in our government;
political equality was ingeniously effected by the Constitution of 1791
and in that of the year III " (Discours sur I'heredite de la pairie, in the
Vie politique de Royer-Collard, by M. de Barante, vol. ii. p. 469). The
Constitution of the year III, as we shall see, admits no more of
"political equality" than that of 1791.
196 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
It was the qualification imposed upon eligibility to the
National Assembly, the tax of the mark of silver, that
led to the revolt of a certain proportion of the public.
On the other hand, even among the most democratic
of the publicists I find hardly any who demand universal
suffrage as we understand it. The journalists agree
with the Assembly as to the exclusion of domestic
servants. There are religious prejudices against the
Jews ; r there are social prejudices against actors, and
also against executioners. The Revolutions de Paris,
that boldest, most revolutionary of journals, admits that
an actor may be an elector, but not eligible : 2
" Can one conceive of Frontin as a mayor ? Can we see him
descending to the pit to re-establish order in case of tumult — above
all, if the tumult arose from the delivery of his exaggerations or his
puns ? could he study, repeat, and play his parts, and devote himself
to the details of a public administration, which, in the event of an
emergency, might force him, in the middle of a play, to transform the
caducens into the rod of command?"
The National Assembly took no account of social
prejudices ; it allowed the actor and the executioner to
exercise their political rights. But it did, for a certain
period, take account of religious prejudice. The decree
of December 23 and 24, 1789, which admits non-
Catholics to be electors and eligible, provisionally ex-
cludes all Jews. 3 The decree of January 28, 1790,
admits a portion only of the Jews residing in France :
namely, Portuguese and Spanish Jews, and those of
Avignon. It was only on the eve of dissolution, on
September 27, 1791, that the Assembly decided to
assimilate all Jews with the rest of the citizens of
France.
1 See, in the Revolution francaise of August 15, 1898, the article of
M. Sigismund Lacroix, entitled : Ce qu'on pensait des Juifs a Paris
en 1790.
2 No. xxiv. (December 19-26, 1789) pp. 6, 7.
3 See Courrier de Provence, vol. v. No. lxxxiii.
CRITICISMS OF THE NEW SYSTEM 197
It is interesting to observe the opinion of Marat,
because, in his proposal for a Constitution, he expressed
himself as a democrat, although a Monarchist. " Every
citizen," he said, " ought to have the right of suffrage ;
the mere fact of birth ought to confer the right." >
He excluded only women, minors, and the insane, &c.
However, in his paper he protested against the property
suffrage only in the matter of the silver mark, when
Thouret proposed it in his report of September 29,
1789. He foresaw an aristocracy of nobles and
financiers. He declared that he preferred knowledge
to fortune. But he would have liked to " scatter the
vermin " — that is to say, to render ineligible " pre-
lates, financiers, members of the Parliaments, and
pensioners of the King, his officers and their
creatures," without counting " a multitude of
scoundrels," members of the then Assembly.2
We have seen that Mirabeau was hostile to the privi-
leges of the middle class ; none the less his paper,
the Courrier de Provence, approved the condition of
the tax of three days' labour, saying that it would
recall to all men " the obligation to labour." 3
The Chrortique de Paris approved first of all of the
condition of the mark of silver .4 It seemed to rally
to the idea of the provisional exclusion of the plebs
from the State politic, and published a letter from
Orry de Mauperthuy, Advocate in Parliament, in
which, having criticised the condition of requiring the
possession of real estate, he said : 5
1 Marat, La Constitution, p. 21.
2 Ami du Peuple, No. xxi. pp. 179, 180, 181. It is just to add that, if
Marat expressed no opinion on the occasions when the other
" property " measures were voted, it was at this time that he was
being prosecuted and had interrupted the publication of his paper.
3 No. lvi. p. 23. This paper equally approved of the tax of ten
days' labour.
4 No. lxviii. p. 271, vol. i.
5 No. lxxi.
198 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
*
" There is, however, a class of men, our brothers, who, thanks to the
infamous organisation of our society, cannot be called upon to represent
the nation ; they are the proletariats of our days. It is not because
they are poor and naked : it is because they do not even understand
the language of our laws. This exclusion, however, is not permanent ;
it is only for a very short time. Perhaps it will whet their sense of
emulation : perhaps it will provoke our help. In a few years' time
they will be able to sit with you, and, as is seen in some of the Swiss
cantons, a shepherd, a peasant of the Danube or the Rhine, will be the
worthy representative of his nation. It would be still better (if it were
not that this might be the resource of a dying but not yet dead
aristocracy) to leave it entirely to the confidence of those represented.
This is the sole inviolable principle."
He would have a property qualification for the elector,
but none for the eligible. When the Committee of
Constitution proposed to render eligible those who
should voluntarily pay the necessary tax, the Chronique
indignantly rejected the idea.1
The Patriote frangais says little on the franchise
question. However, I find that in respect of the
session of December 3, 1789, and the decree con-
cerning the mark of silver, the Patriote says : "It
was upheld out of sheer obstinacy, out of the desire
to humiliate the poorer citizens, out of the mania of
trying to create classes in society." 2
The two journalists who on this occasion manifested
their democratic sympathies with the greatest clear-
ness were Camille Desmoulins and Loustallot.
The first expressed himself as follows :
" There is only one voice in the capital : very soon there will be
only one voice in the provinces, and that voice is against the decree of
the mark of silver. It has just created in France an aristocratic
government, and this is the greatest victory which bad citizens have
ever enjoyed in the National Assembly. To bring home the whole
absurdity of the decree, it is enough to say that Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Chronique de Paris, December 4, 1789, pp. 411, 412.
No. lxix.
LOUSTALLOT ON THE SUFFRAGE 199
Corneille, and Mably would not have been eligible. A journalist has
stated that, among the clergy, the Cardinal de Rohan alone has voted
against the decree ; but it is impossible that Gregoire, Massieu, Dillon,
Jallet, Joubert, Gouttes, and a certain monk who is one of the best of
citizens,1 can have dishonoured themselves at the end of the campaign,
after having distinguished themselves by so many exploits. The
journalist deceives himself. As for you, O miserable priests, imbecile
bonzes, do you not see that your God would not have been eligible ?
Jesus Christ, of whom you make a God in the pulpit, in the tribune
you have just relegated to the rabble ! And you wish me to respect you,
you, the priests of a proletariat God, who was not even an active citizen !
Respect, you yourselves, the poverty He ennobled ! What do you
mean to convey by this eternal repetition of the words, active citizen ?
The active citizens are those who took the Bastille, they are those who
cleared the land, while the sluggards of the clergy and the Court,
despite the immensity of their possessions, are only vegetable creatures,
like that tree of your Gospels, which bears no fruit and is cast into
the fire."2
Loustallot was no less vehement against the decree
of the mark of silver .3 He prepared a huge petition
in order to obtain the revocation of this decree and
of that portion of the municipal organisation already-
voted.
" Already," he said, " the aristocracy of wealth pure and simple has
been shamelessly established. Who knows but it is not already a
crime to dare to say that the nation is the sovereign ? "
And he concluded with this appeal to the King :
" Louis the Sixteenth ! Restorer of French liberty ! Behold three-
quarters of the nation excluded from the Legislative Assembly by the
1 Doubtless Dom Gerle.
* Revolutions de France et de Brabant, No. 3 (vol. i. pp. 108, 109).
3 Revolutions de Paris, No. xxi. (November 28 to December 5, 1789).
The articles in this journal are anonymous. Tradition attributes to
Loustallot all those dealing with general political questions. But there
were other writers, and there is no means of being absolutely sure that
any article is his ; so that when we quote an opinion from this paper as
being his, it is with all reserve.
200 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
decree of the mark of silver : behold the communes discredited under
the guardianship of a municipal council. Save the French people
from slavery or a civil war ! Purify the veto of suspension by the
glorious use you can make of it at this moment ! Preserver of the
rights of the people, protect them against the carelessness, error, or
crime of their representatives ; tell them, when they demand your
sanction for these unjust decrees : 'The nation is sovereign ; I am its
head ; you are but its servants, neither the nation's masters nor
mine.' "
Did these articles influence public opinion? Or were
they the result of a current of opinion? We do not
know ; the journals tell one but little of what was said
in the street, in the cafes, or at the Palais Royal
about the establishment of the property suffrage. I
fancy that at the first news of its establishment the
people of Paris were unmoved, not understanding its
import. It seems that the more enlightened of the
active citizens must have first explained to the passive
citizens in what manner they were wronged.
In any case, it was after the publication of the
articles by Desmoulins and Loustallot that there took
place the first demonstration against the property suf-
frage, or rather the first demonstration we know of took
place after their appearance.
At first the mark of silver was the trouble ; it seems,
as I have said, that the people resigned themselves
readily enough to the rest of the decree.
On December 17, 1789, the district of Henri IV
passed a resolution with a view to arranging with
the other districts to send to the King a deputation
for the purpose of requesting him to refuse his sanction
to the decree of the mark of silver.1 This idea, par-
taking as it did of the politics of Mirabeau, of using
the royal veto and the royal power in the interest
of the people's cause, seems to have had neither echo
nor consequences.
' Sigismond Lacroix, Actes de la Commune de Paris, vol. hi. p. 582.
THE TAX OF THE SILVER MARK 201
But a certain number of districts did then protest
against the mark of silver.1
This campaign was encouraged by the most eminent
thinker of the time : by Condorcet, member of the
Commune of Paris since September. He, formerly
a supporter of the property suffrage, had changed his
opinion since the proletariat had acted as citizens in
helping the middle class to take the Bastille ; since
the populace of Paris, by this heroic and rational feat,
had raised itself to the dignity of a people.
President of a Committee of the Commune which
was charged with the preparation of a scheme for
a municipality, Condorcet read before this Committee
on December 12, 1789, a paper in which he demanded
the revocation pure and simple of the decree of the
mark of silver. He persuaded his colleagues to
authorise him to present this paper to the Committee
of Constitution of the National Assembly, which,
desiring, as we have seen, to enlarge the electoral
basis, replied that if Paris were to join her protest
to those of the other cities, the manifestation might
produce some effect, and that the General Assembly
and the districts should be consulted on this point.2
Condorcet then officially presented a memoir to the
Commune 3 which moved (January 28, 1790), that
this memoir should be presented to the National
Assembly, " after the majority of the districts shall
have manifested their desire." But it does not appear
that the Commune, then rather bourgeois in sympathy
than otherwise, ever convoked the districts to this effect.
The latter preferred rather to act by themselves. As
1 Sigismond Lacroix, Actes de la Commune de Paris, vol. iii. pp.
583, 584. 2 Ibid., p. 591.
3 This memoir was then printed in the collection entitled Cercle
social, Letter VIII. p. 57. It also appeared separately ; and there is, in
the British Museum, an example of this impression, the text of which
M. Lacroix has reproduced.
202 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
early as January 9th the district of Saint-Jean-en-Greve
had arranged a meeting of district commissaries, which
was to take place on January 31st. An address was
drawn up, dated February 8, 1790, an "address of
the Commune of Paris in its sections," which was
signed only by twenty-seven districts out of sixty, but
which certainly expressed the view of the majority
of the districts, as the editor of the Actes de la Com-
mune de Paris has clearly shown.1 In this they prayed
the Assembly to reconsider, not only the decree of the
mark of silver, but the whole question of the property
qualification. It declared that to have four classes
in the nation was contrary to the Declaration of Rights ;
the four classes being : the class of those eligible
to the Legislative Assembly ; the class eligible to the
Administrative Assemblies ; the class of active citi-
zens, electors in the primary assemblies ; and " finally
a fourth class despoiled of all prerogative ; suppressed
by the Law it has neither made nor consented to ; de-
prived of the rights of the nation of which it is a
part ; a class which will repeat the history of feudal
servitude and the slavery of mortmain." 2
Presented before the National Assembly on
February 9th, this address was referred to the Com-
mittee of Constitution. On the next day the president
of the districts' deputation, Arsandaux by name, insisted
vainly in a letter to the President of the Assembly
on his right to be heard at the bar. " I am not,"
he said, " an individual ; I am all Paris in its com-
ponent parts ; it is the whole of France which protests
against the decree of the mark of silver." 3 No report
was made on the address of the districts.
Paris was all the more interested in the question in
that she found herself, as a result of the anclen
1 Vol. iii. pp. 618, 619.
■ Sigismond Lacroix, vol. iii. p. 620.
3 Arch. Nat. D. iv. 49, dossier 1404.
THE SUFFRAGE IN OPERATION 203
regime, in an exceptional situation — inhabited by a
crowd of citizens who paid no direct taxes beyond the
capitation tax. Now Louis XVI had remitted the
capitation tax for several years in the case of all
Parisians who had been taxed by less than six livres.
This royal favour, it was found, had in advance
diminished the numbers of the " active " citizens, above
all in the Faubourgs Saint -Marceau and Saint -Antoine.1
I find among the papers of the Committee of Constitu-
tion a long and respectful petition from the " workers
of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine," which was received
by the National Assembly on February 13, 1790,
wherein they protest against the distinction of " active "
and " passive." If they are not active citizens, it is
because they pay no taxes. They beg to be allowed,
as a favour, to pay a tax, so that they shall no longer
be " helots." They demand that, throughout the king-
dom, the taxes, direct and indirect, should be replaced
by a single direct tax of 2 sols per head, or 36 livres
per annum, which would give an annual yield of from
six to nine hundred millions. The twenty-seven signa-
tories affirm that all the workers of the faubourg are
of one mind with them.2 The journals do not even
report the matter, and the National Assembly took no
notice of it.
V.
It was in the departments that the first trial was
made of the property suffrage, at the municipal elections
of January and February, 1790.
Among the papers of the Committee of Constitution
1 Arch. Nat. D. iv. dossier 1425, piece 8 : " Questions posees aux
Comites par Desvieux, ex-vice-president du ci-devant district de Saint-
Eustache."
2 Ibid., dossier 1425, piece 1.
204 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
are some accounts of the manner in which the experi-
ment was carried out and received.
There is, for example, a letter from Mouret, Syndic
of Lescar, to " Monseigneur the President of the
National Assembly," dated March 7, 1790. He writes
that the municipal elections took place on Feb-
ruary 26th. The inhabitants of the commune counted
2,200. A mayor was elected, five municipal officers,
and twelve "notables."
" This is all the ballot has enabled us to do at the moment, on
account of the article of the decree which requires 10 days' labour
from those eligible ; it would be otherwise if this condition were
moderated ; if it were fixed at 40 sols for electors and at 4 francs
for candidates. Two-thirds of the inhabitants of this town would not
then be excluded, as they now are, from participating in honourable
duties, and condemned to stagnate in a degrading inaction."
And he notes the notorious contradiction between the
decree and the Declaration of Rights.1
The municipality of Rebenac in Beam writes in
March that in that parish, which contains about 1,100
souls, and of which the inhabitants are in part labourers
and in part " workers in the woollen and other indus-
tries," the day's work has been fixed at 6 sols, as
otherwise there would have been only twelve men
eligible, while nineteen were necessary to form the
municipality. There are about 130 active citizens.
Some municipalities take it upon themselves to
modify the electoral law. Thus, that of Saint-Felix,
in the diocese of Lodeve, is denounced (February 6,
1790) for having admitted as active citizen a certain
Vidal, junior, who, being under the parental control, paid
no taxes.2 M. de Rozimbois, Doctor in Law, captain
commandant in the National Guard, writes from Beau-
mont in Lorraine (February 19, 1790), saying that
1 Arch. Nat. D. iv. 10, dossier 153, piece 7.
2 Ibid., dossier 157, piece 7.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION 205
in the assemblies at which he has been present as
active citizen he has been surprised to see the people
set themselves up as " sovereign legislators," and decide
that " one might be an elector under the age of twenty-
five, after five or six months of domicile." l What
precisely was to be understood by a direct tax? As
a general thing, no one was sure. Two citizens of
Nimes (January 27, 1790) complained that they could
not get their names inscribed as active and eligible,
although they paid 19 livres 5 sols each as decimal
tax, the pretext being that this was not a direct
tax.2 On December 31, 1789, the citizens of Mar-
seilles had an address on this subject presented to the
Committee of Constitution, in order to have the matter
explained to them, and they received the following
note :
"The Committee of Constitution of the National Assembly, con-
sulted by the deputies of the City of Marseilles, on the question of the
municipal council of that city, declare that the decree of the Assembly
must be executed in the following manner :
" The direct contributions of three and of ten days' labour, which
serve as the conditions of exercising the functions of an active citizen,
elector, and eligible, are those which every citizen pays directly,
whether assessed on his goods or property or as a personal or poll-tax.
" Thus, the vingtieme, the poll-tax, land-taxes, taxes assessed upon
the rent, or yearly income, the capitation tax, all personal taxes, actual
or compounded for, and in general all other taxes except such as are
paid on provisions, are direct taxes, of which the amount serves to
condition the title of active citizen, elector or eligible.
" The day's work is that of the simple day-labourer, and must be
valued according to the amount habitually paid'in each district, whether
in town or country ; consequently this valuation will differ between
town and country when the price of the day's work is different.
" Resolved by the Committee of Constitution, January 4, 1790." 3
This reply doubtless reached the men of Marseilles
too late, and, when they received it, it is probable that
1 Arch. Nat. D. iv. 11, dossier 156.
2 Ibid., dossier 157. 3 Ibid., dossier 156, piece 7.
206 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
they had already drawn up, according to their liking,
their list of active citizens. In reality there was no
uniform rule for the establishment of these lists and
the appreciation of the direct or indirect character of
the taxes.
Here is another difficulty, noted by the mayor and
the members of the municipal bureau of Vannes
(March, 1790), which, although it does not refer to
the municipal elections, is a good example of the im-
perfections of the electoral system in general. Each
municipality having had the power to fix as it thought
best the tax of the day's work, " it follows that a man
will be an active citizen in one place on payment of
30 sous, while in another he cannot be an active citizen
under a crown." How, on this incoherent basis, was one
to settle the question of eligibility as elector of the
second degree or as member of a district or a de-
partmental assembly? " Would an inhabitant of a
canton in which the value of a day's work had
been fixed at 10 sols be eligible as regards the depart-
ment and districts, if he paid 100 sols in direct taxes,
when an inhabitant of another canton, in which the
value had been fixed at 20 sols, would not be elected
without paying double the tax the other paid? " This
would give too much advantage to the country districts,
in which the electors would not be in the same pro-
portion as in the towns. A decree was required
definitely and uniformly settling the price of the day's
labour. 1
Here and there other absurd results of the property
suffrage were pointed out by those affected. Thus
Lhomme, a master in chirurgery (so writes de
Sancoins, in December, 1789), had a young son, for
whom he had intended a careful education ; he gave
up his intention because it would entail expenses which
would diminish his fortune to the point, later on, of
1 Arch. Nat. D. iv. 11, dossier 157, piece 4.
ANOMALIES OF THE SUFFRAGE 207
depriving the son of his eligibility ; it was necessary,
then, that he should be ignorant in order to be
eligible.1
Another difficulty : The law said that citizens must
write their voting papers, but what was to be done in
the case of illiterates? At Die, where a third of the
population was illiterate, the elections were suspended
(February 5, 1790), until the decision of the National
Assembly upon the matter had been received.2 The
people of Die had no means of knowing, at this date,
that the National Assembly had decreed, three days
earlier, that the voting papers of the illiterate were
to be written by the three oldest literate electors .3
This law was made known too late in some parts of
France, and there was no uniform rule for the admis-
sion of the illiterate, any more than for the valuation
of the direct tax.
But these protests, whether collective or individuals
were not very numerous. In general, the decrees estab-
lishing the new suffrage were accepted quietly enough ;
they were willingly applied, more often than not with-
1 Arch. Nat. D. iv. 11, dossier 156, piece 7.
3 Ibid., dossier 157, pieces 22, 24.
3 The law of May 28, 1790, enacted that the voting paper should be
written at the place of poll, and must not be carried there already
made out.
* See, for example, the petition of D. Chauchot, cure of Is-sur-Tille,
who demands, in the name of Article 6 of the Declaration, suppression
of all property qualifications whatsoever (Arch. Nat. D. iv. 11,
dossier 136, piece 7) and (piece 8) a very lively anonymous protest
against the conditions of eligibility, which " would plunge us anew "
into feudalism. See also, D. iv. 49, dossier 1425, pieces 17, 21, 27. It
has been thought that " an individual petition of citizens forming the
Society of the Friends of Liberty, meeting in the rue du Bac, in Paris,"
in which the withdrawal of the " property " decrees is demanded in the
name of the Declaration of Rights, refers to this period. This petition
is not dated. On the margin we read "Received the 12th of June."
But this cannot be June 12, 1790 ; for there is at the head a
vignette printed with this inscription : " Societe des amis de la liberie,
Paris, November, 1790." The petition must have been sent up in 1791.
208 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
out any complaint, and there was no great current of
public opinion against the suffrage.
VI.
But Paris intervened anew, and with greater insist-
ence. When the property suffrage had once been
seen at work, the Parisians understood its bearing and
its inconveniences. The working men of Paris had to
have a concrete lesson before they could fully appre-
ciate the sense of the word passive; and before
opinion could be seriously roused the bourgeoisie had
to feel itself despoiled by the decree of the mark of
silver.
Feeling ran high respecting the law of April 1 8,
1790, by which the direct taxes in Paris were calcu-
lated solely from the amount of rent paid. The result
of the law was that in the capital it was necessary
to pay 750 livres rent in order to pay 50 livres in
direct taxes — that is, in order to be eligible for the
National Assembly. On a rent of 699 livres, for
instance, the tax was only 35 livres. By this law a
host of well-to-do and notable men found themselves
ineligible ; one has only to look through the advertise-
ments, the Petit es Affiches, to be convinced that for
a lower rent than 750 livres one could obtain a very
commodious, very " bourgeois " apartment.
It was while discussing the drawbacks of this law
of April 1 8th that Condorcet, on the 19th, obtained
the assent of the Commune to present the address
drawn up by himself to the National Assembly.
This is a very remarkable address. Condorcet elo-
quently points out the contradiction between the
Declaration of Rights and the property suffrage. One
of the objections which he raises concerning the mark
of silver is that " a decree which should suppress a
OPPOSITION TO THE SUFFRAGE 209
direct tax would deprive millions of citizens of their
eligibility. "-
He admitted that a " light tax " might be required
of the active citizen, but he would not make it a
condition of eligibility.! Placed on the table of the
Assembly on April 20, 1790, this address of the Com-
mune obtained only a simple acknowledgment of its
reception.
The opposition to the property suffrage grew keener
every day. It manifested itself in a very lively manner,
in Marat's paper, on June 30th, which contained a
pretended appeal from the "passive" citizens.2 "It
is certain," says Marat, " that the Revolution is due
to the insurrection of the poorer people, and it is
no less certain that the taking of the Bastille was prin-
cipally due to the ten thousand poor working men of the
Faubourg Saint -Antoine." Ten thousand poor work-
ing men ! Marat exaggerates, just as he exaggerated
in professing to plead in the name of " eighteen
millions of unfortunate men deprived of their rights
as active citizens," when there were probably not more
than three millions of passive citizens .3 But he does
not exaggerate when he shows that there is a new
1 See Sigismond Lacroix, vol. v. pp. 55-63.
2 (Euvres de Marat, Vermorel, p. 114.
3 We know by the decree of May 27, 28, 1791, that the active citizens
numbered 4,298,360. We have not the number of the citizens admitted
to the suffrage after August 10, 1792, when universal suffrage was estab-
lished : if we had, we should only have to subtract from this number the
number of active citizens to obtain the number of passive citizens.
But we have the figures of the registered electors at a period when the
territory of France was of practically the same extent as in 1791-2.
Thus, in 1863, out of a population of 37,446,313 inhabitants (according
to the census of 1861) there were 10,004,028 electors on the roll.
If universal suffrage had existed in 1791, then, supposing the popula-
tion of France to be 26,000,000, there would have been 7,300,000
electors. Subtract the 4,298,360 active citizens, and there remain about
3,000,000 passive citizens.
VOL. I. 14
210 THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE PEOPLE
privileged class, and his threats against the bourgeoisie
have a historical interest :
"What shall we have gained by the destruction of the aristocracy
of the nobles, if it be replaced byi the aristocracy of wealth ? If we
are to groan under the yoke of these new parvenu masters, it would
have been better to preserve the privileged orders. . . . Fathers of
the country, you are the favourites of fortune : we do not ask to-day
to share in your possessions, those benefits which Heaven has given in
common to all men : realise, then, the full extent of our moderation,
and, in your own interest, forget for a few moments your care for your
dignity ; withdraw for a few moments from your pleasant dreams of
your own importance, and muse for a minute on the terrible conse-
quences which may follow your lack of reflection. You would do well
to tremble lest, in refusing us the rights of citizens on the pretext of
our poverty, you force us to recover them by stripping you of your
superfluity. Beware of rending our hearts with the sense of your
injustice. Have a care lest you reduce us to despair, lest you leave us
nothing but revenge, lest you force us to give ourselves over to all
manner of excess, or simply to leave you to yourselves. For, to put
ourselves in your place, we have only to wait with folded arms. Then,
reduced to using your own hands and labouring in your own fields,
you will become once more our equals ; but, being less numerous
than we, can you be certain of reaping the fruits of your labours ?
You still have the power to avert a revolution, the revolution that our
despair will infallibly bring about. Be just once more, and do not
punish us any longer with the evil you yourselves have caused."
Marat was thus clearly the first — and we see with
what vehemence — to state the social and political
problem. What influence had this article of his? We
do not know, nor do the other papers inform us. How-
ever, his words were not without an echo, as is proved
by the success of the Ami du Peuple and the fact
that Marat himself was encouraged to pursue his demo-
cratic campaign with greater boldness day by day.
He even dared to attack the Jacobin Club in the fol-
lowing terms : " What are we to expect from these
gatherings of imbeciles, who dream of nothing but
equality, who boast of the brotherhood of man, and
shut their hearts to the unhappy people who have set
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 211
them free? " However, he does not exhibit much faith
in the wisdom of the people, nor does he always flatter
them. Early in October, 1789, he writes : " My fellow-
citizens, careless and frivolous mortals ! innocent of
all logical sequence, whether in your ideas or your
actions ; voting only by caprice ; who will one day
pursue the enemies of your country, and on the morrow
abandon it blindly to their mercy ; I am resolved to
keep you on the alert, and you shall be happy in
spite of your frivolity, or I myself shall know happi-
ness no more." On occasion he overwhelms the people
with such epithets as " imbecile," " slaves," &c. He
wishes to see the people led by a man of wisdom and
experience. Perhaps he dreams of a persuasive dic-
tatorship, himself as dictator. Later, he demands a
dictator, without qualifying his demand. His ideal
is a Caesarian democracy ; yet he is, in his own way,
and since he has seen the property suffrage at work,
a partisan of universal suffrage.
To sum up : a democratic party is already becoming
visible, especially in the journals. With Marat this
democracy is of the Caesarian type ; elsewhere it is
mostly of a liberal type. Its programme is to obtain
the suppression of the property requirements in
general, this being the aim of the more advanced ;
or at least (and this is the aim of the practical poli-
ticians) the suppression of the qualification as regards
eligibility, and an amelioration of the more anti-popular
results of the bourgeois system which has just been
established.1
1 While correcting the proofs of the second edition of this book, I
have hit upon a text which to some extent contradicts what I have
said of the republicanism of Barere. Barere, in the Discours pre-
liminaire, which he published in 1790, in a supplementary and retro-
spective volume of his Point du Jour, expressed himself, referring to
the Americans, as against all royalty; so that if in the year III it
was wrong to say that he had been a republican before July 14, 1789,
it was not wrong to say that he was a republican before August 10,
1792. But apparently his republicanism passed unsuspected, and did
not betray itself by action.
CHAPTER IV
FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND BIRTH
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
(1790, 1791)
I. The Democratic Party.— II. Federation.— III. The first Republican
Party : Mme. Robert, her paper and her salon. — IV. First mani-
festations of Socialism. — V. Feminism. — VI. The campaign
against the rule of the bourgeoisie. — VII. Signs of the times ;
Republicanism from December, 1790, to June, 1791. — VIII.
Humanitarian politics.— IX. Summary.
I.
We have already seen what elements went to the making
of the democratic party at the outset. Let me insist
at once on this fact : the democratic party had its
origin neither among the peasantry nor among the
workers. The rural masses, all joy at the destruction
of the feudal system, wasted no thought on demanding
the right to vote — a right which they seemed to regard
rather as a burden, a service, or a danger, than as a
desirable privilege. The workers, less numerous then
than now, were more sensible of their exclusion from
the body politic ; but, as the respectful tone of the
Saint-Antoine petition shows, they would, if left to
their own instincts, have resigned themselves to the
fact. It took the solicitations of certain middle-class
212
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 213
reformers, and the fiery appeals of Marat, to make
universal suffrage a popular subject ; but for a long
time it was not possible, even in Paris, to provoke any
threatening movement of the " passives " against the
"actives." Anti-aristocrats and patriots: such were
the Parisian workers. They had no idea of democracy
until the middle classes forced them to think of it ;
and as for the word " republic," it would seem to have
been so far unknown in the poorer districts.
It was, then, among the middle classes that a demo-
cratic party first grew up ; badly organised, it is true, as
were all the parties of those days, but with its tendencies
sufficiently clear, and even clamorous. The leaders
of the party in the Assembly were Robespierre, Buzot,
Petion, Gregoire ; outside the Assembly, the vehement
Marat, the eloquent Loustallot, the cautious Condorcet.
The claims of the democrats increased unceasingly
during the whole of the year 1790.
This extraordinary year has been upheld as a year
of national concord, as the best year of the Revolution,
the year of fraternity. This may be : but it was also
the period in which the whole state politic was taken
possession of by the middle class at the expense of
the people, and the period when the very unfraternal
idea came into being that the middle class was itself the
nation.
With the applause which saluted the fall of the
ancien regime, the old despotism, the old aristocracy,
there mingled (to be heard plainly enough by the alert
listener) a subdued hissing from the democrats hostile
to the property suffrage and to the bourgeoisie.
Thus February 4, 1790, was truly a wonderful
day in history ; when Louis XVI entered in person
the hall of the National Assembly in order to accept
the Constitution and to read a gracious speech, and
the Assembly, mad with joy, established this civic
oath : "I swear to be faithful to the nation, to the
214 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
law, to the King, and to maintain with all my power
the Constitution decreed by the National Assembly and
accepted by the King."
The King accepting the Revolution, the King sub-
ordinated to the nation and the law — this was the great,
the essential meaning of the day, and there is no doubt
whatever that there was a general feeling of joy
throughout France.
Some democrats, however, could only see here a stroke
of authority on the part of the Assembly in order to
impose the Constitution on the nation without consulting
it, and at the same time to impose the property suffrage
and the odious mark of silver. Loustallot was of
opinion that the constitutional laws should be ratified
by the people united in primary assemblies. He con-
ceived and demanded a democracy with universal
suffrage, and published a complete referendum system,
as we have said, for the popular sanction of the laws.1
And, in bitter criticism of the National Assembly, which
had dared, in an address to the people, to speak as
the sovereign, he recalled to it that the Revolution had
been effected "by a handful of patriots who had not
the honour of sitting in the National Assembly."
But Loustallot and the other writers or orators of
the Democratic party — a staff without an army — knew
themselves to be thus far in advance of the opinion of
the masses ; and their whole ambition, their one hope,
was to make the proletariat understand that they had
been unfairly treated : that there was once more a
privileged class in the State.
II.
That this democratic party, composed of the cream
of the middle class, ever succeeded in becoming a
1 Revolutions de Paris, Nos. 17, 31, 38.
THE SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY 215
popular party, was due to the fact that the very trend
of events was tending to make France become uncon-
sciously a democratic country ; and it was this year
of 1790 that saw the spread of the great movement
of municipal emancipation and of national agglomera-
tion. The new France was becoming unified by a
gigantic labour of organisation and construction, in
which we seem to distinguish two very different move-
ments ; the one reasoned, and, as it were, artificial,
the other spontaneous, popular, and instinctive.
From the brains of the members of the great
Assembly there issued reasoned institutions, meditated in
the silence of the study ; in which, it is true, the history
of the people and their desires were always kept in
mind ; yet institutions which the people themselves did
not help to elaborate ; such as the division of France
by departments,1 the organisation of the judiciary, and
the civil constitution of the clergy. All this was no
spontaneous growth of the soil, but was planted there
by industrious hands, there to prosper more or less. It
was all a thought factitious, a trifle fragile.
Of the people itself was born the municipal reform
of July, 1789; and from Paris leaped the electric
spark (to use a phrase of the time) which awoke and
thrilled all France, resuscitating the communes, and
providing first the towns, then the country, with a
new municipal system. The communes were animated
with a kind of centripetal force, a force of national
unification, with Paris at the head. From Paris
the movement came : to Paris it strove to return,
there to be fully organised. Excited gatherings from
* It is quite plain that the new division of France was effected
without any republican after-thoughts. Yet after the Republic was
established, in January, 1793, Fabre d'Eglantine wrote as follows:
" When the Constituent Assembly decreed the division of the territory
into departments, districts, cantons, and communes, I cried, from the
midst of my friends, ' There is the Republic ! ' " (Robespierre, Lettres
a mes commettants).
216 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
groups of communes ; confederations on the banks of
the Rhine and the Rhone ; Breton-Angevin alliances — to
say nothing of the ancient provinces nor of the new
departments — meetings full of enthusiasm, where
strangers took oaths of brotherhood : all these were
like so many farandoles,1 tending to confound them-
selves in one gigantic general farandole with Paris for
objective ; it was in the midst of this that on July 14,
1790, on the Champ de Mars,2 the unification of France
was effected, in the hour that saw the foundation of
the Patrie, the mother-country of every Frenchman.
So universal, so spontaneous, so essentially demo-
cratic was this movement, that the Constituent Assembly,
founder of the bourgeois system, was troubled and
alarmed ; it boded ill for the rule of property-holders
when citizens drew together, not as active citizens, but
as men and brothers. When it decreed, as it did on
June 9th, that a federation should meet in Paris,
the Assembly did so because it could not do otherwise ;
and the object of the decree was, above all, to deprive
the Federation of its democratic character. The
Assembly did not wish the delegates of the Federation
to be elected by the people, nor even by the munici-
palities, which, despite their source of origin (an
1 A Provencal dance. — [Trans.]
2 Altar of the Country.
The Champ de Mars was a large open space, some three hundred
yards wide and a thousand yards long, between the Ecole Militaire
and the river gate ; on each side were avenues of trees. All round
this space were formed thirty rows of seats, the space being partly
excavated, and huge turf-covered banks with timber benches erected,
thus making a great amphitheatre. In the centre was a great pyra-
midal platform — the Altar.
The men employed on the work, whether lazy, or bribed, or anxious,
after the modern fashion, to enforce the employment of more, were
obviously unable to finish their task in time ; finally, the impatient
patriots volunteered — fifteen thousand, we are told ; next day the
number was increased, men of all classes and trades toiling side by
side ; even women joined in the work. — [Trans.]
THE GREAT FEDERATION 217
electorate of tax -payers), often exhibited anti- bourgeois
tendencies. They decided that the delegates were to
be elected by the National Guard — an armed force of
strong middle-class sympathies, composed almost en-
tirely of active citizens.
These elections were also presented as a kind of
plebiscite in favour of the Constitution, and Loustallot,
the democrat, lamented.
The ceremony of the Champ de Mars was, on the
whole, thoroughly national. There one really saw
France, the sovereign nation. And, considering it as
a whole, the spontaneous and popular movement which
brought about the federations of 1790 was, in spite of
the half -bourgeois nature of its climax, among the events
which resulted indirectly in democracy and the Republic.
