_UNIVERSITY EXTENSION MANUALS_

 _EDITED BY PROFESSOR KNIGHT_


 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION




_GENERAL PLAN OF THE SERIES._


_This Series is primarily designed to aid the University Extension
Movement throughout Great Britain and America, and to supply the need
so widely felt by students, of Text-books for study and reference, in
connection with the authorised Courses of Lectures._

_Volumes dealing with separate sections of Literature, Science,
Philosophy, History, and Art have been assigned to representative
literary men, to University Professors, or to Extension Lecturers
connected with Oxford, Cambridge, London, and the Universities of
Scotland and Ireland._

_The Manuals are not intended for purposes of Elementary Education, but
for Students who have made some advance in the subjects dealt with.
The statement of details is meant to illustrate the working of general
laws, and the development of principles; while the historical evolution
of the subject dealt with is kept in view, along with its philosophical
significance._

_The remarkable success which has attended University Extension in
Britain has been partly due to the combination of scientific treatment
with popularity, and to the union of simplicity with thoroughness. This
movement, however, can only reach those resident in the larger centres
of population, while all over the country there are thoughtful persons
who desire the same kind of teaching. It is for them also that this
Series is designed. Its aim is to supply the general reader with the
same kind of teaching as is given in the Lectures, and to reflect the
spirit which has characterised the movement, viz. the combination of
principles with facts, and of methods with results._

_The Manuals are also intended to be contributions to the Literature
of the Subjects with which they respectively deal, quite apart from
University Extension; and some of them will be found to meet a general
rather than a special want._




 The

 French Revolution

 BY

 CHARLES EDWARD MALLET

 _Late of Balliol College, Oxford_

 _Lecturer in History on the Staff of the Oxford University Extension_


 LONDON

 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET

 1893




 Oxford
 HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY




CONTENTS


                                               PAGES
  INTRODUCTORY                                                       1-4


  CHAPTER I.

  THE CONDITION OF FRANCE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY                 5-27

  The old Monarchy in France.--Survivals of free institutions.
  --Centralised despotism of the Crown.--The Intendant's
  position and powers.--Evils of the system.--The
  Government sensitive to criticism but all-pervading.--Class
  divisions.--The nobles and their privileges.--The ruined
  nobles of the provinces and the rich nobles of the Court.--The
  Church, and the great varieties of condition in it.--The
  Middle Class, its privileges and exemptions.--Usurpations
  and spirit of the guilds.--Position of the poorest class
  in town and country.--Peasant owners, farmers and métayers.--Feudal
  oppression from which the peasant suffered.--Exactions
  of the Government.--Abuses in the system of
  taxation.--The Custom-house system and its results.--Increase
  of vagrancy and disorder.--Isolation of the labourer.


  CHAPTER II.

  THE LAST YEARS OF THE ANCIEN RÉGIME                              28-54

  The intellectual revolt of the eighteenth century.--Repudiation
  of authority and dogma.--Rise of the new political
  philosophy.--The literary leaders.--Montesquieu.--Voltaire.--Diderot
  and the Encyclopaedists.--Defects of their
  theory.--Helvetius and Holbach.--The Economists.--Morelly.--Rousseau.
  --Reasons for Rousseau's influence.--The
  _Contrat Social_, its doctrines and defects.--Universality
  of the philosophical and humanitarian spirit in
  Europe.--Its effects upon politics and society in France.--Its
  effects plainly visible in the Government, in Louis XVI,
  Turgot and Necker.--The Government begins to undertake
  large reforms.--Progress of Louis' reign.--Marie Antoinette
  and Calonne.--The Notables of 1787.--Loménie de Brienne
  and the struggle with the Parlements.--Resistance to the
  Government.--The Assembly of Vizille.--Recall of Necker,
  and summoning of the States-General.--Hesitating policy
  of the Government.--Rules for the General Election.--Questions
  as to the numbers of the Tiers-État, and as to
  the union or separation of the three Orders.--Irresolution
  of Necker.


  CHAPTER III.

  THE EARLY DAYS OF THE REVOLUTION                                 55-70

  Meeting of the States-General.--The Commons insist on
  the separation of the three Orders.--Deadlock for six
  weeks.--The Commons constitute themselves the National
  Assembly on the 17th June.--The Tennis Court Oath.--The
  Royal Sitting of the 23rd June.--Ascendency of the
  Court party.--Dismissal of Necker.--Rising in Paris and
  capture of the Bastille.--Grave disorder in France, and the
  two main causes of it.--Various motives of the risings in
  the country.--Complete collapse of the regular authorities.
  --Spontaneous organisation of the electors.--Unfortunate
  policy of the Assembly.--Its inexperience and susceptibility.
  --Abstract discussions of July and August.--The 4th
  August.--Difficulties of Bailly and Lafayette in Paris.--Fresh
  causes of discontent there.--The outbreak of the 5th
  October, and its results.


  CHAPTER IV.

  THE LABOURS OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY                          71-97

  Inclination of the Assembly to follow out its theories
  blindly without regard to consequences.--Hopes of a
  strong Government frustrated by the decree of the 7th
  November.--Results of that decree.--Jealousy of the
  Executive.--New system of local government.--Its defects.--Power
  concentrated in the new municipalities.--Burdensome
  nature of the duties imposed on active citizens.--The
  two decrees imposing qualifications for the franchise
  and for office.--Judicial reforms.--Military and naval
  changes.--The Assembly's determination to make everything
  elective.--Church policy.--Confiscation of Church
  property.--Civil Constitution of the Clergy.--Criticism of
  it.--Consequences of the schism in the Church.--Financial
  policy of the Assembly.--Necker's measures.--Increasing
  embarrassments of the State.--Origin of the Assignats.--Their
  subsequent history and depreciation.--Inadequate
  attempts made by the Assembly to balance its income
  and expenditure.--Its cowardly finance.--Criticism of its
  action.


  CHAPTER V.

  PARTIES AND POLITICIANS UNDER THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY          98-128

  No real party-government in the Assembly.--Gradual formation
  of parties.--The Conservative Right and its various
  groups.--Maury and Cazalés.--Mounier, Malouet and their
  friends.--The party of Reform.--Bailly, Sieyès, Talleyrand,
  Lafayette, Mirabeau, and others.--Duport, Barnave and
  Lameth.--Robespierre and the extreme Left.--Predominance
  of the democratic party outside the Assembly.--The
  Cordeliers, the Jacobins and other clubs.--The birth of
  modern journalism.--Prominent journalists and newspapers.--Mirabeau
  and Barère.--Brissot, Loustallot and
  Camille Desmoulins.--Marat and the _Ami du Peuple_.--Royalist
  journals.--Mallet du Pan and the _Mercure_.--Important
  politicians of this period.--Philippe of Orleans.--Necker.--The
  Comte de Provence.--Lafayette.--Mirabeau.--Mirabeau's
  exceptional insight and ability.--His
  aims and attitude from the first.--His desire to establish a
  strong, popular Government.--His vain attempts to win
  Lafayette.--His ascendency in the Assembly.--His notes
  for the Court and plans for reconciling the Crown with the
  Revolution.--Summary of his character.


  CHAPTER VI.

  THE RISE OF THE JACOBIN PARTY                                  129-154

  The Revolution consists of two separate movements, one
  mainly political, the other mainly social.--Pause in the
  Revolution in 1791.--Apathy of the majority of voters.--Classes
  which had not gained what they expected from the
  Revolution.--Distress among the artisans and labourers.--Illogical
  position of the Constitutional party.--Causes of
  its unpopularity with the poor.--The Jacobin theory.--Its
  results in practice.--Its triumph secured by violence.--Various
  causes of disorder.--Increase of the influence of
  force in politics.--Numbers of the Jacobin party.--Its
  complete organisation.--Growth of Jacobin clubs.--Organisation
  of the Commune of Paris.--Influence of the active
  Sections.--Rise of Robespierre.--His character and policy.--Results
  of the King's flight to Varennes.--Attitude of the
  Jacobin Club.--The 'Massacre of the Champ de Mars.'--Rally
  of the Constitutional party.--Barren results of their
  success.--Reviving influence of the Jacobins.--Visible in
  the Elections.--Critical state of the Revolution at the end
  of 1791.


  CHAPTER VII.

  THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAR UPON THE REVOLUTION                   155-181

  Attitude of the European Powers towards the Revolution.--Catherine
  of Russia.--Gustavus of Sweden.--Joseph of
  Austria.--Frederick William of Prussia.--Spain and England.--Trouble
  in Poland and the East.--Accession of
  Leopold.--His policy.--The French Emigrants.--Their
  activity in Europe.--Condé's Army.--Leopold's views on
  French affairs.--The 'august comedy' of Pillnitz.--Meeting
  of the Legislative Assembly in Paris.--Appearance of
  the Girondist party.--Objects of the Republican minority
  in the legislature.--War policy of the Girondists.--Their
  leaders.--Decrees of the autumn against emigrants and
  priests.--Ministry of Narbonne.--Policy of the Jacobins
  with regard to the war.--The Girondists in office.--Declaration
  of war.--Its momentous results.--Course of events
  down to the 20th June, 1792.--Lafayette's last attempt to
  save the Court.--Brunswick's Manifesto.--The 10th August.--Danton
  in power.--Advance of the Allies.--The prison
  massacres of September.--Responsibility for them.--Battle
  of Valmy.--Retreat of the Allies.--General results of the
  Revolutionary war.


  CHAPTER VIII.

  THE FALL OF THE GIRONDE                                        182-207

  The Elections of 1792.--Parties in the Convention.--The
  Girondists and their advisers.--Madame Roland.--The part
  played by women in the French Revolution.--Difference
  between the Girondists and the Jacobins.--Rather one of
  conduct than of principle.--No place in the Revolution for
  the Girondists as a separate party.--Their only distinctive
  characteristics an idealised republicanism and a policy of
  war.--Beginning of the struggle between the two parties.--Trial
  and death of the King.--Demoralisation of politics.--The
  Girondists lose ground, especially in Paris.--The war
  after Valmy.--Dumouriez' defeat at Neerwinden.--His
  desertion.--Important decrees of the Convention in the
  spring of 1793, preparing the instruments of the Terror.--Economic
  measures.--Growth of the influence of the
  Jacobins.--Rising in La Vendée.--Organisation of the
  Jacobin forces.--The Girondists, unprepared but alarmed,
  attack the Jacobins in April and May.--Warnings of
  Dutard.--State of feeling in Paris.--Arrest of Hébert and
  Jacobin rising.--The 31st May and 2nd June.--Dangers of
  the Jacobin Government.--Its success on all sides.--Fate
  of the Girondists and others.


  CHAPTER IX.

  THE JACOBINS IN POWER                                          208-235

  The Constitution of '93.--Conflict between Jacobin theory
  and Jacobin practice.--The Constitution suspended.--Intimidation
  of the Convention.--Services of its Committees
  to the cause of reform.--The Revolutionary Government in
  Paris and in the provinces.--The Committee of Public
  Safety.--Its members, its divisions and its heroic work.--The
  Representatives on Mission.--Varied character of
  their rule.--Their violence and excesses.--Principles of the
  Terrorists.--Influence of the Parisian Commune.--Supremacy
  of the State enforced in every relation of life.--The
  State, in return for implicit obedience, undertakes to provide
  for all its subjects.--Its methods of doing this.--Attempts
  to fix prices.--The Maximum ruthlessly enforced.--Ruin
  resulting from these arbitrary measures in industry
  and trade.--General scarcity of food.--The State regulates
  private conduct and family life.--Abolition of the Christian
  faith and of the Christian era.--Moral results.--The idealists
  of the Terror.--Its practical agents.--Hébert and his
  party.--License and cruelty of many leading Terrorists.--General
  worthlessness of their subordinates.--Blindness
  and self-delusion of the best among them.--Entire failure
  of the Terrorist ideal.


  CHAPTER X.

  THE STRUGGLE OF PARTIES AND THE ASCENDENCY OF ROBESPIERRE      236-260

  Ascendency of the party of the Commune.--A second party,
  that of the Dantonists, arises.--Danton's attitude.--His
  great services to the Revolution.--His weariness of faction
  and intrigue.--The third party, represented by the Government
  of the day.--Revolt against the Hébertists at the
  Jacobin Club.-Headed by Robespierre and Desmoulins.--The
  _Vieux Cordelier_.--Collot d'Herbois' return to Paris
  in December, 1793, strengthens the Hébertists.--End of
  the struggle.--Triumph of the Government and fall of the
  two other parties in March, 1794.--Execution of Danton.--Conspicuous
  position of Robespierre.--Grounds of his
  popularity.--His intense belief in himself.--His genuine
  sentiment.--His lack of initiative and disingenuous reserve.--His
  incompetence as a practical politician.--His morbid
  suspiciousness.--His strength.--His belief in the Terror
  and attempts to regulate but not to check it.--The Worship
  of the Supreme Being.--The Law of the 22nd Prairial.--Robespierre's
  struggle with his colleagues.--Triumph of
  the Convention on the 9th Thermidor over Robespierre and
  the Commune.


  CHAPTER XI.

  THE REACTION                                                   261-283

  Results of the fall of Robespierre.--Progress of the reaction
  against the Terror.--The Mountain, the Right, and the
  Thermidorians.--Fréron and the Jeunes Gens.--Closing of
  the Jacobin Club.--Arrest of Carrier.--Recall of the proscribed
  deputies of the Right.--Measures with regard to
  religion.--Arrest of Billaud, Collot and others.--Distress
  in Paris.--Breakdown of the economic system of the
  Terror.--Survey of Terrorist finance.--Embarrassments
  and expenses of the Terrorist Government.--Cambon's
  remedial measures.--Republicanisation of the National
  Debt.--Decline of the Assignats.--Impending bankruptcy
  at the end of 1794.--Amount of Assignats in circulation.--Fresh
  issues.--Their rapid decline.--Ruin and distress
  resulting.--High prices of food.--General dearth.--The
  insurrection of the 12th Germinal.--Measures of the reaction.--The
  insurrection of the 1st Prairial.--Suppression of
  the Jacobin party and disarming of Paris.--Progress of the
  War.--Spirit of the French army.--Representatives on
  Mission with it.--Great soldiers in its ranks.--Its reorganisation
  by Dubois-Crancé.--Campaign of 1793.--Victories
  on the Belgian frontier, on the Rhine and in La Vendée.--The
  ten armies of the Republic.--European politics.--Selfish
  views of Thugut, the Austrian minister.--Jealousy
  between Austria and Prussia.--Outbreak of the Polish
  revolt.--Victories of the French in Belgium and Holland.--
  Peace of Bâle.--Prospects of a general peace and of a
  Royalist restoration.--The reaction checked.--Death of
  the Dauphin.--The Quiberon Expedition.--The White
  Terror.--The Constitution of the Year III.--The decrees
  of Fructidor.--The insurrection of the 13th Vendémiaire.--Establishment
  of the Directory.--Conclusion.

  TABLE OF DATES                                                 285-290

  APPENDIX OF BOOKS                                              291-293

  INDEX                                                          295-307




THE FRENCH REVOLUTION




INTRODUCTORY


I have not attempted in this small volume to write a history of the
French Revolution. The events of that dramatic narrative have been
sketched by many hands and are to be found in a hundred histories. They
hardly need retelling now. I have rather endeavoured, while taking
for granted some knowledge of the story, to supply what handbooks
generally have not space to give, and to collect in a convenient form
some of the information, the suggestions and ideas which are to be
found in larger books of comment and enquiry. Works like those of M. de
Tocqueville, M. Taine, M. Michelet, M. Louis Blanc, and Professor Von
Sybel are not always easily obtained. Their cost and their length alike
render them inaccessible to those whom time and necessity compel to be
superficial students. I have therefore tried to summarise to a certain
extent what these and other writers tell us; to dwell on some economic
and political aspects of French society before the Revolution; to
explain the more obvious reasons why the Revolution came; to show why
the men who made it, failed, in spite of all their fine enthusiasm,
to attain the liberty which they so ardently desired, or to found the
new order which they hoped to see in France; to describe how, by what
arts and accidents, and owing to what deeper causes, an inconspicuous
minority gradually grew into a victorious party, and assumed the
direction of events; to point out in what way external circumstances
kept the revolutionary fever up, and forced the Revolution forward,
when the necessity for its advance seemed to many to be over, and its
own authors wished it to pause; and to make clearer, if I could, to
others, what has always been to me the mystery of the time, the real
character and aims of the men who grasped the supreme power in 1793-4,
who held it with such a combination of energy and folly, of heroism and
crime, and who proceeded, through anarchy and terror, to experiment how
social misery could be extinguished and universal felicity attained, by
drastic philosophic remedies, applied by despots and enforced by death.
History offers no problem of more surpassing interest, and none more
perplexing or obscure.

I am not conscious of approaching the subject with a bias in favour of
any party. I have no cause to plead for or against any individual or
group of men. I have tried to read all sides, and to allow for those
deep-rooted prejudices which seem to make most Frenchmen incapable of
judging the event. But when, on the information before me, the facts
seem clear, I have not hesitated to praise, or censure, or condemn.
I will only add that I have considered very carefully the judgments
which I have expressed, though I cannot hope that they will recommend
themselves to all alike.

Books of this kind cannot well lay claim to much originality, and I
do not pretend to have kept pace with the constantly accumulating
literature, which the French press produces on this question every
year. I have used freely the works of such modern writers as M. de
Tocqueville, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Morse Stephens, and others, and my
obligations to them are plain. On M. Taine's great work, too, I have
drawn largely, and while allowing for bias in the author, and while
fully admitting that M. Taine's method tends to destroy one's sense
of proportion, and in some degree to give a blurred and exaggerated
impression of the facts, still I cannot question the weight and value
of the mass of information which he has collected, and no one can
fairly overlook the lessons which it tells. Besides these books, I
think I may say that I have read and consulted most of the materials
in histories, memoirs, biographies, and elsewhere, which the many
well-known French writers on the subject have supplied, and I have paid
particular attention to the voluminous histories of M. Louis Blanc
and of M. Mortimer-Ternaux, to the correspondence of Mirabeau and La
Marck, to the memoirs and writings of Bailly, Ferrières, Mallet du Pan,
Madame Roland, and M. de Pontécoulant, to the biographies of the great
Jacobin leaders, especially those by M. Hamel and M. Robinet, and to
the valuable and important works of M. Sorel, of Professor Schmidt, and
of Professor Von Sybel. This list is not complete or comprehensive; but
I hope it is enough to justify the opinions which I have formed.

At the end, I have given, in a short appendix, a list of well-known
books upon the period, which may perhaps be of use to students, who
wish to go more fully into the subject for themselves.




CHAPTER I.

THE CONDITION OF FRANCE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.


Historians have not yet determined where the French Revolution properly
begins. But even warring schools agree that the object of that great
movement, apart from its accidents and disappointed dreams, was to
destroy the ancient society of Europe, which feudalism had founded
and which time had warped, and to replace it by a more simple social
system, based, as far as possible, on equality of rights. And therefore
time can hardly be misspent in endeavouring to retrace some of the
chief features of the old monarchy of France, at the moment when the
feudal edifice was crumbling, and when the storm was gathering which
was to sweep it away.

It was the pride of the later Bourbon kings to have accomplished
the design, which Louis XI bequeathed to Richelieu, and Richelieu
interpreted for Louis' successors, the substitution of a closely
centralised despotism, for feudal and aristocratic institutions on
the one hand, and for local and national liberties upon the other. By
the middle of the eighteenth century the triumph of this policy was
complete. The relics of the older system, indeed, remained. A multitude
of officials and authorities, with various and conflicting claims,
still covered the country, recalling in their origin sometimes the
customs of the Middle Ages, sometimes the necessities of the Crown,
sometimes the earlier traditions of freedom. Many of the feudal
seigneurs still claimed rights of jurisdiction and police. Cities and
towns still boasted and obeyed their own municipal constitutions. The
peasants of the country side were still summoned to the church-porch by
the village-bell, to take part in the election of parish officials. A
few noblemen still bore the name of governors of provinces. Independent
authorities with ancient titles still pretended to deal with roads
and with finance. The local Parlements, with their hereditary and
independent judges, maintained their dignity as sovereign courts of
justice, preserved the right of debating the edicts of the King,
adopted an attitude of jealous watchfulness towards the Government and
the Church, and exercised considerable administrative powers. In a
few outlying provinces, termed the Pays d'État, and comprising, with
some smaller districts, the ancient fiefs of Languedoc, Burgundy,
Brittany, Artois and Béarn, annual assemblies, representing the nobles,
clergy, and commons of the province, still displayed the theory
of self-government and retained large taxative and administrative
rights. The Church, with its vast resources and strong, corporate
feeling, still, in many matters, asserted its independence of the
State, administered its own affairs, fixed its own taxes, and claimed
to monopolise public education and to guard public morals and their
expression in the Press.

But amid the ruins of older institutions and the confusion of
innumerable conflicting rights, a new system of administration had
gradually grown up and had usurped all real authority in France. At
its head stood the King's Council, with its centre at Versailles. The
Council represented in all departments the monopoly of the State. It
was a supreme court of justice, for it had power to over-rule the
judgments of all ordinary courts. It was a supreme legislature, for the
States-General, the ancient representative Parliament of France, had
not been summoned since the early years of the seventeenth century, and
the local judicial Parlements, though they could discuss the edicts of
the Council, could not in the last resort resist them. It was supreme
in all matters of administration and finance. It governed the country.
It raised and assessed the taxes. In it one over-burdened minister, the
Comptroller-General, assumed responsibility for all home affairs.

Under the Council, and responsible to it alone, there was stationed in
each of the thirty-two provinces or 'generalities' of the kingdom one
all-powerful agent called the Intendant. The Intendant was drawn, not
from the nobility, but from the professional class. He superintended
the collection and apportionment of all taxes which were not farmed
out by the Council to financial companies. He decided in individual
cases what remissions of taxes should be allowed. He was responsible
under the Council for constructing highways and for all great public
works[1]. He enforced the hated duty of the militia service. He
maintained order with the help of the Maréchaussée or mounted police.
He carried out the police regulations of the local authorities and
the more imperious and comprehensive regulations issued from time to
time by the Council. He possessed in exceptional cases large judicial
powers. As the ordinary judges were independent of the Crown, the
Council multiplied extraordinary tribunals and reserved for their
consideration all suits in which the rights of the Crown were even
remotely concerned. In such cases the Intendant acted as judge both
in civil and in criminal matters, and from his judgment an appeal lay
to the Council alone. This practice, once established, was of course
extended and often abused in the interests of power, for the principles
of the ordinary courts, the Intendants confessed, could 'never be
reconciled with those of the Government.'

Besides this, the Intendant was a benefactor too. He repressed
mendicity and arrested vagabonds. He distributed the funds, which,
in the absence of any legal provision for the poor, and in the
abandonment by the seigneurs of the old feudal duty of providing for
their destitute dependents, the Council annually apportioned for the
purpose. He controlled the charitable workshops which the Council
annually set up. In times of scarcity it was he who must find food
for the people, or, if food were not forthcoming, suppress the riots
which the want of it provoked. In the country districts the Intendant
dispensed his lofty patronage to farmers and encouraged agricultural
improvements. In the villages, though the force of ancient custom still
drew the inhabitants to village-meetings, these meetings could not
be held without the Intendants leave; they retained only the academic
privilege of debate; and when they elected their syndic and collector,
they often elected merely the Intendant's nominees. Even in the towns
which possessed municipal freedom, the Intendant constantly interfered
in all matters of importance and in many little matters of detail, and
the burghers protested their eager submission to 'all the commands
of his Greatness.' In each of the provinces of France the Intendant
represented the omnipotence and wielded the authority of Government;
the commands which he received from the Comptroller-General he dictated
in turn to a staff of agents termed Sub-Delegates, and dependent
on him; and these Sub-Delegates, distributed through the different
cantons of the province, carried out their Intendant's orders, assisted
his designs, and were responsible only to their superior, as he was
responsible to the Council at Versailles.

It is not difficult to see the evils of such a system. The excessive
centralisation of the Government and the vast scope of its powers threw
upon the Comptroller-General and his agents a heavy burden of detail.
Reports and documents multiplied. The waste of time and effort was
profuse. 'The administrative formalities,' declared the Council in one
of its minutes, 'lead to infinite delays.' Any little local matter--the
building of a shelter for the poor, the repairing of a corner of the
village church--must be considered by the Minister at Versailles.
No action could be taken until the Sub-Delegate had reported to the
Intendant, the Intendant had reported to the Comptroller-General,
and that harassed official--combining in his single person all the
duties and perplexities which in England are distributed between the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Minister of
Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of
the Local Government Board and the Chief Commissioner of Works--had
personally attended to the matter, and had transmitted his decision
through the Intendant to the Sub-Delegate again. Moreover, apart from
its vexatious delays, the system was very liable to abuse. The power of
the Government's agents was as extended as the power of the Government
itself. Arrest and imprisonment were counted among their ordinary
weapons. Armed with all the authority of the State, it was no wonder
if they sometimes imitated its arbitrary ways, and failed to separate
their private inclinations and their private grudges from the public
needs.

Yet the action of the central Government in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries seems to have been often hesitating and rarely
deliberately harsh. The letter of the law was often barbarous and
rigid, where its administration was easy and lax. To criticism the
Government was not indisposed to listen. Its intentions were amiable
and were recognised as such. Any man above the rank of the lowest
class could protest, if treated unjustly, and he could generally
make his protest heard. The shadow of an older liberty had not quite
departed from the face of France. It was only the lowest and most
miserable class, which needed the means of resistance most, which had
no means of resisting except by force. But beneficent as were the
aims of the all-pervading State, its influence was blighting. Leaning
always upon their Government, and taught to look to it for initiative,
encouragement, protection in every department of life, the people of
France forgot both the practices of public freedom and the value of
private independence; and as the Bourbon despotism directly paved the
way for revolution by levelling many of those inequalities which save
a State, so it left the vast majority of Frenchmen devoid both of the
political understanding and of the sense of personal responsibility,
which the habit of self-government alone creates.

More fatal, however, to national prosperity, were the deep divisions
which separated classes--divisions maintained and emphasized by
privileges obviously unjust. The nobility, the clergy, the middle
class, each formed a distinct order in the State, with its own defined
rank and prerogatives. The nobles, who have been roughly estimated at
about one hundred and forty thousand persons, formed a separate caste.
All born noble remained noble, and not even younger sons descended
into the ranks of the commons. The nobles owned perhaps a fifth part
of the soil, and they retained the ancient rights attached to it,
which had once been the reward of their feudal obligations, but which
survived when those obligations had long ceased to be obeyed. Fines and
dues, tolls and charges, the sole right of hunting, of shooting, of
fishing, of keeping pigeons and doves, the privilege of maintaining the
seigneurial mill and wine-press, the seigneurial slaughter-house and
oven--helped to support the noble's dignity and to swell his income.
The more his actual power departed, the more he clung to his hereditary
rights. When the Government usurped his place as local ruler, he only
entrenched himself more jealously in his feudal position. He never met
his neighbours, for there were no public concerns to unite them, and
all business was in the Government's hands. He lost all interest in
local affairs. If he were rich, he went to live in Paris or Versailles.
If he were poor, he shut himself up in his country-house, and consoled
himself with the contemplation of his pride. But in return for the
powers of which it stripped him, the Government conferred on the
nobleman privileges which completed his isolation from those around
him. He and he alone could be the companion of his Sovereign. He and he
alone could rise to high place in the Army or the Church. He and his
dependents were exempted from oppressive duties like serving in the
militia or working on the roads. He knew nothing of the terrible burden
of taxation which crippled and oppressed the poor. He was generally
exempted from paying the Taille, the most grievous of all the taxes;
and even those imposts--the Poll-tax and the Vingtièmes--to which he
was subject, were collected from him in a specially indulgent manner.
The greater a man's wealth or station, the better was his chance of
securing easy terms. The Government's agents felt bound to act 'with
marked consideration' in collecting the taxes of people of rank. 'I
settle matters with the Intendants,' said the Duke of Orleans, the
richest man in France, 'and pay just what I please.'

Yet within this privileged order the differences of life were marked.
Before the end of the eighteenth century many of the old families were
ruined, and lived in the narrowest circumstances, upon incomes of a
hundred, of fifty, even of twenty-five pounds a year, rigidly clinging
to the titles and immunities which alone distinguished them from the
poor, driven by necessity to exact from the peasants all that custom
allowed them, and subsisting chiefly on the sinister pomp of caste. In
striking contrast to the ruined nobles of the provinces was the much
smaller and more brilliant body which composed the Court. No nobleman
lived in the country, who could afford to live at Paris or Versailles.
Not to be seen at Court was equivalent to obscurity or disgrace. The
nobles of La Vendée incurred the Government's displeasure by their
obstinate adherence to their country homes and their lamentable
unwillingness to perform their duties about the person of the King. Yet
the nobles of La Vendée were the only part of the French aristocracy,
which in the days of the Revolution died fighting for the Crown.

At Court the leaders of society set the wild example of extravagance.
It is difficult to exaggerate the pomp and profusion of Versailles.
Every prince and princess had a separate establishment with its
dependents multiplied in proportion to its owner's rank. The Queen's
household numbered all but five hundred persons, the Comte d'Artois'
almost seven hundred, the King's a thousand in the civil department
alone[2]. It was the distinction of the Grand Seigneurs in those
days--common minds imagine that it distinguishes their imitators
now--to ignore the value of money. In this respect the King outshone
all the Grand Seigneurs of his Court. Louis XIV spent thirty millions
sterling on a single palace. His successor squandered three millions
on a single mistress. Pensions, sinecures, allowances, were scattered
with a lavish hand. When Necker first took office, the charges on the
pension-list exceeded two millions and a quarter. The Duke of Orleans,
with an income of a quarter of a million, received a large pension from
the Crown, and died nearly six millions in debt. The art of spending
money was one secret of the art of pleasing, and nowhere was the art
of pleasing studied with more finish or success. In the charmed circle
of that dazzling, polished Court, pleasure marched with a stately and
unflagging step. Courtesy ordained that everyone should be agreeable,
witty, light-hearted and well-bred. But the unceasing chase of
pleasure, though attended by excellent graces, banishes all thought
of others while it veils egotism with delight, and the fortunate who
entered there naturally forgot the misery which reigned among the
unfortunate outside[3].

Beside the privileged order of nobility stood the privileged
corporation of the Church. Like the nobles, the Church owned vast
landed estates, which covered about a fifth part of France, and which
in many cases were managed well. Like the nobles, the dignitaries of
the Church retained the ancient feudal rights which had survived from
the days when they governed the country, besides a variety of dues and
charges, and their special prerogative--the tithe. Like the nobles,
they evaded the weight of taxation. The assembly of the clergy, meeting
every five years, negotiated with the Crown its own contributions to
the Exchequer, and obtained numberless concessions from the local
authorities, wherever its interests were touched. Moreover, the Church
still enjoyed political power. No one in France had a legal right
to live outside its pale. It controlled the schools; it kept the
parish registers, on which a man's title to his property and his name
depended; for the sake of Catholic truth it burned its adversaries;
and, through its censorship of the Press, it silenced all assailing
tongues.

Then too, like the nobility, the Church offered many contrasts of
condition. The great prelates who lived at Court maintained with all
the lavishness of laymen the well-bred profusion of the place. Their
wealth rivalled that of princes. The Archbishop of Cambrai was the
feudal suzerain of seventy-five thousand people, lord of the town of
Cambrai, patron of two great abbeys, and a Duke and Count to boot.
The ecclesiastical income enjoyed by M. de Brienne, Archbishop of
Toulouse, besides his ministerial salary and pension, is stated to have
exceeded, according to a modern standard, fifty-four thousand pounds.
The Archbishop of Rouen, apart from his episcopal revenues, drew from
his abbeys twenty thousand pounds a year. The Bishop of Troyes received
penitents in confessionals lined with white satin. M. de Rohan,
hereditary Bishop of Strasbourg, held a splendid Court in his great
palace at Saverne, and exalted the dignity of a prince of the Church
by having all his saucepans made of silver. When one contrasts with
this delicate existence the condition of the vast majority of parish
priests, whose plebeian birth shut on them the door to preferment,
who lived, often in ruined and neglected parsonages, in the abandoned
country districts, with no educated friends about them, dispensing the
meagre charities of the august superiors who could not leave the Court
to visit them, and supporting the lofty pretensions of the Catholic
Church on incomes of forty, of twenty, and of sixteen pounds a year,
one ceases to wonder that the priests abhorred a lot, which 'made even
the stones and beams of their miserable dwellings cry aloud,' and that,
when the day of retribution came, they welcomed the destroyer, and
refused to lift a finger to defend the existing system in the Church of
France.

Apart, however, from the advantages of rank, the middle class had its
privileges and exemptions too. Some enjoyed immunities as servants of
the Government; others, as members of powerful corporations; others,
again, of a lower grade, driven from the country districts by the
exactions of the Government and by the demands of the seigneurs,
who insisted on their tribute while they disdained their company,
took refuge in the towns, and there formed a caste of their own. In
early times, most of the important towns in France had possessed two
governing assemblies, one composed of magistrates and officials, who
owed their offices originally to popular election and afterwards to
purchase from the Crown, the other composed originally of all the
towns-people and afterwards of local 'notables' representing the
different companies and guilds. By the end of the eighteenth century,
however, the popular spirit, which had once given life to all these
institutions, had long died out. The municipal officers bought their
places from the Government, and handed them down from father to son.
The representative assembly had ceased to represent any but the
substantial burghers of the town. What had once been public honours
conferred by the voices of free citizens had everywhere crystallised
into private rights, the prerogative of one class or of a few important
families.

Accordingly, the possessors of these rights were bribed to uphold the
existing order by a thousand little dignities and exemptions, in which
relief from taxation played a large part, and they maintained the
pride of their position by drawing a jealous line between themselves
and the unrepresented artisans below. The guilds, originally created
to foster, still survived to fetter the commerce of the towns. But in
process of time these guilds had been multiplied for every branch of
trade; the privilege of managing them had been in most cases usurped or
bought by a narrow group of members; and the fees and rules which they
imposed tended readily to further class-interests and class-divisions.
All artisans who were not the sons of masters, went by the name of
'strangers,' and found innumerable barriers placed in the way of their
advancement. The passion for place, which to some observers seems
inherent in the French middle class, was sedulously encouraged by
Ministers, who, by multiplying small posts and dignities, filled the
Exchequer, appeased complaints, and won supporters. Each of these
little places carried its special perquisites and distinctions; and
thus, in the minds of thousands, the aspiration to possess some petty
advantage over their neighbours tended to oust the larger aspirations
which might have led to public freedom. In one small town the notables
were divided into thirty-six distinct bodies, with different rights
and degrees. Every tradesman delighted in a special mark of rank. The
owner of a shop sat on a higher seat than his assistants. The tailor
could wear only one buckle to his wig, while the proud apothecary
might boast of three. On one occasion the periwig-makers of La Flèche
ceased working in a body, in order to show their 'well-founded grief
occasioned by the precedence granted to the bakers.' The evils begotten
of caste and privilege could hardly be carried to more ludicrous
extremes.

But while each of the educated classes thus possessed its
distinguishing marks to arm revolution and to point hatred, one class,
the lowest, had nothing but the privileges of its superiors to mark
its position in the State. In the towns the great majority of the
labouring community were excluded by the guild monopolies from any
prospect except that of perpetual subjection. Their wages, both in town
and country, were but little more than half of what they earn to-day,
while the purchasing power which those wages represented was very much
less. And if the outlook in the towns was gloomy, their situation
in the country was infinitely worse. It was there that the people
felt most nearly the relentless assiduity of life. Everyone knows
La Bruyère's picture of the wild-looking peasantry of France, their
faces blackened by want and toil and sun, the slaves of the soil, at
which they laboured with such unconquerable patience, who 'seemed just
capable of speech, and when they stood erect displayed the lineaments
of men.' Their dwellings were often windowless cabins, their clothing
a rough woollen covering, their food buckwheat and chestnuts and the
coarsest bread. And yet these unfortunate beings were in many cases the
owners of the soil they tilled. The passionate love of the land, which
distinguishes the French peasant of our own day, was not taught him by
the Revolution. For generations before it his one object of ambition,
the only aim which made it worth his while to live, had been the hope
of acquiring a portion of the land he worked upon. Living wretchedly,
he yet kept that object steadily in view. For that end he hoarded and
toiled and starved. The impoverished gentry came easily to terms; and
thus an immense number of small holdings sprang up almost imperceptibly
in France, estimated by the genial, observant eyes of Arthur Young to
cover as much as 'one-third of the kingdom.'

By the side of these small properties, which tended to grow smaller
under a process of incessant sub-division, lay the large estates
of the nobles, the clergy, the magistrates and financiers. In some
cases these estates were farmed on a large scale by tenants holding
leases at a money-rent, and in the North these farms were numerous and
answered well. But the backwardness and the want of capital, which
blighted all French agriculture in the eighteenth century, helped to
render farm-leases unpopular, and most large proprietors fell back
on the system of Métayage, or farming at half profits, under which
the landlord supplied and stocked the land, while the labourer gave
his labour, and the profits were shared between the two. In Anjou,
where the landlords resided on their estates, knew their Métayers
personally, and supervised their labours, this system prospered. But in
much the greater part of France the Métayers were left to themselves
by the landlords, and struggled on in the greatest distress, without
enterprise, without capital, often deeply in debt, hardly making
enough to yield them the bare means of subsistence, and loath to
exert themselves to swell the profits, which they had to divide with
a master, who neither knew nor cared for them. 'The Métayer,' says a
compassionate seigneur, 'is kept in an abject state by men who are not
at all inhuman, but whose prejudices ... lead them to regard him as a
different species of being.' Before the outbreak of the Revolution,
serfdom, except in some outlying districts, had been extinguished in
France; but the condition of the Métayer materially was little above
the serf's. In some cases, it is true, he had managed to purchase,
independently of his Métairie, a little plot of land of his own,
which he cultivated with minute and arduous attention; and in certain
districts these plots of ground repaid the toil spent on them, and
taught their owners the self-respect of ownership and the dignity
which independence gives. But, generally speaking, even these small
allotments, numerous as they were, were wretchedly unproductive,
and the Métayers and day-labourers who owned them shared the common
depression of their class.

Apart, however, from his bad farming and the poverty of his land, the
French peasant had worse troubles to encounter. The shadow of feudalism
still lay heavily across his path. Even where he was the owner of the
soil, he held it subject to innumerable dues and charges, from which he
could not escape and which he could not redeem. Whenever the peasant's
property changed hands, the seigneur stepped in to claim his fine. On
the roads and at the bridges the seigneur claimed his tolls. At markets
and fairs the seigneur claimed his dues, and sold to the peasant the
right to sell to others the produce of his farm. Occasionally the
seigneur still claimed the peasant's time and labour for nothing.
Everywhere the rights of the seigneur compelled him to grind his wheat
only at the feudal mill and to crush his grapes only in the feudal
wine-press. And even worse than these claims was the scourge of the
game-laws. The seigneur alone could fish in the stream which flowed
through the peasant's farm. The seigneur alone could shoot the game
which ruined the peasant's crops. The seigneur alone could hunt over
the peasant's land. In the vast Capitaineries, which covered some four
hundred square leagues of territory in France, the deer and big game,
preserved for the sport of princes, wandered unchecked, devouring the
fields and vineyards of the inhabitants, and woe be to the peasant who
dared to interfere with their freedom! Every summer the villagers in
the neighbourhood of Fontainebleau, where the Capitaineries stretched
far, were compelled to organise watch companies and to watch all night
for six months in the year, in order to save their vines and harvests
from destruction. If the peasant dared to dispute any of these rights,
there were the seigneur's courts to overawe him, to weary him out with
incessant litigation, and to teach him that, though he had ceased to be
a serf, the seigneur was his master still. Sometimes all these claims
were sold by an impoverished seigneur to a group of speculators, and
the pity of speculators is necessarily limited by considerations of
gain. When the seigneur had done with the peasant, the emissaries of
the Church stepped in, to take their tithe for spiritual purposes,
and to remind him how much he owed to them for the development of his
intellect and the guardianship of his soul.

But the Crown itself took a prominent part in the spoliation of the
poor. Adopting for public purposes the old feudal institution of the
Corvée, the Government summoned the peasants at certain seasons of
the year to leave their fields, without compensation, in order to
make and repair the highways; and by a peculiar irony, although the
great thoroughfares were thus maintained solely at the peasants'
expense, the roads which the peasants really needed, the cross-roads
in agricultural districts, were left to ruin and neglect. More odious
still were the demands of the militia service. Every unmarried man up
to forty years of age could be called upon for this oppressive duty.
No substitution was allowed. Although for the wealthy the exemptions
were innumerable, for the poorest class no exemption was permitted.
Improvident marriages offered the only means of escape. The approach of
the Government's agent was the signal for panic and disorder, and the
miserable villagers fled for concealment to the woods.

