THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC





                        THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC:
        A STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND THE CONTENTS OF THE DECLARATION
            OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN, OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND OF
                  THE ADOPTION OF THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF
                           GOVERNMENT IN 1792.

                                    BY
                           HORACE MANN CONAWAY,
      _Sometime Fellow in European History in Columbia University_.

           SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
                  FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
                                  IN THE
                       FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
                           COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

                                New York.
                                  1902.




PREFACE.


The present study is one of origins. Our object is to trace from the
beginning the gradual development of the Declaration of the Rights of
Man, of the first written constitution in France, and to follow the
movement which led to the abolition of monarchy and to the adoption of
the republican form of government. In view of the complex phenomena of
the French Revolutionary period, it is advantageous to our understanding
of that surpassingly interesting era to view the various classes of
facts from different standpoints. The Revolution was social, religious,
political, and economic. While the study of any one of these phases
necessarily involves the others, the best results will be secured
by considering the movement now as social, now as religious, now as
political, and now as economic. This paper is an investigation of the
early Revolution from the political point of view. Whence arose in the
minds of the French the idea of a Declaration of the Rights of Man? Where
did they derive the principles therein contained? How were they led to
feel the need of a written constitution? Through what series of events
were they brought to suspect, to denounce and to renounce royalty, and to
accept the idea of an elective executive? Such questions as these are of
interest to the student of political history.

Though the primary sources for the investigation of this subject are
limited in our American libraries, enough has been found to lead to an
interpretation suggestive and, we believe, correct.

Recently two important books upon the French Revolution have appeared.
M. A. Aulard published last year his _Histoire politique de la
Révolution française_. In this work he has reexamined, in the light of
the voluminous material at hand in France, these same questions. Prof.
William M. Sloane, of Columbia University, has treated the Revolution
primarily in its ecclesiastical aspects in his _French Revolution
and Religious Reform_. The manuscript of this thesis was practically
completed before either of these works came into the writer’s hands.
It did not seem advisable, therefore, to make any modifications in the
conclusions herein reached; they are, however, in the main in accord with
those arrived at by these two authors. The Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the origin of the idea of a written constitution are here more
fully discussed than by these writers.

                                                                  H. M. C.

SHEFFIELD, PA., _August 5, 1902_.




THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN.


The first question that naturally suggests itself in studying the
Declaration of the Rights of Man is, whence did the French derive the
idea of such an instrument? It has been asserted, and an attempt has
been made to prove, that both the notion of such a Declaration and its
content were borrowed from the early American State Constitutions.[1]
This question, however, really resolves itself into a double inquiry,
_i. e._, whence did the French receive their notion of the guaranty of
individual rights against governmental intrusion, and how far did the
ideas contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Man represent the
political traditions and current thought of France? Only a study of the
abuses and of the political theories of pre-revolutionary France and of
the facts relative to this document, as they are revealed in the writings
of contemporaries and in the records of the Constituent Assembly, can at
all satisfactorily answer these inquiries.

The sympathetic relation between France and the colonies during and
after the American Revolution, the interest in America of some of the
more radical French political theorists, such as Mably and Condorcet,
and the community of ideas existing between the two countries, shown by
the Jeffersonian school in America, and by the publication of American
writings in France, are facts well known. Hence it may be inferred that,
when a few of the cahiers asked for a Declaration, their framers were
acquainted with and influenced by the American Bills of Rights.[2] But
not until the States General had assumed the rôle of a Constitutional
Convention were the proposals of Declarations numerous. Then it was that
the Frenchmen gave abundant proof of their fondness for formulating
political documents.

On July 9, 1789, M. Mounier, who had been charged by the Constituent
Assembly with the preparation of a scheme for a constitution, presented
a report in behalf of the committee, the first article of which reads:
“Tout gouvernement doit avoir pour unique but le maintien des droits des
hommes; d’où il suit que pour rappeller constamment le gouvernement au
but proposé, la constitution doit commencer par la déclaration des droits
naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme.”[3] July 11, Lafayette proposed
the form of a Declaration of Rights, containing twelve articles, and
pointed out the advantages of such an instrument.[4] M. Lally Tollendal
approved this project, but argued that it was dangerous to adopt any
such articles separate from the Constitution; he at the same time called
the attention of the Assembly to the great difference between a new-born
colonial people, who were breaking with a distant government, and an old
nation extending over an immense territory, one of the first nations of
the world, which for eight centuries had obeyed the same dynasty and
had cherished the royal power when it had been tempered by custom. This
nation, he said, will idolize this power when it shall be regulated by
laws.[5] M. Lally Tollendal certainly believed that they were following
the American example.

July 14, Lafayette’s motion was discussed. Some thought the Declaration
should be put at the head of the Constitution, in order permanently to
secure the rights of man before establishing those of society; others
thought it should be placed after the Constitution. It was decided at
this session that the Constitution should contain a Declaration, but its
position was left for later decision.[6] Siéyès read his exposition of
the Rights of Man, on July 10, to the Constitutional Committee, and on
July 21, to the Assembly.[7] On July 17, M. Target presented a scheme of
thirty-one articles for a Declaration, and M. Mounier one of sixteen
articles.[8] On July 31, M. D. Servan, advocate to the Parlement of
Grenoble, presented a project of thirteen articles. August 1, a long
debate occurred upon the position to be given to the Declaration in the
Constitution. M. Thouret also offered a scheme for a Declaration. The
debate continued. On August 4, M. Camus proposed that the Assembly make
a declaration of the rights and duties of man and of a citizen; but this
motion was defeated by a vote of 570 to 433.[9] However, at the same
session, it was decided almost unanimously that the Constitution should
be preceded by the Declaration. On August 12, Abbé Siéyès offered a
project of a Declaration of forty-two articles.[9]

During discussion in the Assembly, August 1, M. Champion de Cicé, Bishop
of Auxerre, opposed a declaration as useless at that time, and said that
the example of North America was not conclusive, as that country only
contains proprietors, cultivators, and citizens all on the same social
footing. M. De la Luzerne, Bishop of Langres, also asserted that the
Constitution of an empire did not need a Declaration. M. Malouet, in
making strong protest against their placing the Declaration at the head
of the Constitution, portrayed the contrast between the situation of
France and that of America.[10] M. Delandine spoke in agreement with M.
Malouet.

On August 12, two projects for a Declaration of Rights were offered to
the Assembly: one of seventy-one articles, by Gonges-Carton of Quercy,
and one of twenty-four articles, by the Sixth Bureau of the Assembly.
On August 13, a committee of five, consisting of Desmeuniers, Bishop of
Langres, M. Tronchet, Count Mirabeau and M. Rhédon, was chosen to receive
the drafts of a Constitution and to recast these into one form.[11]
August 14, Mirabeau, on behalf of the committee, reported a scheme of a
Declaration containing nineteen articles. In speaking of the aim of the
committee, he said, that from the score of plans offered them, they had
sought, like the Americans, to construct a Declaration not of abstract
and scientific principles, but one of political truths that would readily
be comprehended by the popular mind.[12] In the debate of August 18 upon
the Declaration, M. Rabaud de Saint Étienne said that the Declaration of
Rights had been adopted because the _cahiers_ had asked it, and that the
_cahiers_ had asked it because the Americans had set the example, but
that this was no reason why the Declarations should be similar, for the
circumstances of the two nations were different.[13]

August 19, the Assembly decided to discuss first the Declaration of the
Sixth Bureau.[14] On August 21, after some debate, the Assembly adopted
the preamble of the plan, somewhat modified, presented by the committee
of five. M. Mounier then proposed three articles, which were adopted.
August 21, on the proposal of M. Alexander de Lameth, articles four,
five, and six, after discussion, were adopted.

August 21, M. de Boislander proposed a plan of seventy-four articles.
August 22, after divers proposals had been made and discussed, articles
seven, eight, and nine were adopted.[15] August 23, after many proposals
and lengthy debate, article ten was agreed upon. August 24, a liberal
discussion of the phraseology resulted in the adoption of articles
eleven, twelve, and thirteen.[16] August 26, after some discussion,
articles fourteen and fifteen were accepted; later in the same day,
articles sixteen and seventeen were agreed upon.[17] Then the Assembly
resolved that the consideration of further articles should be postponed
until the Constitution should be completed.[18] October 2, the articles
previously adopted were presented to the Assembly, with article four
changed from “La liberté consiste à faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à
autrui,” to “La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout” etc. The change
was accepted. The whole Constitution was presented to the king September
13, 1791, and accepted by him. In the Assembly, September 14, the king
swore to obey the constitution.[19]

These are the facts of historical data relating to the formation of the
Declaration of the Rights of Man purposely set forth in detail and in
chronological order. What conclusions may we draw from them? The frequent
reference to the American Bill of Rights, the number of Declarations
proposed in _cahiers_ and before the Assembly, differing in form and in
length, but agreeing in fundamental principles, the discussions, the
selections and the modifications to which this raw material was subjected
in the process of constructing the Declaration finally adopted, warrant
these two inferences: (1) the notion of a Declaration of Rights, separate
from the Constitution proper, was suggested to the French by the American
State Constitutions; (2) the contents of the articles and the language in
which they were couched were original.

A study of the separate articles of the Declaration in the light of
contemporary conditions gives additional reason for thinking that the
ideas therein contained were not foreign to France. For convenience of
consideration in the present study, the articles of the Declaration may
be divided into two classes: the first class consists of those articles
that were in the main reactive against certain abuses under which the
French suffered; the second class comprises those articles which
contained principles more especially theoretical. Less proof, perhaps, is
necessary for deciding upon the originality of the former class than upon
that of the latter. We shall treat these classes in the order named.

“Art. 7. No person shall be accused, arrested or imprisoned except in the
cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting,
transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed any arbitrary order
shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the
law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

“Art. 8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly
and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be
legally inflicted in virtue of a law, passed and promulgated before the
commission of the offence.

“Art. 9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been
declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all severity
not essential to the securing of the prisoner’s person shall be severely
repressed by law.”

That these three articles were aimed at no imaginary or very distant
wrongs is evident from a cursory survey of the administration of the laws
of France, and from the protests of French authors. _Lettres de cachet_,
arbitrary imprisonments, retroactive laws, and cruelly exaggerated
penalties were not uncommon. Mirabeau and Voltaire had both suffered
under arbitrary laws and had painted the injustice of such laws in lurid
colors. Mirabeau’s _Lettres de cachet_ and his _Essai sur le despotisme_
bristle with protests against the abuses of the old _régime_. The
following gruesome picture is a suggestive statement of the way in which
justice was administered in France in the eighteenth century:

“The disproportion of crimes and of penalties was flagrant. A house thief
was hung in 1733; an ecclesiastic, guilty of having found fault with the
expulsion of the Jesuits, was also hung in 1762. The procedure was unjust
and inhuman. The accused, assumed to be guilty in advance, ignorant of
the crime with which he was charged, without counsellor or advocate,
interrogated _à huis clos_, submitted to the preparatory question, was
judged secretly. Once condemned, he was tortured before undergoing his
punishment. And what punishment! For imprisonment, transportation or
hanging was in vogue. The burning at the stake had fallen into desuetude,
but the lash, branding with red-hot iron, the galleys, quartering, the
rack, still did their savage work.”[20]

Protests against these enormities were raised by the philosophers, and
later by enlightened magistrates, such as Montesquieu, Servan, Linguet,
and Malesherbes. In 1780, the “preparatory question” was abolished.[21]

Mirabeau, in denouncing retroactive laws, says: “Nulle puissance humaine,
ni surhumaine ne peut justifier l’effet rétroactif d’aucune loi.”[22]

“Art. 10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions,
including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not
disturb the public order established by law.”

Since the sixteenth century, France had been wrestling with the problem
of how to adjust two hostile faiths to each other. Farther to complicate
the matter, a schism occurred in the seventeenth century within the
Catholic Church, which aroused between Jesuits and the Jansenists a
feeling of intolerance, well-nigh as violent and determined as that
which already existed between the Catholics and the Huguenots. Even in
the eighteenth century intolerance, held in partial abeyance, frequently
broke out in overt acts, which displayed the vindictiveness of the
hostile parties. The philosophers, more interested in humanity than
in the prejudices of any faction, championed in the name of tolerance
the party persecuted. The new spirit gained support. The writings of
the latter half of the eighteenth century abound with denunciations of
intolerance and with pleas for tolerance.[23] By and by the movement was
fruitful, and on January 19, 1788, the _Parlement_ of Paris registered a
decree giving civil rights to Protestants.[24]

“Art. 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most
precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak,
write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for the abuse of
this freedom as shall be defined by law.”

Here too is an attempt to secure permanently that for which a long
struggle had taken place. Two powers, the Church and Royalty, had
labored, now singly and now together, to regulate the expression of
ideas. The writing and the writer had been equally the object of royal
inclemency—the one being consigned to the flames, the other to prison.
But in spite of royal decrees, public sentiment gravitated towards
liberty of expression. In 1776, Malesherbes secured the opening of the
prisons of Vincennes and the Bastille for the release of prisoners held
under _Lettres de cachet_.[25] Again, in 1784, in response to Mirabeau’s
“_Lettres de cachet_,” the dungeons of Vincennes were opened.[26]

“Art. 12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires
a public _force_. This _force_ is, therefore, established for the good
of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom it shall be
entrusted.”

This twelfth article was at the same time the expression of a political
theory and reactionary against past practices. It was the theory of the
framers of the Declaration of the Rights of Man that the nation was
supreme, the monarch only an hereditary administrative agent. To maintain
this status, the power of military force must be employed only for the
advantage of the nation. d’Argenson, in 1754, had complained that “Le
roi n’emploie plus ses forces que contre ses sujets.”[27] In 1771, when
the obstinate _parlement_ had been replaced by the _Grand Conseil_,
troops were used to guard this substitute which was designated “Maupeou’s
parlement,” and the people considered the whole procedure as contrary to
the French Constitution.[28] Mirabeau had also denounced the royal army
in these plain words: “Je dis que les troupes réglées sont l’instrument
du despotisme, comme leur institution en fut le signal. L’exemple de
nos voisins n’est pas une preuve contradictoire; et ne voit on pas en
effet que toute constitution en Europe est dégénérée en arbitraire et
s’accélère vers le despotisme; Les troupes réglées ont été et seront
toujours le fléau de la liberté; mais ce fléau est intolérable quand il
devient le rempart des déprédations.”[29]

The people in several of the _cahiers_ manifested fear lest the
monarch might endanger, by the use of an army, the national rights,
and consequently asked for the dismissal of foreign troops, for a new
constitution for the army, and for the destruction of internal forts.[30]

“Art. 13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of
the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be
equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their
means.”

The inequality of taxes was, in France, an abuse recognized and condemned
for centuries. Bodin, in his _République_, written in the sixteenth
century, criticised the exemption of the clergy and of the nobility.[31]
Already under Louis XIII., throughout two-thirds of France, where the
_taille_ was a personal tax, 2,000,000 of richer persons were exempt
from the _taille_, while 8,000,000 were taxable. D’Avenel says that the
workmen paid under Louis XIII. four and a half times as much as to-day,
though they earned much less.[32] The grievous exemptions continued
so that the Third Estate during the eighteenth century supported the
chief burden of royal taxes and was subjected to onerous feudal dues
besides.[33]

The Physiocrats advocated as a remedy for this injustice a system which
should make the taxes proportionate to each one’s productive riches.
Turgot, taking the first step towards the realization of this idea, said,
in defense of his proposal for the abolition of _corvées_, February,
1776: “The expenses of government having for their object the interest
of all, all should contribute to them; and the more one enjoys the
advantages of society, the more one should regard himself honored in
sharing the expenses.[34] But his efforts were vain; for the privileged
classes esteemed their exemptions too highly to submit tamely to a
burdensome reform; hence they stubbornly persisted in their resistance to
innovations in the customary methods of collecting taxes. Nevertheless
there was a growing sentiment in favor of reform;[35] so that when the
_cahiers_ of 1789 were prepared, the majority of those of the higher
orders acceded to an equal partition in the burdens of the fisc.[36]

“Art. 14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or
by their representatives, upon the necessity of the public contribution;
to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put, and to fix the
proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection, and the duration of
the taxes.”