The political leaders of the day strove to make it, at
the same time, a demonstration of an anti -democratic
character. It is a remarkable fact that at this early
date, things being as they were, the heroes of the
Bastille were put aside. The ceremony partook, now
and then, of a " Fayettian " character. Certain episodes
were even plainly royalist. The cries of " Long live
the King ! " were as loud as those of " Long live the
Nation ! " And on July 18th the Federals proceeded
to the Tuileries, there to cry, " Long live the Queen ! "
under the windows.1 The Federation had all the ap-
pearance of condemning the claims of democracy, which
had been already heard, and the idle dreams of a
republic, which were not audible as yet.
III.
But these dreams of a Republic were soon to become
more vivid.
A few weeks after the Federation, Paris learned that
1 Revolutions de Paris, iv. 12, 14.
218 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
monarchical Europe was forming a coalition against
France. Louis XVI, tormented with remorse at having
sanctioned the civil constitution of the clergy, allied
himself with the foreigners against the French. Per-
spicacious men divined the fact, and as no other king
than Louis was possible, a few bold spirits then, for
the first time, began to dream of suppressing the
monarchy.
Certain contemporaries seem to have believed that
they saw the beginnings of the republican party much
earlier than this. La Fayette, for instance, writes to
Bouille on May 20, 1790: "The question of peace
or war, which has been for some time in dispute, has
divided us, in the most pronounced manner, into two
parties, the one monarchical, the other republican." '
But does not La Fayette say this with an advocate's
cunning, to persuade Bouille, by evoking the republican
spectre, to make common cause with the Constitutionals?
Plainly enough, the discussion concerning the family
pact (May 16-22, 1790), by presenting the image of
kings dragging their people into royal wars, was enough
to provoke reflections of a republican shade. On the
other hand, the decree voted on May 22nd, by which
the King had to propose war, and the Assembly to
declare it, gave the nation the last word and diminished
the power of the King. But the debates on the subject
had not shown the least republican tendencies. Thus,
Robespierre (May 1 8th) having said that the King was
not the representative, but the commissioned delegate
of the nation, murmurs were heard. Whereupon the
orator declared that he had only meant to express the
sublime duty of executing the general will ; and, ac-
cording to his explanations, he had meant to speak
honourably of the royal power.
The truth is that since the King had taken the oath'
of the Constitution, one party of the " patriots " had
1 Memoiresde Bouille, 1st ed. i. 130.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 219
become ministerial. Here is the secession, in no wise
republican, to which La Fayette alludes, and it was
to injure them that he applied to the anti -ministerial
deputies the unmerited epithet, " republican."
At the same time, intending to praise them, Camille
Desmoulins was speaking of the " patriots " as repub-
licans.1 He loved to speak of the " Republic of
France," 2 and he called the Assembly " the Congress
of the Republic of France." 3 And this republican had,
at the time, so little hope of seeing his theories in
practice, that he says of Louis XVI in his paper :
" I swear by the lamp-post that of all kings, past, present, or to
come, you are, to the mind of a republican, the most supportable. It
rests with you alone to retain our love, to retain the praises of our
legislative body."
He had, however, preached republican theories, only
he had not been successful. For the moment he re-
nounces them, and he states, at the very time when
La Fayette is writing to Bouille on the formation of
the republican party, that no such party exists :
" I have lost my time in preaching the republic. The republic and
democracy are just now in low water ; and it is tedious for an author
to cry in the wilderness, and to write pages as futile, as little heeded,
as the motions of J. F. Maury. Since, after being for six months
chained to the rowers' bench, I despair of overcoming the insurmount-
able currents, I should perhaps do well to regain the shore, and to
throw away a useless oar." 4
1 Thus in May, 1790, in the Revolutions de France et de Brabant
(No. xxv.), he wrote : " All the republicans are in consternation at the
suppression of our sixty districts. They regard this decree with as
much disfavour as the decree of the mark of silver ; and it is truly
the greatest check democracy has received."
* Ibid., iii. 180. s Ibid., ii. 524.
* Revolutions de France et de Brabant, No. xxvii. Desmoulins adds
that he is not discouraged, that he wishes to prove to Robespierre
220 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
That there was no republican party at this time is
confirmed also by Loustallot, in an article written some
days later, in which he says that now some of the
chiefs of the patriotic party have passed over to the
ministerialists, hardly sixty deputies remain " who still
fight courageously in questions which do not concern
the King." " But," he adds, " as soon as it becomes
a matter of his interests they condemn themselves to
silence, for fear of exposing their flank to the impu-
tation, so often repeated, that they have gone over to
the party opposed to the King, and that they wish to
make France a republic." "
It was not in the month of May, 1790, that the
republican party began to spring up, since then every
one had still some hope of consolidating the Revolution
by means of the monarchy. It was three months later,
when the idea became more widely spread that there
was a King's cause and a people's cause ; when the
suspicion grew that Louis XVI had betrayed France,
and had a secret understanding with the expatriated
nobles and with Austria ; it was then only that some
'began to believe that the only means of maintaining
the Revolution was to suppress the monarchy.
But hitherto, as we have seen, the republicanism
of Camille Desmoulins had found no echo. In Sep-
tember, 1790, a man of letters, one Lavicomterie, after-
wards, at the time of the Convention, a deputy for
Paris, published a pamphlet, entitled Du Peaple et des
Rois, in which he said : "I am a republican, and I
write against kings ; I am a republican, and was
one before my birth." According to him, a king is
that he is as proud a republican as he. Now Robespierre was not a
republican at all at this period. But here Desmoulins uses the word
republican in the sense of patriot, thus giving the same word, in the
same passage, two very different acceptations. This explains the con-
fusion of ideas as to the date of formation of the republican party.
1 Revolutions de Paris, xlix.
THE ROBERT SALON 221
the born enemy of liberty, and he makes no exception
of Louis. He would suffer a non -hereditary, elected
monarch ; but it is a republic that he really demands,
in terms as plain-spoken as emphatic. There are
others now of his opinion ; in its issue of October i,
1790, the Mercure national1 subscribes to the con-
clusions of this pamphlet.
This paper, very little known, was of great import-
ance ; not only because it was well informed on matters
of foreign politics, but because it was the organ of
the Republican party at the very outset, and the organ
also of the salon of a woman of letters in which the
nucleus of this party was formed. I mean Mme. Robert,
daughter of the Chevalier Guynement de Keralio, pro-
fessor at the Military College, member of the Academy
of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, and editor of the
Journal des Savants. Following the example of her
mother, who was an authoress, she published novels,
historical works, and translations. She married Fran-
gois Robert at the age of thirty -three. He was an
advocate, born at Liege, who had become French, and
very French — a fine young man, with a vivid colour
and an enthusiastic mind ; his talents, perhaps, but
mediocre ; but a loyal man, and a frank ; an ardent
revolutionary, a member of the Jacobin Club and the
1 Mercure national et revolutions de I' Europe, Journal democratique,
edited by Mm. Robert-Keralio, of the Academy of Arras ; Louis-
Felix Guynement, of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres ;
Ant. Tournon, L. J. Hugon, and Francois Robert, professor of public
law — all members of the Society of Friends of the Constitution, 1 790-1 ;
5 volumes, Bib. Nat. In April, 1791, it became the Mercure national
et etranger, edited by Louis and Francois Robert, and Le Brun (the
future Minister of Foreign Affairs). Under this title it appeared from
April 16 to July 5, 1791. Then it became the Journal generate de
I' Europe ou Mercure national el etranger, edited by Le Brun, then by
J. J. Smits, from July 5, 1791, to August 8, 1792. These papers appear
to follow from the Journal general de I' Europe, published at Havre by
Le Brun.
222 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Cordeliers' Club, who later on represented the De-
partment of Paris in the Convention. Mme. Roland,
who had no love for Mme. Robert,1 and made fun of
her toilet, says, in her memoirs, that she was " a little,
spiritual woman, intelligent, and ingenious." A patriot
in 1790, but a democratic patriot when so many others
were content with the bourgeois system established in
1789, and a republican patriot when Mme. Roland was
still supporting the monarchy, Mme. Robert seems to
have been the foundress of the republican party.
The Mercure national did not stop at sounding the
praises of Lavicomterie's pamphlet. Robert, in the
issue of November 2, 1790, announced that he was
about to publish a work showing " the imminent
dangers of royalty " and " the innumerable advantages
of the republican institution." On November 16th he
writes : " Let us efface from our memory and our
Constitution the name of King. If we keep it, I do
not believe we shall be free two years."
The influence of this journal was far-reaching. The
Jacobins of Lons-le-Saunier read it and knew them-
selves for republicans. We read, in the issue of
December 14th :
"Extract from a letter of the Friends of the Constitution of Lons-le-
Saunier to Mme. Robert : ' The Republicans of the Jura are the true
friends of the enemies of kings, of the Franco-Roman woman who,
&c. (sic). We send you, virtuous citizeness, a proclamation of our
1 Here, however, I ought to distinguish dates. When Mme. Roland
wrote her Memoir es in prison — in August, 1793 — she had quarrelled
with the Roberts for more than a year. This quarrel dated from the
end of March, 1792, and from the refusal of the minister Roland-
Dumouriez to give Robert a place. In 1791 the Rolands and the
Roberts were friendly. Occasionally Roland wrote for the Mercure
national. On the morrow of the massacre of the Champ de Mars the
Roberts went to the Rolands and asked for shelter (Lettres a Bancal,
letter of July 18, 1791).
INFLUENCE OF THE ROBERTS 223
Society. . . . Receive the heartfelt assurances of the esteem of eight
hundred patriots of the Jura, of whom these signatures are the symbols.
— Dumas Cadet, president ; Imbert, Olivier, secretaries.' "
This proclamation, dated December 5, 1790, ex-
presses a desire for the reunion of Avignon with France.
It affirms the right of populations to ally themselves
together : "If the tyrants resist us, their thrones are
all overthrown, and the holy alliance of the peoples
is at last crowned throughout the world." 1
The volume announced by Robert appeared at the
end of November or the beginning of December, 1790,
its title being, Le Republicanisms adapte a la France.
The author recognises that the mass of public opinion
is not republican, but has hopes none the less of estab-
lishing the republic, because it is the only Government
compatible with liberty — because, in short, it is de-
mocracy. The National Assembly would only have
had to wish for a republic, and public opinion would
have followed it. Robert admits that he had not always
been a republicar ; under the old rule he was a
royalist ; it was the Revolution which opened his eyes.
This little work met with widespread attention. The
moderate patriots were troubled^; the Journal des
Clubs immediately printed a categorical refutation :
" We can only establish a republican Government in
France in two ways : either the whole nation must form
one single, great republic, or it must be dismembered,
when one or many of its departments could constitute
themselves as small and federative republics." In the
first case, " France would hardly enjoy her pretended
liberty for twenty years — years full of tumult and the
horrors of civil war — to fall finally under the yoke of
a modern Tiberius, Nero, or Domitian, having first
seen the rise of her Scillas, her Catilines, her Mariuses."
1 In the issue of February 4, 1791, we read another address from
these " republicans," which seems to have been overlooked.
224 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
In the second case, France would be too weak to with-
stand the aristocracy and the rest of Europe.
The advanced, the democratic patriots, were either
silent or full of objections — objections made not on
principle, but on opportunity. The Patriot e frangais of
December 19th, in an article, unsigned, but probably
by Brissot, declares that there is no doubt that a
republic would be preferable to the monarchy, an
idea which this paper had taken good care not to
express hitherto. But would it be opportune to establish
it in France? :
" There is in France so much ignorance and corruption ; there are
so many cities, so many manufactures, too many men, too little land ;
and I find it hard to conceive that republicanism could last beside
those causes of degradation. ... I wish my country to become a
republic, but I am neither a butcher nor an incendiary, and I hope
as strongly as I hope for a republic that neither compulsion nor
violence will be employed to remove from the throne him who may,
at that happy epoch, occupy it. I would have this effected by a
constitutional Law ; that, even as Louis XVI was bidden ' Sit there ' so
Louis XVII or XVIII maybe bidden, 'Come down, because we no
longer desire a king ; become a citizen, a member of the sovereign
people !' "
The republic, which no one ever spoke of but a
few months ago, is now the question of the day, and
the Journal des Clubs expresses itself in these notable
terms : "As the question of constituting France a
republic has been mooted in several quarters, as it
is spreading among the people, bearing unquiet and
ferment in its train, it merits the very closest atten-
tion, the most unremitting deliberation." And the
Comte de Montmorin writes to the Cardinal de Bernis
(December 3, 1790) that not only is religion threatened
with downfall, but also the throne.
Thus by December, 1790, a republican party has
come into being. It has not issued from the suburbs
or the workshops ; its origins are in no sense popular.
THE REPUBLIC NOT POPULAR 225
The republic men are beginning to preach is of middle
class, almost of aristocratic origin ; and the first re-
publicans are a handful of refined and educated people :
a woman of letters, a noble Academician, an advocate,
some adventurous pamphleteers •, an elect group, but
a group so small that they could almost sit on
one single sofa— that of Mme. Robert. But this little
party really exists ; it writes for the public, it raises
its banner, and its programme is discussed throughout
all Paris.
IV.
Let me say at once that up till the time of the flight
to Varennes this republican party did not succeed in
popularising itself. It was only an advance-guard, a
wing, of the democratic party ; and we must, first of
all, consider the progress and vicissitudes of this demo-
cratic party up to the time when Louis XVI, by casting
away his mask, changed the whole situation.
If the democratic party showed republican tenden-
cies in 1790 and 1 79 1, it also showed socialistic and
feministic tendencies.
As we have seen, it was the political privilege of
the middle class, and, above all, the decree of the mark
of silver, that the democrats were attacking. Economic
privileges they considered less intolerable ; firstly,
because the first social revolution had been effected,
with which the peasants were content ; secondly,
because industrial conditions were such that an aggra-
vated labour question was impossible.
However, when the middle class had been established
a few months as the privileged class, the hatred of
political privilege led the bolder journalists to attack,
as isolated sharpshooters, and prematurely, the camp
of economic privilege.
We have seen that Marat, in his Ami du Peuple
VOL. I. 15
226 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
of June 30, 1790, threatened the rich with a social
revolution if they insisted on maintaining the property
suffrage.
Such attacks as these were not entirely unsupported.
People began to speak here and there of the " agrarian
law " ; and, whether by imprudence or malevolence,
the phrase was repeated in the country districts, and
the result was violence.
But of this we have only vague reports. Certain it
is that when the anti-revolutionists accused the patriots
as a whole of supporting the " agrarian law," they were
lying to discredit their adversaries. At the same time,
it is very certain that there were other socialists in
the democratic party besides Marat ; and a few
socialistic manifestations occurred in the early part
of 1 79 1.
Thus, a journal which then had one of the largest
circulations, the Revolutions de Paris, published an
article entitled, Des Pauvres et des Riches, concerning
a gift of 1 2,000 livres which the Monarchical Club
had offered to the poor of certain districts. This club
was trying, by means of skilfully distributed alms, to
gain the people of Paris for the royal cause. The
Revolutions ironically advises the people to accept these
gifts ; to do so will drain the purses of these gentry.
But the people want not bread alone ; they do not
forget the rights of property. Do they demand the
agrarian law? No ; that would be too violent. They
must suffer yet a little longer from the inequalities
of fortune ; but they must make up their minds from
now onwards to render them less glaring. To do this
let the rich and the poor resort to the mediation of
" those who possess neither too much nor too
little " ; peaceable men, whose homes are illumined by
" all the lights of cultivated reason, and who prepared
the way for the Revolution." These modest persons
will form themselves in a phalanx of philanthropists,
SOCIALISTIC PROPOSALS 227
and, " the torch of instruction in their hand," they
will separate into two " bands." The one will inform
the rich that it will be to their interest to " foresee,
to anticipate, by themselves executing, that agrarian
law of which men are already speaking " :
" That the poor have but now acquired a half-wisdom which may
well become fatal to the rich, if they themselves do not set to work
to complete their instruction : a thing impossible if the chain of
need retains them continually, bound to the wheels of labour, from the
early dawn to the set of sun ; that his mouth cannot be closed by
throwing him inferior bread ; that the poor man no longer wishes to
receive, under the name of charity, what he can demand in virtue of
his rights and his might ; that he is no longer the dupe of the
benevolence, whether royal or otherwise, which is always being
dinned into his ears ; and that he no longer considers himself bound
to feel grateful towards those who offer him, in the name of generosity,
what is only a mere beginning of a forced and tardy restitution."
Let each rich man elevate a paterfamilias of the
indigent class to the rank of landed proprietor, by
ceding to him a part of his possessions.
" Wealthy man ! spare from your national acquisitions a few acres
for those who have won liberty for you. Insensibly the number of the
poor will diminish, and that of the rich in proportion. And these two
classes, which used to be the two extremes, will give place to that
golden mean, that fractional equality, without which there is no true
liberty nor any lasting peace."
The other " band " will say to the poor :
" Say to the rich that you do not envy them their mansions and their
gardens, but that you have the right to claim, for every father of a
family of the indigent class, a little field and a cottage ; that instead
of penning the poor like wretched cattle in the public workshops, you
demand that they shall proclaim the agrarian law over these vast
expanses, these immense fallow lands which occupy a third of the
surface of the empire ; persuaded that the sum of the advances indis-
pensable to give a value to these great expanses divided into small
properties will not amount to the sums, which are a pure loss, now
228 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
swallowed up in works of charity : so humiliating to those condemned
by necessity to benefit by them, and so completely useless as regards
the public weal."
The socialistic journalist does not invite the prole-
tariat to revolt. Let the indigent (says he) be content
with having inspired the wealthy with a moment's terror.
Let them persevere in their labour. Yes, they will
all become proprietors one day. " But, to do so, you
must acquire a wisdom you lack. It is the touch of
instruction that must guide you down that narrow path
which holds the middle way between your duties and
your rights."
This article did not pass unnoticed. La Harpe
refuted it in vehement, but ineloquent terms, in the
Mercure de France of April 23rd. To show how the
writer shocked the general mind, he stated that
Rutledge, the orator of the Cordeliers (Greyfriars),
was unanimously hooted by the Jacobins for having
in their midst spoken of the agrarian law,1 and thus we
learn that from this time onwards there were socialists
in the Cordeliers' Clubs.
The Revolutions de Paris replied, and this time
spoke boldly in praise of the agrarian law, citing Jean-
Jacques Rousseau and " the ancient lawmakers " :
" And besides, you do not see that the French Revolution, for which
you fight, you say, as citizens, is a true agrarian law put in execution
by the people. They have entered into their rights. One step more,
and they will enter into possession of their wealth. . . ."
There were, at this time, other socialists, as well
as those of the Revolutions and the Greyfriars. I find
1 On April 11, 1791, Rutledge, at the head of a deputation from the
Club des Cordeliers, protested, before the Jacobins, against the monopoly
of the mills of Corbeil. The only accounts extant of his speech make
no mention of the agrarian law. (Concerning the monopoly of mills,
see p. 29 of this volume.)
THE AGRARIAN LAW 229
one in the group of citizens (Lanthenas, Viaud, Abbe
Danjou, &c.) who, in 1790, formed a "society of the
friends of unity and equality in the family," in view
of obtaining the abolition of the rights of primogeniture.
One of those associated with this campaign, the Abbe de
Cournand, professor at the College of France, pub-
lished in April, 1791, a definitely socialistic pamphlet
entitled, Of Property ; or, the Cause of the Poor pleaded
before the Tribunal of Reason, Justice, and Truth. We
read in the Advertisement :
"While this book was being printed the National Assembly was
busying itself concerning the property of the rich. It decreed
equality of inheritance in the case of all the children concerned in
intestate successions. ... It is time now to deal with the property of
the poor, and the equality of wealth among all citizens, who also are
brothers, members of the same family, and having all the same rights
to the common heritage."
And the author explains his system of agrarian law.
He supposes that there are, in France, 25,000 square
leagues of cultivable soil, and from 21 to 22 millions
of inhabitants — that is to say, 7 arpents per head
of population. Before sharing it out there would be put
aside, out of each square league, a third part, which
would form the fund of the State, the common land,
" from which one would take, at the birth of each
individual, the portion necessary to his subsistence, and
into which it would be re-absorbed at the time of his
death." These lands would be leased for the benefit
of the Government, to which they would bring in about
500,000,000 francs (£20,000,000), which sum would
form the Budget of the State. In this way each
individual would have 4^ arpents free of taxes. At
twenty-five years of age each Frenchman would draw
lots for his portion. The husband would draw for his
wife, the father for his children under age. The land
might be let or farmed, but not alienated or transmitted
230 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
by heritage. Movable property would remain, as now,
alienable and transmissible by inheritance. Education
would be common and continuous till the age of
eighteen. The National Assembly, if it feared to act
in haste, need only apply the system little by little
as lands fell in at death.
This explanation is followed by long and interesting
replies to possible objectors.
It is difficult to know what success this Utopia had,
remarkably conceived and written as it is, but lacking
the kind of eloquence which pleases the people.
Yet another abb6, Claude Fauchet, tried to popularise
socialistic ideas. As early as November, 1790, he
had written, in his journal La Bouche de Fer:
" Every man has rights in the soil, and should enjoy possession of
it during life ; he enters into possession by his labour, and his position
should be limited by the rights of his equals. All rights are in common
in a well-ordered society. The divine power of sovereignty should so
draw its limits that all have something and none have too much."
At the celebrated tribune of the Social Club which
he founded at the Palais Royal, and which must have
been the climax of a federation of clubs under the
aegis of freemasonry, with universal love as means
and end, Fauchet preached his socialism most bril-
liantly. It was a Christian socialism. His whole
system was based on the Catholic religion nationalised.
He anathematised all philosophers, and in so doing
alienated both himself and his doctrine, but not before
he had spread abroad the idea of social revolution
as supplementary to the political revolution.
Socialism, whether rational or mystical, was by no
means accepted by the authorised leaders of the demo-
cratic party. One and all they protested against the
" agrarian law." In an article published in April,
1 791, Robespierre recognised that the inequality of
wealth " was a necessary or incurable evil." «
* (Euvres, i. 167.
THE SOCIALISTS NOT A PARTY 231
There was no organised socialist party, and the very-
word had no existence, because there was in those
days no excessive social suffering among either peasants
or workmen. The socialists were regarded as fantastic
people, isolated eccentrics.
But a novel social question presented itself, other
than that which had been answered in 1789, and this
happened a year after the establishment of the
bourgeois system ; because men had seen this system
at work, had suffered from the political privileges of
the ruling class, and because logical minds were begin-
ning to dispute the economic privileges on which
political privilege was based.
V.
If there were, at this time, democratic socialists,
there were also democratic feminists, who wished to
admit women to the body politic. Condorcet, as far
back as 1788, in sketching a plan of political and
social reform, had publicly demanded that women
should take part in the election of representatives.1
And this idea was not at all a chimerical novelty.
Condorcet was speaking of an actual fact, a fact
nowadays quite forgotten. If, indeed, the ancien regime
held woman in slavery as regards her civil rights, it
did not absolutely refuse her all political rights. Thus
women who owned fiefs were allowed to play a part
in the electoral system of provincial and municipal
assemblies. The same was true of elections to the
Estates-General,2 and it happened that some of the
deputies of the nobles and the clergy owed their
election to feminine votes. The idea of admitting
all women to the exercise of the right of political
1 (Euvres, viii. 141.
8 Royal ordinance of January 24, 1789, Art. 12 and 20.
232 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
suffrage seemed to be justified by a partial experience.
Accordingly, in 1789, there was a first and very lively
feminist movement, which manifested itself in petitions
and pamphlets, but which emanated, it seems, almost
entirely from the women themselves ; men seem at
the outset to have met it with disdainful silence.
Women pleaded their cause by means of acts as
well as words : they took part in the Revolution, to
the success of which they contributed : some in the
salons, some in the streets, some at the taking of the
Bastille. They took a hand in the municipalisation of
the country in July, 1789. The decisive character of
October 5th and 6th was due to women. The Com-
mune, in 1790, decorated a number of the women of
Paris with medals. Here and there, in the provinces,
as, for example, at Vic-en-Bigorre, there were actual
battalions of Amazons. Women had, indeed, really
played the part of citizens when Condorcet took their
cause in hand, with more insistence and more publicly
than in 1788, and published, in July, 1790, in the
Journal de la Societe de 1789, a vigorous and eloquent
article, entitled : " On the Admission of Women to the
Rights of the State," which was a veritable feminist
manifesto.
On this occasion men could not, as in 1789, simply
pass disdainfully to the " order of the day " on the ques-
tion of political rights for women. Condorcet's manifesto
produced a great sensation. The matter was debated
in the journals, the salons, the clubs, and at the Cercle
social. This latter club, at first of indefinite views,
finally adhered (December 30, 1790) to the views of
Condorcet, marking this adhesion by printing and distri-
buting a feminist pamphlet by Mme. Aelders, who was
trying to found and federate throughout France patriotic
societies of " citizenesses."
However, the majority of the more prominent demo-
crats avoided any theoretical pronouncement on the
FEMALE SUFFRAGE— POPULAR CLUBS 233
subject of the women's rights, much more any en-
couragement of the feminist movement as Mme. Aelders
was attempting to organise it. These women's clubs,
established apart from and in some sense in opposition
to the men's clubs, were liable to form a cause <of
division among revolutionists. Patriots of enthusiastic
spirit and enlightened mind preferred, to this schismatic
effort, the noble and faithful revolutionary attempt at
the fraternal co-operation of man and woman.
I am referring to the " Fraternal Societies of the
two Sexes," which played so important a part in the
evolution of democracy and the Republic.
These societies were one of the means and one of
the effects of the democratic anti-bourgeois movement ;
they were one of the forms of the Societes populaires.
At the present time one understands the phrase
Societes populaires as denoting all political clubs of
whatever kind, and that was, in fact, precisely what it
used to mean in 1793 and 1794. But in 1790 and
1 79 1 it was otherwise. The Jacobin Club, or the
Friends of the Constitution, was a middle-class body,
composed, that is, of active citizens, who gathered round
an original nucleus of deputies, in order to prepare, in
camera, the deliberations of the Assembly. Certainly it
numbered advanced democrats, such as Robespierre,
but it was not a popular club, and the people were
excluded from it.
On the other hand, the Cordeliers' Club (the Society
of the rights of the man and the citizen), which was
frankly and unanimously democratic and anti-bourgeois,
was truly a societe populaire, its tribunes being public,
probably counting among its members passive citizens
and women.
When the antagonism between the democratic and
bourgeois parties finally came to a head in 1790 a
number of people's clubs {societes populaires) were
founded, under the auspices of the Cordeliers, and these
admitted passive citizens as members.
234 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Clubs of this kind were founded in the larger
cities1 : for example, at Lyons ; but more especially
in Paris.1
Some admitted only men, but the greater number
both sexes ; there were even some that admitted
children above twelve years of age.2 We have no com-
plete list of these clubs, but they seem to have been
founded in every section of Paris.
The chief and avowed end of these people's clubs
was the instruction of the people. In the evenings,
and especially on Sunday evenings, there were gather-
ings of workers, to whom the Declaration of Rights
and the Laws were read, and who underwent a course
of civic instruction. Nothing, at the outset, could have
been simpler. One of the S octet es fraternelles des deux
sexes, which met in the same convent of the Jacobins
in which the Friends of the Constitution, the Jacobins
themselves, foregathered, was founded in October,
1790, it seems by a poor boarding-school master, one
Claude Dansard. He came to each meeting with a
candle-end and a tinder-box in his pocket. When the
meeting was a long one, the company subscribed for
another candle.
These humble gatherings had from the first a very
great social importance, uniting, as they did, in fraternal
groups, bourgeois and proletariat, men and women.
They were politically of importance also, for they taught
the people their rights, and made the idea of universal
suffrage popular. Poor Dansard does not long enjoy
his presidency at the Jacobins ; more eminent per-
sons succeed him' : Francois Robert, Mittie, the
Abbe Mathieu, P6pin-Degrouhette.3 Well-known women
1 These clubs were founded from July, 1790, to January, 1791.
2 As a general thing, members had to be at least eighteen years
of age.
3 Installed July 19, 1791. This is how, at this date, this society heads
its manifestoes : " Live free or die. Fraternal Society of Patriots of
THE CLUBS 235
are admitted : Mme. Robert-Keralio, Mme. Moitte, of
the Academy of Painting. Mme. Roland was at first
disdainful, and rallied such women as went to the
meetings,1 but after the flight to Varennes she, too,
became a member of certain of the clubs.2
The clubs went on from instruction to action ; they
watched over and denounced functionaries ; they looked
after the conduct of the Department of Paris ; they
published addresses. They did all that the Jacobins did,
but with intentions unanimously democratic. At the
beginning of 1 79 1 the Indigents Club (Societe des
indigents), a. club of both sexes, was organised in
defiance of the new aristocracy of wealth.
People begin to acquire republican manners ; they
both sexes, defenders of the Constitution, sitting at the library of the
Saint-Honore Jacobins." Unhappily we have not the register of this
society, nor, as far as I know, that of any people's club. But I find
(Arch. Nat., papers of the Committee of Reports) an address from the
club to the Assembly, "in favour of the unfortunate, deceived, and
guilty citizens of the department of Haute-Garonne." This is undated,
but received June 15, 1791. It contains a hundred signatures. I give
them, as far as I can decipher them, because there are few statistics
as to the constitution of the democratic party before the flight to
Varennes : Pepin-Degrouhette, president ; Musquinet, secretary ;
N. Chrestien, junr., secretary ; Goubert, Puzin, Sadouze, Jollard,
Tassart, Brocheton, Bertin, Canecie, George, Maubant, Moulin, Paris,
Fournet, Guilleraut, Chabert, Dupui, Chailleux, B. Pollet, Louis Noel,
Corbieni, Leger, Dufour, Ulrich, Mangin, Remaseilles, Redon, George,
Dupont, Prevelle, Veuve Maiilard, Leger, Potheau, Henaut, Poulain,
Malvaux, Petra(?), Blanchard, Saunier(?), Aubin, Diel (?), Gannuel-
Dufresne (?), Goupil, Mique, Mathieu, priest ; De Robois, Drive,
Monge, Tournie, Cretin, Joubert, Lalire, Bourgoin, Combaz, Surian,
Le Gendre, Mander, Ferraut, Girard, De Roncy, Cauriez, Moraux,
Breton, Hovel, Dafin (?), Chaboud, Deffoux, Mercier, L'Ecolaus,
Montaudouin, Marion, Roye, Bernard, Petit, Beny, Kissienne, Watier,
Giroux, Letournel, Guillemard, Driant, Chartier, Decret, Dechesne,
Poumier (?), J. J. Janteau, J. C. Lusurier, Douzon, Mollein, Regnault,
Lavaux, Sadous, Veuve Collard, Laligant, Lafosse, Poisson.
1 In February, 1791, at the " club sitting at the Jacobins," the women
members took the oath never to marry an aristocrat.
3 Lettres a Bancal, 199, 247.
236 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
tatoyer one another ; the words " brother " and
" sister " take the place of monsieur, madame, made-
moiselle. Mme. Robert,1 who in future is known as
Sister Louise Robert, publicly rejoices in the important
democratic role assumed by the people's clubs, which
regard all enemies of the State with horror, and cries
enthusiastically : " Our sons, who have lived to see
the noblest period of public happiness, will one day
raise a worthy monument to liberty, and on the stone
of which it is built they will grave the words : " We
owe it to the Societies of Fraternity ! "
Women are the soul of these clubs, and of the
democratic movement. " All honour to the more
interesting half of the human race ! Until this day
they have taken little part in the Revolution ; before
this day there have been few women patriots ; but
now at last candour and grace are also of our party,
and all will surely go well." 2
The democracy these clubs have in mind is ex-
tremely comprehensive ; even domestic servants will
form a part of it ; Mme. Robert proposes to raise them,
by fraternity, to the dignity of men. 3 But it would
not be a socialist democracy ; in May, 1 79 1, the Indi-
gents Club pauses to refute, in an address, an incendiary
pamphlet on the partition of land .4
It would not be a feminist democracy, for I do not
find that any people's club has so far demanded poli-
tical rights for women. And although these clubs are
republicanising their manners, although the republicans
are still the most ardent ringleaders of the clubs,
1 Who belonged both to the Fraternal Club at the Jacobins and to
the Indigents.
2 Mercure national, April 22, 1791.
3 The Journal general de la cour et de la ville (p. 580) says that in
December, 1760, there was a servants' club near the Jacobins. But
this may have been a sarcastic reference to the Fraternal Club.
* Doubtless Abbe Cournand's little book.
DEMOCRACY AND THE CLUBS 237
no one has yet, it seems, pronounced the word
" republic."
Carefully restrained in manner, so as not to shock
opinions too greatly, and yet so as to rally all the
revolutionary forces, their programme is the suppression
of property qualifications — in short, universal suffrage.
At the beginning of May there was an attempt (which
would seem to have emanated from the Keralio-Robert
salon) to federate the people's clubs of Paris. With
Robert as presiding genius a Central Committee of
thirty of these clubs was formed, which held its first
two meetings on May 7th and 10th in the Greyfriars
convent. The bourgeois Government felt the gravity
of this effort towards the unification of the democratic
movement ; the mayor set seals on the convent of the
Greyfriars, and the Society of the Rights of Man had
to migrate to the rue Dauphine.
The Central Committee held a meeting on the 14th
in a tennis-court. On the 15th there took place a
coalition of all the clubs " for the purpose of finding
a means of remaining upright in the storm." The
Jacobin Club was invited to send delegates to the
Central Committee. It hesitated ; was about to send
them, but a speech by Gaultier de Biauzat dissuaded
it ; it remained officially a bourgeois club. The Central
Committee continued to meet and to transact business,
first at the Roberts' house, then in a house in the rue
de la Cite. But no men of political importance joined
it. Still royalists, they fought shy of a committee
presided over by a republican. Robespierre and Petion
prefer to live their political life against the middle-
class background of the Jacobins. But even there
they were obliged to be as democratic as the chiefs of
the people's clubs.
238 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
VI.
Such was the part played by the people's clubs in
the democratic movement ; a movement emphasised and
fortified, in Paris, by the fraternal co-operation of men
and women.
Let us now review the main lines of progress of
the movement from January to June, 1 79 1 .
The effects of the property qualification begin to
seem altogether intolerable ; there is now a definite
current of opinion against the bourgeois system, and
the struggle between the classes is felt to be near
at hand.
Mme. Roland herself, so moderate and so little
a Radical, inveighs, in a letter to Bancal (March 1 5,
1 79 1 ) against "the class of rich people." This poli-
tically privileged class is beginning to be known by
the name it will henceforth keep, the bourgeoisie . The
first instance of this new usage of an old word ' I
find in the Revolutions de Paris (March 5-12, 1 79 1 ) ;
in an article entitled Des Bourgeois de Paris et autres,
an anonymous writer says : " The bourgeois of neces-
sity is anything but a democrat. He is a monarchist
by instinct.2 Sheep also are led by the authority of
a single individual ; nothing will part them from the
shepherd, who, none the less, shears them so close that
1 In destroying all privileges, the Revolution had done away with
the old bourgeoisie. However, at Belfort, it seems, the distinction
between bourgeois and habitant continued for some time longer.
In a complaint addressed to the Legislative Assembly in May, 1742, we
read : " The bourgeois take their part in the distribution of all the
communal goods ; they receive annually from the municipality their
wood for fuel, their portion in the division of common lands ; they
enjoy the rights of acorn-gathering, carting marl, pasturage, &c. The
inhabitants {habitants) are excluded from all these distributions" (Ph.