Even more grievous than the Corvée and the militia were the abuses
which pervaded the whole system of taxation. The heaviest of all the
taxes was the terrible burden of the Taille, a direct tax levied
sometimes on property and sometimes on income, falling almost entirely
on the poor--alike on the struggling landowner and on the landless
labourer--assessed without order or method, constantly varying
and constantly increased. Every year in the rural districts some
unfortunate villager was selected to act as collector of the Taille.
He alone had to decide how much each of his neighbours was worth, and
how much he must extort from them to satisfy the Government, and if
his efforts or his calculations failed, his own property and person
were responsible for the amount. The opportunities for abuse in such
a system, for the satisfaction of personal jealousies and grudges,
are as obvious as its unfairness towards those on whom the office was
inflicted. 'The office of collector,' cried Turgot, 'drives to despair
and frequently to ruin all those on whom it is imposed.' In order to
escape the Taille, the peasant strenuously concealed his savings. If,
in spite of his Government, he prospered, he dared do nothing to give
an air of comfort to his home. We find him in one case entreating his
landlord not to tile the roof of his cottage, because such a sign
of prosperity would mean for him an increase of taxation. It was
the object of every man to seem desperately poor. Then besides the
Taille, the peasant had to pay the accessory taxes, which in process
of time had been assimilated with it; the Poll-tax and the Vingtièmes,
imposts imposed by Louis XIV on all alike, but the weight of which the
powerful classes had contrived to shift on to the shoulders of the
weak; the road-tax, when the Corvées were abolished; the tax of the
franc-fief, whenever he happened to own lands which had once been the
lands of nobles; and always, apart from the demands of the Exchequer,
his seigneur's dues and his pastor's tithe. Statistics may sometimes
be misleading, but an able statistician has calculated, upon evidence
which it is difficult to deny, that, allowing for all these direct
charges, the peasant in many parts of France paid away four-fifths of
his income to the Treasury, the seigneur, and the Church, and out of
every hundred francs he earned, retained little more than eighteen
francs himself[4].

But the record of his troubles did not end there. The Gabelle, perhaps
the most exasperating impost ever devised by an empty Exchequer,
compelled all citizens over seven years of age to purchase yearly seven
pounds of salt from the agents of the State. But this salt was reserved
for cooking and eating alone, and if salt for any other purpose were
needed, the agents of the State had the right to make its subjects
purchase more. The whole system of indirect taxation was conceived
in the same spirit as this monument of fiscal folly. The face of the
country was covered by barriers and custom-houses, occupied by an army
of revenue officers, who purchased from the Government the right of
collecting the customs and excise. Twelve hundred leagues of artificial
frontiers separated the various provinces of France, impeded trade, and
played havoc with prices. The small vine-growers were almost ruined by
the excise levied upon wine, which even in those days was conspicuous
for its severity and for the inquisitorial practices of those who
enforced it. Calonne declared that the salt tax alone produced every
year nearly four thousand sentences, of imprisonment, flogging, exile
and the galleys. Under such auspices smuggling multiplied, and the
Government retorted by heavy punishments. Bodies of armed banditti
were organised in disturbed districts, and carried on for years
together a guerilla war against the forces of the Crown. Unemployed
labourers and ruined peasants found a livelihood in swelling the ranks
of disaffection, and in the absence of any poor-law administration,
mendicancy and vagabondage rapidly increased.

The records of the last years of the Ancien Régime are consequently
full of evidence of alarming and growing disorder. Townspeople
complained that the beggars, driven from the country, flocked into the
cities for shelter. The Intendants reported to the Council that the
chief highways of the kingdom were infested with dangerous vagrants.
In vain the Government multiplied its corn-laws and arrests, and
endeavoured to stifle the clamours of indigence by feeding some and by
punishing others. In 1767, fifty thousand beggars were arrested; but
in 1777, the numbers of that unfortunate class had risen to nearly a
million and a quarter. In Paris the census of 1791 declared that out of
a population of six hundred and fifty thousand, over one hundred and
eighteen thousand were without the means of regular subsistence. It is
easy to understand how, pressed by hunger, and pursued by a rigorous
penal code, many of these wandering mendicants crossed the thin line
which separates extreme want from crime, and how, when the Old Monarchy
suddenly collapsed, and when in the search for freedom law was for the
moment lost, this large group of miserable beings, armed with brief
power and long-accumulated hatred, exacted a terrible revenge for the
wrongs of the labouring community in France, from whose ranks they and
their ancestors had been driven by a system politically and socially
unjust.

Such, in the eighteenth century, were some of the conditions of life
in France. Each class lived apart, entrenched in its own chilling
traditions. 'Nobody,' cried Turgot, 'cares for any interest but his
own.' Local patriotism, common intercourse, friendly feeling, no
longer drew men of different ranks together. The sense of citizenship
had generally died out. Below the others the peasant stood alone. His
poverty clung to him as a garment of shame. His commonest impulses
were want and fear. His love of legend made him superstitious. His
ignorance made him credulous, bigoted, suspicious, easily persuaded
to believe in evil. Isolated from the world, conscious of belonging
to an inferior caste, encountering on all sides the privileges of
his masters, and yet with no superior to care for him and no wise
counsellor to guide him, blunted in feeling by long endurance, gentle,
submissive, often gay, but more often brooding on the indignities which
he suffered, and resenting the injustice even more than the hardship
of his lot, he heard and welcomed with passionate illusion the new
doctrine of human dominion, which proclaimed that men were equal,
whatever their station, whatever their distress, and from that moment
the attainment of equality, so easy to imagine, so hard to approach,
became the commanding ideal of the poor.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: It will be understood that in the Pays d'État, the powers
of the Intendants, as regarded taxation and public works, were limited
and controlled by the rights of the local assemblies.]

[Footnote 2: The expenses of the royal table amounted to nearly three
hundred thousand pounds a year.]

[Footnote 3: I have taken all these figures from M. Taine's _Ancien
Régime_, and have reduced them roughly to their equivalents in English
money of our own day. I have, however, throughout calculated the
_livre_ at 10_d._, although Arthur Young puts it as high as 10-1/2_d._;
so that the amounts in the text are, if anything, understated.]

[Footnote 4: One part of the _taille_, that which fell upon the
cultivator, reached the privileged orders indirectly through their
farmers, but even then there were certain exemptions in their favour.
The franc-fief was the tax of one year's revenue levied every twenty
years on non-noble holders of noble lands. The calculation of income
given here I take from the note on the subject contained in the
appendix to M. Taine's volume on the _Ancien Régime_, which is founded
on the _procès-verbaux_ of the provincial assemblies. On an income
of 100 francs, he estimates the _taille_ (with its accessories),
the poll-tax, and the road-tax together, at 42 fr. 15 c.; the two
_vingtièmes_ at 11 fr., the tithe at 14 fr. 28 c., and the feudal dues
at 14 fr. 28 c.; total 81 fr. 71 c.]




CHAPTER II.

THE LAST YEARS OF THE ANCIEN RÉGIME.


The decay of the old society was accompanied in France by a decay of
the ideas which were inseparably associated with it, and which, long
kept alive by authoritative sanctions, had exacted, not always without
violence, the reverence of men. As the State had usurped the control of
every department of action, so the Roman Catholic Church had usurped
the control of every department of thought. Resting serenely upon
authority and dogma, it had dictated and circumscribed the knowledge
of its subjects, had directed their intellectual interests, and had
aimed at supplying not only a religion to govern their conduct, but
also a complete theory to govern their lives. Against this monopoly,
and the conceptions on which it was established, the best minds of the
eighteenth century rose in revolt, and their revolt was celebrated by
an outbreak of active and intrepid thought. Beginning in the mysterious
domain of physical science, with great discoveries in astronomy,
chemistry, physics, geology and mathematics, the new spirit of enquiry
spread like a flame to illumine other topics. Its votaries, rejecting
ancient tradition and immemorial habit, turned with sudden enthusiasm
to observation and analysis, and built up for themselves step by step
new systems of knowledge, based, not on what their teachers taught
them, but on positive facts which they had ascertained and tested for
themselves. The vivid curiosity thus aroused woke in them distrust
of all preconceived notions, banished the reverent awe which had
restrained earlier generations, and broke down the old barriers of
belief.

Before long the passion for investigation passed beyond the limits
of physical science, and ranging far afield, entered the domain of
theology, of economics, of politics and social laws. In all fields
alike there appeared the same disposition to repudiate opinions
previously held, to examine afresh, under no restrictions, the
principles which lay at the root of religion and government, the
general laws which regulated human institutions, the origin of existing
conceptions of society and property, of justice and right. Tradition
was dethroned, and reason was set up in its seat, as the only test by
which opinions could be determined, without regard to the subordinate
place which reason fills in the conduct of men. The classical spirit,
with its finish, its artificiality, its limitations, already dominant
in France, set its stamp upon the new philosophy, and afforded the
vehicle for conveying it to the world. In successive generations of
polished intercourse, the French language had acquired extreme nicety
and clearness of expression; it was admirably fitted for criticism,
analysis, argument, definition; and it thus rendered the new ideas at
once popular and lucid. A passion for philosophical discussion took
hold of the educated world, and carried them past the facts which
they ought to have noticed, to theories which seemed more distant
and consequently more profound. All alike began to speculate, to
generalise, to enquire into the meaning of many things, the current
interpretation of which they had determined no longer to accept; while
the necessity, from which all Frenchmen suffer, of never being dull,
encouraged superficiality in the new search for truth, and checked the
close study of history, which alone could have avoided error.

As the secrets of the universe unfolded, and as men learned how clear
and simple were the laws of physical nature, they determined that there
must be other laws of nature, equally clear and simple, to explain
society and politics; and finding this theory lamentably contradicted
by the confusion of institutions and abuses round them, they began to
assail those institutions and abuses with the audacity which science
gives. Law and religion in their actual forms were so corrupt that the
shocked imagination of these dreamers fell back upon ideals of natural
religion and natural law. Far aloof themselves from actual politics,
untrained by that wisdom of many voices which free political discussion
bestows, dissatisfied with their own political customs, but disdaining
to study thoroughly the political customs of others and the origin of
all, they proceeded to formulate, by the aid of pure reason, theories
which would satisfy their newly roused emotions, and fit in with some
apparently more simple and scientific formula of life. All those for
whom politics in practice were a sealed book, took refuge in these
politics of the imagination, and the political world in France found
itself presently divided into two camps, one consisting of those who
governed, the other of those who discoursed, the latter perpetually
establishing principles, which the former perpetually broke. A society
devoted to letters and to conversation embraced and disseminated the
speculative literature of the age, and thus the great literary men of
the eighteenth century became in France what politicians sometimes
strive to be in happier lands, the fountains of political inspiration,
and the real leaders of public thought.

Among the pioneers of the new doctrines two men stand out conspicuously
in each half of the century,--Montesquieu and Voltaire in the first
half, Diderot and Rousseau in the second. Montesquieu, the earliest
of the philosophers, was a polished and eminent lawyer, well versed
in history, serious, acute, a profound student of human institutions,
and the master of a terse and pointed style. His writings, generally
speaking, were no mere flights of pert fancy, but the result of
systematised and careful thought, weighty, luminous, moderate in tone,
and scientifically sane. It was Montesquieu, who, in his _Lettres
Persanes_, initiated the philosophic movement, and unmasked the
batteries of criticism and satire, which for two generations were to
play so effectively upon the foundations of the old monarchy in France.
It was Montesquieu, who, twenty seven years later, when he produced
the great work of his life, the _Esprit des Lois_, analysed with
clear and wide sagacity the laws which regulate human governments and
customs, and thus destroyed the mysterious prestige which had never
till then been stripped from the ancient institutions of France. It
was Montesquieu, who first exposed those institutions to a ruthless
analysis which they could not stand. But the slow and careful method,
which was Montesquieu's distinction, was less popular with his
successors. It involved too much trouble. It ran the risk, except in
a master's hands, of being dull. The classical spirit, the French
temperament, the love of amusement combined to guide criticism into
an easier groove, and the philosophic movement, without altogether
deserting the studious atmosphere of facts, adopted a more becoming
garment in the exquisite raillery of Voltaire.

Voltaire's life extended long past the middle of the century, and
its closing years were the years of its greatest triumphs. But he
yet belongs to the generation of Montesquieu rather than to that
of Rousseau. Under him, the tone of the new movement altered. It
became lighter, and bolder too. Its reserve vanished. Its intrepidity
increased. It entered every field. It illumined every subject. In
verse, in prose, in history, in drama, in romance, Voltaire assailed
traditions, beliefs, abuses, exposing mercilessly their shortcomings
and shifts, laughing aloud over their absurdities, denying the
pretensions which they boasted, denouncing the iniquities to which they
led. Voltaire's rare and versatile wit, his light touch, his unabashed
scepticism, his brilliant common-sense, appealed irresistibly to the
minds of his countrymen. He made the philosophic movement popular. He
identified it with many errors, and with the gravest faults of taste.
But with it all he taught men to despise many follies and to impeach
many wrongs.

It was Voltaire who gave to the literary movement that decisive tone
of irreligion, which it so long retained. The Church stood in the
van of the opponents whom the philosophers had to encounter, and to
attack the Church, her practice and her creeds, was to Voltaire an
intellectual delight. More than any other institution the Church in
France represented the spirit of tradition, of authority, of submission
to formulas, of reverence for the past. As such, she was certain to
view with alarm the new spirit of independent enquiry. Of all forms
of political power, the political power of the Church was the most
unpopular. She stepped in to support with mysterious sanctions the
civil institutions which many felt were unjust. As the censor of the
Press, she represented the Government at the very point where the
Government and the philosophers came into conflict. Of all the supports
of the old order, she was in many ways the most open to attack.
Consequently, the philosophic movement from the first brought its
forces to bear upon the Church, and Voltaire led the onslaught with
the irreverent vivacity of his nature, and the rich splendour of his
information and literary resource.

In the middle of the eighteenth century, however, the conduct of the
philosophic movement passed to a large extent into younger hands. In
1751, the first volume of the celebrated Encyclopaedia concentrated
public attention on a group of writers of no common range and
understanding, all inspired with the new spirit, and combined to carry
it into every field of economic, political, and social action. The
Encyclopaedists numbered among them many distinguished men. On the
roll of their contributors we find the names of Turgot, Rousseau,
Buffon, Marmontel. D'Alembert, the accomplished mathematician,
brought to the work his trained abilities, his admirable style, and
the wisdom acquired by a student during a life spent in frugality
and independence. But the greatest of the staff, the most original
in genius, the most reckless in expression, and the most intense
and imaginative in thought, was the brilliant, perverse, impetuous
Diderot, with his extraordinary, magnetic conversation, his indomitable
perseverance, his genuine consciousness of his own shortcomings,
his ardent desire for the improvement of mankind. It is significant
that nearly all the prominent members of the Enyclopaedic party had
been brought up as pupils of the Jesuits, and unquestionably, as a
party, they associated themselves with a pronounced attack upon the
chief tenets of the Catholic Church. But it is difficult and not very
profitable to attempt to assign definite names of obloquy to the
varieties of disbelief within their ranks, and it is a grave mistake
to regard that aspect of their writings as the most characteristic or
important. What gave to the enterprise its force and success was the
fact that it travelled far beyond the barren conflicts of theology,
and brought the new ideas, the new habit of enquiry and analysis, the
new fearlessness of social comment, and the new humanitarian zeal, to
investigating political and economic phenomena, to preparing the way
for practical reform. The glory of the Encyclopaedists lies not in
their contempt for things holy, but in their hatred of things unjust,
in their denunciation of the trade in slaves, of the inequalities of
taxation, of the corruption of justice, of the wastefulness of wars,
in their dreams of social progress, in their sympathy with the rising
empire of industry, which was beginning to transform the world.

Posterity is more familiar with the defects than with the virtues of
this strange episode in human thought. Its ideals were disfigured by
many faults--by unreality, political ignorance, dangerous license,
violent extremes. In its anxiety to escape from conventions, it
relaxed necessary codes. It made impiety obstreperous. It hastily
adopted a belief in the perfectibility of man, to fill the niche where
once had rested a belief in the perfection of God. In place of the
traditions and systems which it uprooted, it taught its followers to
look for guidance to their own instincts, and to vague aspirations
after imaginary systems of natural law. It planted in the French
people an inextinguishable desire to abolish everything which reminded
it of the past, however much they might suffer in the attempt. Its
teaching seemed to discourage the impulses of virtue, and to offer no
satisfaction for the spiritual needs of man. Helvetius' famous treatise
_De l'Esprit_ laid down, amid much shallow commonplace, the depressing
doctrine that self-interest dictates both the conduct and the views
of men, and that the attainment of pleasure is their only final aim.
Holbach's not less famous _Système de la Nature_ touched the climax of
a century of philosophical commotion, in its passionate indictment of
the vices of kings and the slavery of men, in its direct demand for
revolution, in its remorseless rejection of every form of faith, in its
insistence upon atheism and materialism as the only true philosophy of
life. 'Religious and political errors,' cried Holbach, 'have changed
the universe into a valley of tears.'

Beside the contributors to the Encyclopaedia, and sometimes among
them, were men of different schools of thought, allied with them in
advocating change. Quesnai and Turgot were conspicuous in the ranks
of an eminent sect termed by some Economists, by others Physiocrats.
The Economists shared with Diderot and his colleagues the zeal for
reform, the contempt for the past, the democratic temper of the times.
They were prepared to enforce equality even at the cost of despotism.
They insisted on the subordination of all private rights to the public
interest. They preached the necessity of national education as the
first essential of national prosperity, and urged that the burden of
taxation should be thrown upon the land, which they regarded as the
sole source of wealth. They advocated free trade, free agriculture,
free industry, while they cared little for freedom itself. Others like
Morelly, the author of the _Code de la Nature_, accepted the Economist
theory of the omnipotence of the State, but added other theories
of their own. Morelly proposed to establish community of goods and
uniformity of all conditions. He denounced the institution of private
property, and he shadowed forth in their earliest shape many of those
suggestions for the readjustment of the world, which have since assumed
the name of Socialism and acquired the dimensions of a spectre in minds
intolerant of change.

But far above the sound of other voices rose the lofty tones and
the sonorous rhetoric of Rousseau. Rousseau disdained the study and
analysis of the past, in which Montesquieu had sought laborious
wisdom. He cared nothing for the diffusion of knowledge and art, of
which Voltaire was the brilliant representative. He hardly understood
the wide, ambitious projects, by which Diderot and Turgot hoped to
benefit humanity. He resented the utilitarian theories of Helvetius.
He hotly denied the material philosophy of the school of Holbach. To
Rousseau's angry discontent with life, study, knowledge, cultivation,
seemed to be only steps in the degradation of man. To his inflamed
vision all society was artificial, all accepted forms of political
organisation were tyranny and abuse. Man, he protested, was naturally
good and just and loving, created by a just and loving God, until
art, the bane of life, invaded his simplicity, tainted his virtue,
and brought him face to face with suffering and sin. Sweep away
therefore, he exhorted his hearers, all the false fabric of society,
the world of ugly want and insolent riches miscalled civilization, the
oppression miscalled order, the error miscalled knowledge! Level its
inequalities, repudiate its learning, break its conventions, shatter
its chains! Let men return to the simplicity of ancient days, to the
idyllic state, when uncorrupted instinct only ruled them, and there
once again, innocent and ignorant, as Nature made them, and guided only
by the 'immortal and celestial voice' of reason, seek the high paths of
felicity of life.

In a generation full of privilege and hardship, and weary of its own
artificial ways, such teaching as this struck a resounding chord. It
did not matter that the teacher reconciled a rather sordid practice
with a gorgeous theory, and was himself too often morbid, egotistical,
unmanly, mean. The disciples, who drank in his doctrines, did not
enquire critically into his motives. They did not ask--and possibly we
have not the right to speculate--whether he assailed society, because
he failed to shine in it, or whether he inveighed against riches,
because he lacked the patient industry to earn them for himself. They
did not know or care whether his quarrel with the world, his indictment
of its usages and laws, his eloquent defence of human instinct, and his
sensuous love for Nature, were or were not dictated by the feverish
longing which possessed the man to follow every impulse of his mind,
and to submit his impulses to no control. They did not see that the
example of a master, who, whatever shameful faults he might commit,
could still maintain that civilization, and not he, deserved the blame,
and could still gravely describe himself to his friends as one of
the best men that he had ever known, was only too well calculated to
enable his disciples to persuade themselves that they were instruments
of virtue, purity and justice, while they were permitting iniquity
and palliating crime. They knew that his denunciation of oppression
coincided with the bitter lessons which their experience taught. They
found that his eloquent words renewed their self-respect, and raised
their ideal of the dignity of man. They felt that he pleaded the cause
of the unfortunate in tones and with a genius which made the fortunate
attend, and that he brought to that exalted service the widest
compassion, the readiest sympathy, and the most majestic language which
the eighteenth century had heard.

In 1762, Rousseau published one of the most famous, and, in its
consequences, probably one of the most important books ever written.
'Man was born free,' ran the prologue to the _Contrat Social_,--'man
was born free, and is everywhere in chains.' In the _Contrat Social_
Rousseau rejected altogether the historic method--that wise process
of political philosophy, which patiently studies the circumstances of
the past, in order, by the experience so obtained, to modify and to
improve the present. Relying on the unsafe methods of abstract, _a
priori_ speculation, he proceeded to develop, out of his ardent and
imaginative brain, an ideal theory of society, which should establish
by logical and conclusive argument the opinions which his sentiments
had already espoused. The result of the enterprise was the celebrated
doctrine of the Sovereignty of Peoples. The origin of every human
society, argued Rousseau, was this:--At some remote epoch in the dawn
of days, men, living in a state of nature, virtuous, rational, equal
and free, had resolved to enter into an association to defend the
persons and property of all, while every individual in it remained
free. Accordingly, they had formed a Social Compact, under which each
individual had submitted himself to the direction of the general
will, and had been received as an inseparable part of the whole. The
body formed by this Social Compact was the Sovereign. All citizens
who belonged to it--and all did--had an equal share in the common
sovereignty, and were bound to one another by a fraternal tie. Its
sovereignty consisted in the exercise of the general will, and that
sovereignty could not be alienated to any individual or group, nor
could it be divided up into different parts and distributed among
different officials. The will of the sovereign body was expressed in
laws, and every member of it must take his part personally, and not by
delegation, in the making of those laws. If he delegated that right to
representatives, he surrendered his share of sovereign power. For the
sake of convenience, the sovereign body might delegate to governments
certain executive powers for a limited time; but the sovereign body
still retained the right of resuming or modifying those powers at
will, and must from time to time assemble, in order to enforce its
right. When the whole sovereign people was thus assembled, the power
of governments ceased, and all executive authority was suspended. If
any government usurped the sovereignty, the Social Compact was thereby
broken; all citizens resumed their liberty to act, and might rise in
rebellion to assert it. Lastly, in religion, the sovereign body was
entitled to impose a civil profession of faith, and to compel all its
citizens, under penalties of banishment and death, to believe in the
existence of a beneficent God, in an immortal life, in the reward of
the just and the chastisement of the wicked, in the obligation of the
Social Contract and of the laws.

It is easy in these days to criticise the _Contrat Social_. The
mistaken idea of compact as the basis of society; the rejection of
representative legislatures, and the insistence on a principle which
could only apply in a miniature State--the personal participation
of every citizen in the making of the laws; the sanction given to
the right of insurrection, when the imaginary compact was broken;
the absence of any method of ascertaining whether the compact were
broken or not;--these are flaws in its argument which will readily
occur. It is easy also to point to certain characteristics which
disfigure it throughout--to its disregard of facts, to its sophistry
and inconsistencies, to the narrow intolerance of its sentimental
theology, to its aloofness from the region of practice, to its reliance
on dogma and on the logic of words. But it is not so easy to appreciate
the extraordinary impression which in those days it produced, or the
enthusiasm aroused in all who looked for liberty, by the fearless
splendour of its phrases, by the fused argument and passion of its
style, by its generous democratic temper, by the spiritual earnestness
which inspired it, by its fine exaltation of patriotism and freedom.
The _Contrat Social_ supplied the text and lit the fire of revolution.
It became the gospel of the Jacobin party, and of that party
Robespierre constituted himself high-priest.

The seed sown by these remarkable writers fell upon fruitful soil.
The years which immediately preceded the outbreak of the Revolution
in France were years of vague but widespread agitation. An enthusiasm
for the natural greatness of man, and a boundless contempt for the age
and society in which he lived, pervaded the thought of the time. In
almost every European country, observers noticed the same presentiment
of impending change, and of a change which, on behalf of humanity,
most people were prepared to welcome. Thinkers and talkers alike were
full of illusions, full of curiosity, full of unselfishness, full of
hope. Outside France, as within it, everyone plunged into philosophical
debate. In the trading cities of Germany, merchants and manufacturers
would gather, after the day's work, to discuss the condition of
the human race. Sovereigns like Frederick, Catherine, and Joseph
affected the secure radicalism of despots. In Spain, in Portugal,
in Tuscany, as well as in England and France, statesmen echoed the
new humanitarian maxims. Aranda, Pombal and Manfredini exhibited the
spirit, and emulated the reforms, of Turgot and Necker, of Fox and
Pitt. The outbreak of the American Revolution roused the deepest
interest in Europe. Volunteers from France poured over to America,
to fight for the political ideals, about which they had for so long
been dreaming, and the realisation of which in the New World seemed to
bring home conviction to the Old. The tidings of the triumph of the
American colonists were received with acclamation in the roadsteads
of Elsinore. Strangely enough, the feverish unrest of the time
produced, in an age which professed to have undertaken a war against
superstition, a revival of the mysticism of an earlier day. On the eve
of the French Revolution, the best educated classes in Europe were
engrossed by secret societies and brotherhoods, like the Illuminati,
the Swedenborgians, the Mesmerists, the Rosicrucians, dabbling on all
sides in necromancy and occult science, and frequently the dupes of
ridiculous impostors, who, catching the temper of the times, proposed
to effect by charlatanism the regeneration of the world.

This vague perturbation of spirit did not, it is true, penetrate to
the lowest or unlettered class. But in all above that rank it was
conspicuous. The years of the reign of Louis XVI were in France, as
in nearly all parts of Europe, years of national expansion. The trade
of the country was advancing by leaps and bounds, and the commerce of
Bordeaux already exceeded, in the sober judgment of Arthur Young, that
of any English port save London. At the same time the wealth of the
middle classes was increasing with similar rapidity. Year after year
they lent more money to the Government; and year after year, as they
saw the Government wasting it with reckless profusion, and falling
steadily deeper into debt, they ranged themselves more decidedly in the
ranks of opposition, and became more emphatic in their discontent. The
gross mismanagement of the finances became a matter in which they felt
they had a right to interfere. Their stake in the game of politics made
them politicians, and not only that--it made them reformers too. And
thus the growing wealth of the country tended indirectly to multiply
the enemies of the Court, and to throw on to the side of revolution
that important financial interest, which is generally a stable,
sometimes an obstructive, element in a State.

In other ways also, by the end of the century, in their style of
living, in their education, in their enlightenment, the middle classes
had become the equals of the nobles. They had imbibed the same
philosophy; they had cultivated the same tastes; they contemplated with
the same sublime ignorance of history and politics the philanthropic
ideas of the age; and they resented, even more bitterly than before,
the exclusive and exacting privileges of caste. At the same time, the
nobles, on their side, were losing, under the benign influence of
philosophy, a great deal of the apathetic insolence, which had made
their privileges hateful. The Court of Louis XVI was very different
from that of his predecessors. It was less pompous, less artificial.
The rules of etiquette were relaxed. A better tone prevailed in its
society. The haughtiest nobles opened their doors freely to lowborn
genius. They debated republican theories in their drawing-rooms. They
applauded republican sentiments in the theatres. They began dimly to
realise their public duties, and in a tentative way to perform them.
They awoke to the distress of the poor about them, and endeavoured
to alleviate it with a generous hand. Some of the nobility proposed
to surrender their immunity from taxation. Others, headed by the
King, emancipated the serfs who still remained on their estates. The
Marquis de Mirabeau established a gratuitous office for the settlement
of law-suits. The Duchesse de Bourbon rose early in the morning, to
visit with alms the garrets of the poor. The Queen laid out a village
at the Trianon, where, attired in a muslin gown and a straw hat, she
could fish in the lake and see her cows milked. The King multiplied
his private charities, and, one severe winter, commanded that all
the poor, who came, should be fed daily in the royal kitchens. On
all sides, among the upper classes of society, the same symptoms
showed themselves. Extravagant but kindhearted sensibility became the
mainspring of their actions; reform was their passion, limitless,
radiant hope their creed. 'With no regret for the past,' says one of
their number, looking back from the sere contemplation of later years
on that entrancing morning of his life,--'with no regret for the past
and no apprehensions for the future, we danced gaily along a carpet of
flowers stretched over an abyss.'

The same spirit animated the Government of the time. In spite of his
want of strength, his lamentable irresolution, and his well-intentioned
lethargy of mind, Louis XVI possessed not a few of the qualities in
which good kings excel--a high standard of morality and duty, a large
fund of quiet simplicity and courage, a readiness to listen to the
advice of wiser men, a marked sensitiveness to public opinion, and a
genuine desire to serve his people. Louis had not been long upon the
throne before he gave proof of his benevolent intentions by appointing
to the office of Comptroller-General the greatest practical reformer
of the day. Under Turgot the new spirit penetrated rapidly into every
department. The extravagances of the Court were cut down. Useful
changes were introduced into the system of farming and collecting the
taxes. The Corvées were converted into a regular impost, from which
the privileged classes were not exempt. The guilds, which monopolised
and fettered trade, were suppressed. Fresh encouragement was offered
to agriculture and commerce. Free trade in corn was established within
the kingdom. The minister talked of commuting feudal dues, and dreamed
of abolishing the inequalities of taxation. A spirit of gentleness and
consideration came over the administration. The Government not only
introduced reforms; it condescended to recommend them to the public,
to point out their necessity, to explain their intention. 'The burden
of this charge,' said the Royal edict which abolished the Corvées,
'falls solely upon those who possess nothing but the right to toil.'
'The right to work,' ran the preamble to the edict which suppressed the
guilds, 'is the most sacred of all possessions, and every institution
which infringes it, violates the natural rights of man.'

In the same way, Necker, when he succeeded Turgot, appealed for support
to public opinion. He recognised the 'invisible power which commanded
obedience even in the King's palace,' and endeavoured to justify his
policy by publishing an account of the state of the finances. In the
same way, though Turgot and Necker fell, and their schemes perished
with them, the reforming spirit continued to affect the Government
all through Louis' reign. Change after change, experiment after
experiment, attested the readiness of the Crown to bend before the
forces of the time. The measures taken, first of all to suppress, and
afterwards partly to restore the guilds, destroyed the old relations
between employers and workmen, while they did little to establish a
more complete or satisfactory system in their place. And thus, when
the Revolution came, there reigned generally among the artisans of
the great towns a sense of uncertainty and discontent, which rendered
discipline impossible and mischief easy.

Again, only a year before the Revolution, one royal decree transformed
the administration of justice in France; while a year earlier, in 1787,
another bold and memorable measure completed the reform begun as an
experiment some years before, and established provincial assemblies
in all the Pays d'Élection. The importance of this step, which has
been sometimes overlooked among the graver changes of a later day, can
hardly be exaggerated; for it introduced, almost without warning,
a new principle into the government of the country. By the side of
the autocratic Intendants, new provincial assemblies were created,
which stripped the Intendants of most of their powers, or, if they
resisted, entered into active competition with them. By the side of
the autocratic Sub-Delegates, new district assemblies were formed, to
pursue a similar course of action in a smaller sphere. In place of the
ancient parochial assemblies, and in the midst of the inequalities
and privileges, of which French villages were the familiar scene,
and which in themselves remained unaltered, new, elective, municipal
bodies sprang up to assert democratic methods, among conditions wholly
irreconcilable with democratic ideas. When one considers the scope of
these important changes, their novelty, their inconsistencies, and the
suddenness with which they were made, one realises something of the
confusion and paralysis which they must have produced in the public
service, and one begins to understand why the agents of the Government
proved so powerless, in spite of their prestige, when they had to
face the crisis in 1789. On the very eve of the Revolution, Louis and
his advisers, forgetful of the salutary maxim that the most dangerous
moment for a bad Government is the moment when it meddles with reform,
had deliberately destroyed the old, despotic, administrative system,
which, at the end of the eighteenth century, formed the only certain
mainstay of the throne.

It is not necessary to linger here over the episodes of Louis' reign.
Turgot and Necker fell in turn; but Necker carried with him from office
a reputation for sound finance, for disinterestedness, and for honest
liberality of opinion, which won for him a name out of all proportion
to his powers. He left behind him a problem of ever-increasing
difficulty, and a deficit alarmingly enlarged by the intervention of
France in the American war. For a time, after the overthrow of Necker,
reactionary influences had their way. The wastefulness of the Treasury
continued. The spectre of reform was for the moment laid. And at the
head of that splendid and light-hearted Court, which combined the
profuse traditions of the Grand Monarque with the gay philanthropy
that was the fashion of the day, and resented all economies as
mean, and radical innovations as thoroughly ill-bred, there stood,
conspicuous in brilliancy and beauty, the figure of the Queen. Wilful
and proud, unthinking and extravagant, intolerant of disagreeable
facts, because she was wholly ignorant of their truth, already widely
calumniated and misjudged, but destined to face far worse calumnies,
which partisanship, in the mask of history, has repeated since, Marie
Antoinette has never ceased to command the interest and attention of
posterity, as her tragic story, and the fall to which her errors partly
led, have never ceased to move its pity and respect. In 1783, Calonne
took office as Comptroller-General, and for four years, encouraged by
the favour of the Queen and Court, and helped by his own surprising
agility and resource, Calonne maintained his place. Money was found
at ruinous expense to supply the necessities of the Government and
the rapacious claims of courtiers. Every day bankruptcy came more
distinctly into view. At last Calonne, unable to carry on his system
any longer, fell back upon a desperate expedient. He summoned, in
February, 1787, an extraordinary assembly of Notables, consisting of
nobles, bishops, magistrates and officials, laid before them frankly
the situation of affairs, and gaily informed them that within the last
ten years the Government had borrowed no less than fifty millions
sterling.

It is curious to notice the attitude of this assembly, and the way in
which its action was received by the country. As might be expected,
the Notables, consisting almost entirely of members of the privileged
orders, were not prepared to make large personal sacrifices to save
the state. When Calonne audaciously proposed to them the abolition of
privileges and exemptions, and asked them to submit to a heavy tax,
he fell, amid a storm of reproaches from the courtiers, who regarded
him as a deserter from their ranks. But instead of carrying popular
sympathy with him, Calonne found that his opponents, although they
were resisting reform, had usurped the popularity of reformers. The
Notables adroitly shifted the ground of attack to the conduct of the
Government. They demanded the public accounts. They censured the acts
of the Administration. And simply because they assailed the Government,
and ventured to criticise and oppose the Crown, they suddenly found
themselves, to their own surprise, transformed into popular heroes,
and their conduct and courage applauded all over the kingdom. The same
thing happened after Calonne's fall. Loménie de Brienne, the Archbishop
of Toulouse, succeeded to Calonne's office, and found himself compelled
to take up many of Calonne's plans. Thereupon the Parlement of Paris
stepped to the front, and following the example of the Notables,
accepted some of the Minister's reforms, and particularly the edict for
the establishment of provincial assemblies, while they rejected the
new taxes, which were an inseparable part of the Government's scheme.
In vain the King threatened and punished the members of the Parlement.
The Parlement, borrowing the language of the times, and forgetting
that they themselves were only a privileged and exclusive corporation,
posed as the representatives of the nation, and demanded that the
States-General should be summoned to express the national will.

The Government attempted to carry its schemes through with a high hand.
All over the kingdom, the local Parlements, the judicial magistracy
of France, took up the cause of the exiled Parlement of Paris, echoed
its tones, and even threatened dangerous rebellion. In Dauphiné, in
particular, the clergy, nobles, and commons of the province, gathering
at Vizille, and led by the courageous eloquence of Mounier, protested
against the policy of the Minister, and defied the Crown. The nation,
caring little for the rights or wrongs of the quarrel, but delighted
to see the all-powerful Government baffled and assailed, welcomed the
Parlements as national deliverers, and proclaimed them the champions
of popular freedom. For a moment the strange spectacle offered of
the privileged orders in France defending their privileges, with the
enthusiastic support of the nation, against the Government, which
wished to destroy them in the interests of all. In face of this
extraordinary union, the Government recoiled. Alarmed by the increase
of riots and disorder, by the high price of food, by the disaffection
in the army, by the Ministry's total loss of credit, and by the
prospect of bankruptcy in the immediate future, the King decided to
consult the nation. He announced that the States-General, the ancient,
representative Parliament of France, would again, after the lapse of
a century and three-quarters, assemble to debate the destinies of the
kingdom. Then the popularity of the privileged bodies died as suddenly
as it had begun. In August, 1788, Necker was recalled to office, and a
general outburst of rejoicing celebrated the astonishing surrender of
the Crown.

A wise minister would have endeavoured by prompt and decisive action
to allay the vague excitement of the time. Every day the feeling of
restlessness was spreading in the country. Paris had become a great
debating club. The tension in the public mind was already extreme.
Instead, however, of hurrying on the elections, instead of showing a
resolution to face the crisis with enlightenment and calmness, the
Government hesitated, procrastinated, wavered, and allowed all the
world to see that it had formed no policy, and hardly knew what its
intentions were. The meeting of the States-General was delayed until
the following spring, and in the meantime the Government stimulated
the fever of opinion. All through the winter of 1788-9, France was
flooded with political addresses and with democratic pamphlets--among
which the audacious pamphlet of the Abbé Sieyès excited general
remark--calculated to raise as high as possible the hopes and pride
of the Tiers-État. To add to the war of words, the Government invited
all classes to draw up Cahiers or petitions of grievances, to be laid
before the States-General, when they met, and thus, by its own action,
it focussed the attention of its subjects on the many abuses which had
been borne silently so long.

Moreover, when the important question of the constitution of the new
States-General arose, the Government found it impossible to make up
its mind. In the electoral arrangements, as might be expected from
the innumerable local and personal rights still existing in the
country, there was very great complexity and confusion. But the general
principle, at any rate in the Pays d'Élection, was this. The nobles
and clergy of each Bailliage, as a rule, elected their representatives
directly, though the rule was subject to a good many exceptions. In the
election of the commons, on the other hand, the voting was in no case
direct, but had two, or even three or four degrees. All Frenchmen over
twenty-five, who had paid even the smallest amount of direct taxes,
had votes. They might vote for any representatives they pleased, for
there was no property qualification for candidates. But they could not
vote for them directly. The electoral assembly of each Bailliage thus
consisted of the nobles and clergy of the Bailliage, and of a number
of representatives of the commons, who had been previously elected by
primary assemblies of voters in the different towns and villages of
the Bailliage. When the electoral assembly of the Bailliage had been
formed, the nobles, the clergy, and the electors of the Tiers-État,
who composed it, separated into three distinct bodies[5], and each
order chose a certain number of deputies to represent it in the
States-General at Versailles. The number of deputies allowed to each
Bailliage varied according to circumstances, but was mainly determined
by its population and wealth.

It was arranged without opposition that the nobles and the clergy in
the States-General should have, according to usage, three hundred
representatives each; but then the difficult question arose, how many
deputies were the Tiers-État to elect. The advocates of democracy
urged, amid enthusiastic applause from the public, that the commons
infinitely out-numbered the other two orders, and ought therefore to
have at least double the number of representatives. On this point Louis
and Necker alike wavered undecided, besieged by the importunities of
the democratic feeling which they had let loose in France. In vain
Necker, in November, 1788, gathered another assembly of Notables, and
tried to shift his responsibility on to them. The Government at last
made up its mind to concession, and announced that the commons were to
have 'the double representation'--six hundred representatives in the
new Parliament. But the genius of irresolution still dogged its steps.
It could not even then bring itself to decide whether the three orders
should sit and vote in separate Houses, or whether they should all sit
in one Chamber and vote together. The timidest intelligence must have
perceived that, unless the three orders were to vote in one body, the
numerical superiority which the commons had obtained would be without
significance, and the Government's concession to popular feeling would
be merely a delusion. And yet to the last this important question was
left undecided by the Crown, as a fruitful source of quarrel out of
which the troubles of the Revolution might begin. So, with a Government
perplexed by fears, with a local administration paralysed by a variety
of recent changes, with signs of disorder multiplying upon every side,
with innumerable difficulties requiring settlement, and with the fixed
spirit of old traditions vainly attempting to assimilate the new, the
monarchy prepared to meet the representatives of the nation, who,
already flushed with triumph, and intoxicated with self-confidence and
hope, advanced to realise their long-delayed millennium, and with the
aid of freedom and philosophy to readjust the destinies of France.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 5: In three cases only, in Langres, Péronne, and Montfort
l'Amaury, the three orders sat and voted together in the electoral
assembly.]




CHAPTER III.

THE EARLY DAYS OF THE REVOLUTION.


On the 5th May, 1789, the States-General were opened by Louis at
Versailles. From the first the Government betrayed its helplessness,
and its total inability to appreciate the situation. The Commons'
deputies had come to Versailles for the most part with the largest
expectations. They were fully alive to existing evils. They were full
of schemes and ideals of reform. They foresaw, and were willing to
foresee, no obstacles. They were prepared to transform the country; and
they confidently expected, under the guidance of a benevolent King and
of a liberal and experienced Minister, to begin without delay the work
of national regeneration. But from the outset they encountered a series
of checks and disillusionments, which increased in gravity as time went
on. They found that the Government, instead of taking the lead with
vigour, met them with no definite proposals for reform, and with little
but vague philanthropic intentions over and above its desire to restore
the finances. They found that the King and his advisers had not even
made up their minds as to the constitution of the new Parliament, and
could not bring themselves to decide whether the three orders were to
sit and vote together or apart. They found themselves in an atmosphere
new to most of them, set to do work new to all, conscious in their own
minds that a new era had begun and that they must assert themselves to
mark it, but yet accustomed from immemorial habit to regard the nobles
as their superiors, the King as their master, and the Government as
irresistibly strong.