The French monarch, as in other European countries, from the time that
the royal domains were found insufficient to meet the governmental
expenses, was engaged in a continual struggle with the nation over the
right to grant subsidies. The nation asserted only sporadically and
incoherently its right to vote these supplies. For the French did not
manifest that persistent and determined resistance to appropriations,
unrequited by redress of political grievances, which their English
neighbors exhibited so often and in such a marked degree. Nevertheless,
during a minority or under a weak monarch, when able popular leaders
flourished, the cause of the people was more stubbornly maintained. The
States General claimed this guardianship in earlier days; but in the two
centuries previous to the Revolution it was the _Parlement_ of Paris
that contended with increasing vigor and obstinacy against the arbitrary
exactions of the king. As a final resort, it asserted, July 30, 1787,
that “le principe constitutionnel de la monarchie française était que les
impôts fussent consentis par ceux qui devraient les supporter.”[37] The
continued and inextricable confusion of finances was the immediate cause
of the calling of the Notables, and later of the States General. So far
had the public sentiment reacted against the actual fiscal mismanagement,
that the _cashier_ were well-nigh unanimous in seeking for the nation the
right to grant subsidies.[38]

“Art. 15. Society has a right to require of every public agent an account
of his administration.”

Article 15 was both theoretical and reactionary against actual abuses. If
the nation was to be supreme over all of its agents, it could only hope
effectually to maintain that superiority by holding all its functionaries
strictly accountable. Practical experience under the monarchy in the
collection and the expenditure of finances had impressed an effective
lesson upon the French people of the abuses incident to irresponsible
officers. The _Cour des Aides_, in its noteworthy remonstrance of 1775,
reviewed the status of the financial administration. The injustice of
the _ferme_, the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, the complexity of the
system, the failure of popular petitions to reach the throne, and the
need of thorough reform, were clearly set forth.[39] Then, too, Necker,
by the publication of his _Compte rendu_ (1781) and _L’Administration des
finances_ (1785), had afforded the nation a glimpse of public finances
imperfect, yet in the highest degree stimulating to its curiosity.[40] As
an illustration of the status of public opinion, the Notables in 1787
demanded that some report of receipts and expenses should be published
annually, and that capable men, foreign to the administration, should be
called to the _conseil des finances_ for reviewing the work.[41] Here,
too, the _cahiers_ were practically a unit in their demands.

“Art. 17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall
be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined,
shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall
have been previously and equitably indemnified.”

Private property under the _ancien régime_ was not sacred. De
Tocqueville cites the following, which may serve us for illustration
of the condition: “A royal declaration was made, suspending in time of
war repayment of all loans contracted by towns, villages, colleges,
communities, hospitals, charitable houses, trade corporations and others,
repayable out of town dues by us conceded, though the instrument securing
the said loans stipulates for the payment of interest in the case of
non-payment at the stipulated time. Thus not only is the obligation of
repayment at the stipulated terms suspended, but the security itself
is impaired.”[42] This article, seventeenth, was also reactive against
the grievous and burdensome _corvées_, military convoys, and forced
transportation of convicts.[43]

The remaining seven articles are more theoretical, covering the
doctrines of liberty, equality, natural and inalienable rights, national
sovereignty, the social contract and the separation of powers. The views
expressed were, in the main, accepted at least in theory in the American
States. France was not, however, indebted to the colonies for them;
although their germinal ideas had been introduced from the teachings of
foreign writers, notably from the English, they had grown up in France
largely as a home product.

The doctrine of national or popular sovereignty was no new conception for
the French nation. It had been appealed to by the Church to check the
secular power, and by the Empire to check ecclesiastical encroachments.
Thomas Aquinas, the oracle of the Church, had recognized the popular will
as a limitation upon the royal power, and had commended the elective form
of monarchy.[44] Marsilio of Padua, in his _Defensor Pacis_, was even
more pronounced in favor of popular sovereignty. “The sovereignty of the
State,” he said, “rests with the people; by it properly are the laws made
and to it they owe their validity. From the nation itself proceeds all
rights and powers, it is the authoritative lawgiver among men.”[45] In
the sixteenth century the Calvinists and the League alternately made use
of the theory of popular sovereignty.[46] This theory was revived in the
eighteenth century and popularized by Rousseau and his disciples.

The doctrine of natural rights has not so remote an origin for France. De
Tocqueville rightly pointed out the distinction between liberty, regarded
as “the enjoyment of a privilege” and liberty considered as “the exercise
of a universal right”; he also showed that the Romans and the feudal
aristocracy figured their liberties to themselves under the former type;
and that it was not till the eighteenth century that the French nation
began to conceive of liberty as a natural right.[47]

This transformation of the theory of liberty from a privilege to a
natural right was chiefly accomplished after 1734. Boulainvilliers, in
_L’Histoire de l’ancien gouvernement de la France_, published (1727)
in Holland after his death, asserted as its fundamental thought: “Le
gouvernement féodal est le chef d’oeuvre de l’ésprit humain.” To the
author, all progress of royal, civil, or municipal authority is an
usurpation of the rights of the nobility, who were the only heirs of the
early Franks, conquerors of the Gauls.[48] This champion of the feudal
aristocracy was not answered in the name of democracy, but of privileged
rights. Abbé Dubois, the secretary of the French Academy, replied in
“the name of Roman Gaul, semi-municipal and semi-monarchical.” This
reply, entitled, “_Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie
française_” (1734), denied the Frankish conquest and asserted that
the French monarchy had succeeded in a peaceable way to the rights of
the Roman Empire over the Gauls, and that the feudal system had been
established by usurpation several centuries later. Public opinion and the
judgment of the _savants_, says Martin, pronounced in favor of Dubois.[49]

Saint Pierre, d’Argenson, and Montesquieu contributed to the political
literature of the century, but did not formulate a new theory of rights.
The Physiocrats applied the natural law to economic problems, but not
specifically to political questions; this was reserved for Rousseau. In
the Genevan philosopher’s writings, natural rights and kindred democratic
ideas were treated in such a popular style that they were able to
revolutionize the French political theories in a generation.

A critical student cannot attribute complete originality to Rousseau; the
similarity of his views to those of Locke is too striking. He borrowed
from his English predecessor psychological, philosophical and political
conceptions.[50] The _Contrat Social_ (1762), however, according with
the nascent political _Zeit-Geist_ of France, found conditions favorable
to the ready acceptance of its ideas. The philosophers had shaken
the authority of dogma, humanitarian views were gaining prominence,
men were tired of arbitrary imprisonments and of useless privileges,
moreover, the long struggle between the monarch and the _parlements_
was still unsettled, the theory of the right of _parlement_ to refuse
to record decrees was found to need a firmer basis than custom. The
sympathies of even the nobles were awakened in behalf of the peasants
and the curates. The Physiocrats hoped for tax reform, to be effected
by a strong sovereign, though, when attempted by Turgot, it had
failed. Amid such conditions the _Contrat Social_ was being read. Its
striking, stimulating apothegms furnished apt quotations. Its effect was
revolutionary. Even philosophers and magistrates were not insensible to
its stimulus.[51] When the nation was called to speak, on the eve of the
Estates General, in pamphlets and in _cahiers_, the influence of Rousseau
was patent. The speeches made in the National Assembly were constantly
interlarded with quotations and ideas from _Contrat Social_.[52]

After this general introduction to the political theories of the
Revolution, we are ready to examine the remaining articles of the
Declaration of the Rights of Man. We shall place in parallel with these
some quotations from the _Contrat Social_ that will serve to indicate the
similarity of their ideas.

  “1. Men are born and remain         | “It is agreed that anything of
  free and equal in rights. Social    | power or property or liberty
  distinctions may only be founded    | which is alienated by the social
  upon the general good.”             | compact, is only a part of all
                                      | the use of which is of importance
                                      | to the community.”[53]
                                      |
  “2. The aim of all political        | “To find a form of association
  associations is the preservation    | which shall defend and protect
  of the national and imprescriptible | with the public force the person
  rights of man. These rights are     | and property of each associate,
  liberty, property, security, and    | and by means of which each,
  resistance of oppression.”          | uniting with all, shall obey
                                      | however only himself, and remain
                                      | as free as before; such is the
                                      | fundamental problem of which the
                                      | _Social Contract_ gives the
                                      | solution.”[54]
                                      |
  “3. The principle [principe] of all | “I say then that the sovereignty,
  sovereignty resides essentially in  | being only the exercise of the
  the nation. No body nor individual  | general will, can never alienate
  may exercise any authority which    | itself, and that the sovereign,
  does not proceed directly from the  | who is not a collective being,
  nation.”                            | can be represented only by
                                      | himself; power can transmit
                                      | itself, but not will.”[55]
                                      |
  “4. Liberty consists in being able  | “Any service that a citizen can
  to do everything which injures no   | render the State is due from him
  one else; hence the exercise of the | whenever the sovereign demands it;
  natural rights of each man has no   | but the sovereign, for his part,
  limits except those which assure to | cannot place any burden upon his
  the other member of the society the | subjects which will not be useful
  enjoyment of the same rights. These | to the community; he can not even
  limits can only be determined by    | desire to do so, for, under the
  law.”                               | law of reason as under the law of
                                      | nature, there is nothing done
                                      | without a purpose.”[56]
                                      |
  “5. Law can only prohibit such      | “When I say that the object of
  actions as are hurtful to society.  | laws is always general, I mean
  Nothing may be prevented which is   | that the law considers subjects
  not forbidden by law, and no one    | in a body, and actions as
  may be forced to do anything not    | abstract; a man is never
  provided for by law.”               | considered as an individual
                                      | nor an action as an individual
                                      | action.”[57]
                                      |
  “6. Law is the expression of the    | “By whatever path we return to
  general will. Every citizen has a   | the principle, we always reach
  right to participate personally     | the same conclusion; that the
  or through his representatives in   | social compact establishes
  its formation. It must be the same  | among citizens such an equality
  for all, whether it protects or     | that they all engage under the
  punishes. All citizens, being       | same conditions, and should
  equal in the eyes of the law, are   | enjoy the same rights. Thus by
  equally eligible to all dignities   | the nature of the agreement,
  and to all public positions and     | an act of sovereignty, that is,
  occupations, according to their     | any authentic act of the general
  abilities and without distinction   | will, obliges or favors equally
  except that of their virtues and    | all citizens; so that the
  talents.”                           | sovereign knows only the body of
                                      | the nation and distinguishes no
                                      | one of those composing it.”[58]

The Physiocrats also had, in a measure, advocated these principles. Both
Quesnay and Turgot expressed themselves unequivocally for the protection
of private property.[59] Let it be asserted with the strongest emphasis
that these six articles were not merely the expression of theories. They
had an intensely practical genesis, for they were the slowly-matured
product of a reaction against a long-felt vexatious regime. That regime
had interfered with private property and with individual action in such
ways as to be grievous, yes, intensely grievous to the people.

“Art. 16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured,
nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.”

The theory of the separation of powers was one idea taught by
Montesquieu[60] that had been gradually accepted by his countrymen. He
was studied by the would-be-publicists of the Revolutionary era, and
much stress was put upon this constitutional principle. The Constitution
which they formed is the best example of the thorough application of this
impracticable doctrine.[61]

In this discussion we have shown that while the suggestion of a
Declaration of Rights came from the early American State Constitutions,
its content was French. Its internal resemblance to the American
instruments is attributable to the fact that the abuses to be feared
and the recognized political theories were the same in both countries.
In truth, France had greater reason to apprehend the return of the
long-endured abuses, from which she was even then endeavoring to
extricate herself, than had America. Likewise the fact that each country
had derived its democratic views from a common source—the teachings
of the English Puritans—largely explains the identity of the existing
political theories.




CONSTITUTION.


The States-General which met at Versailles, May 5, 1789, assumed in
the following June the name of National Assembly, and undertook the
formulation of a written constitution. According to the current views,
this epochal transformation was either a political freak of an old
monarchy, newly leavened with democratic ideas, or a manifestation of
the rare phenomenon of a nation’s being carried sympathetically in the
wake of a distant and new-born republic. But a careful consideration
of the events, institutions, and conditions of France previous to the
action of the National Assembly proves conclusively that the traditional
interpretations are not correct.

It is foreign to the province of the present paper to explore minutely
the shadowy historical region, whence arose the political institutions
of monarchical France, or to analyze exhaustively those institutions
themselves. It is sufficient to note that already at the beginning of the
XVII. century there had developed certain institutions with a normal mode
of procedure, that may justly be called a constitution, not embraced in
written documents, but one implied in the institutions and usages. The
leading features of that constituted government were four: the King, the
States-General, the _Conseil d’État_ and the _Parlements_.

The king was not only the executive, but the initiator of laws, and the
source of justice.

The States-General, judged by precedents, was an advisory body to the
king, about which there existed much uncertainty as to its composition,
its powers and its period of assembling. It was dependent upon the
monarch for convocation, and for the promulgation of the results of its
deliberations.[62]

The _Conseil d’État_, composed of the nobility, was, in a narrower
sense, the permanent advisory council of the king. In this body the
laws originated, and under its supervision the administration was
accomplished. It also had judicial functions, being superior to the
_Parlement_ as a _cour de cassation_ in civil cases.

The duties of the _Parlements_ were primarily judicial, but in addition
the _Parlement_ of Paris possessed legislative functions, inasmuch as
the laws were sent to it for registration. The _Parlement_ by custom had
come to make use of remonstrances to the king in case of laws distasteful
to them. Though some monarchs, as Louis XI., XII., and Henry IV., had
paid some regard to these remonstrances,[63] yet even in the sixteenth
century the remonstrance did not stop the determined monarch, but the
court was forced to yield to the royal wish in the _lit de justice_.[64]
There existed, therefore, a singular balance of power between the
_Conseil d’État_ and the _Parlement_. The _Conseil d’État_, as a _cour de
cassation_, might annul the parliamentary remonstrance, and, inversely,
the _Parlement_ might, in virtue of its power to register, check the laws
originating from the _Conseil d’État_. It is worthy of remark, however,
that even at this period, this normal distribution of functions was not
so balanced and guarded as to avoid abnormal procedure. Neither the
_States General_ nor the _Parlement_ was put wholly beyond the control of
the executive.

D’Avenel, expressing a view not uncommon in the earlier days of the
Revolution of 1789, asserts in his remarkable book, _Richelieu et la
monarchie absolue_, that France had a constitution before the ministry
of the politic Richelieu, yet not thereafter,[65] but it is difficult to
defend such a declaration. It may be admitted that the States-General
were no longer convoked after 1614, that the _personnel_ of the
nobility was altered, that the _Parlement_ was now and then forced into
acquiescence to the royal will; nevertheless the two bodies, the _Conseil
d’État_ and the _Parlement_, continued to function very nearly as
before, and at times the _Parlement_ emerged from its submissiveness and
haughtily asserted its pretensions.

In a series of conflicts between the court and the _Parlement_, into
which we have not space to go exhaustively, the idea of fundamental
or constitutional laws, of which the _Parlement_ declared itself
the guardian, was repeatedly asserted; in the later period of this
constitutional struggle, partly from the inability of the _Parlement_ to
maintain its pretensions and partly from the development of the ideas
of natural rights, of the rights of the people and of the rights of
the nation, the desire for some more distinct definition of the power
of the executive and the rights of the nation became manifest. The
_Parlement_, composed of an aristocracy whose office was an hereditary
possession, was naturally alert to extend its political influence; this
extension of necessity brought it into conflict with the absolutism of
the monarch. When a vigorous monarch, or skillful, energetic minister was
at the head of affairs, the _Parlement_ was driven to humble obedience;
but where there was a regency, a weak monarch, or a crisis, financial
or administrative, the legal aristocracy reasserted and extended their
pretensions. By a decree of February 21, 1641, Richelieu declared that
the _parlements_ had been established only for granting justice, forbade
any modification of decrees, ordered that in financial matters they might
remonstrate once, but in administrative matters no remonstrance was
allowed. During the remainder of Louis XIII’s reign they were obedient;
but on the death of the king they immediately manifested their vitality
by breaking his will and fixing the regency.[66]

The _Fronde_ was the acme of the parliamentary resistance of this period.
Louis XIV. did not forget this high-handed opposition, and consequently
by two decrees he reduced this recalcitrant body to a strictly
subordinate position for the last forty years of his reign.[67] But on
the death of the _Grand Monarch_, the _Parlement_ showed its old spirit,
annulled the will of the dead king concerning the regency, and for twenty
years solemnly reiterated its vague constitutional claims in elaborate
remonstrances. To this period of activity succeeded a time of comparative
submission, in which the remonstrances are less prompt, haughty, and
insistent.

In 1748, the struggle renewed itself, and soon each side showed an ardent
determination to conquer. The monarch resorted to _lits de justice_, to
exile, and to the institution of irregular courts in order to provoke the
magistrates to obey, while they answered with _iterative_ remonstrances
and with refusals to dispense justice. From these remonstrances we are
able to ascertain the pretensions of the _Parlement_, and to trace,
though with much vagueness and incoherence, those principles which they
called constitutional and fundamental. On the other hand, the responses
of the king reveal the persistent claims of absolutism as to the royal
source of law.