Sagnac, La Legislation civile de la Revolution, p. 424).
2 The first instance I have met with of monarchist as opposed to
democrat.
THE PARTY FINDS A LEADER 239
he takes off the skin, sells them to the butcher when
they are fat, or cuts their throats himself for his own
sustenance ; but sheep without a dog and without a
shepherd would be sadly embarrassed, and would not
know what to do with their liberty. The bourgeois
is the same ; in the scale of creation we must place him
between man and the mule. He holds the mean be-
tween these two species ; he is the link between the
one and the other ; he has often enough the stubborn
gait of the mule, and sometimes, like man, he tries to
think, but in this he is not always successful."
The democrats do not limit themselves to these vague
insults ; the campaign against the property qualifica-
tions becomes keener, more violent, and at last,
popular." It has a leader : Robespierre.
In the month of April, 1791, there was printed a
" speech before the National Assembly," which had not
been delivered, and which proposed a decree establish-
ing universal suffrage. The arguments were as
ingenious as eloquent. To the objection that people
who have no property are not interested in the mainten-
ance of social order, and the observance of the laws,
the writer replies that every man is a proprietor. Is
not the poor man the proprietor of the wretched clothes
that cover him? Has he not his liberty, his life, which
the laws protect, and is he not interested for this reason
in the maintenance of the laws? Instead of being
treated as a citizen, he is relegated to the level of
the most odious criminals. In fact, the crime of high
treason, the most odious of all, is by law punished by
the deprivation of an active citizen's rights. Thus the
poor, to whom this right is refused, are confused with
1 Halem writes (October 8, 1790) that he heard, at the Palais Royal,
a man speaking, in a group of people, against the property suffrage.
"' He is right, he is right,' was heard from all parts, and his audience
increased " (Paris en 1790, voyage de Halem, translated by A. Chuquet,
Paris, 1896, p. 190).
240 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
traitors to their country ! Yet traitors may, according
to the law, recover their rights by civic actions ; the
poor cannot ; they are treated worse than traitors I
Robespierre recalls the fact that the deputies of the
Third Estate were elected to the Estates-General by a
suffrage almost universal, and he delivers this eulogy of
the people ; a kind of praise at that time unheard of
and original : «
" I call to witness all those whom the instinct of a noble and sensitive
mind has moulded, and made worthy to know and love equality, that
in general there is no one so good and so just as the people, so long as
they are not irritated by excessive oppression ; that they are grateful
for the slightest regard shown them, for the least good one does them,
even for the evil one refrains from doing, that it is among them that
one finds, under a gross exterior, candid and upright souls, and a good
sense and energy that one would search for long and vainly in the
class that despises them. The people want only what is necessary ;
they wish only for justice and peace. The rich claim everything ; they
want to invade everything, dominate everything. Abuse is the
occupation, the province of the rich ; they are the scourges of the
people. The interest of the people is the general interest ; that of the
rich is the interest of the individual. And you wish to make the
people impotent, the rich omnipotent ! "
1 It was after this manifestation of Robespierre's that advanced
patriots, as a general thing, left off speaking of the people and the
multitude with the disdain exhibited by the philosophers. It became
the custom, in the papers and the revolutionary clubs, to speak in
praise of the poor and ignorant, and to preach, in their favour, a truly
paternal equality. However, as democratic as they might be, the
bourgeois did not go so far as to admit that artisans, for example,
should have absolutely the same rights as they themselves. Thus, they
refused throughout the whole Revolution the right of co-operation
and of striking. In May, 1791, the carpenters of Paris co-operated,
forming a " Fraternal union of workers in the art of joinery," under-
taking not to work for a less wage than 2 livres 10 sols per diem,
instead of the 36 sols which they were earning, while their employers
get money out of their employees at the rate of 3, 4, and even 5J livres a
day " (Mercure national, May 1 1, 1791). At the instance of the employers,
the municipality passed a resolution on May 4th, declaring " null and
unconstitutional the resolutions passed by the workers of different
ROBESPIERRE IN THE ASCENDANT 241
This article caused a great sensation. It was read
at the tribune of the Greyfriars, April 20, 1 79 1 . This
club voted its republication, by printing and posting
it up. It invited all patriotic societies to have it
read at their meetings : " this production of a just
spirit and a pure mind " ; it besought " the fathers
of families to inculcate these principles in their wives
and children." ' The Indigents felicitated Robespierre
in an enthusiastic address.
The immense popularity of Robespierre seems to
date from this time.
At the Assembly, April 27th, during some business
trades to refuse themselves and to refuse to others the right to work
at wages other than those fixed by the said resolutions." Orders were
given to the commissaries of police to arrest such workmen as attempted
to prevent their comrades from working. Francois Robert says, that
if the workers had no right to use force towards one another, neither
had the municipality the right to prevent them from co-operating.
But he can see in the matter nothing but a useful principle : that of
free competition. The Revolutions de Paris agrees with Robert ; Marat,
on this occasion, speaks vaguely. Robespierre and the chiefs of the
democratic party do not attempt any intervention in favour of the
workers. They seem to have made no serious opposition to the law
of June 14th, which prohibits the co-operation of working-men, nor
to that of June 16th, which licenses relief works (concerning which
see the Respectueuses observations faites a I'Assemblee nationale by the
working men, June 28th, in the Arch. pari, xxvii. 504). We must
remember that the democrats were always afraid that the artisans,
at least in the outskirts of Paris, might listen to the counter-revolu-
tionaries. Thus we read in the Bouche de Fer, April 1, 1791 : "I ought
to warn you of a matter of the first importance. I saw yesterday,
while walking just out of Paris, some workmen engaged on the public
works who were reading L Ami du Roi ; I went up to them and
heard them approving. It is essential to keep an eye on these forty
thousand men, who are fed after a fashion so that they can be made
use of, and our municipality ought to blush at the indecent adminis-
tration of these public works, and at the uselessness of the occupation
it gives to this gathering of men devoted to idleness and corrup-
tion.— G. M."
1 See the pamphlet entitled : Discours par Maximilien Robespierre et
arrete du club des Cordeliers.
VOL. I. 16
242 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
concerning the organisation of the National Guard, he
spoke against the property suffrage, and on May 28th,
in the debate on the convocation of electors to nominate
members to the Legislative Assembly, he made a speech
against the mark of silver.
The democratic movement was accelerated. Certain
bodies of bourgeois came over to it. Thus in May,
1 79 1, the directory of the district of Longwy made
a protest against the mark of silver.*
The Greyfriars joined the movement, and undertook
a kind of revision of the whole bourgeois system.
On May 30th, while admitting a provisional submission,
the Club declared that it was important —
" not to be governed long by laws which are incoherent or destruc-
tive in respect of the Declaration of Rights, of which the logical
consequence is equality of suffrage. . . . Duty, virtue, our oaths, our
courage imperiously command us to pierce, to destroy the maze of
absurdities which compromise the Declaration of Rights. Consequently,
and in conformity with this exposition, the Cordeliers Club has decided
to form a committee composed of six members, among whom will
be divided the decrees of the National Assembly, which form, each by
itself and relatively to the others, the organic codes of the Constitution,
in order to examine and to correlate them, and to pronounce between
them and the Declaration of Rights ; and to differentiate, refute, and
present to the Club those which seem contradictory or inimical to the
Declaration, of which they should be merely the result and the concrete
consequence. After this work the committee will make an exact and
conclusive report to the Assembly."
This manifesto was sent to the sections and to the
patriotic clubs, with the invitation to follow suit.
In June, after two speeches by Rene de Girardin,
the Greyfriars passed a resolution demanding not only
the suppression of the decree of the silver mark, but
also the future submission to the people of all laws
for ratification.
A factor that made the democratic suffrage move-
' Mercure national, May 12.
DEMAND FOR UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 243
ment particularly lively in June was the convocation
of the primary assemblies, when several sections,
although composed of active citizens, showed them-
selves in favour of universal suffrage.1 The Parisian
correspondent of the Gazette de Leyde wrote that it
was "a general movement" (June 28, 1791).
On June 8th, the section of Sainte-Genevieve named
two commissaries, who were to meet those from other
sections for the purpose of drawing up, according to
Robespierre's plan, a petition to the National Assembly.
But apparently nothing came of this, and the sections
do not seem to have met.2 Another project of the
section of Sainte-Genevieve had more success. It sent
the round of the popular clubs a speech by one of its
members, a certain Lorinet, on universal suffrage ; and
the Central Committee (here we observe the influence
of the Roberts and the republican party), meeting on
June 1 5th, adopted the following petition : 3
" The undersigned, meeting in the Central Committee of the various
Fraternal Societies of the capital, which watch over the safety of the
public interests, have become convinced that the day which will
witness the commencement of the primary assemblies will be the
signal for the universal protest of those whose every hope has been
ravished from them.
" Fathers of our native land, those who obey laws which they have
1 There were even active citizens who protested against the property
suffrage by not attending the primary assemblies. See the Courrier
of Gorsas, June 16 (xxv. 256) : " Yesterday the primary assemblies
commenced in Paris. A citizens' club has profited by this fact to
post up a placard in which it protests against the abusive, ridiculous,
inept, odious decree of the silver mark. Many excellent citizens who,
like ourselves, pay it and more too have voluntarily kept away from
the Assembly, where intrigue has taken the lead of patriotism and
will perhaps finally expel it."
2 Desmoulins says that one section, that of the Theatre Francais,
did " accede to the petition of Sainte-Genevieve." We shall see that
they did not stop there.
3 Desmoulins, in his Revolutions de France et de Brabant (vol. vii.
pp. 142, 144), explains in detail the part he played in the matter.
244 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
not made or sanctioned are slaves. You have declared that the law
can only be the expression of the general will, and the majority is
composed of citizens who are strangely called passive. If you do not
name the day of the universal sanction of the law by the whole mass
of citizens ; if you do not put an end to the cruel difference which you
have imposed by your decree of the mark of silver, between the people
and their brothers ; if you do not obliterate for ever these different
degrees of eligibility which so manifestly violate your Declaration of
the Rights of Man ; if you do not do these things, the country is in
danger. On July 14, 1789, the city of Paris contained 300,000 armed
men ; the active list published by the municipality contains barely
80,000 names of citizens. Compare and judge."
This petition was signed by the presidents of thirteen
people's clubs. We have not these signatures, but
the Bouche de Fer gives the list of the thirteen clubs.
Here they are :
" Of Sainte-Genevieve, sitting at Navarre ; of the Rights of Man, of
the Faubourg Sainte-Antoine ; of Equality, cloister of Notre Dame ; of
the Nomophiles, Saint Catherine's priory ; the Fraternal, sitting at
the Minimes ; the Fraternal of the Markets ; Central Arts ; the Rights
of Man and Citizen, called the Greyfriars (Cordeliers) ; the Indigents ;
the Liberty, rue de la Mortellerie ; the Enemies of Despotism ; the
Universal Confederation of the Friends of Truth ; the Carmelites,
place Maubert."
The petitioners did not succeed in getting their
petition read before the Assembly, but they posted it
up all over Paris. Here is the Bouche de Fer's account
of the matter :
" We must give the news of the application of the deputies to the
President of the National Assembly. He was busy : receiving no one.
The patriot Mandard sent word to him that the petition, which, as he
would see, bore only thirty signatures, represented at least 40,000 ; and
the president, visible on paper only, promised to have the petition read
to the Assembly. But it was not read. As it was yesterday posted up
in all the streets of the capital, we do not precisely know how the
astute M. Dauchy, president of the National Assembly, is going to
justify himself in the eyes of his colleagues, of all the Fraternal
Societies of the indignant city, and above all, of justice" (June 17th).
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE DEMANDED 245
At least two sections subscribed to this great mani-
festation, and took part in the petition for the suffrage.
The section of the Theatre Francais, united in
primary assembly, refused (June 1 6th) to join a collec-
tive petition, which it considered illegal, but it entrusted
Danton, Garran de Coulon, Bonneville, and Camille
Desmoulins with the drafting of one which its members
would sign individually. This was it :
" Fathers of the country, recognise your own decrees ! The law is
the expression of the general will, and we see with sorrow that those
who saved the country on the 14th of July, who then sacrificed their
lives to snatch you from the dangers which threatened you, count for
nothing in the primary assemblies.
" To order citizens to obey laws which they have neither made nor
sanctioned is to condemn to slavery the very men who have over-
thrown a despotism. No ; the French will not suffer such a thing.
We, active citizens, will have none of it.1
" You have put civic degradation among the greatest penalties. The
penal Code enacts that the clerk of the Court shall say to the criminal :
• Your country has found you convicted of an infamous action ; the
law degrades you from the quality of a French citizen.'
" What is the infamous action of which you have found two hundred
thousand citizens of the capital guilty?
"To declare that taxation shall be imposed by the nation alone, and,
in another decree, to exclude from the rights of a citizen the majority
of tax-paying citizens, is to destroy the nation. The social art is to
govern all by all.
"Therefore annul these decrees, which violate your sublime
■ This phrase was first of all inserted elsewhere ; namely, before the
words " declare that the tax . . ." (see the Creuset, vol. ii. p. 466). In
the Bouche de Fer, lxix. June 19, 1791, we read : "The second petition
of the active citizens, which was published in our last issue, was
drafted by several hands. A first draft was loudly applauded ; a
happy idea was found in another ; it was insisted that this must be
inserted in the approved draft. As the petition was printed in great
haste, and during the night, the added phrase, by some mistake in
revision, was inserted in the middle of another phrase." Then follows
the revised text.
246 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Declaration of the rights of men and citizens ; give back to us our
brothers, to rejoice with us in the benefits of a Constitution which they
impatiently await, which they have courageously sustained ! Unless
the whole nation sanction your decrees, there is neither Constitution
nor liberty."
This petition was immediately duplicated, to some
extent, by another, common to the section of Gobelins
and that of the Theatre Frangais.
We read in the Bouche de Fer of June 19th :
" In the midst of the discussion which arose concerning this petition
in the section of the Theatre Francais, a deputation from the Gobelins
demanded to be introduced. This generous section had conceived
the question from a novel point of view. The section of the Theatre
Frangais has fraternally given its adherence and named assistants to
collaborate in the drafting of a common petition. At the mere men-
tion of the name of one of the delegates — as a matter of fact, one of
our men * — a request was made that he should take up the pen and
that the drafting of the petition should be proceeded with. Five
assistants of the greatest merit were associated with the delegates from
the Theatre Frangais."
The text once drafted, read, and approved,
"thanks were voted to the drafter of the address, of which the
principal ideas, as regards the production of the petition, are those of
the patriot Thorillon, president of the section of the Gobelins."-
There is no " new point of view " in this petition,
as the Bouche de Fer would have it. It consists of
an energetic affirmation of the ideas made popular by
Robespierre. There is a contradiction between the
Declaration of Rights and any property restriction of
the suffrage :
"Ought not every citizen twenty-five years of age and domiciled in
France, provided he pays his country his debt as a citizen, to be
1 Nicolas Bonneville.
THE PARTY GAINS IN STRENGTH 247
eligible ? Merely to doubt it would be to show yourselves guilty and
even ungrateful for your benefits. Prepare for the blessed days of
the universal sanction of the law by the citizens as an absolute whole !
Consummate the fairest undertaking that ever was ! There is no
nation, no Constitution, no libert)', if, among men born free and of
equal rights, a single one is forced to obey laws to the formation of
which he had no opportunity of contributing." *
This petition was laid before the President of the
National Assembly by sixteen delegates.2
"The president, Beauharnais the younger, seemed to wish that the
petition should be read ; but the order of the day was demanded, and
some requested that it should be sent to the Committee of Constitution.
D'Andre had the ear of the Assembly ; and he demanded that the
Committee should report as to the objects of the petition and the
manner in which it was presented, in order that our laws might not
be violated under our eyes, and to set a notable example."
VII.
Great as the progress of the democratic party was
in June, it was still in the minority, even in Paris.
In this minority the Republicans, as we have seen,
formed only a little group, a left wing or advance
guard, which attempted, by means of the people's clubs,
not to republicanise the people (for so far the clubs
1 Bouche de Fer, June 19th. The MS. text is signed by a number
of citizens from the sections of the Theatre Francais and the Gobelins.
Among the former I find the names of Sergent, president of the
primary assembly, Momoro, N. Bonneville, and Boucher de Saint-
Sauveur.
2 The Bouche de Fer of June 19th says "it has just been presented."
But on June 21st it says " it was presented this morning." And on the
margin of the MS. in the National Archives we read : " Received
July 2nd, sent to the Committee of Constitution : Alex. Beauharnais,
president." I cannot explain these discrepancies. But it is evident
the petition was presented on the 19th or 20th.
248 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
never spoke of the republic), but to enlarge and pre-
cipitate the democratic movement, of which the logical
development must one day be the republic, and, in
the meantime, to accustom the people to the word
" republic," and to weaken their royalist instincts.
Let us note in chronological order the principal mani-
festations, whether republican or royalist, from Decem-
ber, 1790, to June, 1 79 1.
At the end of 1790 the Impartials Club (founded
by Clermont -Tonnerre and the " monarchiens ") trans-
formed itself into the Club of the Friends of the
Monarchical Constitution. Gorsas, in his Courrier of
December 20th, says1 : " The avowed object of the club
is to oppose the spirit of republicanism, which is, so say
the members, germinating in every mind." And he
adds : " An assertion as false as absurd." But he
himself a few days later testifies to the progress of
republican ideas : " Does it [this royalist club] imagine
that the Friends of the Constitution sitting at the
Jacobins are the enemies of the monarchy, because a
few of its members have republican sentiments? " In
any case there was from this time onward an open
quarrel between the monarchy and the republic. It
was at the theatre that the difference of opinion broke
out into open conflict. At a representation of Brutus
a paper was thrown and read ; it expressed the fear
that this tragedy would embolden the factious " to form
themselves into a republic." At this phrase, " I love
liberty with all my heart, but I also love my King 1 " a
young National Guard cried out, " Very well, let him
have his King for himself ! " " At this indiscreet cry,"
says Gorsas, " there was a frightful uproar, and they
tried to make the impudent fellow apologise, but he
escaped."
About the same time there were anti-republican
demonstrations in the theatres of Arras and Lyons.
On the other hand, the Revolutions de Paris pro-
THE DEMOCRATS LOYAL TO LOUIS 249
posed the formation of battalions of tyrannicides.1 To
be sure, they were for the purpose of killing foreign
kings, not Louis XVI. He, on the contrary, must be
protected from aristocratic plotters : " The King is of
the very small number of those who would reconcile
a Brutus to royalty. A King who yields the half of
his throne to the nation's liberty deserves the entire
devotion of the nation. The peace of the people
depends on the existence of such a king." Which
does not prevent the same paper from attacking, in
a direct and popular manner, the idea of royalty, while
representing kings in general as being enemies of the
peoples. It dare not yet speak of a republic, but
it does declare that " the nation can abrogate royalty,"
while " the King cannot abrogate the nation." It further
remarks that since July 14, 1789, the word "'king'
has changed its meaning for us : it conveys merely the
idea of a citizen entrusted with the oversight of the
execution of the decrees of a sovereign assembly."
Soon, still bolder, it says : " It is amongst the most
republican of the people that the second battalion of
tyrannicides will be recruited." Then, immediately,
as if fearing lest he had shown the colour of his skin,
the writer adds in a note : " That is to say, the true
friends of the public edifice. This is the primitive
signification of the word ' republican.' Alas ! in this
time of confusion we must explain everything."
These hesitations on the part of the Revolutions de
Paris are explained by this fact : that so far no progress
of republican ideas was to be discovered among the
people. Gorsas writes on February 12, 1 79 1 :
" Louis XVI went yesterday to the Jardin du Roi. When he had
passed the gate, the charcoal-sellers (who have given the most
1 This idea was far from being accepted by all democrats. Fauchet
criticised it, saying : " I am neither a killer nor an eater of tyrants."
Some weeks later, however, the Social Club applauded a motion con-
cerning the "judging of kings."
250 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
thorough proof of their patriotism) formed themselves in ranks. His
Majesty passed between them and received the most touching proofs
of affection and respect."
Marat, at this time extremely popular,1 hesitates and
contradicts himself even more than does the editor of
the Revolutions de Paris, on the question of the best
form of government. We have seen him an open
royalist in the early days of the Revolution.2 How-
ever, although he is not a frequenter of Mme. Robert's
salon, he does seem to have rallied to the republican
party since its birth. We read in the Ami da Peuple
of October 21, 1790: "It is a mistake to suppose
that the French Government can be nothing but
monarchical, or even that it need be so to-day." And
on November 8, 1790:
" And what service is the prince in the State to-day, except to oppose
the regeneration of the Empire and the happiness of its inhabitants ?
To the man without prejudice the French King is less than the fifth
wheel to the cart, since he can only derange the course of the political
machine. If only all patriotic writers would engage to make the
nation feel that the best way of assuring its peace, liberty, and happi-
ness is to dispense with the Crown ! Shall we never grow out of our
second childhood?"
But he sees that the republican propaganda is
wasted on the working men, and he hears the loyal
cries of the charcoal-sellers by the gate, and he does
not hesitate to change his opinion. " I do not know,"
he writes, on February 17, 1 79 1, " whether the counter-
1 Halem, in a letter of October 8, 1790, says : " Near the Louvre, in
the open air, I saw a well-dressed man reading to an attentive crowd
long passages from the Ami du peuple, filled with abuse of the
ministers."
2 In his Offrande a la patrie he writes : " We do not by any means
wish to upset the throne, but to remind the Government of its primitive
institution, and to correct its radical vices, which are ripe for the
ruin of both King and subject. . . . Blessed be the best of kings ! "
THE KING REGARDED AS NECESSARY 251
revolutionaries will force us to change the form of
the government ; but I do know that an extremely
limited monarchy is the form that is best for us now-
adays. ... A federated republic would soon degen-
erate into an oligarchy." And, speaking of Louis XVI,
he does not hesitate to write : " Whatever happens,
we must have the King. We ought to thank Heaven
for having given him to us."
Are we to believe that Marat would have written
a phrase so flattering to Louis if it had not corre-
sponded with the frame of mind of the Parisian artisans?
It was as royalists rather than as republicans that
the latter were so alarmed at the rumours of
flight on the part of the King. What would become
of them if their father and guide were taken from
them? The departure of mesdames the King's aunts
(February 19, 1 79 1 ) disquieted the people, who feared
that the rest of the royal family were also about to go.
Their fears and suspicions became a miserable night-
mare. They imagined that the keep of Vincennes, gar-
risoned for sinister purposes, was connected with the
Tuileries by means of a secret subterranean passage,
by which the King would escape ; and they went off to
the fortress with the purpose of destroying it. La
Fayette dispersed them. The same day at the Tuileries
the King was surrounded by nobles armed with daggers
or pistols ; they Were disarmed by a kind of insurrection.
This day of the " knights of the dagger " excited the
imagination of the people to the pitch of delirium.
The Assembly showed itself infected by the popular
fears in its decree of March 28, 1791, in which it
was stated : " The King, the first public functionary,
must have his residence at a distance of twenty leagues
at most from the National Assembly when the latter
is sitting ; when it is not sitting, the King may reside
in any other part of the kingdom." The Queen and
the heir-presumptive were confined to the same resi-
252 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
dence. Finally, " if the King left the kingdom, and
if, after having been invited by a proclamation of the
Legislative Assembly, he did not return to France, he
would be considered to have abdicated his royal rights."
This decree, voted in spite of the protestations of
the Right, made a sensation, as much by the expression
" public functionary " as applied to the King, as because
the King was deprived, as a subordinate agent, of
some part of his liberty. The people, in fact, thought
he was still given too much liberty, and would not
have given him leave to travel twenty leagues away.
On April 18, 1 79 1, a popular movement prevented
the King by force from going to Saint-Cloud ; he
was now a prisoner. The people decide to keep the
King with them, as a shield, a talisman ; they brow-
beat him and love him. When, in March, 1791, Louis
had suffered from a violent catarrh and a derangement
of the stomach, the bulletins of his health provoked
such demonstrations of sensibility as to arouse the
derision of Camille Desmoulins.
But among educated democrats, in cultivated society,
republicanism continues to progress. Finally, the
Revolutions de Paris decides to attack royalty openly.
In the issue of March 26th to April 2nd, we read " a
decree proposed to the National Assembly of the eighty-
three Departments, enacting the abolition of royalty."
After a good deal of republican preamble, the following
articles, among others, are proposed :
" The nation recognises, as supreme head of the Empire, no one but
the President of its permanent and representative Assembly. No one
can be elected President before his fiftieth year, nor for more than
one month, nor more than once in his life. A scarf of white wool
passed round the loins will be the sole distinctive mark of the dignity
of President of the French. The civil list of the President of the
French will consist of an apartment in the interior of the Palace of
the National Assembly. In imitation of the Passover of the Hebrews,
a commemorative feast will be instituted, which will fall upon the first
of June, the day of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, and
THE REPUBLICAN IDEA 253
consecrated to the celebration of the abolition of royalty, the greatest
of all the scourges of which the human species has ever been the
victim."
This proposal was signed " by a subscriber," but
very soon the management of the paper formally
adhered to it, excepting in certain matters of detail.1
One of the organs of the Cordeliers, the paper called
Le Creuset, edited by Rutledge, also subscribed to the
republic at the end of May, 1791, and even to the
federated republic so much distrusted by the public.
After having spoken of the movements of the emigres,
Rutledge said : " As for us, little affected by these
movements, we are confident in our reading, in the
infallible future, of this inevitable progress of the
Revolution : the despotism of the dynasty sprung of
Henry of Navarre has gradually led the people to
the forced and final choice of a mixed government ;
but the calamities arising from the abuse of this
type of government will urge them rapidly on towards
a federal republican system, of which the roots, to a
keen eye, are already spreading day by day in the
various parts of the French Empire." 2
In this spring of 1 79 1 the idea of establishing a
republic in France is accepted even in certain
salons of the nobility and the upper middle classes.
Thus Gouverneur Morris writes, April 23rd :
" After dinner M. de Flahaut declared himself a republican, which is
all the mode at present. I tried to make him see the folly of it, but I
should have done better not to have meddled. ... I went afterwards
to the house of Mme. de Labord ; she rails loudly at the republican
party."
1 For example, they reproach the " subscriber " with having con-
founded the legislative with the executive power.
2 This phrase, curiously enough, has the structure and style of a
phrase of Auguste Comte.
254 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
This republican party, whose existence is now real
enough, has so far been unable to obtain the definite
support of Marat (as we have seen) ; « Robespierre
will so far have nothing to say to it, nor will any of
the other official leaders, so to call them, of the demo-
cratic party. Even such of them as are already in
their hearts republican still believe that, with the people
in a royalist frame of mind, they will only play into
the hands of the bourgeoisie (and also those of the up-
holders of the old absolute monarchy) by so much as
speaking of a republic. Their wish is to effect
the democratic reform of the suffrage in the first
place ; a reform both desired and understood by the
people ; as for the republic, there is time for that
later.
The republican propaganda of Mme. Robert is
successfully opposed by the influence (let us call it
opportunist) of Mme. Roland,2 a republican by
instinct,3 but a royalist by reason .4 She receives
Brissot in a friendly fashion, and contributes to the
Patriote francais; and the polemics of this journal on
the question of republic or monarchy tend to check-
mate the politics of the republican group far more
1 Mme. Robert says, later on, that neither Robespierre nor Marat
set foot in her salon {Louise Robert a Monsieur Louvet, publ.
Baudouin).
2 Who returned to Paris early in March, '91.
3 Sensitive to the influence of the American War of Independence ;
as was Brissot also ; and keenly impressed by the ideas of Thomas
Paine and Williams.
4 By reason is the right expression. M. Perroud, so competent in all
things touching the lives of the Rolands, points out to me that they
never, at any moment, even during the naive illusions of '89, regarded
Louis as a regenerator. The reason is simple : Roland, inspector of
manufactures, had suffered too much from the royal administration.
Since the outbreak of the Revolution both regarded France as lost, if
she did not change her King, even by violent means (letter to Bosc,
July 26, '89).
THE REPUBLIC NOT ANTI-MONARCHICAL 255
definitely than at the moment of the party's first
appearance.1
Choderlos de Laclos says, in his Journal of the
Friends of the Constitution: " Our Constitution has
two kinds of enemies in France ; the one wants a
democracy and no King, the other a King and no
democracy." Among the former he names Robert and
Brissot*; among the latter, d'fepremesnil.
Brissot replies, in the Patriote of April 9th- 12th.
He derides the antithesis of the author of Liaisons
dangereuses, and makes his own confession of faith in
these words :
" I have said that M. Choderlos was calumniating me in accusing me
of wishing to dispense with the monarch ; not that I do not believe
that royalty is a plague, but because the holding of a metaphysical
opinion and the actual rejection of the king adopted by the Constitution,
are two different things. The adoption is permissible ; the rejection is
culpable. . . . The National Assembly has decreed that we shall have a
king ; I submit to it, but in submitting I seek to prove that the repre-
sentatives of the people must be given such power that neither the
executive power nor the monarch can bring about a despotism. I
would have a popular monarchy, in which the scales would incline
always to the side of the people. Such is my democracy. . . . The
witty Clootz says with reason that all free governments are true
republics. This is a truth so evident that in the ancient Estates-
General the Kingdom of France is often called the Republic of France ;
and in a revolution in which the rights of man have been established in
their entirety, in which there exists a common weal, men are calumniat-
ing, anathematising, and seeking to render hateful to the people those
who wish to prevent this common weal from becoming the private weal
of one or many men."
On the other hand, Petion, in a letter of April 22,
1 79 1, to the Ami des Patriotes, complains of these
discussions on the monarchy and the republic. These
1 Fundamentally Brissot and the Roberts were at loggerheads
only on questions of tactics ; the sympathy between them is noted
by the favourable mention of them by M. and Mme. de Keralio in
the Patriote (September 27, '89, January 5, '78, March 28, '90).
256 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
are words, he says, which have no precise meaning.
" There is often more difference between one monarchy
and another than exists between this monarchy and
that republic." He protests that the friends of liberty
did not wish to destroy the monarchy, but to improve it.
But, whether or no they desire it, those democrats
who oppose the Republicans for reasons of principle
or opportunity are preparing the way for the republic
by the mere fact that they are preparing for a complete
democracy, by the fact that they are reducing the King
to a nullity, depriving him of his royal prestige, and that
they wish to reduce him to the role of permanent and
responsible president of a democratic republic.
VIII.
f It must be noted that, whether the democratic party
/ was republicanised or not, it began to exhibit different
tendencies which later on were to lead to scission.
Robespierre was in favour of a limited, prudent, and
entirely domestic policy.
The majority of the democrats were in favour of a
larger, bolder policy, with an international outlook.
The Revolution, for which the philosophy of the
eighteenth century had paved the way, should not be
merely French, but human. Its end was not merely
the enfranchisement of the people of France, but of
all humanity'; or, at least, of all civilised humanity ;
of Europe, in short.
One of the effects of the Revolution was the fusion
of the different provincial regions into one single
country : France.
One of its logical tendencies was the fusion of
the French nation with the other European countries,
without being confounded with them' ; on the contrary,
THE "INTERNATIONAL REPUBLIC" 257
France would possess, at least morally, the hegemony
of Europe. Men dreamed of inducing the other nations
to form themselves into a group of nations under the
auspices of the French nation, with the Declaration
of the Rights of Man for banner.
It is probable that these humanitarian politics would
not have played any part from this time onwards, but
for the sight of the kings of Europe confederating
with Louis against the people. Immediately the idea
was born of federating the peoples against the kings,
and of " municipalising " Europe. Immediately the
system of international propaganda came into being,
the republicans being its most ardent supporters.
It will be remembered that the Revolutions de Paris
had, in December, 1790, proposed the formation of
" battalions of tyrannicides." The same journal, in
May, 1 791, became the ardent advocate of revolu-
tionary expansion throughout Europe.
" This word," it says, " so fatal to kings, this word revolution has,
despite all they have done to intercept it, fallen on the ears of the
people. The trumpet of the Last Judgment has been heard in the
four corners of Europe. From the depths of the tombs of servitude
men have heard it ; they awaken ; they shake off the dust of pre-
judices ; they tear the shrouds which cover their eyes, and see at last
the light. Now all but a few stand upright, looking into one another's
eyes ; amazed already in that they have been for so many centuries
prostrated in a senseless lethargy at the foot of the thrones and
dominations of the earth. See them all turning their eyes towards
France ! France, whence has issued the sound that awakened them ;
where burns in all its splendour the day of which they see the dawn.
They are as those unhappy ones whom religion paints as groaning
still in their limbo, raising their heads and sighing towards the regions
of the blessed."
The kings are terrified ; they say : " The human
race is emancipating itself and is going to call us to
account." The peoples are with France ; the editor
of the Revolutions defies the kings to force them to
vol. i. 17
258 FORMATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
march against the French : " There is no longer any
question of war between nation and nation. Since the
kings have always been at one on the question of
tyrannising over the peoples, the peoples are now at
one on the question of dethroning the despots."
Tn this way external danger led to the propaganda
of international revolution, and gave a few bold spirits
the idea of preaching the universal republic. This was
as early as the month of May, i 791 . In the same way
from external danger issued, in 1792, the French
Republic.
IX.
Thus on the eve of the flight to Varennes there was
a republican party in France.
Republicanism is the logical consequence of the
philosophy of the eighteenth century and of the
Declaration of Rights. But this consequence was not
perceived either by the philosophers, who were
unanimously for the monarchy, because the people were
ignorant and royalist, nor by the men of '89 ; for
the same reason, and also because Louis XVI was
personally popular.
So long as Louis seemed possible as leader of the
Revolution, and the guide of the new France, there
was no republican party. But when religious scruples,
concerning the civil constitution of the clergy, had irre-
mediably embroiled him with the nation, and when he
conspired with foreign kings against the people, towards
the end of 1790, the idea of abolishing royalty began
to show itself, and the republican party was born.
As the defection of the King was not evident to the
mass of the people they remained royalist, neither
understanding nor supporting the republicans.
The majority of democrats thought it a dangerous
NO REPUBLICAN PARTY 259
folly to propose a republic in face of the ignorance
and obliviousness of the masses ; they, since the
masses wanted a king, followed the policy of exercising
a pressure, all but physical, on the said king, in order
to keep him in the right road and to prevent him
from coming to grief.
The republican party, which had no credit among
the peasants, no support from the Parisian working
class, was a party small in numbers ; an elect body,
consisting of a few literati, a few journalists, a few
frequenters of Mme. Robert's salon. It was the extreme
Left (often disowned) of the democratic party.
But it was gaining in strength ; now by quickening
the democratic movement by people's clubs,1 now by
working at the international propaganda.
It felt that logic and the future were on its side :
it awaited the time when a supreme and glaring slip
on the part of royalty should finally enlighten the public
mind. This time was about to come ; the slip about to
be made ; it was the flight to Varennes.2
1 Since the publication of this book M. Jaures has published, in
his Historic socialiste, a leaflet of the time, of which the heading
informs us that the people's club directed by Dansard was founded
January 2, 1790. I must therefore rectify what I have said as to the
date of this club.
2 To the list of Frenchmen who declared themselves Republicans
in 1790 I must add Barere.
CHAPTER V
THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES AND THE REPUBLICAN
MOVEMENT
(June 21 — July 17, 1791)
I. The character of Louis XVI. Historic importance of the flight to
Varennes. — II. The attitude of the Constituent Assembly. — III.
The attitude of Paris. The people ; the sections ; the clubs ; the
press. — IV. The King's return acts as a check on the Republican
Party. — V. Polemics on the question : " Republic or Monarchy ? "
— VI. The Republican movement in the provinces. — VII. The
Democrats and the affair of the Champ de Mars.