Accordingly, at first, the attitude of the Commons was one of great
embarrassment. They had as yet no recognised leaders of their own, and
the Ministers, to whom they looked for leadership, were silent and
appeared to be as much perplexed as themselves. On one point only they
were clearly resolved and determined to yield to no pressure. They
insisted that the deputies of the nobles and clergy should join them,
and should form one chamber with themselves. On their side, the nobles
and clergy refused to listen to this innovation. The Commons steadily
rejected a compromise, and on that point the deadlock arose. Instead
of the States-General setting to work to repair the finances and to
carry reforms, six weeks went by, occupied only with this preliminary
quarrel, while all the time the excitement in Paris and in the country
deepened, the conflict of class interests became more apparent and
acute, and the reactionary courtiers rejoiced at the fiasco and
used their influence to widen the breach. The Commons, growing more
confident as they felt their strength, and as they realised the power
of the forces behind them, held their ground, disregarded the pressure
and the innumerable, little, social slights, to which they were daily
exposed at Versailles, and became more and more pronounced in their
policy of self-assertion; and the Government revealed more strikingly
than ever, alike to the States-General and to the public, its entire
lack of purpose and resolve.

At last, after six weeks of waiting, the Commons took matters into
their own hands, and from that moment events moved fast. On the 17th
June, the deputies of the Tiers-État resolved on a momentous step, and
on the motion of Sieyès, constituted themselves alone the National
Assembly of France. The Government, alarmed at this usurpation of
power, determined to reassert its authority and, while offering a large
programme of reform, to insist on the separation of the three orders.
On the 20th, the Commons found themselves excluded from their hall,
and their sittings consequently interrupted; but they persevered in
the policy which they had adopted, and adjourning simultaneously to
the Tennis Court, swore solemnly never to separate till they had given
a constitution to France. On the 23rd, the King came down in state to
the Assembly Hall, and while offering large concessions, annulled the
resolutions of the Commons. But the Commons, inspired by the courageous
words of Mirabeau, rejected the programme which Louis had laid before
them, adhered to their resolutions, and defied the Crown. Within a few
days, the nobles and the clergy were requested by Louis to abandon the
struggle, and the union of the three orders was complete.

But the Court party bitterly resented the usurpation of the Commons.
The disorder in Paris was increasing fast. Necker held ostentatiously
aloof from his colleagues. The King, distressed and embarrassed,
suffered himself to be persuaded by the haughtier spirits at Court,
helped by the direct influence of the Queen, to make an attempt to
recover the authority which he had allowed to slip from his grasp.
The old Maréchal de Broglie, a veteran of the Seven Years' War, was
summoned to the royal counsels. Great masses of troops, composed
chiefly of Swiss and German regiments in the service of France, were
concentrated, in spite of the protests of the Assembly, around Paris
and Versailles. On the 11th July, Necker and three other Ministers
were dismissed, and their places in the Government filled by decided
adherents of the reactionary party. On the 12th, the news reached
Paris, and the people, scared, famished and indignant, burst into
revolt. On the 14th, that revolt culminated in the decisive movement
which destroyed the Bastille, which shattered the plans of the Court
party, and which completed the triumph of the Revolution and the
humiliation of the Crown.

'With the 14th July,' said a wise and enlightened witness of the time,
'the terror began.' The rising in Paris was the signal for the first
general outbreak of violent disorder in France, which proved that the
distressed classes had taken the law into their own hands, and that
the Government was utterly unable to cope with or control them. The
strongest motive for disorder was unquestionably material want. For
many years past, the condition of the poorer peasants and labourers,
both in the towns and in the country side, had been almost intolerable,
and in 1789, the chronic distress of this large class reached an acute
stage. In 1788, a severe drought had been followed, on the eve of the
harvest, by a hail-storm of extraordinary violence and extent, which
had destroyed the crops for sixty leagues round Paris. That, in turn,
had been followed by the severest winter known for eighty years, which
had completed the ruin which the drought and the storm had begun. The
consequence was that, in the spring and summer of 1789, the price of
bread rose as in a siege, and on all sides the cry of famine spread.
From all parts of France, in the spring of 1789, came the same alarming
rumours of scarcity and distress. From all parts of France, in the
months preceding the capture of the Bastille, came the same reports of
disturbances and riots occasioned by the want of food. Discontented
peasants, unemployed labourers, rapidly reduced to criminals by hunger,
passed from patient misery to despair, and broke out into resistance.
Compromised or defeated in the country, they took refuge in the towns;
and thus, in April and May, observers noticed that 'frightful numbers
of ill-clad men of sinister appearance,' many of them foreigners, all
more or less destitute and dangerous, were pouring into Paris, where
already bread was exorbitantly dear, and where already the number of
unemployed and paupers bore a dangerous proportion to the population of
the city.

The trouble caused by the scarcity of food was stimulated by another
motive second to it only in importance--the feverish excitement of
political hope. Depressed and ignorant as they were, the labouring
class in France had, nevertheless, grasped the idea that in some vague
way the meeting of the States-General marked an era in their lives,
and was somehow or other destined to ease the intolerable burden of
their lot. With them political freedom and constitutional reform took
the immediate shape of food, work, and relief from feudalism and
taxation. Once the idea had been implanted in them, their restless
anticipations rapidly increased. Every week of delay rendered them
less manageable. Every check experienced by the Assembly was a spur
to their impatience. Every step taken by the Government to assert its
authority or to overawe the reformers filled them with indignation,
suspicion and panic. In the poorer districts of Paris, and especially
in the gardens of the Palais Royal--the headquarters of Bohemians,
idlers, mischief-makers, crowds--the political excitement of the time
found expression in perpetual demonstrations, not unmixed with rioting
and outbreaks. The regular authorities of the city, unused to the
spectacle, looked on, unable to control it. The police force of Paris
under the Ancien Régime was so small as to be practically useless. The
garrison, formed of the Gardes Françaises, who were responsible for
the maintenance of order, sympathised with the citizens, who spared no
hospitality or flatteries to gain them, and finally, mutinying against
their officers, went over to the popular side. The other regiments in
the neighbourhood showed a marked inclination to follow the example of
the Gardes Françaises. The Government, deserted by its own agents, drew
back; and the spirit of disorder, produced by the desire for food and
the desire for freedom, obtained the mastery of Paris, and took command
of the Revolution too.

The example set by Paris was immediately followed in the provinces. At
Strasbourg, Lyons, Dijon, Troyes, Besançon, Rouen, Caen, all over the
country, spontaneous risings occurred, directed against the authorities
or practices of the Ancien Régime, and often accompanied by violence
and bloodshed. The people, stimulated by the pressure of famine and
by the feverish excitement of the time, and believing that the hour
of their deliverance had come, determined to deliver themselves. In
different places the outbreak took a hundred different forms. In
garrison cities the people, imitating the Parisians, attacked the
nearest fortress or castle, and, as in Paris, the troops generally
fraternised with the assailants. In some quarters popular indignation
was directed against the tax-offices and custom-houses, in some against
the local magistrates, in some against the tithes, in some against
the newly-introduced machinery, in some against the Jews, in most
against corn-dealers and all concerned in trafficking in grain. In the
towns the distressed workmen rose against the bourgeois, and against
the unjust economic system, which had long rendered their condition
unbearable. In the country districts the peasants rose against the
iniquities of feudalism, and burned the monasteries and châteaux, where
the court-rolls, the records of their hated liabilities, were kept. No
doubt, with the desire to redress abuses there mingled, in the minds
of an ignorant and embittered peasantry, a great deal of ferocity and
crime. In many places indiscriminate war was declared against all kinds
of property, and the outbreak took the form of a struggle between rich
and poor. But the most notable features of the revolutionary movement
were, first, its universality, and secondly, the powerlessness of the
authorities to confront or to suppress it. Everywhere the agents of the
administration collapsed. The Intendants, the law-courts, the police,
completely paralysed, abdicated or disappeared, and the inhabitants of
town and country alike, recognising the helplessness of the Government,
gave way to an inevitable panic.

The consequence was that the months of July and August were signalised
by a sense of insecurity amounting to terror. The wildest rumours
pervaded the country, and the most extraordinary instances are found
of places where the people, panic-stricken by some vague, unfounded
report of the approach of brigands, who had no existence out of their
imagination, rushed to arms or fled into concealment to protect
themselves against their own alarm. One result of the 'great fear'
was that volunteer forces of citizens, interested in restoring order,
sprang up on all sides, in imitation of the National Guard just
organised in Paris, to which they were destined before long to be
assimilated; and these volunteer forces, though sometimes used by the
bourgeois to repress the movements and to maintain the subjection
of the labouring class, were still invaluable in restoring peace.
Moreover, in place of the authorities of the Ancien Régime, there
sprang up, to exercise the duties of administration, informal municipal
committees composed of electors, which, usurping the powers abdicated
by the Government, rapidly organised themselves, secured the obedience
of their fellow-citizens, and set to work, as best they could, to
reconstruct the administration of the country. The rapidity and skill
with which these municipal committees and their volunteer forces
organised themselves, clearly illustrate the readiness of the provinces
to act on their own initiative and to take over the responsibilities of
the Revolution, and show how completely the people of France at first
kept pace with, if they did not outstrip, their leaders in Paris and
Versailles.

The most obvious and the wisest course for the National Assembly to
adopt, would have been to legalise as rapidly as possible the changes
so suddenly effected, and to set to work without delay to organise
the new administrative system. After the 14th July, the King had
completely surrendered, and the Assembly had only to act in order
to be obeyed. The task before it was, it is true, difficult and
almost endless. It was imperatively necessary to restore order. But
it was also imperatively necessary--and this the Assembly did not
see--to construct, as quickly as it could be done, some form of local
government, to replace the old order which had disappeared. It was
imperative to provide by some means for the necessities of the revenue,
until a permanent financial system could be organised, in place of
the old taxes which people would no longer pay. It was imperative to
take steps to convince, not only the bourgeois and the peasants, but
the distressed artisans in the towns as well, that the Assembly was
alive to the urgent necessities of the moment, had a real grasp of the
situation of affairs, and would do all that could be done to protect
their interests, and to save them from the starvation which they
imminently feared. These were the measures which Mirabeau urged upon
his colleagues, but unfortunately, there were few men in the Assembly
who possessed the gift of practical statesmanship, which genius, lit by
experience, had conferred on Mirabeau.

The character of that famous Assembly, read in its own day by the
critical but far-seeing eyes of Burke, has excited the wonder of
posterity. Its most notable feature was its want of practical
experience. Among the upper clergy and the nobles, there were, it is
true, certain deputies, who from their position had obtained some
knowledge of affairs, but these men were liable to be distrusted by
their colleagues, because the moderation which their experience taught
them, obviously coincided with their interests. Among the Commons
there were not a dozen men who had held important administrative
posts. There was only one deputy, Malouet, who had held the great
office of Intendant, and was in consequence really familiar with the
working of the old administrative system. The great majority of the
deputies of the Commons consisted of lawyers of little celebrity, who
brought to the Assembly all the facility of expression, but little of
the utilitarian caution, which in England is associated with their
profession. The place of experience, in the case of most members of
the Assembly, was taken by a large imagination, a boundless optimism,
a vast store of philosophic tags and democratic phrases, a fatal
fluency of speech, a fine belief in logic, an academic disregard of
the rude facts of practical existence. Never was any body of men so
much inspired by hope and confidence, so full of honourable enthusiasm,
so convinced of its own ability, or so fixed in its honest desire, to
regenerate the world.

Accordingly, the early history of the Assembly is marked by a series
of strange scenes, only possible in a nation with whom extreme
versatility of temperament takes the place of humour, illustrating the
susceptibility, the emotion, the feverish excitement, the liability
of the whole body to act on the impulse of the moment, regardless of
what the consequences might be. A happy phrase, a witty saying, a
burst of declamation, would carry it off its feet, and settle the fate
of a division. The prodigious quantity of written rhetoric declaimed
from the tribune wasted a prodigious quantity of time, but there was
always an audience ready to applaud it. The debates were conducted
with very little order. The entire absence of method in the Chamber
often frustrated the business-like work done by its committees. In
vain Mirabeau urged his colleagues to adopt the procedure of the
English House of Commons. The French people, newly emancipated,
disdained the example of any other nation. In the great halls at Paris
and Versailles, where the Assembly successively sat, the process of
legislation continued to be attended by a constant clatter of talk and
movement, interrupted by noisy shouts and gestures, by obstruction and
personal abuse, and aggravated by the presence in the galleries of
large numbers of strangers, whom at first the Assembly welcomed, and
whose turbulence it afterwards vainly attempted to control. The noisy
demonstrations in the Strangers' Gallery encouraged extreme speeches
and proposals, shouted down unpopular orators, and gradually organised
a species of mob-rule. The occupants of the galleries ultimately
became one of the greatest dangers and defects of the Assembly. By
the intimidation which they practised, not only inside its walls,
but outside in the streets as well, they daunted and terrorised even
brave men; and before long they forced into silence or flight many
politicians, whose influence would have been valuable to the cause of
moderation and good sense.

These facts ought not to be forgotten when one is considering the
action of the Assembly, for they help to explain the slowness of its
procedure, and illustrate the inexperience which was its besetting,
but inevitable, fault. Moreover, during the months of July and
August, the Assembly was probably still amazed at its own success,
and had scarcely realised its own omnipotence. Most of the deputies
of the majority, although anxious for reform, had no very definite
opinions, and as yet the machinery of political parties and political
principles did not exist among them. The consequence was that instead
of acting with vigour and precision, they gave themselves up to general
discussions. They imagined that men already in rebellion, clamouring
for food and for a fair opportunity to earn it, would be satisfied
by reiterated assurances that they were equal, sovereign, free; and
proceeded to debate, for weeks together, the Declaration of the Rights
of Man. From that subject they passed at length to consider the bases
of the new constitution, and in the month of September two important
constitutional questions were decided. The Assembly rejected by an
overwhelming majority the proposal for dividing the future Parliament
into two Houses on the English model, and resolved that there should
be only one Chamber in the constitution which they were beginning
to create. Secondly, jealous of the royal authority, and misled by
unstatesmanlike counsels, the Assembly determined, against the wiser
voice of Mirabeau, that the King should have, not an absolute, but
only a suspensive veto on the laws passed by the future Parliament; in
other words, that he should not be able to reject any measure which
the Chamber approved, but might refuse his sanction to it until time
or agitation compelled him to yield. Once only, in these early weeks,
did the Assembly come near to the questions which were really agitating
France, when, on the night of the 4th August, horrified by the report
of its own committee, it gave way to the impulse of the moment, and
abolished in a series of reckless resolutions all feudal survivals,
serfdom, tithes, all exemptions from taxes, and every other exclusive
privilege existing in the kingdom. And yet, unwise as the Assembly's
conduct seems to us, and incapable as it unquestionably proved, nothing
can be clearer than the uprightness of intention, which governed it as
a whole in these early days, and the earnest enthusiasm for humanity
and justice, which dictated its policy and distended its debates.

But while the Assembly debated, Paris starved. The victory of the
14th July had done little for the Parisians, and the disorder which
had accompanied it, and which had broken out afresh, a week later,
in the murder of the detested Intendant Foulon, had not by any means
ceased. Three days after the fall of the Bastille, the King had come
to Paris, to be publicly reconciled with his subjects, and Bailly and
Lafayette had been informally elected, the one Mayor of Paris, the
other Commander-in-chief of the new National Guard. Lafayette at once
set to work to form the National Guard of Paris into a civic army of
thirty thousand men, and incorporated the Gardes Françaises with them
as a paid battalion. He spared no pains to attach the force to his own
person; and it seems clear that he designed to use it, not only to
maintain order in the interests of the middle class, and to keep down
the large discontented element which swarmed in the city, but also as a
political instrument, to direct the Revolution in accordance with his
own views. But even with this force behind him, Lafayette found that
order was exceedingly difficult to keep; while Bailly, for his part,
was overwhelmed with anxiety, working day and night with troublesome
subordinates to supply the capital with bread, which daily became
dearer and harder to obtain.

Meantime the causes which led to disturbance were steadily increasing
rather than diminishing. The emigration of the aristocrats had begun.
Paris, always a city of luxury, and depending largely on the sale
of luxuries for her support, found herself deserted by the Court,
the rich, the travelling public, by the great spending class to
whose expensive wants she ministered, and whom the disorders of July
had driven away. Thousands of journeymen tailors, shoemakers and
hair-dressers, thrown out of work, thousands of domestic servants,
thrown out of places, thousands of makers of lace and fans, of
carriages and upholstery, of jewellery and nick-nacks, thrown out
of employment by the cessation of their trades, began to gather and
demonstrate in different quarters of the city. Beggars from the country
and deserters from the army continued to pour in, to fraternise with
the people, to join in the exciting politics of the Palais Royal, to
add to the pressure upon the food supply. In vain the new municipal
authorities opened relief works at Montmartre, and sold grain to
the bakers at a heavy loss. The discontent became more general and
threatening. The oratory of the Palais Royal, which followed with
intense keenness the debates of the Assembly, and which was almost
ready to take arms on behalf of the suspensive veto, increased in
vehemence. The suspiciousness and distrust of the Court--suggested,
it may be, by emissaries of the Duke of Orleans--which had so largely
contributed to the outbreak in July, revived in full force as September
went by. The Parisians knew or suspected that one party at Court was
constantly urging the King to retire further from Paris. They believed
that their troubles would never end until they had the King and the
Assembly in their midst. And when, at the end of September, the
Government, acting probably in the interests of order, brought up the
Flanders regiment to Versailles, and the courtiers made the arrival
of the troops the occasion for a great royalist demonstration, the
excitement in the capital broke bounds again, and the extraordinary
march of the women to Versailles effected the capture of the King.

The events of the 5th and 6th October need no description. Their
origin is a mystery still. But their result was most important. The
royal family and the National Assembly were removed to Paris, and were
thenceforward kept in Paris, as hostages in the hands of the strongest
party. The fortunes of Paris became decisive of the fortunes of the
Revolution in France. But the democratic forces, which had won the
day, did not reap the fruits of the victory. The advantage of the
movement fell entirely to the party which represented the views and
formed the following of Lafayette, the party of middle class reformers,
who, by securing the person of the King, finally baffled the forces
of reaction, and obtained the control of the Revolution themselves.
It was this party which had organised the National Guard. Now that it
was triumphant, it honestly wished to consolidate, in its own fashion,
liberty and order. But, unfortunately, the charge is with some justice
made against it, that, consciously or unconsciously, it did not care
for the interests of the class below it, by whose assistance it had
achieved its triumph, and by whom it was destined in its turn to be
overthrown. The leader of this party was Lafayette; and the more the
records of those two days are examined, the more difficult is it to
resist the conclusion that Lafayette's action all through them was
calculated to promote his own advantage, and that his intention was
to use the forces of revolution just enough to frighten the King into
submission, then to appear upon the scene as his deliverer, and to
turn the King's submission to account. In that intention Lafayette
succeeded, and the events of the 5th and 6th October made his views and
his authority for a time the dominant influence in the State.




CHAPTER IV.

THE LABOURS OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.


After its arrival in Paris, the Assembly continued, amid many
interruptions, the work of constructing the new constitution, and the
same blind attachment to captivating theories, which had wasted so many
weeks in barren discussion at Versailles, pervaded its debates and its
decrees in Paris. The great bulk of the members of the Assembly were
determined to carry into practice the idea of the sovereignty of the
people, and to observe, as far as logic could, the natural rights of
man. If facts or experience conflicted with these theories, facts and
experience must go to the wall. The circumstances, needs or traditions
of nations seemed to them to be of little importance in comparison
with the eternal principles which philosophy had laid down for the
government of the world. In pursuance of these views, the slaves in
the French colony of St. Domingo were immediately emancipated, without
regard to the difficulties involved in so summary a proceeding, or the
disaster certain to ensue. 'Let the colonies perish,' cried a member of
the Assembly, 'rather than sacrifice a principle.' In pursuance also of
these views, all titles of nobility were abolished, as being 'repugnant
to reason and to true liberty.' It became an offence and subsequently
a crime for a nobleman to sign his name in the old style. The Assembly
taught the people to regard rank as something wrong; and the people,
taking up the idea, and colouring it with their own fears and ancient
hatreds, soon came to look on all possessors of rank as evil-doers, who
had no right to fair treatment or protection from the law, and for whom
the proper destiny was the guillotine. On the same vague theories the
constitution was built up. The desire to place sovereignty in the hands
of the people led the Assembly to impose many complicated political
duties upon the great mass of citizens, who had never as yet exercised
any political functions at all. At the same time they curtailed as far
as possible, and hampered by a system of elaborate checks, the power
which they left to those at the head of affairs, who had long been
accustomed to political duties, and who had certainly fulfilled them
very ill. The result was a complete paralysis in the Government, and a
constitution foredoomed to fail.

The best hope for the Revolution lay in the speedy establishment
of a strong Government, composed of men thoroughly in harmony with
the majority in the Assembly, possessed of power sufficient to
ensure order, and of popularity sufficient to command support. The
establishment of such a Government was from the first Mirabeau's
object; but the Assembly soon proceeded to render it impossible. The
great majority of deputies, who had accepted the proposition that all
power ought to proceed from the people, regarded it as the corollary
of that proposition, that executive government, which nominally
proceeded from the King, was opposed to the people's interests, and
that all executive agents were inimical to freedom. To their minds,
naturally enough, executive power was associated with the old monarchy
and the Court, and the old monarchy and the Court they justly regarded
as antagonistic to the principles of liberty. The proper remedy was to
render the Executive thoroughly dependent on the popular will, and to
unite it with the Assembly so closely that the policy and interests
of both must be the same. Instead of that, the Assembly set a barrier
between itself and the Executive, which rendered cordial co-operation
impossible, and early in November, 1789, it passed a most unfortunate
decree, rendering all members of the House ineligible for places in the
Government.

It may or it may not be fair to attribute the decree of the 7th
November to the influence of Necker and Lafayette, and to their jealous
fear of Mirabeau's ambition. But of all the measures of the Assembly,
there was probably none which was more disastrous in its effects upon
the Revolution. Only a strong Government could have coped with the
rising anarchy in France; but from that day forward a strong Government
became impossible, until the legislature, to escape from the difficulty
which it had created, invested its own committees with dictatorial
powers. From that day forward, the breach between the Assembly and the
Crown inevitably widened. The members of the Assembly lost all chance
of learning from the responsibilities of office the experience and
stability which they so much required. Their jealousy and distrust of
the Executive deepened. As they did not choose or trust the Ministers,
they determined narrowly to circumscribe their powers, and limited and
embarrassed them at every turn. The King, the head of this dangerous
Executive, was as far as possible stripped of power. He was not allowed
to veto--except for a limited time--the measures of the Assembly. He
was not allowed to convoke, to adjourn or to dissolve it. It was only
after a determined struggle, and owing to the extraordinary influence
of Mirabeau, that the King and his Ministers were permitted to retain
the initiative upon questions of war and peace. They were deprived of
almost all authority over their own agents in the Government and the
law. They had no power to appoint, to control, to reward, or to punish
the official subordinates who nominally carried out their commands.
The Assembly held them responsible for the safety of the country.
It watched them with jealous carefulness. It threatened them with
overwhelming penalties if they transgressed. It deliberately refused to
be associated with them, or to share their responsibilities in any way.
It treated them from the first as suspected persons, and reduced them
to mere figure-heads, at which to point the calumnies which its own
fears composed. One of the first steps taken by the Assembly towards
constructing its new constitution, was thus to make the business of
government an almost impossible task in France.

Hardly less mischievous than its dread of executive power was the
passion for electoral contrivances which possessed the Assembly. It
was to some extent this passion which had guided it in its rejection
of an Upper Chamber, but the depth of the feeling was more strongly
illustrated by the new system of local government, which it adopted
in the winter of 1789-1790. Under this system all existing divisions
and provincial distinctions were swept away, and the country was as
nearly as possible symmetrically divided into 83 departments. These
departments were further subdivided into 574 districts, into 4,730
cantons, and lastly into 44,000 communes or municipalities[6]. Of these
four divisions the cantons possessed no administrative importance,
being only invented for purposes of symmetry and to facilitate the
electoral operations. But each of the others, each department,
district, and municipality, had its own little constitution, based upon
popular election, but with many varieties and complexities of form.
Every department, district, and municipality had its own council or
deliberative body, and its own executive officers too. The officials
of the municipalities were elected directly by the citizens within
them. But the higher officials of the districts and departments were,
like the deputies to the National Assembly, elected by a double system
of election. The primary assemblies of the cantons--that is all the
'active' citizens in each department--chose first a body of electors,
and these electors then elected the officials of their own department,
the officials of the districts which lay within that department,
and lastly the deputies who were to represent the department in the
National Assembly at Paris. The right of voting for all these officials
was restricted to 'active' citizens, that is to all citizens over
twenty-five years of age, who paid in direct taxes to the State a sum
equal in amount to three days' wages. The right of standing for any
of the offices was further restricted to those who paid direct taxes
equal in amount to a mark of silver. All active citizens were required
to serve in the National Guard, of which each municipality had its own
battalion. The National Guards chose their own commanders, and were
under the direct control of the municipal authorities, with whom the
chief responsibility for the maintenance of order lay.

It would not have been easy to create a system more complicated or
difficult to work. The object of establishing these numerous bodies
with their innumerable officials was that they might balance and
control each other. The result was the paralysis of all. The immense
number of the new officials rendered impossible rapidity of work. The
cost of their salaries, though individually low, was cumulatively very
high. The strangeness of their functions, which were very numerous,
and which included the assessment and collection of the taxes, the
maintenance of religion, of education, and of public works, the control
of streets and highways, of sanitation, of the poor law, of prisons
and of police, would in any case have been embarrassing enough; but
it became far more so, when no one could tell where his own functions
ended and another man's began. Half of the new officials found the
other half from the first inclined to question their authority, to
dispute their commands, and to accuse them of over-stepping their
rights. The higher among them had no power of enforcing obedience from
their subordinates, who argued against orders which they disliked, and
acted on them or not, as they pleased. In the confusion of the time the
habits of discipline and obedience were naturally lax, and refractory
underlings could plead with some force that they were just as well
qualified as their superiors to interpret the principles of the Rights
of Man.

Accordingly, it soon became apparent that the real authority under
the new system lay not in the high officials of the departments, or
in the helpless Ministers at Paris, but in the forty-four thousand
communes, which in many respects were independent of their superiors,
and which managed their own affairs. To the communal authorities was
entrusted the task of repressing riots and disorder, and the control
for that purpose of military force. On them was thrown an immense
amount of executive work, and the duty of carrying out in detail
all the great social and political reforms, by which, month after
month, the decrees of the National Assembly were changing the face
of France. In many places the communal or municipal officials were
ignorant and uneducated men, for in the country parishes there were
often no bourgeois, the local priests were ineligible for office, and
the local gentry were fugitives or 'suspects.' In twenty thousand of
the new municipalities, it was stated in the Assembly, the officials
elected could not read or write. Men of this description--men indeed
of any description--overwhelmed with work, surrounded by novelties
and disorder, and perplexed by the multitude of their duties and
coadjutors, were certain to find their task beyond them, and speedily
to fall into confusion and arrears. No sooner had the new system
been established, than its servants began unwillingly to discover how
impossible it was to work it with success.

One of the most prominent features of the new order was the demand
which it made upon people's time. Under it, it was estimated, one out
of every thirty-four men in the country held office. But even for those
who escaped the troubles of office, no small burden of citizenship
remained. Every active citizen was an elector and a member of the
National Guard. As riots were perpetual, his service in the National
Guard soon became burdensome. As elections multiplied, as every place
in the municipality, in the district, in the department, in the
legislature, and before long in the various branches of the law and of
the Church was filled by election, and as each election presupposed
meetings, committees, canvassing, and a large expenditure of time,
his duties as an elector gradually became intolerable. The history of
the innumerable elections held in France after the outbreak of the
Revolution shows clearly that busy, working people found it impossible,
after a time, to perform all the duties imposed on them by the State,
and, immersed in the calls of business, drew away from politics, when
their first enthusiasm had worn off, and gave up coming to the polls.
Politics steadily fell more and more into the hands of those who were
prepared to make their living out of them. Only the unoccupied and
the ambitious were willing to give the time required to speeches,
to meetings, to party organising, to all the arts of many different
shades, by which minute democracies are won, and which are essential to
political success, where every office in the service in the State is
made the prize of the electioneer.

It is curious, however, to notice in the new constitution two points,
on which the devotion of the Assembly to theoretic rights gave way to
its devotion to other considerations. The two decrees, which limited
the franchise, and which imposed a property qualification for office,
were clearly incompatible with the high doctrines of the Rights of
Man. The importance of them was specially felt in Paris, where they
affected a large number of energetic politicians, including a great
many journalists and workmen in irregular employment. They were at
once made the subject of strong protest in the democratic Press, and
the more advanced leaders seized the opportunity to point out with
unanswerable force the disposition which the Assembly showed to promote
the interests and influence of the bourgeois at the expense of the
working-class. Nothing probably among the earlier measures of the
Assembly did so much as these two decrees to give colour to that idea,
and to deepen the feeling of antagonism towards the middle class, which
was already perceptible among the working people in the towns.

The same prepossession for electoral devices appeared in the Assembly's
judicial reforms. No part of its work was better conceived or, thanks
to the influence of the great lawyers in the House, carried out in a
better spirit than this. The old courts and Parlements, with their
abuses and delays, and their objectionable system of payment by fees,
were swept away. The power of arbitrary imprisonment, the practice
of torture, the prosecutions for heresy, the inequalities in the
administration of justice, and the disproportionate punishments for
trivial offences, which then disgraced the penal codes of nearly
every European country, were exchanged for a new and more equitable
system. Trial by jury was made the rule in criminal cases. Counsel
were permitted to be employed for the defence of the accused. Complete
publicity was introduced into the proceedings of the law courts. A
simple system was established for the administration of justice. A
civil court was created in each district, a criminal court in each
department, a final court of appeal at Paris; and, besides these
tribunals, small courts of summary jurisdiction, under Juges de Paix,
all over the country, and a special High Court at Orleans to try cases
of treason against the nation. But, admirable in many respects as the
new system was, and brightly as it contrasts with the dark practices
of the Ancien Régime, there ran through it all one grave defect, which
went far to diminish its value. With few exceptions, the judges and
officers of the law courts were appointed by popular election for short
periods of time, and were thus liable to be deprived of their posts, if
their sentences and conduct did not coincide with popular feeling. Such
a provision has been wisely held to be a serious danger to justice,
even among a tranquil and reasonable people. It was infinitely more
dangerous in a time of revolution, when reason was far less potent than
suspicion, and political passion ran exceptionally high.

The Assembly carried even into military matters its dread of authority
and its fondness for abstract theories and electoral schemes. Both
army and navy were in a thoroughly unsatisfactory condition. The spirit
of political insubordination had spread far in both services, and had
produced mutiny and disaffection. The state of the army, especially,
had for some time past given cause for alarm. Nowhere was the system
of class distinction more jealously kept up. All the higher offices in
the army were open to men of rank alone, and even in the reign of Louis
XVI fresh regulations had been imposed to guard and enforce this class
distinction. The pay of the upper officers was sometimes very high,
and the number of generals was ridiculously large. On the other hand,
the pay of the men was extremely low, and it was notorious that even
the allowances made to them by the State were often curtailed by the
officers through whose hands they passed. The barracks, the beds, and
the food supplied for the men were, as a rule, bad and insufficient.
Recruits were drawn from the lowest class in the country. The prestige
and tone of the service had suffered during recent years, and the
attempt made under Louis XVI to introduce a more rigid and harassing
system of drills had widely increased the spirit of discontent. On an
army already disaffected the doctrines of the Rights of Man, and the
expectations of universal change and relief from oppression, which
accompanied the Revolution, had their natural effect. On all sides
signs of mutiny appeared. The men refused to obey their officers,
formed committees and held meetings of their own, sent up petitions
to the National Assembly, and demanded more pay and the management
of their regimental chests. Desertions rapidly increased. Men and
officers alike disregarded the rules of discipline, and set their
superiors at defiance. On all sides the rank and file of the army
showed an inclination to fraternise with the people, and refused to
serve in putting down disorder. At last, in August, 1790, a serious
mutiny at Nancy opened the eyes of the Assembly to the danger of the
situation; and the great majority of its members concurred in the
vigorous and exemplary severity, by which Bouillé, with the support of
the National Guards of the district, reduced the mutinous regiments to
order.

No dangers, however, could make the majority of the Assembly understand
that, if an army and navy were to be maintained at all, soldiers and
sailors must be subjected to stringent discipline and governed by
exceptional laws, without regard to the abstract Rights of Man. They
set to work, it is true, to re-organise both services. They abolished
the hated militia. They refused to sanction conscription in the army,
although they permitted it within certain limits for the navy. They
raised the pay of the men. They threw open promotion in both services
to all ranks and conditions alike. They abolished the superfluity of
highly paid offices, and laid down some other reasonable regulations
for both departments. They abstained, in spite of their proclivities,
from making all military and naval offices elective. But they jealously
restricted the King's power of appointing officers. They could not
be brought to see the necessity of enforcing discipline at any cost,
and endeavoured to limit, by such provisions as they could invent,
the authority of the officers over their men. They gave the soldiers
the right of appealing to the nearest civil magistrate against their
own commander. They placed the control of the military chest in the
hands of a board elected by the regiment. They permitted the men to
form clubs and associations, and to petition the Assembly for the
protection of their rights. They insisted on regarding the soldier as a
citizen still; and although for purely military offences they left him
subject to the jurisdiction of the military courts, they took special
steps even in those courts to assert the rights of the accused, and to
diminish the influence of the military authorities. The result of all
these regulations was that the Government could no longer rely upon
its forces, and that discipline in both services remained thoroughly
relaxed, until the approach of national disaster taught Frenchmen the
necessity which no theories could avert, and until the rigid discipline
of danger drilled these disorderly and mutinous battalions into the
most magnificent army which the world had seen.

But graver than its errors in regard to judicial and military reform
were the Assembly's errors in regard to the Church. The attack upon the
Church has been viewed in many quarters as the most conspicuous example
of its unwisdom. The lower ranks of the French clergy had shared to a
very large extent the enthusiasm of Frenchmen for the Revolution. Some
of them were among the most enlightened members of the Assembly, and
were prepared to co-operate heartily in the work of reform. But the
financial difficulties of the State were never absent from the minds of
the Assembly, and the great possessions of the Church seemed to offer
a way out of those difficulties too tempting to be overlooked. It was
on this side that the attack began. As early as the 4th August, 1789,
tithes had been summarily abolished, and a portion of the income of
the Church had thus been cut away, without, as Sieyès vainly pointed
out, relieving anyone except the proprietors of land. In the following
autumn, Mirabeau carried through the Assembly a decree declaring
the possessions of the Church to be the property of the nation, and
early in the new year the work of reconstitution began. In February,
1790, the monasteries and religious houses were suppressed, and their
property appropriated. In April it was proposed to vote a budget for
the maintenance of the clergy. In June, going further still, the
Assembly undertook to re-organise the whole ecclesiastical system, and
after long and animated debates the Civil Constitution of the clergy
was adopted in the month of July. In August the Assembly formally took
over the management of the property of the Church.

The new constitution of the clergy was simplicity itself. Monasteries,
chapters, canons, dioceses, all impediments to uniformity, were
abolished. One bishop was appointed for each department, and one
priest for every parish. Incomes, ranging from about fifty thousand
francs for the wealthiest bishops to about six thousand francs for
the poorest priests--incomes in themselves thoroughly equitable and a
marked improvement upon the mingled poverty and extravagance of the
older system--were voted for the maintenance of the new hierarchy.
The fondness of the Assembly for deliberative bodies was satisfied
by giving the bishops ecclesiastical councils to advise them, and
its attachment to elective principles was shown by the astonishing
decree, which declared that in future both bishops and priests were
to be elected by the votes of their flocks. It was inevitable that so
sweeping a change should excite opposition and result in failure. Even
on the financial side, which on paper showed a very large saving to
the State, difficulties speedily arose. The Assembly, fully intending
to act fairly, undertook to pension the numerous ecclesiastics whose
interests suffered vitally from the reforms. But money was scarce, and
the charges undertaken by the State were very heavy. The dispossessed
ecclesiastics, the monks and nuns, soon began to feel the meaning
of the change, and their history soon began to exhibit many pitiful
cases of want and distress. With the disestablishment of the monastic
foundations, the institutions which they had maintained declined, and
their schools and asylums languished. The destruction of so ancient
and widespread a system could not, however necessary it might be,
be carried through, in a time of revolution, without a good deal of
suffering and injustice. But the methods of the Assembly aggravated the
violence of the change. They had the power, and probably the right,
to disestablish and to disendow the old Church. But they had neither
the right nor the power to force men's consciences to accept their
substitute for it, whether they would or not. Moreover, they did not
understand that the new constitution of the clergy was absolutely
repugnant to the spirit of Roman Catholicism, and involved ideas
which that spirit could not possibly accept. They believed that all
authority and government ought to begin with the people, to come from
below; and in accordance with that view they framed the new system of
their Church. But if there was one principle which the Roman Church
held dear, and which it had clung to even more closely than to its
dogmas, ever since it established its ascendency in Europe, it was the
principle that all authority in the Church proceeded from above. To
every faithful Catholic the Pope held a spiritual power derived from
Heaven; without the Pope's consent no share of that spiritual power
could pass to bishop or to priest; and without such sanctions and
authority from above, no man, whatever civil force might lie behind
him, could administer with God's approval the services and sacraments
of the Church. Beliefs of that kind, founded on conscience, and fixed
in immemorial habit, could not be uprooted by any decrees. Even had
the Assembly secured the Pope's consent, it seems doubtful whether its
scheme would have been finally accepted in the country. Instead of
that, it took no steps to conciliate the Papacy, but ostentatiously
held itself aloof from Rome, and by various provocative measures showed
its intention to set the Pope's authority at defiance.

The consequences were immediate and disastrous. The clergy as a whole
fought the new scheme at every stage. The Assembly, conscious of the
strength of their resistance, endeavoured to overcome it by compelling
them all to take an oath to observe the new Civil Constitution. When
the clergy procrastinated and refused, the Assembly found itself driven
into more stringent measures, and at the end of 1790, obliged either
to abandon its position or to take a more aggressive line, it demanded
the King's consent to a decree enforcing compliance under penalties
of dismissal and prosecution. From that time forward, the Revolution
declared war upon the Church, and upon all the devout Catholics who
adopted the cause of their pastors. From that time forward, the King,
though he yielded to the pressure of the Assembly, gave up all hope of
reconciling himself with the principles of the Revolution. From that
time forward the Church in France was divided into two camps, the one
consisting of those who took the oath and accepted the new system, and
including, among a very few prelates and a large number of dispossessed
monks, perhaps half of the old clergy of France, the other consisting
of those who refused it, and including nearly all the prelates, all the
most distinguished names, and most of the secular clergy of the ancient
Church. On the one side were the sanctions of the law, the support
of the State, and the assistance of all the new civil authorities.
On the other side were the commands of the Pope, the sympathies of
the great majority of pious Catholics, and the strength derived from
conscientious opposition to severity and persecution. Both sides
inevitably had their partisans in many towns and villages in France;
and the virulence of religious partisanship before long produced,
in the South and West, trouble, rebellions and civil war, and still
further embittered the divisions, and aggravated the general confusion,
which accompanied the Assembly's endeavours to reform and regenerate
France.

Closely connected with the attack upon the Church was the embarrassing
question of finance. No man, on the outbreak of the Revolution,
enjoyed so high a reputation for finance as Necker, and no man probably
misused that reputation more. Everyone knew that the financial
embarrassments of the country were the real cause of the summoning of
the States-General. Everyone knew that there was, first, an enormous
annual deficit amounting to at least 120 or 130 million francs, and
rising for the year 1789 to a much higher figure, and, secondly, a
very heavy floating debt. The natural course, and the only wise one,
would have been for the Minister to have laid bare at once all the
embarrassments of the State, and to have used his great popularity and
credit for facing the difficulty boldly, and for setting matters on a
satisfactory footing for the future. Instead of that, Necker, either
for mistaken political reasons, or for more personal and less worthy
causes, from the first minimised the financial difficulty, represented
the deficit as much less than it was, described the work of restoring
order in the finances as 'mere child's play,' and concealed the worst
features of the situation from the public to whom he appealed for
support. Necker's system of finance had been to proceed by raising
loans on favourable terms--a system for which his financial reputation
and connections gave him peculiar facilities. During the summer of
1789, he continued to carry on this system, and the State lived, for
a time, upon the money which Necker raised by loan or borrowed from
the Caisse d'Escompte, and upon the patriotic contributions which
enthusiastic ladies and gentlemen poured into the Exchequer. But by the
autumn, it had become clear, even to Necker, that this system would
not do for ever, that the credit of the State was not improving, that
loans could no longer be raised with success, and that the condition
of the finances generally was far worse than it had been five months
before. Thereupon, at the end of September, Necker came forward with
a heroic remedy, and thanks to the support of Mirabeau, he induced
the Assembly to consent to an extraordinary tax of one quarter of all
incomes in the country, to be paid within the next three years.