The magistrates based their shadowy claims upon different grounds.
Frequently they appealed to precedent; as in 1718, the _Parlement_ of
Paris declared that the most absolute kings, specifically Louis XIV., had
_continually_ made use of the _Parlement_ for registration.[68] Justice
and expediency were also invoked in their support.

Already in the period of the regency, following closely after their
submissiveness under Louis XIV, we find a hazy but general distinction
between statutory and constitutional laws: “While we recognize, Sire,
that you alone are lord and master and the sole lawgiver, and that there
are laws which changing times, the needs of your people, the maintenance
of order and the administration of your kingdom may oblige you to
modify, substituting new ones according to the forms always observed
in this state, we nevertheless believe it to be our duty to call to
your attention the existence of laws as old as the monarchy, which are
permanent and invariable, the guardianship of which was committed to
you along with the crown itself.... It is by reason of the permanence
of such laws that we have you as lord and master. It is this permanence
which leads us to hope that the crown, having rested upon your head
during a long, just, and glorious reign, will pass to your posterity
for all time to come. In recent times [the _Parlement_ adds] it has
been clearly shown how much France owes to the maintenance of these
original laws of the state, and how important it is in the service of
your Majesty that your _Parlement_, which is responsible to you and
to the nation for their exact observations, should assiduously guard
them against any encroachment.”[69] Here then is found in embryo the
programme which the magistrates pursued in their legislative opposition
to the crown. Nevertheless there is, judging from a comparison of these
earlier remonstrances and those emitted later, some progress in the
distinction of organic and of statutory law, and in the enumeration of
the fundamental principles.

The _Parlement_ of Brittany, in a remonstrance of July, 1771, said:
“There is an essential difference between the transitory regulations
which vary with the times, and the fundamental laws upon which the
Constitution of the monarchy rests. In respect to the former [that is
the transitory regulations] it is the duty of the courts to direct
and enlighten the ruling power (l’autorité), although their opinions
must, in the last instance, yield to the decision of your wisdom, since
it appertains to you alone to regulate everything relating to the
administration. To administer the state is not, however, to change its
constitution.... It is, therefore, most indispensable to distinguish
or to except the cases where the right of expostulation suffices to
enlighten the ruling power in an administration which, in spite of
its wide scope, still has its limits, and those cases where the happy
inability [of the monarch] to overstep the bounds established by the
constitution implies the power necessary legally to oppose what an
arbitrary will cannot and may not do.”[70] To determine accurately the
content of the _lois fondamentales_ of which the _Parlements_ asserted
themselves to be protectors, is difficult. The _Parlements_ themselves
did not deem it expedient, either for their own claims or for those
of the monarch, to attempt a too explicit formulation of these laws;
vagueness was regarded a political virtue. A remonstrance of the
_cour des comptes, aides et finances_ of Normandy, openly admitted
the disadvantage of such an enumeration: “Deign, Sire, to examine for
yourself to what the decree of December tends; it seems destined to
draw the line between the power of the sovereign and the liberty of his
subjects; this line always undetermined, which no hand has been bold
enough to fix, which a salutary veil covers with useful shadows; the
tenderness of princes for their people and the love of the people for
their princes draw or withdraw these shadows according to the times or
the reigns. Those who dare to-day to fix these limits and to say to
France: There ends the legitimate liberty of the people, serve your
interests badly, even politically.”[71]

The most precise formulation of the organic law of the French monarchy
which I have found is the protest of the princes, signed April 4, 1771,
and directed against the _Maupeou Parlement_: “We, the undersigned,
consider that the French monarchy has been sustained, together with
the glory, the splendor, and the power which it has enjoyed for so
many centuries only by the maintenance of the primitive laws which
are inherent in it, and form its title (droit) and essence; that the
liberty belonging to every Frenchman, the title and the ownership of his
property, that of inheriting from fathers or of receiving from relatives
or friends, without being able to be deprived or hindered, otherwise than
by the legal application of law for some crime previously and competently
judged, and not by arbitrary and absolute will, are not the only rights
of the nation and of the subjects nor the only fundamental laws of the
monarchy; that the right of Frenchmen, one of the most useful to the
monarch and one of the most precious to his subjects, is to have certain
bodies of citizens, perpetual and irremovable, acknowledged in all times
by the kings and by the nation, who under whatever form and name they
have existed, concentrated in themselves the general right of every
subject to invoke the laws, to demand their rights, and to have recourse
to the Prince; whose most important functions have always been to be
charged with watching over the maintenance of the established laws, to
weigh in new laws their utility or the dangers of contradictions which
might occur with the old laws, to verify them, and to represent to the
sovereign all that is prejudicial to the rights of his subjects or to the
primordial and constitutive laws of his kingdom ...; that this necessary
surety cannot exist without irremovability of the title of those to whom
are confided so important functions, that they have always been regarded
as one of the principal safeguards of public liberty against the abuse
of arbitrary power; that they are an integral part of the constitution
of the State, and are found as much as any other law in the order of the
fundamental laws of the monarchy.”[72] However, the apparent attempt
to be explicit here originates primarily, not in a desire to state
distinctly the constitutional law, but rather to protect the prerogatives
of the _Parlements_ by coupling them with certain principles generally
recognized as inviolable.

The _Parlements_, in their resistance to the royal power, showed,
as early as the Fronde, a tendency to support each other, but it is
particularly in the period of the _Maupeou Parlement_ that the claims to
_unity_ and _indivisibility_ became prominent.[73] These remonstrances,
as well as the royal responses, were not withheld from the public, as
the _ordonnances_ which imposed upon the magistrates the duty of keeping
their deliberations secret implied, but were hawked about the streets
and eagerly welcomed by the people. Since in times of opposition,
each _Parlement_ aroused the sympathies of the citizens under its
jurisdiction, their combination for mutual support against the crown
extended the area of popular agitation. This exciting literature, issuing
from the different courts, had, therefore, an educative effect upon the
popular mind, rather in emphasizing the need of some limitation to royal
power than in developing distinct and well-defined notions of political
laws.[74] The _Parlement_, while professing exemplary obedience to the
king, said that there were moral limits to their obedience.[75] That
also took a popular turn, in professing to represent the nation or the
people in the absence of the States-General. The remonstrance of the
_cour des aides_, probably drawn up by Malesherbes, in February, 1771,
indicates these popular pretensions. “The courts are to-day the only
protectors of the feeble and the unfortunate: there have existed for a
long time no States-General and in the greater part of the kingdom no
provincial estates; all the bodies, except the courts, are reduced to a
mute and passive obedience. No individual in the provinces would venture
to expose himself to the vengeance of a _commandant_, of a _commissaire
du conseil_, and still less to those of a minister of Your Majesty. The
courts are then the only ones to whom it is still permitted to raise a
voice in favor of the people, and Your Majesty does not wish to take away
this last resource from distant provinces. But this decree, exiling the
_Parlement_ of Paris, tends to render this resource illusory.”[76]

Notwithstanding this avowed guardianship of the national rights, the
feeling gradually grew that these ill-defined fundamental laws were
too vague, that the _Parlements_, though persistent, stopped short
of pertinacity, and that an aristocratic magistracy was not the real
representation of the nation.

The first expression, so far as I have noted, of the need of a more
definite political rampart against the crown was that of the Marquis de
Mirabeau and his brother. In 1754, the Marquis wrote to his brother:
“The more I consider the abuses of society and their remedy, the more I
return to what you said to me five years ago, ... that twelve principles
established in twelve lines, once written in the head of the Prince or
of his minister, and exactly followed in details, would correct and
regenerate everything.”[77] But this was only a solitary voice crying in
the wilderness; it neither found a response in the people, nor became the
determined policy of its enunciator.

The people, however, were awakening at least to the abuses of the _ancien
régime_, and were groping after a remedy. Books, dealing with the right
of insurrection, of the superiority of the nation to the crown, and with
the refutation of divine rights and passive obedience, were written, read
and discussed.[78] Humanitarian views, the theory of natural rights,
and, consequently, a sense of the importance of the third estate, gained
ground by degrees. Meanwhile the contest between the king and his
_Parlements_ continued. The Notables, called in 1787, affirmed that _the
imprescriptible right to determine financial questions belonged only to
the representatives of the nation_.[79] The States-General were called
for 1789,[80] Owing to the failure of the monarch or minister, purposely
or otherwise, to take the initiative, the radical element of the nation
were able to secure almost universal suffrage and the union of the orders
in one body. Judging from the _cahier_ and the pamphlets of 1788 and
1789, we infer that the consciousness of the inadequacy of the old French
Constitution was general.[81] The _cahiers_, upon the question of the
French Constitution, were moreover divided; some desired the preservation
of the old Constitution, some a declaration of the rights of the nation,
some a _charte_, while one formulated a new, complete constitution; on
the whole, a majority favored a more careful guarantee of the nation’s
rights.[82] The _cahiers_, it must be remarked, show a more perfect and
uniform programme of civil reform than of political.

The pamphlets of the day, being the expression of the convictions of
individuals, reveal more clearly the political thought of the radical
element. Count de Mirabeau’s _Lettres de cachet_, published in 1783,
may be regarded as among the earliest of such personal expressions.
Its attitude was rather negative than constructive. It attempted to
show that a despotism depended not at all upon the character of the
particular sovereign, but on the absence or insufficiency of laws; that
France without a veritable constitution was only a despotic state, and
that there is no mean between an absolute despotism and the absolute
reign of law.[83] In 1787, the Count declared, “What is necessary is a
constitution; France is ripe for the Revolution.”[84]

Other pamphlets of 1788 and 1789 indicate a tendency to discuss
constitutional law from the historical and crudely comparative
standpoint, and to apply the conclusions to the present conditions,
but in the attempt to formulate their results, they are less clear
and coherent. One of these drawn up in 1789 devotes one hundred and
thirty-seven pages to the discussion of the influence of Montesquieu
in the present Revolution, and denounces him for not declaring boldly
that France was a despotism. It concluded that France has in reality no
constitution.[85]

How far the king meant that the States-General should possess a
constitutional character is difficult to determine. The Letter of Summons
repeatedly asserts the desire to affect a “fixed and constant order in
all parts of the administration.”[86] Mirabeau claimed that the king
himself had recognized “the necessity of giving France a fixed method
of government,”[87] and La Marck confirmed this declaration.[88] We
shall perhaps have attributed sufficient meaning to these hazy avowals
if we say that Louis XVI., partly from his paternal spirit, and partly
from a desire for relief from financial crises, meditated, in his more
liberal moods, granting the nation some sort of a _charter_, in the
formulation of which he wished the assistance of the States-General. This
resuscitated institution convened at Versailles, May 5, 1789.

The first months were occupied in the disputes over the verification of
the powers of the deputies. On May 28, a representative of the nobility,
Count de Crillon, said that “he was of the firm opinion that it was
less for maintaining than for establishing the Constitution that they
were called together.”[89] On June 15, Abbé Siéyès announced that those
whose powers had been verified represented ninety-six per cent. of the
nation, and suggested as a fitting name, “_Assemblée des représentants_.”
Mirabeau, at the same session, offered a series of resolutions that
provoked much discussion, one of which affirmed that their first duty was
“to agree upon and to fix legally the principles for the regeneration
of the kingdom, to assure the rights of the people, to adopt the basis
of a wise and useful constitution, and, to secure these rights from all
attempts, they shall be put under the safeguard of the legislative power
of the king and of the National Assembly.” Rabaud de Saint Étienne,
in another series of resolutions, expressed the same conviction.[90]
Two days later, the name “National Assembly” was adopted and an oath
taken “to fulfill with zeal and fidelity the duties which devolve upon
us.”[91] Debarred from the place usually occupied by the Assembly by the
carpenters who were at work upon it, the members of the third estate
held their meeting, June 20, in the Tennis Court at Versailles, and
there adopted the resolution which declared the National Assembly a
Constitutional Convention, and subscribed to the following, known as the
Tennis Court Oath: “The National Assembly, regarding itself as called
upon to establish the Constitution of the kingdom, effect a regeneration
of the state and maintain the true principles of the monarchy, may not
be prevented from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may
be forced to take up its sittings. It further maintains that wherever
its members are assembled, there is the National Assembly. The Assembly
decrees that all its members shall immediately take a solemn oath never
to be dissolved and to come together whenever circumstances may dictate,
until the Constitution of the kingdom shall be established and placed
upon a firm foundation.”[92] It is beyond the sphere of our inquiry to
follow this Constituent Assembly in their arduous and complex task of
formulating a constitution, and of legislating at the same time for the
kingdom, while exposed to court intrigues and popular intrusion.

Therefore, to conclude this chapter as we began, we have shown that
the resolution of June 20 was neither a political freak, nor an act of
imitation of a foreign nation. The example of the American Republic may
have given stimulus and precision, yet the Tennis Court Oath must be
regarded as the logical consequence of a transformation, which had been
in progress for more than sixty years.




THE ORIGIN OF THE REPUBLIC.


Louis XVI., in 1789, was praised by the mass of the French nation as the
best of monarchs, and as the restorer of national liberties; his name was
coupled with that of Henry IV., a king about whom tradition had thrown a
halo of glory. But, on September 21, 1792, the newly-chosen Convention
abolished the monarchy. So rapid is the transition from the one phase of
the national feeling to the other, that it occasions a surmise either
that the professed loyalty to the monarch in 1789 was not sincere,
or that the action of the Convention was the work of a coterie of
radicals, who misrepresented the popular feeling. A review of the period
intervening between 1789 and 1792 shows that both of these suppositions
are unwarranted, and confirms the conclusion that there was a progressive
development of hostility, first to Louis XVI. and the royal family, and
then to the monarchical government.

Previous to 1789, the term _Republic_ is used by French publicists or
agitators, but it is either in a sense so qualified as to be consistent
with the monarchy, or as a form of government unsuited to France with
its actual traditions and conditions.[93] The very nearly unanimous
feeling and judgment in 1789 was that the monarchy was the best form of
government for France, and that the chief need was to regenerate it.
We have said that one hundred and ninety-four _cahiers_ specifically
asked for the retention of the monarchy; the silence of the others upon
this question must not be construed to mean that their authors were
indifferent or opposed to the monarchy, but rather that they believed it
unnecessary to ask for what they already had, and against which there
was no strong movement. As Paris may rightly be considered the source of
the anti-monarchical agitation, the attitude of the third estate in this
city at the opening of the Revolution may justly be taken to represent
the feeling of the radical element toward the monarchy. In their _cahier_
they said: “In the French monarchy, the legislative power belongs to
the nation conjointly with the king; to the king alone belongs the
executive power.”[94] The _sub-cahiers_ from the districts of the city
expressed the same idea.[95] In truth, in not a single _cahier_ examined
do we find a hint of any opposition to the monarchy. Hence, it is to be
inferred that, if any individuals had Republican inclinations, these
inclinations were not shared by any appreciable part of the nation. A few
men of the reform party, Lauragnais, Lally-Tollendal, and Montlosier,
ventured to say that the French monarchy had originally been elective
and that the elective monarchy would consequently be not an innovation,
but a restoration of their early system;[96] but the adherence of these
men to the monarchy in the early days of the _Constituent Assembly_ is
conclusive that by the elective monarchy they did not mean the Republic
of 1792.

The Constituent Assembly, having been formed out of the States General,
had to formulate a constitution for the regeneration of France, and was
obliged, therefore, to specify the divisions of government, designate
the organs and the functions of each division, prescribe their powers,
limitations, sources and transmission; hence the debates and decrees of
this national body may be taken as indicative of the public sentiment
toward the monarch. Here may be traced the changes worked in the public
mind, the censure or the eulogy of persons and institutions. As this
national assembly itself became transformed by the withdrawal of the more
conservative elements, it reflected rather faithfully the change that was
taking place in the minds of the radical classes of France.

This Assembly frequently gave expression of its satisfaction with the
monarch and with the monarchy. Near the close of the famous session of
August 4, 1789, when feudalism had been so enthusiastically renounced
by its own favored sons, M. Lally-Tollendal proposed that they should
proclaim “Louis XVI. the Restorer of French liberty.” “The proclamation,”
we are told, “was made immediately by the deputies, by the people, and
by all those who were present, and the National Assembly resounded for
a quarter of an hour with the cries ‘_Vive le roi; vive Louis XVI.,
restaurateur de la liberté française_.’”[97] As early as July 4, 1789,
Gouverneur Morris, a careful observer of the French spirit and movements,
wrote: “They wish an American Constitution, with a king in the place of
a president.”[98] On August 28, 1789, Mounier presented a project of the
monarchical element of the Constitution, and a member made the following
statement, the verity of which was not disputed: “Here we should reflect
upon the national spirit. For fourteen centuries the French, free to
direct themselves by the republican spirit, preferred the peacefulness
of the monarchic government to the storms of a republican government....
Louis XVI. is no more upon the throne by the chance of birth, he is
there by the choice of the nation; it has raised him there, as formerly
our brave ancestors raised Pharamond upon the shield. No one contests
the monarchical government. All the _cahiers_ are certainly clear ... we
cannot avoid the conclusion, the only government which is suitable to our
manners (_moeurs_), to our climate, to the extent of our provinces, is
the monarchical government.”[99] Other speeches made on the same occasion
are indicative of the strong monarchical spirit that possessed the
Assembly at this stage of its history.