I.
In the history of the Revolution in general, and of the
republican party in particular, there are few events
more decisive than the flight to Varennes, if only for
the reason that thereby the true character of Louis
was unmasked.
I am not of those who would make all history turn
on the psychology of a few celebrated individuals. It
does not seem that a small number of heroes could
ever lead civilised humanity along the path of progress.
In any case, in the new France born of the movement
of 1789, we see evolution at work by means of
spontaneously organised groups '; communal, national
groups"; not by this or that Frenchman.
But the person of Louis XVI plays a part altogether
260
CHARACTER OF LOUIS 261
exceptional ; because he was the King ; because the
nation was royalist ; because when in the month of
July, 1789, it gathered itself together into communes
and as a nation, it entrusted its hereditary head, in
its unanimous love and confidence, with the task of
presiding over this constructive process and of directing
the Revolution.
This being so, it is incontestable that the ensuing
course of evolution was inevitably cleared or impeded by
the conduct of Louis himself ; for which reason a know-
ledge of his character is indispensable to the historian
of the Revolution, while the psychology of men of much
greater merit, of a Mirabeau or a Robespierre, is not
an absolute necessity for the understanding of the
development of this history.
As for the history of the republican party in par-
ticular, we may well say, and the facts will show, that
the formation of this party was one of the direct
consequences of the character and attitude of Louis XVI .
Louis was virtuous, as they said of him at the time,
and well-intentioned ; which is to say that he did very
sincerely wish that his subjects might be happy, and he
would willingly have made sacrifices with that end in
view. Although phlegmatic, he had the " sensibility
of his century, and on occasion he could be pleasantly
affected by emotional scenes. He was, in the vulgar
sense of the word, good.
He had not a superior order of mind. Even the
royalists called him stupid ; because they saw him
physically gross, buried in matter ; hunting, making
locks, sleeping, eating ; a little boorish, incapable of
conversation. But he was not wanting in intelligence,
and his proclamation to his people, at the time of his
flight to Varennes, which is really his own work, con-
tains a far finer criticism of the Constitution of 1 79 1
than that which, in our days, Taine has written.
But in this his intelligence was inadequate to his
262 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
task'; he did not understand that under the new system,
and the establishment of popular rights, he could still
be quite as powerful, as glorious, and as kinglike a
King as under the old system of right Divine.
The old system had annihilated him ; contradicted
by his Parliaments, his Court, and the remnants of
feudality, he was only the phantom of a King.
When Turgot proposed a general reform of the king-
dom, so that he might govern " like God Himself,"
he did not understand.
When Mirabeau counselled him to lean on the people
and the nation, in order to escape the tutelage which
the bourgeoisie wished to impose on him, he did not
understand.
He saw, in all this, only disquieting novelties. As
each antique ornament was torn from his royal mantle,
he felt himself despoiled, denuded, lessened ; to the new
and mighty powers which were offered him he preferred
the old and feeble powers which were taken from him,
simply because they were old and he was used to them.
His intelligence limited, his will feeble, he was a
creature of caprices and repugnances. He gave way,
step by step, without design, with no goal in view, to
the influences about him, whether these were of the
Queen, the Comte d'Artois, Necker, or the people of
Paris.
Had he been vicious, he might have been ruled by
a mistress. But he was chaste ; and no influence was
permanent with him. He did not know how to act
either as King of the Revolution nor as King of the
counter-revolution. He lived from day to day; saying
yes or no as the counsellor of the moment was more
or less importunate. Thus harassed, he lied, was crafty,
and escaped, when he could, to peace or the chase.
However, there was one characteristic of his which
was solid and unchanging : the sentiment of religion.
In Louis XVI piety was, indeed, " the whole man."
CHARACTER OF LOUIS 263
He was, from his youth, deeply devout, a profound
believer. In the sceptical Court of Louis XV he had
believed, ingenuously and with his whole heart, in the
dogmas of the Catechism. This apathetic man was
genuinely pious.1
Perhaps he would have been resigned to the trans-
formation of his royal power, to the Revolution, if the
Revolution had not, at one moment, stood in contradic-
tion to all that he conceived to be his duties as a
Christian.
On the day when the Pope, on the day when the
Bishops, told him that in sanctioning the civil Constitu-
tion of the clergy he would endanger his salvation, he
was very profoundly troubled, and went in very fear of
hell. Between July 12, 1790, the day on which the
Assembly finally voted the civil Constitution, and
August 24th, the day on which he sanctioned it, he
suffered greatly in his Christian conscience ; it was a
crisis in his life.
Why did he sanction this Constitution? Because those
who surrounded him, who were in terror of the probable
consequences of the veto, weighed upon him. But he
gave his consent with anguish ; he felt that he was
committing a mortal sin.
His remorse put an end to any sympathy he ever
might have had with the Revolution, and, from this
time onwards, he believed he was fulfilling his duty
as a Christian by fighting it with deceit, since he did
not dare and had not had the strength to fight it
openly.
To this man, who was not born a knave, all means
became good in view of becoming once more His Very
Christian Majesty, and, by reconciling France with the
Pope, of delivering his conscience.
As early as the month of October he had decided,
secretly, to go to Montmedy. The Emperor would
1 See the portrait which Mine. Roland drew in her Memoir.
264 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
make a military demonstration on the frontiers. The
patriots would be terrified. Louis XVI would march
on Paris with Bouille's army.
This design was concealed with ingenious duplicity.
On April 18th, the people having prevented the King
from going to Saint-Cloud, he really became a prisoner
in the Tuileries. Then, to conceal from France his
projected flight, he had the idea of proclaiming him-
self free and sincere in the face of Europe by a solemn
proclamation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, on
April 23, 1 79 1, sent to the diplomatic agents of the
King at the foreign Courts a circular, in which we
read :
" The King charges me, Sir, to inform you that his most explicit wish
is that you should manifest his sentiments regarding the Revolution
and the French Constitution at the Court at which you reside. The
Ambassadors and Ministers of France to all the Courts of Europe are
receiving the same orders, so that no doubt shall remain as to His
Majesty's intentions, nor as to his acceptance of the new form of
government, nor as to his irrevocable oath to maintain it. . . . The
enemies of the Constitution never cease repeating that the King is not
happy ; as if a king could have any other happiness than that of his
people ; they say that his authority is diminished, as though authority
founded on force were not less powerful and more uncertain than the
authority of the law ; finally, that the King is not free ; an atrocious
calumny, if it is thereby implied that he has been forced to act against
his will ; and absurd, if people see an infringement of his liberty in
His Majesty's consent, given more than once, to remain in the midst
of the citizens of Paris ; a consent which he owes to their patriotism,
even to their fear, and above all to their love. . . . Give, Monsieur, the
idea of the French Constitution which the King himself has formed ;
leave no doubt whatever as to His Majesty's intention of maintaining
it with all his might. . . . His Majesty . . . has ordered me to
charge you to notify the contents of this letter to the Court at which
you reside; and, to give it wider publicity, His Majesty has ordered
that it shall be printed."
Communicated to the Assembly the same day
(April 23, 1 791)), "this letter excited the keenest
enthusiasm in the left portion of the Hall and in all
THE KING'S FLIGHT 265
the galleries. It was interrupted at each sentence with
applause and cries a hundred times repeated of " Long
live the King ! " A deputation, despatched forthwith
to the King to congratulate him, received this reply :
" I am infinitely touched by the justice done me by the National
Assembly. If it could read in the depths of my heart, it would see only
such sentiments as would properly justify the confidence of the nation ;
there would be an end to all opposition between us, and we should all
be happy."
At that very moment Louis was conspiring with other
countries and with Bouille with a view to his flight and
his coup d'etat. He had provisionally fixed the moment
of his flight for the beginning of May.1
The proposal of flight, however, was delayed, and
it was on the night of June 20th that the King fled
in disguise with his family.
We know that their flight was discovered far less
through the imprudence of the fugitives than because
the lack of discipline among the troops rendered use-
less the able precautions taken by General Bouille.
Recognised and stopped at Varennes, Louis, the Queen,
and the royal family, while Monsieur gained the frontier
by another route, were led back to Paris, captives,
under the guard of three delegates from the National
Assembly : Petion, Barnave, and Latour-Maubourg ;
amid an innumerable escort of armed citizens, whom
the surrounding municipalities poured forth on the road
to Paris. They re-entered the capital on June 25th.
The flight of the King was one of the few events
of the Revolution which excited the whole country,
and was known and felt by every one.2
1 Memoires de Bouille, 1st ed. ii. 42.
2 Of events of a truly national quality, — that is to say, known to the
whole people, whether in town or country — I can see no more than four
or five others after the convocation of the Estates-General : the taking of
the Bastille (a pre-eminently national event), with its immediate conse-
266 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
At the first news men were struck with stupor ; then
followed anger and indignation ; lastly, a feeling of
fear. The nation was abandoned, orphaned. The King,
so felt the people, had taken with him a talisman of
miraculous powers. Terrible dangers were foreseen ;
France saw herself invaded, and, without her head, lost.
But there were brave men, who braced themselves to
appear calm. Everywhere men followed the example
of the National Assembly, and affected a proud and
firm expression. The municipalities set the example
of rallying to the law. All were up in arms, ready
to die for their country.
Then the news of the King's return. Men breathe,
think themselves saved. First the sorrow, then this joy,
show how loyal France is as yet.
For a moment the republican party seems to triumph
in Paris, and to gain a few recruits here and there
in the provinces ; but France stands aloof, and the
republicans, having but now hoisted, then disguised
their colours, are obliged, after one great effort, to
yield, to beat a retreat, almost to disappear from view,
before the sudden attack of the bourgeoisie and the
general persistence of royalist feeling.
Let Louis re-ascend the throne, and henceforth let
him be better advised : this is the wish of France ; of
the National Assembly too.
Nevertheless, for nearly three months the royal power
is suspended, and from June 21st to September 14th
there is, in very fact, a republic. An object-lesson
this, proving that France can, indeed, exist as a re-
public, despite the opinion of philosophers. Henceforth,
quences ; the danger to France and the war ; the execution of Louis
XVI ; the establishment, or rather the operations, of the Revolutionary
Committees, and the discredit of the assignals. It is by no means
certain that the famous days of August 10, May 31, 9 Thermidor, 18
Fructidor and 18 Brumaire, were known throughout the whole of
France.
THE PROVISIONAL EXECUTIVE 267
the republic is no more a chimera, but a mode of
government ; nameless yet, but real ; it has existed,
has worked. When Louis becomes definitively impos-
sible, as he will in August, 1792, men will only have
to take up the threads of experience, resume the work
begun, and the thing will bring forth the word.
II.
This general review of what followed the flight to
Varennes — what followed, that is, from the republican
point of view— is needful to a comprehension of the
various manifestations we are about to consider. It
is not here easy to follow a strictly chronological
method ; to recount, from day to day, all the incidents
that bear upon our subject ; all the events, above all
between June 21st and July 17th, that befall in the
Assembly and without. So many things come to pass
in so little time ; there are so many seeming contra-
dictions, in men and in things ; and the attitude of
the Assembly has such an influence in the minds of
men in Paris and in France, that the fate of the
republican movement will be plainer if we first of all
consider the operations of the Assembly ; or at least
those of its actions that bear upon the question :
Monarchy or Republic?
At the. first news, on June 21st, the Assembly decrees
the arrest of any person leaving the kingdom. Even
of the King? Yes, even of the King. The Assembly
expressly adds that it gives orders " to arrest the said
carrying-off." (Such is its excitement, it no longer
heeds its grammar.)
Then, without hesitation, it takes in hand the execu-
tive power. On the motion of d' Andre, it is decreed
that all decrees will be executed by the ministers without
the royal sanction. An obscure deputy named Guil-
laume wished to substitute for these words in the
268 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
preamble of the laws : Louis, by the grace of God
and the constitutional law of the State, the following
phrase : The Constituent Assembly decrees and orders.
But this was the republic.1 There were protests ; the
motion was lost.
In the postscript of his proclamation Louis had
said : " The King forbids his ministers to sign any
order in his name, until they have received his final
orders ; he enjoins the Keeper of the Seal of State
to send it to him, in order that it may first of all
be required of him." Now the Keeper of the Seal
himself, one Duport-Dutertre, demands the Assembly's
authority to disobey, and obtains a decree enjoining
him to affix the seal himself.
Yet the Assembly refuses the appearance of govern-
ing directly by itself. Faithful to the principle of the
separation of the two powers, it refuses a motion
suggesting the co-operation of the ministers with com-
missaries taken from its own body and the formation
of an Executive Committee.
But it declares itself permanent. It sends out repre-
sentatives " on mission." It sends for the ministers
and gives them their orders, as a sovereign. It notifies
its accession to the foreign Powers. It reads diplomatic
correspondence. The representative bodies come to
its bar. It sets the National Guard in motion. It
goes even farther on the republican road ; changing
the form of its oath, on the motion of Prieu.r and
Roederer, it discards the name of the King.2
At the same time the Assembly shows that it wishes
to maintain the monarchy. In its address to the French,
1 It is hardly probable that he thought to establish the republic.
It was he who, later, took the initiative in the matter of the petition
against the doings of June 20, 1792.
2 By all its actions the Assembly shows that it takes, provisionally, the
place of the King ; even at the procession of his parish for the Fete-Dieu.
The Courtier of Gorsas, June 24th, says : " All the processions of the Fete-
Dieu are accompanied by a religious pomp which inspires respect.
THE KING SUSPENDED 269
on June 22nd, it denounces, not the flight, but the
" abduction " of the King. Roederer cries : " It is
false ! he has meanly deserted his post ! " — a protest
that finds no echo in the Assembly.
Then Louis returns. What will the Assembly do
with him?
On June 25th the Assembly decrees that Louis shall
be given a guard. The guard will watch over his
safety, and be responsible for his person. So behold
the King a prisoner : with him the Prince Royal and
the Queen. The decree as to the Seal of State con-
tinues in force ; that is, the King is suspended from
his functions.
This decree was passed only after a keen debate.
Malouet objected that it was a violation of the Con-
stitution, and although he did not use the word " re-
public," we see that he meant that it would violate
the Constitution in a republican sense. Roederer, on
the other hand, thought the Assembly too fearful ; he
demanded a plainer form of words, indicating more
clearly that the King was under provisional arrest.
Members protested. Alexandre de Lameth spoke for
suspension, but as a monarchist :
" Sent here to give our country a Constitution, we were of opinion
that the extent of the kingdom, and a population of twenty-five million
men, demanded a unity of power and of action to be found only in a
monarchical Constitution. If we were right a year ago we are right
now ; what has happened has in no way changed the nature of things ;
neither must it in any way change our actions."
Malouet replied :
" How is it you cannot see all the lamentable consequences of the
temporary annihilation of the royal power, and the uncertain existence
That of the parish of the fugitive Louis XVI has never been more
brilliant. The whole National Assembly was there in a body, on
foot. ..." It returned to the Salle du Manege to the sound of the fa ira.
270 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
of the King at the present moment ? . . . Take care, messieurs, that in
constituting yourselves in this manner you are able to dispense with the
executive power, and consider the lamentable consequences which
might result ; have a care, lest a moment's sorrow and indignation,
apparent in every part of the kingdom, should go far farther than you
would wish ; have a care ..." Several voices : " You have nothing to
say ; you don't reason ; you are trying to waste our time." '
The theory of the Committee and of the majority
was this : logically, when the Constitution was created,
there should have been a suspension of all the powers
of the State ; this was not possible ; now, as we are
led back to first principles again, the slate is cleared
... in order that the monarchy may be established.
Two hundred and ninety deputies of the Right pro-
tested publicly, and stated that " there was no longer
even an appearance of royalty," and that the condition
of things was " a republican intermezzo." And Bouille,
in a letter read before the Chamber on the 29th,
denounced the existence of a republican party in the
Assembly, having La Fayette for head.
La Fayette protested at the tribune, declaring himself
calumniated.2
»
1 Le Hodey, xxviii.
2 But he confesses, in his memoirs, that after the flight of the King
he had republican leanings. At the house of his intimate friend La
Rochefoucauld the republic, he says, was proposed by Du Pont. It
was only a "fugitive thought." He also says that there were in the
Assembly at this time a dozen republicans, whom he divides into
politicians and anarchists ; it certainly is very likely that a few deputies
were inwardly converted by the flight to Varennes. The letters of
Thomas Lindet, at this time, are those of a republican. But no member
of the Assembly exhibits republican opinions. We must, however,
note that Buzot tells the Convention in 1792 (September 24th) : " I
was not present at the taking of the oath by which you have declared
that France is a republic ; but I was there when men trembled only to
think of a republic ; in 1791 I was there, I was in my place, and I
voted for it " {Moniteur, xiv. 39). What vote is Buzot referring to ?
We cannot trace any vote of the kind. . . . Another deputy, Roederer,
according to the testimony of Brissot, stated, after the flight to
THE "REPUBLICAN INTERMEZZO" 271
But the Assembly was afraid of the republican
party which was forming outside ; afraid, because
it menaced the bourgeois system, and it was to
drown Parisian republicanism beneath a huge manifes-
tation of departmental opinion that Adrien du Port
proposed (on June 29th) that there should be a second
general federation of the National Guards.1
On July 1st Malouet denounced without reading
(though Petion demanded that it should be read) a
republican placard by Du Chastellet, demanding that
proceedings be taken. Chabroud and Le Chapelier
opposed the motion ; one, because the matter was
within the province of the municipality and the
law-courts ; the other, because the matter was one
of opinion. But both protested their aversion to the
republic. Chabroud said : " It is evident that the
author of this placard is a maniac ; he must be left
to the care of his relatives." Le Chapelier : " I am
strongly opposed to the adoption of a republican
Government, because I believe it to be a very bad
form of government." A certain Le Bois Desguays
remarked : " It is ridiculous to denounce an individual
proposal so insane, so extravagant as that made in this
placard for the establishment of a republican Govern-
ment." The Assembly proceeded to the business of
the day.
Observe : so far the Assembly had done nothing
Varennes, " that we may have a monarchy without a hereditary king."
Doubtless Roederer said this in private conversation ; for I cannot find
the phrase in any of his speeches. Mme. Roland says, in her Memoires,
that at the same period Petion was at one with Brissot in the matter of
" preparing men's minds for the republic.'' And we read in the
Souvenir* of Etienne Dumont, p. 323, that " Claviere, Petion, and Buzot
used to meet to discuss this question." On October 8, Tallien, at the
tribune of the Jacobins, said he knew Buzot as a republican "in the
days when it was dangerous to speak of a republic." As for Petion, he
said nothing in public against the monarchy at this time.
1 Le Hodey, xxviii. 464.
272 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
which would directly restore the monarchy. Its Com-
mittees— Military, Diplomatic, Constitutional ; Commit-
tees of Revision, of Criminal Jurisprudence, of Reports,
of Inquiries — had been entrusted, united in one body,
with the drawing up of a report " on the events relating
to the flight of the royal family." This report, the
work of Muguet de Nanthou, was presented and debated
on on July 13th. The author, who indirectly aimed at
exculpating Louis and restoring him to the throne, in
the name of the principle of royal inviolability, re-
minded the Assembly, after a recital of the facts, that
if they had " adopted the monarchical Government,"
it was because it had promised the best means of
assuring the happiness of the people, and the pros-
perity of the State, which is the consequence of that
happiness. " Therefore the monarchy was established
for the nation, not for the King. . . ." Without enter-
ing upon any logical or historical discussion of the
comparative advantages of republics and monarchies,
Muguet de Nanthou confined himself to this con-
temptuous allusion to the republican party : " It is in
vain that a few restless minds, always eager for change,
have persuaded themselves that the flight of one man
could change the form of government and upset the
whole constitutional system. . . ."
In the debate which immediately followed, there was
no orator representing the republican party, and it
was once more evident that no one in all the Assembly
dared to support it openly.
D 'Andre, paraphrasing the report, spoke of the
" class of people " who would have liked to seize the
occasion of the King's departure to upset the Constitu-
tion. Alexandre de Lameth pointed out the dangers of
establishing either a regency or an " Executive Council."
Petion, without speaking against the monarchy, de-
manded that the King should be judged by the Assembly
or by a Convention. De Ferrieres (in a discourse
THE REPUBLIC PROPOSED 273
printed but never spoken) denounced the " ridiculous
chimera of a French republic." During the session
of July 14th Vadier demanded a Convention, which
would announce the downfall of the King.
Robespierre says : "I have no wish to reply to
certain reproaches of republicanism which some are
willing to impute to the cause of truth and jus-
tice. . . ." " Let them accuse me, if they will, of
republicanism ; I declare that I abhor any form of
government in which the factious reign." He concludes
by saying that the nation must be consulted as to Louis'
fate • there must be elections.1
Adrien du Port declares that the Executive Council
would constitute a republic ; that they consequently
have to choose between the republic and the monarchy ;
and the latter " is the only form of government suited
to our Empire, our manners, our position." Prieur
makes a confession of faith : " I am not a factious
person. ... I am not a republican either, if a repub-
lican is a person who wishes to change the constitu-
tion." And he rallies to the views of Petion.2
During the session of the 1 5th, Goupil de Prefelne
utters a violent diatribe against the republicans, who
wish, he declares, " to precipitate the French nation
into the gulf of the horrors of anarchy and riot.''
He abuses Brissot. He stigmatises Condorcet, who
had just offered a vindication of republicanism, as " a
man with a reputation obtained I don't know how,
and invested with the title of Academician." He places
him among the Prostrates of his time. He anathe-
matizes certain "odious and criminal pamphlets." He
1 By a decree enacted June 24th the Assembly suspended the elections
which had already begun.
2 We must note two speeches, printed, not delivered, one by Petion,
demanding " an elective and national council of execution " ; one by
Malouet, in which he declares that to make the head of the Government
removable and responsible is to establish a republic (Arch, pari.,
xxviii).
VOL. I. 18
274 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
exalts " our divine constitution." Gregoire demands
a National Convention. Buzot speaks to the same
effect as Petion.
Finally Barnave (whose views La Fayette applauds)
refutes the republicans, but courteously ; explains why
the example of the Americans cannot be followed by
the French, and pronounces a very remarkable and
brilliant eulogy of the monarchy. In a large country,
either it is necessary to establish a federation, " or
else, if the national unity is untouched, you will he
obliged to give the central position to an immov-
able power, which, being never renewed except by the
law, and presenting incessant obstacles to ambition,
will advantageously resist the shocks, the rivalries, and
the rapid oscillations of an immense population,
actuated by all the passions that a society of old
standing engenders."
The Assembly, sitting July 15, 1791, passed a decree
by which, without as yet replacing Louis on the throne,
it indirectly exculpated him, and only blamed his
counsellors.1
III.
Such was the attitude of the Assembly on the question
of the merits of the republic and the monarchy, raised
by the flight of Louis XVI to Varennes.
Let us consider the attitude of Paris.
On June 21st, at ten o'clock in the morning, the
department and the municipality announced the flight
of Louis by firing a cannon three times, and the tocsin
rang out at the Hotel de Ville. There was a general
shock of anxiety, a feverish excitement. The shops
were closed. The crowd gathered round the Tuileries.
It streamed curiously through the forsaken royal apart-
1 For these debates see the Moniteur.
EXCITEMENT IN PARIS 275
merits. There was horseplay and buffoonery ; men
asked how " this fat royal person " had managed to
slip out without being seen by the sentries? The King's
portrait was taken from its place of honour and hung
at the gate. A woman, a fruitseller, took possession
of the Queen's bed, and sold her cherries from it,
saying : "It's the turn of the nation to make itself
at home to-day ! "
The National Guard " deployed in every part of
Paris, in an imposing manner." " The brave Santerre "
(we quote from the Revolutions de Paris), " the brave
Santerre, for his part, enrolled two thousand pikemen
from his own quarter of Paris. The honours of the
day by no means went with the active citizens and
the coats of ' King's blue ' ; the woollen bonnets turned
out, and eclipsed the bearskins."
The busts of Louis were everywhere destroyed, or
strips of paper were pasted over the eyes. The words
King, Queen, Royal, Bourbon, Louis, Court, Monsieur
(the King's brother) and even the crown, were
effaced, wherever painted or graven or sculptured. The
Palais Royal became the Palais d'Orleans,1 and the
garden of this palace heard the most irreverent
resolutions passed against the King.
The first moment of surprise passed ; Paris affected
1 One paper says that the Due d'Orleans showed himself to the
people as a candidate for the throne or for a Regency. But this paper,
ardently royalist, was prejudiced against the Due. We read as
follows in the Ami du Penple (July 2nd) : "On Tuesday the 21st, the
day of the King's departure, M. le Due d'Orleans entered his cabriolet,
accompanied by a single jockei, and thus, with his horse at a walk, he
drove through the Cours du Carrousel, before the Tuileries ; he was
still there at two in the afternoon ; a smile was on his lips ; he seemed
to be inviting a popular proclamation. From there he went to the
Pont Royal, where a few voices were heard in his favour ; but they
were quickly stifled by a thousand others, which rose in contradiction.
In the afternoon, at four, he sent M. le Due de Montpensier, his son, in
bourgeois clothes, with sabre, cartridge-box, and musket, to the Palais
Royal battalion, which was at that time on guard at the Tuileries."
276 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
gaiety and coolness. Order reigned. To this anti-
republicans testified at the tribune of the Assembly.
D'Andre\ on the 22nd, marvelled, with Virieu, at " the
almost miraculous tranquillity reigning throughout
Paris." In an address from the section of Bondy, pre-
sented to the Assembly on June 24th, we read, with
reference to this quietude : " Do not attribute, gentle-
men, to a supernatural cause the order which you wonder
at in a time of tempest ; our hearts are freed from the
ties of servitude ; we can mutually live without fear."
We may truly call it the calm of strength.
The people, the men in the street, strongly disap-
proved of La Fayette, who had allowed Louis to escape ;
accused him of complicity: ; " made him turn pale "
{Revolutions de Paris).
Such was the attitude of the Parisians and the state
of the crowd. Let us see how the organised groups
behaved.
Several sections declared themselves permanent. That
of the Theatre Frangais wished to establish universal
suffrage ; it proclaimed that it would receive in its
bosom every citizen aged twenty-five and domiciled. It
erased from the oath the words active and King.
The Cordeliers' Club took the initiative in turning the
somewhat uncertain excitement of the Parisians to the
profit of the republic.1
But of the meeting of the club on June 21st we
know very little. We do know that it " was occupied
in demanding a federative association of the whole
Empire," 2 and that it sent the Jacobins a decree dealing
with the means of supervision. This, truly, is vague;
1 In London, the republic seemed so evidently the logical conse-
quence of the flight of Louis that at first it was thought that the
republicans had engineered his disappearance. The Parisian corre-
spondent of the European Courier thought it necessary to disprove this
theory (letter of July 7, 1741).
2 Bouche de Fer, June 24th.
SIGNS OF REPUBLICANISM 277
but we also know that it was on this day that it pro-
duced its famous tyrannicidal poster, at the head of
which were read these lines from Voltaire's Brutus
(Act I., Scene 2), arranged, and a little altered, it
is true, to fit the times :
" Think ! On the field of Mars, that spot august,
Did Louis swear faithful to be and just ;
Between himself and people this the tie :
Our oaths he gives us back, his proved a lie !
If in all France a traitor linger yet
Who would a master brook, a king regret,
Then let the wretch in death a torment find !
His guilty ashes cast upon the wind,
Leave but a name here, odious even more
Than that of Tyrant all free men abhor ! '
These lines were followed by the declaration :
" The free Frenchmen composing the Club of the Cordeliers declare
to their fellow-citizens that they number as many tyrannicides as
members, who have all sworn individually to stab the tyrants who
shall dare to attack our frontier or make any attack upon our Constitu-
tion, of whatever kind. — Legendre, president ; Collin, Champion,
secretaries."
If this placard does not expressly demand a republic,
it evidently has for its object the preparation of men's
minds for the plainly republican manifestation of the
next day, of which we shall speak later on.1
The republicans flattered themselves that they had
turned the anger which the Parisians showed especially
against the King, against the institution of royalty.
" If the President of the Assembly," we read in the
Revolutions de Paris, " had put the question of repub-
lican government to the vote, on the Place de Greve,
in the garden of the Tuileries, or that of the Orleans
Palace, France would be a monarchy no longer."
1 As to the effect of this poster, which some applauded and others
deprecated, see the Courrier (Gorsas) for June 26th.
278 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
But the official heads of the democratic party did
not associate themselves with the republican movement
of June 2 ist.
On this unforgettable 21st, for example, Danton cried
to the people in the street : " Your leaders are traitors";
they are deceiving you ! " He denounced the King's
advisers and La Fayette, but not the King.
As for the leaders of the bourgeois patriots, the
republican movement filled them with alarm ; for the re-
public was the logical form of democracy, and universal
suffrage had already put in an appearance (along with
woollen bonnets, in the section of the Theatre Francais).
From the 21st onwards they made a great effort to
maintain the monarchy, the keystone of the bourgeois
system, and to ally themselves with the non-republican
democrats against the republicans.
On the evening of the 21st there was an important
meeting of the Jacobins, at which democrats like Danton
and Robespierre were present ; and semi-democrats
like Lameth'; and, finally, partisans of the bourgeois
system, such as Barnave, La Fayette, Gaultier de
Biauzat, Demeunier, Le Chapelier, and Sieyes, who had
just shown himself in favour of two Chambers.
Robespierre inveighed against the Ministers, whom
the National Assembly had been weak enough to keep";
he praised himself and spoke of dying. Some cried :
" We will all die before you do ! " Men swore to
defend him, to pour out their blood for him. This scene
of enthusiasm spread far and wide outside the
Jacobins'; the sections of the Halles and La Liberte
named delegates to serve as his body-guard.
Danton attacked La Fayette severely, and demanded
his dismissal. La Fayette replied, vaguely and
graciously, praising the clubs.
Finally, the Jacobins set to work to vote an address
drawn up by the monarchist Barnave, in which we read :
" The King, led astray by criminal suggestions, has
REPUBLICANISM UNVEILED 279
deserted the National Assembly. Let us be calm. . . .
All dissensions are forgotten, all patriots are united.
The National Assembly is our guide ; our rallying-cry,
the Constitution."
Thus the Jacobins had every intention, on the day
after the King's flight, of maintaining the monarchy ;
and both democracy and republicanism were pro-
visionally set aside.
After the first day, then, the republicans had against
them the National Assembly, whose prestige and popu-
larity were enormous, and the Jacobin Club, at this
time the interpreter and regulator of the average man's
opinions.
But so long as Louis was actually running away the
chances seemed all in their favour ; for no other king
was possible, and if he had succeeded in crossing the
frontier, the throne would have remained vacant.
The republican movement became more clearly
defined. The " republican intermezzo " which the
Assembly had decreed was already habituating men's
minds to the idea of an actual republic. A Parisian
correspondent 1 of Prince Emmanuel de Salen wrote
him a letter, dated June 24th, summing up his impres-
sions of the attitude of the people since the King's
flight : 2 " The wise measures taken by the Assembly
have made it clear even to the poorest understanding
that the King can be dispensed with, and everywhere I
have heard the cry, ' We don't need the King ; the
Assembly and the Ministers are all we want. What do
we want with an executive power costing twenty-five
millions, when everything can be done for two or
three? ' "
Some of the journals rallied to the republican ideal.
1 Bernard.
2 In the same letter we read — apparently of the 21st, "All this
time the citizens were taking arms and going to their sections. In the
afternoon, in certain private houses, I heard some greatly praising the
King's conduct ; but I must say not many did so."
280 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
In the Patriot e frangais, edited by Brissot, the organ
of the Roland group « and of the future Girondists, we
read, under the date of the 22nd : " Louis XVI has
himself shattered his crown. . . . Let us have no half-
measures in profiting by this lesson." And on the
23rd : " A King, after such a perjury as this, and our
Constitution, are irreconcilable."
The Revolutions de Paris, the Annates patriotiques,
the Bouche de Fer all pronounce against royalty.
Doubtless, the word " republic " a little singes the
mouths of the writers ; the Bouche de Fer, for instance,
prefers the term " national government." 2 But it is
really a republic that is now demanded by a part of the
democratic press.
As for Marat, he demands a dictator 3 :
"One means only is left you," he says, on June 22nd, "of drawing
back from the precipice to which your unworthy leaders have dragged
you ; it is to name instantly a military tribunal, and a supreme dictator ;
to lay hands upon the principal known traitors. You are lost without
hope of help if you lend your ears to your present leaders, who will
not cease to cajole you and lull you to sleep, until the enemy is at
your gates. Let the tribunal be named this very day. Let your choice
fall on the citizen who hitherto has shown the greatest enlightenment,
zeal, and fidelity. Swear to give him an inviolable devotion and obey
him religiously, in all that he may command you, in order to rid
yourself of your mortal enemies." " A tribune, a military tribune,
or you are lost without hope of recovery. Up to the present I have
done all human power could do to save you ; if you neglect this
salutary counsel, the only one that is left for me to give you, I have
nothing more to say to you, and I have done with you for ever. . . ."
From this sort of language, which, to be exact, is
1 The King's flight made Mme. Roland a republican (see her letters
to Bancal).
2 See the issue of June 23rd : " No king, no protector, no Due
d'Orleans. . . . Let the eighty-three departments confederate them-
selves, and declare that they will have neither tyrants, nor monarchs,
nor protectors, nor regents. . . . Let universal suffrage be established."
3 Marat probably thought of Danton as dictator; he was often
praising him. See the Courtier, June 26th.
THE REPUBLIC DEMANDED 281
neither republican nor monarchical, we can only con-
clude that Marat did not think the French were ripe
for liberty as yet. Nothing will change his way of
regarding the matter "; but his views are not openly
adopted by any other democrat.
We have now seen what was said by the democratic
papers before the news came that Louis was arrested.
It was before the arrival of this news that the Corde-
liers' Club drew up an address to the National Assembly
demanding the establishment of the republic in France :
" We are now, consequently, in the state we were in after the taking
of the Bastille : free and without a king. It remains to consider
whether it would be profitable to name another. . . . The Society of
the Friends of the Rights of Man . . . can no longer blink the fact
that royalty, above all hereditary royalty, is incompatible with liberty.
Perhaps it would not so soon have demanded the suppression of
royalty if the King, faithful to his oaths, had made a duty of his condi-
tion. . . . We beg you, in the name of our native land, to declare here
and now that France is no longer a monarchy ; that it is a republic,
or at least to wait until all the departments, until all the primary
assemblies, have expressed their desires in this important matter,
before you think of casting, for a second time, the fairest empire on
earth among the chains and fetters of monarchism."
This petition was voted on a motion of Robert's7;
and he, according to his own statement, was its prin-
cipal author. The Cordeliers instructed him, with three
more of their members, to carry it to the Jacobin
Club. On the way he saw the National Guard arresting
persons who were already posting up either the petition
or the tyrannicidal aldress. He protested ; was
arrested himself '; taken to the Commissariat of Saint -
Roch ; was bullied and struck by the officers of the
National Guard. One of them cried : " You are an
incendiary, a crank, a bad subject, and, b — you,
you'll pay for it ! " l Several sectional clubs demanded
1 These details are from the very interesting proces-verbal of Robert's
examination before Bernard, public accuser to the court of the 6th
arrondissement.
282 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
his release, and the Jacobins did the same. He was
released.
The same evening he went to the Jacobins, and,
relating his arrest, said that he was the bearer of an
address demanding the destruction of the Monarchy.
Immediately he was interrupted by cries of disapproval :
" The Monarchy is the Constitution! Villainy!"