But even this drastic expedient failed. The method of assessing
the tax, and the time over which the period of payment was spread,
contributed to frustrate its results. The embarrassments of the State
increased. The debt steadily mounted; for, after the outbreak of
the Revolution, people on all sides refused to pay taxes, and the
Government was compelled to use for current purposes any money on
which it could lay hands. Then too, the extraordinary expenses of
the year, occasioned by the circumstances of the Revolution, were
exceptionally heavy, and the cost of keeping Paris quiet was heavier
still. In two months alone of the winter of 1789-90, the State paid
over to the Parisian authorities seventeen million francs for the
purchase of corn, and it is estimated that in the year which followed,
it advanced to the various municipalities in the departments no less
than sixteen hundred millions, in order to cheapen the price of bread.
Besides that, it was soon called on by the Parisian authorities--and
the calls of Paris were rarely refused--to pay over many millions more,
for keeping up relief-works for the unemployed workmen of the capital,
for maintaining and equipping its National Guard, for defraying the
expenses of destroying the Bastille, and even for lighting and paving
its streets. Under these circumstances matters grew steadily worse, and
Mirabeau fell back on the idea of appropriating the property of the
Church, and of using the credit and resources so obtained in order to
issue paper money to pay the pressing creditors of the State. By that
means he hoped to gain a breathing-space, until a strong Government
could be formed to grapple thoroughly with the whole question. The
idea, once formed, was soon put into execution. Early in November,
1789, the Assembly declared that the lands and property of the Church
were at the disposal of the State. In December, it directed a part of
this property, to the value of four hundred millions of francs, to be
sold for the national benefit. In the following March, as the land did
not sell quickly, it was determined to make it over to the various
municipalities, to sell at a handsome profit to themselves, and in
the meantime to issue paper money, also to the extent of four hundred
millions, to increase the currency and to act as bank notes. Thus, in
April, 1790, there came into existence the Assignats.

It is worth while to follow for a little the history of the Assignats,
for they afterwards became one of the most characteristic and
disastrous features of Revolutionary finance. The intention of their
authors had been to use the Assignats as a temporary convenience, to
tide over the many pressing difficulties of the moment, until the State
could find time to face and to settle the question of its finances.
In that idea, had it been rigidly adhered to, there was nothing
economically wrong. But from the first, the plan proved disappointing.
The sale of the Church lands brought in comparatively little. The
municipalities naturally considered their own interests first, and
did not always sell the lands in the manner most profitable to the
State. They permitted the buyer to take possession on payment of a
very small instalment of the price; and in many cases speculators,
taking advantage of this system, bought Church land largely, then cut
down the timber and pulled down the houses on it, and having made what
profit they could, decamped before the second instalment became due.
In the existing state of the administration, it was not difficult to
play tricks with the law. Moreover, purchasers of these lands were
permitted to pay for them in Assignats, the idea being that all the
paper money issued would thus return into the Exchequer, and pass out
of circulation as the Church lands were sold off. The fact, however,
that the Assignats were accepted by the municipalities at their nominal
value made it the object of speculators to depreciate them, and thus
from the first a powerful motive was at work to depreciate the new
currency. The consequence was, that within a few months of the first
issue of Assignats, the embarrassments of the State were as pressing as
ever. The Assignats already issued had been spent, and the Assembly,
as far as ever from financial order, could only suggest the issuing
of more. Then again Mirabeau, aware of the dangers of his course,
but still struggling to avert bankruptcy, and hoping for a change of
Ministry which might ultimately set matters right, threw his influence
into the same scale. In September, 1790, he induced the Assembly to
sanction a final issue of eight hundred millions more, towards the
liquidation of the National Debt; to enact that more than twelve
hundred millions should never be put into circulation, and to provide
that all Assignats paid into the Treasury thenceforward should be
burned.

But once the Assembly had entered on the downward course, it found
it impossible to stop. The strong Government and the financial
readjustment, which Mirabeau had hoped for, never came. The eight
hundred millions went, as the four hundred millions had gone before
them, and still there seemed to be no prospect of the debt ever being
redeemed, or of a balance ever being established between the income
and the expenditure of the State. Again and again the Government found
that it must either face bankruptcy, or else get over its difficulties
for the moment by fresh issues of paper money, and again and again,
when the alternative had to be faced, it naturally chose the latter
course. By June, 1791, the issue of the previous September had been
exhausted, and casting its own prudent limitations to the winds, the
Assembly issued six hundred millions more. From that time forward the
depreciation of the paper money steadily and rapidly advanced. The
Treasury, departing from the original proposal, had already begun to
issue Assignats of quite small value. Paper money soon became the
regular currency in which wages were paid; and even the poorest classes
thus learned to feel the effects of its variations, and to make such
profit out of those variations as they could. With the depreciation
of the Assignats and the disappearance of specie, the rage for
speculation, naturally stimulated by the rapidity of political change,
took hold of the public mind, and the spirit of gambling increased in
all classes the unrest and fever of the time.

The Assembly, it is true, did at length endeavour to face the whole
financial position, and to establish at any rate its current finances
on a firm and permanent footing. But the manner in which it made the
attempt was sufficient to ensure its failure. The expenses of the
Revolution had necessarily been very large. The Assembly had, no
doubt, cut down the expenses of the Court, of the army, and of the
Church; but it had at the same time undertaken new and very heavy
burdens. The cost of the new system of local government and of the
new system of administering justice involved a large increase in the
annual expenditure. The cost of compensating the officers suppressed
in the Law, the Church, and the public services, of pensioning off the
dispossessed ecclesiastics, and of buying out the innumerable vested
interests at which the reforms of the Assembly had struck, alone
amounted to an enormous sum. There were all the debts of the Ancien
Régime to be taken over, and besides that all the deficits in the
current accounts, which steadily accumulated, month after month, down
to the end of 1790. The property of the Church, which was at first
regarded as an inexhaustible treasure, and estimated at much beyond
its real value, disappointed the expectations of its new possessors,
as they saw it frittered away in issues of Assignats. The abolition
of tithes, though a great benefit to the proprietors of land, had in
no way enriched the Exchequer. The abolition of feudal dues, though
a heavy loss to their old possessors and an infinite gain to the
nation at large, had brought nothing into the coffers of the State.
The cessation of the hated Gabelle and of many other indirect taxes,
which the people had refused any longer to pay, and which the Assembly,
making a virtue of necessity, had accordingly abolished, had cut
away one large source of revenue. It remained to find the means of
making good the deficiency and of providing for the charges which the
Revolution had imposed.

It is in the steps taken to balance the accounts of the nation that one
sees perhaps most clearly the fatal optimism of the Assembly, and its
rooted and culpable unwillingness to face disagreeable facts. There was
no doubt that the Revolution had been extremely costly. Its advantages,
the reforms which it had instituted, and the facilities for attaining
prosperity which it had opened up to Frenchmen, were obvious and clear.
It was equally obvious that those advantages and reforms must entail
considerable expenditure, and must be paid for by those who enjoyed
them. Instead, however, of taking that line, as in duty it was bound
to do, the Assembly seems to have determined that, whatever its needs
and difficulties might be, it would so frame its budget, that no one
should be able to say that the Revolution had increased the taxation of
the people. Accordingly it proceeded to draw up a list of its expenses,
which was from beginning to end fallacious. The financiers of the
Assembly fixed the votes for each department at a figure which could
not possibly cover the expenses, and set down the total expenditure at
many millions below its real cost. They then proceeded to reckon up the
revenue, over-estimating each item here, as they had under-estimated
each item on the other side. They set down as a part of the revenue
two or three large items of a purely temporary and exceptional kind.
They made no allowance whatever for extraordinary expenses, which
they had already estimated at seventy-six millions of francs. They
sacrificed to democratic feeling many of those indirect taxes which
democracies always resent,--the taxes on salt, tobacco, wine and
spirits, and other commodities of less importance. They remodelled
the whole system of internal tariffs and swept away its objectionable
features. They took some steps in the direction of free trade, and
abolished the guilds and the restrictions upon labour. But they by no
means entirely abandoned the protective system, and they maintained
all indirect taxes which escaped notice, and against which no popular
outcry was raised. It is significant of the overwhelming influence
which Paris exercised on the deliberations of the Assembly, that the
octrois of the city of Paris remained undiminished and untouched, in
spite of the general attack made upon the system of indirect taxation.
The reason was that the municipality of Paris could not afford to
dispense with these duties, and the Assembly dared not abolish what the
municipality of Paris wished to maintain. It was not until the working
classes of Paris compelled the municipality to suggest the abolition of
the impost, that the octrois of Paris were swept away.

Having thus lost a great deal of the revenue raised by indirect
taxation, the Assembly proceeded to make up the deficit by imposing
two direct taxes, a Poll-tax which was inconsiderable and light, and
a tax upon land which was overwhelmingly heavy. The burden of the
new land-tax was in itself disproportionate and probably unjust; it
was aggravated by a perverse system of rating; and the ignorance of
the new civil authorities, who were entrusted with the assessment and
collection of the taxes, tended further to defeat the expectations
of the Exchequer. As the political fever increased, the system of
taxation became an engine by which the party in power in any locality
could annoy and oppress its political opponents; and there is no
doubt that it led in many cases to partiality and wrong. For this
result the circumstances of the times rather than the financiers of
the Assembly were to blame. But the Assembly cannot avoid censure
for the weakness and unwisdom which it displayed, for its refusal
to recognise clearly the liabilities which it had incurred, for its
determination to make a show of economy, however delusive that economy
might prove, and for the moral cowardice which made it shut its eyes
to facts involving unpopularity for those who faced them. Its attempts
to redeem or diminish the national debt by loans, by confiscation,
and by issuing paper money, failed completely. Its attempt to balance
its receipts and expenses for the future ensured failure as complete,
from the manner in which it was undertaken. Even if the new taxes had
been regularly paid--and they never were--the Assembly's policy could
only have resulted in still further increasing the debt, in forcing
the Government into fresh issues of Assignats or into other equally
desperate expedients, and in destroying the national credit. No doubt
allowances, many and ample, should be made for the difficulties of
the National Assembly, for its inevitable inexperience, and for its
generally excellent intentions. But still it is as practical reformers
that the members of that Assembly must be judged; and the record of
their labours, though in many respects deserving of sympathy and
praise, still goes far to vindicate the maxim, that high-pitched
theories and philanthropic aims are after all only as dust in the
balance, compared with the many sober qualities of wisdom required for
the effective administration of a State.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 6: Different authorities give different figures. But these
seem to be the most correct.]




CHAPTER V.

PARTIES AND POLITICIANS UNDER THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.


It was one of the misfortunes of the Constituent Assembly that it never
learned the arts of party government. When the preliminary struggle
between the Commons and the privileged orders was over, and the three
estates were finally united in one chamber, the Assembly broke up into
many different groups; and although these groups in process of time
shaped themselves roughly into parties, yet they so far retained their
independence, that it was rarely possible to say on any particular
question on which side the majority would be, or what groups and
politicians might or might not combine together. At first the only
distinction was between those who were opposed to the Revolution and
those who were its supporters. Gradually, however, as the friends of
the new movement insensibly divided, the representatives of the nobles
and upper clergy, who had regarded the King's policy as dangerous
from the first, found themselves reinforced by wiser politicians,
and expanded into a respectable party occupying the benches on the
Right. One section of this party--the extreme section--was, it is
true, only a noisy and obstructive faction, with reactionary views
and with interests largely selfish, which signalised itself, as
class-politicians are wont to do, by frequent violence of expression,
and by behaviour neither orderly nor well-bred. Among their leaders
were the well-known lawyer, d'Eprémesnil, who, as one of the heroes
of the Parlement of Paris, had enjoyed in 1788 an astonishing but
brief popularity, and the Vicomte de Mirabeau, the conspicuous but too
convivial brother of the great statesman who directed the Commons.
A more important section of the party was formed by the phalanx of
dignitaries of the Church, who followed the lead of the Archbishops of
Rouen and Aix. As the attack upon the Church proceeded, these prelates
drew after them a large number of the lower clergy, whose sympathies
had at first leaned to the popular side. But the most prominent figures
upon the benches of the Right were two men, whose remarkable abilities
became better known as time went on--Maury, the versatile, witty,
dissolute ecclesiastic, who, assisted by his rare power as a debater,
rose to the front rank among the leaders of his party, and Cazalés,
the indolent, unambitious soldier, whose clear head made it apparent
to him, as it was to Maury, that the old order could never be entirely
replaced, but who devoted his great oratorical gifts, whenever his lack
of energy permitted him to use them, to defending the monarchy, and to
denouncing mob-rule.

At first the politicians of the Right, though some were decidedly more
liberal-minded than others, consisted principally of men attached to
privilege upon grounds of interest, and utterly out of sympathy with
the reforming spirit. But events moved fast; and before long the
Right was reinforced by a group of deputies of higher capacity, who
had welcomed the reforming movement, but whom the measures of the
Assembly, after July, 1789, gradually drove into combination with the
enemies of change. Among the members whom this group included were a
few noblemen of Liberal opinions, in keen sympathy with constitutional
reform--the Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre, the Comte de Lally-Tollendal,
whose romantic story and generous eloquence more than once, in the
first days of the Revolution, roused the interest and enthusiasm of
the Assembly, and the Duc de Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, the friend of
Turgot and of Arthur Young, and the finest type which those days offer,
of what a Grand Seigneur might have been, but rarely was, under the
Ancien Régime. The real leaders of this group in the Assembly were two
conspicuous members of the Tiers-État, Mounier and Malouet. No deputies
of the Commons had come to Versailles with a higher reputation than
these two men. Mounier had been the head and front of the movement in
Dauphiné in 1788, which had led to the famous Assembly of Vizille, and
which had contributed as much as anything else to the summoning of
the States-General. When Mounier arrived at Versailles, many people
expected that he would become the recognised leader of the Commons.
Malouet too had obtained, in Auvergne, a very great reputation during
the elections. His fame also had preceded him to Versailles, and had
marked him out for future celebrity. These men were no lovers of the
Ancien Régime, no lovers of privilege or of unjust distinction. They
had, many of them, studied English politics and had a great admiration
for the English constitution. They wished to see something like it
established in France. They hoped for a Parliament of two Houses,
and for a State which would use and employ its leisured class. One
of them, Malouet, had had, at home and in the colonies, considerable
experience of affairs. They were all fully alive to the advisability of
proceeding, with caution, to the wisdom, when possible, of following
precedent, to the immediate necessity of enforcing and maintaining
order. But it may be that some of them lacked the force, and it seems
that Mounier especially lacked the self-command and insight, essential
to a leader. For when, in October 1789, difficulties accumulated round
them, some of them lost heart and temper, resigned their seats, and
gave up the struggle. They had comparatively little sympathy with the
vague philosophic and democratic theories in which the majority of
their colleagues delighted. They had no sympathy whatever with the
Assembly's hesitation to establish a strong Executive, with its passion
for equality, or with its suspicious dread of Kings and Ministers and
nobles. Studying their views to-day, in the calm light of our own
system, it is difficult to refuse to this group of men the praise
which is due to great enlightenment and moderation; but it is not
difficult to understand, how, in those stormy times, when precedent and
experience went for nothing, their grave, and measured counsels fell
unheeded, and how, outstripped by the pace of Revolution, they fell
back into the ranks of the party of reaction.

Opposite to the politicians of the Right sat the great bulk of the
Commons deputies, with a few nobles and a good many clergy among
them. This, with its many groups and interests, was, in general terms,
the party of Reform, the party which had made the Revolution, which
embodied its virtues, its doctrines, its follies, its faults, and with
which the responsibility for the policy of the Constituent Assembly
rests. In the ranks of this great, heterogeneous party were to be found
most of the well-known names of the early period of the Revolution.
Among them was Bailly, the cultivated and distinguished man of science,
with his high character, his gentle demeanour, his convinced optimism,
his tender heart, his pardonable vanity, and his obvious limitations,
perhaps the best type of the enthusiastic philanthropists who adopted
with ardour the popular cause. Bailly played for a few months a
conspicuous and honourable part. He received the high compliment of
being appointed successively first President of the National Assembly
and first Mayor of Paris; and then, losing heart and reputation among
the embarrassments of the great office which he had not sought, he
learned the fickleness of popular favour, and was sacrificed to the
resentment of the people. Among them too was Sieyès, the democratic
priest, the calm logician, the happiest maker of phrases in a nation
of happy phrase-makers, the readiest of any to frame reports, to
cast resolutions, to draw up plans, the imperturbable builder of
constitutions which never endured, sublime in the assurance of his
theories, and important owing to the influence which his cool head and
ready tongue obtained. Among them was Talleyrand, the Bishop of Autun,
the only distinguished Churchman of the time who took a leading part in
the attack upon the Church, witty, supple, dissolute, extraordinarily
able, and already beginning to display the rare dexterity in
understanding men and in ranging his abilities upon the winning side,
which afterwards made him the most powerful subject in Europe. Among
them were Lafayette, who soon discovered in the great office conferred
on him by the Parisians a larger scope for his restless ambition than
he could have obtained in Parliamentary tactics, and Mirabeau, leader
of no groups, but cynosure of all, the greatest statesman and orator of
modern France. Among them were a number of eminent lawyers, Target and
Thouret, second only to Sieyès in the influence which they exercised
upon the form of the new constitution, with Lanjuinais and Tronchet,
and many another celebrated advocate and jurist. Among them were Camus,
the grave and determined leader of the Jansenists, who have been aptly
named the Puritans of the Roman Catholic Church in France; Rabaut
de St. Etienne, the leader of the Protestants, a brave, high-minded
man, who had already, before the Revolution, won from the King the
recognition of the rights of his co-religionists to citizenship; Dom
Gerle, the singular Jacobin monk, whose earnestness was stronger than
his reason; and Grégoire, the eloquent priest, with his fine dream of a
purified national Church, one of the best of the many enthusiasts who
contributed their high-minded errors to the work of national reform.
Among them was Garat, the accomplished professor of history, whose
facile and excitable convictions always moved with the tide, and who,
in spite of his excellent intentions, was perhaps more responsible than
any other man for the ruin of the brilliant party with which he came to
be associated at a later time. Among them, lastly, was the fortunate
Barère, in turn advocate, journalist and politician, at the beginning
of the extraordinary career, in which, by dint of never having fixed
opinions, he was to rise to the highest place in France.

But the most remarkable, and on the whole the most influential, of the
many different groups in the party of Reform, was that which followed
the lead of Duport, Barnave and Lameth. These men formed a close
triumvirate of political allies. They collected about them the nucleus
of a powerful party, and they generally controlled the policy of the
Left. This group possessed in Duport a party organiser of elastic
principles, but of considerable tact and ability; in Barnave an orator
inferior in capacity to very few men in the history of the Revolution;
and in the Comte Charles de Lameth one of the most popular and gifted
of the young, liberal-minded nobles. Led by the triumvirate, and
managed by Duport, it attached to itself many brilliant, well-bred and
ambitious Radicals, including the Comte Alexandre de Lameth, the Duc
d'Aiguillon and the Vicomte de Noailles, and it commanded a majority
which on many occasions effectually decided the policy of the Assembly.

Finally, apart from the great majority of the deputies of the Left,
there sat a small group of extreme politicians, destined to become very
famous as a party. They were democrats of an acerb and uncompromising
type. They were often violent in their speeches, exceedingly dogmatic
in their views, finely contemptuous of experience and of facts,
morbidly jealous of government and authority. But they unceasingly
put forward, regardless of what the Assembly thought, the doctrines
of theoretic democracy, in which they passionately believed, and they
steadily won favour with the multitude, which, caring little for their
dogmatic errors, appreciated their real devotion to its cause. Among
the speakers of this remarkable group, the Assembly gradually learned
to listen to the far-strained, interminable rhetoric of Robespierre,
and to recognise the growing importance of Pétion, Merlin, Rewbell,
Vadier, and Buzot.

If the popular party was the stronger in the Assembly, it was
infinitely the stronger out of doors. The politicians of the galleries,
of the cafés, of the district assemblies of Paris--notably of the
district of the Cordeliers, where the well-known lawyer Danton was
already building up his great reputation--began to exercise upon
the course of events an influence which increased every day. The
politicians of the streets and the elements of disorder were mostly
upon the democratic side, and the consequence was that prominent
members of the Right were repeatedly exposed to insults and
persecution, which made their lives unsafe and almost intolerable. Some
of them unwisely responded by challenging their opponents to duels,
and the increase of political duels led more than once to outbreaks
of excitement. In the matter of political clubs also the superiority
of the popular party was marked. The little group of Breton deputies,
which had expanded into a club of advanced reformers at Versailles,
still further expanded when its members came to Paris. It took up its
abode in the library of the old Jacobin convent in the Rue St. Honoré.
It threw open its doors to all ardent supporters of the Revolution,
whether they were members of the Assembly or not. It became the
headquarters of those members of the Left who followed the lead of
Duport and Barnave, and before long also of those sterner politicians
who recognised the leadership of Robespierre and Pétion. On their side,
the moderate members of the Right maintained for some time the 'Club
des Impartiaux,' which afterwards became the 'Club Monarchique;' and
the more moderate members of the Left, including among others Mirabeau,
Lafayette, Talleyrand and Bailly, founded, in May, 1790, the 'Club of
1789,' to counterbalance the influence of the Jacobins. But neither of
these enterprises succeeded in forming a strong political connection,
and the advantages of elaborate organisation remained at the disposal
of the Jacobins alone.

The predominance, however, of the advanced politicians was most
noticeable in the press. The French Revolution is the age which marks
the accession of the Press to power, as a principal force in the
government of States. Up to within a few years of the Revolution,
French readers had been satisfied with such information as they could
gather from the ancient _Gazette de France_, which dated from the days
of Richelieu, or from the highly-respected _Mercure_, the chief journal
of the days of Louis XIV. The first daily paper published in France,
the _Journal de Paris_, dated from 1777, and was only an unpretending
sheet filled with odds and ends of literature and news. But from 1780
onwards a new period of activity began. Enterprising publishers like
Panckoucke and Prudhomme found their opportunities suddenly increase.
Brilliant writers like Linguet, Brissot, and Mallet du Pan, publishing
their opinions, under many difficulties, in London, Brussels, Geneva
and Paris, began to make their mark in ephemeral literature. As the
Revolution approached, a flood of pamphlets and broadsheets appeared.
Volney in Brittany roused the democratic enthusiasm of his province
with the bold doctrines of the _Sentinelle du Peuple_. Panckoucke,
already the owner of both the _Mercure_ and the _Gazette de France_,
planned the publication of the _Moniteur_. Prudhomme, with a stronger
belief in democratic principles, brought out, two days before the
capture of the Bastille, the first number of the _Révolutions de Paris_.

But with the meeting of the States-General, the glories of journalism
really began, and the most conspicuous member of the Assembly was the
first to appeal against the policy of the Court to the independent
judgment of the Press. On the 2nd May, Mirabeau issued the first number
of the _Journal des Etats-Généraux_, and when his sharp criticism of
Necker provoked the Government to suppress the paper, he proceeded
to fill its place with the series of _Letters_ addressed to his
constituents, which, after the capture of the Bastille, took the form
of a regular journal and the title of the _Courrier de Provence_.
Mirabeau's object was to inform his constituents of the proceedings and
policy of the Assembly, and in so doing to promulgate his own views.
The _Courrier de Provence_, which he ceased to edit, but to which he
continued to contribute to the end of his life, often rose above a
chronicle of affairs to a very high level of political discussion,
and remained of great importance as the chief exponent of his views.
Mirabeau's example was soon followed by one of his colleagues. In
the middle of June, Barère began his journalistic career with the
publication of the _Point du Jour_, a daily journal at first moderate
in tone, and chiefly remarkable for its accounts of the proceedings
of the Assembly. The reporting of debates rapidly developed into
a distinct branch of journalism. Out of it arose the _Journal des
Débats_, which still exists. And the most famous reporter of the day,
the author, from the beginning of 1790, of the celebrated reports in
the _Moniteur_, was the young Maret, whom a strange experience was
afterwards to make Duc de Bassano and director of the foreign policy of
France.

Outside the National Assembly were four journalists on the democratic
side, whose writings, among many other newspapers the names of which
cannot be chronicled here, enjoyed conspicuous popularity, and
three of whom were destined before long to play conspicuous parts
as politicians. Brissot, once a fellow-clerk with Robespierre in a
lawyer's office, had, in the vicissitudes of a singular career, in
which his private character had not escaped reproach, acquired a
reputation as a pamphleteer of advanced and cosmopolitan views. In
the summer of 1789, he became the editor of the _Patriote Français_,
and he made that paper the organ of those theoretic and philanthropic
sentiments which the Girondists afterwards combined with advanced
republican opinions. Another noted journalist, Loustallot, the youngest
and most brilliant of the democratic writers, became, until his death
in September, 1790, the chief contributor to the _Révolutions de
Paris_, and his fervent enthusiasm, his great ability, his bold and
stirring phrases, sometimes falling into violence, his fine, emotional,
ill-governed belief in the splendour of freedom and in the virtue
of the people, secured for the paper with which he was connected an
astonishing circulation and success. By the side of Loustallot in
the ranks of journalism there stands a figure equally attractive,
but intended for a greater part. Camille Desmoulins was one of the
many young advocates who, at the outset of the Revolution, forsook
for dreams of literature and politics the barren realities of law,
and in return for the doubtful sacrifice found themselves suddenly a
power in the State. Raised to fame on the 12th July by his memorable
harangue in the Palais Royal, Camille Desmoulins determined to dedicate
to journalism the gaiety, the light touch, the mocking eloquence and
careless wit, which veiled his unconsidered views and his genuine love
of freedom, and in the autumn of 1789 he brought out the _Révolutions
de France et de Brabant_. Lastly, in September, 1789, there appeared
the first number of a newspaper, which, under the title of the _Ami
du Peuple_, was soon to acquire a sinister fame, and which, by the
violence of its language, and the wild, suspicious indignation of its
tone, represented more truly than any other journal the temper, the
fears, the bitterness, the passions, which animated the most ignorant
and necessitous class.

Marat, the editor of this celebrated paper, had already had a
remarkable career, and his ascendency in the Revolution is one of
the phenomena of the time. From his childhood upwards he seems to
have been of a morbidly nervous and sensitive disposition, keenly
intelligent and alert, ambitious of knowledge and rapid in acquiring
it, fond of science, and at the same time devoted to speculative
enquiry, endowed with an extraordinary belief in his own powers and a
jealous distrust of the abilities of others, strongly pronounced in
his own opinions, and unrestrained in attacking those who differed
from him. In later life it is probable that his constitutional, morbid
irritability impaired his reason, but there is no ground for denying
that his abilities were really considerable, although they were often
vitiated by a perverse singularity of view. Early in life Marat made
a reputation as a physician and man of science, and for several years
he resided in England, where he seems at one time to have enjoyed a
practice in Soho. His writings on all sorts of topics made him well
known, and he signalised himself by attacking Newton and Locke, and by
engaging in controversy with Helvetius and Voltaire. From science and
philosophy Marat plunged into politics. He became connected with some
of the popular societies in England, which were then busily agitating
for reform, and his democratic opinions made him keenly alive to the
defects of the English Parliamentary system in the eighteenth century.
On returning to France, he received an appointment on the establishment
of the Comte d'Artois, and obtained some experience of life at Court.
His scientific work continued to win him reputation, but it appears
that his views, or more probably his manner of expressing them, made
him unpopular in his profession, and the coldness with which he was
treated still further embittered his irritable nature. The approach of
the Revolution at last gave him an opportunity to display the devotion
to democratic ideals, which was perhaps the most genuine passion of his
mind; and his real love for what he thought was freedom, his unceasing
insistence on the needs and sufferings of the multitude, his fearless
attacks upon the powerful and great, his jealous hatred of superiority,
whether of wealth, of wisdom, or of station, struck a chord in the
hearts of the poor, and won for Marat the enthusiastic attachment of
thousands, who could feel panic and hunger, although they could not
think. From the first, the _Ami du Peuple_ preached the doctrine of
suspicion. It attacked, often with reckless and cruel libels, all who
were in power. It spared no invective. It hesitated at no calumny. It
was always urging the people to action, always warning them to guard
against the traitors in the Court, in the army, in the Assembly, and in
the clubs. It claimed for itself the utmost license, and boldly threw
upon those whom it denounced the burden of proving their innocence
to the people. In vain the authorities attempted to restrain it,
and threatened its editor with prosecution and punishment. In vain
Lafayette exerted his influence to crush the dauntless advocate of the
needy, the dauntless minister of sedition and spite. Persecution only
made Marat more bitter in his warnings, and endeared him more to those
who half believed his warnings to be true.

But while the democratic Press claimed the largest indulgence for
itself, the people who accepted its teaching would permit no indulgence
to their opponents. From the reactionary Press they had not much to
fear. Three newspapers of some importance were subsidised by the Court,
the _Actes des Apôtres_, the _Ami du Roi_, and the _Journal général
de la Cour et de la Ville_, popularly known as _Petit Gautier_. But
none of these productions showed any real literary or political merit,
and for the most part the contributors to them, of whom the Vicomte de
Mirabeau is a not unfair type, contented themselves with ridicule and
obscenity, with witty personalities or vulgar abuse. Only one journal
of the first rank, the _Mercure_, continued to brave unpopularity by a
steady defence of liberty and order, and under the guidance of Mallet
du Pan, supported with eloquence and staunch moderation the views
which Malouet vainly endeavoured to recommend to the Assembly. But
again and again self-constituted critics, deputations from the Palais
Royal, representatives of the mob, and even the agents of the local
authorities, denounced, remonstrated and interfered with the writer,
and plainly threatened with violence and death any one who dared to use
the freedom of the Press to defend unpopular, though liberal, opinions.
Under such conditions, and having regard to the disorganisation and
unwisdom of the royalists, and to the energy and enthusiasm which
pervaded the popular party, it is not surprising that the power of the
Press came to be enlisted almost entirely upon the democratic side,
and helped to render irresistible the victorious advocates of the
Revolution.

Among the politicians of this early period, there were a few men
whose importance raised them above others, and whose attitude demands
special attention. When the States-General met at Versailles, the
two most popular men in France were probably Necker and the Duke
of Orleans. Philippe of Orleans was a cousin of the King. His lax
principles and enormous fortune had won him celebrity as a leader of
fashion, and his dislike of Louis, increased by the scanty favour
shown him at Court, and stimulated by his own ambition and the advice
of interested friends, induced him to espouse the popular cause.
Before the outbreak of the Revolution, the Duke had displayed his
liberal opinions by taking a conspicuous part in the opposition which
the Parlement of Paris offered to Brienne. His money was of the
greatest service in circulating popular pamphlets. His rank and the
political position which he assumed, secured him the honour of a triple
election to the States-General. The gardens of his residence in the
Palais-Royal, already thrown open by the Duke to the public, became
the headquarters of the revolutionary party in Paris. His agents, not,
apparently, without his sanction, deliberately encouraged disorder
in the capital, and hoped, by rendering Louis' position untenable,
to secure for their master high political position, and possibly the
title of Constitutional King. The Duke himself, though unprincipled and
mischievous, was rather a man of pleasure than a skilful politician,
and his influence was due less to his abilities than to his rank and
fortune, and to the energy of his supporters. His wealth and prospects
procured him the services of Duport, one of the ablest tacticians in
the Assembly, until Duport found that nothing was to be made of so
disappointing a leader. They gained him the support of the licentious
but clever Laclos, who proved himself a most useful auxiliary at the
Jacobin Club, and of St. Hurugues, a worthless, brawling nobleman, who
headed all the important riots in Paris during the early years of
the Revolution. How far the Duke's money and influence were used to
stimulate panic and insurrection, and to spread false rumours in the
capital, it is not possible accurately to say. But it is certain that
his name played a large part in the riot which ended in the capture
of the Bastille, and it is certain that the rising of the 5th October
was encouraged, if not originated, by his agents, in the expectation
that the violence of the rioters might clear the way for Orleans to
the throne. On that occasion, however, the Duke was outmatched by
his watchful rival Lafayette, and soon afterwards he allowed himself
to be driven by Lafayette's menacing attitude into the polite exile
of a mission to London. His banishment, and the tameness with which
he submitted to it, disgusted his adherents and shattered his party;
and although, on his return, he still remained for some time longer
influential for mischief, and from the resources which he commanded, a
dangerous enemy to the Court and to Lafayette, the Duke's opportunity
was really over, and he gradually descended into the contempt which he
deserved.

Necker, too, lived to learn the bitterness of being found out. At
the beginning of May, 1789, he was the only man high in the counsels
of the Government believed to be a friend to freedom, and as such
he enjoyed a popularity somewhat undeserved. For a few months that
popularity lingered. His disappointing speech on the meeting of the
States-General, and the vacillating policy which followed it, very
soon opened the eyes of those who came into contact with him; but
his dismissal in July saved his reputation for the moment, and made
him, until his return, the popular hero. From the day of his return,
however, his popularity declined. His unsatisfactory finance and his
inability or unwillingness to face the economic situation, rapidly
destroyed his fame as a financier. His indecisive views, his jealousy
of rivals, his determination not to admit Mirabeau to power, and the
indirect support which he consequently gave to the disastrous decree
of the 7th November, 1789, his entire want of statesmanship, if
statesmanship implies insight and resource, and his helplessness on
all occasions when people turned to him for help, rapidly made him a
non-entity. 'M. Necker,' said Mirabeau, with bitter truth, 'has no idea
of what he wants, of what he ought, or of what he is able to do.' In
September, 1790, thoroughly alienated from the revolutionary leaders,
vexed by the decline of his popularity, and harassed by the vagaries of
an Assembly which he was powerless to control, Necker at last resigned
his post, and carried another lost reputation into exile.

Another politician of high place, but of less importance, was the
King's eldest brother, Monsieur, le Comte de Provence. From the first,
this prince had been the persistent enemy of the Queen, and had busily
intrigued against her influence and reputation. His exact hopes are
not easy to discover, for his conduct was not always consistent or
clear; but it seems that he cherished the idea of supplanting Louis
on the throne, and waited with quiet, deliberate selfishness, to see
if the Revolution would bring the opportunity of doing so in his way.
He did not, like Orleans, throw himself headlong into the arms of the
revolutionary party, nor did he, like his younger brother, the Comte
d'Artois, put himself at the head of the reactionary royalists. He
refrained from committing himself to either side, and continued to
exercise a great deal of influence over the mind of the King. The part
which he took in bringing Mirabeau into relation with the Court seems
to indicate some degree of political wisdom; but whether in so doing he
intended to serve the King, or only wished to preserve the interests
of a crown which he hoped to secure for himself, it is impossible to
say. The intrigues and manœuvres of the Comte de Provence ought not
to be viewed in the same light as the more guilty ones of the Duke of
Orleans, and his character is less entitled to contempt. But he cannot
be regarded as loyal or friendly to his brother, and his attitude
emphatically illustrates the precarious isolation of the King.

Two men, however, Lafayette and Mirabeau, during the first two years
of the Revolution, surpassed all competitors in influence and power.
Of these two, in actual authority Lafayette stood first, and in the
middle of the year 1790 he was by far the most powerful man in France.
Lafayette's disposition was not without elements of nobleness. He
was a brave and high-principled man, very capable of fine feeling
and enthusiasm, and by no means devoid of generosity or honour. He
was strongly attached to his own idea of freedom, and he believed it
to be his peculiar destiny to secure it for his country. His rank
and fortune, the wide reputation which his enterprising voyage to
America had won him, his well-known advanced opinions, and above all
the fortunate chance which made him Commander of the National Guard
of Paris, and thus controller of the armed force of the Revolution,
combined to raise him to an extraordinary position. Had he only
known how to use it, Lafayette might have made himself master of the
destinies of France. Never again, till the days of Brumaire, did such
an opportunity fall to the lot of a French politician.

In some respects Lafayette is a character to whom it is difficult
to be just. His opportunities were so great. His limitations were
so obvious. His failure was so complete. But it is possible that
his failure inclines us to judge him too harshly. It is not fair to
condemn a man because he could not understand a portent, to censure a
politician who could not cope with the French Revolution. Had Lafayette
been a worse man, he might have fared better than he did. Had he
been a less conspicuous man, he would have borne a higher reputation
to-day. He was certainly ambitious. He was certainly vain. He had
little breadth of judgment or of vision. He was too much the slave of
his own formulas. He was too ready to echo democratic phrases, without
considering whether they applied or not. He was too ready to destroy
the authority of the Crown, to reduce the ministers to puppets, to
encourage the rash schemes of the Assembly. He was too ready to spend
time and pains in winning popularity from the bourgeois of Paris. He
was too ready to countenance dubious acts of policy and intrigue. He
had not sufficient statesmanship to see the dangers of the time and the
imperative necessity of combined and well-considered action. His stiff
propriety would not permit him to associate with Mirabeau, even for
public ends. But still, in a day when the character of many public men
was low, Lafayette's motives were neither sordid nor corrupt, and all
through his long career he displayed a staunch loyalty to his honest,
if limited, ideals. Unwavering consistency, although the virtue of
weak men, often lends dignity to conduct, and that dignity Lafayette
possessed. The worst charge which can be brought against him in the
early days of the Revolution is that his policy mingled too largely
with ideas of personal aggrandisement. From the 5th and 6th October,
when his doubtful behaviour secured him the first power in the State,
Lafayette's chief object seems to have been so to organise the National
Guard, as to maintain his own dictatorship, to assert the predominance
of the middle classes, with whose views he cordially agreed, and to
repress all attempts from the Court, from Mirabeau, from the multitude,
or from any other quarter, to lead the political movement into courses
which would take its direction out of his hands.

But where all other politicians failed, one man, Mirabeau, displayed
in the general confusion the high capacities of a statesman. Mirabeau
brought to the States-General at Versailles the reputation of great
abilities and even greater vices, and the fame of a man who, in the
vagaries of an astonishing career, had almost exhausted the resources
of politics, of literature and of dissipation. He found himself
thoroughly distrusted by the Court, by the Government, by the nobility,
by the vast majority of respectable people. He was received with
murmurs in the Assembly itself. But before a month had gone by, he had
won the ear of the Assembly, and after his great speech of the 23rd
June, 1789, he became, whenever he chose to speak, its leader. To
Mirabeau's mind the first thing to be done in France was to destroy
the despotism which paralysed alike freedom, ambition, thought, trade,
industry and labour, to sweep away the foundations of privilege and
oppression upon which it rested, and to build up in its place a system
which should offer liberty to all. For that end he was prepared to
encounter any hazard and, if need were, to face all the risks of
revolution. But, could that object be effectually attained, he had no
wish to destroy more than was necessary to gain it, and he was anxious
to carry through the change with as little loss and ruin as might be.

Almost alone in his generation, Mirabeau had noticed what his
contemporaries had missed. He had caught, as they had, the spirit of
the time. He had welcomed, as they had, the idea of reform. He had
learned, as they had, the doctrines of the day. He had conceived, as
they had, a passionate hatred of tyranny and misrule and a hot desire
for liberty and justice. But, instead of skimming the surface of
democracy, and of filling his brain with theories which could not fit
with facts, Mirabeau had tried to understand the new science, and had
realised that it was the task of a statesman not to advertise theories,
but to apply them. Politics were not to him merely a stage for strayed
enthusiasms, but rather the business of conducting government, so as
to redress the wrongs from which the men around him suffered, and to
give them the opportunity of living in future with satisfaction and
self-respect. Almost alone among his contemporaries he brought to the
task of reform no fixed preconceptions or systems, but only a desire
to appreciate the circumstances round him, to foresee and meet the
difficulties which were certain to arise, to use such instruments as
might be necessary to his purpose, whether he liked them personally or
not, and to draw out of the confusion, at whatever sacrifice of his own
predilections, a constitution which, by guaranteeing freedom, should
meet the wishes of reasonable men. Mirabeau steadily refused to waste
time in talking about abstract equality, or to contemplate millenniums
which he could not advance. He had no wish to pull down the throne
which Frenchmen had loved for ages, to level the old order, to sweep
away the ancient traditions of the land. He did not covet change for
its own sake. Unjust privilege, caste distinction, Court extravagance,
bigoted intolerance, partial justice, personal insecurity, burdensome
taxation, false economic laws,--these things he was determined to
abolish, and he looked to the experience of other nations to help him
in establishing a working system in their place. Almost alone among his
contemporaries, he set himself loyally to discover what France needed,
and what at the least cost of suffering she could gain.

One consequence of this attitude was that from the first Mirabeau
took the lead in assailing the abuses of the old system. Another
consequence was that, as soon as he saw that the Revolution had
unquestionably won--and his penetration enabled him to see this before
most people found it out, and when other minds were still engrossed
with apprehensions of an impossible reaction--he devoted his energies
to giving a practical shape to the policy of the Reformers. As a
practical statesman, he looked with contempt on the 'orgy' of the
4th August, on Lafayette's voluminous Declaration of the Rights of
Man, and on the agitation in favour of the suspensive veto. As a
practical statesman, in October, 1789, when his adversaries were
trying to make him responsible for the march of the Parisian mob to
Versailles, Mirabeau was endeavouring, through his connection with
La Marck, a brilliant young Flemish nobleman, who was both a member
of the States-General and a devoted friend of the Queen, to induce
the Government to face the crisis and to adopt a definite policy for
the future. His acquaintance with La Marck had opened to Mirabeau a
channel by which his advice could penetrate to the Comte de Provence,
and so to the King. Even at this time he is found urging the King to
withdraw from Paris to Rouen or to some other town in the interior,
where his freedom would not be threatened, to put himself at the head
of the reforming party, and to surround himself with a strong Ministry
of well-known and popular leaders. This aim, the establishment of a
Government powerful enough to act with vigour, and popular enough
to secure support, Mirabeau never ceased to pursue. The coldness of
Lafayette, the jealous egotism of Necker, and the distrust which he
personally inspired at Court, defeated his project, and the fatal
decree of the 7th November destroyed that prospect for a time. Still
Mirabeau did not despair of reconciling the King with the Revolution,
and of securing for the support of constitutional monarchy the services
of the chief revolutionary leaders. He made repeated efforts to break
down Lafayette's stubborn aloofness, and to induce him to co-operate
in his plans. 'Lafayette,' he writes to him, 'we must unite, I cannot
act without you.' In vain he warns him against the 'little men,' who
were endeavouring to keep them apart. 'You have many followers and
agents,' he writes again, 'but only a few real friends and servants
among them, and none of ability. You and I need one another. Why refuse
to act with me?' But to all these overtures Lafayette returned steadily
the same chilling refusal, and after June, 1790, Mirabeau gave up
trying to win him, and contented himself with watching the General, and
with defeating his manœuvres, whenever he could.