Twenty days later, M. de Baron de Juigne proposed to consecrate the
principles of the heredity of the crown and the inviolability of the
king’s person. Scarcely were these principles announced, than the
Assembly proclaimed them by an unanimous movement.[100] These principles
were embodied in the decree of September 17, 1789.[101]

From these citations, we are warranted in the inference that the members
of the Constituent Assembly in its earlier period regarded the monarchy
as the natural and the most suitable form of government for France. On
the question of the division of powers, the number of chambers, the
elective or hereditary kingship, the absolute or limited veto, there were
differences of opinion; but national tradition and personal attachment
to Louis XVI. were of sufficient force to bar any discussion of other
possible forms for the executive branch.

The first strong manifestation of personal displeasure toward the king
reflected in the Assembly, was aroused by his attempt to escape from the
country with the royal family, on June 20 and 21, 1791. Fearing to be
held longer as a hostage by the revolutionary party and to be supplanted
by the invading _émigrés_, the king with his family sought to reach
the eastern frontier and there to be free to act independently of both
factions; but at Varennes he was arrested and brought back to face the
enraged Parisians. It is then that words of displeasure were first heard
in the Assembly. What shall be done with the royal fugitive? was then the
living question. Some contended that he was inviolable and could not be
called to account; others, that his inviolability extended only to public
actions, not to private; while still others maintained that he had, by
his treason, forfeited his inviolability. The agitation which reigned
without found some expression within the Assembly. A committee reported,
July 13, that the flight of the king was not a constitutional offense,
that the principle of inviolability did not permit Louis XVI. to be put
on trial. For three days the discussion over the king’s inviolability
was carried on. Pétion, Putraink, Vadier, Robespierre, Prieur, Grégoire,
Buzot spoke against, and Larochefoucault, Liancourt, Prugnon, Duport,
Goupil de Prefeln, Salles and Barnave for the inviolability. Only
Condorcet attempted to show the fitness of France for a Republic.[102]
The people were astir without; they met on the squares, in the public
places, crowded around the Assembly, and urged the dethronement of the
king or the reference of the question to the people of the eighty-three
departments. Petitions, posters, and ardent declamations were instruments
by which the radicals sought to turn public opinion their way.[103] On
July 16, 1791, a decree of the Assembly defined the acts whereby the
king should be considered as no longer inviolable. Should he, having
taken the oath to the Constitution, violate it: or should he put himself
at the head of an army against the nation, or should he fail to oppose
such an act on the part of his generals, he should be considered to have
abdicated, and might be brought to trial like any ordinary citizen. His
executive functions, suspended June 25, were not to be restored till the
completion of the Constitution.[104]

The Constitution was completed and reviewed, and on September 14, 1791,
the king went to the Constituent Assembly, accepted the Constitution,
and, amid prolonged applause, subscribed to this new instrument that
was to give liberty to France. He was escorted back to the Tuileries
by the entire Assembly. The flight of the monarch seemed forgotten or
forgiven.[105]

On September 30th, the monarch made the closing speech to the
Assembly and was greeted with repeated shouts of _Vive le Roi_. The
President responded to the royal speech by an eulogy upon the monarch
and a compliment upon the form of government inaugurated under the
Constitution.[106] Though the Constituent Assembly had not laid
sacrilegious hands upon the time-honored monarchy of France further
than to divest it of some of its privileges and prerogatives, though
the storm of displeasure, incurred by the ill-advised flight of June
20th, had apparently subsided and the Assembly and the king had
exchanged expressions of mutual esteem, and had sworn to preserve the
great document so laboriously wrought out by the French Lycurguses, yet
the leaven had been engendered which, under favorable circumstances,
would leaven the whole lump and transform the limited monarchy into a
republic. Ideas have their origin in individual minds, are advocated
by these individuals, and by and by the nucleus of devotees has grown
into a party that serves as an organ of propagation and makes use of
the instrumentalities of their age for the dissemination of their
views and for the moulding of public opinion into conformity thereto.
If the conditions are favorable, the new ideas secure acceptance and
are embodied in institutions; but if the conditions are hostile, the
conceptions are rejected and relegated to that vast repository where
are accumulated the world’s Utopias; thence some ardent soul may bring
forward the idea at a time which is propitious, and the Utopia may become
a practical reality. It is our task to endeavor to discover the notion
of a republic for France as it was conceived and promulgated by those
individuals who may be called the precursors of French republicanism, to
trace the formation of an organic body for its promulgation, and to find
the means used in the formation of a public opinion sufficiently strong
to secure the adoption of the Republic of 1792.

There were already in 1789 a few ardent natures enthusiastic over the
transformation to be wrought in France, who harbored a vague desire to
see the monarchy abolished and a more liberal government instituted.
Whence had come this hazy notion which wrought up their feelings may only
be conjectured. Perhaps the classic studies upon which the Jesuits and
Oratorians nourished their pupils had made them familiar with the Greek
and Roman Republics.[107] Either the Social Contract, or the example of
the American colonies, may have given them their republican notions.

Camille Desmoulins, an ardent, impetuous son of liberty, gave unequivocal
expression of republican sentiments as early as 1789, and even asserted
that the republican form of government was best suited for France.[108]
In May, 1793, in two addresses, made in answer to Brissot, he confirms
his early preference for republicanism. He said: “In the month of July,
1789, the number of Republicans in Paris did not probably exceed ten:
and this it is which crowns with eternal glory those old members of the
_Club of Cordeliers_, who began building the edifice of the republic with
such slight materials.”[109] In June, 1790, he used the term Congress
of the Republic of France in speaking of the Constituent Assembly,
and said that only four republicans had had the courage to resist the
royal budget of 25,000,000 voted upon in the Assembly. Again in the
Jacobin Club, October 21, 1791, at the time when France was big with
hope that the new Constitution would work, Desmoulins pointed out its
imperfections and favored republican institutions. Here then was one
mind already thinking of a republic and claiming that in the _Cordelier
Club_ there were others who, at that early period, shared his opinions.
Who these were he does not say.[110] The district of the city called
the Cordeliers had formed a popular society which manifested a severely
critical spirit toward the monarchical and aristocratic legislation.
This district clamored for liberty of the press,[111] and championed the
political rights of passive citizens.[112] It took the side of the sixty
districts which kept up their popular electoral assemblies and which
continued to meet in the interim of elections, as against the forty-eight
sections, which convened only for elections. The ardent opposition of the
Cordeliers to the Assembly and to the municipality doubtless provoked the
enactment of the law which, on May 27, 1790, transformed these districts
into the sections.[113] Then forming the _Club of Cordeliers, the Society
of the Rights of Man and of Citizens_, this district continued its
policy of aggression upon the conservatives, until their more democratic
programme became an accomplished fact. Here then was a company of men,
having a common interest in extreme radicalism, meeting frequently and
fanning into fuller heat by their addresses the embers of opposition.
This society, anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchical, occasionally uttered
republican sentiments and indulged in the word republic. They remarked
the inconsistency between the principles contained in the Declaration of
the Rights of Man and an hereditary monarchy, resting upon the divine
right of kings.[114] On June 22, 1791, the _Club of Cordeliers_ issued
an address to the Assembly showing its republican proclivities, much
to the displeasure of the Jacobins. They said: “We conjure you, in the
name of the country, either to declare immediately that France is no
more a monarchy, that it is a republic, or at least to wait until all
the departments, until all the primary assemblies, have expressed their
wish upon this important question, before thinking of replacing a second
time the most fair Empire of the world in chains and in the limits of
monarchism.”[115] The flight of the king was the occasion that called
for this expression of animosity to the monarchy and the preference for
a republic. Even before the attempted escape, another newspaper had
joined with Desmoulins in his strong anti-monarchical views and in the
suggestion of a more suitable form of government for France. Prudhomme,
the publisher of booklets and pamphlets of the liberal party previous
to, and during the Revolution, had established a paper devoted to the
new ideas, the _Révolutions de Paris_. The experienced publisher had
discovered the practical sagacity and the sincere democratic proclivities
of a young advocate from Bourdeaux, recently come to Paris, Loustallot,
who had already in 1789 proved himself a good pamphleteer for the
reformers. These two men began the issue of their sheet July 12, 1789. In
its earlier numbers the slavery of the Frenchmen to the aristocracy was
bitterly censured, but the king is not treated so much with hostility as
with pity for his weakness.[116] Whether Loustallot would have continued
to advocate liberal monarchical views had he lived,[117] we shall not
venture to say; but in the spring of 1791,[118] the paper had changed its
spirit toward the king. The issue of April 21-30 gave notice of a decree
proposed to the National Assembly advocating the abolition of royalty.
After citing a long list of considerations, chiefly of the evils of kings
and of the inconsistency of such an institution with the _rights of man_,
twenty-one articles were given proposing the abolition of royalty and the
substitution of a President.[119] Subsequent numbers continued to discuss
favorably the abolition of the monarchy. In No. 91 a letter was printed
which suggested the placing of a ballot-box in each of the churches to
receive the vote of the people upon the question at issue. The writer
shows himself friendly to the change. Another friend of the proposal,
in a letter printed in No. 92[120], opposed this mode of voting, lest
the monarchists should take advantage of it. Instead, he proposed that
the vote should be collected _viva voce_, a list made of those voting;
this list should be sent to the Assembly, yet care should be taken to
keep a duplicate in order to avoid any surprise. No. 96 contained an
article upon “The White Elephant,” advocating, in a facetious manner,
similar ideas. The same number entered into an examination of these
three propositions, the first two of which it decided affirmatively,
the last one negatively. I. Whether the elements and the principles
of our Constitution are not in continual opposition to the form of our
government. II. Whether every hereditary delegation is not a violation of
rights and a contradiction in principles. III. Whether the illustrious
citizen of Geneva is mistaken when he says that the monarchy is a
government contrary to nature.

But the most venomous assault upon the king and upon royalty appeared in
the number of June 18-25, which reported the king’s flight. Denunciatory
epithets were heaped upon the faithless monarch. “Julius Cæsar,
poigniarded by the Romans; Charles I., decapitated by the English,
were innocent, if we compare them to Louis XVI.... If the President
of the National Assembly had put to vote upon the question whether we
should have a republican form of government, in the _Place de Grève_,
in the Garden of Tuileries and in the Palace of Orléans, France would
no more be a monarchy.” Such were some of the contents of this liberal
Parisian paper.[121] The next issue (No. 103) found fault with the
National Assembly for not dealing severely with the king, and said that,
inasmuch as war would come anyway, it had better come under a republic
than under a monarch or a regent. Here also appeared an announcement
of the propagandism of liberty, of which the Girondists spoke so
enthusiastically a year later.[122] A few numbers later, an article
censured the indifference of the people in regard to the elections for
the coming Legislative Assembly, saying that upon the composition of this
body would depend the safety of the republic. The Constituent Assembly
is not spared criticism for making the Constitution unalterable by
the Legislative Assembly.[123] In subsequent numbers of the autumn of
1791, the monarchical features of the Constitution were pointed out and
criticised.[124] Later on, the republic was mentioned less frequently,
nevertheless royalty was still attacked. The issue which gave an account
of the events of August 10, 1792, the determination of the Legislative
Assembly to suspend the king and to call a National Convention to
determine the nature of the executive office, referred to the king as
“Louis XVI., whom we shall call no more the king of the French.” The
number following advised the members of the convention that their first
work should be to dethrone the monarch, but a republic was not explicitly
recommended.[125] That this paper exercised considerable influence in
arousing hostility to the king and to the monarchy, and in suggesting
a republic, seems quite reasonable, when we remember that its weekly
circulation reached nearly two hundred thousand copies.[126]

We have deemed it advisable to follow the _Révolutions de Paris_ through
to the proclamation of the republic, in order to give a connected account
of the direction in which this popular publication attempted to sway
public opinion. Having noted that its positive republicanism was manifest
in April, two months before Louis XVI’s unsuccessful attempt at exodus,
we shall endeavor to see what was the strength which this party possessed
in the summer of 1791.

Bonneville’s paper, _Bouche de fer_, in June, 1791, pronounced against a
monarchy, a protectorate, and a regency, and urged an united declaration
to the effect that they wanted no more of these.[127] A placard was
posted at the door of the Assembly, July 1st, announcing that a society
of republicans had resolved to publish a paper, _Le Republican_, for
pointing out the abuses of monarchy and for enlightening the minds of the
people upon republicanism. This was signed by Duchastellet.[128] A few
copies of this paper were published within this month.[129] Montlosier
mentions the existence of a republican party after the flight of the
king,[130] and Gouverneur Morris wrote, July 13, 1791, what confirms the
same fact. Here is what he said: “This step was a very foolish one....
His departure changed everything, and now the general wish seems to be
for a republic, which is quite in the natural order of things.”[131]
On the eve of the convening of the Legislative Assembly, September 30,
1791, Morris wrote to Washington the following explicit observations
upon the status of the republican movement: “The new Assembly, as far
as can at present be determined, is deeply imbued with republican or,
rather, democratic principles. The southern part of the kingdom is in the
same disposition; the eastern is attached to Germany and would gladly
be united to the empire; Normandy is aristocratical, and so is part of
Brittany; the interior part of the kingdom is monarchal. This map is
(you may rely on it) just, for it is the result of great and expensive
investigation made by the Government.”[132] Brissot’s paper, _Patriote
français_, of June 25, 1791, in analyzing the proposals then made for
the executive department of the government, said: “The first opinion
which has been presented to the public is decisive,—No more kings, let
us be republicans,—such has been the cry of the Palais Royal, of some
societies, of some writers.”[133] Thomas Paine’s letter in response to
Siéyès, published in the _Patriote français_, July 11, declares the
American system of government superior to every other, and closes the
letter with these suggestive words: “Enfin c’est à tout l’enfer de la
monarchie que j’ai déclaré la guerre.”[134]

From these accumulated statements, we infer that about Paris, in the
spring of 1791, especially after the 20th of June, there was much
agitation in favor of the dethronement of Louis XVI, some for the
change of the royal family, and a perceptible tendency in favor of a
republic. After the acceptance of the Constitution by the king and by
the Legislative Assembly, the constitutional question of the kingship
is little discussed till in the summer of 1792. Then the Legislative
Assembly was frightened over the defeat of the French army at Lille
and at Tournay, the disastrous defeat of Biron’s army at Mons, and the
probable advance of the Austrian army upon Paris. The king, following
the advice of Montmorin and Malouet, had sent Mallet du Pan on a mission
to the German courts to secure a manifesto of intimidation against the
factious Frenchmen.[135] The _Austrian committee_ was denounced boldly in
the journals and in the Assembly.[136]

Incited by this array of reverses, royal intrigues, and threatened
invasion, the Assembly passed three decrees for the protection of the
country: May 27, the deportation of the non-juring priests; May 29,
the dismissal of the king’s guard; June 8, the formation of a camp of
20,000 fédérés at Paris. The king opposed his veto to the first and last
of these. The Girondin ministry was dismissed early in June.[137] The
invasion of the Tuileries, June 20, was the result of these aggravations.
The petition presented to the Legislative Assembly by the crowd on
that day does not solicit the establishment of a republic, but urges
that the king should fulfill his constitutional function of protecting
liberty.[138] The king continued to be disturbed by the people. The
manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick, July 27, greatly excited the
Parisians, already much aroused. Then from the sections of Paris, from
administrative bodies, and from communes, addresses were sent in asking
for the suspension or the dethronement of the king.[139] The significant
fact about this outcry for the removal of Louis is the silence about what
is to supersede him. The _commune_ representing the forty-eight sections
of Paris, through Pétion, presented at the bar of the Assembly, August 3,
a petition most vehement in its denunciation of the faithless monarch and
most startling in the picture presented of the country’s danger; but this
_commune_, the most radical, perhaps, in France, invoked the Constitution
in praying for his dethronement.[140]

The Legislative Assembly hesitated to take upon itself the work of
deposition. The sections gave it till midnight of the 9th of August to
decide; if at that time the dethronement had not been voted, the tocsin
should sound and the _générale_ should beat for the insurrection. The
Assembly adjourned at 7 o’clock without deciding the question. The 10th
of August the King was driven from the Tuileries, and took refuge in the
Assembly. Even then the legislators only suspended the King until “the
National Convention should pronounce upon the measures which it believes
ought to be adopted for assuring the sovereignty of the people and the
reign of liberty and equality.”[141]

August 11, the Assembly provided for the mode of election for the members
of the new Convention, and gave universal suffrage to males over 21
years. Did it ask that the delegates should be instructed to vote for
the monarchy or the republic? No; but they were to be given “unlimited
confidence.”[142] M. Aulard has analyzed for us the powers given by the
primary assemblies to the electoral assemblies of the Departments and by
the latter to the deputies. He notes that almost universally the primary
assemblies conformed to the advice to grant unlimited powers to the
departmental electors. At the final election of deputies, September 2,
in thirty-four Departments the electors made no allusion to what powers
should be bestowed upon their representatives; in thirty-six they gave
them “unlimited powers” or “unlimited confidence;” in two Departments,
the Lower Pyrenees and Somme, the previous question was raised upon the
powers to be given; in a single one (Charente) they gave as mandate
the oath taken by the electors, “to maintain equality and liberty.” In
three Departments, Aisne, Eure-et-Soir, and Paris, they gave full powers
with the restriction that the constitutional laws to be made shall be
submitted to the ratification of the people. Thus all either “inscribed
the formula prescribed by the Legislature or omitted it as useless and
self-evident.”