The great majority of the club rose to demand the
business of the day.1
So the Greyfriars could not get the Jacobins to join
them ; and it seems that none of the sections joined
them either. But the cry, " The Republic! " 2 was heard
in the streets, and it is certain that on the morrow of
the King's flight there was a very strong tide of repub-
lican feeling in Paris, headed not merely by the Roberts
and a few dilettanti, but by the chief democratic club
and the various Fraternal Societies or People's Clubs.
IV,
At half -past nine in the evening of June 22nd the
National Assembly had news of the King's arrest.
All supporters of the Revolution, whether bourgeois
or democrats, were agreed in thinking that he could
not be at once, and with matters unchanged, replaced
on the throne.
On the evening of the 23rd Danton, at the Jacobin
Club, proposed, since the King was " criminal or imbe-
cile," to establish " a council of interdiction," named
by the departments — that is to say (it would seem),
to maintain the King with an elective executive council.
1 The Jacobin journal says the assembly rose as one man. But one
of the most reliable of witnesses, the German Olsner, who was a
member, says a minority was in favour of the Cordeliers' address ;
at most a fifth of those present [Luzifer, p. 260).
2 Olsner even says the whole people were crying, "The Republic!"
that night.
THE DUC D'ORLEANS 283
We know of this motion of Danton's only from
an obscure summary of it, which makes him say that
there must be no regent. Yet Mme. Roland wrote at
the time to Bancal that Danton considered a regency
to be the only possible expedient. What Danton
thought of the Due d'Orleans there is nothing to
show. But we do know that the Due, also on the
23rd, was solemnly admitted to the club (before Danton
went to the tribune), and that immediately after his
admission Choderlos de Laclos, his own man, demanded
that the question as to what was to be done with the
King should be placed on the order of the day. There
was at least the beginning of an Orleanist intrigue.
I repeat that I do not believe that Danton took part
in this intrigue. But the Due was perhaps hoping
to become a member of the " council of interdiction,"
proposed by Danton.
There is little doubt that some, immediately after
the flight to Varennes, had schemes of giving the throne
to the younger branch of the royal family, or else to
offer the regency to the Due d'Orleans. It will be
recalled that the Palais Royal was rechristened the
Orleans Palace on the 21st. It will also be recalled
that on this day the Due exhibited himself, in a some-
what affected manner, to the people of Paris. In a
letter of the 22nd, Thomas Lindet wrote that the
question of the Due was being considered.1 But
Mirabeau had already experienced and denounced the
ineptness of Orleans, who was, moreover, despised for
his immorality ; and he was seen to be anything but
1 See Lindet's correspondence, publ. M. A. Montier. But we read in
a letter of Badouin de Maisonblanche, deputy of the Third Estate for
the seneschalry of Morlaix (June 21, 22) : " Kings are made for the
nations, not nations for kings, and if, through the flight of ours, we are
forced to resort to a regency, we are at least assured of placing the
power in patriotic hands." These patriotic hands are evidently the
Due's, for the King's two brothers had left the country.
284 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
popular, in spite of real services rendered by him at the
time of the Revolution. The Orleanist scheme was
stillborn, by reason of the indifference of the people
and the distrust of the democrats. Orleans felt himself
practically thrown aside, and immediately withdrew into
himself.
A species of Orleanist manifesto appeared in the
Journal de Perlet of June 25th, recommending a petition
demanding a regency.
Orleans disowned this manifesto in a letter which
appears in the papers of the 28th, in which he declares
his desire to renounce for ever his eventual claims to
the regency. His supporters (few, half ashamed of
their cause, and half disguised) are by no means dis-
couraged ; they demand the impeachment and the
downfall of Louis XVI, in the hope that their leader
will play an important part in the new order of things.1
Later on the Assembly closed all legitimate outlets
to the ambitions of the Orleanist party by declaring
(August 24th) that the members of the royal family
in the line of succession to the throne would not be
eligible to any of the places in the nomination of the
people, and that they would even be unable to exercise
the duties of a minister.
The King re-entered Paris on the 25th. He reached
the Tuileries at half -past seven in the evening.
1 At the Jacobins, on July 3, 1791, there was a curious incident,
involving the Due's name. Real proposed the nomination of a
" royal guardian " during the suspension of Louis XVI. He says that
this guardian would naturally be the Due d'Orleans, if that prince had
not signified his refusal. In default of the Due, the guardian would
be Conti. But Real hopes Conti will refuse. The eighty-three depart-
ments are to nominate the "guardian." Despite lively objections,
Danton puts to the vote a motion to have Real's speech printed and
sent to the affiliated clubs. Now the Due d'Orleans had renounced
his rights to the regency, but had not refused to fill a post, such as
that of "guardian of royalty,'' unforeseen by the Constitution. Could
not Real's motion, approved by Danton, have been turned to the
profit of the Due d'Orleans ?
THE KING RETURNS 285
How was he received by the Parisians? We read
in the Coarrier of Gorsas (June 26th) :
" No sign of disapproval, no visible sign of contempt, has escaped
this great multitude. They have confined themselves to withholding
from the fugitives all military honours. They have been received
with arms reversed. Every citizen kept his hat on his head, as by a
common understanding."
Speaking of this unanimous attitude, the Bouche de
Fer, of the same day, says :
" Here, at last, is a popular vote : the Republic is sanctioned."
A singular illusion, this ! On the contrary, Louis'
return was about to put new life into the royalist
party, and to ruin the chances of the republicans.1
But the republican movement continued. The
Revolutions de Paris tried to bring about a demand
for a republic, which alone, said the writer, could
conquer Europe.2 The Mercure national of July 3rd
states that " this is the wish of the numerous patriotic
clubs of the capital," with the sole exception of the
Jacobins.
And in truth the Jacobins persisted more than ever
in their aversion for the republican form of govern-
ment. On July 1st Billaud-Varenne, then little known,
was hooted for having spoken of the republic .3
1 Desmoulins wrote, in the Revolutions de France et de Brabant,
" What can the Capets have hoped, on reading this placard carried
at the point of a pike, posted up in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and
hawked about in all the journals : ' Whosoever applauds the King
will be clubbed ; whosoever insults him will be hanged ' ? "
2 Every one believed in the imminence of war. The royalist
Journal general de la cour et de la ville rejoiced in the coming arrival
of the foreign armies, and declared " that France could only be re-
generated in a bath of blood " (June 27th).
3 La Societe des Jacobins, ii. 573, 574. At this time no one spoke
before the Jacobins of the republic except as an ideal only to be
286 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
And the working classes? On July 7th a deputa-
tion of working men went to the section of the Theatre
Francais, saying : : " Citizens, we swear before God
and man to be faithful to the nation and to the law —
and to the law — and by no means to the King 1 " But
the mass of the workers do not seem to be interested
in the word republic ; they do not very well under-
stand it, and they are impressed by the attitude of the
Jacobins and the Assembly.1
It must not, however, be supposed that the repub-
lican movement was factitious. The deputy Thomas
Lindet wrote on July 18th: "Opinion in Paris was
settled"; it was not that of a few agitators, nor was it
a factitious opinion ; there was no longer any trace left
of the name of the King ; everywhere it was effaced,
and men wanted to see the thing abolished also." But
this was not a general movement, nor was it even
progressing.
In fact, immediately after the return of Louis XVI
the republican party seemed to become dismembered.
Many of the more notable democrats who on the
2 1 st and 22nd rallied round the original republican
realised later on. Thus Real says, at the tribune, on July 3rd: "In
circumstances as serious as these, when the press, according to our
principles, enjoys the greatest freedom, opinion is fettered in this hall,
this temple of liberty. The word republic terrifies the proud Jacobins.
I will not pronounce it to-day. It is meat for strong men ; it is the
nourishment of which Rousseau speaks ; juicy enough, but demand-
ing, for its digestion, other stomachs than ours. In twenty years our
youth will be educated, our old men will no longer be prejudiced, all
will have stability, and this name, which to-day produces convulsions,
this government (which exists in our representative government by
the mere fact of its nature) will be, do not doubt it, the government
of France, and perhaps that of all the peoples of Europe. Let us
adjourn the question for a few years if you will, and discuss to-day
the question submitted to us by the theory of monarchy."
1 The agitations caused by the recent suppression of relief works
throw no particular light on the political opinions of the Parisian
workers at this date.
THE REPUBLIC STILL DOUBTFUL 287
group, the Keralio-Robert coterie, were now anxious
only to leave it.
Thus we find an article by Carra in the Annates
patriotiques of July 8th, entitled " On the Important
Question of a Republic in France," in which after a
refutation of "those who, like M. Alexandre Lameth,
never cease repeating that a great nation cannot em-
brace the republican state," and after a magnificent
eulogy of the republic, which will assuredly become
established, the republic is formally adjourned u.uii
the time when the people shall be more moral and
enlightened.
" Doubtless," says Carra, " the nation has already made great strides
in this direction : but it has not yet, that I can see, attained that homo-
geneity and general strength of character which would be essential to
republicans confederated in eighty-three departments. I think, then,
we must let the Constitution run a few years longer under the
monarchical form, while giving an elective Executive Council to the
son of Louis XVI, a council whose president would change every three
months, and of which each member, elected by the nation, would be
responsible for his public conduct. If the young head of the executive
power forms his mind according to the true principles of justice,
reason, and virtue, he will propose, of his own accord, when his years
are ripe, the French Republic ; if, on the contrary, he is false, mis-
chievous, ambitious, and in love with arbitrary power, like Monsieur
his father and Madame his mother, the nation will by then know h< w
to take its own part."
He adds that he had expounded these ideas " about
twelve days ago," at the Jacobins ; but I find no
record of anything of the kind.
On the other hand : Brissot, who on June 23rd had
represented a king and the Constitution as irreconcil-
able, partly contradicts himself. In the Patriote fran-
gais for June 26th, he says : " People are trying to
mislead and bewilder men's minds on the subject of
making France a republic, without thinking that in
this respect the Empire will obey the force of circum-
288 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
stances rather than the intentions of men." On June
29th he writes :
" If you retain the monarchy, let the Executive Council be elected
by the departments, and be removable. If this point were gained we
should all be gainers, and liberty would be out of danger. . . . Such
is the idea that seems most popular at the Jacobins. It was first
proposed by M. Danton. The Jacobins will have a king only on this
condition. They do not, however, wish to be taken for republicans.
Do not let us quarrel over terms. I wish for no other republic than
this monarchy. The Jacobins are republicans without knowing it ;
as M. Jourdain made prose without knowing it. What does it matter?
— the prose is excellent."
The same idea is developed in the Patriote for July
1st, together with this scheme : the Constituent Assem-
bly will pronounce the provisional removal of the King,
and will consult the primary assemblies as to the de-
finitive removal ; the King removed, the crown will
pass to his son. As he is a minor, he will be given
a Council formed as follows : each departmental
electoral assembly will nominate a citizen, and these
eighty-three citizens " will choose from among them-
selves those who are to form the Council and the
ministry." In the issue of July 3rd is a letter from
a reader who proposes that all kings of France, even
in their majority, should have such a council. Brissot
adds : " Supported." In the issues of the 5th and 6th
of July is a long article entitled : " My profession of
faith in the matter of the republic and the monarchy,"
which concludes as follows :
" Here, then, is my credo :
" I believe the French Constitution is republican in five-sixths of its
elements : that the abolition of royalty is a necessary result of the
Constitution ; that the office of royalty cannot subsist beside the
Declaration of Rights.
" I believe that in calling our Constitution a representative govern-
ment, we bring republicans and monarchists into agreement, and wipe
out their differences.
SHALL ROYALTY BE PRESERVED? 289
" I believe that the legal abolition of royalty is to be expected from
the progress of reason and the astonishing nature of the evidence, and
that in consequence we must have an absolutely open field for the
discussion of this matter.
" I believe above all that, if royalty is to be preserved, it must be
surrounded by an elective and renewable Council, and that without
this essential precaution the country will infallibly fall into anarchy
and incalculable misfortunes.
" In a word, no king, or a king with an elective and renewable Council ;
such, in a sentence, is my profession of faith." '
This policy, thus formulated by Brissot,2 not only in
his journal, but also at the Jacobins (July ioth), is
precisely that adopted at a later date by the demo-
cratic party.
On June 24th 30,000 citizens assembled in the Place
Vendome petitioned the Assembly to decide nothing as
to Louis before consulting the departments^ and the
spokesman of these petitioners, Theophile Mandar, then
declared himself a monarchist. The Cordeliers sup-
ported this petition on July 9th, and on the 1 2th they
invited the nation itself to suspend the decree an-
nouncing the elections. They said nothing more of the
republic.
1 All these articles appeared without signature in the Patriote ; but
later on Brissot acknowledged them as his and united them in the
booklet entitled : Recueil de quelques ecriis.
3 See Brissot's speech as to whether the King could be tried, in the
Societe des Jacobins, ii. 608 ct seq. In reality Brissot changed his
tactics, not his principles. In 1793, in his Reponse an rapport de Saint-
Just, we shall find him saying : " I have always belonged to the re-
publican party." Elsewhere in his Reponse, as in his Projet de defense
(Memoires, iv. 280 et seq.), we find long explanations of the policy,
monarchical in appearance and republican in reality, which Brissot
followed from July, 1791, to August, 1792.
3 Certain people's clubs, from the time of Louis' return to Paris,
considered that he should be treated as an accused or guilty person.
The Fraternal Society of both sexes, sitting at the Jacobins, posted up
a petition demanding of the Assembly that "the former King of
France and his wife " should be sent to the bar of the Assembly, there
to be examined. We have not the text of this petition, and know of it
only by the indignant criticism of Royeu in the Ami du Roi.
VOL. 1 . 19
290 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
We see that the Cordeliers and such of the Jacobins
as were democrats were in agreement. The Cordeliers
provisionally renounced the republic : « but Louis XVI,
suspended or dethroned, was to be tried ; there was to be
an elective executive Council. Some demanded a Con-
vention. Others wished all the laws to be submitted to
the sanction of the people. Such was the policy which,
after reciprocal concessions, united the principal leaders
of the democratic party. It was the policy which was
afterwards defeated at the Champ de Mars on July 17th.
V.
The republicans, despite the defections which have
reduced their number, affect an easy optimism,2 and
make a great effort to spread their doctrines.
They publish pamphlets against royalty, such as the
Acephocratie of Billaud-Varenne, or Louis XVI, King
of the French, dethroned by himself, by an anonymous
author who thinks the French can only conquer Europe
by establishing the republic with an elective head of the
executive. One of these pamphleteers is quite willing
that the head of the State should bear the name of
king, so long as it is not hereditary. The most able
and interesting of these republican pamphlets is
1 Later, Brissot even says that at this time "the Cordeliers were
putting their heads together against the republicans."
2 Thus, we read in the Mercure national et etranger of July 3, 1791,
with regard to republican opinion : " The writers on several of the
public journals choose to say that republican opinion is to-day losing
ground ; but those who say so deceive themselves or wish to deceive
others. We see, on the contrary, that republicanism is every day
gaining more supporters. It is the desire of all the numerous patriotic
clubs of the capital with the sole exception of the Jacobins ; concern-
ing whom we are, however, assured that if it were not for a remnant
of foolish respect felt for certain members of the Club, they would long
ago have announced it publicly."
THE WAR OF PAMPHLETS 291
entitled : Grande vlsite de mademoiselle Republique
chez notre mere la France, pour V engager a chasser
de chez elle madame Royalty, et conversation ires
inter essante entre elles. The objections of the
monarchists are herein set forth with no less emphasis
than the arguments of the republicans, and it presents
a faithful and agreeable picture of the mind of a sincere
patriot after the flight to Varennes.
We may be sure that Frangois Robert was no stranger
to this war of pamphlets. In one he published him-
self, Avantages de la fuite de Louis XVI et necessite
dJun nouveau gouvernement, he demanded a represen-
tative Government, an elective chief of the executive,
and the republic. He declared that this was the desire
of " the Cordeliers Club, the various Societies of
Friends of the Constitution, of all the people's clubs,
and of a very large proportion, in fact the majority,
of the departments." The majority of the depart-
ments ! We shall see how much truth there was in
this fanfaronade. But to exaggerate their number,
in order to catch the undecided, was a piece of re-
publican tactics.1
Lively and interesting, these republican pamphlets
were not the least numerous of those which appeared
at the end of June and the beginning of July, 1791.
The greater number were in agreement with the policy
of the Assembly, the policy of replacing the King on
the throne and supervising him severely in the future.
Such, for example, was the conclusion of Voild a qu'il
faut I aire du roi (by Drouet), in which the author says :
" At the moment of writing, all the streets and street
corners, the clubs, and cafes, all resound with re-
publican cries, and all hearts are in favour of royalty."
Another pamphlet denounces the republican Achille du
1 Thus, even after the movement was checked for a time, the Revo-
lutions de Paris says : " Paris, the majority of the departments, almost
the whole of France, have come to desire a republican Constitution."
292 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
Chastellet, as being a friend to Bouille. Olympe de
Gouges, in his incoherent pamphlet : Sera-t-il le roi?
tie le sera-t-il pas? shows a preference for a con-
stitutional monarchy. Others uphold the policy of the
Jacobins. Thus, in a letter from " the two Brutuses to
the French people " an elective council is demanded,
in which Robertus-Petrus, Petionus, and Gregerius are
to have seats.
A new republican journal was founded about this
time, Le Republicain, ou le defenseur du gouvernement
representatif, par une Societe de republicains, of which
the prospectus, by Achille du Chastellet, provoked a
violent scene in the Assembly. Thomas Paine and
Condorcet were the principal editors, and employed it
to expound the theory of the republic. But only four
numbers appeared.
The republican journals were in the minority ; but
their discussions with other journals on the question
of republic and monarchy, excited, perhaps not the
people, but certainly the educated middle class.
Here are some examples of these discussions.
Gorsas, in his Courrier of June 28th, after having
said that he put all his hopes in the son of Louis
XVI, of whom a good education might make a new
Marcellus, formulated these objections, which created
a great sensation against the republic :
" Independently of constitutional law, which has declared France a
kingdom, we are of opinion that the republican government cannot be
in any way suited to a State as large as France. Besides, there is no
doubt that those who are to-day aspiring to figure in the French
Republic are in general factious people or men eaten up with ambition.
A king, the first subject of the law and reigning only by the law ; that
is what we need. Finally, our opinion is this : it is better to have a
Stick of a King than a Republican Crane ; and we say, like the frogs in
the fable of the sun looking out for a wife : // one only has dried up
our marshes, what will it be when there are a dozen suns ? Such is our
advice ; we give it frankly, without wishing to blame certain worthy
citizens we might name who think differently."
THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM 293
The republican crane of Gorsas made the street-
loafers laugh, and remained famous as long as the
discussion lasted.
Serious men were more impressed by the intervention
of Sieves, who was still the venerated oracle of the
middle classes, and who pronounced dogmatically
against the republic in the Moniteur of July 6, 1791.
" I will enter the lists," he says, " against the republicans in good faith.
I shall not cry out at their impiety, nor anathematise them ; I shall
not insult them. I know several whom I love and honour with all my
heart. But I will give them my reasons, and I hope to prove to them,
not that the monarchy is preferable in this or that situation, but that
under any hypothesis, one is freer under a monarchy than under a
republic."
Thomas Paine, who at this time was in Paris, and
encouraged the republican party with his sympathy and
advice, wrote a letter to Sieyes which appeared in
the Moniteur for July 1 6th, and in which, taking up
the challenge, he speaks in favour of the republic :
" I by no means understand by republicanism," he says, " that which
goes by the name in Holland and in some of the Italian States. I
understand republicanism to mean simply a representative govern-
ment, a government founded on the principles of the Declaration of
Rights, principles which many parts of the French Constitution
contradict. The Declaration of Rights of France and that of America
are one and the same thing in principle, and very nearly in expression ;
this is the republicanism which I undertake to defend against what we
call a monarchy or an aristocracy. ... I am the declared, open, and
fearless enemy of what is known as monarchy ; and I am its enemy
by reason of principles that nothing can alter or corrupt, by my love
of humanity, by the anxiety I feel for the dignity and honour of the
human species, by the disgust which I feel when I see men directed
by children and governed by beasts, by the horror inspired in me by
all the evils which the monarchy has spread over the earth ; the
poverty, the exactions, the wars, the massacres with which it has
crushed humanity ; it is, in short, against all this hell of monarchy
that I have declared war."
294 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
Si6y&s replied, in the same number of the Monlteur,
that the monarchists were by no means in disagree-
ment with the republiqans on the question of repre-
sentative government.
" Will you make all political action culminate, or what you please to
call the executive power reside, in an Executive Council deliberating
according to the majority, and nominated by the people or the
National Assembly ? — this is the republic. Or will you on the contrary
put at the head of the departments which you call ministerial, and which
would be better separated, so many responsible heads, independent of
one another, but dependent for their ministerial existence on an in-
dividual of superior rank, representing the stable unity of the govern-
ment ; or, what comes to the same thing, representing the national
monarchy ; entrusted with the election or dismissal, in the name of
the people, of these executive heads, and with the exercise of certain
other functions useful to the common weal, but in which his irre-
sponsibility cannot be productive of danger ? — this is monarchy."
The monarchical government ends in a point; the
republican, in a platform.1 Now, " the monarchical
triangle is far more united than the republican plat-
form to that division of powers which is the highway
of public liberty." It is because the republicans are
polyarchists, polycrats, that Sieves is not a re-
publican. " How far from understanding me are
those," he says, " who reproach me with not adopting
republicanism, and who believe that in stopping short
of that I am stopping in one place ! Neither the
ideas nor the feelings known as republican are un-
known to me ; but, in my design of advancing always
towards the maximum of social liberty, I had to pass
the republic, leave it far behind, and finally come to
the true monarchy." And the future theorician of the
Constitution of the year VIII declares that he is not
anxious for an hereditary monarchy ; it should be
elective if the nation should so desire it. But in what
1 A kind of double meaning is lost here ; the French is " en plate-
forme1' — or in a. flat form — a superficies. — [Trans.]
THE USE OF A KING 295
respect would this elective king differ from a president
of a republic of the American kind, except in title?
And what is the fundamental point of difference between
Sieves and Thomas Paine, if it is not a word, the
word republic?
In this important battle of opinions the republicans
had a champion using other arms, and strong with
another strength than those of Thomas Paine : namely,
Condorcet. Raillery, dialectic — he used them turn
by turn. On July 16th he published in the Republicain
a letter from " a young mechanic," who undertook to
furnish in a fortnight, and for a moderate price, a
king with his royal family and all his court ; a king
who would walk up and down, sign, and give the con-
stitutional sanction :
" If it is the fact that it is the very essence of the monarchy that a
king should choose and dismiss his ministers, then as we know that
according to sane politics he should always follow the wishes of the
party which has the majority in the legislature, and that the president
is one of the leaders, it is easy to imagine a mechanism by means of
which the king shall receive the list of ministers, from the hand of
the president of the fifteen, with an inclination of the head full of
grace and majesty. . . . My king would not in any way be a danger
to liberty, and yet, if he were carefully repaired, he would be eternal,
which is still better than being hereditary. One might even, without
injustice, declare him to be inviolable, and, without absurdity, call him
infallible."
Before writing this letter, Condorcet had solemnly
upheld the republic of the Social Clubs, before the
" federative Assembly of the Friends of Truth." This
was on July 8th,1 and it was an event indeed to hear the
greatest thinker of the time, the disciple and heir of
the encyclopaedists, preaching the republic which all
the philosophers who were his masters had declared
1 This is not the date usually given ; I have elsewhere given it
otherwise myself ; but from the accounts given in the journals I
think the 8th is correct.
296 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
that it was impossible or dangerous to establish in
France. Now that the French are enlightened, says
Condorcet ; now that they are " freed, by an unfore-
seen event, from the ties which a kind of gratitude
has impelled them to preserve and contract anew ;
delivered from the remnant of those chains which, in
their generosity, they have consented still to wear, they
can at last decide if, in order to be free, they must needs
give themselves a king." And he refutes, one by one,
the classic objections against a republic. The extent
of France? It is favourable, rather than otherwise, to
the establishment of a republican government ; since
it " will not allow us to fear lest the idol of the capital
become the tyrant of the nation." A tyrant? How
could a tyrant establish himself, with such a division of
powers as that existing, and in spite of the liberty of the
press? Let but a single journal be free, and the usur-
pation of a Cromwell is impossible. Some say a king
will prevent the usurpations of the legislative power.
But how could this power be abused if it were frequently
renewed, if the limits of its functions were fixed, if the
National Conventions were to revise the Constitution at
stated periods? It would be better, say some, to have
one master than many. But why have masters at all?
To " individual oppressors " one must oppose, not
a king, but the laws and the judges. It is alleged
that a king is necessary to give authority to the execu-
tive power. " People still speak," says Condorcet, " as
in the times when powerful associations gave their mem-
bers the odious privilege of violating the laws ; as in
the times when it was a matter of indifference to Brittany
if Picardy paid imposts or not ; then, no doubt, a
powerful authority was necessary to the head of the
executive ; then, as we have seen, even the authority
of armed despotism was not sufficient." But to-day,
when equality reigns, very little force is needed to
bring individuals to obedience." It is, on the con-
DANGERS OF DICTATORSHIP 297
trary, the existence of a hereditary head which deprives
the executive power of some of its effective force, by
arming against it the defiance of the friends of liberty ;
by forcing them to fetter it in such a way as to embarrass
and retard its movements." Experience justified Con-
dorcet ; it was when the Revolution was rid of the
King that the government became centralised and the
executive became powerful ; it was then that the govern-
ment rose from the administrative anarchy organised
by the monarchical Constitution. But does not experi-
ence contradict the reasons given by Condorcet for
ignoring the possibility of a military dictatorship?
" What conquered provinces would a French general
despoil/' he says, " in order to purchase our votes?
Will some ambitious man propose, as to the Athenians,
to levy tributes on our allies to raise temples or give
feasts? Will he promise our soldiers, as the citizens
of Rome were promised, the pillage of Spain or of
Syria? No ; and it is because we cannot be a people-
king that we shall remain a free people."
The tributes of our allies, tyrannical conquests, the
pillage of Spain, the people-king — all this was precisely
what the future had in store for us. But this dictator-
ship was not the result of the democratic Republic,
which, on the contrary, severely subordinated the
military to the civil power. It was when the bour-
geois class was substituted for the democracy ; when
it called to its help, against the wishes of the dis-
possessed people, the sword of a soldier ; it was when
the republican principles had been violated, that the
republic disappeared in a military dictatorship. If Con-
dorcet had been listened to, if the republic had been
established in time — that is, in 1 79 1 — before we were
in a state of war with Europe, who knows but that this
republic, established in a time of peace, would not
have led to another order of things than that which
resulted from the Republic of 1792, established in the
298 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
midst of war, and obliged to resolve the difficult problem
of making France at once a rational democracy and
a vast camp under military discipline?
Be this as it may, these words of Condorcet's pro-
duced a profound impression.1 The Social Club, a very
large club, consisting of men and women of many dif-
ferent tendencies, thanked the orator, voted the publi-
cation of this speech, and thus supported the republic.
There were immediately individual conversions ; thus
young Theophile Mandar, the spokesman of the petition
of the thirty thousand, who had declared himself a mon-
archist on June 26th, publicly supported the republic
after having heard Condorcet's speech. Before the
speech, the authority of Jean Jacques Rousseau was
arrayed against all French republicans. Now one could
call oneself a republican without fear of heresy. The
republican party felt ennobled, legitimatised by this
startling intervention on the part of the heir to the
philosophers.
Then this party made a great, a supreme effort.
All the Fraternal Societies were invited to the Cercle
social for the following Friday, July 1 5th, in order to
continue there the discussion on the republic. This
meeting took place ; but the debate was interrupted
by the news of the decree exculpating the King ; hence-
forth it was illegal to demand a republic.
1 The Patriote francais of July 17th speaks of the success of this
speech. The anger of the monarchists was such that the}' abused and
calumniated Condorcet and insulted his wife. We read in the Corre-
spondance litteraire secrete of July 30th : A friend of M. Condorcet
reproaches the Academician with his change of opinion, and his
writings in favour of republicanism. " What would you ? " replied
Condorcet. " I have allowed myself to be influenced by my wife, who
is influenced by others. Need one trouble the peace of a household by
a king more or less ?" A caricature represents Mme. Condorcet nude
as Venus, but by no means with the same attributes. Above is written :
Res publica. La Fayette kneels before this " public thing " and says,
holding out his hand : " There is my charter, and I swear to be faithful
to it."
THE FEDERATION FESTIVAL 299
On the day before there had been an attempt at
" republicanising " the fete of the Federation. We
read in the Bouche de Fer of July i 5th :
" The Federation of the Champ de Mars was celebrated with great
pomp. The oath was not renewed ; but the name of King was effaced
from the tablets of the Altar. Nearly three hundred thousand men
successively inundated the Champ de Mars ; following on in crowds,
like a torrent, a sea, an ant-hill of men ; and thousands on thousands
of bonnets were thrown to the sky, while thousands of voices cried,
' Live free and without a King ! ' "
If this manifestation of republicanism really took
place it was an important fact. But the Bouche de
Fer is alone in relating it. Perhaps there were a few
isolated cries of " No king ! " The silence of all the
other journals as to the three hundred thousand men
repudiating royalty shows plainly that the federation
of July 14th was not as republican as the organ of
the Cercle social would have us believe.
There is no doubt that from the time of the decree
of July 15th the republicans beat a retreat.1
VI.
Such was the republican movement in Paris, from
June 2 1 st to the following July 15th.
In the provinces there were also certain republican
manifestations.
At Dole (in the Jura), on July 13th, the people's
club, presided over by Prost, the future Member of
Convention, voted a republican address. Certain re-
publicans wrote, on the statue of Louis XVI, these
1 Thus, the Journal general de I' Europe bows before the decision
of the Assembly, and confines itself to saying that it would have
" preferred that the abolition of royalty had been decided on ; that
is, republicanism, or, if one prefers it, polycraly."
300 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
words, which the municipality had effaced : First and
last King of the French.* More than sixty republicans
of this commune were served with writs of arrest.
On June 23rd and 24th and July 3rd, Bancal des
Issarts proposed to the Jacobins of Clermont-Ferrand
the substitution of a republic for the monarchy. This
motion, which fired Mme. Roland's enthusiasm, was
printed, and caused a great sensation.2
This was not the only republican manifestation in
Auvergne. The Society of the Friends of the Con-
stitution of Artonne (Puy-de-D6me) congratulated the
Cordeliers for having demanded " that France should
be constituted as a republic."
At Metz, a few republicans won applause by preach-
ing the hatred of royalty, and demanding that the
new Legislature should be entrusted with the establish-
ment of the republic. 3
1 Session of the Municipal Council at Dole, July 4, 1791 (Terrier de
Monciel, mayor) : " The municipality, informed of an inscription made
at the base of the statue of Louis XVI, reading thus, First and last King
of the French ; considering that it is not the part of any citizen to alter
public monuments or to cover them with writings contrary to the
Constitution decreed by the National Assembly ; having heard the
Procurator of the Commune, has decreed that the said inscription
shall be effaced, the Procurator of the Commune being entrusted with
the task."
2 Le conventionnel Bancal des Issarts, Fr. Mege, Paris, 1887.
3 We only know of this manifestation from this vague account in the
Journal general de I'Europe, formerly the Mercure national, for July 6 :
" In this city, one of those which were still the most thickly encrusted
with the prejudices of slavery, the wish of the people, of that portion
of society whom men are still trying to humiliate, revile, and calumniate,
has been sufficiently made clear. There exist in its midst thinkers ;
eternal enemies of kings and tyrants of every kind ; they have dared
openly to urge their hatred of royalty, and the abolition of this
monstrous power ; and the people have replied with loud applause ;
and have demanded that a new Legislature, less soiled with monarchical
principles, shall be entrusted with the establishment of this new form
of government." M. Matouchet, in a biography of Philippeaux, in-
forms us that on July 17th the Society of Friends of the Constitution of
REPUBLICANISM APPEARS 301
During the session of the National Assembly of July
5th, an address was read from the Society of Friends
of the Constitution of Bourmont (Haute-Marne), which
asked " if royalty were necessary to a great nation, and
if, in keeping it as head of the executive power, the
Assembly could not make the King's Council elective
and renewable."
But the most important manifestation was that of
the " Friends of the Constitution and of Equality of
Montpellier." This Jacobin society, whose president
at this time was the future Member of Convention,
Cambon, presented to the National Assembly the fol-
lowing petition :
" Representatives ! It is of the greatest importance that you should
know the opinion of the public ; here is ours.
" To be indeed Romans, we lacked only hatred and the expulsion of
kings. We have the first ; the second we await at your hands.
" With the Government organised as it is, a king serves no useful
purpose ; the execution of the laws can proceed without him ; and this
superfluous ornament of the Constitution is so costly, that it is of
immediate importance to destroy it, above all on the eve of a foreign
war. We do not fear this war, because we know that great nations,
like great men, are the pupils of difficult circumstances.
" Our conclusions might not perhaps be so severe, if they had been
dictated only by simple reasons of economy ; but we have considered
that, in a representative Government, thirty-five millions would be
dangerous in the hands of a single man, when this man is interested in
corrupting them.
" We are well aware that he cannot win over the majority of those
elected by the people ; but he has no need of this in order to control
the results of their assemblies. Your majority has never been
corrupted ; yet you have passed the decree of the mark of silver and
that concerning the right to petition. Let all honour be given you,
that the decrees of this nature are few in number ; but what is to
assure us that all legislative assemblies will have the sublime strength
that you have displayed ? And should they be weak, and should the
Mans received an address from that of Metz, stating that the citizens
of the latter town had sworn to raise up their children " hating kings
and tyrants."
302 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
always corrupt and corrupting race of kings win over the tacticians of
the Assembly (a thing quite possible, as you know), what would
become of the people ?
"Confess, Representatives, that you were possessed by a very
unphilosophical idea when you thought the executive power must
needs be rich.
" In principle, you have done as the legislator of the Hebrews did :
you have given us laws which were not good ; but your hands were
forced by prejudice. To-day those prejudices are destroyed, the
people enlightened ; and their opinion permits, nay, warrants you,
to deliver them from the evil of kings, the moment this evil is no
longer necessary. Seize the occasion : you will never have a better.
Make France a republic. This will not be difficult. A word omitted
from the Constitution, and you will evoke in us all the virtues of
Greece and Rome.
" What a republic you would make, Representatives ! It would
begin with twenty-five million men and three million soldiers ; in all
the pageant of the world you will not find its like.
" If you refuse the honour which circumstances offer you ; if, through
you, the Capets and their throne are still to weigh us down for any
length of time, then be sure, Representatives, we shall curse you for
all the ill they will do us, and they will work us ill without a doubt,
for the race of kings is maleficent.
" We say nothing to you of Louis ; he is cast down, and we despise
him too much to hate or fear him. WTe leave to the judges the axe of
vengeance, and confine ourselves to demanding of you that henceforth
the Frenchman shall have no king other than himself.
" Cambon, President.
"J. Goguet, Aigoin, Secretaries."
Having been printed, this petition was communicated
to the other people's clubs, with a circular soliciting
their support ; " the National Assembly having need,
in order that it may act with ease and convenience,
of appearing to be forced by public opinion."