Meanwhile, in the Assembly, Mirabeau's ascendency increased every day.
On all questions, in all difficulties, his wide knowledge and practical
ability contrasted conspicuously with the vagaries of his colleagues,
and made him inevitably, except when intrigues or theories carried the
day against him, the leader of the House. His speeches on financial
questions showed him to be by far the ablest financier there, and more
than once decided the Assembly's policy in that department. In foreign
affairs he undertook the entire management of the policy of France,
and with the assistance of Montmorin in the Ministry, and of his own
surpassing knowledge and eloquence in the House, steered the King's
tottering administration safely through diplomatic troubles till his
death. On the question of giving to the Executive or to the Assembly
the initiative in matters of peace and war, Mirabeau fearlessly risked
his popularity in order to secure that essentially executive function
to the Crown. On the questions of enforcing order, of forbidding
emigration, of re-organising the army and navy, of strengthening the
administration, Mirabeau alone showed in a high degree the instinct
of a sound and practical statesman; and if eloquence, enthusiasm,
courage and understanding could have made his views prevail, the
labours of the Assembly might have taken a happier direction and might
have had happier results. On one point only, the question of the
Church, did Mirabeau fail to display his wonted wisdom. The violence
of his language and advice upon this point is in marked contrast
with his usual sagacity, and is, it may be, largely responsible for
the errors into which the Church policy of the Assembly fell. It is
possible that his action in urging the House to take extreme measures
against the non-juring clergy, was part of the Machiavellian scheme
which he had formed for discrediting the Assembly by driving it into
reckless courses. But even that explanation, if it be true, is very
far from relieving him from censure, and it seems more probable that
his language on Church questions was the genuine expression of his
feelings. Apart from that, and apart from other faults of judgment
and of temper which he sometimes showed, but which, considering his
ceaseless activity and the innumerable subjects with which he had
to deal, were singularly few and rare, Mirabeau's conduct in the
Constituent Assembly reveals him as one of the most extraordinary
statesmen whom a great crisis ever produced.

From March, 1790, when La Marck, after some months of absence, returned
to Paris, Mirabeau's relations with the Court assumed a more definite
character, and in the following summer his notes for the Court
regularly began. In his first letter to Louis, Mirabeau denounced all
schemes of counter-revolution as 'dangerous, criminal and chimerical,'
and made it plain that to his mind the only hope of saving the Monarchy
lay in frankly accepting the Revolution, and in placing the King in
cordial co-operation with the large and loyal party of reform. In the
memoranda which he forwarded to the Court in rapid succession all
through the summer and autumn, he laid stress upon the dangers to be
feared,--the increasing disorder, the untrustworthiness of Lafayette,
the mistakes of the Assembly, the intrigues in Paris, in the provinces,
in the army, the terrible risks of bankruptcy and of winter. He urged
unceasingly the necessity of facing these dangers, and pointed out
the steps to be taken and the means to be employed in order to escape
them. On the 14th October, 1790, in a note of great thoroughness and
insight, he recapitulated the whole political position, and laid
down what must be accepted as the bases of the constitution for the
future. He again exhorted the Court to recognise the new departure
and to abandon for ever all reactionary ideas. He again urged the
desirability of securing the repeal of the decree of the 7th November.
With singular breadth of view he suggested the formation of a Ministry,
in which the Jacobin leaders were to be included, in order to teach
them moderation and the responsibilities of power. And he sketched out
the plan, which he afterwards matured, of sending out recognised agents
into the provinces, to instruct the people upon politics, to begin an
agitation against the action of the Assembly, and to prepare the way
for recovering the influence of the Crown.

As time went on, Mirabeau became more and more impatient with the
behaviour of the Assembly, and less confident of the feeling of the
departments. He foresaw, and was prepared to face, the possibility of
civil war. He found that the Queen was listening to other advisers,
and would not put herself unreservedly into his hands. 'They are more
anxious,' he bitterly confessed, 'to hear my advice than to take it.'
Still he persisted in his labours. When one scheme had to be abandoned,
he soon had another ready to take its place, and the increase of his
difficulties only rendered his plans and precautions more elaborate. At
the end of December, 1790, he presented to the Court the most complete
and weighty of all his memoranda. In it he pointed out the dangers
arising from the King's indecision, from the Queen's unpopularity,
and from the 'frenzied demagogism of Paris.' He urged the necessity
of taking measures to re-organise the National Guard, and to diminish
Lafayette's influence over them. He advised the Government to take
advantage of the mistakes of the Assembly, to encourage it in its most
foolish and least popular measures, and by forming a party in it and
winning over its important members, to induce it to consent to its
own dissolution. He urged the Government to bring all its forces to
bear upon organising public opinion in the provinces in favour of the
restoration of order and of the modification of the constitution. Then
he hoped that, if a dissolution were secured, the Government would be
able to assert itself in the interval, while the elections were going
on, and that the departments, tired of disorder, recognising the King's
honest intentions, and learning experience from the errors of the
past, would return a body of representatives friendly to freedom but
friendly to the Monarchy as well, who would revise the constitution in
a reasonable spirit and on moderate lines. In order to further these
objects, Mirabeau drew up an elaborate plan, the supervision of which
was to be entrusted to Montmorin, who was to be in daily communication
with Mirabeau himself. One part of the plan consisted in persuading
able and popular deputies to support in the Assembly the views of the
Government. Mirabeau hoped to secure in this manner the co-operation
not only of members of the Right, but of some of the wire-pullers
of the Left also, who were discontented with Lafayette, and even of
politicians like Barnave and Thouret, who were beginning to think that
on some points the Assembly had gone too far. Another part of the
plan, the most important, was the scheme for organising support in the
provinces. For this end Mirabeau proposed that a number of agents, in
correspondence with Montmorin alone, should be sent out, to influence
local opinion against the Assembly and in favour of the King, to
prepare the way for a dissolution, to mix intimately with all classes,
and to report minutely upon the inhabitants and the opinions of the
districts through which they passed. Besides that a smaller body of
agents was to be appointed, under the direction of Clermont-Tonnerre,
principally to furnish and circulate political literature in the
interests of Mirabeau's ideas. A third part of the plan consisted in
the establishment of a secret police organisation in Paris, under the
direction of Talon and Sémonville, two former agents of Lafayette,
who possessed considerable ability for intrigue, to watch carefully
the movements of the capital, and to do what they could to win
supporters among the journalists, the National Guard, the clergy, the
administrative bodies, the cafés, and the clubs. In this plan no stress
was laid on the necessity of the King's leaving Paris; but that idea
Mirabeau continued steadily to entertain.

It is idle to enquire whether this or any of Mirabeau's busy schemes
could have succeeded, and whether even his ability could have driven
into one groove of public advantage the Revolution and the Court. It
is equally idle to pretend, that, because he laboured to save the
Monarchy, he must have been a traitor to freedom, or to rail, as some
have railed, against the democrat bought over by the King. Mirabeau
never labelled himself with names of uncertain meaning, and he was
never bought. He exerted himself to make the Revolution triumphant,
because he believed in freedom. When the battle of freedom was won, he
exerted himself to save the Monarchy, because he believed in that as
well. Other men may differ from his views, but it is not necessary on
that account to assail his motives. It is perfectly true that the Court
paid 200,000 francs to free him from his debts, and while he wrote
memoranda for them, a salary of 2,000 francs a month. But the money was
not paid to win his services, for the Monarchy had those already. It
was not paid to change his opinions, but because the Court wished to
be kept informed of what his opinions were. The constitution did not
permit him, while he was a deputy, to take office openly, and obvious
reasons made it desirable to keep his connection with the Government
secret; but Mirabeau always regarded himself as an unrecognised
Minister in the service of the Crown. Of course a relation of that
kind is rightly open to censure and suspicion. Mirabeau's standard was
not always a high one. He bears no pure and no unsullied name. The
record of his early life never ceased to injure and embarrass him. He
could be impetuous and capricious. He could stoop to acts of intrigue
and to tactical devices which a serener statesmanship would scorn. To
a certain extent, although not corruptible, he was corrupt. But when
that is admitted, the worst is said. The greatness of his character,
the range and variety of his powers, the breadth of his keen and
vigorous wisdom, his absolute freedom from littleness and meanness,
his unsparing labour for the public cause, his splendid gifts of
eloquence and genius, and the infinite charm which made men work for
him and love him with an enthusiasm which even friendship rarely shows,
overwhelmingly decide our judgment in his favour, and make his career
one of the most absorbing pages in the absorbing history of the time.
Mirabeau did not live to see his hopes accomplished. On the 2nd April,
1791, worn out by work and illness, the great statesman died, and with
him died any hope that still existed of reconciling the Revolution with
the Crown.




CHAPTER VI.

THE RISE OF THE JACOBIN PARTY.


The French Revolution can be divided into many periods, and several
parties directed it in turn. But, broadly speaking, besides its minor
phases, it contained two movements, successive and distinct. The
first movement began in 1789, and lost its force in 1791. The second
movement came to the front in 1791, when the earlier one was dying
out; helped by external circumstances, it quickly swept everything
before it; and it carried on the Revolution, by new methods and for
different objects, until 1794. The first movement was chiefly political
in form, and although social questions entered deeply into it and gave
it its irresistible force, still to the end its social aspects were
subordinate. Its leaders were politicians. Its object was the creation
of a new political order. Its attention was fixed upon political
change. The second movement had its political aspects too, and
political issues mingled largely with it. But it sprang primarily from
social causes. Its leaders succeeded because they claimed to be social
reformers. Its favourite objects were the transference of property, the
extinction of poverty and riches, the creation of a new social state.
The one movement of course was inextricably bound up with the other,
and no exact dates marked their beginnings or their ends. But the rise
of the new principles, and their triumph over the old, was the chief
characteristic of the later Revolution, and was the reason why, after
1791, the Revolution went forward and developed afresh.

There is no doubt that in 1791 there were many signs of a pause and a
reaction. The Revolution was clearly victorious. The worst features
of the old system--its despotism, its privilege, its inequality, its
corrupt Court, its antiquated law-courts, its favoured aristocracy
and Church--had been swept away. The widest freedom in politics, in
industry, in discussion, had been established, though it was not
always observed on the popular side. The blight of feudalism and
the intolerable burdens of taxation had disappeared. The majority
of Frenchmen felt that their wishes were satisfied and their aims
attained. Accordingly, the fever and enthusiasm of the earlier days
naturally abated. Men began to long for a period of quiet, after the
stormy triumphs and excitement of the past two years, and to fall back
out of the turmoil of politics into the routine of daily life. Such a
movement was both natural and inevitable, and in 1791 it involved no
serious danger to the cause of progress. The consequence was that the
great mass of citizens gradually withdrew from politics. The numbers
at the polls steadily fell. In 1790 and in 1791, all over the country,
the elections showed an increasing number of absentees. In many places
only a third or a fourth of the electorate voted. In others only a
tenth or a twelfth appeared. In Paris less than one-tenth of the number
of voters continued to take part in the elections, and even that
proportion steadily tended to decline. The duties of voting imposed
by the new Constitution were so cumbrous that they demanded a great
sacrifice of time. Politics had become both laborious and disorderly;
and most men would only consent to the sacrifice and discomfort which
they involved, under the influence of strong excitement. Thus, when
the excitement began to lessen, the part which busy people played in
politics declined, and the control of the elections, and the power
which it carried, fell to those who had no pressing occupations and
whose enthusiasm had not waned.

But while the majority thus passed out of politics, an active and
dissatisfied minority remained. All over France, and especially in
Paris and in the great provincial cities, there were many, in 1791,
to whom the policy of the leaders of the Revolution, and the action
of the great party which ranged itself behind Lafayette and the
Lameths, had caused increasing discontent. To them the Revolution, so
satisfactory to many, had brought only disappointment. Their vague
but ardent anticipations of a new social state seemed as far as ever
from realisation. The leaders of the Assembly were beginning to speak
of the Revolution as accomplished, and yet all over France there were
unmistakable evidences of disorder and distress. It is true that trade
had been largely stimulated by the issue of the Assignats; but the
credit of the Assignats did not last long, and the improvement was
consequently temporary and fictitious. The condition of the labouring
class was still unsettled. The pressure of hunger, in spite of the
abundant harvest of 1790, was still in many places keen.

The middle classes, both in the towns and in the country, had clearly
been great gainers by the Revolution. They had broken down the insolent
ascendency of the class above them. They had secured for themselves
the chief authority in the State. They were enjoying to the full the
sense of their new importance--the sense that from a position of
utter insignificance they had risen to be the actual rulers of the
land. Thus the tradesmen, the lawyers, the prosperous artisans, the
'active citizens' of the towns, proud of their rights and places in
the new Constitution, in the municipalities, in the National Guard,
rejoiced in the success of the Revolution, and only regretted that
it gave them so much to do; while the farmers and proprietors in the
country districts, set free from the yoke of feudalism, shared the
satisfaction of the bourgeois in the towns. But below these classes
came another, which had no such cause for self-congratulation. The
Métayers and smallest land-owners, the holders of an acre or half an
acre of land, the labourers who had no land at all, had gained far less
than their superiors. They had indeed escaped from the cruel burden
of the old taxes, from the personal tyranny of their seigneurs, from
the militia-service, from the necessity of forced labour. But they
looked for more than that. They had not yet seen opened to them any
path towards prosperity. The wealthy neighbours, who added to their
earnings, had been scared or swept away by the Revolution. Wages were
even more difficult to obtain than before. The prospect of living
without hunger seemed to their troubled minds to be as distant and
remote. Men who had no capital could not profit by the sale of the
Church lands. Even some of those who, having a little capital, had
hurried to invest it in the purchase, found too late that the bargain
was a bad one, for the lands had been so much neglected that they
required fresh capital to work them up. The consequence was that,
although the sale of Church lands must in very many cases have been of
advantage to the peasants, yet in some cases the small buyers, who had
expended all their savings in the purchase, were ruined by the rash
investment, and joined the great army of the needy poor.

The causes which led to disquiet in the country were reproduced still
more strongly in the towns. To Paris and the great provincial cities
flocked many of those who could not find subsistence in the country.
There work might be more easily forthcoming. There, at any rate, it was
easier to make their voices heard. But in Paris the same dislocation
of industry prevailed. The National Assembly had abolished the guilds
and the old restrictions upon trade, and had established complete
freedom of labour. But a change so large, however beneficial it might
be--and there were not wanting politicians in Paris, among whose voices
Marat's diatribes rose most shrilly, to criticise the Assembly's
action--could not be accomplished without much confusion. Moreover, the
influx from the provinces tended to make employment scarcer, and the
influence of political excitement did not help towards tranquillity.
The consequence was that the general destitution did not disappear. In
vain the State came forward to appease it by opening public workshops
in Paris. The regular work and the high wages offered, which were
actually equal to the highest day-wages then to be obtained in France,
drew applicants from all quarters, but only increased the difficulties
of the problem. The great towns in the departments followed the
example of the authorities in Paris. Toulouse and Amiens, Besançon and
Lyons, and many other places speedily found that they had thousands
of applicants for work which nobody required to have done, and which
was generally neglected by those who undertook to do it. In Paris the
numbers employed by the municipality rose to twenty and then to thirty
thousand, but still the outlook remained as unsatisfactory as ever, and
the discontent of the poorest classes unallayed.

There were thus, by the summer of 1791, large numbers of people,
both in town and country, who would not tolerate the idea that the
Revolution was over, and who still hoped for a share in the spoils
of freedom. To meet and govern their wishes, to remove the causes of
their trouble, to convert them into fairly contented citizens, was
no easy task. The greatest statesmen might well have failed in the
endeavour, for social perplexities are wont to tax the wisdom of the
most experienced politicians. Unfortunately, the politicians then at
the head of affairs in France were neither experienced nor wise. They
were not alive to the dangers which threatened. They did not attempt
to understand their cause. Satisfied that they had regenerated France,
they did not fully believe in the existence of the grievances put
forward, and they had no notion of what they ought to do to meet them.

The truth is that the dominant party in 1791, the party represented
by Lafayette and Bailly, by Barnave and the Lameths, were in an
impossible position. They were pledged to support the King and the
new Constitution. They were pledged to resist republicanism. Their
instincts led them to sympathise with the idea of a well-ordered
freedom, based on property and on the predominance of the middle-class.
But such a system was difficult to reconcile with the theory which
they preached. For two years past they had been proclaiming the
absolute equality of men, the sovereignty of the whole people, the pure
democracy of Rousseau's dream. For two years past they had been busy
stripping the Crown of its attributes, denouncing its agents, limiting
its power. Thus, when they endeavoured to pause, when they began to
insist upon the necessity of maintaining the monarchical system, when
they plainly showed their intention not to admit the poorest class
to power, that class retorted by echoing the theories which they had
taught them, and by resenting the consequences which they deduced.
Logically, the position of the Constitutional party was untenable, and
to fail in logic was then a crime in France. Morally and materially
their position was untenable too. For their action could not be
reconciled with the dogmas on which they professed that all government
was based.

Accordingly, as the Revolution went forward, the moderate majority
found itself growing unpopular with the poor. The decrees which imposed
a property qualification for all the rights of active citizenship,
for electors and elected alike, were bitterly resented by those whom
they excluded from power, and were clearly inconsistent with the
philosophic formulas to which their authors habitually appealed. The
manner in which the municipal authorities and the National Guards used
the force at their disposal to support the new order and to suppress
all who seemed inclined to resist it, was sometimes irritating and
oppressive. The uncertainty on each occasion whether the party in power
would applaud and sanction a popular outbreak, or would take fright and
endeavour to punish it, deprived their action of its moral weight. The
policy which first abolished the old industrial system to clear the way
for free combination, and which then, in June 1791, taking alarm at
the unions which sprang up among the workmen, interfered to prohibit
all combinations for the future, was not likely to ensure respect. The
policy which first induced the State to seek popularity by an enormous
extension of public workshops, and which then, in the summer of 1791,
frightened at the results of its folly and at the number of strangers
flocking to Paris, drew back and suddenly dissolved the workshops,
and bade the strangers return to their homes, was certain to lead to
distress and disappointment. Had the party in power been consistently
firm, had it shown its determination at all costs to keep order and
never to yield to threatening agitation, it might have been wrong, but
it might have been respected. As it was, it was never strong enough to
be feared. It was only strong enough to become disliked.

Thus, with the large discontented element in France, with the people
who were most miserable and needy, and who were specially numerous in
Paris, there was, in 1791, a growing sense that the Revolution had so
far been a failure, that it had not corresponded to its own promises
or to their passionate hopes, that it had not in any way materially
benefited them, and that a new Revolution was needed, to do for the
poor what the earlier movement had done only for the comparatively
rich. The strength of this feeling it is difficult to estimate, but
there seems no doubt that it was widely spread. With it there went a
deep conviction that the new movement would never come from the party
in power, and that new leaders and principles were wanted to carry the
democratic theory logically out.

It was on these grounds, and supported by this sentiment, that the
Jacobin party rose. The root of the Jacobin theory was that all power
and right resided in the people, and that when the people acted, law
and government must give way before them. The people were sovereign and
could not do wrong. Consequently, it was the business of the people to
watch their rulers very closely, to supervise their conduct jealously,
to remind them that they were only agents and puppets of a sovereign
always suspicious and alert. If the sovereign chose to come forward,
no Ministers or rulers must interfere to thwart it. They must obey,
whatever it might command. Obviously, according to this theory, popular
movements, whatever their character might be, were merely the highest
expression of the law. Even if attended by violence and murder, they
were still the action of the sovereign. Those who obstructed them were
traitors and usurpers. Those who punished them were guilty of a crime.
It is possible to understand how this theory, which is no travesty of
the Jacobin creed, planted deeply in mediocre minds, where the baldest
logic took the place of reason, might lead those who believed in it to
anarchy, while they believed they were on the road to freedom.

Another direct result of the doctrine was the dogmatism and
self-assertion which it bred. The people having become the sovereign,
every man in his own estimation, however ignorant of politics before,
became a responsible ruler too. The Jacobin was filled with a sense
of vast responsibility, puffed up with pride in his new importance.
The Government, the Law, the Church, the public functionaries, had
suddenly become his nominees, and he must personally see that they
did their duty. A curious inflation accordingly appeared in his tone.
His language became that of a dictator. His belief in himself mounted
to an extraordinary level of conceit. The self-confidence which goes
with youth perhaps helped to throw him off his balance, for it is
interesting to notice how largely the doctrine found recruits among the
young. Not only individuals, but public bodies, seemed to catch the
spirit of self-assertion. Even small municipalities began to insist on
acting as independent sovereigns, refused to listen to any superiors,
and placed their own laws above the laws of the Assembly. An extreme
instance was afforded by the little town of Issy l'Evêque, where the
priest, an enterprising politician, acting apparently as leader of the
parish, assumed a brief but magnificent dictatorship, issued a complete
code for the government and administration of the town, imposed
taxes, imprisoned his opponents, seized upon grain, confiscated and
partitioned the land in the neighbourhood, and exercised undisputed the
prerogatives of a sovereign prince. When the people were admittedly
sovereign, it followed, in the view of the enthusiast, that any
proportion of the people could be sovereigns too, and, provided that he
were a patriot, every man might be a law unto himself.

When these deep-rooted ideas showed themselves in action, the results
were inevitably disastrous. The labouring population, possessed
with the belief that supreme power had been transferred to them,
naturally wished to use it, as their superiors had used it in the
past, in order to enrich themselves. A general resistance began to
rent, tithes, taxes, and money-claims of any kind. While abolishing
feudal sovereignty and privilege, the Assembly had endeavoured
to confirm all those rights which the feudal seigneur enjoyed as
contractor and lessor; but this distinction the peasant naturally did
not understand. While abolishing many odious imposts, the State had
of course been compelled to substitute some taxes for them. But the
peasant, who had only grasped the idea that the Revolution was in
some way to set him free from all irksome demands, resented the new
taxes as an encroachment on his rights. In many cases he proceeded
to help himself to any property of the State which came within his
reach. Squatters settled upon the confiscated Church estates. Bodies
of men assembled and cut down the timber upon the public lands. Mobs
stormed the custom-houses and drove out the clerks. Armed associations
prevented the collection of taxes. The idea, originating in minds
easily confused, tended to become a passion, and when it was resisted,
violence was the result.

It was in this way that the Jacobin theory, deduced from philosophy,
welcomed by young enthusiasts, scarcely understood by the mass
of the people, who applauded it because it opened the way to the
satisfaction of their wants, spurred on by opposition, embittered by
panic, suspicion, persecution, and translated into action by physical
distress, gradually took root in the minds of the poor. But it was
by violence that the theory triumphed. It is exceedingly difficult
to form a just impression of the part which force played in politics
in France in the years 1790 and 1791. On the one side, writers pass
over the incidents of disorder. On the other side, they amass them
without analysis or explanation, and thereby produce an impression
which is probably in some measure false. Historians seem on this point
to imagine that facts are a matter of political opinion. There were
undoubtedly, in 1790 and 1791, tranquillising influences at work. The
decisive triumph of the party of reform, the satisfaction ensuing on
the sale of the Church lands and on the issue of the Assignats, the
establishment of the new Constitutional authorities, the activity of
the bourgeois guards, who went so far as to organise combinations
between National Guards in different districts for the common object of
suppressing anarchy, the natural instinct of every nation to secure as
soon as possible the reign of order--all these causes made for peace,
and produced periods of general tranquillity. But still the records
of those years are full of signs of deep-seated confusion, of riots,
murders and acts of pillage, which were perhaps to be expected, but
which cannot be ignored.

The spirit of disorder appeared in many forms. In some cases the
outbreaks were due to fear and hatred of 'aristocrats.' In some they
were a recrudescence of the peasant war against the châteaux. In
some they arose from the conflict between the priesthood of the old
ecclesiastical system and the decrees of the National Assembly, and
these religious controversies, heated by passion and embittered by
ancient rancours, produced, especially at Nîmes and Montauban and over
the whole of the South of France, a terrible agitation almost amounting
to civil war. In some cases they were due to purely local and personal
reasons. In many cases they were caused by the fear of starvation, and
their object was the seizure of grain. In others, especially at Lyons
and Marseilles, they were due to the excessive severity displayed by
the National Guards in maintaining order, and to the bitter conflict
that was beginning between the bourgeois and the labouring population.
Elsewhere, as at Avignon, they originated in a political revolution,
and called to the front the large ruffianly element which, under the
lax rule of the Popes, had for long been allowed to harbour in that
city. In other cases, again, there is little doubt that criminals took
advantage of the disorder of the time to make politics the pretext
for private plunder. All sorts of opportunities for disorder offered,
and in the midst of such vast changes it was inevitable that those
opportunities should be sometimes abused.

The most serious feature of these outbreaks was that, instead of their
becoming rare and abortive as time went on, the tendency of events,
especially after 1791, was in the opposite direction. Their political
influence increased. Instead of the law becoming stronger, and the
disorderly element falling under the ban of the respectable majority,
the law appeared to grow steadily weaker, and the resistance of the
respectable majority declined. The disorderly element organised itself,
won elections, proclaimed its principles, and seated itself in the seat
of power. The National Assembly decided to 'veil the statue of the
law.' Mob-leaders were enthroned as law-givers in the towns where their
violence had made them supreme. Their opponents, royalists, priests or
bourgeois, became their prey, for outrages committed on those who were
unpopular were almost certain to go unpunished. It was not the number
of people killed which made the riots serious. It was the fact that
they could be killed with impunity, the fact that there was no certain
protection against violence for anyone who by creed or opinion or
report was obnoxious to the mob. It was this general insecurity which
brought the Jacobins to the front. For, wherever the law is paralysed,
the most violent are the most powerful, and the French bourgeois,
brave enough in the pursuit of glory, seems to lack moral courage for
resistance, when intimidation and outrage threaten him within his gates.

Another very noticeable point in the history of the Jacobin triumph
is the completeness of the party organisation. It is the first
modern example of what organisation in politics can do. Although the
club-lists afterwards included a great variety of names, the number
of genuine Jacobin politicians, apart from the vague crowds whom they
directed, seems never to have been very large. So far as one can judge
by the polls, the Jacobins in Paris, even at the height of their power,
appear not to have exceeded ten or eleven thousand. Two good judges,
Malouet and Grégoire, who had many opportunities of observation, and
who belonged to totally different parties, agreed later in reckoning
all the Jacobins in the country at about three hundred thousand, and
the highest estimate only gives them one hundred thousand more. The
leaders of the new party belonged chiefly to the middle class. Lawyers
and small professional men, clerks and journalists, men accustomed
to take the lead in practical affairs, ready with tongue or pen,
anxious to make their way in life, with sufficient knowledge to be
self-confident and insufficient knowledge to be wise, played the
largest part among them. From this class came most of the conspicuous
leaders, Danton and Robespierre, Desmoulins and Fréron, Hébert and
Chaumette. A few others were writers and professors, students like St.
Just, actors like Collot d'Herbois, priests like Grégoire, Jean Bon St.
André, Chabot and Lebon, gloomy visionaries like Marat, or foreigners
like the amazing Anacharsis Clootz, who assured the Legislative
Assembly that his heart was French, though his soul was 'sans-culotte.'
Later on the quality deteriorated, and a lower and worse element
enveloped the rest. But the important Jacobin leaders were men of
education, although they often condescended in pursuit of popularity to
adopt worse manners than their own.

It was through their success in organisation that these men attained
to power. From the first the Jacobin Society in Paris, with its many
great names and high prestige, had attained an exceptional position,
and that position it immensely strengthened by establishing branch
societies all over France. In the autumn of 1790, the Club in Paris
founded a newspaper to circulate among its members, and entrusted the
task of editing it to Laclos. Before the end of the year, it was able
to publish a list of over a hundred and twenty provincial clubs, all
affiliated to the Society in Paris, in constant correspondence with
it, taking their views from its leaders and directing their policy
by theirs. To these clubs flocked the energetic young Radicals of
the provincial towns. They became centres of advanced revolutionary
feeling. Their members had faith, enthusiasm, recklessness, ambition;
they organised local politics, suggested or connived at political
riots, and every day claimed a larger part in the direction of
local affairs. In some large cities the authorised Jacobin Club had
an unauthorised club or combination behind it, composed of less
respectable and responsible politicians, who popularised the doctrines
of the superior body, and supplemented them, when necessary, by force.
As the year 1791 advanced, the number of affiliated clubs steadily
increased. In August, it had risen to nearly four hundred. In the
autumn and winter, it rose more rapidly still. In June, 1792, it had
reached twelve hundred; and by the end of August in that year, one
fairly competent observer reckons that there were twenty-six thousand
Jacobin clubs in France. The value of this widespread organisation
in giving to the party strength and cohesion cannot be placed too
high. When it is remembered that this was the only federation in
existence--for all attempts made by other parties to found similar
organisations were broken up by force--it is more easy to realise the
influence which the Jacobins wielded upon politics, and to understand
how the Club in Paris, even when distrusted and unpopular, was able to
face its enemies and to hold its own.

Meanwhile another organisation, destined to give the Jacobins command
of the capital, had been growing up in Paris. The Revolution had
restored to Paris the local freedom of which the monarchy had stripped
her, and one of the first objects of Parisian politicians had been
to establish a municipality in the capital. After the taking of the
Bastille, the informal Assembly of Parisian electors, which, in the
collapse of the old system, had temporarily usurped administrative
power, was replaced by a more regular body, entitled 'The Three
Hundred,' elected by the various districts, and charged with the
task of preparing a permanent constitution for the city. It was this
body--The Three Hundred--which, with Bailly at its head, had governed
Paris during the year that followed, and which by its somewhat
irritating action had earned unpopularity with the poor. But on the
whole, in spite of many mistakes, and in the face of many difficulties,
it did useful and necessary work. However, in the early autumn of 1790,
this body was replaced by a new system which remained the responsible
government of Paris until the reaction after the Terror. Under it,
the city was divided into forty-eight Sections. The Sections elected
a number of representatives, who formed the municipal council, and
some of whom formed the municipal executive[7]. At the head of the
whole organisation was the Mayor, elected by the votes of the citizens
of Paris. The Mayor, as the head of this great organisation, became
an official of the first importance. The National Guard was under his
orders. The resources of the capital were at his command. He and his
council controlled the politics of Paris, and the politics of Paris
governed France. Besides that, each of the forty-eight Sections had
its own elected authority, a permanent committee of sixteen members,
to carry out the orders of the municipal body, invested with some
powers of administration and police. The Jacobins, in accordance with
their theory, argued that all the Sectional Assemblies ought to sit
permanently, that the active citizens ought to meet every day, and
that the municipality ought daily to take their opinions on current
questions. The sovereign people, they declared, could not properly
delegate their authority to representatives. The more practical theory,
however, of representative government carried the day. But the Jacobins
carried a clause which provided that the voters of any Section should
assemble, whenever fifty active citizens in that Section demanded
it, and that all the forty-eight Sections should assemble, if eight
of them simultaneously presented a request. The result was that, in
quarters where Jacobin views prevailed, and especially in the poorer
Sections of Paris, the Sectional Assemblies were constantly meeting,
and urging their opinions on the municipal body. When the majority
in the quieter Sections ceased to take an active part in politics,
the revolutionary Sections were able, by persistent pressure and by
resorting to violence and riot, to manipulate the municipal elections,
to dictate to the municipal body, and ultimately to control that great
organisation and to use its forces for the furtherance of their views.

The death of Mirabeau prepared the way for the accession of the Jacobin
leaders to power. Even before that, Robespierre was a familiar figure
in the Assembly, but during the summer months of 1791, his influence
and importance in it steadily increased. From the first, he had been
the most conspicuous advocate of Rousseau's theory, the most deeply
convinced exponent of the Jacobin belief. His principles were to his
mind absolutely clear. To gain complete equality for men, to protest
in the name of justice against any law which permitted considerations
of circumstance or necessity to interfere with abstract rights, to
establish in the world the reign of sentimental logic, based on the
philosophy of the _Contrat Social_, this was his unwavering creed.
It governed his hopes, his policy, his life. He loved to expound
its principles, to revel in its phrases, to declaim about its fine
desires. He never tired of speaking, and this, in one shape or another,
always was his theme. The Assembly might laugh or chatter, audiences
might come and go, but nothing checked the rhetoric of Robespierre.
His self-complacency was as intense as his faith. He was the chosen
minister of Virtue, to preach its gospel to the regenerated world. That
seems to have been his profound conviction, and that was unquestionably
the foundation of his strength.

There is little doubt that in this respect the man was honest. His
weak sentiment was real. His love of order and of decency was genuine.
His incorruptibility was known and rare. His conceit was phenomenal.
His power of self-deception was unbounded. On the whole, Robespierre
was faithful to his theories. He was capable, as he showed on more
than one occasion, of attacking popular proposals, if they seemed
to him opposed to principle. He did not, it is true, denounce the
lawlessness and outrage which he naturally detested; but his reticence
was probably due, less to the calculations of a subtle policy, than
to his singular faculty of persuading himself, whenever riots or
massacres occurred, that it was only the people executing justice, and
that the justice of the people must be right. Robespierre never took
the lead at critical moments, when decisive action was needed. He was
constitutionally nervous and undecided. He had none of the audacity
which made Danton great. Fearless in sophistry, he was timid in
action. On certain occasions it is very difficult to free him from the
charge of cowardice, and yet it is possible that his hesitation arose
chiefly from the necessity, which he always felt, of reconciling his
action with his theory, before he could act with a clear conscience.
In disguising crime in the panoply of virtue, so satisfactorily as
to deceive himself, Robespierre had no peer. The Jacobin theory set
above the law the action of the sovereign people. That action showed
itself in riots. Those riots involved terrorism and loss of life. If
consequences of that kind followed, they could not be prevented. Only
the depravity of human nature, which rendered them necessary, must
be deplored. Thus Robespierre, the high-priest of the doctrine, was
always the readiest to defend it, to throw over every lawless action
the mask of verbal sentiment and virtue. And thus he became the leader
of his party. His policy was ultimately the most deadly, because its
desperate logic was the outcome of a theory which could do no wrong.
If statesmanship be the compromise of theories with facts, Robespierre
was essentially no statesman, for to his fatal and narrow idealism any
compromise with the realities round him was unknown.

The summer of 1791 is the critical period in the fortunes of the rival
parties. When the majority lost in Mirabeau their strongest leader,
Robespierre, the chief of the new party, came to the front. It is
difficult to resist the conclusion that at this time the future was
still undecided, and the Jacobin triumph by no means secured. Had the
party in power possessed a few men of practical vigour and wisdom, it
seems just possible that the Revolution might have paused, and might
have been guided into the path of ordered freedom. But they had no
organisation. They did not see their danger. They had no experience
to help them, and Mirabeau was dead. The King's unfortunate flight
to Varennes in June, and the manifesto in which he set forth his
grave complaints against the Revolution, played into the hands of the
advanced party. It greatly increased the difficulties of the majority,
who desired to keep Louis on the throne. It was followed by an outbreak
of Jacobin activity, which, however, displayed many varieties of view.
Danton and the Cordeliers, Brissot and Desmoulins boldly demanded the
establishment of a republic, but their opinions were not shared by all
their party. Marat proposed the appointment of a Dictator to put all
his enemies to death. The partisans of the Duke of Orleans declared for
Louis' deposition, with the object of securing the throne for the Duke.
But the declarations of the Jacobin Club were curiously uncertain.
They demanded Louis' deposition, but they hesitated to propose the
abolition of the throne. On the 1st of July, at a session of the Club,
Billaud-Varennes was not allowed even to speak on behalf of a republic.
Some days later, on the evening of the 13th, influenced possibly by the
reaction in the Assembly, Robespierre came forward and declared that he
personally was not a republican, and that 'the word republic did not
signify any particular form of government'; while even Danton avoided
the question and confined himself to attacks upon the inviolability of
the king.

The majority in the Assembly took advantage of the divisions among
their opponents to assert their views. Barnave and the Lameths,
and the party which they directed, rallied to the support of the
new Constitution. In vain the Republicans protested. Deserted by
the Jacobin Club, ill-supported by their leaders, closely watched
by Lafayette, they attempted to keep alive the agitation by a
demonstration, on the 17th July, in the Champ de Mars. The object was
to secure signatures for a monster petition demanding the dethronement
of the king. It does not appear that the objects of the gathering
were sinister or dangerous; but the disorder of the time, the furious
language in which Marat, Desmoulins and other advanced leaders incited
the people to violence, and the difficulties of their own position,
naturally alarmed the Constitutional party. The municipality, taking
its cue from the Assembly, determined to put the demonstration down;
and, owing to blunders which cannot well be explained, but which can
easily be imagined, the result was a fierce and sanguinary disturbance,
ending in serious loss of life. How far Lafayette and Bailly were to
blame for their conduct, or whether it is fair to impute blame to
them at all, will always be matter for discussion. But it is most
instructive to notice the effects which the 'massacre of the Champ
de Mars' produced. It was the one occasion in the history of the
Revolution when the party of order, rightly or wrongly, decisively
asserted themselves, and it shows convincingly how strong they
were, had they realised their strength and known how to use it. For
the moment their triumph was complete. The Republican agitation
collapsed. The leaders who inspired it, but who had kept in the
background, suddenly disappeared from politics. Danton, under threats
of prosecution, retired to the country. Robespierre summarily changed
his lodgings. Marat hid himself and prepared to escape to England.
Desmoulins suspended the issue of his paper. The Constitutional party
opened a new club called the Feuillants, and many of the Jacobins
joined it at once. Of the three hundred deputies who were members of
the Jacobin Club, all but seven retired. And Louis was successfully
re-established on the throne. Had the majority possessed any vigour or
cohesion, they might conceivably have stamped out the Jacobin movement,
and have secured the freedom which they fancied they had won.

Instead of that, they threw away their victory. Barnave, Malouet and
a few other members of the majority did make an attempt to organise
their party, and some idea of an effectual revision of the Constitution
was entertained. But it ended in nothing. The fatal want of union and
of practical ability which characterised the party, their lack of
definiteness and insight, their fondness for glib talk and theory,
frustrated the idea. Slowly but steadily, Robespierre's influence
reasserted itself in the Assembly. The Jacobin leaders returned to
public life, and resumed their tactics unimpeded. The only permanent
results of the 17th July were to widen the breach between the party
in power and the party which was still excluded, and to leave in the
minds of those who had suffered, and in the great mass of the poor who
sympathised with them, abidingly bitter memories of injustice calling
for expiation and revenge.

The reviving influence of the Jacobins was clearly seen in September
and October, 1791. Helped by the blind fatuity of the royalists, they
were able to carry a resolution rendering members of the existing
legislature ineligible for election to the next, and thus driving
their most active opponents, for a time at any rate, out of power.
The revision of the Constitution told slightly against them, but it
came to very little, and all its worst faults were retained. When the
Constituent Assembly separated at the end of September, Robespierre
and Pétion, not Lafayette or Barnave, were its heroes with the
populace of Paris. And in the months which followed, the power of
their party increased. In spite of the motion which the majority of
the Assembly had passed just before its dissolution, forbidding the
affiliation of popular clubs and their interference in the general
election, the Jacobin clubs rapidly multiplied, and threw all their
energies into the electoral contest. The abolition of the property
qualification for deputies had already been secured by the persistence
of Robespierre. The retirement of Lafayette from the chief command
of the National Guard, and the abolition of that post as a permanent
office, considerably weakened the Constitutional party. The growing
sense of weariness with politics, and the desire to rest from agitation
felt by the bulk of the people, began to show itself more distinctly.
The renewal of the whole of the legislature and of one-half of all
the local officials, afforded an opportunity for many moderate
and experienced men to retire, and for more pushing and ambitious
politicians to fill their places. The number of elections, and the
fact that they were held so near together, prevented many voters from
recording their votes. The necessity of taking the oath to observe the
new ecclesiastical system disfranchised a large number of scrupulous
Catholics. The intimidation practised by the Jacobins against all
reactionary voters, of which there are clear examples but the effects
of which it is difficult to estimate, must have kept many quiet people
away. All over France the proportion of voters who came forward to vote
was very small. The result showed, in the new Assembly, a considerable
increase in the advanced party, and many new-comers who hurried at
once to join the Jacobin Club. But it showed also that the majority of
voters loyally adhered to the new Constitution, were fully prepared to
give it a trial, and were well represented even in Paris itself.