Shall there be a monarchy or a republic? What was the voice of the
departments upon this question? Only one out of the eighty-three
Departments expressed a clear demand upon this point. This one, that
which includes Paris, asked for “the form of a republican government.”
In the other eighty-two the word republic was not pronounced. One
Department, Jura, however, attempted to define in rather express terms
the sort of government to be formed, “A temporary executive power,
removable at the option of the people,” but it does not use the term
_republic_.[143] Four Departments were pronounced against royalty, and
swore eternal hostility thereto; these were Aube, Charente-Inférieure,
Jura, and Paris. No Department asked the continuance of the monarchy,
and only a few primary assemblies asked this. These assemblies were in
four Departments, _i. e._, five in Allier, one in Ariége, three in the
Gironde, and two in Lot-et-Garonne.

If we examine the proceedings of the Jacobin Club, we find that
this society was devoted for some time to the King and to the
constitution.[144] No bitter opposition to the monarch is found till
after June 20, 1791. Then it was his violation of the constitution that
caused his denunciation. After the two famous vetoes, a member proposed
in the Club that they make use of Art. vi, Sec. 10, Chapt. 2, of the
Constitution, “If the King puts himself at the head of an army and
directs the forces against the nation ... he will be considered to have
abdicated royalty.”[145] The printing of this discourse was urged on all
hands. The Club frequently mentioned the calling of a convention. Its
sympathy with the work of August 10 is evident,[146] and its hostility to
the monarchy is more pronounced from this period.[147]

A definite suggestion of the constructive scheme was made in the Club,
September 7; Chabot introduced the discussion of the form of government,
and referred to two kinds, (1) the federation of the departments, and
(2) a National Council, which should be presided over in turn by one
of the deputies of one of the portions of the empire. Chabot favored
the latter.[148] Again returning to the same question, September 10,
Terrasson pronounced a preference for the federation, and cited Rousseau
as his authority and America for a successful example.[149] Two days
after, September 12, a letter was proposed and was adopted in the
Jacobin Club of Paris, to be sent to the affiliated societies. In it
were contained these three proposals, which may be regarded as setting
forth the policy of the democratic party of Paris; the popular sanction
or popular revision of all the constitutional decrees of the National
Convention; the total abolition of royalty, and the penalty of death
against those who proposed to re-establish it; the _republican form of
government_.[150]

The significance of this movement on the part of the parent Jacobin Club
must not be overlooked in tracing the progress of republicanism. The
affiliation of well nigh a thousand societies in other parts of France
with the parent society afforded a strong and thoroughly organized
means for concerted political action.[151] The nominees of the popular
societies were nearly everywhere chosen to represent the provinces
in the Convention.[152] In the list of deputies from Paris appeared
the names of pronounced republicans and radical Jacobins who might be
expected to take a stand for a popular form of government.[153]

The Convention held its first meeting in the Tuileries; only 371 members
were present. They verified their powers, organized by choosing Pétion as
President, and by naming five Secretaries. September 21, they occupied
the place of the Legislative Assembly in the Riding School. Here they had
declared in favor of the following measures suitable for allaying the
fears of disorder: (1) The National Convention declares that there can
only be a constitution when it is accepted by the people; (2) that the
security of person and of property is under the safeguard of the nation;
(3) that all laws not abrogated, and all powers not revoked or suspended
are maintained; (4) that the existing taxes shall be collected as in the
past.

This effected, they were about to adjourn, when Collot d’Herbois ascended
the tribune and said: “You have just passed a wise resolution, but there
is one which you can not put off till tomorrow, which you can not put off
till this evening, which you can not put off a single instant without
being unfaithful to the wish of the nation; that is the abolition of
royalty.” Unanimous applause greeted this speech. M. Grégoire proposed
that “by a solemn law they sanction the abolition of royalty,” and
the entire Assembly by a spontaneous movement arose and voted this
proclamation by acclamation; a brief discussion followed, and then with
loud bursts of applause they voted, “The National Convention decrees
that royalty is abolished in France.” For some time the cry “_Vive la
Nation_” was prolonged. At this juncture a company of 150 _chasseurs_
were admitted to the hall and swore upon their arms to return only after
having triumphed over all the enemies of liberty and equality. But as yet
the word Republic had not been mentioned in the new Convention.

At the evening session of that day the time was consumed in hearing of
the discourses of divers deputations that had come to congratulate the
Convention upon the great work done that day. Two of these spoke of the
Republic as an already established fact,[154] while on the streets,
however, of the city the cry was resounding, “_Vive la République_.” One
orator spoke of nine battalions already sent to the front, and reported
that another was on the way. “They were coming,” he said, “to pray your
blessing upon their arms, when they learned on the way that they were
to fight no more for kings. They were happy to go to save the Republic.
When they were informed that all your moments must be consecrated to it,
they renounced the enjoyment of receiving your blessing and went on their
way. Our Department is busy forming new battalions, in seeking to arm
them, and especially in inspiring them with republican manners.” This was
greeted with new applause. The section of Quatre-Nations was represented
by its orator, who said among other things; “We have given three thousand
men for the frontier; these are three thousand republicans.... We ask to
defile through your midst. If arms are needed, speak, we shall hasten
to use them in the defense of the country, too happy to pay with our
blood for the Republic which you have decreed for us.” Applause greeted
this expression of devotion.[155] The newspapers signaled the decree of
abolition in enthusiastic descriptions, but only Brissot’s _Patriote
français_ proclaimed, “Royalty is abolished; France is a Republic.”[156]

On the morrow early in the session, Billaud-Varenne moved, and the
Convention decreed, that “all public acts were to be dated from the first
year of the Republic.” A new seal of State bearing the words “_République
de France_” decided upon and national colors were proposed, but not
adopted.[157] The journals took little notice of this new name with which
France had been baptized. Nevertheless, the members of the Convention
seemed to take it as a matter of course and to make repeated use of
the term Republic. For instance, on September 22, it appeared in the
following decree: “The National Convention decrees that the committees of
the legislative assembly and the members of the executive council shall
render an account to the National Convention of the state of their work
and of the condition of the different parts of the French Republic....”
The report of the Minister of the Interior, M. Gorsas, in the session of
September 23, contained this report of the state of public opinion: “The
will of the French is pronounced. Liberty and equality are their supreme
good; they will sacrifice all to preserve these. They have a horror for
the crimes of the nobles, the hypocrisy of the priests, the tyranny of
kings. Kings! they wish no more of them, they know that outside of a
Republic there is no liberty.” Again on September 24, the Convention
decreed “that there shall be named six commissioners charged with
rendering as full an account as shall be possible, of the present state
of the _Republic_ and that of Paris.” On September 25, the Convention
declared “the French Republic is one and indivisible.”[158]

Here we have passed to the period in which the Republic had become an
accepted fact for France. Robespierre said truly that it had “glided
in furtively among the factions,” and we may say that to Frenchmen,
interested in the national defence, it was a welcome change. Gouverneur
Morris is authority for this in a note of October, 1792, in which he
said: “These are the outlines made use of on either side to convince
the public that each is exclusively the author of a Republic which the
people find themselves possessed of by a kind of magic, or at least, a
sleight of hand, and which, nevertheless, they are as fond of as if it
were their own offspring.”[159]

It would be interesting to know how completely this Parisian enthusiasm
was shared by the nation. Grave objections may have been offered, but it
soon came about that to be disloyal to the Republic was to be a foe of
liberty and equality, and, worse yet, a traitor to France. So far as we
are able to discover, the army accepted the Republic with enthusiasm. On
September 9, General Valence wrote to Dumouriez _that he would run to the
Republic with transport_. Prieur (de la Marne) awakened enthusiasm in the
army of the Ardennes by announcing to them on September 29, the news of
the birth of the Republic.[160] And a report from the camp of volunteers
at Châlons speaks of a like worthy sentiment.[161]

These are the facts about the growth of republican ideas in Revolutionary
France and of the proclamation of the Republic. We can sum them up
as follows: At the meeting of the States-General in 1789 France was
pronouncedly monarchic. A little coterie of men became anti-monarchical;
these developed the Club of Cordeliers. In 1791, when Louis XVI showed
his distrust of the French people and tried to escape, hostility to the
monarch and also to the monarchy was strong. Even republicanism was
championed by an orator in the Assembly and by a few newspapers; one of
these journals, the _Révolutions de Paris_, had a large circulation. The
king however accepted the Constitution in September, 1791, and the outcry
against him and in favor of the abolition of the monarchy subsided. Not
until in the summer of 1792 did the royal vetoes, the menacing manifesto
of the allies, the actual advance of the Prussian army toward Paris,
call forth many petitions and requests for the suspension or for the
dethronement of the king, or for the abolition of the monarchy.

Comparatively little was said, however, about the form to be given to the
executive. On August 10, the Legislative Assembly only “suspended Louis
XVI provisionally, until the National Convention should pronounce upon
the measures it believed ought to be adopted for assuring the sovereignty
of the people and the reign of liberty and equality.” Clubs, sections,
journals, and provinces, and even radical democrats, are rather silent
about a substitute for the monarchy. When the abolition came on September
21, it was received as the news of a national victory; but at first the
term Republic, used on the 22nd, was little greeted by the nation. It
however became the shibboleth of the army and of the patriots. For this
revival of republicanism, Paris, and perhaps the army, are responsible.
The Jacobin Club of Paris also made use of its influential position to
encourage republican inclinations in the affiliated societies throughout
France, and, what was more important still, to secure the election of
anti-monarchical and of democratic deputies to the Convention.

A few questions remain to be answered. First among these is, What was
the relation between the republican movement of 1791 and that of 1792?
The earlier movement must have had a tendency to increase the number in
France who perceived the inconsistency between individual rights and
the equality of men on the one hand, and the hereditary kingship on the
other. It also increased the number of those who believed a republic
suited for France and who, though they recognized that the realization
of their opinions was for the time being impossible, yet were ready
to strive for its establishment when the circumstances should give
opportunity. To this group of men belongs the credit of having secured an
expression from Paris in favor of the Republic, and of having secured its
early recognition in the city on the abolition of royalty.

A second question is, Why was there so much said in 1792 about the
abolition of monarchy, and so little about the Republic that should
replace it? Why were those of republican preferences so slow to say
it? This may be answered by the statement that generally, in movements
depending upon public opinion, the people are more pronounced against
an abuse or misuse which they have experienced than about an untried
theory; are more capable to pronounce upon a destructive than upon a
constructive scheme, are more enlightened in their negative than in their
positive actions. The Constituent Assembly was happy in its negative
work of destroying the abuses of the old régime, but less felicitous
in its positive work of reconstruction. The French people of 1792 were
conversant with the vacillations of the king, the treasonable intrigues
and anti-popular feelings of the court, but a Republic was as yet an
untried and unproved expedient. Under its name anarchy, or, what to the
Parisians was little less odious, _federalism_, might become the order
of the day. Hence the very friends of a strong united Republic hesitated
to use the word till the form of the institution should be shaped by the
tendency of affairs. The very friends of Republican government might have
remembered that their use of the word Republic in 1791 had been fraught
with bitter schismatic tendencies among the friends of the Revolution;
and how much more dangerous such a schism in 1792, when the nation found
itself called upon to resist the humiliating invasion of its territory
by the allies. They also knew that to be a republican in 1791 had been
unpopular,[162] and were chary of exposing themselves to unnecessary
odium, knowing that the monarchy once abolished, they would be by
necessity under a liberal form of government, call it what they might.

A third query is, Why did the Conventionalists choose the republican
government? The question is easily answered by another question, _i.
e._, What other expedient was possible, considering the state of public
opinion? Was it an aristocracy? But the Revolution in its incipient
stages was a revolt against an aristocracy. Was it a regency? But here
the difficulty was to find a regent who did not share the obloquy of
the dethroned monarch, or was not incapable of commanding the respect
of the nation. Was it under the protection of a foreign prince or
power? Not so; the spirit of national independence was too strong to
suffer even a dispassionate consideration of this. What way could the
Constitutionalists turn? Sorel has truly said: “The abolition of royalty
was the acknowledgment of a fact; the proclamation of the Republic was
the recognition of a necessity. A government was necessary to France,
and no other than a republican government was possible.”[163] And the
Republic had existed in fact in France for two short, but very critical
periods. From June 21 to September 14, 1791, the king had been suspended
and the Constituent Assembly had conducted through the ministry the work
of the executive. And again from August 10 to September 21, 1792, the
same expedient was resorted to. But it may be said that the Republic was
not in accord with French national traditions, and that, therefore, it
could never be accepted by the nation. True, France had been a monarchy
for centuries, and the history of her kings was dear to the people in
1789; but there was a stronger tradition to which the people were more
devotedly attached than to royalty, and now the king had forced the issue
between these two traditions, that is, the tradition of the monarchy and
the tradition of nationality and independence. So soon as it seemed clear
that the French must choose between these, the choice was made by the
abolition of royalty.

Royalty was thus abolished on September 21, 1792: the republic was
recognized by the Convention as its legitimate successor. The name had
been adopted, now a new constitution was necessary; not one like that of
1791, a base accommodation of hereditary powers and democratic rights;
but one consistently constructed. The Convention early appointed its
Committee of Constitution. The leader in the committee was Condorcet,
and the majority were Girondists. Their work was ready to be reported
February 15 and 16, 1793. But by this time the republicans themselves had
formed two antagonistic factions, the Girondists and the Montagnards. The
latter were the men of action, and now held the power in the Convention.
Condorcet’s Constitution was not submitted to the nation.

On May 30, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was augmented by five
members. These were Couthon, Herault de Séchelles, Mathieu, Ramel, and
Saint Just. They lost no time in the elaboration of a Constitution, and
by June 22, were ready to report. Herault de Séchelles made the final
reading June 24. Delegates were sent all over France to receive the vote
of the primary assemblies for the acceptance of the Constitutional Act;
1,801,918 votes were cast for its adoption. Their glowing report was made
August 9th by Gossuin, and the next day was fixed as a national festival
“consecrated to the inauguration of the Constitution of the Republic.”
The artist, David, planned the ceremonies.

The glorious fundamental law was not, however, to reign in France. France
must be defended from invasion, civil war must be subdued, and then the
rest of Europe must be delivered from political slavery. In just two
months after this inaugural festival, the Convention decreed that the
provisional government should be revolutionary till peace. When peace
came, a new monarch was enthroned. But these enthusiastic men of 1792
and 1793 had given France a name and an ideal; they had placed above her
horizon a star of hope. When oppression shall make them weary, or when
the popular spirits shall rise, they shall think of a republic as the aim
and end of political effort.




FOOTNOTES


[1] Ritchie, Natural Rights, p. 1; M. Charles Borgeaud, _Établissement et
Revision des Constitutions en Amérique et en Europe_, 240-242; Dr. Geo.
Jellinek, _Die Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte_, p. 10.

[2] Two requests for a Declaration of the Rights of Man came from Paris,
_intra muros_; one from the Nobility, _Archives parlementaires_, v, 271;
the other from the Third Estate, _Ibid._, v, 281. The latter cahier
contains a formulated Declaration of thirteen articles. The general
cahier of Rennes, _Arch. Parl._, v, 538, that of the Third Estate of
Annonay, _Arch. Parl._, ii, 50, and that of the Third Estate of Nemours,
_Arch. Parl._, iv, 161, ask for the Declaration of Rights.