We have only one of the replies that the Montpellier
club must have received : the reply of the Limoges
branch, dated July 19, 1 79 1 . Herein we read:
" At a moment of anarchy, such as that we are now passing through ;
at a moment when the powers of the State are not yet determined and
settled, when our troops are almost without leaders, when France,
divided into two parties, is ready to behold war break out in her own
A NON-HEREDITARY KING 303
bosom, we should further divide her by creating a third party, and this
division would be the tomb of liberty, since it would affect the patriots
themselves. Finally, it is evident that in overturning the throne you
would give a chance to the most crafty usurper, and that we should
have to begin all over again to regain a liberty that has cost us so
much travail. Besides, the position of France will not permit of a
republican Government. Consult experience : look at England,
which has an area considerably smaller ; also she is an island. Her
people, who saw the light of liberty long ago, have recognised that a
monarchical Government is the most convenient. On this subject
consult the reign of James II."
We may guess, also, what sort of an answer the
Jacobins of Montpellier received from the Jacobins of
Perpignan. They begged them, no doubt, not to speak
of republics, and to limit themselves to suppressing the
hereditary factor of the monarchy. In fact, they sent
the National Assembly an address which Barere inserted
in the Point du Jour for July I 2th, in which they copy
word for word almost the entire preamble of the petition
of the Jacobins of Montpellier. But, instead of the
passage relating to the republic, they substituted this :
" Seize the occasion ; you will never have such another ; ensure for
France a government without a hereditary king ; give her a monarch
who will only differ from her constitutional king, in that, regulated by
a chief minister and six councillors, who would form the directing
portion of a larger council, all would be elected by the people, instead
of by the king, and the presidency would alternate between them.
All would be elected and changed every two years. Then, so to say,
there would be only the scourge of the hereditary nature of the throne
to suppress in your sublime work. One word omitted from the Constitu-
tion : hereditary, and you will inspire us with all the virtues of Greece
and Rome. . . ."
We do not know what sort of welcome the repub-
lican petition of the club of Montpellier received from
the other clubs. There is nowhere any trace of a
debate on the subject at the Jacobins at Paris. No
" patriotic " journal, to our knowledge, reproduced it.
It was reproduced only in an " aristocratic " paper,
304 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
the Journal general de France (July 12, 1791), and
in a royalist pamphlet, La Horde de Brigands de Mont-
pellier . By the time it could have been known in
Paris, many republicans had already provisionally
renounced their principles.
One of the journals which persisted in maintaining
the republican cause, the Journal general de VEurope,
the organ of the Robert group, finds the news coming
in from the departments entirely satisfactory from the
republican point of view. We read under the date
July 5th :
" This diversity of opinion [on the form of the Constitution and the
execution of the laws] is beginning to increase in the departments ;
everywhere people have provisionally formed the habit of suppressing
the word king in all the formulas in which it was previously united to
the words law and nation ; in some they are beginning to discuss the
very important question of the preservation or abolition of royalty ;
and we have in our hands private letters written from the department
of the Moselle, of which one preaches republicanism, while the other
implores the indulgence of the nation for Louis' misbehaviour."
We see that the republican movement is no longer
confined to Paris, and that there are republican mani-
festations in the provinces. But republicanism must,
at this time, have had converts all over France. It
will be remarjked that the greater number of the inci-
dents that we have related occurred in the east ' of
France (Moselle, Haute-Marne, Jura), or in the extreme
south, but still towards the east (Herault, Pyr£nees-
Orientales). In the centre of France we find republi-
cans only in Auvergne. Yet in these parts there are
only a few individuals, a few clubs — very few indeed—
which here and there, and without " federating " them-
selves with any others, speak against royalty, and
1 However, there was at least one republican manifestation in the
west ; at Nantes ; but the evidence appeared much later. The Patriote
for the 10th of Prairial, year VI, speaks of al republican address by
Letourneaux.
THE REPUBLIC FEARED 305
nowhere succeed in creating a current of opinion either
among the people or even among the bourgeoisie . In
reality the mass of France is refractory to the republi-
can idea ; the addresses received from so many points
of the kingdom by the Assembly leave no doubt as
to the persistence of the monarchical spirit among the
people of the departments in June and July, 1 79 1 .
But the monarchical creed is not intact ; Louis XVI
is no longer as popular as he was. He has been
surprised in flagrante delicto, in lying, in deserting
his post as national head of the Revolution. The
prestige of royalty is shattered. Fresh faults on his
part, a year later, will bring about the fatal blow
to this prestige, and will open the way for the re-
public ; that republic so feared, by the majority of
Frenchmen in 1791, as anarchic and federalistic.
VII.
But France had not the same aversion for democ-
racy as for the republic ; and we have seen that it
was especially by reason of their fear of democracy that
the Constituent Assembly wished to preserve the
monarchy.
The manoeuvre of the bourgeoisie on July 17, 1791,
was a blow against the republicans and the democrats
at the same time.
I have been obliged, in recounting the manifestations
of the republican spirit in Paris, to speak of the demo-
cratic manifestations at the same time, the two being
inseparable. To explain the inquietude and the final
violence of the bourgeoisie, we must recall the ever-
increasing audacity of the democratic demands since
June 21st. First of all, as we have seen, the section
of the Theatre Francais established universal suffrage
in its arrondissetnent. But a considerable part of the
democratic party was not content with the substitution
vol. 1. 20
306 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
of universal for property suffrage. It wanted, if not
a pure democracy such as Rousseau had derided as
chimerical, at least a democracy in which the people
would co-operate directly with their representatives in
the making of laws. It will be remembered that
Loustallot, in 1790, had recommended and explained
a democratic system in which the laws were submitted
by a referendum to the sanction of the primary assem-
blies. Rene de Girardin had borrowed the idea, and
obtained its adoption, in a form a little more precise
and in some respects novel, by the Cordeliers on
June 7, 1 791 ; its essential idea was to control the
Chamber of Deputies not by an upper Chamber, but
by the people. The Senate, in this ideal democratic
Constitution, would have been the French people.
After the flight to Varennes, the advanced democrats
sought to create a current of opinion in favour of this
species of democracy. Thus the Fraternal Societies
and the Social Club insistently demanded the national
sanction of the laws. The formula of the Cordeliers
was : "A national government, that is to say, universal
and annual sanction or ratification."
An occasion offered for the application of this
sysjtem : the placing, on the order of the day, of the
question : What was to be done with Louis XVI?
We have seen that as early as June 24th thirty
thousand citizens, assembled in the Place Vendome,
had petitioned the National Assembly to decide nothing
with regard to Louis before consulting the departments.
Presented to the President of the Assembly, this
petition was mumbled rather than read by a secretary,
in such a way that no one heard or understood it.
On July 9th the Cordeliers fathered a petition of the
same kind, drawn up by Boucher Saint -Sauveur. But
the President of the Assembly, Charles du Lameth,
refused to read it. On the 12th the anger of the
Cordeliers found vent in an address to the nation, in
THE FATE OF LOUIS 307
which they invited the people themselves to annul, by
insurrection, the decree of June 24th, by which a former
decree was repealed which had convoked the electors
to nominate the Legislative Assembly. This address
they had the courage to post up in the streets. On
the 14th a hundred citizens of Paris drew up a peti-
tion, which was read before the Assembly on the 1 5th,
in which they demanded that the Assembly should wait
to learn the wishes of the communes before coming
to a decision in Louis' case ; the signatories being
the usual leaders of the Fraternal Societies of the two
sexes, with whom were joined " forty-five women and
Roman sisters." «
The whole movement, which had as its object the
application of the popular system of the referendum
to the decision of the King's fate, thus inaugurating
the rule of democracy, ended in the tragic affair of
July 17th.
The altar of the country raised in the Champ de
Mars became the theatre of democratic demonstrations
hostile to Louis XVI, which had for their object the
enforcement of the referendum. There was no time to
lose ; Muguet de Nanthou's report, which exculpated
Louis, had been given in on the 1 3th, and already
on the morning of the 1 5th, the Assembly had voted
some articles of the proposed proclamation.
From the 14th tumultuous gatherings had essayed
to penetrate into the hall in which the Assembly sat ;
force had to be employed to repulse them. On the
1 5th a large number of citizens adopted, on the altar
of the patrie, a petition drawn up by a certain Mas-
sulard, in which they complained of not having been
able to " enter the house of the nation," and demanded
of the Assembly that they should postpone " any deter-
1 Among the signatures of the men I find those of the Abbe Mathieu,
Noel, Peyre, J. Sentiet, Boucher Saint-Sauveur, Desfieux, Champion,
Pepin-Degrouhette.
308 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
mination as to the fate of Louis XVI, until the clearly
expressed wish of the whole Empire has been heard." «
According to the Revolutions de Paris, this demon-
stration was purely republican. " Royalty has been
tried," says that journal, " in the very Champ de
Mars in which were consecrated, in the times of ignor-
ance, the heads of that line of brigands who for so
many centuries have crushed France." To an officer
of the National Guard who tried to speak in favour
of Louis some one replied : " Be silent, wretch ! you
are blaspheming ! This is a sacred place ; the temple
of liberty ; do not soil it by pronouncing the name
of the King."
The petitioners named two delegates,2 who, followed
by an enormous crowd, presented themselves at the
hall of the National Assembly. A patrol presented
arms in their honour, but they were forbidden to enter
the hall. Bailly took some of them into an office,
when Robespierre and Petion confirmed the statement
that the decree had been brought in, and told them
that their petition was useless. The crowd on hearing
this assumed a threatening attitude, hooted the deputies
as they left the hall, and in the evening forced nearly
all the theatres to remain closed.
This was the first act of the tragedy of the Champ
de Mars.
And now the Jacobins come on the stage.
We know that they had sorely deprecated the first
republican manifestations. Then they became demo-
cratised, and the alliance with the Cordeliers was
concluded. These were then, for the sake of democ-
1 Buchez gives this petition (xi. 81), stating that the original bears
only six signatures : Girouard, Gaillemet, Ch. Nicolas, Gillet fils,
Bonnet, Massulard.
2 One of these, one Virchaux, came from Neuchatel. He was
detained, released, and again, at night, arrested. Because he was a
Swiss the petitioners were afterwards accused of being in the pay of
foreigners. See Bailly's speech of July i6th in the Assembly.
ROBESPIERRE SPEAKS 309
racy, allied with the republicans. They avoided, out
of courtesy, hurling anathemas at the republic, as they
did on June 22nd. On July 13th they applauded these
conciliatory words of Robespierre's, which expressed
their policy to a nicety :
" I have been accused, in the midst of the Assembly, of being a
republican ; people do me too much honour ; I am not. If any one
had accused me of being a monarchist he would have insulted me ; I
am not a monarchist either. I will observe to begin with that for many
people the words 'republic ' and ' monarchy ' are entirely void of meaning.
The word ' republic ' does not signify any particular form of government ;
it applies to any government of free men who have a native land.
Now, it is as possible to be free with a monarch as with a senate.
What is the present French Constitution ? A republic with a monarchy.
It is neither a monarchy nor a republic ; it is a monarchy and a
republic."
And the next day, the 14th, in the National Assembly,
he shakes off the reproach of republicanism, but with-
out saying anything disagreeable to the republicans.1
At the session of the 13th, at the Jacobins, Danton
demonstrated " that kings have never kept faith with
peoples who have wished to recover their liberty."
He did not conclude by saying that the republic must
1 To understand his attitude, read the Adresse de Maximilien Robes-
pierre aux Francais, Paris, 1791. Dated July 1, 1791, it is later in date
than the affair of the Champ de Mars. Robespierre makes his apologia
and expounds his policy. He understood that the Declaration of
Rights was made to be applied, and could be reduced to these two
principles : equality of rights and sovereignty of the nation. (1) Equality
of rights : " I have constantly demanded that every domiciled citizen
who was neither a villain nor a criminal should enjoy to the full the rights
of a citizen ; that he should be admitted to all employments without
other distinction than that of his virtues and talents." (2) Sovereignty
of the nation. Robespierre thought the representatives should not be
able to perform any act contrary to the indefeasible rights of the
sovereign, " that there should exist, for every nation, constitutional
means of demanding them, and, at least in certain cases, of making its
supreme will understood. ... As for the monarch, I have never been
able to share the terror with which the title of king has inspired almost
310 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
be established. But it is evident that he was, like
Robespierre, anxious to keep in with the republicans.
At this moment the Jacobins were applauding all
motions unfavourable to Louis, or his inviolability, and
in favour of the abolition of royalty, or of an appeal
to the people.
On July 1 5th, in the evening, Choderlos de Laclos
(doubtless not without Orleanist afterthoughts) re-
quested the Jacobins to draw up, having regard to the
national desire, that is to say, in view of a preliminary
consultation of the nation, " a wise and firmly-worded
petition, not in the name of the Society, for the clubs
have not this right, but in the name of all the good
citizens belonging to the club ; that the literal copy of
this petition should be sent to all the patriotic societies,
not as societies, but as places of assemblage of all
good citizens, in order to be presented for signature
and sent into the boroughs, towns, and villages in
their neighbourhood." And, with an exaggeration of
democracy, he asks that all citizens shall sign without
all free peoples. Provided the nation were once established, and the
springs of the patriotism to which the nature of our revolution has
given rise were left untouched, I should not fear royalty ; not even
the hereditary nature of the royal functions in a single family. . . ."
It is only necessary to control the royal power, &c. As for Robes-
pierre's conduct after the flight to Varennes, he had been treated as a
factious republican. " It is well known that we have never attacked
either the existence or even the hereditary nature of royalty ; no one is
so stupid as not to know that the words ' Republic,' ' Monarchy,' are
only vague, insignificant names fit only to be used to denote sects and
divisions, but which do not describe a particular kind of government ;
that the Venetian Republic is much liker the Turkish Government than
the French, and that modern France is more like the republic of the
United States than the monarchy of Frederic or Louis XIV ; that
every free State in which the nation counts for something is a republic,
and that a nation can be free with a monarch ; that republic and
monarchy are not two incompatible things ; that the present question
has no other object than the person of Louis XVI. . . ." Mme.;Roland
says : " Robespierre, grinning as usual and biting his nails, asked what
a republic was."
ABDICATION DEMANDED 311
distinction : active, passive, women, minors, " with the
sole precaution of classifying these three kinds of signa-
ture." He had no doubt that " ten millions of signa-
tures " would be obtained.
Danton and Robespierre supported the idea of this
petition J against Biauzat, who alleged that, that very
morning, the Assembly had implicitly recognised the
inviolability of Louis XVI.
They were on the point of voting, and (it would
seem, from the only account extant) of breaking up
the meeting, when the hall was invaded by a deputation
from the Palais Royal, followed by a crowd of several
thousands, "men and women of all conditions." The
spokesman of the deputation announced his intention
of going the next day to the Champ de Mars, " to
swear never to recognise Louis XVI as king." The
president of the club, Anthoine, suggested to the agita-
tors the proposal of Laclos as likely to fulfil their
wishes. This mixed, uproarious assembly (the Jacobins
later on insisted that by this time their meeting was
,over) named five citizens to draw up the petition :
Lanthenas, Sergent, Danton, Ducancel, Brissot. The
petition was drawn up by Brissot, on the confession
of Brissot himself. A secret meeting was held the
same evening at Danton's house, at which Camille Des-
moulins, Brune, and La Poype were present, to decide
on the best measures to be taken with a view to in-
creasing the number of signatures and spreading the
movement through the departments. The next morning
the agitators met in the church of the Jacobins, to
hear the petition read. It concluded thus :
" The undersigned Frenchmen formally and particularly request that
the National Assembly shall accept, in the name of the nation, the
1 But with reservations. Thus Robespierre objected to the signatures
of women and minors. Later on he claimed to have opposed the
project.
312 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
abdication effected, by Louis XVI, on June 21st, of the crown which
had been entrusted to him, and provide for his replacement by all
constitutional means, the undersigned declaring that they will never
recognise Louis XVI as their king, unless indeed the majority of the
nation should express a desire contrary to the petition."
By all constitutional means! This meant the formal
refusal of the republic, the maintenance of the
monarchy.
The petition was approved ; and, on the advice of
the Jacobins present, and with great care to observe
the legal formalities, the petitioners warned the munici-
pality, which gave them permission, of their intention
to assemble at the Champ de Mars.1
There they went, and, as the " altar of the country "
was extremely large, four delegates (among them
Danton) were installed at the four corners and read the
petition simultaneously.2 The republicans were very
ill pleased. Many of them had brought other petitions,
which are not extant. Those who signed cancelled the
phrase, " and provide for," &c. Others, after the
words " Louis XVI as their King" added these : " nor
any other." 3 There were even in circulation printed
texts containing this addition. The delegates protested.
There was a coming and going at the Jacobins ; a
consultation, a confused debate. The matter was
referred to the evening session.
A circumstance that proves that republican ideas
were still very generally held, in spite of so many
1 The notification was signed ; Terrasson, Damas Julien, Billaud-
Varenne, Freron, Chepy fils, Camille Desmoulins, Maubac, Gerbac,
Marchand.
* See also Mme. Roland's account (GEuvres).
3 Michelet says he saw the original of this petition, with the words
" nor any other," all in Robert's handwriting, among the Seine
Archives. Was this a copy ? Is it not more probable that Michelet is
here confounding the petition of the 16th with that of the 17th, of
which he says elsewhere that it seemed to have been written by
Robert ?
PETITIONS 313
disavowals and defections, is that it took four hours
of discussion to enable the club to come to any decision
as to the proposed republican amendment. It was at
last decided that the original text should be preserved
without alteration. But immediately after this the news
came that the Assembly had issued its proclamation.
It was decided that the petition should be withdrawn.
The next morning the club sent out to suppress
the petition, and an announcement was made in the
Champ de Mars to the citizens present, to the effect
that it must be abandoned.
The Jacobins were not followed by the democrats,
republican or otherwise, of the Cordeliers or other
popular clubs.1 On the 17th a third petition, at the
initiative of the popular societies, was drawn up by
Robert, Peyre, Vachard, and Demoy, and accompanied
by more than six thousand signatures ; among others,
those of Chaumette, Hebert, Hanriot, Santerre, and
Meunier, president of the Fraternal Society of the two
sexes. Women also signed,2 but neither Danton nor any
well-known Jacobin.
1 The Cordeliers held an important meeting on the evening of the
16th. But we know of it only through the deposition of a witness in
the proceedings taken later on against the agitators of the Champ de
Mars. He states that at this meeting "a member denounced M.
Bailly, who is suspected of having caused the arrest of Brother
Lefranc, a member of the club, for having distributed the petition
[doubtless that of the 16th] ; that then another member recalled the
fact that it would be necessary next day to meet in assembly on the
Champ de Mars to sign a petition on the altar of the country, but
having learned that M. the mayor had orders to display the red flag
and to publish martial law, and that M. La Fayette had carte blanche in
the matter of requisitioning troops, he proposed that they should go
all by different routes, with concealed arms, and repulse with arms in
their hands those who came to scatter them ; that this proposition was
adopted with the greatest enthusiasm."
* The original was preserved by the courage of the citizens who
gathered up their papers under the fire of the National Guard. It has
been seen and described by Buchez and Michelet. In 1871 it was lost
in the fire at the City Archives.
314 THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
The petitioners requested the National Assembly to
repeal its decree of the day before ; "to take into con-
sideration that the guilt of Louis XVI is proved, that
this monarch has abdicated ; to receive his abdication
and to convoke a new representative body to proceed,
in a manner truly rational, to judge the guilty, and
above all to replace and organise anew the executive
power."
Here was no question of the republic, but at the
same time nothing more was said of " constitutional
means," as in the petition of the 16th. The republic
might very well result from this " organisation of a
new executive power." In any case, we may say that
this petition emanated more especially from republi-
cans. And it was regarded as a republican petition.1
However, the petitioners had not broken any law,
had said nothing against the Constitution, had not
offered the slightest excuse for legal repression. Un-
happily, on the morning of the same day, two suspected
persons, who had been found hiding underneath the
altar of the country, were put to death ; not by the
petitioners, but by the inhabitants of Gros-Gaillou. The
National Assembly and the Mayor of Paris believed,
or pretended to believe, that these murders were the
work of democrats and republicans. We know what
followed : martial law, the red flag, and the altar of the
native land heaped with corpses.
1 It should be noted that on the same day there was another demon-
stration, in conformity with the policy of the Constituent Assembly,
and with the popular idea that a good king, a new Henri Quatre, alone
could save France. We read in the Ami du Rot for July 18th :
" Yesterday the good king Henri IV was decorated with a municipal
scarf. Some one had fixed a national cockade on his sword, a national
crown on his head.'' And the reactionary journalist (Royou) adds :
" It is a strange way of honouring his memory, to bedizen his statue
with all these signs of rebellion."
CHAPTER VI
THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS AFTER THE
AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
I. Scission and reaction after July 17th. — II. Aggravation of the
bourgeois system. — III. The Assembly closes every legitimate
outlet for Democracy and Republicanism. — IV. Restoration of
the royal power.
The day of July 17, 1 79 1, has a great historical import-
ance. It was the day of a sudden blow struck by the
bourgeoisie against the people, and against all demo-
crats, whether republican or otherwise. This was an
act of civil war ; and, indeed, the war of classes, long
announced, now began.
From the massacre on the Champ de Mars dates the
irremediable division of the men of 1789 into two
parties ~; two parties which do not name themselves,
save that each claims to be patriotic, but which we
may call the bourgeois party and the democratic party :
since the question which divides them, arming each
against the other, is the question of the organisation
of the national sovereignty.
Secession at the Jacobins, by the emigration to the
Feuillants « of the moderate majority, who fear " enthu-
1 The Feuillants Club was so called from its meeting in the old
Feuillants convent. It was founded by the Lameths and d'Andre in
opposition to the Jacobins, and at first made overtures to the Court,
but soon abandoned them. Its main object was firmly to establish the
constitutional monarchy. It was in favour of two Chambers.
315
316 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
siastic and unpeaceful innovators," « and who desire
" the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing
but the Constitution " ; 2 secession in the National
Assembly, which, since the extreme Right withdrew,
consists of only two parties : the Democrats, having for
spokesmen Robespierre, Petion, Buzot, and Gregoire ;
and the bourgeois or Constitutionalists, whose spokes-
men are Barnave, d'Andre, Le Chapelier, &c. ; and
secession of the same kind in every commune in France.
The whole nation is divided into two hostile camps.
Each is the result of July 17th, a day which,
directly or indirectly, has influenced almost the whole
nineteenth century.
I.
The bourgeoisie took advantage of their bloody
victory to persecute their adversaries, and to increase
yet further their own political privileges.
At once a kind of terror weighed on all democrats,
whether republican or monarchist.
On July 1 8th, Keeper of the Seals Duport-Dutertre
writes to Bernard, public accuser at the law-courts of
the sixth arrondissement, inviting him to hunt down
the demonstrators of the day before.
Bernard's zeal was in advance of the minister's.
By his own indictment, dated July 17th, he "lodges
complaint " of the events of the day, and requests that
he shall be " informed as to the authors, fomenters,
1 See the address of the Feuillants to the affiliated clubs on the
subject of the National elections.
2 See another address of the same, June 6, 1792. It must be under-
stood that not all the Feuillants were violent anti-democrats. In the
list of members I find a portion of the future personnel of the
Democratic Republic: Cochon, Chateauneuf - Randon, Coffinhal,
Ducos, Ginguene, Granet, Kervelegan, La Revelliere-Lepeaux, Lanjui-
nais, Nioche, Pache, Reubell, Salle, Saliceti, Voulland.
THE PETITIONERS ATTACKED 317
and accomplices of the disastrous designs manifested
by the said events, circumstances, and consequences."
What "disastrous designs"? Those of the "public
enemies or discontented and turbulent men " who
" thought to find in a crisis of the State an occasion
favourable to their policy or their ambition." Bernard
denounces all democrats, including those men " who
call themselves friends of the Constitution and defenders
of the people." Their conspiracy was concocted against
the National Assembly, against Bailly, against La
Fayette, against the National Guard.
" To prepare men's minds for the great explosion," says Bernard,
"men with neither shirts nor stockings have been paid to declaim lines
from Brutus in the streets and public places. By the intrigues of the
principal conspirators the Patriotic Societies were led astray, and,
without intending it, seconded the most sinister proposals ; agitators
were scattered through all the public places to seduce the multitude by
the most insidious propositions and the absurdest calumnies. Finally,
the leaders had to rally to the standard of anarchy the workers on the
public relief works, promising them the goods of the clergy ; and
brigands of all kinds, by seditious promises of the rights of active
citizens and the partition of the soil."
As for the petition of the Champ de Mars, its success
" would have been followed by foreign and civil wars,
bankruptcy, and every kind of evil." These declama-
tions of Bernard's are vague, but we plainly see their
intention and cause, and it was against democracy itself
that the bourgeoisie wished to take proceedings.
These proceedings were not easy to institute, lacking
a legal grievance. Bernard had to encourage the judges
by an indictment, of which we have the rough draft, and
in which he declared, what he did not say in his first
indictment, that the famous petition was not the object
of his accusations. " It is not true," he says, " that
these proceedings aim at the petition ; without person-
ally approving of it, I recognise in every citizen the
incontestable right of petition on any subject, so long as
318 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
the formalities prescribed by the law be conformed
with."
Doubtless, this petition had been " the instrument
of the rebellious . . . the arm with which they wished
to destroy the Constitution, . . . but the signatories
have nothing to fear from our proceedings."
" Far from wishing to proceed against them, we grieve over the
errors of some, as we rejoice in the good they are doing ; and it is
with the greatest satisfaction that we state that Messieurs Petion and
Robespierre have declared, not only in their deposition, but in a letter
written on July the 16th in the offices of the National Assembly, and
found in the portfolio [Freron's portfolio is meant] , that once the
decree concerning the King was published, all petitions were useless.
It is, then, evident that if these illustrious deputies, inspired by an
ardent love of liberty, have for a moment erred in their opinions, in
applying to a great State grown old in the luxury and the vices which
accompany it, a State surrounded by powerful monarchies and in the
most critical circumstances, too violent remedies, the austerity of
antique manners, and the harshness of republican government, they
have failed out of an excess of virtue ; but at least they have recognised
this essential truth, that in the present crisis the public safety depends
on the union of all citizens and the co-operation of all individual wills
in effecting the execution of the general will."
He exculpates the Jacobins.
" It is evident and has been proved that a gathering of 8,000
individuals, who came from the Palais Royal, introduced themselves,
on the evening of July 16th, to this meeting, forcing open the
doors ; that it was this frenzied multitude only which dictated the
petition and determined on the steps which accompanied it." r
" What then are the objects of my indictment ? If I proceed
neither against the petition, nor the signatories, there are plots to
disperse the Assembly, to change the form [of the government decreed
by the Assembly] ; there are those who, in order to execute criminal
projects, caused gatherings of the people. There are above all the
scoundrels who excited the people to attack and disarm the National
Guard, the rampart and prop of public peace and liberty. There are
the most dangerous enemies of the Constitution ; men lost in debt ;
without homes, without property," &c.
1 He refers for proof to the depositions of Anthoine, Royer, Brune,
and de la Riviere.
ATTACKS UPON REPUBLICANISM 319
He asks for fresh writs of arrest against " the members
of the Cordeliers' Club who, at the meeting on the
evening of July i 6th, proposed to repulse the National
Guard by force and to furnish themselves with sharp-
edged weapons to hamstring their horses " ; and also
" against the man who presided, on Saturday, July i6th,
at the Indigents Club, rue Christine." He demands a
decree of accusation to be heard against the Sieur La
Poype, who proposed, in a special committee of the
Jacobins, that the agitators should furnish themselves
with concealed arms. He recalls the fact " that the
accusation against the movers and instigators of the
events of the Champ de Mars strikes more particularly
at those who proposed to change the form of the govern-
ment and to dissolve the National Assembly."
Witnesses " speak of widespread rumours that
Danton and Freron were to be nominated tribunes of
the people on the Champ de Mars." Bernard re-
quests an adjournment in order to hear new witnesses.
He refuses the demands for provisional liberty pre-
ferred by some of those incriminated ; by Richard, one
of the assassins of the two Invalides hidden under the
altar; by Brune, accused of proposals and threats
proving that he was aware of the proposals against
the Constitution ; by Verrieres and Musquinet de Saint-
Felix, accused of the same ; by Tissier, who swore, on
the Champ de Mars, to obey the nation and the law.
"It is indispensable to teach this gentleman that the
sovereign does not exist in a multitude illegally
assembled and presided over by an agitator ; that
in France the sovereign — that is to say, the nation
— is represented by the National Assembly and the
King."
He does not say " these are democrats and repub-
licans " ; he does not wish to seem to prosecute men for
a fault of opinion. But it is precisely democracy, and,
above all, republicanism, that he is proceeding against,
320 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
as the Revolutions de Paris remarks, and five witnesses
come to depose that Brune had made republican pro-
posals. Tissier is convicted of having said, in the
name of all his followers, that he wanted no more
kings. The proceedings are not against the petition;
yet a witness deposes that Momoro, standing erect
on the altar, invited people to sign.
We have not the actual accusation, which would be
so valuable to the historian of the commencement of
the war of classes. We have not even an authentic
list of the accused. According to the Gazette des
nouveaux tribunaux, they were fourteen in number :
Brune, Bruirette de Verrieres, Legendre, Santerre,
Tissier, Saint-Felix, Richard, senr., Santies (?),
Barthe, Camille Desmoulins, the Chevalier de la Riviere,
and " three others." Some of these — Desmoulins,
Legendre, Santerre — succeeded in hiding themselves.
The others were arrested. The inquiry lasted from
July 23rd to August 8th. On August 12th the pro-
ceedings commenced, the public being admitted. We
have no complete, consecutive account of the pro-
ceedings. We know only that the judges were by
no means enlightened, and that the proceedings
dragged. On August 31st the writs of arrest against
Santerre, Desmoulins, La Riviere, Tissier, Brune, and
Momoro were cancelled in favour of a summons, so
that people began to foresee an acquittal. The general
amnesty, voted by the Assembly on September 11th,
put an end to the proceedings — proceedings brought
by the bourgeoisie against democracy and republican-
ism, and which appeared hypocritical and without legal
basis.
These were not the only proceedings. Danton was
in danger of arrest, but for different reasons, and had
to escape for a few days to England.1
The other Cordeliers, whether republicans or not,
1 He returned to Paris September 9th.
THE BOURGEOIS TERROR 321
were obliged to remain some time in hiding, among
them Marat, Freron, and Robert.1
There was, indeed, a kind of inferior Terror ; one
might call it the Bourgeois Terror ; it was rendered
possible by the state of average public opinion in
France.2 People really believed, through almost the
whole of France, what the bourgeois and Constitutional
journals said (they were the only papers which had any
wide provincial circulation) : namely, that the petitioners
of the Champ de Mars had wished to disorganise
society, that they were agitators, murderers, and anti-
Revolutionists in disguise. As early as July 18th
Thomas Lindet wrote to his brother : " Hatred of the
King made people long for the abolition of royalty ;
the fear of disorder will reconcile them to royalty, and,
perhaps, to the King."
This is precisely what happened. There was a re-
action of opinion in favour of the monarchists to
which the republicans had to bow their heads ; and
the question of the republic fell more or less into
abeyance.
But the defeat of the republicans was only apparent.
The democratic movement was checked in the streets,
and only in the streets ; not in men's minds ; and the
republic was naturally, in the long run, benefited by
every step forward of democracy.
On the other hand, confounded as they were with
the great democratic party, the republicans began to
transform the party by republicanising it, and already
had converted it to the polyarchy denounced by Sieyes,
since they made it accept, at least for the moment, the
idea of an elective Executive Council.
Forced to hide their colours, and to seem to dis-
appear, the republicans were in reality far stronger than
1 The Roberts at first asked shelter of Mme. Roland.
2 At Marseilles the democratic patriots were persecuted as
republicans.
VOL. I. 21
322 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
before Louis' flight. They began to feel themselves
the destined heirs of the bourgeois system ; a system
whose destinies were founded no longer on the
unanimous confidence of the nation, but on the fragile
support of a throne occupied by a suspected King.
II.
These remote consequences were so far unseen"; the
bourgeoisie profited by their victory ; not only by
avenging themselves upon the* democrats, but by in-
creasing their own political privileges, and making
the property conditions of the suffrage still more
exacting.
It will be remembered that the system of suffrage
established four classes of citizens politically privi-
leged—four classes of active citizens. They were :
(i) the citizens forming the primary assemblies — that
is, those who paid a direct tax equivalent to the local
value of 3 days' labour ; (2) the citizens elected by
the primary assemblies to form the electoral assem-
blies (who paid a tax equivalent to the value of 10
days' labour) ; (3) those eligible for various functions
(paying the same) ; (4) those eligible as deputies
(paying a mark of silver).
This system was in force for elections to administra-
tive, municipal, judicial, and ecclesiastical offices.
From this state of affairs had arisen a class of
functionaries, who in general were moderate and
bourgeois in their sympathies ; but not, it would seem,
as moderate or as bourgeois as the majority of the
Constituent Assembly would have wished.
And in Paris, above all, the bourgeoisie had made
miscalculations.
The primary assemblies, consisting of 91,000 active
citizens (78,000 in the city of Paris, 13,000 in the
THE ELECTIONS 323
rest of the department), had in October, 1790, to
nominate 913 electors.
At the period when the electoral laws had been
passed it seemed as if the number of Parisians eligible
to act as electors must be small, because there was,
in Paris, scarcely any direct taxation. But since all
indirect taxation had been transformed into direct taxa-
tion, a large number of citizens were paying the
10 francs necessary for eligibility. Consequently the
primary assemblies were no longer, as had been hoped
or feared, confined to a small number of citizens in
easy circumstances.
On the other hand, political life was in its infancy,
and it happened, through ignorance, fear, or idleness,
that the greater number of the active citizens did not
vote. The sections which counted the largest number
of voters were that of Enfants-Rouges, which counted
257 out of 1,573, and that of the Theatre Francais,
which counted 497 out of 2,617. On an average the
number of voters did not exceed a ninth part of those
registered as active citizens.1
This abstention was obviously in favour of the
democrats, who, without being in the majority, managed
to elect a fair number of their candidates. Thus,
among the 913 electors there were Brissot, Kersaintj
Carra, Sergent, Santerre, Panis, Danton, Pons,
d'Eglantine, Saint-Sauveur, and even one of the editors
of the republican journal the Mercure national, the
Chevalier Guynement de Keralio, Mme. Robert's father.
These elections, as we have seen, took place in
October, 1790. It was at the moment when, Louis
being in conflict with the Revolution over the civil
constitution of the clergy, the democratic movement
had been accelerated, and a republican party was born ;
and these circumstances were evidently not without
influence on the minds and votes of the primary assem-
1 In the suburbs perhaps half or a quarter voted.
324 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
blies ; so that a strong minority of democrats found
their way into the electoral assembly of the department
of Paris.
This assembly, which sat from November 18, 1790,
till June 15, 1 79 1, named the departmental adminis-
trators, the judges, the bishop (Gobel), and the cur£s.
As far as the bishop and the cures were concerned,
the electors seem to have agreed easily enough, without
any division into democrats and bourgeois.
It was otherwise with the departmental elections
(January 14 to February 15, 1791). Certainly the
Moderates were in the majority, and secured the election
of their more notable leaders : La Rochefoucauld, Mira-
beau, Talleyrand, Sieyes~; and the majority in this
department continued resolutely conservative, as we
should say — that is, anti-republican, anti-democratic.
But the democrats succeeded in electing two of their
number, and not the least ; Kersaint, who was half a re-
publican, and Danton (January 31, 1791), who was then
considered a dangerous demagogue. It is true that the
latter was elected on a second count by only 144 votes
among 461 voters. But that he was elected at all
when he had as yet given no proof of the relative
moderation he showed later on was a proof and a
measure of the progress of democratic ideas.