Unhappily, however, for France, the majority never found the time
to rally. From the end of 1791, the shadow of war began to darken
the political horizon. At the critical moment, when the nation had
to choose between the majority, which wished to consolidate the new
system, and the minority, which wanted to destroy it for something
else, the alarm of invasion redoubled the panic and disorder, paralysed
any possible reaction, and threw Frenchmen off their balance again.
The war with Europe meant a struggle both for freedom and for national
existence. In the tumult of that struggle all other considerations were
flung to the winds. And the men who could best save the Revolution and
maintain the honour of the country became the heroes and the tyrants of
France.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 7: The 144 representatives of the Sections formed the
General Council of the Commune; 48 of these formed the municipal body;
and 16 of these were the actual Administrators, distributed among
five departments, of 'subsistence,' 'police,' 'finance,' 'public
establishments,' and 'public works.' See Mortimer-Ternaux's _Histoire
de la Terreur_, vol. i. Appendix III, where the whole subject is
thoroughly discussed.]




CHAPTER VII.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAR UPON THE REVOLUTION.


It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked the
Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked them. The
diplomatists of the eighteenth century viewed at first with cynical
indifference the meeting of the States-General at Versailles. They
were naturally blind to its significance. It did not occur to them,
until some years had passed, that the outbreak in France was anything
more than a temporary political disturbance, which by weakening a
redoubtable rival, would redound to the advantage of the other Powers.
The new cosmopolitan spirit, the new idea of enthusiasm for humanity,
which, together with the influence of Rousseau, were beginning to be
deeply felt in Europe, did not affect the diplomatic mind. Many a sharp
lesson was needed to convince the cabinets of Europe that events in
France were not the result of any ordinary political commotion, but
part of a movement as far-reaching as it was profound, abstract in its
aims and maxims, universal in its scope, irresistible in its advance,
and inspired by the propagandist enthusiasm which in earlier ages had
produced the great Crusades and the religious wars.

Accordingly, the attitude of the European Powers was at first one
of complacent egotism. They viewed the disorders in France with the
suave but moderate concern which nations, if not men, display towards
the misfortunes of their friends. Moreover, in 1789, most of the
Powers were occupied with matters of far greater urgency at home. On
the throne of Russia sat the most brilliant sovereign of the age,
the sovereign to whom Diderot attributed the 'soul of Brutus' and
'the form of Cleopatra,' steeped in all the vices with which the
imagination of her enemies credited Theodora, excelling in all the
accomplishments with which the enthusiasm of her subjects clothed
Elizabeth, unsurpassed in ambition and ability, equally unwearied in
war and diplomacy, in literature and love, a singularly sagacious
ruler, an extraordinary woman and a most successful queen. By the side
of Catherine there reigned in the North another able and attractive
prince, Gustavus III of Sweden, who combined with restless vanity and
philosophic maxims a real capacity for government and the spirit of 'a
Saladin in quest of a crusade.' In Austria, the Emperor Joseph, the
madcap crowned philosopher of Europe, had thrown his dominions into
confusion by his reforms, and threatened to convulse the East with his
ambition. In Prussia, Frederick William II, with his fine aspirations
and his fantastic failings, permitted favourites and charlatans to
help him in maintaining the great traditions of his predecessor. In
Spain, the declining Bourbon dynasty vainly looked to France to save
it from losing its once proud position in the world. In England, Pitt,
at the height of his power, was ready to offer France an alliance
which she was too suspicious to accept from Chatham's son, and while
anxiously watching the troubles in Turkey, and successfully asserting
his influence in Holland, fixed his hopes on the wide humanitarian
projects which he saw opening out before him, to which his genius and
his inclination called him, and which he hoped to consummate in peace.

The two points which occupied the attention of Europe in 1789 were the
condition of Poland and the troubles in the East. The ambitious designs
of Catherine and the assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the
existence of the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and
awakened English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety
of Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn by
long dissensions and ruined by a miserable constitution, was vainly
endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great neighbours, to avert
the doom impending, and to reassert her ancient claim to a place among
the nations of the world. But Russia had long since determined that
Poland must be a vassal State to her or cease to be a State at all,
while Prussia, driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong
Poland and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if
Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to unity and
greatness. These two questions to the States involved seemed to be of
far more moment than any political reform in France, and engrossed the
diplomatists of Europe until the summer of 1791.

In February, 1790, a new influence was introduced into European
politics by the death of the Emperor Joseph and the accession of
his brother, Leopold II. Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no
enthusiast and no dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions
of Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian statecraft,
discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed, quietly determined
to have his own way, and generally skilful enough to secure it.
Leopold found his new dominions in a state of the utmost confusion,
with war and rebellion threatening him on every side. He speedily set
about restoring order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph.
He conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He gradually
re-established the authority of the Crown. He had no sympathy with
Joseph's Eastern schemes, and he dreaded the advance of Russia. He was
resolved that Prussia should no longer assume the right to intervene
decisively in European politics, but should return to her old position
as a dependent ally of Austria. He hoped by steady and persistent
diplomacy to secure a reform of the Polish constitution, and to build
up in Poland once again a State in close alliance with himself, strong
enough to hold in check Russia and Prussia alike. He was not blind to
the gravity of the events happening in France, and his sympathy for his
sister's misfortunes was sincere. But he saw more clearly than most
men the very great difficulties involved in any intervention in French
affairs, and although he showed his feelings and was ready to discuss
proposals for bringing the influence of the Powers to bear upon French
politics, he was far from wishing to commit himself to any irremediable
breach with France.

Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were
occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of that
time his success was marked. Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had
been checked. War had been averted. Poland had been strengthened by
internal changes. Prussia had been conciliated and out-manœuvred, and
her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of August, 1791,
the Emperor was free to face the French problem, and he set out for the
Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of Prussia and the Emigrant leaders
at the Saxon Elector's Court.

For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants had been
causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with open arms by the
ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the Electors of Mayence and
Trèves, they proceeded to agitate busily for their own restoration.
They brought with them into banishment all the worst characteristics of
their class. They treated their hosts with cool impertinence, indulged
in the most complacent forecasts, and exhibited that profound contempt
for anything except their own advantage, which had made them so justly
detested in France. In the view of the Emigrants their cause was the
cause of feudal Europe. Just as the revolutionists regarded all nobles
as enemies, so the Emigrants regarded all princes and aristocrats as
companions in arms. Deeply and serenely selfish, they would hear of
nothing but their own reinstatement in the full privileges of the
Ancien Régime; and all compromise with constitutional freedom, all
moderation in counsel or in language, all respect for the wishes of the
King was treated with disdain. Rarely has any class of men displayed
in a more conspicuous manner its lack of patriotism, sagacity and
temper, and its utter indifference to any interest but its own.

The object of the Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the
European Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene
actively in their behalf. The Comte d'Artois and his Prime Minister,
Calonne, flitted from capital to capital, to plead the cause of the
oppressed aristocracy of France. At Vienna they exposed themselves
to unmistakable rebuffs, but in other quarters they met with kinder
treatment. Prussia assured them of her sympathy, but regretted that
she could take no action without the Emperor's concurrence. Sardinia
and Spain were friendly, and talked frequently of war. Catherine of
Russia, who cordially hated the doctrines of the Revolution, but who
under-rated the importance of a movement which was too far off to touch
her people, exchanged delightful compliments with the descendants
of Henri Quatre, and protested her enthusiasm for their cause. But
the prudent Empress showed no inclination to risk the life of a
single Cossack in propping up the Bourbon throne. Gustavus of Sweden,
appearing at Aix-la-Chapelle, enlisted with ardour in the Emigrants'
service. He proposed to transport a joint army of Swedes and Russians
to the coast of Normandy, and marching up the Seine to Paris, to
assert the rights of kings. But when Gustavus applied to Catherine to
assist him in carrying out his crusade, he discovered, to his bitter
disappointment, that no assistance was to be obtained.

Nevertheless the lofty tone of the French princes did not alter.
After his escape from France, in June, 1790, the Comte de Provence
established his Court at Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother
the Comte d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner,
he claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of King. The
Court of the two French princes at Coblentz represented faithfully
the faults and follies of the Emigrant party. But a more satisfactory
spectacle was offered by the camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely
trying to organise an army to fight against the Revolution in France.
To Condé's standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants, who disliked
the idea of foreign intervention and hoped to recover their position
for themselves. Condé had no difficulty in finding officers, but
privates and troopers were more difficult to raise. Nevertheless he
persevered in his enterprise, and gradually collected a considerable
force[8]. In the winter of 1791-92, a plot for the capture of
Strasbourg was discovered, which greatly alarmed the French Assembly.
But the German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on
the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and it
drew down on them the hostility of the French Government. The Emperor
joined them in protesting against it. In February, 1792, Condé's army
was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms, and to retire further into
Germany.

The Emperor was well aware of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant
princes. He had as little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not
intend to listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all,
it would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order to
save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would not undertake
a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime. The real inclinations
of Leopold, with which Marie Antoinette generally concurred, pointed
towards the summoning of a European Conference, to bring pressure to
bear on the French Government, to strengthen the hands of the moderate
parties in Paris, and to prevent any outrage on the King and Queen.
Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing. The Emperor
and the King of Prussia did indeed enter into a treaty, binding them
in certain events to make war together upon France. But the conditions
of that alliance, which involved the joint action of all the European
Powers, and in particular the co-operation of England which was known
to be opposed to any form of intervention, rendered the treaty an empty
form. Leopold himself assured his Chancellor that the Conference of
Pillnitz had bound him to nothing, and the whole proceeding has been
rightly described as one of the 'august comedies' of history. As time
went on, the Emperor's determination to avoid war deepened. When, in
September 1791, Louis accepted the new Constitution, Leopold took
advantage of that event to make his position unmistakably clear. On the
1st November, he addressed a circular letter to the Powers, pointing
out to them that Louis' action rendered any further interference
impossible, and in spite of the angry protests of the Emigrants, the
danger of war seemed to have disappeared.

Such was the attitude of Europe when the Legislative Assembly met.
Numerically, the majority of the new Assembly were favourable to the
Constitution, and honestly wished to maintain the throne. Outside
the House they were supported by Lafayette and Barnave, two strong,
representative figures, although Lafayette could not be depended on
to act consistently with any colleagues. But in the House they had
no leaders of great influence, and no sense of party discipline.
Their policy was negative and undecided, and they could not always
be relied on to vote together. Opposite to them there sat, on the
left of the Assembly, a body of deputies less strong in numbers, but
far more able and united, full of eloquence and enthusiasm, eager,
brilliant, reckless and impetuous, with a clear policy and bold,
ambitious views. It consisted of men who despised the Constitution
as an unsatisfactory makeshift, who had no reverence for the throne,
who wished for no compromise with the old order, but who, conceiving
themselves inspired with the spirit of the heroes of Greece and Rome,
were resolved to sweep away kings and tyrants, to undertake a crusade
in the name of liberty, and to establish triumphantly their republican
ideal in France. To this body the Jacobin deputies attached themselves,
because for the present their aims were the same. But the greater part
of it was composed of men who, though in temporary alliance with the
Jacobins and ardent recruits of the Jacobin Club, were soon destined to
become their rivals, and who are distinguished as the Girondist party,
because their chief leaders came from the department of the Gironde.

The Republican minority in the Legislative Assembly, supported by the
Jacobins and directed by the Girondist leaders, easily out-manœuvred
their Constitutional opponents. Their object was to discredit the
Monarchy and so to prepare the way for a Republic. From the first, the
Girondists were strong partisans of war, partly because their reckless
patriotism wished to make all 'tyrants tremble on their thrones of
clay,' but also because they had a just conviction that a policy of
war would play into their hands, would render the king's position
desperate, and would promote confusion in which they would win.
Vergniaud, Guadet, Gensonné and others clothed the Girondist sentiments
in language which, if sometimes bombastic, was sometimes superb.
A House full of inexperienced theorists, all impulsive and nearly
all young, echoed the fine enthusiasm which the Girondist orators
expressed. Brissot, a journalist of many strange experiences, but with
a very shallow knowledge of affairs, took the lead of the advanced
party, and guided their views upon diplomatic questions. Madame Roland
appealed to their emotions with generous rhetoric and hospitality.
Sieyès, moving mysteriously in the background, and pulling the strings
of innumerable intrigues, drew up their plans and assisted at their
counsels. Under these circumstances the Girondist minority, with its
vigour, its ambition, and its somewhat unscrupulous designs, seized the
control of events, and committed the halting, uncertain majority to
measures from which they could not afterwards retreat.

The autumn and winter of 1791-92 were occupied by schemes and
counter-schemes of every kind. The whole atmosphere was charged with
intrigue. The records of each week were full of evidences of disorder,
to which those in power seemed to pay little heed. The condition of
Europe was already alarming, and the Girondists, in search of their
'second and greater Revolution,' resolved to turn it to account. The
Assembly knew nothing of diplomacy, nothing of Leopold's peaceful
views, nothing of the Queen's reluctance to face the risks of war. They
saw the sovereigns of Europe combining together. They saw the Emigrants
gathering outside the frontier, and the majority of the old priesthood
stirring up discontent within. They believed, or the Republicans among
them believed, that the King was urging on the Powers to war, and
that the Queen presided over a secret 'Austrian Committee,' which,
meeting in the Tuileries, conspired against the liberties of France.
Accordingly, they proceeded to denounce these dangers and to demand
energetic measures against them. In October and November, decrees were
passed, calling on Monsieur and the Emigrants to return, commanding
the refractory priests to accept the Constitution, and imposing heavy
penalties for disobedience. The decree directed against his own brother
Louis confirmed, but the other two decrees he vetoed; and of course the
application of the veto still further increased his unpopularity in
Paris.

As the winter went on, the gravity of the situation deepened. Bailly
retired from the mayoralty of Paris, and Pétion, the nominee of the
Republican party, was elected in his place over the head of Lafayette,
by a large majority on a very small poll. Montmorin, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, resigned, and was succeeded by De Lessart, a man
of indifferent capacity, much under the influence of Barnave and the
Lameths. Other ministerial changes followed. Bertrand de Molleville,
a strong supporter of the Crown, was appointed Minister of Marine;
and early in December, Narbonne, a brilliant young man of fashion and
ability, lifted into power by the aid of Lafayette and by the intrigues
of Madame de Staël, became for a short time Minister of War. But these
changes did nothing to strengthen the Government. While De Lessart and
the Lameths dreaded war, and hoped that the Powers would exert some
pressure in favour of the moderate party in France, Narbonne threw
himself heartily into the military preparations. He believed that war
would strengthen the Crown, and he determined to make a bid for popular
favour on the King's behalf by identifying Louis with the patriotic
feeling. Meanwhile Lafayette, with characteristic indiscretion, blind
to the warnings of the wiser Constitutional leaders, possessed by his
favourite idea of carrying American freedom over Europe, and tempted
perhaps by the great prospect which war would open to his own ambition,
supported Narbonne in his warlike designs, and steadily encouraged the
war-party in the Assembly.

To the surprise of the Girondists, the Jacobin leaders took a totally
different line. Fearing that the declaration of war would increase the
power of the Government and would strengthen the hands of the hated
Lafayette, the Jacobins began to sever themselves from the Gironde,
and to oppose the idea of a campaign. No doubt, their opposition was
partly due to the fact that on principle many of them were averse to
war, although in the days of the Jacobin triumph, this principle, like
others, was to be cast to the winds. But in so far as their opposition
was due to tactical and party reasons, it shows a strange lack of
political discernment, for of all parties then existing the Jacobins
were the most certain to profit by the outbreak of hostilities. Brissot
and the Girondists saw this clearly, and vainly endeavoured to convince
their allies. From that time forward the rivalry between Robespierre
and Brissot became bitter and acute. But the Jacobin politicians
allowed their fear of the Executive to carry them away. Anything which
made rulers powerful must, they thought, be dangerous to freedom.
Danton, Robespierre, Marat and Billaud-Varennes, all adopted the same
language, and the Jacobin Club protested loudly against the demand for
war.

But the Girondists carried the day. Lafayette's manœuvres, their own
enthusiasm, and the militant temper of the nation, all helped their
designs. Narbonne's schemes indeed collapsed, and early in March, 1792,
he was dismissed from a Ministry with most of which he disagreed. But
the war-party revenged Narbonne's dismissal by driving his colleagues
from office. Louis, yielding to the storm, and endeavouring once again,
as he had sometimes endeavoured before, to identify himself with the
Assembly, selected a new Ministry from the popular party. Roland was
appointed Minister of the Interior, and Dumouriez took the portfolio of
Foreign Affairs. Dumouriez, who owed his appointment to the Girondists,
for whom, nevertheless, he had a rich contempt, was the only person of
note in the Government, but he possessed ability enough to compensate
for all the deficiencies of his colleagues. Lax in morality and
principle, he was a man of infinite resource, bold, ambitious and
consummately adroit. He welcomed the idea of a conflict with Austria.
He hoped, as Narbonne had done, to secure the neutrality or alliance
of England, and, if possible, the friendship of Prussia, but he was
prepared to take the chances of a struggle with the rest of Europe. The
appointment of the new Ministry gave the Girondists the command of the
political situation, and from that moment France drifted rapidly into
war.

Events abroad made a rupture easy. In spite of the provocations offered
to him by the French Assembly, Leopold had clung steadily to peace.
His sagacity saw that the one chance for the Monarchy in France lay in
the desire of the Constitutional party to re-establish order. He was
determined to strengthen their hands, if he could, and for that purpose
to limit the interference of the Powers to joint diplomatic pressure
in their behalf. But early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died.
His heir Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,
assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances of any
effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the prospect of war
rose on the horizon. Francis' language was sufficiently sharp to give
the Assembly the pretext which it longed for, and on the 20th April,
Louis, amid general enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared
war against Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can
exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and prepared
the way for a military despotism in the future. All who hesitated, all
who felt that mistakes had been committed but who still hoped that
they might be repaired, all who believed that the Revolution might
yet vindicate itself by combining liberty with order, saw themselves
forced to choose, no longer between order and disorder, but between
the old system and the new, between the ancient Monarchy and freedom,
between the cause of their country and the cause of the invaders. Had
there been no war with Europe, the astonishing episode of the Jacobin
triumph, the worst excesses of the later Revolution, and all the crimes
and glories of the Terror, could never have taken place in France.

It should be clearly understood that, even after the declaration of
war, the friends of the Monarchy, who wished the Revolution to pause,
were in a great majority both in Paris and in France. But they were
disorganised and often lukewarm, divided into numberless different
groups, jealous and distrustful of one another, largely governed by
personal motives, with no clear policy before them, incapable of acting
loyally together, and without the ability to act wisely, even if they
could unite. Barnave and the Lameths distrusted Lafayette. Lafayette
distrusted Dumouriez. The stronger royalists distrusted Barnave. The
King distrusted all alike. On the other side was a smaller but more
active party, full of enthusiasm and audacity, not, it is true, without
enmities and divisions of its own, but still better organised than its
opponents, prepared to embark on a policy of danger, and to hope that
the future would turn to its account. In that situation of affairs
the war broke out, and its effects were soon apparent. It rendered
Louis' dethronement almost certain. It drew a sharp line between those
who were on the side of France and of the Revolution, and those who
were on the side of the Emigrants and invaders, a line which placed
the King upon one side and the vast majority of his subjects on the
other. It rallied all patriots to the party which undertook the
national defence. It made the Jacobins, whom the enemy denounced, the
heroes of the popular resistance. It forced into helpless inaction all
those who wanted order and a king, but who could not lift voice or
hand for Louis, if by doing so they weakened the unity of France. It
rendered possible, though it did not necessitate, the Terror, for it
converted all opponents of the Revolution into traitors. It led at once
to national peril, and through peril to panic and confusion. In the
confusion the elements of disorder, already rife in France and taught
impunity by the experience of the past two years, rose uncontrolled in
insurrection, and patriotism became identified with crime.

The movement of events was rapid. At the end of April, the campaign
opened with an attempted invasion of Belgium. But the French troops
were disorganised; their commanders were timid and incapable; two
French divisions were shamefully defeated, and the general of one was
murdered by his men. 'You marched out like madmen,' wrote Dumouriez
bitterly, 'and you returned like fools.' The bad news from the front
intensified the excitement in Paris. Another Ministerial crisis
resulted in the appointment of Servan, a stern Republican, as Minister
of War. The attacks upon the Queen redoubled. The lawlessness of the
politicians of the streets increased. The Girondists, determined to
weaken the Monarchy, abolished the King's constitutional guard, voted
the banishment of all refractory priests, and decreed that a camp
of twenty thousand men from the departments should be formed in the
immediate neighbourhood of the capital. Since the winter, the Parisian
mobs had been armed with pikes; and it seems that the Girondists,
knowing that the influence of the Jacobin leaders with the populace
of Paris was greater than their own, desired to have at hand a strong
force of ardent revolutionists, distinct from the Parisians, on whom
they could rely. The King, however, disliking these proposals, and
wearied by the studied rudeness of his Ministers, refused to sanction
the formation of the camp and the persecution of the refractory
priests. Then Madame Roland, in her husband's name, attacked him
in a foolish and impertinent letter, and Louis, roused to unusual
irritation, dismissed his Girondist advisers on the 12th June. For a
moment Dumouriez remained at the head of affairs; but finding that he
could not induce Louis to accept his views, he too resigned a few days
later, and accepted a command in the army. Lafayette took advantage of
the occasion to make a violent attack upon Dumouriez, thus converting
into an enemy a man whom he might have found an invaluable ally. Louis
fell back on a new Ministry of personal friends of Lafayette, and the
General wrote to the Assembly denouncing and threatening the Jacobin
party. Thereupon the mob forces of Paris, equally alarmed by the
dismissal of the Girondists and by the tone of Lafayette, broke into
insurrection and invaded the Tuileries on the 20th June.

The insurrection of the 20th June, which had been for some time
preparing, was not the work of the Republican leaders. The Girondists
held aloof, and Danton and Robespierre discouraged the proposal. It was
entirely the action of the subalterns of the party, led by Santerre.
Almost to the last, the responsible men held back. Even on the 10th
August, the Girondist leaders, who had been working for months to
upset the throne, hesitated, when the victory was within their grasp.
They had grown afraid of their Jacobin allies, while the Jacobins knew
the smallness of their own forces, and still feared the strength of
their opponents. The abortive riot of the 20th of June was followed
by a brief reaction in the King's favour. Lafayette came up to Paris,
denounced the rioters at the bar of the Assembly, proposed to shut the
Jacobin club, and offered to carry the King out of Paris. The National
Guards and the Parisian bourgeois, shocked by the insult offered to
the Sovereign, showed themselves ready to rally round Lafayette. One
of the new ministers, Terrier de Monciel, was a man of considerable
energy and insight. He urged the King to place himself in the hands of
the Constitutional party, and with their help to escape from Paris and
appeal to France. But Louis, even in his desperate situation, could not
be prevailed on to act cordially with Lafayette. He preferred to trust
to the chapter of accidents and to wait for the Allies to deliver him.
The General's offers were coldly received. The favourable moment was
allowed to pass. Lafayette, naturally offended, and always incapable
of decisive action, returned humiliated to his army. Monciel's schemes
were rejected, and, early in July, he and his colleagues resigned. The
Court had deliberately thrown away its last chance of safety.

All through the month of July the agitation in Paris increased. On the
11th, the National Assembly declared that the country was in danger,
and issued a stirring appeal for volunteers. The Republicans began to
rally again, and the arrival of the Fédérés from the departments, to
celebrate the festival of the fall of the Bastille, although partly
checked by the vigorous action of Monciel, supplied them with the
force which they required. The troops of the line remaining in the
capital were ordered to the front. The leaders of the insurrection
of the 20th June, acting with the Fédérés from the provinces, and
encouraged this time by the Jacobin leaders, set to work to organise
a rising in the revolutionary Sections of Paris. The denunciations of
the King and of Lafayette, and the intimidation of the deputies in the
streets redoubled. The reactionary party heightened the excitement by
prophesying the speedy vengeance of the invaders. The allied forces
at last began to show signs of activity, and at the end of July, the
Duke of Brunswick, their commander-in-chief, issued a manifesto to the
French people.

The idea of a manifesto had originated with Louis himself. Before the
end of May, acting on the advice of Malouet and Montmorin, he had sent
Mallet du Pan with a confidential message to the Allied Sovereigns at
Frankfort. In this communication he entreated the Powers to adhere
to Leopold's policy, to make it plain that their object was not to
dismember France or to restore the proscribed classes, but only to set
the King free, so that he might suppress the Jacobins, and readjust the
Constitution in the interests of order and liberty combined. Louis'
objects were not unworthy, but the policy by which he sought to achieve
them was hopelessly unsound. Even had the Allies taken his advice, no
arguments could have made the invasion palatable to Frenchmen. And,
once war was declared, there was little chance that his advice would
be heeded. Since the outbreak of hostilities the influence of the
Emigrants had increased abroad. They paid no attention to the warnings
of Louis. They indignantly discarded the moderate language suggested
to them by Mallet du Pan, and imparted their own spirit to the Duke
of Brunswick's manifesto. The result was that the manifesto, with its
violent and irrational menaces, caused the wildest indignation in
France, roused the whole people to protest against it, and immediately
facilitated the deposition of the King.

At last, early in August, the crisis came. The manifesto of the Allies,
the arrival of a body of zealous Republican Fédérés from Marseilles,
and the final breach between the King and the Gironde, precipitated
the insurrection. The municipal authorities distributed cartridges
freely in the Faubourg St. Antoine, while they refused ammunition
to the National Guard. The insurrectionary leaders in the Sections
completed their organisation, and arranged matters with the officials
of the Commune. It is curious to notice that, almost at the end, the
Girondists, frightened by the success of the Jacobins, tried to avert
a rising and to compromise with the King. Had Louis been willing to
replace them in office and to accept their terms unreservedly, it seems
almost certain that they would at the last moment have broken with the
Jacobins, and, in spite of their vaunted republicanism, have ranged
themselves on the King's side. But Louis would listen to no overtures,
and so they left him to his fate. It is also curious to notice
how small--even at this time of keen excitement and revolutionary
triumph--the insurrectionary battalions were, how few voters supported
them in the Sections, how the heads of the party trembled for the
result, and how difficult they found it to raise an adequate and
imposing force. Had the defenders of the Tuileries had a leader to
inspire them, had Louis for once laid sentiment aside and displayed
a flash of determined courage, the rising might have been defeated
and the mob dispersed. Napoleon, who watched the whole scene from a
window, and who afterwards declared in St. Helena that the spectacle
in the Tuileries gardens at nightfall was more horrible than any of
his battle-fields, believed that, had Louis used his opportunities, he
might easily have won the day. But the irresolution, which had been
his ruin, dogged the King's footsteps to the last, and the 10th August
ended in the capture of the Tuileries and the destruction of the throne.

The six weeks which followed the victorious insurrection were weeks of
intense excitement in Paris. The two sections of Republicans divided
the spoil. Roland and his colleagues returned to office, and Danton
was appointed Minister of Justice. For the moment Danton became the
most conspicuous man in France. The young lawyer had thrown himself
into the revolutionary movement with characteristic intrepidity and
ardour. Reckless, cynical, unscrupulous as he was, Danton bore the
stamp of greatness. He was a king fit for the turbulent, ambitious
spirits, whom Robespierre was too timid a theorist, and Marat too
gloomy a fanatic to inspire. His physical vigour, his stentorian voice,
his eloquent fancy, his fierce contempt for little men and little
measures, the rough but genuine kindliness of his nature, and his real
enthusiasm for his country and for freedom, appealed irresistibly to
the imagination of his followers. Wherever he had appeared, whether at
the Cordeliers Club, in the early days of the Revolution, or, later,
among the officials of the Department of the Seine, or, later still,
in the Commune of Paris, he had made a profound impression, and after
the 10th August he naturally took the lead. Unquestionably Danton had
grave faults. He had too few principles or scruples, little elevation
of character, no refinement of mind. But yet there is a certain air
of grandeur round him. His patriotism and courage cannot be doubted.
His insight and capacity for statesmanship stand in marked contrast to
the incapacity of his associates. No man learned more or more quickly
from experience. And of his surpassing force and influence there are a
hundred proofs.

In preparing the insurrection of the 10th August Danton had taken a
prominent part. He was rewarded by a high post in the Government, and
his action during the crisis which ensued is characteristic of the
man. He threw himself, heart and soul, into the national defence.
He felt that the one pressing necessity was to hold Paris against
the invaders. He knew that his party were a small minority, and that
Paris and France alike were full of men who would be ready enough to
turn against them and to compromise with the Allies. If France were
to be saved and the Revolution vindicated, he believed that violent
measures might be needed, and those violent measures he was prepared
to face. 'We must make,' he cried, 'the Royalists afraid.' All the
Jacobin leaders agreed in this. They saw that their only chance of
safety lay in paralysing their enemies by terror. But some of them
naturally hesitated as to the means. As the days went on, the danger
increased. On the 20th August, Lafayette, after a vain attempt to
induce his army to march on Paris, fled across the frontier. The Allies
rapidly advanced. On the 23rd August, Longwy, one of the great frontier
fortresses, surrendered with ignominious haste. On the 2nd September,
Verdun surrendered too, and the road to Paris lay open to the invaders.

In that time of terrible excitement, Danton and his colleagues carried
all before them. A special tribunal to try traitors was established on
Robespierre's demand. The property of the Emigrants was confiscated.
The refractory priests were condemned to transportation. Urgent
measures were taken to raise troops, and all citizens, whether active
or passive, were admitted to the National Guard. Under the auspices of
the Insurrectionary Commune, houses were searched, arms seized, and
suspected persons thrown into prison. While the tocsin in the city
sounded, Danton roused the spirit of the Assembly. 'The alarm bell
you hear rings no signal of danger. It sounds the charge against the
enemies of your country. To conquer them, you must dare and dare and
dare again, till France be saved.' The Insurrectionary Commune, which
still wielded the powers which it had usurped on the 10th August,
assumed dictatorial authority, overawed the Ministers and the Assembly,
and translated Danton's warning into action. A frenzy of panic swept
over Paris, and the answer to the shameful surrender of Verdun was the
famous massacre in the prisons in September.

The exact responsibility for the massacre it is not easy to fix. Its
immediate cause was unquestionably the panic into which Paris was
thrown by the advance of the Allies. The terror of the moment produced
a civil war between those who felt that they were fighting for their
lives, and those who were supposed to be the friends of the invaders.
In that war the more desperate conquered, and the weaker party fell.
No doubt, the conquest was achieved by the aid of ruffians. A crisis
of extreme peril, when rumour is busy and suspicion rife, brings to
the surface many elements of disorder. The Ancien Régime had left in
Paris ample material for crime. It had taught the poor to be ignorant
and brutal. It had created a class of men to whom pity and prosperity
were equally unknown. Historians have long disputed whether the
Insurrectionary Commune was responsible, or whether the movement was
spontaneous. No doubt, the leaders of the Commune, Panis, Sergent,
Hébert, Billaud-Varennes, and their guide and coadjutor Marat, gave it
at least encouragement and approval. It was Marat's policy triumphing
at last. But the truth is, Paris must share the responsibility, for
during those days of bloodshed, although the number of murderers was
very small, no one interfered. The Legislative Assembly looked on,
no doubt with grave compunction, but for all effective purposes with
indifference. The volunteers, the National Guards, the great body of
Parisian citizens stood by, apathetic or cowed. Robespierre may have
found it difficult to reconcile the massacre with his sentimental
love of virtue; but, though he was then a member of the Commune, he
did nothing to arrest its course. He could always persuade himself in
the last resort that murder was the justice of the people. Danton,
with sterner logic and audacity, believed it to be necessary to
paralyse the Royalists, and deliberately declined to interfere. Some
of the Girondists were horrified, and made honest attempts to check
the bloodshed, but attempts of an ineffectual kind. Others of the
Girondists seem to have regarded it as inevitable, if the Republic were
to be secured. Roland afterwards weakly tried to palliate it. Pétion
offered the murderers refreshment. The fact is that the Girondist
leaders were themselves exposed to the suspicious hostility of the
Commune, and were powerless or disinclined to act[9].

The outbreak in Paris was followed by similar outbreaks elsewhere.
But the sequel of the massacre showed the Jacobin leaders in a better
light. Under the guidance of Danton, a new spirit was infused into
the Government. Thousands of recruits poured into the French camp, and
the Assembly appointed to the chief command a soldier of genius in the
person of Dumouriez. The rapid success of the invaders had been largely
delusive. The fall of the French fortresses was due less to the prowess
of the enemy than to treachery among the defenders. The Allied Powers
were by no means at one upon all points. Their generals and counsellors
had neither brilliancy nor dash. The Duke of Brunswick was already
weary of the campaign. Distinguished as he was, he belonged to an old
school of soldiers, and he had never wished to march direct on Paris,
leaving his communications unprotected. He had little sympathy with
the Emigrants. He was in bad health and half-hearted in the war. The
Austrians had not supported him as strongly as they had promised to do.
His troops had suffered severely from illness and bad weather. Even
after the fall of Verdun, he was disinclined to persevere. Accordingly,
when Dumouriez gathered his forces at Valmy, and risking an engagement
on the 20th September, succeeding in checking the enemy's advance, the
Duke took the opportunity to retire, the campaign was abandoned, and
Paris was saved.

From Valmy the tide of victory rolled on. Dumouriez followed up his
success by the battle of Jemappes and the conquest of Belgium. But in
the spring of 1793, fortune turned against him, and Dumouriez, like
Lafayette, threw up his post and fled. Once again, in the summer of
1793, the Allies threatened to advance on Paris. Once again the fear
of invasion strengthened the hands of the Terrorist party. Once
again a new general was discovered, and the vigour of the Jacobins
carried the day. Once again the young Republic triumphed, and after
the winter of 1793 all danger from the frontiers disappeared. The war
assumed a new character. It became a war of propaganda, and swept
over Europe. It found upon its borders an ancient society, already in
a state of dissolution, which, devoid of patriotism, enthusiasm or
popularity, fell to pieces before its attack. Then, forgetting its
philanthropic principles, it returned to the practices of the past, and
in its dealings with Europe, adopted the spirit of the system which
it assailed. In the end, the French Revolutionary war did not abolish
tyrants or unite the human race. It obliterated many old landmarks. It
broke down many feudal barriers. It swept many little despotisms away.
It drew more sharply the divisions between the different nations. It
rallied them more closely round their sovereigns. It cleared the ground
for modern Europe to grow up. Unconsciously, and cruelly, it laid the
foundations of that united German Empire, which was one day to take
a terrible revenge on France. But the old order, thus improved and
altered, was too strong to die. Ultimately it subdued its conquerors,
and the hero of the victorious Revolution married the niece of Marie
Antoinette.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 8: Some contemporary writers estimate the numbers of Condé's
army very low, at not more than 3000 or 4000. M. Sorel, who is always a
valuable authority, reckons them at 10,000 in October, 1791. Mr. Morse
Stephens gives a much higher figure.]

[Footnote 9: It cannot be proved decisively that the Insurrectionary
Commune organised or paid for the massacre, but several facts seem
to point in that direction. The subject is fully discussed in M.
Mortimer-Ternaux's _Histoire de la Terreur_, vol. iii. Appendix XVIII,
and by M. Louis Blanc, in the note to the second chapter of the eighth
book of his history.]




CHAPTER VIII.

THE FALL OF THE GIRONDE.


The first sitting of the National Convention was held on the 21st
September, 1792. The Parisian deputies, elected two or three weeks
before, under the eyes of the Insurrectionary Commune, belonged
almost entirely to the Jacobin party. Their election is a significant
example of the methods of Jacobin organisation, and in that election
Robespierre, always a vigilant wire-puller, had shown the adroitness
of his tactics and had taken the most prominent part. The meeting
of the electors took place on the 2nd September, the day when the
prison massacres began. No sooner had the electors assembled, than
they were transferred, by the directions of the Commune, from their
ordinary meeting-place to the Jacobin Club. Some of the electors, who
held moderate opinions, were then excluded by a preliminary vote. The
system of secret voting was suspended, and all were obliged to vote
openly before an audience loudly and watchfully alert. As one Jacobin
speaker admitted, his party would have been 'beaten, even in Paris,
in any election in which the voting had been secret.' The result was
the victory of the extreme politicians. Robespierre, Danton, Marat and
Collot d'Herbois were among the best known deputies elected, and all
the heroes of the Insurrectionary Commune were brought triumphantly
into the Convention.

In the provinces, however, the Jacobins were less successful. There
too the minority carried the day, and most of the electors stayed away
from the polls. But still the minority in the provinces represented a
considerable bulk of opinion. Everywhere the result of the elections
was to confirm the _Coup d'etat_ of the 10th August. All who still
took part in politics seemed to realise that the cause of the King was
incompatible with the defence of the country, and preferred to put the
interests of the country first. The consequence was that the Girondist
party had a large following in the new Assembly. The Jacobins, it is
true, were more compact and vigorous, and the great majority of members
in the centre had no very definite views, and could not be depended
on to vote consistently. But still the Girondist position was strong.
They had the command of the Government. They had eloquent and effective
speakers. They had several men of character and ability. They had
behind them the weight of moderate opinion, which was shocked by the
fearful disorders of September. The massacres had produced a reaction
which tended, now that the danger of invasion was over, to strengthen
the Girondist ranks. Had the Girondists possessed any organisation, any
instincts of party management, or any leaders of authority and insight,
they might have formed a powerful party, and have guided the Revolution
yet.

But unfortunately the Girondists had none of these things. Vergniaud,
their most splendid orator, had none of the qualities needed for
a leader. Guadet and Gensonné, the two brilliant advocates who
accompanied him from Bordeaux, were no better able to guide a party.
Pétion, the ex-mayor, had proved his incompetence already. Roland, with
all his honesty and aspirations after order, had little real capacity
or strength. Condorcet, the philosopher of the Gironde, brought to the
pursuit of politics all the characteristic vices of the academic mind.
Barbaroux, the hero of the Marseillais, was only distinguished by his
beauty from the rest. Isnard and Louvet, Lanjuinais and Gorsas could
not supply what was wanting in their colleagues. The party itself had
no cohesion. Brissot, who had for some time been its leader, could not
impose his ascendency for long, and found his authority challenged by
the rising reputation of Buzot. Gradually two sections of Brissotins
and Buzotins grew up within the ranks of the Gironde, and rendered
still remoter than before the prospects of united and decisive action
on the part of the majority of the House.

Buzot owed to Madame Roland much of the influence which he enjoyed
with his party. Her house was the chosen resort of the Gironde. Their
policy was largely arranged in her drawing-room. Her husband was
their chief representative in the Government, and her interest in her
husband's policy was as well known as her attachment to Buzot. Madame
Roland is known to us by the portrait which she herself has drawn,
and that portrait shows us clearly her undoubted courage and ability,
her enthusiasm for the philosophy which she had studied and for the
ideals which her bright imagination loved. But the memoirs show us
also the self-conscious genius of the writer, her swift but rather
shallow judgments, the strong personal element in her opinions, the
ill-controlled, ambitious restlessness of her generous and ardent mind,
and her incapacity for moderation, for being just towards opponents or
tender towards fallen foes. What part Madame Roland played in politics
it is impossible to say exactly. We know something of her words and
actions upon a few occasions, and those, in spite of the charm and
romance which surround her, are not always creditable to her head or
heart. She died bravely, and posterity, recognising that, has perhaps
been bountiful towards her virtues. But in so far as she inspired the
Girondists, her political influence can only be regarded as disastrous,
for there never was a party worse advised.

Other women, fair and unfair, lovely and unloveable, appear in the
story of the French Revolution. There were the salons of the early
days, where the Royalists gathered at the houses of Madame de Chambonas
and Madame de Sabran, while the other side found more congenial company
in the rooms of Mesdames de Beauharnais and Talma. There was the salon
of Madame de Genlis with its traditions of Orleanist intrigue, the
official society of Madame Necker's circle, and Madame de Broglie's
coterie of young, well-bred reformers. Later on, there was the salon of
Madame de Staël, where the accomplished hostess pushed the interests of
Narbonne as devotedly as Madame Roland pushed the interests of Buzot,
and the well-lit tables of Madame de Sainte-Amaranthe, who expected
to profit by the guests whom she received. There were the quieter but
happier homes of Madame de Condorcet and Lucile Desmoulins. There
were the not less happy women whom Danton, Robespierre and St. Just
loved. There was the Queen, always gallant and unfortunate, but in
her political influence most unfortunate of all; Charlotte Corday,
the Girondist avenger, whose enthusiasm veiled from her the ugliness
of murder; Theresa Tallien, who gave up her life and honour to a
worthless man and used her power afterwards for purposes of mercy;
Olympe de Gouges, the hapless dramatist and pamphleteer, who played
her triple part as hostess, celebrity and victim in the Terror; and
many another notable woman, of reputation high or low, of influence
worthy or unworthy, such as the Demoiselles de Fernig, who served as
aides-de-camp in Dumouriez' camp, Théroigne de Méricourt, known by all
and loved by many, who, armed with a naked sabre, led the wild women
in October to Versailles, Sophie Momoro, who headed the orgies on the
Feast of Reason, and Rose Lacombe, the queen of the vile women who
haunted the clubs and streets and galleries, disgraced the National
Assembly, and knitted round the guillotine. It is strange, but it would
seem to be indisputable, that, in many of the worst excesses of the
Revolution, women of the worst character were specially conspicuous,
and that when politics degenerated into savagery women without
womanliness excelled the most.