[3] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 216.

[4] _Ibid._, 221 et seq.

[5] _Ibid._, 221-222.

[6] _Ibid._, 230-231.

[7] _Ibid._

[8] _Arch. Parl._, 341.

[9] _Ibid._, 422.

[10] “Convertions nous en acte législatif cet exposé métaphysique,
ou présenterons nous les principes avec leur modification dans la
constitution que nous allons faire? Je sais que les Américains n’ont pas
pris cette précaution; ils ont pris l’homme dans le sein de la nature,
et le présentent à l’univers dans sa souveraineté primitive, mais la
société Américaine nouvellement formée, est composée, en totalité de
propriétaires déjà accoutumés à l’égalité, étrangers au luxe ainsi qu’à
l’indulgence, connaissant à peine le joug des impôts, des préjugés qui
nous dominent, n’ayant trouvé sur la terre qu’ils cultivent aucune trace
de féodalité. De tels hommes étaient sans _doute_ préparés à recevoir la
liberté dans toute son energie; car leurs goûts, leurs moeurs, _leur_
position les appelaient à la démocratie. Mais, nous, Messieurs, nous
avons pour concitoyens une multitude immense d’hommes sans propriétés,
qui attendent, avant toute chose, leur subsistence d’un travail
assuré, d’une police exacte, d’une protection continue, qui s’irritent
quelquefois, non sans de justes motifs, du spectacle du luxe et de
l’opulence,” etc. _Arch. Parl._, viii, 322.

[11] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 434.

[12] “Nous avons cherché cette forme populaire qui rappelle au peuple,
non ce qu’on a étudié dans les livres ou dans les méditations abstraites,
mais ce qu’il a lui même éprouvé.... C’est ainsi que les Américains ont
fait leur déclaration de droits; ils en ont à dessein écarté la science;
ils ont présenté les vérités politiques qu’il s’agissait de fixer sous
une forme qui pût devenir facilement celle du peuple, à qui seul la
liberté importe, et qui seul peut la maintenir.” _Arch. Parl._, viii,
438-440.

[13] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 452 _et seq._

[14] A comparison of the Declaration offered by the Sixth Bureau with the
Bill of Rights of the Revolutionary Constitutions of Massachusetts and
of Virginia, shows that the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution
contained sixteen articles, that of the Massachusetts thirty, and that of
the Sixth Bureau, twenty-four. The same general ideas are found in all
three, but they are couched in different words, that of the Sixth Bureau
being the least extreme.

[15] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 470 _et seq._

[16] _Ibid._, 483-484.

[17] _Ibid._, 487, 489.

[18] _Ibid._, 492.

[19] _Histoire Parlementaire_, 395-402.

[20] _Lavisse et Rambaud; Histoire Générale_, vii, 360.

[21] _Ibid._, vii, 360.

[22] _Dict. Universelle_, under _Rétroactif_.

[23] Three friends of tolerance were Voltaire, D’Argenson and Turgot.
Voltaire in his _Discourse Historique et Critique_ placed as an
introduction to the tragedy _Les Guebres_ (_Oeuvres_, by M. Beuchet, ix,
26, Paris, 1831), and in his _Traité sur la tolérance_, written upon the
death of Jean Calas, 1763 (_Oeuvres_, ix, 141 and 243 _et seq._), pleads
for tolerance. For d’Argenson’s views on tolérance in 1744, see Rocquain,
_L’ésprit révolutionnaire_, 116 and 138, and d’Argenson, _Mémoires_, v,
328 _et seq._ Turgot in a letter to an ecclesiastic, his schoolmate at
the Sorbonne, expressed himself in 1753 in favor of tolerance; another
letter of the year following was of like import. His _Conciliateur_
was printed about the same time. _Oeuvres_, ii, 353 _et seq._, Paris,
1808. June, 1755, he presented a Memoir to the king on “Toleration,
or Religious Equality.” _Life and Writings of Turgot_, by W. Walker
Stephens, 256 _et seq._

[24] Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, p. 463.

[25] _Ibid._, 336.

[26] Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 412. For a list of the books condemned,
see Rocquain, _Ibid._, 489-535.

[27] Quoted in Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 178, and in _Mémoires_, viii,
248.

[28] Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 286.

[29] _Essai sur le despotisme_, _Oeuvres_, viii, 111 _et seq._, Paris,
1835.

[30] The cahier of the Nobility of Sisteron asked: “Qu’il sera fait des
réglements, et pris des précautions pour que les troupes nécessaires au
maintien de la tranquilité générale ne puissent jamais servir à opprimer
le citoyen et à enchaîner la liberté publique.” _Arch. Parl._, iii, 364.
The _cahier_ of the Nobility and the Third Estate of Péronne asked: “Que
... les officiers et les soldats, en prêtant le serment de fidélité au
Roi, le prêtent aussi à la nation et jurent d n’exécuter aucun ordre qui
soit contraire aux lois constitutionelles.” _Arch. Parl._, v, 356.

[31] Jean Bodin, _De Republica_. Libre vi, chap. ii.

[32] _Hist. Gén._, v, 362.

[33] _État de la France en 1789_, Paul Boiteau, ch. xiv, Paris, 1861.

[34] Alfred Neymarck, _Turgot et ses Doctrines_, i, 257 _et seq._, 2
vols., Paris, 1885.

[35] _Hist. Gén._, vii, chap. xii.

[36] For instances of the abuses at which Art. 13 aimed, see De
Tocqueville, _L’Ancien régime_, trans. by Henry Buor, notes 32-38, pp.
271-273.

[37] Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 448.

[38] For the part taken by the States General in granting subsidies,
see Henri Hervieu, _Recherches sur les premiers États généraux_, Paris,
1879; G. Picot, _Hist. des États Généraux_ Paris, 1885, 5 vols.; Ch. V.
Langlois, _États généraux_ in _La Grande Encyclopédie_; for that of the
parlements, see Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, and Ch. Gomel, _Les Causes
financières de la révolution française_.

[39] Protest of the Cour des Aides of Paris, April 10, 1775, in
_Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European
History_, edited by James Harvey Robinson, Ph. D., with an English
version by Grace Read Robinson.

[40] Gomel in _Les Causes financières de la révolution française_, p.
113, gives the following quotation from a contemporary writer: “Le livre
de Necker sur _L’administration des finances_ produisit autant d’effet
que si l’auteur avait encore dirigé celles du royaume.... Des magistrats,
des juriconsultes, des militaires, des prélats l’étudieraient, non pour
devenir administrateurs, mais pour se rendre des censeurs redoubtables de
l’administration.”

[41] Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 444.

[42] _L’Ancien Rég._, trans. by Henry Reeve, note 39, p. 273.

[43] A. Babeau, _La Ville sous l’ancien régime_, ii, 9; Reeve’s
translation of De Tocqueville, _Ancien régime_, notes 60-62, pp. 286, 287.

[44] Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought_, p. 242.

[45] _Ibid._, p. 267.

[46] E. d’Eichthal, _souveraineté du peuple_, 37-40.

[47] _Memoirs, Letters and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville_, i, pp.
254-260, 2 vols. London, 1861.

[48] Martin, _Histoire de France_, vol xv, 334.

[49] Martin, _Histoire de France_, 355.

[50] R. L. Corwin, _Entwicklung und Vergleichung der Erziehungslehren von
John Locke und Jean Jacques Rousseau_, Heidelberg, 1894; Vasille Saftu,
_Ein Vergleich der physichen Erziehung bei Locke und Rousseau_, Bucarest,
1889; David G. Ritchie, _The Social Contract_, in vi. vol. of _Pol. Sc.
Quart._; Jaeger, _Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung und des Socialismus
in Franckreiche_, vol. ii, 342, Berlin, 1890; Prof. J. Horning, _Les
idées politiques de Rousseau_, in J. J. Rousseau _jugé par les Génevois
d’aujourd’hui_, p. 135 _et seq._; also M. Jules Vuy in _Bulletin de
L’Institut National Génevois for 1883_, pp. 273-344; Rousseau et Locke,
_Henri Marion_; J. Locke, _Sa Vie et son Oeuvre d’après des documents
nouveaux_, Paris, 1893.

[51] Voltaire in a letter of April 2, 1764, wrote: “Tout ce que je vois
jeté les semences d’une révolution qui arrivera immanquablement, et dont
je n’aurai pas le plaisir d’être témoin.... Les jeunes gens sont bien
heureux: ils verront de belles choses.” Quoted in Martin, _Hist. de Fr._,
vol. xvi, 136. Malesherbes, in speaking to the king as the organ of the
_parlement_ in 1770, said: “You hold your crown, Sire, from God alone;
but you will not refuse yourself the satisfaction of believing that, for
your power, you are likewise indebted to the voluntary submission of your
subjects. There exist in France some inviolable rights, which belong to
the nation.” Quoted from _Remontrances de la Cours des Aides_, 1770, by
De Tocqueville; _Mémoires_, etc., i, 259-60. For Rousseau’s literary
influence, see Joseph Texte, _Jean Jacques Rousseau et les Origines du
Cosmopolitisme Littéraire_, Liv. ii, Paris, 1895.

[52] A pamphlet of 1789, “Lettre d’un Curé de Picardie à un évêque
sur le droit des curés d’assister aux assemblées du clergé et aux
États-généraux,” etc., illustrates how the curates applied the natural
rights doctrine: “Les droits des hommes réunis en société ne sont point
fondés sur leur histoire mais sur _leur nature_. Il ne peut y avoir de
raisons de perpétuer les établissements faits sans raisons, 3 p.” In
vol. 84 of _French Revolution Collection of the Pennsylvania Historical
Society_.

[53] _Contrat Social_, Livre ii, ch. iv, 43.

[54] _Ibid._, Livre i, ch. vi, 20.

[55] _Contrat Social_, Livre II, ch. I, 35.

[56] _Ibid._, Livre II, ch. IV, 43-44.

[57] _Ibid._, Livre II, ch. VI, 54-55.

[58] _Ibid._, Livre II, ch. IV, p. 46.

[59] Quesnay said: “The security of property is the essential foundation
of the economic order of society.” _Maximes générales au gouvernement,
Physiocrates_, ii, 83, Paris, 1846. Turgot, writing of the omnipotence of
the State, said: “This principle that nothing should limit the rights of
society upon the individual, save the greater good of society, appears
to me false and dangerous. Every man is born free, and this liberty can
never be limited unless it degenerate into license, that is to say,
ceases to be liberty.... It is forgotten that society is made for the
individual, that is, instituted only for protecting the rights of all, by
assuring the accomplishment of all mutual duties.” Quoted by M. E. Daire,
_Physiocrates_, ii, Introd., xxi, xxii.

[60] _Ésprit des Lois_, Liv. xi.

[61] Saint Girons, _Droit public français_, treats thoroughly the
question of separation of powers. Mirabeau in referring to the separation
of powers, in a speech delivered in the Assembly July 16, 1789, pointed
out the general misapprehension of this theory: “Nous aurons bientôt
occasion d’examiner cette théorie des trois pouvoirs, laquelle exactement
analysée montrera peut être la facilité de l’ésprit humain à prendre
des mots pour des choses, des formules pour des arguments et à se
routiner vers un certain ordre d’idées sans revenir jamais à examiner
l’intelligible définition qu’il a prise pour un axiome.” _Arch. Parl._,
VIII, 243.

[62] G. Picot, _Histoire des États généraux_; Ch. Langlois, _États
généraux_ in _La Grande Encyclopédie_.

[63] Jules Flammermont, _Remontrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIII.
siècle_, Introd., XCII.

[64] _Dictionnaire Nouvelle, Parlements._

[65] T. i, 78, 266.

[66] Martin, _Histoire de France_, xi, 543.

[67] These two decrees, one 1667, the other 1673, are given in substance
in Jules Flammermont, _Remontrances_, Intro. i and ii. The second was the
more sweeping: “Dès que les gens du Roi auraient reçu les ordonnances,
édits, déclarations ou lettres patents, ils devraient dorénavant
les présenter tout de suite aux cours toutes chambres assemblées,
qui auraient à les enregistrer purement et simplement sans aucune
modification, restriction, ni autres clauses qui en pussent surseoir
ou empêcher la pleine et entière exécution. Dans le cas où les cours
auraient des remontrances à présenter elles ne pourraient plus le faire
qu’après que l’arrêt d’enregistrement aurait été donné et séparément
rédigé. Mais que le Roi donnôit suite ou non à ces remontrances, qui
devaient être dressées dans la huitaine après l’enregistrement, les cours
ne devaient pas faire d’itératives remontrances.”

[68] Flammermont, _Remontrances_, 95.

[69] Cited in Prof. J. H. Robinson’s very suggestive article, _The Tennis
Court Oath_ (_Political Science Quarterly_, Sept., 1895); from the
_Itératives Remontrances sur la Refonte des Monnaies_, July 26, 1718,
Flammermont’s _Remontrances_, 94, 95.

[70] Cited by Prof. Robinson, _The Tennis Court Oath_, 467.

[71] Jules Flammermont, _Le Chancelier Maupeou et les Parlements_, Paris,
1885, 370 pp.

[72] Flammermont, _Le Chancelier Maupeou et les Parlements_, 380, 381.

[73] _Ibid._, 117.

[74] Barbier has left record of how intimate was the sympathy of the
people with the _Parlement_ in the struggle over Jansenism: “Le bonne
Ville de Paris est janséniste de la tête aux pieds.... Tous degrés de
Paris, hommes, femmes, petites enfants, tiennent pour cette doctrine,
sans savoir la matière, sans rien entendre à ces distinctions et
interprétations, par haine contre Rome et les jésuites, tout ce monde
est entêté comme un diable. Les femmes, femmelettes et jusqu’aux femmes
de chambre s’y feraient hocher.” Cited in Aubertin, _l’Ésprit public au
XVIII siècle_, 263, 264.

[75] “Votre parlement s’est toujours fait gloire de leur donner l’exemple
de l’obéissance. Il vous a toujours prouvé par sa conduite que, si
l’obéissance due à la Majesté du Roi était perdue, elle se retrouverait
dans sa cour de parlement. Mais s’il y a des occasions où son attachement
inviolable aux lois et au bien public semble ne pouvoir pas s’allier
avec une obéissance sans bornes, alors il serait criminel envers vous
même et envers l’État d’oublier ce que lui disait en 1567 un chancelier
de France: Vous avez juré de garder tous les communs éléments du Roi,
bien de garder les ordonnances qui sont ses vrais commandements. Ou ce
qu’il disait lui-même en 1604 au Souverain: Si c’est désobéissance de
bien servir, le Parlement fait ordinairement cette faute, et quand il
se trouve conflit entre la puissance absolue du Roi et le bien de son
service, il juge l’un préférable à l’autre, non par désobéissance, mais
pour son devoir, à la décharge de sa conscience.” _Grandes Remontrances_,
April 9, 1753; Flammermont, _Remontrances_, 529.

[76] Flammermont, _Le Chancelier Maupeou_, 269.

[77] _Les Mirabeaus_, i. 181. This refers to constitutional ideas, not to
a written constitution.

[78] Aubertin, 391, 392: Voltaire complained in the ’60’s of being tired
of people, “qui gouvernaient les États du fond de leurs greniers.”
Rocquain, _L’ésprit rév._, 244.

[79] Gomel, 334.

[80] The calling of the États généraux had been suggested by la
Rochefoucauld, 1774; by d’Espremenil, 1775, and in remonstrances of the
_cour des aides_ of Paris and the _Parlement_ of Besançon 1775 and 1781,
and in the Assembly of Notables by Lafayette in 1787.

[81] The contents of the _cahiers_ are difficult to tabulate, owing to
their various modes of expression. The following summary will, however,
give an approximate idea of their import upon constitutional questions:
Of 448 primary and secondary _cahiers_ examined, 305 demanded or implied
a constitution; 194, the monarchy; 401, periodic États généraux; 372,
granting of taxes by the États généraux; 269, legislation by the États
généraux; 331, ministerial responsibility; and 366, proportional taxation.