We have seen how this progress increased in Paris
in the spring of 1 79 1 . The electors followed the
stream ; more and more often they voted in favour
of democrats. Robespierre, who was the leader of
the democratic party in the National Assembly, was
elected (June 10, 1791) Public 'Accuser in the Criminal
Court of the Department of Parish elected by 220 votes
as against 99 given to d'Andre, one of the leaders of
the bourgeois party. On June 1 5th Petion was elected
President of the Criminal Court and Buzot Vice-Presi-
dent. On December 18, 1790, Roederer had been
elected " Supplementary Judge of one of the Courts of
THE SUFFRAGE TO BE AMENDED 325
the six arrondissements of the Department of Paris." 1
We find that, with the exception of Gregoire (who
was out of the question, as he had been elected Bishop
of Loir-et-Cher), the most notable of the democratic
deputies were elected to fill various posts in the new
judiciary, so that the working of the property suffrage
had resulted, in the capital itself, in the glorification
of the democrats.
This is why, after its bloody victory on July 17,
1 79 1, the National Assembly tried to make still more
bourgeois, if I may say so, a system already so
bourgeois ; and to aggravate the property conditions
now that the democrats were terrorised, or, at least, such
democrats as were capable of striking a blow, now that
it seemed as though a popular insurrection need no
longer be feared.
But how repeal these constitutional decrees, so often
proclaimed inviolable, whose preservation had been
sworn so often and so solemnly? How touch the sacred
ark of the Constitution, above all, just after shedding
the blood of the democrats who had wished to revise it?
This is how it was done.
Since public opinion was so strongly unfavourable
to the decree of the silver mark demanded as the
test of eligibility to future assemblies : since Paris had
so earnestly shown her dislike of the measure — well,
this unpopular decree should be repealed, and the party
would profit by the occasion by enormously increasing
the conditions of eligibility to the functions of an elector
of the second degree. Under the disguise of a con-
cession to democratic opinion the bourgeoisie would
thus increase its means of defence against the
democracy, since those who would directly nominate
the deputies would in future be chosen among the
richer citizens. To transfer the tax of the mark of
silver from the eligible to the electors, as was intended,
• Etienne Charavay, Assemblee electorate de 1790, p. 247.
326 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
and finally done, was to emphasise the bourgeois
character of the Government.
An occasion soon offered. The Constitution was to
be codified. The essential Articles of the Constitution
were voted in 1789. Since then many other clauses
had been voted ; and, on the other hand, the distinction
between the properly constitutional and the properly
legislative clauses was not at all clear. The distinction
was one that had to be made ; all the constitutional
decrees must be classified in one single law, and a
revision, if need be, undertaken of each decree.
For the accomplishment of this task the Assembly
had decided (September 23, 1790) to appoint seven
members as a Committee of Constitution : Adrien du
Port, Barnave, Alexandre de Lameth, Clermont-
Tonnerre, Beaumez, Petion, and Buzot.
This Committee, in spite of Petion and Buzot, de-
cided to do more than its duty ; it decided, namely,
to revise the Constitution.
As regards the suffrage, what happened was as
follows :
On August 5, 1 79 1, Thouret, in the name of the
Committee, proposed to revoke the decree of the mark
of silver, and to increase the tax demanded of the
electors, but without naming any sum.
Immediately the democrats turned their coats.
Those who yesterday were anxious to change the Con-
stitution in order to make it more democratic now
almost unanimously figured as preservers of the Con-
stitution, who insisted on the maintenance of the tax of
10 days' labour and of the mark of silver.
On August 1 ith it was proposed to fix the tax de-
manded of electors at the equivalent of 40 days' labour.
Petion opposed this suggestion, saying that he
preferred the mark of silver.
Robespierre spoke eloquently. He showed that
under this system Jean-Jacques Rousseau could never
DEBATES ON THE SUFFRAGE 327
have been an elector. " Yet he has enlightened the
human race, and his powerful and virtuous genius has
prepared the way for your own labours. But>
according to the principles of the Committee, we ought
to blush for having erected statues to a man who did
not pay a mark of silver." The man who pays a tax
equivalent in value to i o days' labour is as independent
as the rich man, and as the poor man has more interest
in the preservation of the laws than the rich man, he
will be the better elector. Robespierre concluded that
the decree of the mark of silver and the conditions of
eligibility imposed on the electors should both be re-
voked ; but he allowed it to be seen that he would
resign himself to the status quo.
This status quo was very ably recommended by
Buzot, in order not to " cause trouble in our pro-
vinces." And he added, to the applause of the Left :
"It is really very astonishing that those who have
so long been accused of republicanism should now be
the very same who wish to maintain the Constitution
as it is."
Barnave made a notable reply to the orators of the
democratic party. It was necessary, he stated, to
defend oneself against the seditious, the revolutionaries,
the democratic and republican journalists.
" Among the electors chosen," he said, " who pay less than the value
of 30 or 40 days' labour, we do not find the workman, nor the labourer, nor
the honest artisan, occupied always at the labour which his necessities de-
mand ; we find a few men inspired and actuated by the spirit of intrigue ;
men who spread through the primary assemblies the love of turbulence
and the desire for change which are secretly devouring them ; men
who, because they have nothing, and because they cannot find in honest
work the means of subsistence, are seeking to create a new order of
things, which shall replace probity by intrigue, good sense by a little
cunning, and the general and lasting interest of society by unsleeping
personal interest. {Loud applause.) If I wished to support what I
have said by examples, I certainly should not have to go far in search
of them ; I would ask the members of this Assembly who have main-
328 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
tained the contrary opinion : are such members of the electoral bodies
as are known to you, and as do not pay the value of 30 to 40 days'
labour — are they working men ? No ! Are they lampooners ? Are
they journalists ? Yes ! " (Loud applause.)
Dauchy made a sensation by calculations which
proved that under the system proposed by the Com-
mittee there would be scarcely any electors at all in the
country districts. Next day Thouret brought forward a
new proposal, by which the conditions of suffrage would
not be the same for the peasants as for the town-
dwellers. A lively debate arose. Gregoire, Le
Chapelier, and Vernier obtained the adjournment of
the clause until the revision should be completed.
But on August 27th the clause once more came
under discussion, and, in spite of the opposition of
Reubell, was voted in the following shape :
" No one can be nominated elector, unless he fulfils the conditions
necessary to an active citizen ; namely, in towns having more than
6,000 inhabitants he must be the proprietor or tenant of a property
valued on the register of taxes as having a revenue equal to the local
value of 200 days' labour ; or he must be the tenant of a house valued
on the same register as having a rental equal to the value of 150 days'
labour ; in towns having less than 6,000 inhabitants, he must be the
proprietor or tenant of a property marked on the register of taxes as
having a revenue equal to the local value of 180 days' labour, or the
tenant of a house valued on the same rolls as having a rent equal to the
value of 100 days' labour ; and, in the country districts, he must be
proprietor or tenant of a property valued in the register of taxes as
having a revenue equal to the local value of 180 days' labour, or a farmer
or metayer of lands valued on the same register at 400 days' labour.
With regard to those who are at the same time proprietors or tenants
in one place and tenants, farmers, or metayers in another, their
various titles to eligibility will be added together so as to afford
the necessary tax."
The clause which suppressed the mark of silver read
as follows : " All active citizens, whatever their state,
profession, or taxation, may be elected as representa-
tives of the nation." A futile concession^; it was very
THE BOURGEOIS REGIME 329
evident that the electors would, as a rule, choose the
deputies from among themselves.
Thus the Constituent Assembly bestowed on a class
by no means numerous, consisting chiefly of landowners,
the exclusive privilege of electing deputies and other
functionaries, and placed the fate of the nation entirely
in the hands of these few privileged persons.
This decree, however, was not enforced, the Assembly
having postponed its application until the time when
the present electoral assemblies should be renewed —
that is, for two years. The elections for the Legislative
Assembly took place under the law of the mark of
silver ; and when the two years were up the entire
bourgeois system had disappeared. But this re-
actionary measure, although it was not followed by
any legal consequences, is none the less a historically
important fact, for the reason that it marks a notable
episode in the conflict of classes. The bourgeoisie
replied to the claims of the people by banishing a
larger number of electors from the State politic, and
by increasing its own privileges.1
III.
This new electoral system, which was never to be
applied, the Assembly now sought to make as lasting
as possible, by putting as far forward as possible the
time when the Constitution could be revised. That it
would be revised no one denied ; and the future revising
assemblies were called, in the political language of
the time, National Conventions. The Assembly de-
cided that the revision could only take place when
three consecutive legislatures (each of which must last
1 Later on this anti -democratic revision of the Constitution, in a
petition presented to the Assembly on August 6, 1792, is spoken of as
" this fatal revision, made under the auspices of terror."
330 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
two years) should have expressed a uniform desire for
the alteration of one or more articles of the Constitu-
tion. The revision would then be made by the fourth
legislature, increased for the purpose by 249 members.
But in any case the first two legislatures, those which
would sit from 1 79 1 to 1793, and from 1793 to 1795
respectively, would not be able to express any desire
for revision. In this manner the first revision could
only be undertaken by the sixth Assembly — that is to
say, at the earliest, towards the end of the year 1801.
We see plainly in the debates on this question that
the Assembly feared not only the democratic, but also
the republican peril. D 'Andre declared that ten years
of the status quo would not be enough to discourage
the hopes and efforts of the republican party, and
demanded an increase of the period to thirty years.1
Demeunier contested this motion as contrary to the
rights of the nation, and went so far as to use these
words, which were new indeed to the tribune of the
Assembly : " I declare that, if the majority of the
French nation desired a republican government, they
1 It must be observed that d' Andre spoke of the existence of a
dangerous republican party in a hypothetical manner. Here are his
words, according to Le Hodey's account (xxxii. 467) : "... I will
suppose that there is in the kingdom a numerous party desiring
a republic : I will suppose this party to have widespread and extensive
correspondence ; I will suppose that this party is determined to return
deputies to the Legislature during a period of ten years — for the people
who have the most exaggerated opinions are often, in reality, those who
best gain the popular favour. Well, this party will behave in this way :
it will continually denounce the municipalities, the departments, the
National Guard, and the ministers ; and, thus attacking everything in
turn, and continually hindering progress by means of discontent and
popular agitation, it will say, at the end of ten years : ' Your mon-
archical government won't answer.' . . . And I conclude, for these
reasons, that the advice of the Committee is subject to more incon-
veniences than any other, and that mine gives wise folk some hope of
living quietly for thirty years. {Applause.) I demand the adoption of
thirty years."
FEAR OF DEMOCRACY 331
would have the right to establish it." ' We see, then,
that from this time onwards, if the constitutional
majority continued to stave off the republic by means
of unlimited abuse and conservative measures of de-
fence, yet a minority of the monarchists in the
Assembly, or at least one of them, and not the least
notable, declared the republic to be eventually possible
and legitimate — the republic whose name none had
dared to pronounce in 1789, nor even in 1790. How-
ever this may be, it is a notable fact in the history
of the democratic and republican parties that the
National Assembly, after having aggravated the pro-
perty suffrage, believed itself obliged to close all legal
paths leading to the ulterior establishment of the re-
public and democracy. This explains, up to a certain
point, the silence which we shall now find observed for
so long a time in the tribune of the Assembly on the
subject of democratic and republican demands.
IV.
The revision completed, the Assembly busied itself
with putting an end to the republican interim which
existed in actual fact, and replacing the King on the
throne .2
1 Le Hodey. The account of this speech in the Moniteur is much
compressed.
2 Although the revision of the Constitution was retrograde in its
nature, the royal powers were not thereby increased. On the contrary,
during the session of August 27, 1791, an additional article was voted
which to some extent curtailed the right of veto, not permitting the
King to use this right in the case of decrees relating to public imposts.
This is Article 8 of Section 3 of Chapter 3 of the third part of the Con-
stitution of 1791. It reads : " The decrees of the Legislative Assembly
concerning the establishment, duration, and collection of public imposts
will bear the name and title of laws. They will be promulgated and
executed without being subjected to sanction, excepting such regula-
tions as may establish penalties other than fines and compulsory
payments."
332 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
The spokesman of the Committee, Beaumez, pro-
posed, on September ist, to submit the Constitution
for the King's acceptance ; a matter settled after some
embarrassment. Supposing the King were to refuse to
become King again? Supposing he refused this Con-
stitution, which he had already, in his manifesto of
June 20th, declared impracticable !
It was decided first of all that the King should cease
to be a prisoner, and it was decided in these terms :
" The King will be requested to give all orders that
he may judge to be proper for his security and for the
dignity of his person." He was left free to go to
any city in the kingdom for the purp.ose of acceptance.
He declared that he would remain in Paris, and, in
a message, dated September 13th, he made known his
acceptance of the Constitution. But with what reserves
did he qualify that acceptance ! He had the courage
to apologise for his conduct ; for the flight that ended
at Varennes. He did not, then, know the wishes of
the nation. Now that he knew them he undertook
to maintain the Constitution from within and to defend
it against enemies from without. But he added :
" I should not be speaking the truth were I to say that I have per-
ceived, in the means of execution and administration, all the energy
which must be necessary to instil life and to preserve unity in all the
portions of so great an empire ; yet, since opinions are at present
divided on these matters, I consent to allow experience only to be their
judge. When I have used with loyalty all the means that have been
restored to me, no one will be able to reproach me ; and the nation,
whose interest alone must be its guide, will express itself by the means
reserved to it by the Constitution."
Thus, at the very moment when Louis was swearing
to be faithful to the Constitution, he declared it
anarchical. Far from protesting, the National
Assembly applauded his declarations with enthusiasm.
When he repaired to the Salle des Seances (Septem-
THE KING RELEASED 333
ber 14th) to take the oath, which he had vitiated
beforehand by so many reserves, so that a new era
of discord might well have been foreseen, there was
" repeated applause," and the deputies cried three
times, Vive le roi! ' Then the Assembly in a body
accompanied the King as far as the Tuileries, " to
the sound of the people's cries of joy, military bands,
and salvoes of artillery " (Moniteur).
The example given by the Constituent Assembly was
followed throughout the country. There was a re-
crudescence of royalism ; not only in the country,2 but
in Paris, where public rejoicings in honour of the
establishment of the Constitution were decreed for
September 18th. The municipality solemnly proclaimed
the Constitution on the altar of the nation, still red
with the blood of democrats. In the evening Paris
1 Le Hodey, xxxiv. n. However, the deputies from Anjou gave
their constituents an account of this scene from which it would seem
that the cry of Vive le roi ! was not by any means unanimous. The
sound of drums was heard without, and immediately an usher entered,
saying, " Gentlemen, here is the King." At this announcement a most
impressive silence reigned. The King appeared ; he came in at the
left, in the midst of the deputation of twelve members, his ministers at
his side. He wore none of the decorations reserved for his use. The
Assembly was standing, the King went to take the place prepared for
him ; the whole time the most profound silence was preserved. The
King, standing, drew from his pocket a paper, and said : " Gentlemen,
I come here to ratify solemnly the acceptation which I have given
to the constitutional Act ; in consequence I swear. . . " Here the
Assembly sat down ; the King, interrupting himself, also sat down.
Immediately universal applause was heard, and cries of Vive le roi !
Bravo ! This cry was repeated, especially by the members of the
Right. When silence began to reign, the King again began to speak.
Several members stood up ; but, the King remaining seated, the whole
Assembly did the same ; and the King took the oath " (Correspondance
des deputes du tiers elat d' Anjou avec leurs Commettants, vol. x. p. 393).
2 " Meaux and Rouen did not await the decree to give thanks to
Heaven . . . they were overcome with vertigo. Their conduct was
actual idolatry; they lacked only the presence of their idol" (Rcvolu-
itons de Paris, vol. xi. p. 517).
334 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
was illuminated, and the King, amid enthusiastic cheers,
walked with the royal family in the Champs -OrLlysees.
All Paris seemed to have become royalist again, as
under the ancien regime ; and there were only a few
protests, like that of a cobbler, " who set a light in
his window behind an oiled paper, on which was traced,
Vive le roi, s'il est de bonne foi,' as one might say,
' Long live the King, if he be the right thing.' " The
theatres for some weeks had resumed the playing of
royalist pieces, such as Gaston et Bayard, le Siege de
Calais, Henri IV a Paris, la Partie de Chasse
d'Henri IV, Nicodeme dans la lane, Richard Cceur-
de-Lion.
" This last heroi-comic piece," we read in the
Revolutions de Paris, " nearly had a tragic ending
at the Theatre Italien, on the 19th of this month. Even
the imbecile orchestra wanted to play its part, to insult
patriots by refusing to play for them the national air,
Qa ira. However, it had to give way. But what are
we to think of Clairval ! — who had the effrontery to
take it upon himself to substitute the name of Louis
for that of Richard, and to sing, in a screeching,
broken voice :
"'0 Louis ! O my King !
Thy friends encircle thee,
Our love encircles thee.
Tis for our hearts a simple thing
Faithful to thee to be.
Beneath the eyes
Of all the skies
We break thine iron chains.
Thy crown we tender back to thee.
Unhappy Queen ! ah, let thy breast
No more with sorrow be oppressed ;
For many friends to you are left,
And to your Court
May love resort ;
Fidelity and love ;
To serve you is reward enough.' " *
The original is doggerel ; its faults are faithfully suggested. — [Trans.]
THE REVIVAL OF ROYALISM 335
The royalists applauded. It rained copies of this
wretched parody in the auditorium. The parterre pro-
tested, but had the worst of it.
Next day, September 20th, the King goes to the
Opera ; going along the boulevards he receives an
ovation. " Vive le roi! " they cry ; " hats off ! " The
Queen is welcomed too. " The dear people ! " she
cries ; " they only want to love us." The artistes
allow their royalism to be evident. " Candeille her-
self ... a republican a month ago, or a democrat
at least, is taken suddenly with the Court fever at
the first news that the King and Queen would honour
the piece with their presence." «
Sunday, the 25th, was a new festival ; the Te Deum
was sung in Notre Dame. In the evening the King,
declaring himself " touched by the signs of love afforded
him by the inhabitants of the capital," gave in his turn
a fete to the people, with illuminations, dances,
banquets in the open air, and so forth, at which all
sang this royalist doggerel :
" Note bon roi
A tout fait ....
Et note bonn'reine
Qu'alle eut de peine !
Enfin les via
Hors d'embarra /"
Of which the sense — or lack of it — might roughly be
given in English, thus :
"God save the King !
He's done just the thing !
God save the Queen,
She must 'a felt green !
Now what a sight !
They're both all right ! "
Revolutions de Paris.
336 AFTER AFFAIR OF THE CHAMP DE MARS
Louis XVI, the Queen, and La Fayette walked fo
and fro by torchlight in the Champs-£lys6es, amid
continual applause. The King made the gift of
50,000 livres to the poor. On September 27th he
showed himself at the Theatre Frangais, where again
there were cries of Vive le roil A few young men
having cried for the nation, the audience replied, " To
the doors, the b Jacobins ! "
On the day when the Assembly separated, the King
had posted up a proclamation, in which he said : " The
term of the Revolution has come : let the nation resume
its happy nature." And he repaired to the National
Assembly, where he renewed his protestations of
loyalty ; and as all accounts agree in stating, there
was a scene of tremendous enthusiasm. The session
of the Assembly terminated to the sound of cries, a
hundred times repeated, of Vive le roil
One would have thought there were no longer any
republicans anywhere. But attentive observers saw
plainly that this silence was no sign of death ; at the
moment when the republican party seemed to disappear
they perceived its existence, and even foretold its future
success. Thus Mallet du Pan, at the end of September :
"The republicans, without having, in any considerable degree, the
advantage of numbers, do possess the advantage of a more intimate
agreement of opinions, and a more fiery zeal as regards their conduct.
The moment will come when France will be divided between them
and the exaggerated royalists." '
Doubtless the writer exaggerates the republican peril
in order to excite the vigilance of the monarchist
bourgeois ; and what he says of the agreement and
the zeal of the republicans would apply more justly to
the democrats. But he states, and fully understands,
that these overwhelming royalist acclamations, which
everywhere salute the reconstituted monarchy, are no
1 Mallet du Pan, Du principe des factions, 1797.
THE "VIRGIN DEPUTIES" 337
sign that every Frenchman is satisfied with the restora-
tion of the perjured King, together with the aggravation
of the bourgeois rule. The democratic party is only
half muzzled and terrorised. On the very day when
the Assembly, dissolving, acclaims the King, there is
a sudden popular manifestation in honour of Petion and
Robespierre, and we read, in the Revolutions de Paris;
" If this last scene of turpitude [the courtier-like enthusiasm of the
Assembly] has made the hearts of patriots swell with indignation, they
must have felt the compensation, two hours later, of a truly moving
spectacle. The people were awaiting Petion and Robespierre on the
terrace of the Tuileries ; they come out, and the people surround them,
press about them, embrace them ; crowns of oak-leaves are set on
their heads ; cries are heard of ' Vive la nation ! Vive la liberte ! ' A
woman pierces the crowd, her child in her arms ; she places it in those
of Robespierre ; the mother and the two deputies sprinkle it with their
tears. They seek to escape from their triumph, and to slip down a
side turning ; but the people follow ; they are surrounded anew ; they
are borne on high to the sound of instruments and of cheers ; they ask
for a carriage ; they are placed in a carriage, and in a moment the
horses are out of the shafts, &c. But already Petion and Robespierre
are out of the carriage ; they speak ; they recall the people to their
dignity, of which they are the upholders ; they beg them to control
their gratitude ; the people listen to them ; bless them ; they are
escorted home amid a gigantic crowd ; and the names of ' virgin
deputies,' ' incorruptible legislators,' joined to their own, were heard
on all sides as they went."
vol. i. 22
CHAPTER VII
FROM THE MEETING OF THE SECOND ASSEMBLY TO
JUNE 20, 1792
I. Elections to the Legislative Assembly and temporary abdication of
the Democratic and Republican parties. — II. First acts and policy
of the Assembly. — III. Public opinion. — IV. The King's policy.
Declaration of war with Austria. Quarrel between the Assembly
and the King. — V. Anti-republican politics of Robespierre. —
VI. The day of June 20, 1792. — VII. Its consequences.
I.
We have watched the evolution of the democratic and
republican parties at the time of the first Constituent
Assembly. To understand the conditions of this evolu-
tion as it continued under the Legislative Assembly
which met on October 1st, we must remember that the
second Assembly differed from the first not only in
its personal composition, which was of course quite
new (no former deputy being present), but in its very
nature, and in its intention. '
The Constituent Assembly was the old Estates-
General ; the image and representation of the ancien
regime ; of those three nations which formerly composed
the French kingdom. But the Third Estate, which had
obtained a majority in the Assembly by the resignation
or abstention of many members of the two privileged
orders, had been nominated by a suffrage which was
almost universal. And these Estates, elected to effect
338
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 339
a great revolution, had indeed effected it ; with an
elevation of outlook and a boldness of thought which,
certainly, did not go so far as to conceive a democratic
constitution ; but which, in spite of contradictions and an
occasional weakness, impressed on their work, whether
positive or negative, a certain quality of grandeur.
The Legislative Assembly was a body representative
of the new privileged class, the bourgeoisie, who de-
finitely and officially took possession of the powers of
the State ; and it had been elected by the species of
property suffrage already described. And why was it
elected? To preserve and to superintend the operation
of the Constitution ; and in the expectation of normal
conditions.
But were the circumstances under which it was elected
normal?
Yes and no.
Yes ; in the sense that the electors who nominated
its members had almost all been chosen before the
King's flight ; while he still inspired universal con-
fidence, and in a time of public serenity.
No ; in the sense that the electors, themselves elected
under normal conditions, nominated the deputies under
abnormal conditions after the King's flight, when the
general mind was troubled and excited by the republi-
can movement, and by the bourgeois Terror, in the
August and September of 1 79 1 .
And these deputies were more especially chosen from
among the members (elected) of the various adminis-
trations ; district and departmental especially. They
were accustomed to local affairs, were generally
moderate, and were nearly all supporters of the
Constitution.
But, as they were nominated after the King's flight,
a certain number of democrats had slipped in among
them ; men who, according to the Cordelier-Jacobin
policy, distrusted the King and wished to hold him in
340 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
tutelage, almost as a prisoner ; and such men easily
became republicans. There was, for example, the
Cordelier trio : Merlin, Basire, and Chabot ; there
were the future Girondins : Guadet, Vergniaud, Gen-
sonne, and Brissot ; who dreamed of a free State of
which each would be the Pericles ; a nation governed
by the aristocracy of talent ; and these men differed
from the members of the first Assembly, in that the
defeat of the civil constitution of the clergy had per-
haps given them the idea of a lay state.
It was above all in Paris that the democrats were
chosen. The primary assemblies, meeting on June i6th,
had not yet completed their electoral duties when the
flight of the King became known. Twenty sections
out of forty-eight completed their elective duties only
after the King's flight ; that is to say, in the thick of
the republican movement ; and these were the sections
which sent the largest proportion of democrats to the
electoral assembly. One of these sections — the Theatre
Francais — nominated not only ardent democrats, such
as Danton, Sergent, Freron, Boucher Saint-Sauveur, and
Fournier l'Americain, but also avowed Republicans ;
such as Camille Desmoulins, Nicolas Bonneville, Brune,
and Momoro.
In the electoral assembly of 1791, as in that of
1790, there was a fairly compact democratic group,
which succeeded in getting the ex-deputy Roederer
elected procurator-general-syndic of the department.
Roederer, both in the National Assembly and at the
Jacobins, had been one of the most ardent apostles
of anti-bourgeois ideas. These democrats also managed
to elect, among the twenty-four deputies for the Depart-
ment of Paris, men as advanced as Garran de Coulon,
Brissot, and Condorcet.
The election of the latter, who obtained 351 votes
against 347, is particularly significant in the history
of the republican party ; since it was he who had,
CONDORCET 341
with the greatest brilliance and authority, supported
the cause of the republic. The manner in which his
election was commented on demonstrates the attitude
of the republican party after the affair of the Champ
de Mars. Condorcet was elected, not as a republican,
but on his merits as an eminent savant. In a con-
gratulatory dialogue which took place, after the pro-
clamation of the vote, between Condorcet and the
President of the electoral assembly (Pastoret), the latter
stated that the assembly had wished to honour, in the
person of the new deputy, all the talents, all learning,
and the friend of d'Alembert, Turgot, and Voltaire.
Certainly the speaker was a moderate ; and we may
well believe that he wished to divert attention from
the republican character of the election. But Con-
dorcet, in his thanks, announced that he would main-
tain the Constitution, " under which a free man may
find it happy to live," and which " guarantees us our
rights." '
The theorist of the republic provisionally renounced
the republic, and resigned himself to making a new
trial of the monarchy ; even a bourgeois monarchy
(for he saw that the republic and democracy were
impossible in the then state of opinion). President
of the Legislative Assembly, or spokesman of various
committees, the policy he expressed was constitutional.
In December, 1791, interrogated as to his political
sentiments, he replied : " The general desire of French-
men is to maintain the Constitution as it is." Although
he demanded that republican opinions should be re-
garded as permissible, he had become conservative to
the point of advising the people to resign themselves
even to the property suffrage. Thus, in the Chronique
du Mots for February, 1792, he states that artisans
and labourers can easily become active citizens. They
1 All these details are taken from the interesting compilation by
M. Etienne Charavay, I'Assemblee electorate de 1791.
342 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
have only to buy a little furniture in order to pay a
tax equal in value to the local wage of 3 days-
labour ; they need only " have a residence of which
the rent shall be from 14 livres upwards in Paris, and
about 10 livres in the country." Since we have not
been able to obtain a republic or a democracy, let us
give the middle-class monarchy a fair trial : such is
the policy of Condorcet under the Legislative Assembly.
The Jacobin democrats also, in the early days of the
Legislative Assembly, seem to have put off their demo-
cracy, to have renounced their idea of an elective
Executive Council, and once more to have accepted
Louis XVI.
On September 19th they instituted a prize of
twenty-five louis for the best patriotic almanac. It was
for this competition that Collot d'Herbois composed
his Almanack du Pere Gerard, which was read before
the Jacobins on October 23rd, and obtained the prize.
This almanac glorifies the constitutional monarchy,
and Louis XVI receives the most affectionate praise.
Thus, at the opening of the Legislative Assembly, the
few democrats (whether republican or otherwise) who
formed a small minority in a Conservative Assembly,
and the democrats outside the Assembly, no longer
marched under their own flag ; and all had the appear-
ance of accepting a new trial of the middle-class rule.
II.
The beginnings of the Legislative Assembly were
awaited with curiosity ; people were anxious to see
what its attitude would be with regard to the King.
On September 14, 1791, when the King repaired
to the Constituent Assembly in order to accept the
Constitution, the deputies were seated and covered
before he himself sat down and covered his head.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 343
But when, on the 30th, he went to close the session,
a more respectful ceremonial was observed ; it had
been voted the day before, on a motion introduced
by d'Andre\ The Assembly sat down and covered only
when the King set the example. The King was placed
in the middle of the platform, on a chair decorated
with fleurs de lis, with the President on his right.
The ceremonial seemed to be conceived and applied
in such a way as clearly to mark the superiority of
the King over the National Assembly. The Revolutions
de Paris was indignant at the humiliation of the " repre-
sentatives of the sovereign," who had been made to
appear " automata, or rather apes, moving only at a
signal given by the King," by a kind of etiquette
" worthy of the seraglios of Asia." «
As soon as the Legislative Assembly had verified
its powers, and was constituted, it sent a deputation
to wait upon the King and advise him of the fact.
This deputation had considerable difficulty in obtaining
audience the same day, and only succeeded through the
intervention of the Minister of Justice ; in contravention
of a decree of the Constituent Assembly, which enacted
that the National Assembly should communicate with the
King directly. At the session of the 5th, a deputy
complained of this, and another demanded (the King
being due to attend on the 7th) that Louis should be
called, not "Majesty," but "King of the French."
A certain Becquey (an ardent royalist, however, who
later served under the Empire and the Restoration)
demanded that deputies should sit or stand at will
in the presence of the King. Couthon proposed, in
addition, that the King's chair should exactly resemble
that of the President. The Assembly loudly applauded
1 No. cxvii. p. 9. Many deputies of the Legislature, who were
present in one of the galleries, were also moved to indignation by this
courtier-like etiquette. See the speech by Goujon (of Oise) on
October 5, 1791, Journal logographique, i. 44, 45.
344 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
him, as did the galleries also. Goupilleau (from Mon-
taigu) declared that at the last session of the Con-
stituent Assembly he had been " revolted to see the
President tiring himself in a profound inclination before
the King." Guadet said : " The King who should
become accustomed to regulate the movements of our
bodies during our sessions might soon think himself
able to regulate the movements of our minds as well."
Finally Couthon succeeded in getting the following
decree passed :
" i. At the moment of the King's entry into the Assembly all the
members will stand erect and uncovered.
" 2. When the King has reached the bureau each member may seat
himself and cover his head.
"3. There will be at the bureau two similar chairs, placed on the
same line, and that on the president's left will be for the King.
"4. In the case of the President or any other member of the
Assembly having been previously entrusted by the Assembly with the
duty of addressing the King, he will, in conformity with the Con-
stitution, give him no other title than that of King of the French.
The same rule will be observed by such deputations as may be sent
to the King.
" 5. When the King retires the members of the Assembly will stand
erect and uncovered, as at his arrival.
" 6. The deputation which will receive the King and escort him
back will consist of twelve members."
This decree aroused public opinion. The King
seemed to be despoiled of his honours by Divine Law ;
treated like a clerk or a delegate, or at most like
a mere president of a republic.
The republicans exulted, and we read in the
Revolutions de Paris:
" When the people hear it said that the King is only a public official,
that he is now called only King of the French, and that 'majesty' is
reserved for God and for nations ; when they see the National
Assembly rejoicing in the superiority which the laws of nature and
of reason bestow upon it, they will appreciate the value of a king ;
and kings appreciated at their true value are little to be feared."
KING AND ASSEMBLY 345
But the moderates, the anti-democrats, were greatly-
disturbed. They harangued the people on the terrace of
the Feuillants, saying that the decree threatened France
with immediate ruin ; and the people believed them.
" The poor people do not see that a snare is being
laid for them, and they say, with their false friends,
that the decree was not a good or wise one under the
circumstances." ' There were conferences between the
ministers, the President, Pastoret, and the moderates
in the Assembly. A reaction was preparing.
On October 6th, Vosgien, on the occasion of the
reading of the proces-verbal, indirectly demanded the
revocation of the decree. Basire and Vergniaud opposed
the motion, on the ground that it was impossible to
go back on an accomplished vote. But Herault de
Sechelles formally proposed that the decree should be
repealed, and it was done. The Legislative Assembly
finally observed the ceremonial adopted by the Con-
stituent Assembly, and received him, on October 7th,
with all the traditional deference. The President,
Pastoret, said, in his courtier-like reply : " And we
also, sire, feel the need of your love." There was a
scene of royalist enthusiasm. The cry of " Vive le
Roi!" drowned the cries of " Vive la nation!" uttered
by Chabot and a few others. Delacroix obtained
a unanimous vote on his resolution to the effect
that the President's reply expressed the feelings of the
Assembly.
The republicans did not conceal their annoyance.
After having reproved Brissot for his silence, the editor
of the Revolutions de Paris exclaims : " Oh, what grief
this decree has caused the souls of the friends of
Liberty ! " " The revocation of the decree of October
6th will perhaps have for patriots the same effect as had
the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. If the National
Assembly is what it appeared to be during this session,
1 Revolutions de Paris, cxvii. 15, 16.
346 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
there is nothing left to do but to weep for the loss of
the national glory and the happiness of the human
race." «
This first debate and this first conflict in the new
Assembly are very typical of its character. It has a way
of yielding, turn and turn about, to two tendencies ; one
more or less democratic and republican, the other bour-
geois and moderate. One day it treats the King as a
subordinate agent ; the next it will treat him as a king.
Down to August ioth, sometimes the Right has the
majority, sometimes the Left. As a matter of fact,
as long as the throne is erect, it has no wish whatever
to make any concessions either to democracy or re-
publicanism, and its aims remain purely monarchical.
It is only through weakness, through nervousness, and
under the influence of a small minority of democratic
deputies, backed up by the galleries and the streets,
that it does on occasion treat the King in a way that
hardly falls in with its monarchical aims.
III.
That there was no democratic majority in the
Legislative Assembly, that it was not republican, is
a thing attested by so many facts that one is ashamed
of insisting upon it. And yet one must do so'; so
many legendary statements are found in so many books
— even scholastic histories — such as the Histoire con-
temporaire 2 in use in schools and colleges, in which
we read : " The electors, directed by the Jacobins,
filled the legislative chamber with the most violent
republicans and democrats of every shade." It is,
therefore, just as well to point out the fact that the
Jacobins were then monarchists, and that the few re-
publicans who were elected to the Assembly concealed
1 Moniieur, x. 57. * By MM. Toussenel and Darsy.
REPUBLICANISM QUIESCENT 347
their true colours, or even, like Condorcet, provisionally
gave up the idea of establishing the republic in
France.1
Outside the Assembly scarcely any one, if we except
the eccentric Anarcharsis Clootz, any longer professed
to hold republican opinions. No longer did any of
the journals roundly demand a republic (or if they
did, I have not come across them). The only paper
which still exhibited republican tendencies was the
Revolutions de Paris, which published, in October,
1 79 1, an article in praise of Tom Paine's republican
pamphlet, Common Sense; in November, congratula-
tions " to such nations as are so happy as to be without
kings," and abuse of Louis XVI, " this rebellious
deputy " ; it also reproached Collot d'Herbois for
the royalism of his Almanack du Pere Gerard. Then,
at the end of December, the Revolutions de Paris
agreed that Louis XVI should continue to reign so
long as he might remain loyal, and " drew the sponge "
across the past on the occasion of the new year. It
explained its condition later on, in somewhat brusque
language! ; the King must only be " the agent of the
National Assembly."