The nine months which followed the meeting of the Convention were
occupied by the struggle between the Jacobins and the Gironde. Even
before the 10th August that struggle had begun. After the fall of
Louis, it had become acute; and as soon as the Convention met, the
animosities of the rival parties blazed out afresh. The difference
in principle between Girondists and Jacobins is not altogether easy
to define. Many tenets they professed to share in common, and until
the 10th August their aims had been in some respects the same. One
noticeable difference, however, between them, lies in the character
of the men. The Jacobins, as a whole, though the rule is subject to
exceptions, were men of a rougher stamp, occasionally ill-educated,
coarse and unscrupulous, in some cases cruel, in many cases corrupt,
but practical, alert and intrepid politicians, prepared to run great
risks, merciless to their enemies if they conquered, sometimes ready
with gay desperation to suffer if they lost the game. The Girondists,
as a whole, were men of higher intellectual calibre, of more education
and refinement, of a better cast. They were honest and decent. Their
intentions were pure. They were embarrassed by scruples in a struggle
with opponents who had none. They were distinguished by a fine
enthusiasm for their vague and delusive ideals, which, if it seems
theatrical now, was genuine then, and to which, while lamenting its
waste and its errors, one may pay the tribute of respect.

But when one comes to principles, the difference between the two
parties is less clear. The truth is that in the French Revolution
there was no place for the Gironde. Two parties, and only two, were
possible. One was the party which, representing the great majority of
French feeling, had made the Revolution, had swept away the Ancien
Régime, had founded the first constitution and had taken its name
from its creation, the party which had aimed at establishing political
freedom and a new system based on that in France. This party cared for
liberty and order but wished for little more, and its mistakes and the
fortunes of the time gradually lost it the control of events. The other
was the new party, which rose to power on its rival's faults, which
cared little for liberty and less for order, but which hoped to use the
forces of distress and discontent to grasp the power which its rival
had monopolised, to found a new social and industrial system in which
it would secure a fairer profit for itself, and to destroy without
scruple or compassion all who impeded the realisation of its aims.

Between these two parties the Girondists stood. They belonged to
neither, but they shared to some extent the views of both. Like the
first, they had moderation, a sense of restraint and a love of order.
Like the second, they repudiated any compromise with the past and hoped
to establish their Utopia. But though they were strong enough to defeat
the first, they were not strong enough to resist the second, and they
could not fuse with either. They could not join with the Constitutional
party, or rally the moderate majority round them, because, though
they shared its feeling of propriety, they scorned its tenets and
prejudices, its king and its religion. They could not throw themselves
into the arms of the Jacobins, because, though they liked some of their
democratic schemes, they could not countenance the Jacobin excesses or
the Jacobin intrigues, the ruthless levelling of the Jacobin maxims,
the Jacobin contempt for property and life.

Nor could the Girondists found a party of their own. Their ideas were
not sufficiently definite for that, nor sufficiently different from
those of others. The only principles which belonged distinctively to
them were an enthusiasm for the forms of a republic, and an enthusiasm
for the policy of war. The latter was partly an ill-considered emotion
and partly a tactical device. The former was not a principle at all.
The essence of republicanism, which is government by the people, had
been accepted by all parties except the most reactionary, and was not
peculiar to the Girondist belief. The forms of it, which, possessed
by an extraordinary desire to emulate the Greeks and Romans, the
Girondists esteemed so highly, were hardly worth a struggle to obtain.
The fact that the Girondists should have cared for republican forms
so much more than for anything else, is perhaps the clearest proof of
their incompetence as practical politicians. For, as Robespierre had
the sense to see, the term republic is an empty name, which the faith
and heroism of men have sometimes associated with ideals of purity and
freedom, but which has often been only a disguise for governments that
were neither free nor pure.

As soon as the Convention opened, the Republic was proclaimed,
and the struggle between the rival parties began. For the moment
the Girondists were the stronger, and they were determined to use
their power to suppress and, if they could, to punish the leaders
of the Insurrectionary Commune. In that attempt they were partially
successful. The steady persistence of Roland, supported by the majority
of the Convention, succeeded at last in dissolving the Insurrectionary
Commune. On the 30th November, a moderate politician, Chambon, was
elected Mayor by a large majority, after two other moderates, Pétion
and d'Ormesson, had previously been elected and had refused to serve.
The council and the other officials of the Commune were also renewed.
On this occasion the voting was secret; and although the Jacobins
spared no efforts, and succeeded in carrying Hébert and Chaumette, the
smallness of the Jacobin vote and the abstention of the vast majority
of voters showed how weak numerically were the forces which the
minority could command.

But in other respects the Girondists were less successful. Their
proposals for the formation of a guard for the Convention resulted only
in bringing to Paris a small force of Fédérés from the departments.
Their demand for the punishment of those concerned in the September
massacres fell to the ground. Their attacks upon Robespierre, Marat and
others produced only bitter personalities, which tended to weary the
Assembly, and by giving Robespierre opportunities of dilating on his
services to the Revolution, to increase his popularity in Paris. The
Jacobins began to threaten their monopoly of office. In the middle of
October, Pache, the newly appointed Minister of War, and till then an
intimate friend of Roland, cast himself into the arms of the Jacobin
party. Suddenly turning on his Girondist colleagues, Pache made the
War Office the meeting-place of the politicians of the Commune, placed
his influence and his funds at their disposal, and to the disgust of
Dumouriez and Danton, threw the military arrangements into confusion.

The Girondists were further weakened by the trial of the King. The long
debates upon that question, which began early in November, 1792, and
which ended in Louis' execution on the 21st January, 1793, certainly
damaged the reputation of the party. They showed in a clear light
the stern logic of the Jacobin leaders and the weakness and disunion
of their opponents. They gave fresh opportunities for excitement and
disorder, which the Jacobins knew how to use. The vote which condemned
the King to death was carried finally by a narrow majority, but it
could not have been carried without wholesale intimidation. The
violence of the agitation in the galleries, in the streets, in the
Sections, which steadily rose as the debates went forward and as a
feeling of sympathy for Louis appeared, produced so general a panic,
that it is recorded that fourteen thousand people fled from Paris in
the last week of the year, under the impression that the massacres of
September were about to be repeated[10]. It is true that in the end
the leading Girondists voted for death; but they voted openly in the
presence of an armed and vociferating crowd, amply sufficient to decide
the wavering and almost sufficient to terrorise the brave. Vergniaud,
who voted with the majority when the critical moment came, had already
pleaded for mercy in the finest speech which he ever delivered, and had
declared the night before the verdict that it was an insult to suppose
him capable of voting for Louis' death.

With the trial of the King the demoralisation of politics increased.
The Convention lost all dignity and decorum. The violence of the
rival parties deepened. Deputies came down armed to the meetings of
the House. The president, powerless to keep order, was frequently
insulted in the chair. Abusive terms were shouted across the floor.
The voices of the speakers were constantly drowned in the din from the
galleries, where, according to Brissot, 'the brigands and bacchantes'
ruled. The same demoralisation appeared in the public service. On the
proclamation of the Republic, in September, 1792, all administrative
and judicial officers were renewed. The Convention declared that a
knowledge of the law should no longer be a necessary qualification for
judicial appointments. Education was regarded as equally unnecessary,
and a number of ignorant and incompetent officials were thus imported
into the administration. The multiplication of offices and places, so
profitable to those in power, rapidly increased as time went on, and
with the spirit of plunder the spirit of corruption spread. Under Pache
the War-Office became a centre of Jacobin intrigue, where the Minister
and his associates could display with effect their bitter distrust of
the Commander-in-Chief, undermine Dumouriez' authority in the army,
and, regardless of his wishes and designs, promote their own theories
and provide for their friends.

From the beginning of the new year the Girondists steadily lost ground.
In January, Roland, their most active supporter in the Government,
resigned his office. The control of the Ministry of the Interior, with
all its authority and resources, thereupon passed into the hands of
Garat, a man of amiable intentions and moderate views, but entirely
lacking in force or decision, and with none of Roland's devotion to
the Gironde. Early in February, Pache, who had been compelled to
retire from the War Office, to the delight of Dumouriez and Danton,
was elected Mayor in Chambon's place, and in his person the Jacobins
finally regained control of the Commune of Paris. About the same
time Condorcet brought forward the Girondist proposals for a new
constitution, proposals wildly unpractical in their nature, which
gave satisfaction to no one at all, and which lent some colour to the
charge, which the Jacobins pressed against the Gironde, that they
wished to confer powers upon the departments which would make them
almost independent States, to destroy the influence of the Government
in Paris, and to break up the unity of the Republic. The Girondists,
who had no large following in the capital, proceeded to alienate what
following they had. They declared irreconcilable war upon the Commune.
They denounced the disorder of the Parisian mobs, and their demands
for exceptional legislation in their favour. They boasted unwisely of
the devotion of the provinces to themselves. They threatened to punish
heavily any attempt at intimidation by the Sections, but they took no
steps to guard effectually against it. Finally, they made an attack
upon Danton as ill-judged as it was unprovoked, and thus alienated
the only man who had influence and ability enough to save them, and
who, weary of factious animosities and earnestly desiring to found a
Government strong enough to make itself respected, might with a little
tact have been induced to offer them his powerful support.

Moreover, the course of external politics once again assisted the
Jacobin designs. The victory of Valmy had been followed by a series
of successes on the Rhine, in Savoy and in Nice, by the defeat of the
Austrians and the conquest of Belgium. But the reckless policy of the
Convention, its disregard of treaties, and its determination to spread
revolutionary principles at any cost, multiplied the enemies of France.
The French Government's resolution to attack Holland offended and
alarmed the English. The execution of Louis created deep and general
indignation in Europe. Early in 1793, England, unheeding Pitt's pacific
dreams, and roused by the warning tones of Burke's hot anger and
imagination, plunged into the war. Spain, under its Bourbon princes,
followed suit. The difficulties of the French troops increased as
their spirit and discipline diminished. The allied armies resumed the
offensive. At the beginning of March a succession of reverses overtook
the French arms, and the invasion of Holland was abandoned. On the
18th, Dumouriez with the main army was defeated by the Austrians in the
battle of Neerwinden, and Belgium was lost. Dumouriez, disappointed by
the turn of events, long weary of the Jacobin ascendency and meditating
means to overthrow it, rejected Danton's friendly encouragement, talked
openly of restoring the Constitutional throne, and determined to
declare against the Convention. The Convention, aware of his designs,
sent off commissioners to arrest him in his camp. On the 3rd April,
foiled at the last by his own irresolution and by the apathy of his
troops, Dumouriez left his army and took refuge in the Austrian ranks.
Once again the French commander had deserted in the face of disaster,
and the danger of invasion reappeared.

The events on the frontier reacted immediately upon politics in Paris.
Danton at last succeeded in convincing the Assembly of the absolute
necessity of a strong Executive. In the end of March and the beginning
of April, a series of decrees passed the Convention, establishing,
for the first time since the outbreak of the Revolution, a powerful
Government in France, and founding or re-organising at the same time
the three chief instruments of the Terror. One decree created the
Revolutionary Tribunal, a court with summary process and extraordinary
powers, to try conspirators against the State; another, the famous
Committee of General Security, to hunt down and punish political
crime; and a third, the still more famous Committee of Public Safety,
soon to become the most redoubtable despotism in the history of
the world. With these decrees went other energetic measures--fresh
powers for the commissioners, the 'Representatives on Missions,' sent
into the provinces to execute the orders of the Convention; a fresh
levy of 300,000 men for the campaign, to be raised, if necessary,
by conscription; fresh decrees entailing penalties on Emigrants and
non-juring priests, outlawing all enemies of the Revolution, and
establishing in every Section of Paris a Committee of Supervision,
armed with despotic powers, to watch, disarm, arrest, and tax all
politicians on the other side. The national danger once again called
to the front the vigilant minority, which created a despotism to save
the Revolution and dragged the reluctant majority behind.

How far in all these measures the Jacobins were acting from patriotic
motives, and how far they were merely working for the advantage of
their party, it is hardly possible to say. Danton's motives stand above
dispute, and many others, it may be, deserve to be associated with him
in their love of France. Probably the Jacobins, like other politicians,
believed or could easily persuade themselves, that the cause of the
country and their party interest were the same. But whatever the motive
may have been, there is no doubt that the result of all these measures
was to strengthen the Jacobins and to weaken their rivals, although in
most of them, the Gironde joined.

There were, however, other measures passed in the spring of 1793,
which were little in harmony with Girondist ideas, and which owed
their origin to the Jacobins alone. Economic causes were at work to
increase the agitation in Paris. In spite of the sale of the Church
lands and of the property of the Emigrants, the financial position of
the Government was most unsatisfactory. The taxes were ill-paid. The
credit of the State had sunk very low. The expenses of the war and of
the administration were increasing every day. Specie was very difficult
to obtain. The Government, in consequence, fell back upon fresh issues
of Assignats, and the value of the Assignats steadily fell. At the same
time prices rose with alarming rapidity. Trade, already dislocated by
the confusion of the time, tended to leave Paris, where the Assignats
were most abundant. Speculation naturally increased. Large dealers,
contractors and capitalists made considerable profits by laying in
stores, by holding back commodities, and by turning the fluctuations
of the market to account. It is true that, early in 1793, wages began
to rise rapidly as well, because of the large drafts of men drawn from
Paris to the seat of war. But the wages of the working class were
paid not in money, but in depreciated Assignats; so that, while the
poor felt the rise in prices and the scarcity of food, and while they
resented the apparent prosperity of the dealers whose machinations
their leaders denounced, they did not feel the full advantage of the
rise in wages, and their angry discontent increased. The economics of
the destitute are always blind. They were easily persuaded that the
rich were profiting by a system which brought only suffering to them.

The result was an outcry in the poorer districts of the city against
all speculators and capitalists. Demands were raised for the rigid
regulation of trade, for cheap food, for the fixing of prices, and
for imperative laws to keep up the value of the paper money. The
Commune took up the popular cry, and demanded with success large
grants from the Treasury, in order to provide the capital with bread.
Marat, as usual, denounced his opponents and incited the people to
help themselves; and at the end of February, Marat's encouragement
produced a somewhat formidable riot, in which many tradesmen who were
not Jacobins suffered serious loss. The leaders of the Mountain, that
is the leaders of the Jacobins in the Convention, who had little
economic knowledge, and who, seeing distress and scarcity, believed
it possible to end them by arbitrary laws, supported the demand for
exceptional measures. The indifferent members of the Centre, whose
acquaintance with economic laws was probably no wider than that of the
Mountain, gave their consent to proposals which they hoped would quiet
Paris and avert insurrection. Danton suggested that the price of bread
should be regulated by the rate of wages. In April and May a series of
summary decrees were passed by the Convention entailing the most severe
penalties on all who trafficked in the currency, establishing a Maximum
price for grain, and imposing a heavy tax in the shape of a forced loan
upon the rich.

These measures, again, damaged the Girondists in Paris. They had as
a party a clearer conception than their opponents of the danger of
arbitrary interference with prices and with trade. Some of their
leaders opposed the proposals of the Commune, and even ventured to
protest against the grants spent in providing cheap bread for the
capital. But their protests only increased their unpopularity in
Paris, and led to demands for their punishment and removal, to fresh
threats and denunciations. On the 10th March, a fresh insurrection was
set on foot in some of the Sections, with the object of marching on
the Convention and getting rid of the Girondists by force. But it was
discountenanced by the Jacobin leaders, and it ended in an ineffectual
riot. The alarm, however, created by the bad news from the frontier
tended to heighten the political fever, and with that the risk of
insurrection. In March and April the danger was increased by the
serious rising in La Vendée, which, beginning in a series of isolated
outbreaks occasioned by the conscription and by local causes, developed
into a widespread political movement on behalf of monarchical ideas,
and by its spirit and its successes seemed to threaten the safety of
the Republic.

While the Girondists wavered and lost ground, the Jacobins were
organised and were preparing for the battle. They had behind them all
the authority of the Commune of Paris, the prestige of the well-known
leaders of the Mountain, and the forces of the two great Clubs. They
had, owing to the apathy of their opponents, obtained the control of
most of the Sections. They had practically the military power too.
After the 10th August, the National Guard had been organised afresh
into forty-eight battalions, one for each Section. The artillery
of the Guard had been separately organised, and the artillerymen,
recruited from the poorest class, formed a body on whom the Jacobins
could generally depend. The old bourgeois members no longer appeared,
but paid Sansculottes to do their duty for them; and the nucleus
of a fighting force was formed by the men of the 10th August and
of the 2nd September, who could be relied on to act as the Commune
required. Besides that, in the middle of May, the Commune ordered the
enlistment of a special force of Sansculottes, which was organised
later as the Revolutionary Army. Further, the Jacobins had the control
of the police. Each Section had its elected police-commissioners,
acting under the direction of the Commune, and as a matter of fact
police-commissioners became in many Sections insurrectionary leaders.
Thus the forces which existed nominally to protect the friends of
order, had become the active agents of the other side. The Committees
of Supervision lately instituted by the Convention, and known before
long as Revolutionary Committees, sat in every Section, denouncing,
disarming, and fining their enemies, dealing out certificates of
'civism' to their allies, forming ready centres of Jacobin intrigue,
and arranging plans for a general rising. If ever the Moderates dared
to assert themselves in the Sections, the Jacobins could call in the
authority of the police, and thus secure the arrest of their opponents.
All that they wanted was time to organise their forces, so as to make
the success of an insurrection certain.

To these preparations Girondists had nothing to oppose. They too must
have realised that the question had come to be one of force, and yet
they took no steps to gather forces for themselves. They inspired no
enthusiasm in the capital. There was no class in Paris on whom they
could rely. The National Guard would not rise to defend them. They had
no guard or organisation of their own. Neither the aristocrats nor the
bourgeois recognised them as leaders, and they made few efforts to
rally the partisans of order round them. The Girondists, it is true,
had eloquence and parliamentary battalions, and they were probably
right in believing that the majority of citizens preferred their policy
and conduct to those of their opponents. But these advantages were of
little weight or value when physical force lay in the other scale.

At last, however, the Girondists began to recognise their danger.
In April they attacked Marat, and sent him before the Revolutionary
Tribunal. But Marat was triumphantly acquitted. They denounced the
insurrectionary plots in the Sections. But the plots went merrily on.
They refused to listen to Danton's overtures of conciliation. They
obtained addresses of confidence from the departments. They proposed
to appeal to the country against Paris. They suggested that the
Convention should be moved to Versailles or Bourges. But all these
proposals were without result. Later still, as their apprehensions
increased, they boldly talked of dissolving the Commune, and on the
18th May they carried a motion appointing an extraordinary Commission
of Twelve, to enquire into the conspiracies against the Convention.
At the end, though they lacked unity, they did not lack vigour. The
Commission intrepidly challenged the plotters, and struck at the chief
by arresting Hébert. Hébert's arrest precipitated the crisis, and
the alarm which it caused in the camp of the Commune showed that the
Jacobins felt the gravity of the Girondist attack. But in order to make
their attack effective, the Girondists must have had a force behind
them, and this they had not the penetration to perceive or the power or
resolution to create.

Yet it cannot be said that their leaders were unwarned. Garat, their
principal representative in the Ministry, complacently shut his eyes
to the danger, and to the last moment assured his colleagues that
Paris was quiet and that nothing need be feared. And yet Garat had
at the time in his service a small staff of secret police, who were
daily reporting to him on the condition of Paris, and among them one,
Dutard, an observer of singular acuteness, whose reports the minister
apparently laid on the shelf unread, but whose name and counsels
deserve to be rescued from oblivion. In Dutard's reports we have
striking evidence of the apathy of the great mass of the Parisians,
of their indifference to Girondists and Jacobins alike. If Dutard's
opinion is to be trusted, most of the small traders and working
people, who had welcomed the Revolution with enthusiasm and who had
acquiesced in the downfall of the throne, had since passed into the
ranks of disaffection. The butchers, the tailors, the shoemakers,
the wine-dealers, even the market-women and the better artisans had
ceased to belong to the advanced party. The recruits of the Commune in
May were drawn from a lower and more reckless class, from unemployed
or idle workmen, from porters, hucksters, foreigners and domestic
servants, reinforced by criminals and outcasts, and swelled by the
social refuse of great cities, which no legislation or philanthropy
has yet been able to remove. This ignorant and undisciplined body,
easily led and easily misled, very sensitive to want and panic, not
very sensitive to principle or order, formed a force on which the
party of violence could depend, and the agents of the Commune were
busily appealing to its interests, drilling it into battalions, and
rousing it to act. But after all, compared with the population of
Paris, this force was small. The great mass of Parisian citizens
dreaded and disliked it. They hated its doctrines. They shuddered at
the recollection of its outbreak in September, and were cowed by the
fear lest that outbreak should recur. The aristocrats held themselves
aloof, provoked opposition and made mischief. The bourgeois declined
all public duties, and shunned the assemblies of the Sections, the
debates of the clubs, the gatherings and demonstrations in the streets,
the political discussions in the cafés. They only wanted to be left
alone, to amuse themselves, to gather in the Champs Elysées or in the
Gardens of the dismantled Tuileries, to enjoy the sunshine and the
summer breezes, to attend to their own small affairs, and to escape
the bewildering and dangerous vicissitudes of public life. They had no
union, no rallying-point, no leaders. Worst of all, they had for the
most part little courage, and had not learned, as they learned later,
that if they wished to be delivered they must assert themselves and act.

Yet at times there were traces of a better spirit among them. The first
attempts made to raise the forced loan from the rich and to compel
them to enlist for service in La Vendée seem to have stirred them to
resistance, and in the course of May, Dutard reported signs of a rally
of moderate politicians, and the reappearance of the majority in the
Sections. Could the Girondists have taken advantage of this spirit,
could they have used their influence in the Government and in the
Convention to bring troops to Paris, to shut the clubs, to overawe the
Commune, to enlist and draft off to La Vendée some of the destitute
and unemployed, to appeal to the instincts of property and order which
every civilized community retains, and to encourage those instincts to
assert themselves by an adequate display of force, they might yet have
won the day. But the Girondists could not seize the opportunity. Very
few of them saw as clearly as Garat's clever agent what was wanted.
They had not the authority, the union or the promptitude to induce the
Convention to take the necessary steps. So the majority relapsed into
submission, and the minority, helped by force and terror, secured the
lead again.

The arrest of Hébert, on the 24th May, marked the climax of the
struggle. It startled the Commune and it forced them to act. Their
plans had long been maturing, and in the days which followed they
were rapidly completed. On the one hand the insurrectionary leaders
organised their forces in the Section of the Evêché, and elected a
variety of committees and commissioners to direct the operations of
the insurgents. On the other hand the Convention and the Committee of
Public Safety hesitated and trimmed between the rival parties, while
the bolder spirits among the Gironde persevered in their attack. Some
of the more desperate Jacobins proposed the murder of the unpopular
deputies, but the responsible leaders insisted that the Girondists
should be disposed of by more legitimate means. In the end, the tactics
of the 10th August were closely followed. An insurrectionary municipal
body, elected by the most extreme Sections, met at night on the 30th
May, declared the regular authorities of the Commune superseded,
appointed Hanriot Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, ordered
the tocsin to be rung, and proceeded to recruit the battalions which
were to intimidate the Convention into proscribing the Gironde. Even
then the result was very doubtful. The insurrectionary leaders found it
difficult to raise the force which they required. Some of the Sections
and of the National Guards showed a disposition to take the other side.
On Friday, the 31st May, and again on Saturday, the 1st June, the
insurrectionary leaders failed to obtain their objects, and although
they induced the Convention to cancel the Commission of Twelve, they
were unable to secure the proscription of their opponents. It was
not until the third attempt, on Sunday, the 2nd June, that Hanriot's
Sansculottes, aided by the artillerymen of the National Guard and by
a disorderly battalion of foreigners, which was then leaving Paris
under orders for La Vendée, were able to muster in sufficient force
to overawe the Convention, and to induce it to vote the arrest of the
twenty-two leaders of the Gironde.

The fall of the Girondists was thus accomplished in Paris after a
close and doubtful struggle, in which with energy and union they might
very possibly have saved themselves. It produced a general outbreak
in France. Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Toulon, Grenoble, Caen, many
of the greatest cities in the country, declared against the Jacobin
Government in Paris. The great majority of the departments prepared to
raise the standard of revolt. On the Northern and Eastern frontiers
the Allies took Condé, Valenciennes, Mayence, and again threatened to
advance on Paris. In the South-West the Spaniards, in the South-East
the Sardinians made way against the French. On the Loire the insurgents
of La Vendée beat the troops of the Republic in battle after battle,
and threw themselves on Nantes. The English fleet blockaded the French
ports. All the enemies of the Revolution hurried to enlist on the same
side. Some of the Girondists escaped from Paris, and began to organise
resistance in the North; and Charlotte Corday, determined to avenge
their injuries, travelled up alone from Caen, and assassinated the
famous Jacobin leader who had made himself the apostle of assassination
as a method of political advance.

In the midst of these perils the Jacobin Government displayed undaunted
vigour and resource. The threatened resistance of the departments,
which had little union or organisation, was averted by vigorous and
prudent measures. The revolted cities were isolated and gradually
reduced. New generals were found and new levies raised for the war.
The appointment in turn of Houchard and Jourdan to the chief command
resulted in victories at Hondschöten and Wattignies, and from the
beginning of September onwards, the tide turned in favour of the
French. The Allies, always divided and lethargic, gradually fell back
before their enemies. After the autumn of 1793, all serious danger
of invasion passed away. The French army began to learn the uses of
discipline and the secrets of conquest, and under its great commanders
entered on its irresistible career. In the West the Vendéans were at
last defeated, and their heroic insurrection crushed. The Girondists
in the provinces failed, as they had failed in Paris, to raise the
forces essential to success, and one by one they were hunted down, or
disappeared. Before the end of October, the Jacobins were everywhere
triumphant, the Terror was established, and the Revolutionary Tribunal
was busily at work.

It is not necessary to linger here over the fate of the victims. The
Girondist ideals will always command sympathy. Their eloquent hopes,
their courage and disasters will always win respect. But when they are
tried as statesmen, their lamentable incompetence stands clear, and
their failure, though pitiable, seems scarcely undeserved. The triumph
of the Jacobins was celebrated by the death of their opponents. They
dealt their blows on all parties alike. Many of the Girondist leaders
perished in the provinces, and in the autumn and winter of 1793, a
long train of illustrious prisoners mounted the scaffold in Paris.
Marie Antoinette, undaunted to the last, expiated her rank and ended
her misfortunes. Madame Roland, with equal bravery, followed in the
steps of the unhappy queen whom she had so unsparingly assailed. A few
weeks later, the sinister irony of their judges sent to the guillotine
another woman, who like them had for a brief time tried to rule the
destinies of France, the once omnipotent Madame Dubarry. Vergniaud and
Brissot, once the heroes of the Republic, Bailly, once the hero of the
Parisians, Barnave, once the hero of the Assembly, Philippe Egalité,
once the hero of the mob, Houchard, only a few weeks before the hero of
the army, atoned by suffering the same indignity for the many different
parts which they had played. But to the last the Girondist enthusiasts,
with the tranquil courage of the Ancients whom they loved, bore witness
to their republican ideals, and as they passed from their prison to the
scaffold chanted the Marseillaise.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 10: The only authority for this statement that I know of is
the _Chronique de Paris_, of Dec. 26, 1792, quoted and accepted by Von
Sybel (Eng. Tr.), ii. 287. Whether entirely accurate or not, it serves
to illustrate the undoubted panic in Paris.]




CHAPTER IX.

THE JACOBINS IN POWER.


The first step taken by the Jacobins, after the defeat of their
opponents in the Convention, to conciliate public opinion in France,
was the proclamation of a new constitution. The 'Constitution of
'93,' which was destined never to come into force, was prepared
under the guidance of Hérault de Séchelles, and was hurried through
the Convention in the course of two or three weeks. More than any
other of the revolutionary constitutions, it was conceived in the
spirit of Rousseau, and embodied the Jacobin belief. In it the
passion for electoral devices, the suspicious dread of executive
power, the desire to refer every question to the immediate judgment
of the people, already familiar to the Jacobin ideal, found their
most positive expression. All rights, abstract and concrete, all
arrangements, legislative and executive, administrative and judicial,
military and financial, were restated and recast. All rulers, even
the executive council of state, were to be nominated by popular
election. All officials were limited to a very brief period of power.
The qualification for the exercise of the suffrage was made as simple
and as slight as possible, but by a somewhat curious exception to the
theory of direct popular control, the system of double election in the
case of most administrative officers was retained. Further, the powers
both of the Executive and of the legislature were jealously guarded by
a series of provisions, which gave the nation a veto on all important
measures, by directing that every question of moment should be
submitted to the assembled people. Never did any Parliament labour with
more misplaced ingenuity to reduce its governors to impotence and to
make their task impossible. 'The law,' declared the new constitution,
'must protect public and private liberties against the oppression of
those who govern. When the Government violates the people's rights,
insurrection is for the people, and for each portion of the people, the
most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.'

It is instructive to notice what followed. No doubt, the new
constitution was partly a tactical device invented to conciliate
opinion. But it also genuinely set forth the doctrine which the
Jacobins as followers of Rousseau held. It is one thing, however, to
cherish a theory, and quite another thing to carry it out. At the
moment when the Jacobins were proposing their extremely democratic
system, which would have made a strong Government impossible, they
found themselves confronted with a situation in which a strong
Government was imperatively required. At the moment when they were
proposing to the French people to annihilate all executive authority,
they found themselves compelled to establish a despotic Executive, if
they wished to save France and to preserve themselves. The conflict
between Jacobin theory and the stern necessity of actual fact, could
not have been better pointed. Forced to choose between the two, the
Jacobins cast their theory to the winds, and the men who had for years
been preaching that the rights of the governed were everything and the
rights of the governors nothing, set to work to found a system, in
which the governors claimed a power never paralleled before, and in
which the governed could not establish even their right to live. The
constitution passed the Convention before the end of June. In the next
few weeks, by dint of great pressure, and in the face of the usual
apathy among the voters, its ratification by the primary assemblies
was secured. It seems that many voters voted for it, hoping that its
adoption would necessitate a general election, and thus end the faction
fights in Paris, and oust the Jacobins from power. The delegates of
the primary assemblies were then convoked to Paris, and induced by
careful management to ask that the dissolution of the Convention should
be postponed till the end of the war. The Convention accepted the
invitation of the patriots. The delegates returned full of enthusiasm
to their homes, to rouse all Frenchmen to serve for the Republic.
The democratic constitution was suspended, and the despotism of the
Committee of Public Safety began.

Nominally, the Convention was still the chief authority in the State.
But after the summer of 1793, it abdicated most of its powers. Its
committees still did a great deal of work. The influence of certain
members, of Cambon on questions of finance, and of Dubois-Crancé on
questions of military organisation, was always very considerable. The
great scheme of public education, which the Convention established on
a generous scale, is a worthy monument of its labours. Its efforts to
provide for the relief of the poor, to promote technical instruction,
to develop science and art, to improve agriculture, to spread the
knowledge of the French language, to found the telegraph system in
France, to inaugurate the decimal system, and to establish uniformity
of weights and measures, bear witness to the activity of the advanced
party. Its bold attempt to reduce to order the chaos of French laws
laid the foundations of the Civil Code. These points ought not to be
forgotten in judging of the work of the Convention, for they show
that there were zealous and useful reformers in its ranks. But still
it must be admitted that the majority of members succumbed to the
Terror as time went on. As far as possible they abstained from voting
or from expressing any opinions at all. Their one endeavour was to
escape notice, and to give a cordial acquiescence to any conditions
which their masters imposed. Sieyès, once the busiest leader of the
Assembly and inexhaustibly fertile in debate, lived by remaining
obstinately mute. When an enemy denounced him at the Jacobin Club,
his shoemaker saved his life by protesting that Sieyès never meddled
with politics and did nothing but read his books. In the same way all
other competitors for power were crushed. The administrative officials
were rigorously sifted, and were deprived of political influence and
of their more important functions. Municipal elections were suspended.
The public service was filled with Sansculottes, and an immense number
of new places were created for the supporters of the victorious party.
The existing authorities having been thus reduced, the Revolutionary
Government was organised in their stead. In September, after some
vicissitudes, the new system was completed, and Terror was decreed to
be 'the order of the day.'

The form of the Revolutionary Government was simple. At its head
stood the Committee of Public Safety, the twelve kings of France.
The members of this Committee were supreme in all matters foreign
or domestic. They used the ministers as clerks and subordinates.
They resorted only as a matter of form to the Convention. They were
superior to all existing authorities, with unlimited powers, above
the law. Immediately subordinate to the Great Committee were the two
chief engines of its power--the Committee of General Security, under
Amar and Vadier, Panis and Rühl, which superintended the police work
of the Government, filled the prisons of Paris, and chose the victims
for the scaffold, and the Revolutionary Tribunal, organised afresh in
September upon a larger scale, ruled by such men as Herman, Coffinhal
and Fouquier-Tinville, and acting through the guillotine. Behind
these three important bodies were the various other agencies of the
Terror. First, in Paris, there was the redoubtable Commune, directed
by Pache, Hébert and Chaumette; the battalions of the Sections, once
the National Guard, but now represented chiefly by their cannoneers,
and placed under the command of Hanriot; the new Revolutionary Army of
Sansculottes, formed in September, 1793, and supplying an additional
force of six or seven thousand men; the Revolutionary Committees of
the forty-eight Sections, carefully sifted, organised and paid; the
Sectional meetings, now limited to two a week, and governed by a paid
majority of Sansculottes; and the great organisation of the Jacobin
Club. Then in the provinces, the Government was maintained by a similar
system of close centralisation. Special Representatives on Mission were
sent out armed with absolute powers to establish the terror in the
great cities of France. Subordinate officers, organised later under the
title of National Agents, were appointed to exercise similar powers in
the less important towns. Revolutionary Committees, organised and paid,
in every borough and considerable village, acted under the National
Agents, and in close co-operation with the local clubs. And in some
places revolutionary tribunals and revolutionary armies were formed on
the model of those in Paris.

The heads of this extraordinary system were the Committee of Public
Safety in Paris and the Representatives on Mission in the Departments.
They were the men who created the Terror, and on them the chief
responsibility rests. The Committee of Public Safety contained several
different groups. Three of its most conspicuous members, who acted
closely and consistently together, were Robespierre, Couthon and St.
Just. These men were the idealists of the Committee, all fanatical
disciples of Rousseau, all aiming at the regeneration of society and
determined to secure the triumph of their principles by any means.
Robespierre's wide popularity with the Jacobins, his character for
respectability and virtue, and his position as the typical exponent of
the party creed, made him an indispensable ally, although the more
practical among his colleagues regarded his administrative capacities
with contempt. Couthon, with his sweet voice and crippled body, and
St. Just, with his handsome face and stern demeanour, supported
Robespierre's schemes, with the same singular mixture of cruelty and
sentiment, of shallow pedantry and deep conviction. But though the
triumvirate afterwards grasped at power, and though they all took part
in shaping the principles and policy of the Terror, their influence
at first was by no means predominant, but was surpassed by that of
many of their colleagues. Allied with them in the political work of
the Committee, but more effective than they in securing its triumph,
were Billaud-Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, the real organisers of
the Terror, and among the fiercest of the ruthless men whom that
system raised to power. Beside them stood the impressionable Barère,
in some respects the most important member of the Government, who
represented the Committee in the Convention, where his fluent tongue
and easy temper made him popular, and Hérault de Séchelles the least
important of the twelve, pre-eminent in courtliness and breeding, but
most pre-eminent in society and love. The other five members of the
Committee were men whose names with one exception are little known
to-day, Lindet and Prieur of the Marne, charged with the work of
provisioning the country, Jean Bon St. André, the reorganiser of the
navy, and Carnot and Prieur of the Côte-d'Or, the organisers of the
great campaigns, which did so much to save the Committee's reputation,
and which in the eyes of many Frenchmen have half excused its faults.

In judging of this celebrated despotism no one should be permitted
to forget its arduous labours, its intrepid patriotism, its devotion
and success. The members of the Committee did not spare themselves.
Those who had special departments to attend to, like Carnot and the
Prieurs, Jean Bon St. André and Lindet, gave themselves up heart and
soul to business, worked day and night, lived in their offices, dined
sometimes on bread and water, and, engrossed in their overwhelming
duties, left to others the field of political intrigue. All their
vigour and abilities were thrown into the public service. They
accepted the Terror, as a system which it was hopeless to resist, from
necessity rather than from desire. But still they signed whatever their
colleagues put before them, and they must share the responsibility with
the rest. All the members of the Government lived at terrible pressure.
The sword hung constantly over their heads. Universal distrust was
the Jacobin shibboleth, and the genius of suspicion ruled in their
camp. Every man knew that he was watched by his colleagues. Every
man knew that his own turn might come next. 'You had your neighbour
guillotined,' said Barère afterwards, 'in order to prevent his
guillotining you.'

Under the control of the Committee of Public Safety and the
direct supervision of Billaud-Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, the
Representatives on Mission carried the Terror over France. The system
of sending out members of the Convention on special missions to the
army and the provinces had been freely adopted after the 10th August,
and was widely developed by Jacobin rule. The deputies received the
widest instructions from the Committee, which supported them through
thick and thin. They had absolute power over life and property. They
could remove and appoint officials, impose fines, levy taxes, imprison
on suspicion, try, punish and execute their prisoners, and take
any steps which they thought advisable to spread the Terror in the
districts where they ruled. Such powers in the best hands would at all
times be dangerously excessive; but confided, as they often were, to
men without principle or moderation, at a time when political passion
was furious, when suspicion was widespread and violence supreme, they
were abused to an extent which even the authors of the system hardly
contemplated, and which has rendered the annals of the Terror a black
page in the history of mankind.

It is true that the character of their government was in some places
milder than in others. Certain parts of France escaped. In several
important towns there were no executions, though prisoners were sent
up to be tried in Paris. In cities like Lyons, Marseilles and Toulon,
which had raised the standard of revolt, there was a colourable pretext
for severity. Some of the Commissioners, like Bô and Gouly, Lakanal
and André Dumont, while indulging in ferocious language, contrived to
mingle mercy with their bluster, and spared lives as often as they
dared. Some, like Ysabeau, Lecarpentier and Albitte, were averse
to wholesale executions, counted their victims by tens and not by
hundreds, and were content in their excesses to be less sanguinary than
absurd. Some, like Tallien, valued the dictatorship chiefly for the
opportunities of spoil which it afforded. Some, like St. Just, were
arbitrary only in insisting on conformity to their political ideals,
or like Couthon, mitigated the justice of the Terror with schemes of
benevolent philanthropy. Many of them seemed to act in a delirium. They
all ran the risk of denunciation and lived in fear of death.

But when all exceptions are admitted, there remain only too many
examples of the license and brutality by which the commissioners
rendered their power supreme. Some of them seemed to take pleasure in
showing how detestable tyranny could be. Even the wholesale executions
were not always the worst feature of their rule. Collot d'Herbois and
Fouché in Lyons, Lebon at Arras, Javoges at St. Etienne, and Carrier
at Nantes, acquired an infamous celebrity above the rest. Others,
like Lacombe in Bordeaux, Barras and Fréron in Marseilles and Toulon,
Reynaud and Guyardin in the department of the Haute-Loire, Maignet in
the Vaucluse, Dartigoyte in the Gers and the Landes, Borie in the Gard,
and Bernard de Saintes and Léonard Bourdon in the Côte-d'Or, fell in
demerit only behind the worst. Their despotism was less prodigal of
life; but in contempt for decency, humanity and justice, few of their
colleagues surpassed them. The first fury of the Terror was directed
against the suspected and the wealthy, against priests, capitalists
and aristocrats. But it rapidly passed on to others; and tradesmen and
farmers, working men and working women supplied their tale of victims
for the guillotine. 'I will convert this people into patriots,' cried
Baudot; 'either they or I must die.' 'We will make France a cemetery,'
echoed Carrier, 'rather than not regenerate it in our own way.'

More interesting, however, than the iniquities of the proconsuls of
the Terror, are the principles which those iniquities were intended
to enforce. There were always differences of view among the Jacobins,
and no very consistent rules governed their legislation. But still it
is possible to point to certain maxims as influencing their conduct,
maxims which, set in a different light and approached in a different
spirit, have in other ages roused enthusiasm and won respect. These
maxims found their strongest supporters in the politicians of the
Commune. Their adoption was largely due to the municipality of Paris;
and the ascendency of that party, which reached its height in November,
1793, marks the climax of the Revolution and, as regards political
doctrine, the furthest point of the democratic advance.

The chief point for which the Terrorists contended was the absolute
supremacy of the State and the entire subordination to it of individual
rights. The supremacy of the State, in the Jacobin theory, extended
over life and property alike. It was the duty of every member of the
State to work for it. It was the right of every member of the State to
be supported by it. In pursuance of these ideas the Republic asserted
its title not only to the estates of the Crown, of the Church, of the
Emigrants and the suspected, but to corporate property of every kind,
to the estates of hospitals, of scientific bodies, of educational
and benevolent institutions. It resumed all lands alienated by the
Crown during the past three hundred years. It claimed the right of
appropriating for public purposes, under the name of requisition and
at such prices as it chose to fix, all the products of commerce,
agriculture and manufacture. 'Whatever is essential to preserve life,'
said Robespierre, 'is common property to Society at large.' 'When the
public needs require it,' argued another deputy, 'all belongs to the
people and nothing to individuals.' Thus every man between eighteen
and twenty-five was required to serve in the armies of the Republic.
Thus, in order to clothe and shoe the army, tailors and shoemakers were
summoned to headquarters and required to work for the servants of the
State. In some districts all blue and green cloaks were confiscated
to the service of the Republic. Thus, too, all millers, farmers and
labourers, all who prepared food for the people, were required to
labour at the command of the State. On one occasion the Government
ordered that all the oats in the territories of the Republic should be
deposited within a week at certain specified places and surrendered
to the local authorities at the price fixed by the State. On other
occasions the authorities ordered all specie and gold and silver
articles to be surrendered for public purposes under penalty of death.