[82] The _cahier_ of the nobility of the bailliage of Aumont asked:
“Que l’ancienne constitution française est monarchique, que les lois
fondamentales du royaume subsisteront dans leur intégrité et qu’elles
ne pourront être changées par les députés aux États généraux, Que la
formation des États généraux fait partie de la constitution.”... _Arch.
Parl._, i, 766. Somewhat similar views are found in the _cahiers_ of the
clergy of Lectoure, _Ibid._, ii, 66; of the clergy of Auten, ii, 100; of
the clergy of Aval, ii, 137; of the clergy of Carcassonne, ii, 257; of
the clergy of Blois, ii, 376; of the nobility of Guyenne, ii, 394; of the
clergy of Châlons-sur-Marne, ii, 582; of the clergy of Clermont-Ferrand,
ii, 766; of the third estate of Comte de Comminges, iii, 26; of the
nobility of Constances, iii, 52; of the clergy of Etampes, iii, 279;
of the nobility of Libourne, iii, 506; of the nobility of Timoux, iii,
577; of the nobility of Mâcon, iii, 623; of the nobility of Gevaudan,
iii, 754; of the third estate of the parish of Ferrières en Brie, iv,
545; of the nobility of Provins and Monterau, v, 448; of the nobility of
Touraine, vi, 39; of the clergy of Vermandois, vi, 134; of the clergy
of Villers-Catterels, vi, 187; of the clergy of Vitry le François, vi,
207; of the nobility of Besançon, vi, 516. Some wished to re-establish
in more definite terms the old constitution. The _cahier_ of the clergy
of Auxerre asked: “Que les États généraux s’occuperont d’abord de
reconnaître, conserver, fixer irrévocablement, et rendre publiques les
lois constitutionnelles de la monarchie, les droits du Roi et ceux de la
nation,” ii, 111. Of similar import were the _cahiers_ of the clergy of
Argenois, i, 675; of the third estate of Albert, i, 704; of the third
estate of Alençon, i, 716; of the third estate of Exemes, i, 727; of the
nobility of Pont-à-Mousson, ii, 229; of the nobility of Castres, ii, 566;
of the clergy of Caux, ii, 573; of the nobility of Caux, ii, 575; of the
nobility of Châlons-sur-Saône, ii, 604; of the clergy of Châteauneuf en
Thimerais, ii, 639; of the nobility of Launes, iii, 94; of the nobility
of Évreux, iii, 295; of the third estate of Province of Forez, iii, 385;
of the clergy of Pays de Labourt, iii, 424; of the nobility of Montagres,
iv, 20; of the Parish of Clermont-Mendon, iv, 440; of the third estate
of Agenois, i, 687. A smaller number of the _cahiers_ asked for a new
constitution. The _cahier_ of the third estate of Paris intra muros
presented a model constitution, essentially similar to the one actually
framed, v, 581. The Parish of Toussus-le-Noble, of Paris, _hors des
murs_, instructed that: Les députés demanderont une nouvelle constitution
nationale, la suppression de toutes les lois, qui, jusqu’à présent,
ont été considérées constitutionnelles, comme illégalement établies et
n’ayant pas reçu l’approbation de la nation, v, 138. The third estate of
Mont de Morsan said: Il est temps qu’on pose les règles fixes, et qu’on
assure à la France une Constitution qui garantisse les droits naturels et
imprescriptibles des hommes, iv, 34. The third estate of Etampes, after
referring to the abuses, said: Nos premiers voeux doivent naturellement
se porter sur ce qui doit former à l’avenir la constitution du royaume.
Le anciens monuments nous offrent si peu de conformité et de certitude,
que nous devons profiter des lumières actuelles pour opérer un plus grand
bien, iii, 283. The nobility of Blois said: Le malheur de la France vient
de ce qu’elle n’a jamais eu de constitution fixe, ii, 379.

[83] Rocquain, _L’Ésprit_, 405, 406; _Lettres de cachet_, ch. viii,
edition of 1820.

[84] Cited in Rocquain, _L’Ésprit_, 457.

[85] Qu’est-ce que donc qu’une Constitution, si ce n’est l’ordre, la
distribution des deux grands pouvoirs politiques et de leur séparation
dans différentes mains, et leur exercise ou différentes formes: le tout
sanctionné et constitué, c’est à dire statué avec la nation assemblée,
représentant l’également la volonté générale, et voulant librement pour
l’intérêt commun? Si l’on recherche en France ces deux pouvoirs, on les
trouve, par le fait, réunis dans la même main, sans qu’on puisse voir
l’apparence d’un droit contraire qu’en remontant vers les âges ténébreux
de l’ignorance et de la servitude. Or la collection de ces pouvoirs ne
peut former que l’autorité arbitraire d’un despote; ce qui exclut toute
idée de Lois fondamentales et constitutionnelles: aussi n’en trouve-t-on
en assumé. _Donc point de Constitution_, Vol. 87 of _Fr. Rev. Col. of
Penn. Hist. Soc._, 114, 115.

[86] _Arch. Parl._, i, 543, 544.

[87] _Hist. Parl._, i, 445.

[88] He said of Mirabeau: “Nous n’avons l’un et l’autre entrevu rien de
mieux pour la France qu’un gouvernement monarchique constitutionnel. De
tous les rois, Louis XVI. était le plus propre à résoudre le problème....
Il croyait le gouvernement constitutionnel plus convenable, et il le
désirait; et je puis le dire avec autant de certitude que conviction,
la reine partageait à cet égard les opinions et les penchants de Louis
XVI.; les matériaux qui sont dans mon portefeuille rendent ces assertions
incontestables.” _Correspondence entre Mirabeau et La Marck_, i, 67, 95.

[89] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 55.

[90] _Ibid._, 113.

[91] _Ibid._, 127.

[92] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 138.

[93] D’Argenson in 1752 said: “Quant à moi je tiens pour l’avènement
du second article et même du républicanisme.” He meant Republicanism
not in the modern sense, but in the sense of a monarchy with democratic
local institutions. Aubertin, _L’Ésprit public_, 278, 279. Even the
_Ésprit des Lois_ gave some sanction to a Republic as an ideal form of
government when it recognized _virtue_ as the temper of society required
for this form of government. Voltaire, friend of the monarchy and critic
of Rousseau as he was, wrote: “Le plus tolérable des gouvernements est
le républicain, parce-que c’est celui qui rapproche le plus les hommes
de l’égalité naturelle.” He also compared the frequency of crimes under
a monarchy with their infrequency under republics. Martin, _Histoire de
France_, xvi, 136. Mably held that France should pass by degrees from a
monarchy to a republic. _Ibid._, 149 _et seq._, Cerutti, the coadjutor of
Mirabeau at a later date, had published a book on _Republics_. This book
had been generally attributed to Rousseau. _Dictionnaire Universelle._

[94] _Arch. Parl._, v, 282.

[95] The cahier of the district of Abbey Saint Germain des Près said:
Il sera arrêté qu’à la nation assemblée, réunie au Roi, appartient le
droit de faire les lois de royaume, _Arch. Parl._, v, 306; that of Saint
Gervais: Le pouvoir législatif appartient conjointement au Roi et à la
nation.... Le pouvoir exécutif appartient au Roi, comme chef suprême
et premier magistrat de la nation, _Ibid._, 308; that of Saint Louis
de-la-Culture: Qu’il soit reconnu que l’état est monarchique, que la
couronne est héréditaire en ligne masculine, etc., _Ibid._, 311; that of
Theatins: Le Roi en (of the army) aura la discipline et le commandement
général, _Ibid._, 316; that of Sorbonne: that the States-General and
the king jointly make the laws; that of Filles de Saint Thomas: that
the nation and the king make the laws, and that the executive power be
guaranteed to the king and to the reigning family without restriction or
division; that of Bonne Nouvelle: that the laws should be made by the
States-General and announced by the king; that of Saint Joseph Quartier
des Halles: that laws be made by the nation and king jointly; that of
Sainte Elizabeth: that the nation make the laws and the king sanction
them; that of Enfants Rouges: that the laws be made by the nation and
the king jointly; that of Blancs Manteaux: that France should have an
hereditary monarchy in the male line of the reigning house, laws made
by the nation and sanctioned by the king, and that the executive power
should belong to the monarch; that of Capucins du Marais: that the
laws be made by the nation and the king jointly; that of Minimes de la
Place Royale: that the laws be made jointly by the nation and the king.
Chassin, _Les Élection et Cahiers de Paris_, ii, ch. xvi-xviii.

[96] Chassin, _Les Élections et Cahiers_, i, 453.

[97] _Arch. Parl._, viii. 350.

[98] Quoted in A. Saint Girons, _Droit. public français_, 129.

[99] _Arch. Parl._, viii, 505.

[100] _Ibid._, 642.

[101] _Ibid._, ix, 26.

[102] _Arch Parl._, xxviii, 336-338.

[103] _Hist. Parl._, x, 449 _et seq._, and xi, 20 _et seq._

[104] _Arch. Parl._, xxviii, 377.

[105] _Ibid._, xxx, 635, 636.

[106] “Convaincue que le gouvernement qui convient le mieux aux
prérogatives respectables du trône avec les droits inaliénables du
peuple, elle a donné à l’État une constitution qui garantit également
et la royauté et la liberté nationale.... Et vous, Sire, déjà vous
avez presque tout fait. Votre Majesté a fini la Révolution par Son
acceptation si loyale et si franche de la Constitution. Elle a porté
au dehors le découragement, ramené au dedans la confiance, rétabli par
elle le principal nerf du gouvernement et préparé l’utile activité de
l’administration.” _Arch. Parl._, xxxi 688, 689.

[107] It is noteworthy that the French had not followed the history of
their own development. “Pendant toute la durée de la monarchie, tandis
que le peuple n’apprenait presque rien les hautes classes, en général,
apprenaient mal. Leur ignorance de l’histoire nationale explique
pourquoi, au moment de la Révolution, on ne put se rendre un compte
exact des faits sociaux et politiques que nous léguait l’ancien régime,
pourquoi on détruisit pêle-mêle ce qu’il y avait de bon et de mauvais
dans les institutions du passé, pourquoi, lorsqu’il s’agit de constituer
une nation moderne, le nation française, on n’eut à la bouche que des
exemples empruntés à l’antiquité, à Athènes, à Sparte, à Rome. Cette
instruction incomplète, cette fausse éducation classique était, en somme,
une médiocre préparation au métier de législateurs, si nouveau pour nos
pères de la Révolution.” M. Alfred Rambaud, _Histoire de la Civilisation
française_, ii, 280. An English lady who was traveling in France writes
in August, 1792: “Their studies are chiefly confined to Rollin and
Plutarch, the deistical works of Voltaire and the visionary politics of
Jean Jacques. Hence they amuse their hearers with allusions to Cæsar
and Lycurgus, the Rubicon and Thermopylæ. Hence they pretend to be too
enlightened for belief, and despise all governments not founded on the
_contrat social_ or the _profession de foi_.... They talk familiarly of
Sparta and Lacedemon.” _A Residence in France during 1792-95_, London,
1797.

[108] _La France Libre_, 1789, 60-61 pp.

[109] Collection of Pamphlets in _Columbia Library_, 94404, Book M, 292.

[110] Camille Desmoulins’ _La France Libre_ contained three striking
utterances. “For forty years philosophy had undermined all the parts
of the foundations of despotism; and as Rome before Cæsar was already
enslaved by its vices, France before Necker was already freed by its
intelligence,” 56. In various parts of this article of 1789 he speaks of
a republic as being the best suited to France. “Before the Royal Sitting
I regarded Louis XVI. with admiration, for he had some virtues, as he
walked not at all in the steps of his fathers, was not at all a despot,
and had convoked the States-General. While in the province I read in the
_gazette_ his beautiful speech: ‘What does it matter that my authority
suffer provided my people should be happy?’ We have, I said to myself, a
greater king than the Trojans, the Marcus Aurelius, the Antonines, who
did not at all limit their power. Personally I loved Louis XVI.; but
the _monarchy was not less odious_,” 60-61. “I declare then boldly for
democracy,” 64.

[111] _Hist. Parl._, ii, 353, and iv, 295.

[112] _Ibid._, iii, 433.

[113] _Hist. Gén._, viii, 104.

[114] See Condorcet’s speech on the question of the kingship, July 15,
1791. _Arch. Parl._, xviii, 336-338.

[115] _Hist. Parl._, x, 416-418. It seems to have been the Cordeliers
who planned for the public signing of the petition upon the altar of
the country, July 17, 1791, on the Champs de Mars. This petition prayed
the Assembly to accept the abdication of the king, and to convoke a new
constituent power for the trial of the guilty and for the replacing and
organization of a new executive power. _Hist. Gén._, viii, 100; _Hist.
Parl._, xi, 115. Six thousand petitioners had signed this instrument.

[116] Henry Morse Stephens, _The French Revolution_, i, 96 _et seq._ The
number of February 4, 1790, contained these words: “Il est impossible
dans de pareils moments de se livrer à aucunes réflexions; il faut être
tout à sentir. Nous dirons donc seulement et du fond du coeur: Puisse
cette journée étouffer la discorde qui régnoit entre les citoyens, et
ramener à la nation ceux qui ne vouloient pas reconnoitre ses droits:
Et nous, patriotes, faisons au bien de la paix tous les sacrifices qui
peuvent s’allier avec la liberté, soyons dignes d’être libres, soyons
dignes d’être les sujets d’un tel roi.” _Rév. de Paris_, Vol. 3, No.
31. In referring to a company about to go to Ohio, the editor would
dissuade them by saying: “Nous allons en jouir par une constitution plus
heureusement conçue que celle des États-Unis.” Vol. 3, No. 32. In No. 52
of July, 1790, former kings are calumniated and Louis XVI. was praised.
The last number of 1790 paid its respects to the king in laudable terms.
“Louis tu as pris, comme par instinct, le parti le plus sage. Tu as cessé
d’être l’oint du Seigneur, pour devenir le fils aîné de la patrie. Notre
mère commune t’a confirmé dans ta place, à la tête de la grande famille.
Dis n’est il pas plus doux de présider des frères, que de fouler aux
pieds des sujets?” No. 77.

[117] He died September, 1790.

[118] March 26-April 2.

[119] I. La nation ne reconnoît pour chef suprême de l’empire que le
président de son assemblée représentative et permanente. II. On ne
pourra être élu président avant sa cinquantième année, ni pour plus d’un
mois, ni plus d’une fois en sa vie.... XIX. La nation supprime, abolit
et annulle à jamais les titres de roi, de reine, de prince du sang
royal, ces mots cesseront d’avoir un sens dans la langue française....
XXI. A l’imitation de la pâque des Hébreux, il sera instituté une fête
commémorative qui tombera le premier juin, jour de l’expulsion des
Tarquins à Rome, et consacrée à célébrer l’abolition de la royauté le
plus grand des fléaux dont l’espèce humaine ait été la victime. No. 90.

[120] May 7-14, 1791

[121] The picture which the editor gives of the feeling in Paris after
the flight of Louis shows him to be an extreme radical, and that the
people of the city were greatly aroused by the escape. “L’opinion
dominante était une antipathie pour les rois, un mépris pour la personne
de Louis XVI., qui se manifestérent jusque dans les plus petits
détails. A la Grève, on fit tomber en morceaux le buste de Louis XVI.,
qu’éclairait la célèbre lanterne, l’effroi des ennemis de la révolution.
Quand donc le peuple se fera t-il justice de tous ces rois de bronze,
monuments de notre idôlatrie? Rue Saint-Honoré, on exigea d’un marchand
le sacrifice d’une tête de plâtre, à la ressemblance de Louis XVI.; dans
un autre magasin, on se contenta de lui poser sur les yeux un bandeau de
papier; les noms de _roi_, _reine_, _royale_, _Bourbon_, _Louis_, _cour_,
_monsieur_, _frère du roi_ furent effacés par tout où on les trouva
écrits sur tous les tableaux et enseignes des magasins et des boutiques.
Le Palais royal est aujourd’hui le Palais d’Orléans. Les couronnes
peintes furent même proscrites, et le jour de la Fête-Dieu on les couvrit
d’un voile sur les tapisseries où elles se trouvoient, afin de ne point
souiller par leur aspect la sainteté de le procession.... Un piquet de
cinquante lances fit des patrouilles jusque dans les Tuileries, portant
pour bannière un écriteau, avec cette inscription:

    Vivre libre ou mourir,
    Louis XVI., s’expatriant,
    N’existe plus pour nous.”

                    No. 102.

[122] “Il ne nous faut qu’un seul chef du pouvoir exécutif, mais un chef
à temps, un chef impuissant par lui même, qui n’ait d’autorité que celle
de la loi. Il est temps, il est plus que temps de frapper un grand coup:
que la tête de Louis tombe; ou bien qu’on le dédaigne, elle est assez
méprisable; que le trône et tous les pompeux hochets de la royauté soient
livrés aux flammes; que l’assemblée nationale de la monarchie fasse place
au sénat de la république; que celui-ci adresse un manifesta à tous les
tyrans de l’Europe; qu’il invite tous les peuples à la liberté; qu’à
la première hostilité d’immenses légions de nos nouveaux républicains
aillent exterminer tous les despotes, et planter le drapeau de la liberté
jusque dans le fond de l’Allemagne; nous serons libres alors, nous
préviendrons la guerre qu’on vent apporter chez nous, et la France aura
la gloire, inconnue jusqu’ à ce jour, devoir non pas conquis l’Europe à
la France, mais conquis l’univers à la liberté, en le purgeant des rois,
empereurs, et tyrans de touts espèces.” No. 103.