The idea of taking another King was sustained only
by Carra, who, on January 4, 1792, at the Jacobins,
showed " what advantages," in the hypothetical event
of Louis effecting a second flight, " would result from
an alliance with England, Prussia, and Holland, were
the son of George III, the son-in-law of Frederic
William and the nephew of the Princess of Orange,
invited to fill the constitutional throne of France." He
1 Fabre, the deputy from Aude, wrote on November 1st : "The
Assembly is still a little uproarious ; it will take some time for it to
shake down. However, there is no sign of republican opinions. The
Jacobins themselves disapprove of them when they crop up at their
meetings. Public opinion has gone over entirely to the side of
monarchical government and the maintenance of the Constitution."
348 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
was at once interrupted and called to order. He him-
self, relating the incident in the Annates patriotiques
of January 9th, states as a fact
" that in spite of the progress of the public mind, ; the mass of the
nation is by no means yet sufficiently moral, sufficiently regenerated,
sufficiently enlightened to sustain, for some time to come, a republican
government in France ; for it would be the greatest of disasters, both for
this nation, and for all the nations of the earth, and even for generations
to come, were a French republic, which would merely be the product
of the effervescence of a few demagogues, to end, after a succession
of widespread disturbances, and the conflicting ambitions of all the
parties, by falling back, perhaps for ever, under the yoke of a despot."
Signs of republicanism have been seen in the in-
flexible attitude and the churlish behaviour of certain
people towards the King ; as, for instance, the famous
letter which Manuel wrote to the King in January,
1792, which commenced with these words, "Sire, I
have no liking for kings." It would, indeed, be a
notable fact if the procurator of the commune under
the constitutional monarchy had publicly pronounced
for the suppression of royalty. But read farther on :
" Sire, I have no liking for kings. They have done so much evil in
the world, judging them even by history, which flatters all great kings,
such as are the conquerors of the world ; that is to say, those who have
assassinated whole nations ! But, since the Constitution which has
made me free has made you a king, I must obey you. . . ."
And Manuel then advises Louis as to how he can become
a good King :
" You have a son : since France is no longer yours, he is France's ;
France ought to bring him up for her own profit. Do you yourself
insist (what France ought to have ordained) that this child, who will
one day be amazed to find 25 millions of men in his father's inheri-
tance—do you insist that this child be confided to a friend of Nature,
to Bernardin-Henri de Saint-Pierre, who has the soul of Fenelon and
the pen of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He would instruct him in the art
of reigning."
BOURGEOISIE AND PEOPLE 349
This letter appeared ridiculous to everybody ; and
the Revolutions de Paris made fun of it.1 But it was
a constitutional, even a monarchical, manifestation,
since the gist of it was that Manuel proposed means of
increasing the King's prestige. If the republicans, at
this period, resigned themselves to the monarchy, the
democrats had also renounced the idea of attempting
the prompt destruction of the bourgeois rule. This is
evident in a public letter of Petion's to Buzot, dated
February 6, 1792, its subject being the relations
between the bourgeoisie and the people. " The bour-
geoisie, that large and comfortable class, are breaking
with the people.; they set themselves above the people ;
they think themselves on a level with the nobility, who
despise them, and only await a favourable moment for
humiliating them." Now the bourgeoisie and the
people are threatened by a common enemy : the classes
that have lost the privileges they had, the enemies
of the Revolution. They must therefore unite against
these enemies. The entire Third Estate must rally
together as in 1789, " or it will be crushed. . . . We
ought to have but one cry : Alliance between the
bourgeoisie and the people ! — or, if you prefer it :
Union of the Third Estate against the privileged ! "
And what would be the conditions of such an alliance?
The extension of the right of suffrage to the whole
people? No ; it is enough that the bourgeoisie should
consent to place its hand cordially in that of the people.
Fundamentally, what Petion proposes is the status quo.
He only wishes that the bourgeoisie should hold more
fraternal relations with the proletariat-; that the active
citizens should condescend to accept the help of the
passive citizens against the aristocracy, against the
1 Manuel replied that his letter was incorrectly quoted, and referred
to the text as given by other journals. But the differences were only
of detail.
350 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
ancien regime. There we have the sole aspiration of
this democrat in February, 1792.1
We may say, then, that at the beginning of the year
1792, as at the end of the year 1791, there was a
cordial intention on the part of all democrats, whether
republican or not, to give, not only the monarchy, but
even the suffrage and the rule of the bourgeoisie, a new
trial.
IV.
Once more it was the King who refused loyally to
make this trial ; once more it was a question of religion
that held him back from playing the splendid part
which circumstances offered him.
About the end of the year 1791 the refractory clergy
were everywhere agitating against the Revolution'; and
in the west they were already preparing for civil war.
1 Let us also note that, at this period of loyal trial of the monarchical
and bourgeois system, if the democrats resigned themselves to the
political privileges of the bourgeoisie, they also and with more reason
resigned themselves to the economic privileges of the same class ; and
although in 1791 there were many indications of a socialistic character,
we find only one at the beginning of 1792. It consists in the fact that
the Chronique du Mots for March reproduced, with approval, a semi-
communist petition of Athanase Auger's, the Hellenist (who had just
died). This petition, which the Legislative Assembly had referred, on
October 21st, to its Committee of Legislation, had already appeared
in English in the Morning Post. Auger claimed that the equal partition
of the soil would be in conformity with Nature. But, setting aside the
idea of so violent an operation, he proposed that the whole property
of every man (except movable property) should at his death be divided
thus : half among his children, half among his collaterals. " The
National Assembly will decide in its wisdom the nature and extent of
the possessions which will be shared as we propose ; for it would
not be just that moderate holdings should not pass entire to the
children whose care and labour will often have bettered the paternal
acres." This would be one means "of dividing between as many
inhabitants as possible a fertile territory, which laws in favour of
usurpation always tend to throw into a few privileged hands."
THE KING'S TREASON 351
On November 29th the Legislative Assembly decreed,
amongst other measures, that ecclesiastics who had re-
fused the civil Constitution should be obliged, within a
week, to take the oath of fidelity to the nation, the
law, and the King — that is, the civic oath — under
penalty of being deprived of their pensions and con-
sidered as suspects. The King did not wish to give his
sanction to the decree, and thus appeared to refuse to
defend the Constitution against its worst enemies. At
the same time, the royal veto was opposed to a decree
of November 9th, by which emigres who did not return
to France, and continued to conspire against the
country, were threatened with the death penalty.
This policy of Louis XVI was encouraged by the
ex -members of the Assembly, by the Feuillants, who,
dispossessed of important places,1 were trying to form
a kind of clandestine ministry, a la Mirabeau.
We know to-day that Louis dared still further. On
December 3, 1 79 1, he wrote secretly to the King of
Prussia in order to tell him that an armed Congress
would be the best means of intimidating the factions,
of re-establishing " a more desirable state of things,"
and of preventing the Revolution from spreading over
the rest of Europe.
A subtle policy of waiting, of intrigue at home and
abroad, was concealed behind a Ministry without
cohesion and without programme, in which were
intriguers and decided anti-revolutionists : Bertrand
de Moleville, Narbonne, Cahier de Gerville, and
Delessart.
On the other hand, the revolutionary propaganda
was alarming the sovereigns of Europe, and deciding
them to make common cause against the people.
War threatened. It was desired by the Court, by the
* As a matter of fact, La Fayette was no longer commandant of the
National Guard, and the Jacobin Petion had displaced Bailly as Mayor
of Paris.
352 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
patriots, by everybody, with the exception of one per-
spicacious man, Robespierre, who already foresaw that
war, whether successful or inglorious, would mean the
loss of liberty.
We know what warlike movements agitated Paris
and the departments in the February and March of
1792. It was the time of pikes, of red bonnets,1 of
the sans-culotte, an unchaining of humanitarian and
equalising passions.2
The Legislative Assembly itself was affected by this
fever.
On March 10, 1792, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Delessart, was impeached on account of the suspicious
timidity of his negotiations with the Court of Vienna.
It was hoped that the King would be frightened.
Vergniaud cried :
" From this window can be seen the palace in which the King is led
astray by treacherous advice. Terror and affright have often issued
from this palace : to-day let them enter it, in the name of the law ; let
all those who dwell in it know that the King alone is inviolable ; that
the law will reach all the guilty without distinctions, and that not a
head in that palace, once convicted of criminality, can hope to escape
the sword ! "
Certainly it was not unconstitutional to threaten
Marie Antoinette with the scaffold in this way. But
what a blow to the royal prestige ! And the Legisla-
tive Assembly, which, indeed, was tending to govern by
1 See the Revolutions cie Paris, xi. 293, 503, 534.
2 The use of the pronoun "thou," without yet becoming universal,
became more frequent at this time ; as well as the use of citoyen
instead of monsieur. After the declaration of war these forms became
more general. The first constituted authority to use citoyen officially
in place of monsieur was the municipality of Paris. The journals
remark, as a novel matter, the fact that Petion begins a letter to the
people of Paris by the word Citoyens (May 24, 1791). See La Corre-
spondance ■politique of May 29th.
WAR DECLARED ON AUSTRIA 353
itself,1 and which unmade ministers, applauded these
bold threats against the Queen ; was it not thus, despite
itself, preparing the road for republicanism?
The King, alarmed, gave way provisionally, and
called the Jacobins to power (March 12, 1792).
As the law forbade him to select his ministers from
among the deputies of the Legislative Assembly, or
the ex-members of the Constituent Assembly, so
that he could not form the Brissot-Vergniaud-Con-
dorcet-Petion Ministry, which would have been logical
under the circumstances, he selected the friends of the
leaders of the majority ; amongst others Roland (repub-
lican to the bottom of his soul) ; but he added to these
a talented intriguer, Dumouriez, who would prevent the
Ministry from having the cohesion and singleness of
view indispensable to a prolonged existence. This
Ministry was resolved on war. Austria had announced,
in the most injurious manner, her intention of meddling
in the home affairs of France ; so war was solemnly
declared against the King of Bohemia and Hungary on
April 20, 1792.
This is a notable date in the history of modern
1 As far back as February 2, 1792, Barnave wrote, in a private letter :
" One cannot get away from the fact that as regards the executive the
Assembly has suffered a tremendous recoil towards republicanism."
Also "nearly all the bases of our Constitution, being republican, lead
naturally to results of the same nature." It is worthy of remark that,
in this apparent disappearance of the republican party, Barnave fore-
saw at the time the establishment of the republic. " Although as yet,"
he says in the same letter, " we have nothing of all we need for the
establishment of a republican government, or to sustain a civil war,
our prolonged alarms, our military attitude, our volunteers, our increas-
ing impoverishment, a second Legislature made up in the same spirit
as this one, our emigres settled abroad like the Protestants after the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the feeble executive power, sus-
pected, despised, might lead matters to such a state that republican
ideas would become as possible, as easy of at least temporary execu-
tion, as a few months ago they were absurd." He also foresaw that
France would later return to monarchy {Barnave, (Euvres dc, iv. 347).
vol. 1. 23
354 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
France ; and, above all, in the history of the republican
party : firstly, because it was the war that finally
brought the republican party into power ; secondly,
because it was through the fact of its establishment
amid the circumstances of war (inconsistent with its
principles) that the Republic finally perished ; thirdly,
because the war led ultimately to a military dictator-
ship, of which we still, to-day, feel the consequences.
The war began badly ; Prussia joined Austria against
France ; this was the end of Dumouriez' diplomatic
scheme*5; from the outset we experienced reverses.
Alarmed, the Assembly passed three extreme
decrees-; on May 27th it voted the deportation of the
non-juring priests ; on the 29th the disbanding of the
King's guard ; on June 8th the formation of a camp of
twenty thousand men near Paris.
The King resigned himself to the disbanding of his
guard, but he refused his sanction to the decree con-
cerning the priests and the camp, and dismissed the
Roland Ministry (June 12, 1792). This anti-revolu-
tionary policy was supported by La Fayette, who com-
manded the army of the Centre ; and, playing to some
extent the same part as Bouille, wrote the Assembly
a threatening letter.
Immediately the entire monarchical and bourgeois
system tottered on its base, and the people of Paris,
who, since the affair of the Champ de Mars, seemed to
have abandoned all revolutionary demonstrations, began
to assume a threatening attitude. Perhaps they would
not have risen only to support the fallen Ministry';
but when, on June 19th, Louis XVI officially notified
his veto of the decrees concerning the priests and
the camp, they understood that the King was betray-
ing the Revolution. From this resulted the events pf
June 20th.
REPUBLICANISM AND THE WAR 355
V.
Before recalling such incidents of this celebrated day
as characterised the mental state of the people of Paris
with regard to royalty and the republic and democratic
ideas, we must go back a little and note certain signs,
favourable and unfavourable manifestations, which
occurred after the declaration of war.
As early as April 21, 1792, the cosmopolitan repub-
lican Anacharsis Clootz presented himself at the Bar
of the Legislative Assembly. Since, said he, " the
kings condemned by Minerva appeal to the tribunal
of Bellona," he offered the nation's representatives
examples from his book, The Universal Republic, or
Address to Tyrannicides.1 In this book he states :
" I knew too well the effects of royal idolatry to preach the aboli-
tion of royalty before the'events of June 21st. The removal of Louis
XVI will cure the nation of a malady of fourteen centuries' standing.
We are to-day thirty years from June 21, 1791. Henceforward there
would be no inconvenience in electing every five years a chief of the
executive, who would sit modestly on a chair, his hat on his head. No
luxury, no splendour, no pomp. There need be no fear of bribery and
cabals in a homogeneous nation, when the chief of the executive will
be (strictly speaking) merely a citizen at 18 francs a day, as head of the
Legislature."
Others asked whether they would not eventually have
to consider the possibility of a republic, should the
war be unfortunate. In the Gazette universelle of
April 25, 1792, the royalist Cerisier asks, perhaps in-
spired by hatred of the Roland Ministry : "Where, under
the present circumstances, is the free man who would
not give a purely republican government a trial, should
circumstances become so urgent as to bring about the
1 Paris, 1792, 196 pp., with these words at the end : "At the head-
quarters of the globe, February of the year IV."
356 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
exclusion of the House of Bourbon from the throne? "
The patriot Carra, whom we have formerly seen as an
anti-republican, replied to him on April 29th : " The
idea of thy purely republican government might then
[before the declaration of war] have appeared imprac-
ticable ; but to-day thou art right, and, if things are
so to fall out, I vote with thee."
Recommended by the Prussian Baron Clootz, by the
royalist Cerisier, by the versatile Carra, the republican
idea appeared, after the declaration of war, to be
without authority or weight. Yet at last the word
republic was spoken aloud in public and spread from
mouth to mouth. For now was the time of the awaken-
ing, of the resurrection, of the old republican party ;
which since the affair of the Champ de Mars had been
in hiding, and had provisionally renounced its hopes,
always none the less inspiring suspicion and anxiety,
not only in bourgeois royalists like Barnave, but in
democratic royalists like Robespierre as well. These
latter accused Brissot and his friends of still express-
ing, in private conversation, their republican dreams,
and of finding in La Fayette a Washington (they also
said a Cromwell) ready to seize the reins of power.
This was the bugbear of Robespierre '"; and Camille
Desmoulins echoed his fears, in the first number of
his new journal, the Tribune des Patriotes.
" If I go to the Jacobins," he says (April 30, 1792), "and if I take
aside one of those determined republicans who always have the word
"republic" in their mouths; J. P. Brissot, or G. Boisguyon, for
example ; if I question him concerning La Fayette, he replies in my
ear, " La Fayette, I assure you, is more republican than Sidney ; a
greater republican than Washington ; he has absolutely assured me
of it a hundred times." And, pressing my hand : " Brother, how is
it that thou, Camille Desmoulins, who in France librc didst the first of
all argue in favour of the republic ; how is it that to-day, while for
La Fayette nothing will do but the republic, the whole republic, and
nothing but the republic, thou dost insist on marring his task and
decrying it ? "
THE REPUBLICAN IDEA 357
It is by no means certain that Camille Desmoulins,
whose heedlessness sometimes goes as far as calumny,
has not travestied Brissot's conversation, for there is
no other evidence of his working for La Fayette, nor
even of his demanding a republic at this date ; r but
it is the fact that, for Robespierre's journalist friend,
republicans are now Fayettists, Cromwellists, who
side with the royalists and monarchians against " the
people and equality." " The most fanatical royalist,"
he adds, " would prefer the aristocratic republic of La
Fayette and his military government, which is now
threatening us, to a Constitution which makes a cobbler's
'prentice the peer of a French prince, and would put
their names together on the same jury lists." He,
Camille, is for the nation : for the party of the Friends
of the Constitution.
" The true Jacobins," he says, " are of this party, because they want
not the name of the republic but the thing; because they do not forget
that in the revolution of 1649 England, under the name of a republic,
1 In any case, in the Legislative Assembly no Girondist, nor any
follower of Brissot, was at this time demanding a republic. We read
in a speech of Lasource (of April 16, 1792) concerning the nomination
of the administrators of the public Treasury : " No one is a sufficiently
bad politician to desire a purely republican government, which is only
possible as an idea ; no one would wish to rule an empire as vast as
France with the simplicity of a Greek city." This phrase is not to be
found in the journals, but in a separate edition of Lasource's speeches,
which is reproduced in the Archives parlementaire, xli. 706. The authors
of these Archives say they found the speech in the unauthorised collec-
tion of articles, &c, on the administration (Bibl. Nat. Le 33/3") ; but as
a matter of fact the speech is not there. However, it is not likely that
the Archives invented the text; it is more probable that they attributed
it wrongly. Let us also note that in the Assembly, in a monarchical
speech in which he represented the heredity of the throne " as a sea-
wall against the ambitions of powerful citizens and the intrigue of
factions," Isnard, while admitting that there were " citizens who
wanted an absolutely republican government," also said : " But they are
very few in number ; they do not form a party ; they limit themselves
to wishes " (Moniteur, reprinted, xi. 45).
358 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
was governed monarchically, or rather as a military despotism, by
Cromwell; and that France in the Revolution of 1789, though called
a monarchy, became a republican government."
And, farther on : " Heaven preserve us from the
republic of La Fayette ! This word republic, which
Cromwell had everlastingly in his mouth, does not
deceive me."
I do not think Brissot replied directly to Desmoulins'
attacks. But his journal, the Patriote frangais, stated,
in the following terms (May 10, 1792), that there was
no republican party in existence :
" First of all we must absolutely be certain that there is no such
thing as a republican faction anywhere. It is a phantom, created by
the moderates to embitter their party against the patriots. So little
does republicanism exist that the madmen who might be supposed to
hold such opinions would ask for another king if they could remove
the constitutional monarch."
That Robespierre inspired this face-about of
Desmoulins' we can hardly doubt. Read the journal
he himself began to publish a few days later. The
first number of the Defenseur de la Constitution, which
appeared May 19, 1792, contains an Exposition de
mes principes, from which we learn that the paper was
founded with the intention of fighting the republican
party. Robespierre accuses the party of dictatorial,
aristocratic tendencies. He does not say crudely, as
Desmoulins did, that the republicans are working for
La Fayette ; but he does insinuate as much.
His first word is this : " It is the Constitution I
wish to defend*; the Constitution as it is." To be sure,
he has only lately shown us the faults of this Constitu-
tion. But, since it is " completed and cemented by
general subscription," he confines himself to demanding
that it shall be faithfully executed. " I have known
men deafen one with the name of the republic who
could do nothing but abuse the people and strive against
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 359
equality." Such are in alliance with the Court to
intrigue against the Constitution. They wish to procure
" a kind of aristocratic government, which, under seduc-
tive names, will give us chains heavier than before."
Robespierre is presented sometimes as a royalist,
sometimes as a republican. He reminds the royalists
of what he has done to prevent the excessive extension
of the royal power1 ; and says to the republicans :
" I would rather see a popular representative Assembly, with the
citizens free and respected, under a King, than an enslaved, degraded
people under the rod of an aristocratic Senate and a dictator. I love
Cromwell no more than Charles the First. ... Eh ! what do I care
that so-called patriots warn me that all France will soon lie bleeding
in order that royalty may be abolished, if they do not wish to establish
national sovereignty and civil and political equality on the ruins?"
He names the leaders of the republican party :
Brissot, Condorcet, and their friends.
The part they played after the flight to Varennes
is explained with malevolent bitterness :
" Known hitherto by your intrigues with La Fayette and by your
great moderation, and for a long time assiduous members of a demi-
aristocratic club (the Club of 1789); you suddenly come out with the
word republic. Condorcet publishes a treatise on the Republic ; whose
principles, it is true, are less popular than those of our present
Constitution.1 Brissot promotes a journal entitled The Republican,
of which nothing but the title was of a popular nature. A placard,
dictated in the same spirit, drafted by the same party, in the name of
the former Marquis du Chastellet, related to La Fayette, a friend of
Brissot's and Condorcet's, appeared at the same time on all the walls
of the capital. All minds were then in a state of ferment ; the mere
word republic caused discussion among the patriots, and gave the
enemies of liberty the pretext they were looking for, in order to declare
that there <was in France a party which was conspiring against the
monarchy and against the Constitution ; and they hastened to attribute
1 We have seen, however, that Condorcet was one of the promoters
of the movement against the property suffrage.
360 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
to this motive the firmness with which we defended, in the National
Assembly, the rights of national sovereignty against the monster of
inviolability. It was by this word that they alienated the majority of
the National Assembly ; it was this word that was the signal for the
carnage of peaceable citizens, slaughtered on the altar of the country,
whose crime was the legal exercise of the right of petition, consecrated
by the constitutional laws ; in this name the true friends of liberty
were misrepresented as mischievous agitators by perverse or ignorant
citizens, and the Revolution was set back for perhaps half a century."
Concerning the petition of the Champ de Mars :
"... Why," he asks, " did Brissot present another
[proposal for a petition], suggesting the abolition of
royalty,1 at a moment when their enemies were only
waiting for this pretext to calumniate the defenders
of liberty? "
"... Now that their intrigues with La Fayette
and Narbonne are no longer a mystery," their anti-
revolutionary designs become suddenly visible to all.
To these republican intrigues Robespierre opposes
the programme of a constitutional policy, " in order
to force royalty to walk in the path which the will of
the sovereign has traced for it, or to bring on, in-
sensibly and without shock, a period in which public
opinion, enlightened by the course of time or by the
enemies of tyranny, shall pronounce upon the best form
of government suited to the needs of the nation."
It is thus that in April and May, 1792, the old
Republican party, however dumb and resigned to the
monarchy,2 was disowned by its famous chronicler,
1 We have seen that there was nothing of the kind in this petition.
2 On a superficial reading of the Article 10,097 in vol. ii. of the
Bibliografkie de Vhistoire de Paris, by M. Tourneaux, one might believe
that on May 17, 1792, a " Society of the Republican Virtues " was
founded in Paris. Certainly this title did not imply a republican
programme. But the rules of the Society, dated 4 Germinal, year II,
give us to understand, according to the quotation in M. Tourneaux's
prefatory remarks, that at the time of its foundation this club was
called the " Popular Society of the Observatory Section." We cannot
ROBESPIERRE AND REPUBLICANISM 361
Camille Desmoulins, and that the republic was de-
nounced as anti-revolutionary by the most popular and
most important of the democrats, Robespierre. After
this defection and this anathema people scarcely dared
pronounce the word " republic," which is why there was
no republican demonstration on June 20, 1792.
VI.
The thing that characterised this day more than any-
thing else is that it was entirely popular. The actors
in it were the people of the Faubourgs Saint-Antoine
and Saint -Marceau ; and they wished (I repeat) not
to abolish royalty, but to frighten the King and so
to force him to keep on the straight road.
For a long time the ringleaders of the poorer quarters
of Paris had intended to celebrate the anniversary of
discover that there were at this period any republican manifestations in
the sections. The demi-revolutionary proclamation by which the section
of the Theatre Francais declared itself permanent (see the Revolutions
de Paris, xii. 378) gives one a glimpse of the intention to bring armed
pressure to bear on Louis XVI, and also of democratic tendencies (it
says that the National Guard is the People, and the People the
National Guard : all citizens) ; but it is impossible to extract the
slightest republican flavour from it, although the president of the
section, Momoro, and the secretary, Vincent, were regarded as
republicans. I find no republican signs in the papers either ; not even
in those which, like the Revolutions, had not then discovered the
republic. The Revolutions for May 26th states that the idolatry of
royalty " has vanished from all disinterested hearts," and that " for the
words good King and Majesty, the people have substituted the word
veto." The same paper goes so far as to demand the convocation of a
National Convention, " instructed to ratify the Constitution upon the
sole basis of the Declaration of Rights." But it does not more
expressly demand the republic which it had formerly supported in the
plainest terms. Destrem, deputy from Aude, writes that " there
are a few mad republicans at the Jacobins." But he gives no name, no
instance. So it is no exaggeration to say that at this period the
republican party was mutely resigned to the monarchy.
362 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
the oath of the Tennis Court. The programme was to
plant a " tree of liberty " on the terrace of the Feuil-
lants, and to present the King and the Assembly with
petitions "analogous to the circumstances." The
demonstrators asked the Commune for an authorisa-
tion to carry arms on this occasion. This was illegal,
and the Commune refused. Petion, the Mayor, evaded
the difficulty by deciding that the National Guard
should surround the petitioners. The Department
opposed him in vain ; Petion disregarded their
opposition.
Two columns of demonstrators set out, one from
the Bastille, the other from the Salpetriere —
" the Rights of Man at their head, between several pieces of
cannon. . . . Many inscriptions, which were by no means indicative
of scoundrels concealing their dark designs, were scattered, here and
there, along the line of the procession. One read : The Nation, the
Law. — Now the country is in danger, all the sans-culottes are ready. — Long
live the National Assembly ! — Advice to Louis XVI : the people, weary of
suffering, want absolute liberty or death. — We want only union and
liberty ! Long live Equality ! — Free men and sans-culottes, we will at
least keep the tatters. — People, National Guard, we are one only."
The Revolutions de Paris, from which we take these
details, describes the procession thus :
" This crowd of persons of all conditions, in every kind of costume,
armed, as they were in July, 1789, with anything they could lay their
hands on, were marching in a disorder that was only superficial. It
was not a mob ; it was the whole body of inhabitants of the first city
in the world, full of the sentiment of liberty, yet at the same time
imbued with respect for the law they themselves had made. Equality
and the most touching fraternity were the glories of this festival ; at
which were to be seen, pell-mell and arm in arm, National Guards in
uniform and out of uniform ; more than 200 centenarian (sic) pensioners,
and a great number of women and children of all ages ; very few
epaulettes, but plenty of red bonnets ; all the charcoal-sellers and all
the strong men from the markets in the best of humours. The crowd
was bristling with arms of all sorts, and among the arms were green
KING AND PEOPLE 363
boughs, bouquets of flowers, and ears of corn. The picture was
enlivened by a frank jollity that infected the observers, so that the
further the procession went the larger it became." ■
At half-past one the procession defiled before the
Assembly, and the petition was read at the Bar. Was
this a republican demonstration? By no means. The
petitioners declared that they did not wish to do any-
thing but what " would be in agreement with the Con-
stitution." But they wished the King " to have no will
except that of the law." " Liberty," they added, " can-
not be suspended. If the executive power does not
operate, there can be no alternative. ... A single
man should not influence the wishes of twenty-five
millions of men. If, out of respect, we maintain him
in his position, it is on the condition that he fills it
constitutionally ; if he goes astray, he is no longer
anything to the French people." Paris is roused';
blood will flow if the conspirators are not frustrated.
And if the inaction of our armies " is due to the
executive power, let it be destroyed."
The President, Francais (of Nantes), replied vaguely
that the Assembly would be capable of repressing the
1 These are the still fresh impressions of an ocular witness, who
wrote almost at the moment of seeing, for this article appeared
in the Revolutions de Paris for lune 16 to 23, 1792. See also
the engraving included with this issue, which represents the procession
on the march towards the Assembly. Such engravings are bad art,
but very valuable to the historian, as the anonymous artist produced
them face to face with the reality, which in other cases was academi-
cally disfigured. Read what M. J. Renouvier has to say in his Histoire
de I' art pendant la Revolutions, p. 442 : " There is a long series of
' Days ' represented in the Revolutions de Paris. They are small
engravings, flat and badly executed ; however, on account of certain
truthful details the historian will value them more than the larger
engravings, which are far better executed, but unfaithful ; such, for
example, as the engravings made in England and in Germany." In the
Mercure universal is another description, very picturesque, of the
march of the petitioners (June 21st).
364 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
crimes of the conspirators, and begged the petitioners
to respect the law. They retired satisfied.
They then went to the Tuileries, and succeeded in
opening the outer gates. To open the doors was not
so easy.
" There was," says the Revolutions de Paris, " rather more resistance
at the doors of the outer apartments ; but the presence of a piece of
artillery, which the sans-culottes mounted on their shoulders, removed
all obstacles. Some one struck with an axe at the door of another
room ; Louis XVI himself had it opened, crying ' Vive la nation ! ' and
waving his hat. The King was with some priests at the time, several
of whom were dressed in white ; they disappeared at the first glimpse of
the people. He then went and sat on a high bench in the embrasure
of a window giving on the great courtyard, surrounded by five or six
National Guards. Only a Teniers or a Callot could have painted what
occurred to the life. In the blink of an eye the salon was full of
people armed with pikes, scythes, forks, sickles, knives bound on
staves, saws treated in the same manner, &c.
" In the midst of all this were placed the tablets of the Rights of
Man, facing the King, who as yet was little accustomed to such a
spectacle. The citizens crowded round him. " Sanction the decrees ! "
they cried to him from all parts. " Recall the patriot ministers ! Send
your priests away! Choose between Coblentz and Paris!" The King,
holding his hand out to these, waved his hat to satisfy the others ;
but the noise and excitement would not allow him to make himself
heard. Having caught sight of a red bonnet in the hands of one of
those about him, he asked for it and put it on his head. We cannot
describe the effect which the sight of this bonnet on the King's head
produced among the spectators. Doubtless Europe will soon be filled
with caricatures representing Louis XVI, with a prominent abdomen,
his chest covered with the ' Grand Star,' the red bonnet on his head,
and idrinking out of a bottle to the health of the sans-culottes, who are
shouting : ' The King drinks ! The King has drunk ! He has the
bonnet of liberty on his head : if only he had it in his heart ! ' "
The demonstrators spent several hours in defiling
before the King, and also the Queen and the Prince
Royal. Vergniaud, Isnard, and other deputies came
to station themselves around Louis, to protect him.
At eight o'clock at night the crowd had melted away,
and order was restored.
LOUIS INCURABLY HOSTILE 365
It was, in short, a burlesque rather than a dramatic
demonstration. There were threats and insulting cries ;
but there were also ingenuous tokens of affection and
respect. The coolness of Louis' conduct, and his good-
hearted behaviour, touched the people, who went away
contented. They thought they had warned and recon-
quered their King. The demonstration was by no
means an attempt to overturn the throne and establish
the republic.
Nevertheless, it was an important event I; it was
the entry on the stage of the proletariat; no longer
savage and riotous, as in the days of October, 1789,
but calm, strong, rejoicing in their might, capable of
self -organisation. The bourgeoisie trembled at the
spectacle.
VII.
The demonstrators of June 20th did not obtain the
immediate success they had hoped.
This day of popular success was disowned by the
Left of the Legislature, by the future Girondists, and
by the Jacobins, who did not take part in it directly
or officially.
Louis XVI, who had promised nothing, did not with-
draw his veto. The petitioners thought they had con-
verted him to the Revolution;; they found him
embittered, humiliated, irremediably hostile.
Europe beheld him insulted and a prisoner.
In the middle classes, and over a portion of France,
there was a recrudescence of royalism.
Twenty thousand petitioners and a large number
of departmental administrations protested against the
insult offered to the majesty of royalty, an insult which
was represented as an attempt at assassination.
La Fayette, leaving his army, visited the Assembly
366 SECOND ASSEMBLY TO JUNE 20, 1792
on June 28th, demanding in the name of his soldiers that
the Assembly should take action against the authors
of the outrage, and " destroy a sect capable of in-
fringing the national sovereignty." It is affirmed that
La Fayette, who had an understanding with General
Luckner, proposed to re-establish the King's authority
by force of arms ; but the Queen would not owe her
salvation to La Fayette, who had therefore to go back
to his post. But such proceedings on the part of such
a man encouraged the monarchists, at a time when
all other circumstances seemed in league to discourage
them.
For on July 2nd came the news that the army of
the North was in retreat, was falling back on Lille
and on Valenciennes. All the distrust and anxiety and
violence of the petitioners of the 20th seemed to be
justified by the events. On July 3rd, at the tribune
of the Legislative Assembly, Vergniaud unveiled and
denounced all the treasons of Louis XVI. The logical
conclusion of his speech was the overturning of the
throne. But the orator did not come to this conclusion,
and the Assembly, as if alarmed at having applauded
too bold a speech, very soon felt itself moved to make
a manifestation against the republic.
Now came the famous scene of the kiss of
Lamourette (July 7th), which I will relate according
to the official record.
Lamourette, Constitutional Bishop and deputy for
Rhone-et-Loire, declared that the ills of the country
arose from disagreement and dissension'; and proposed,
as a means of terminating these dissensions, to offer
up to public execration by a solemn declaration all
proposals to alter the Constitution, whether by the
establishment of two chambers vor of a republic, or
by any other means. "The Assembly," relates the
proces-verbal, "by a sudden spontaneous movement,
rose as one man, and passed the resolution amid uni-
THE KISS OF LAMOURETTE 367
versal acclamations. Immediately members gathered
together from all parts of the hall, and, exchanging
reciprocal tokens of fraternity, they merged, for a
moment, all other feelings in the sole love of their
country." They sent to the King, who himself came to
take part in this affecting scene. He said : " The
nation and the King are but one : they are pursuing
the same end, and their united efforts will save France."
There was great applause, much enthusiasm.
" The King, before withdrawing, again expressed his appreciation of
the happy event which re-united all the representatives of the nation.
He said that his first impulse had been to present himself in the midst
of the Assembly, and that he was greatly vexed in that he had been
obliged to await the deputation which was sent for him. There was
further applause, and cries of Vive la nation ! Vive le roi I The King
went out in the midst of these cheers."
On the same day the Department of Paris suspended
from their functions the Mayor, Petion, and the Pro-
curator of the Commune, Manuel.
In this way all the defenders of the bourgeois system
were gathered together in agreement to defend the
throne, to prevent the recurrence of such scenes as those
of June 20th, and to punish the leaders of the crowd.
Louis, to all appearance, was safe as ever. But his
treachery was too soon exposed by his allies at a time
when the defeat of the French arms appeared only too
likely. The end was not far off.
END OF VOL. I.
Ube ffiresbam press,
UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED.
WOKING AND LONDON.
--»*■*
Date Due
NOV 10 "55
HOV 28 "59
DEC a
JUN29
197;
"■■
22
taum.
1988 D N
■AY
* 39
u
APR * .
ei
f; "*»' ? a TO
MAR 6
J96& Ft
MAR
5 1962
NOV 1 0 1964
U
9 JUN 2
mi
JUN 17
1968
FACULTY
MAR 1 1
JAN 5 W
.— f:
irn
3 1QCQ f
-mn.
8 m
JAN 8 1313=2
iau Cat. No. 1137
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
AA 001 372 750 8
3 1210 00314 5735
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11