[123] T. 8, 606 _et seq._

[124] In No. 115, September 17-24, reference was made to the prize
offered by the Jacobin Club for an Almanac to be distributed among the
people teaching the advantages of the constitution, but the editor
suggests that they had better offer a prize for an almanac revealing the
defects of the constitution.

[125] “Il n’est pas besoin d’examiner l’abolition de la royauté. Le
voeu de la nation sans doute, est assez prononcé; sans doute ceux-mêmes
qui prétendaient que les adresses de tous les départements sur la
déchéance ne suffisoient pas à l’assemblée nationale avant le 10 août,
sont à présent convaincus que les Français ne veulent ni d’un roi de
leur nation, ni d’un étranger.” Noting the weakness in the American
constitution which made it possible for one man, Washington or Adams, to
acquire too great power, the article urged that the French should imitate
no country, but should work out their own plan. However, this same number
told of the first meeting of the Convention and of the abolition of the
monarchy.

[126] Stephens, _The French Revolution_, i, 102.

[127] _Hist. Parl._, x, 414.

[128] _Hist. Gén._, x, 449.

[129] E. Hamel, _Hist. de Robespierre_, i, 388 _et seq._, Paris, 1867.

[130] “Trois différentes opinions partageaient donc l’Assemblée et la
France. La première, de rétablir le roi, et de maintenir la monarchie
d’après les bases de la constitution; la seconde, d’abolir la royauté
et d’élever une république; la troisième mitoyenne entre les deux
autres, de rétablir le roi ou de placer le dauphin sur le trône, mais de
l’environner d’un conseil exécutif indépendant dont les membres amovibles
fussent élus par le peuple,” Montlosier, _Mémoires_, t. i, 467 _et seq._

[131] _Diary and Letters_, i, 436.

[132] _Diary and Letters_, i, 456 _et seq._

[133] _Hist. Parl._, x, 414 _et seq._

[134] _Ibid._, 452.

[135] _Ibid._, xxv, 422 _et seq._

[136] _Hist. Gén._, viii, 133-134; _Hist. Parl._, xiv, 278 _et seq._;
Sorel, _L’Europe et la Rév. fr._, ii, 478.

[137] _Hist. Parl._, xv, 32 _et seq._

[138] La liberté ne peut être suspendue; si le pouvoir exécutif n’agit
point, il ne peut y avoir d’alternatives, c’est lui qui doit l’être: un
seul homme ne doit point influencer la volonté de vingt-cinq millions
d’hommes. Si, par égard, nous le maintenons dans son poste, c’est à
condition qu’il le remplira constitutionellement; s’il s’en écarte, il
n’est plus rien pour le peuple français. _Hist. Parl._, xv, 139.

[139] _Hist. Parl._, 324 _et seq._

[140] Louis XVI. invoque sans cesse la Constitution: nous l’invoquons à
notre tour, et nous demandons sa déchéance. _Hist. Parl._, xvi, 319.

[141] _Hist. Parl._, xvii, 48.

[142] _Ibid._, 44.

[143] From some Department of Jura there is some reason to believe a
political club had addressed a letter at the beginning of 1792 to the
Jacobin Club in Paris, asking for the establishment of a republic. Biré,
_Diary of a Citizen_, etc., i, 45.

[144] F. A. Aulard, _La Société des Jacobins_, i, Intro., XII, XIII,
Paris, 1889.

[145] _Ibid._, iv, 80.

[146] The club decreed August 12: “Qu’il sera fait une adresse aux
Sociétés affiliés, pour leur donner une connaissance exacte des
événements du 10 Août, les instruire du courage et du patriotisme
qu’ont déployé dans cette journée à jamais mémorable les fédérés des
quatre-vingt-trois départments, qui avec leurs frères d’armes de Paris,
out sauvé le patrie.” Aulard, _La Société des Jacobins_, iv, 194, 195.
August 22, an address was sent to the affiliated society pointing out
what class of men should be chosen for the Convention. If they do not
choose these, a new insurrection like that of August 10 may be necessary.
_La Société des Jacobins_, iv, 233-235.

[147] One of the speakers, M. Manuel, said, August 27: “Nous devons tous
jurer, et y’en fais le premier le serment, à quelque poste que je me
trouve placé tous mes efforts seront dirigés vers ce but important, de
purger la terre de fléau de la royauté.” _La Société des Jacobins_, iv,
238 _et seq._

[148] _Ibid._, iv, 259 _et seq._

[149] _Société des Jacobins_, iv, 273 _et seq._

[150] “La sanction ou la revision populaire de tous les décrets
constitutionnels de la convention nationale; l’abolition absolue de la
royauté et peine de mort contre ceux qui proposeraient de la rétablir;
la forme d’un gouvernement républicain.” _La Société des Jacobins_, iv,
281. A letter written by an English lady from Arras, September 1, 1792,
contains this statement: “Mr. Thomas Paine ... is in high repute here—his
works are translated—all the Jacobins who _can read_, quote, and all who
can’t, admire him.” _A Residence in France_, i, 68.

[151] December 21, 1790, the Jacobin Club printed a list of 1,100
members; August 16, 1790, there were fifteen affiliated societies. These
affiliations increased rapidly in the spring of 1791, so that by June
16, there were 406 affiliated and 14 corresponding societies; by June,
1793, there were a thousand affiliated clubs. Aulard, _La Société des
Jacobins_, i, Intro., xxxiii-xxxix. That these clubs knew how to make
use of their affiliations for political action is patent from the letter
sent out among them, August 22, four days before the primary elections
were held: “C’est à nous à le soutenir; et nous le pouvons, en éloignant
des assemblées électorales tous ceux qui ont protégé, même indirectement
la cour et le sacerdoce, les émigrés et leurs adhérents. Notre choix ne
doit pas être difficile; les patriotes font la majorité de la nation.
Ils peuvent donc, s’ils savent se réunis, faire des choix favorables à
leurs intérêts. Les électeurs étant payés à trois livres ... il n’est
plus nécessaire d’être riche bourgeois, prêtre, ou ci-devant noble pour
accepter cette noble mission; et, si la majorité des électeurs est au
niveau de la révolution du 10 Août 1792 nos nouveaux députés ne tarderont
pas à la consolider et à sauver le peuple par une constitution conformé à
la déclaration des droits et à l’intérêt du plus grand nombre.” _Société
des Jacobins_, iv, 233, _et seq._

[152] Stephen’s _French Rev._, ii, 154; Babeau’s _Hist. de Troyes
pendant la Rév._, i, 527, 528. The following excerpt from _A Residence
in France_, 1792-95, described in a series of letters from an _English
Lady_, i, 93: “If the electors and elected of the other departments be
of the same complexion with those of Arras, the new Assembly will not,
in any respect, be preferable to the old one. I have reproached many of
the people of this place, who, from their education and property, have
a right to take an interest in the public affairs, with thus suffering
themselves to be represented by the most desperate and worthless
individuals of the town. Their defense is that they are insulted and
overpowered if they attend the popular meetings, and by electing _les
gueux et les scélérats pour députés_, they send them to Paris and secure
their own local tranquillity.”

[153] The twenty four deputies from the city were Robespierre, Danton,
Collot-d’Herbois, Manuel, Billaud-Varenne, Camille Desmoulins, Marat,
Lavicomterie, Legendre the butcher, Raffron du Trouillet, Paris,
Sergent, Robert, Dusaulx, Frèron, Beauvis de Preau, Fabre d’Eglantine
the dramatist, Osselin, Augustine Robespierre, David the great painter,
Boucher, Laignelot, Thomas, the _ci-devant_ Duke of Orléans, now
democratically named Philippe Égalité. Stephen’s _French Rev._, ii, 155,
156.

[154] The proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy filled Paris
with joy. We cite from the _Rév. de Paris_, No. 167, 534: “Cette
proclamation, parvenue dans les 48 sections de Paris, fut répétée dans
tous les carrefours au bruit des cors et au milieu des applaudissements
universelles. Tous les citoyens à l’envi illuminèrent le devant de leurs
maisons, comme à l’occasion d’un grande victoire remportée sur le plus
puissant de nos ennemis.”

[155] _Hist. Parl._, xix, 6 _et seq._

[156] _Hist. Parl._, xix, 20, 21.

[157] Biré, _Diary of a Citizen_, i, 14; Aulard, _Études et Leçons sur la
Rév. fr._, 109 _et seq._

[158] _Hist. Parl._, xix, 35, 39, 105.

[159] _Diary and Letters_, i, 596.

[160] Aulard, _Études et Leçons_.

[161] _Révolutions de Paris_, ii, 68-76.

[162] See Siéyès disavowal, _Hist. Parl._, x, 451. Brissot’s _Journal_
of Sept. 21, 1791, said: “Qui ne se rappellera pas avec quelque douleur,
que le mot de république était alors presque proscrit aux Jacobins
même; qu’ il fallait prendre des tournures oratoires pour justifier le
républicanisme.” _Hist. Parl._, xix, 20, 21.

[163] _L’Europe et la Rév. fr._, iii, 67.




BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CHIEF WORKS.


Aquinas, Thomas, _De Regimine Principium_.

Archives parlementaires, 1st Series, vols. 1-50, Paris, 1868.

Aubertin, Charles, _L’ésprit public au 18 siècle_, Paris, 1873.

Aulard, F. A., _Études et Leçons sur la révolution française_, Paris,
1893.

Aulard, F. A., _La Société des Jacobins_, 5 vols., Paris, 1889.

Aulard, A., _Histoire politique de la Révolution française_, Paris, 1901.

Babeau, A., _La Ville sous l’ancien régime_, 2 vols., Paris, 1884.

Babeau, Alfred, _La Province sous l’Ancien Régime_, 2. vols., Paris, 1894.

Babeau, Alfred A., _Histoire de Troyes pendant la Révolution_, Paris,
1873-4, 2 vols.

Biré, Jean Baptiste Edmond, _Diary of a Citizen of Paris during the
Terror_, translated and edited by John de Villiers, 2 vols., London, 1896.

Bodin, Jean, _De Republica_.

Borgeaud, Charles, _Établissement et Revision des Constitutions en
Amérique et en Europe_, Paris, 1893.

Bougeart, Alfred, _Marat, l’ami du peuple_, 2 vols., Paris, 1865.

Bougeart, Alfred, _Danton_, Paris, 1861.

Boiteau, Paul, _État de la France en 1789_, Paris, 1861.

Chassin, Charles Louis, _Le Génie de la Révolution_, Paris, 1864 and 65,
2 vols.

Chassin, Charles Louis, _Les Élections et les Cahiers de Paris en 1789_,
4 vols., Paris, 1888, 89.

Champion, Edmé, _La France d’après les Cahiers de 1789_, Paris, 1897.

Corwin, R. L., _Entwicklung und Vergleichung der Erziehungslehren von
John Locke und Jean Jacques Rousseau_, Heidelberg, 1894.

Daire, M. E., _Physiocrates_, 2 vols., Paris, 1846.

D’Argenson, _Mémoires_, 5 vols., 1857-58.

D’Eichthal, E., _Souveraineté de peuple_, Paris, 1895.

De Tocqueville, Alexis, _Mémoires, Letters and Remains_, 2 vols., London,
1861.

De Tocqueville, _L’Ancien régime_, translated by Henry Reeve.

De Lomenie, L. L., _Les Mirabeau_, 2 vols., Paris, 1889-91.

Flammermont, Jules, _Remontrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIII.
siècle_, Paris, 1888.

Flammermont, Jules, _Le Chancelier Maupeou et les Parlements_, Paris,
1885.

Gomel, Charles, _Les Causes financières de la révolution française_,
Paris, 1893.

Hamel, E., _Histoire de Robespierre_, 3 vols., 1867.

Hervieu, Henri, _Recherches sur les premiers États généraux_, Paris, 1879.

Höffding, Dr. Harold, _A History of Modern Philosophy_, 2 vols.,
translated by B. E. Myers, New York, 1900.

Horning, J., _Les idées politiques de Rousseau in “J. J. Rousseau’s jugé
par les Génevois d’aujourd’hui.”_

Jaeger, Eugen, _Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung und des Socialism in
Franckreiche_, Berlin, 1879, 1890.

Jellinek, Dr. George, _Die Erklärung der Menschen und Bürgerrechte_.

La Marck, _Correspondance entre Mirabeau et La Marck_.

Larousse, P., _Dictionnaire Universel du XIX siècle_.

Lavisse, Ernest, _Histoire Générale, Rambaud et Lavisse_, 12 vols., Paris.

_La Grande Encyclopédie._

Lowell, Edward J., _The Eve of the French Revolution_, Boston, 1893.

Marion, Henri, J. Locke—_Sa Vie et son Oeuvre d’après des documents
nouveaux_, Paris, 1893.

Martin, Henri, _Histoire de France_, 17 vols., Paris, 1865.

Mirabeau, Comte de, _Letters de Caché, Oeuvres_, edition of 1820.

Mirabeau, Comte de, _Mémoires_, Brussels, 1834-36.

Mirabeau, Comte de, _Oeuvres_, Paris, 1835.

Mirabeau, Comte de, _Correspondance entre Mirabeau et La Marck_.

Montesquieu, _Ésprit des Lois_.

Montlosier, Comte de, _Mémoires_.

Morley, John, _Rousseau_, 2 vols., Macmillan & Co., New York, 1890.

Morley, John, _Diderot and the Encyclopaedists_, 2 vols., New York, 1897.

Morris, Gouverneur, _Diary and Letters_, edited by A. C. Morris, New
York, 1888, 2 vols.

Neymarck, Alfred, _Turgot et ses doctrines_, 2 vols., Paris, 1885.

Picot, G., _Histoire des États généraux_, Paris, 1888, 5 vols.

Poole, Reginald A., _Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought_,
London, 1884.

Rambaud, Alfred, _Histoire Générale, Rambaud et Lavisse_, 12 vols., Paris.

Ritchie, David G., _Natural Rights_, London, 1895.

Ritchie, David G., _The Social Contract_, in vii vol. of _Political
Science Quarterly_.

Robinson, Prof. J. H., _The Tennis Court Oath, Political Science
Quarterly_, vol. x, September, 1895.

Robinson, Prof. J. H., _The French Declaration of Rights, Political
Science Quarterly_, vol. xiv, No. 4, December, 1899.

Robinson, Prof. J. H., and Grace Read Robinson, _Protests of the Cour
des Aides_, April 10, 1775; _Translations and Reprints from Original
Sources of European History_, Department of History of the University of
Pennsylvania, 1899.

Robiquet, Paul, _Le personnel municipal de Paris, pendant la révolution_,
Paris, 1890.

Rocquain, Felix, _L’ésprit révolutionnaire avant la révolution_, Paris,
1878.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques, _Contrat social_.

Roux, P. C., _Histoire Parlementaire_, 1789-1815, P. J. B.; _Buchez et P.
C. Roux_, 40 vols., Paris, 1835.

Saftu, Vasilie, _Ein Vergleich der Physichen Erziehung bei Locke und
Rousseau_, Bucarest, 1889.

Saint Girons, _Droit public français_, Paris, 1881.

Sayous, Pierre Andre, _Memoires and Correspondence Illustrative of the
History of the French Revolution_, 1852.

Sloane, William M., _The French Revolution and Religious Reform_, Charles
Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1901.

Sorel, Albert, _L’Europe et la révolution française_, 4 vols., Paris,
1887, 1892.

Stephens, Henry Morse, _The French Revolution_, New York, 1886.

Stephens, W. Walker, _Life and Writings of Turgot_. London, 1895.

Texte, Joseph, _Jean Jacques Rousseau et les Origines du Cosmopolitisme
littéraire_, Paris, 1895.

Tripier, Louis. _Constitutions qui ont régie la France depuis 1789_,
Paris, 1879.

Turgot, _Oeuvres_, Paris, 1808.

Voltaire, _Oeuvres_, edited by M. Beuchot.

Vuy, Jules, _Rousseau et Locke, in Bulletin de L’Institut National
Génevois_, 1883.

Various French pamphlets and newspapers found in the Library of Columbia
University, New York: Astor Library, New York; the Library of the
Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia, Pa., and the Boston Public
Library.