But these far-reaching claims involved very arbitrary measures. In
order to secure obedience to its commands, the State must be able to
rely upon its servants, and accordingly it imposed offices and duties,
wherever it found convenient nominees. All whom it appointed were
forced to accept, and no disclaimer was permitted. Further, the State
undertook to supervise everyone who worked for the community, all
manufacturers, cultivators and dealers. It discussed the feasibility of
converting its retail-traders into salaried servants. All those whom
it required to work had to work, whether they liked or not, or else
be denounced as 'Muscadins' and heavily punished and fined. The State
undertook to provide them with work and to settle the rate of their
wages. In certain districts the authorities were required to draw up
lists of labourers out of employment and of farms in need of labour.
The men were then supplied to the farmers, and their wages fixed by the
State. If any labourer did not have his name put down, or asked for
more than the wages fixed, he was sentenced to imprisonment in irons.
Every man had to give his services when the State demanded it, or be
punished as egoistic and refractory. If he were ruined by compliance it
was his fault, for the State could do no wrong. The State compelled for
good, and all men must obey.

In return for this implicit obedience to its calls, the State
undertook to watch over the welfare of its subjects. 'Society,' cried
Robespierre, 'must provide for the support of all its members.' A
few enthusiasts, like St. Just and Babœuf, suggested the abolition
of private property; but that view was not very widely accepted,
and the general tendency of Jacobin legislation was to distribute
property and not to forbid it. 'In a well-ordered republic,' said
Barère, 'nobody should be without some property.' Accordingly, two
broad rules were adopted, first, that no man must have too much, and
secondly, that every man must have enough. In order to secure the
first of these principles drastic measures were needed. The rich were
taxed and proscribed. Fines of enormous amount were levied on them,
recklessly imposed by any authority which had the power to enforce
payment. At the same time confiscations multiplied, and lands, houses,
plate and art treasures were swept into the coffers of the Republic. A
distinction was drawn between what was essential and what was surplus.
The essential was fixed at forty pounds a year a head. Beyond that it
was proposed that the wealthiest families should keep only an income
of a hundred and eighty pounds. 'Opulence,' declared St. Just, 'is
infamous.' 'The richest of Frenchmen,' cried Robespierre, 'ought not to
have more than a hundred and twenty pounds a year.' To guard against
inequalities of wealth in the future, freedom of bequest was abolished,
and the rights of testators were strictly limited so that their
property might be divided on their death. If a man had no children, the
State encouraged him to adopt some, in order that his estate might be
distributed amongst them. 'Equal rights,' said a deputy, 'could only be
maintained by a persistent tendency to uniformity of fortunes.'

'But,' said Barère, 'it is not enough to bleed the rich and to pull
down colossal fortunes. The slavery of poverty must be made to
disappear from the soil of the Republic.' Accordingly, for those
who had no means of subsistence the State provided in a variety of
ways. It allotted to them confiscated lands. It enrolled them in the
Revolutionary Army. It provided for them in the public service, or paid
them to attend committees, meetings and clubs. Communes were required
to draw up lists of all citizens who had no property of their own, in
order that the State might come to their relief. A 'big ledger of
national beneficence' was instituted in each department for the old,
the widowed and the infirm, so that they might receive pensions from
the State. 'Every citizen,' wrote St. Just, one of the law-givers of
the Terrorist Utopia, 'must have his own bread, his own roof, and all
that is indispensable for life. He must live independently, respect
himself, have a tidy wife and healthy and robust children.' But should
he decline to conform to this ideal, the penalty was death.

But it was not enough to furnish incomes for all; it was necessary
to take further measures to provide that the prices of necessaries
should be such that every man could buy them. Accordingly, by the
Maximum laws the State proceeded to fix a limit for the price of
bread; and from that it rapidly passed on to limit the prices of other
necessaries, of meat and vegetables, of soap and firewood, of butter,
tobacco, sugar, beer, even of manufactured articles and of raw material
as well. On the same grounds, in order to make things plentiful and
cheap, the State watched jealously over all dealers and producers.
Monopoly was made a capital crime. Manufacturers, agriculturists and
tradesmen were freely denounced as public enemies. Capitalists and
usurers were held up to public execration. The Bourse was closed.
Financial associations were suppressed. Bankers, stock-brokers,
and silver dealers were forbidden to exercise their calling. Heavy
restrictions limited the import and export trade of the country, and
the investment of capital abroad. Hébert declared that all tradesmen
were 'essentially anti-revolutionists, and would sell their country for
a few halfpence.' Other Jacobins maintained that 'nearly all farmers
were aristocrats,' and proscribed the butchers in particular as 'an
intolerable aristocracy.' The more these arbitrary measures failed,
the more implacably did their authors enforce them. Farmers were
forbidden to sell their produce privately. Shopkeepers were compelled
to offer to the public all that they had in their shops. Penalty of
death was denounced against the manufacturer who did not make full
use of his materials, penalty of death against the dealer who did not
post up a list of all that he had in stock, penalty of death against
the cultivator who did not bring his grain to market, penalty of death
against any person who kept more bread on hand than he required for his
own subsistence. Similar heavy penalties followed for all who infringed
the Maximum laws, and who would not accept the prices that the State
had fixed. Among the records of the punishments inflicted, the State is
sometimes found resorting to ruthless acts of petty tyranny, condemning
in one case to a fine of one thousand francs a woman who had ventured
to sell a candle for fivepence, sentencing to a fine of forty thousand
francs a bar-keeper who had charged tenpence for a glass of wine, and
ordering a grocer who had sold sugar-candy at a lower rate than the
authorities approved, to pay one hundred thousand francs as penalty,
and to be imprisoned until the end of the war!

Of course these arbitrary measures defeated their own ends. Instead of
making food and clothing plentiful, instead of keeping prices down,
they destroyed credit, ruined enterprise, and resulted in scarcity and
dearth. In spite of all the efforts of the Government, the value of
the Assignats steadily declined. Everyone was compelled to use them,
and to accept them at their nominal value; but everyone knew that they
were really worthless. For a time commercial prosperity disappeared. On
all sides factories failed, and workmen fell out of employment. Arthur
Young declared that the Revolution did more harm to manufactures than
to any other branch of industry in France. The proscription of the rich
wrought havoc with the industries of Paris and Lyons. The disturbances
in the West Indies dealt a heavy blow at colonial trade. The war with
England closed French ports and damaged French shipping. The war with
the other Powers shut the Continent to French goods. Observers in
Bordeaux, in Nantes and in Strasbourg, echoed the same complaints.
'Commerce here is annihilated,' wrote a Swiss banker from Paris in
November, 1793.

And as it was with the capitalists, so it was with the tradesmen, the
farmers and labourers too. No one would bow to regulations which cut
at the profits of his calling. All sorts of devices were resorted to
to evade them. Shopmen kept only a limited stock on hand, or disposed
of their goods secretly to customers who would pay a handsome price.
Smuggling steadily increased. Farmers and peasants refused to bring
their grain to market for the prices fixed by the State. They sold it
privately or hoarded it up. If defeated in these devices, they refused
to work at all, and let their crops stand unharvested in the fields.
'The bakers,' wrote a Jacobin agent from Grenoble in the winter of
1793, 'have stopped baking altogether.' 'The fishermen,' wrote another
from Marseilles, 'no longer go to sea.' Of course the State punished
them severely for their contumacy, but they would rather go to prison
than labour for no adequate reward. And so the working classes passed
into the ranks of the suspected, and the 'aristocrats and fanatics'
arrested consisted largely of shopkeepers and working men. One list of
prisoners at Strasbourg, for instance, contained the names of a number
of women whose husbands were tailors, upholsterers and chimney-sweeps,
while in country districts the farmers and peasants took the place of
the mechanics and tradesmen in the towns. In the summer of 1794, the
prisons of France were so full of country people that the Convention
became alarmed at the neglect of the land, and ordered the provisional
release in view of the harvest of large numbers of labouring men.

The effect of the reckless action of the State and of the resistance
which it provoked was to produce a general dearth. In 1792 and 1793
the harvests were by no means bad. But the utter depreciation of the
currency, the insecurity of property, the frequent seizure of grain,
and the attempts of the authorities, especially in Paris, to fix wages
and to manipulate prices, all tended to lessen the supply and to check
the free circulation of food. In the winter of 1793-94 the signs of
distress became alarming. From Lyons and Marseilles, from Rouen and
Bordeaux, there came nothing but reports of famine. 'In the district
of Cadillac,' said Tallien in March, 1794, 'absolute dearth prevails;
the citizens fight for the grass in the fields.' 'In many of the Indre
districts,' wrote another representative, 'food is entirely wanting.'
In Paris, where so many indigent were gathered, the danger, in spite
of the efforts of the municipality, was more noticeable still. Bread
was bad and scanty. Meat was terribly scarce. Vegetables and groceries
were exceedingly dear. The long _queues_ of hungry men and women, which
formed every night outside the provision-shops of Paris, waiting for
the dawn, added a grim feature to Parisian life. 'If this lasts,' said
the workmen, according to the testimony of one observer, 'we shall have
to cut each other's throats, since there is nothing left to live on.'
Beggars multiplied on every side. Those who knew the streets of Paris
spoke of the crowds of famished faces, 'everywhere presenting an image
of despair,'--into such misery had the all-governing State reduced
them, the State which only wished to be omnipotent for the noble
purpose of regenerating man.

But the State did not confine its interference to questions of property
and labour. It undertook to regulate private conduct too. The old codes
of faith and morality were swept aside. The old notions of family life
were rejected. Robespierre protested against 'the domestic federalism
which narrows the soul by keeping it isolated.' Marriages were made
the loosest contracts. 'A man and woman who love each other are
married,' cried St. Just. Paternal rights and duties were abolished.
Patriots regarded it as contrary to liberty for a father to correct
his child. The State undertook to educate its children on the most
minute and rigid system, to see to their support, to carve out their
inheritance, to dictate their morals, to form their opinions, to point
out their God. Under the influence of the materialistic school which
ruled in the Commune of Paris, and in particular of Chaumette, Hébert
and Clootz, Christianity was proscribed. 'It will not be long,' cried
an enthusiastic deputy, 'before the religion of Socrates, of Marcus
Aurelius and Cicero will be the religion of the world.' With the
sanction of the Convention, Reason was established as the faith of
the Republic. On the 10th November, 1793, the Goddess of Reason was
installed in the cathedral of Notre Dame. The churches were closed and
plundered. Priests were compelled, on pain of persecution, to abdicate
or to abjure their faith, and many scenes of license and disorder
signalised the triumph of the rationalistic creed. The action of the
Commune in Paris and of its representatives in the country districts
created widespread indignation. 'The mischief is grave, and the wound
deep,' wrote a Jacobin politician to Robespierre from Lyons. 'Stupor,
grief and consternation are depicted upon every face. The dying man
sends for the minister of religion to speak the words of peace and
consolation, and the minister is threatened with the guillotine if
he goes to perform this duty of humanity. Such is the reality of our
freedom!'

Besides the Christian religion the Terrorists repudiated the Christian
era. The new Calendar dated from the 22nd September, 1792, the day
of the proclamation of the French Republic, which became the first
day of the first year of Liberty. The old months, weeks and days were
abolished. The year was divided into twelve new months, each consisting
of thirty days,--Vendémiaire, Brumaire, Frimaire for the autumn;
Nivôse, Pluviôse, Ventôse for the winter; Germinal, Floréal, Prairial
for the spring; and Messidor, Thermidor, Fructidor for the summer.
Each month was divided into three decades, and the five days over at
the end of the year were consecrated to public festivals. With the
customs of the old world its manners disappeared. In order to enforce
social equality, all classes were compelled to adopt the habits, dress
and language of the Sansculottes. Red caps, sabots and rough clothing
became essential signs of patriotism. The graces and courtesies of life
were penal. 'It is not safe,' wrote a Parisian, as early as September,
1792, 'to walk the streets in decent clothes.' The old forms of address
disappeared and gave place to fraternal greetings. The real aristocracy
of nature and education shared the proscription of the accidental
aristocracy of birth. 'The French people,' boasted Robespierre, 'have
outstripped the rest of humanity by two thousand years.... In the rest
of Europe a ploughman or artisan is an animal formed for the pleasures
of the noble. In France the nobles are trying to transform themselves
into ploughmen and artisans, but do not succeed in obtaining that
honour.' Among other strange and trivial changes, the adoption of
new names came into fashion, names borrowed often from the heroes of
antiquity. Brutus, Anaxagoras and Scipio-Solon figured in the popular
nomenclature of the day. On the staff of the Revolutionary Tribunal one
member took the name of Tenth-of-August; another styled himself Mucius
Scaevola; and a third became Sempronius Gracchus.

Apart from these absurdities, which are only worth recording because
they illustrate the extraordinary character of the times, the natural
consequences attended the Terrorists' interference with the rules of
private conduct. No nation can with impunity cast its prejudices and
beliefs behind it. No nation can accept without suffering a brand new
code of morality and ethics even at the hands of well-intentioned
men. The result was moral disorder. When respect for conventions was
proscribed, respect for discipline and self-restraint went with it.
Parents lamented the insubordination of their children. Vice showed
itself more often unashamed. Encouraged by the legislation of the
Terror, the statistics of illegitimacy enormously increased. In the
year VI of the Republic there were more divorces than marriages in
France.

No doubt in many cases the action of the Terrorists was based upon
honest conviction. Certain members of the Government, like St. Just and
Robespierre, were idealists convinced that their tyranny was needed to
secure the reign of virtue in the world. Even among the politicians
of the Commune, from whom emanated most of the socialist experiments
and most of the extreme measures of the Terror, and with whom many of
its worst instruments were closely allied, there were, no doubt, some
men who, like Chaumette, meditated projects of benevolent philanthropy
for the reform of criminals, the alleviation of suffering and the
suppression of vice. These men saw round about them grave inequalities
and serious distress. They wished to render social wrong impossible,
and to make all men happy, patriotic and enlightened on the spot. They
wished to break down conventions which sometimes worked hardship, and
to banish what they regarded as the superstitions of the past. And
thus, having seized on absolute power, they used it to found their
dimly-seen ideal by desperate measures and in desperate haste.

But while making full allowance for the intentions of these men, and
passing over for the moment their ruinous unwisdom, we cannot shut our
eyes to the methods which they used. Political passion warps history
to its uses, and writers who have sympathised with the Terrorist
ideals, have too often refused to consider anything else. But after
all, these men were a small minority, whose maxims their colleagues
adopted, but whose scruples they pushed aside. It is not by the hopes
of a few theorists, but by the actions and character of the practical
agents of the Terror that that system must be judged. And it is on the
ground of their actions and character that the Terrorists as a party
stand condemned. The overwhelming evidence of their own statements,
of official papers and of judicial reports cannot be rejected as idle
slander. No doubt some of them acted in a delirium, under an imminent
sense of peril and at the risk of death. No doubt they all suffered
from that blunting of the moral sense, which the reckless excitement
of the Revolution seems to have produced in many minds, which alone
rendered the Terror possible, and which is so conspicuous in Napoleon,
the Revolution's conqueror and child. But still, admitting all excuses,
the record of the Terrorists is dark. Some of them, at the head, were
dangerous zealots, and some were colourless or unwilling assistants.
But many of them, especially the subordinate agents and those who were
ranked among the followers of Hébert, were ignorant and unprincipled,
cruel and corrupt.

One characteristic of the party was the license which marked their
speech and conduct. Coarseness of language was not uncommon among
Jacobin politicians, and even the greatest of them, like Danton, shared
it. In many cases the habit was not natural, but was deliberately
affected for a political purpose, and cultivated as a sign of
democracy and in order to win popularity with the mob. It was in men
like Hébert and his allies that this contemptible fashion reached
its climax. Hébert made his political reputation by it. His journal,
the _Père Duchesne_, which raised him to notoriety and power, was
started with the express intention of appealing to the obscene tastes
of the multitude, and its scandalous impurity has probably never been
surpassed. Of what calibre must the men have been who were driven
to such methods of acquiring fame? Their language, however, would
have mattered little, had it not been so often reflected in their
conduct, and had they not possessed the power to abolish, with the
aid of the guillotine, all those laws and decorums by which society
protects itself. Hébert had no lack of imitators among the men whom
the Terror raised to power. Guffroy, a member of the Committee of
General Security, started a paper in the same style. Javogues and
Dartigoyte, Vacheron, Laplanche and others preached and adopted in the
departments the morality of Père Duchesne, and those below them in
the hierarchy of the Terror rivalled or exceeded the example of their
chiefs. Nor can one overlook the ferocity which so many Terrorists
displayed. The records of despotism contain few things which surpass
the sanguinary rigour of Collot d'Herbois, Fréron and Lebon, the
iniquities permitted by Ronsin, the hero of the Revolutionary Army,
and by Fouquier-Tinville, the hero of the Revolutionary Tribunal,
the cynical cruelty of a Fouché watching a massacre from a window,
lorgnette in hand, the savagery of a Carrier, who declared that he
had never laughed so much in his life as he did at the contortions of
his victims, the pitiless fanaticism of a Robespierre, who, after ten
months of the Terror, insisted on fresh legislation for simplifying
trials and facilitating death, the terrible ingenuity of a Vadier, who
invented the idea of getting up conspiracies in the prisons so as to
furnish more victims for the scaffold, or the barbarity of a Government
which, while endorsing this iniquitous device, proposed to shoot all
its prisoners of war, and would have done so, had not its own officers
refused to carry the order out.

But if some of the leading Terrorists were worthless, many of their
subordinates were worse. The character of the men who carried out
the system in the Sections of Paris and in the towns and villages of
France, who governed the clubs, ruled the committees and composed the
armed force, was generally unredeemed by any larger public motives. Not
only were they very rough and ignorant, but they were necessarily men
without scruples. No others would perform the duties of the Terror or
execute the orders that came from above. Their powers being enormous,
their opportunities for tyranny and plunder were unlimited, and those
opportunities were constantly abused. Money levied recklessly upon the
rich never reached the coffers of the State. Salaries were multiplied
to an extraordinary degree. Cambon, speaking for the Treasury, bore
witness to the wholesale peculation. A hundred other witnesses have
brought forward instances of corruption and excess, and even of
debauchery and crime. The armed force on which the small minority
of Terrorists relied to maintain their precarious authority, freely
enlisted the most ruffianly recruits. Their own general described them
as 'scoundrels and brigands,' and excused himself by pleading that
'honest men could not be found to undertake such work.' Such a class
exists in every country, especially in countries that have been long
mis-ruled; but civilised communities place it under strict restraint.
The Jacobins, on the other hand, invited it to govern, and invested
it with despotic powers. It is noticeable that many of the Jacobin
agents were men who had failed in the ordinary walks of life, and who
were consequently bitter against social laws. In their compassion for
suffering and their contempt for the magic of wealth, the Jacobins
fell into the opposite excess, professed to find magic in poverty, and
regarded ignorance and destitution as entitled to honour in themselves.
Recalling the doctrine of their master, that in a state of Nature men's
instincts are good, they refused to recognise the frailty of humanity,
and forgot that misfortune is sometimes due to fault. Strange as the
truth appears, it would seem to be indisputably proved that under the
Terror the Government of France fell largely into the hands of the
unscrupulous and worthless, and that the doctrine of the sovereignty
of the people, once welcomed with such pure enthusiasm, came to mean
the tyranny of the lowest of the people, not only of the lowest in
wealth and station--that would not have mattered--but of the lowest in
education and capacity, in nature and in morals too.

It is difficult to believe that Carnot and Lindet, or even Robespierre
and St. Just, could have cordially approved of such a system. But
that they sanctioned it is clear. Some, like Carnot, shut their
eyes, feeling that it was no use to interfere. Others, like St. Just
and Robespierre, took refuge in their resolutely blind fanaticism.
'Patriots' could not do wrong, and if their own friends brought them
proof to the contrary, they refused, except in the grossest cases, to
listen or believe. They had to use such weapons as they could find,
and they comforted their consciences with general declarations. 'The
Jacobins,' cried Collot d'Herbois, 'are compassionate, humane and
generous. These virtues, however, they reserve for patriots who are
their brethren, and not for aristocrats.' Most of them believed the
Terror to be needed. 'It is necessary,' said Billaud, 'that the people
should be created anew.' Even Jean Bon St. André insisted that, in
order to establish the ideal Republic, half the population of France
must be destroyed. 'Our purpose,' Robespierre steadily protested, 'is
to substitute morality for egotism, honesty for honour, principles
for usages, ... the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, ...
nobleness for vanity, love of glory for the love of gain,' but in order
to fulfil their virtuous purpose, the Terrorists called in the help of
the depraved.

These considerations may serve to explain the catastrophe of the
leaders of the Terror. So far as their experiments were honest and
high-motived, they will always be of interest to the world. But even as
reformers their failure was complete. The effects of their desperate
action were disastrous. Their methods utterly discredited their cause,
and occasioned an infinite amount of suffering to France. And while
in part, no doubt, they failed through ignorance, they failed chiefly
because so many of them were bad men. In the end, the Terrorists did
little materially or morally to raise the level of life, little to
advance the equality which they longed for, and to which men march
through order, not through crime. Of all their work, strenuous and
heroic as it often was, only one part, the war, entirely prospered.
For under the Terror Frenchmen threw into the war the irresistible
enthusiasm which the Revolution had created, and which they could no
longer feel for politics at home. The Terror was never sanctioned by
France, and it never will receive the sanction of posterity. To assume
that it was necessary is only one among the many sophisms which weak
and well-intentioned men advance for palliating wrong. Even the excuse
of national peril was wanting, for the ease with which the Jacobins
in Paris subdued their enemies in the summer of 1793, shows how
powerful their position was, and in the winter of that year all serious
danger of invasion disappeared. The Terror was necessary to keep the
Terrorists in power, and to enable them to carry out their views.
But it was necessary for no other purpose, and certainly not for the
salvation of France.




CHAPTER X.

THE STRUGGLE OF PARTIES AND THE ASCENDENCY OF ROBESPIERRE.


It was in November, 1793, and under the influence of the Commune of
Paris, that the Revolution reached its climax. The party of the Commune
was undoubtedly strong. It had behind it the elaborate organisation
of the Parisian municipality. It had many supporters in the Jacobin
Club. It had complete possession of the Cordeliers, once the scene of
Danton's triumphs. It had friends on the Committee of General Security.
It was countenanced by Pache, the Mayor, and by Bouchotte, the Minister
of War. On the Committee of Public Safety it had a powerful champion
in the person of Collot d'Herbois, and in Carrier, Fouché, and
other proconsuls of the Terror it had agents on whom it could rely.
Hébert, its most ambitious leader, enjoyed, as the editor of _Père
Duchesne_, a commanding influence in the Press. Chaumette, a worthier
disciple, held an important post in the Commune. Vincent, another of
its representatives, held an important post in the Ministry of War.
Ronsin, the commander of the Revolutionary Army, lent it the assistance
of an effective force. Other politicians of less note, Clootz and
Momoro, Desfieux and Proli, Maillard, Chabot and Bazire, were sometimes
associated with it, and contributed to it their strange enthusiasm,
their doubtful services, and their discreditable intrigues. Before long
the objects of the Commune appeared without disguise--to destroy the
power of the Convention, to usurp the place of the Government, and to
make its own views and heroes the chief authority in the State.

The proclamation of the worship of Reason marked the ascendency of
this party, and from that moment its decline began. The orgies which
accompanied its triumph, the tyranny which it had established in Paris,
and the license and brutality which distinguished its representatives
in the departments caused grave dissatisfaction in the Jacobin ranks.
The majority of the Convention submitted, but they submitted with
indignation and disgust, and though they had not the courage to rebel,
they were prepared to welcome anyone who would give voice to the
resentment which they felt. Under these circumstances a second party
raised its head among the forces of the time. Philippeaux and Fabre
d'Églantine, two well-known deputies of the Mountain believed to be on
terms of intimacy with Danton, came forward to attack the proceedings
of the Hébertists. Others, like Westermann and Bourdon de l'Oise,
Legendre, Lecointre, Lacroix and many others, joined in the attack with
more or less reserve. On the same side Camille Desmoulins threw himself
into the battle with all his impetuous eloquence and ardour; and behind
the attacking forces there rose, impressive and conspicuous as ever,
the figure of the man whom all regarded as a leader, and whom the
rising opposition hoped to make the spokesman of their protest against
the Commune and the Terror alike.

Danton, like so many of his contemporaries, had soon wearied of the
system of the Terror. He watched with repugnance the ruin which it
spread. He had no liking for political intrigue. He felt strongly
the need of stability and order, if there were ever again to be a
settled government in France. It is true that in the earlier days
Danton had taken a chief part in securing the Jacobin triumph. In the
heat of the revolutionary struggle, in the moment of national danger,
no one had been readier to act. He had encouraged and organised the
insurrection of the 10th August. He had grasped the helm of State
during the perilous days which followed. Many of the characteristic
Jacobin measures--the wholesale arrest of the suspected in September,
the foundation of the Committee of Public Safety, the establishment
of the Revolutionary Tribunal, of the Maximum and of the tax on the
rich, the formation of the Revolutionary Army, the proclamation of the
Terror, the conscription and the defence of France--had been largely
due to his initiative or support. In common with the rest of his
party, Danton had opposed the declaration of war, but as soon as the
invaders appeared upon the frontier, he had thrown himself into the
battle heart and soul. He cared little for party jangles; but he cared
intensely for the honour and greatness of his country. Free alike from
narrow theories, from absorbing jealousies and from morbid ambition,
Danton had always viewed events with a statesman's eye. He had seen
Dumouriez' failings, but he had seen also his conspicuous ability, and
he had supported him staunchly to the end. He had seen, as Mirabeau had
seen before him, that the government of the country could never prosper
until a strong Executive were formed, and accordingly, like Mirabeau,
he had endeavoured to induce the Convention to give the Ministers seats
in the House. Only when that scheme had failed, had he fallen back on
the device of a powerful committee. He had realised much sooner than
his colleagues the folly of the reckless decree by which, in November,
1792, the Convention had declared war on all the kings of Europe, and
four months later he had secured its repeal. He had discerned the uses
of diplomacy, had negotiated the withdrawal of Brunswick, had tried to
detach Prussia from the coalition, had secured an alliance with Sweden,
and had steadily laboured, in spite of the wild talk of his colleagues,
to bring France back into the comity of nations. From the time of the
king's death, Danton had done all that eloquent persuasion could do
to heal divisions and to unite parties in the work of defending the
Republic. He would gladly have worked with the Girondists, had they not
driven him by their intemperate charges into the opposing camp. 'If we
must shed blood,' he once pleaded nobly, 'let us shed the blood of the
enemies of our country.'

But when the danger of invasion passed away, Danton's energies passed
with it. When the Jacobins had conquered and the State was saved, he
felt that he had no employment left. He had little sympathy with the
Government of the Terror. He wearied of the long tale of violence and
outrage. Unscrupulous and hardened as he was, he turned disgusted from
the methods of Carrier and Hébert. After his second marriage, in June,
1793, his young wife and the delights of home called him away to purer
things than politics. He knew the limits of his own capacity, and that
he could not bring to the work of political manœuvring the irresistible
vigour and conviction by which he had roused the country and had swept
his colleagues into power. Even to the last, when Philippeaux and
Desmoulins forced him to the front, and made him the unwilling leader
round whom the party of reaction gathered, he was inclined to urge them
to put up their weapons, and to fall back on his old plea for unity.
He hated personal animosities and was not made to be a faction chief.
But he was too conspicuous and too honest to remain altogether in the
background, when his comrades were risking their lives in a cause which
he knew to be the cause of mercy, and believed to be the cause of
France.

Between Hébert and his adherents in the Commune, and the party which
gradually ranged itself behind Danton in opposition to the whole system
of the Terror, there stood, as a third party, the Government of the
day. The Government, that is the Committee of Public Safety, was not,
it is true, entirely united. Some of its members, like Collot d'Herbois
and in a lesser degree Billaud-Varennes, approved of the methods of
the Commune, and were closely leagued with its chiefs. On the other
hand, Robespierre detested the brutal license of many of the Communist
party, and his feelings were shared by Couthon and St. Just. Others,
again, like Carnot, had little liking for either Robespierre or Hébert.
Hérault de Séchelles was a friend of Danton and sympathised with his
ideas. But, divided as they were, most of the members of the Committee
felt that things were going too far. They were responsible for the
government of the country, and they could not, therefore, view with
unconcern the anarchy and public plunder which marked the course of the
agents of the Commune. They were for the moment kings of France, and
they had no intention of surrendering their throne to the ambitious
municipality of Paris, or of permitting any reaction in the Convention
which would deprive them of the power which it had suffered them to
usurp.

Accordingly, in the month of November, when Collot d'Herbois was absent
in Lyons, a decided movement against the Commune appeared. Robespierre,
with his strong sense of decorum and his reverence for the sentimental
theology of Rousseau, was shocked by the excesses of the materialist
party, and encouraged by the signs of opposition in the Convention,
he began to make his opinions felt. As usual, he proceeded with great
caution, but by significant hints and phrases he showed his resentment
at the conduct of Hébert. On the 17th November, in a long report upon
the foreign policy of France, he took occasion to denounce both the
'cruel moderantism and the systematic exaggeration of false patriots.'
Four days later, at the Jacobin Club, in answer to a challenge from
Hébert, he delivered a singular speech on the religious question, and
ended by proposing the purging of the Club. The grounds on which
Robespierre attacked his enemies were characteristically circuitous and
astute. 'Atheism,' he argued, 'is aristocratic. The idea of a Supreme
Being, who watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant
crime, is essentially the idea of the people.'

Cautious as Robespierre's action was, the majority quickly rallied
round him. Danton returned to Paris and ranged himself at Robespierre's
side. 'We did not destroy superstition,' he cried, 'in order to
establish the rule of the atheist.' In the Convention he pleaded
for milder measures, and urged that the sword of the Terror should
be pointed only at those convicted of crime. As the scrutiny at the
Jacobins proceeded, the victory of the opponents of the Commune became
more distinct. The attacks made upon Danton and Desmoulins collapsed.
Robespierre defended them with spirit and enthusiasm, and asked to be
judged by Danton's side. On the 4th December, a new law was adopted
by the Convention, consolidating the power of the Committee of Public
Safety, bringing all constituted authorities more directly under its
control, suppressing the revolutionary armies and the agents of the
Commune in the departments, forbidding the raising of taxes except by
decree of the Assembly, and extending the Government's supervision over
the committees in the Sections of Paris. The effect of this decisive
measure was largely to increase the authority of the Committee, and to
diminish the influence of the Commune both in the provinces and in the
capital itself.

The reaction against the Commune had unmistakably begun. On the day
after the decree of the Convention the first number of the _Vieux
Cordelier_ appeared. The Hébertists, defeated in the Jacobins, had
made their headquarters at the Cordeliers Club; and in order to
emphasise the difference between the new doctrines and the spirit which
had inspired the Cordeliers in their earlier days, Camille Desmoulins
gave to his protest the title of the club, where his wit and Danton's
eloquence had once held undisputed sway. Danton and his friends were
known to sympathise with the opinions of the new journal. Robespierre
corrected the first number in proof. Desmoulins began by denouncing
the Hébertists, but as the tide of reaction rose and the friends of
moderation gathered courage, he passed on to attack the whole system
of the Terror, and in the famous third number of his paper he boldly
arraigned its tyranny and crimes. Two days later, on the 17th December,
the Convention, on the motion of Danton's adherents, decreed the
arrest of three agents of the Commune, Vincent, Ronsin and Maillard.
Proposals were freely put forward for renewing and remodelling the
Government itself. Bodies of petitioners appeared at the bar of the
Convention asking for mercy towards the suspects. Robespierre proposed
the appointment of a commission to consider all cases of unjust arrest.
Camille Desmoulins appealed to Robespierre and passionately urged
the cause of mercy. 'The liberty I worship is no unknown God.... It
is happiness, reason, equality, justice.... Robespierre, friend and
comrade of my schooldays, whose eloquent words our children will read
often, recall the history and philosophy that we learned. Remember
that love is stronger and lives longer than fear, that reverence and
religion spring from kindly treatment ... and that no men can mount on
blood-stained steps to heaven. Why,' cried the writer bitterly, as he
wound up his powerful appeal, 'why has compassion become a crime in
France?'

To such a height had the reaction attained, when, on the 21st December,
Collot d'Herbois suddenly arrived in Paris. He was welcomed by the
Hébertists as a deliverer. 'The giant has arrived,' cried Hébert
gladly, 'the faithful defender of the Sansculottes,' and Collot at once
espoused the cause of his allies. Full of vigour and self-confidence,
the executioner of Lyons entertained no scruples about the Terror.
He denounced all ideas of moderation. His presence reanimated the
Committee, cheered the party of the Commune, and abashed the hopes of
the reaction. The capture of Toulon, which occurred about the same
time, served to increase the prestige of the Government. Many who
had welcomed Desmoulins' appeal began to feel that they had been too
precipitate. The Commune, gathering courage, demanded and obtained
the release of its imprisoned agents. The commission to enquire into
cases of unjust arrest was cancelled. Collot d'Herbois quickly made
his influence felt at the Jacobins and in the Committee, and all the
waverers, as usual, rallied to the stronger side. Robespierre, alarmed
at the turn events were taking, began to dissociate himself from his
new allies, lamented the bitterness of party feeling, and declared
that his object was 'to overwhelm factions, foreigners and moderates,
but not to ruin patriots.' Even Danton took occasion to declare his
loyalty to the Government, and endeavoured to restrain the incautious
declarations of his friends.

All through January and February, 1794, the struggle of parties
continued, and the fiercest animosities prevailed. At the Jacobins,
Desmoulins' colleagues renewed their onslaught on the followers of
Hébert, but no longer with the same success. Robespierre laboured
steadily by perpetual speeches to secure his ascendency in the club,
and studiously avoided committing himself to either side. But his
position changed. He began to display undisguised hostility towards
Philippeaux and Fabre d'Églantine, the most outspoken members of the
moderate party. He assumed a tone of paternal reproach towards Camille
Desmoulins, and proposed that the _Vieux Cordelier_, which he had
once cordially welcomed, should be burned. Danton, disheartened, and
embarrassed, relapsed into listless inactivity, and contented himself
with deprecating personal attacks. The chances of a reaction against
the Terror passed away, and the Government daily offered a stronger
front to the enmity of Hébertists and Dantonists alike.

At last, after many weeks of struggle and intrigue, the crisis came.
At the end of February, St. Just returned to Paris from a mission
in the provinces, and brought a new influence to bear upon events.
St. Just was the loyal disciple of Robespierre, but he possessed far
more energy and decision than his chief. He shared Robespierre's
dislike of Hébert, but he did not share his kindly feeling towards
Danton. Desmoulins had ridiculed the stiff pomposity of the young
Committee-man's demeanour, and to St. Just ridicule was an unpardonable
wrong. While Robespierre pleaded indisposition and held aloof from the
meetings of the Committee, St. Just declared himself without disguise.
He proposed to enforce the authority of the Government by sacrificing
Dantonists and Hébertists alike. He denounced significantly 'the
greatest criminals, who are only trying to destroy the scaffold because
they dread the prospect of mounting it themselves.' His presence seems
to have roused his colleagues, as the arrival of Collot had roused
them before. The Commune was once more made to feel the weight of the
Committee's authority. A decree of the Convention confiscated the
property of the suspects in order to provide for destitute patriots,
and by this great bribe diminished the influence which the Commune
enjoyed with the needy poor. The Hébertists, now thoroughly alarmed,
made a last effort to assert themselves. They held stormy meetings at
the Cordeliers Club, and indulged in reckless schemes of insurrection.
But even Collot d'Herbois seems to have felt that the leaders of the
Commune had gone too far, and he gave his consent to the policy of the
Committee. St. Just took the lead in the attack. On the night of the
13th March, Hébert and his principal colleagues were arrested. Next
day, Robespierre reappeared in the Convention and resumed his place at
the Jacobin Club. For the first time in the history of the Revolution
the less extreme party, with legitimate authority behind it, had
asserted itself against the forces of insurrection, had assumed the
offensive and had won the day.

On the one side the enemies of the Government had fallen. It only
remained for them to dispose of the rest. The extreme Terrorists
had consented to allow their friends in the Commune to perish, but
only on condition that the advocates of mercy should perish too. The
moderate party had many supporters in the Convention, and were a
serious danger to the supremacy of the Committee. They counted on the
support of Danton, and though Danton gave them little encouragement,
they used his great name to forward their designs. 'Danton sleeps,'
said Desmoulins, as he took up his pen again to attack the system and
the agents of the Terror, 'Danton sleeps, but it is the sleep of a
lion, and he will wake to defend us.' But Danton's power and energy
seemed destined never to wake again. Heartily weary of conspiracies and
factions, discerning plainly enough the danger which confronted him
but unable to rouse himself to avert it, disdaining to take measures
to defend himself or to fight his opponents with their own weapons of
intrigue, Danton remained undecided and inert. He would not compass his
enemies' destruction, and he did not believe that his enemies would
dare to compass his. Perhaps he relied on Robespierre's friendship,
and forgot that Robespierre was not the man to risk his own ascendency
in order to save another's life. At any rate when the crisis came,
Robespierre swallowed any scruples that he felt, and consented to unite
the Government by abandoning Danton to his opponents. On the night of
the 30th March, Danton, Desmoulins and their colleagues were arrested,
and next day Robespierre came forward and denounced the 'broken idol'
in the Convention. Danton's bearing before the Revolutionary Tribunal
was marked by his habitual scornful courage. 'My abode,' he said, in
answer to the judge's questions, 'will soon be in eternity; my name you
will find in the Pantheon of history.' He defended himself hotly and
proudly against the ridiculous charges of royalist conspiracy. His
vigorous eloquence created so profound an impression that his accusers
trembled for the consequences, and took exceptional measures to cut the
trial short. On the 5th April, Danton was guillotined. 'I see now,'
he said, 'that in times of Revolution, power falls ultimately to the
greatest scoundrels.... Ah, better be a poor fisherman than meddle with
the governing of men!'

The fall of Danton left Robespierre by far the most conspicuous man in
France. For character and reputation he had no rival in the Committees,
and it was largely on his popularity that the Government rested for
support. In some points Robespierre compared favourably with his
colleagues. His life was frugal, pure and decent. His dress was always
neat. His sense of decorum never deserted him. His devotion to his
principles and his hatred of license and irreverence were sincere. He
represented admirably the complacent Philistinism of a certain type
of French bourgeois. His language breathed of virtue and emotion. His
long-winded, didactic generalities, his perpetual appeals to morality
and conscience imposed on well-intentioned, narrow minds, and, no
doubt, imposed upon his own. Robespierre's followers, women especially,
with whom his influence was great, took him at his own valuation.
They did not discover his amazing egotism. They did not resent the
qualities which make him appear to us the typical prig of history.
They liked the long abstract discourses, which were the fashion of his
time and sect. They liked his plain respectability. They liked his war
upon corruption. They liked his feeling for religion and his copious
sentiment. They were charmed by his high-sounding and unpractical
ideals. They marvelled when he recited, as he never tired of doing, the
tale of his own virtues. Robespierre was essentially a priest, and he
exercised a priest's fascination, preaching unceasingly and claiming
without scruple the admiration of his flock. 'I have never bowed,'
he cried, 'beneath the yoke of baseness and corruption.' 'Surrounded
by assassins, I have little to reconcile me to life except my love
for my country and my thirst for justice.' 'I am a living martyr to
the Republic, at once the victim and the enemy of crime.' 'If such
truths must be dissembled, then bring me the hemlock.' He was for ever
proclaiming himself the champion of morality, for ever protesting
his readiness to die in its cause. He reiterated it so often, and he
believed it so intensely, that he made his followers believe it too.

Moreover, Robespierre's sentiment was genuine. He had brought with
him from Arras the reputation of a young provincial lawyer, upright,
industrious and tender-hearted, fond of indifferent verse and of
pet-birds. In his early days he had resigned an honourable office
rather than condemn a man to death. He had from the first figured as
the friend of humanity, as the defender of the unfortunate and the
oppressed. If any question arose of suppressing disorder, he had always
raised his voice against severity. He had pleaded for the abolition of
the penalty of death. He had championed the cause of coloured men. He
had more than once shown his sympathy for priests. Later on, he had
defended the seventy-three members of the Convention, who were attacked
for protesting against the arrest of the Gironde. He was known to have
resented the treatment of Madame Elizabeth and the insults offered by
Hébert to the Queen. He had taken no part personally in the enormities
of the proconsuls of the Terror. He had repudiated the immorality and
materialism of the leaders of the Commune. He had helped to secure the
recall of Carrier. Conscious cruelty had no place in his speeches or
ideals.

But when one turns from Robespierre's speeches to his actions, a
different tale is told. In vain his apologists recapitulate his
language, and dwell on his protestations of virtue, on his ceaseless
iteration of benevolent designs. His career stands out in flagrant
contrast to his oft-repeated principles, and the record of his career
no apologies can explain away. The most noticeable characteristics of
Robespierre's public life were his lack of initiative, his disingenuous
reserve, and his profound incompetence as a practical politician.
There is hardly a single great measure of the Terror, except the
development of the Revolutionary Tribunal, in which Robespierre took a
leading part. His method was to combat every proposal and every party,
but rarely to make a proposal himself. If a critical occasion came,
Robespierre always waited to see the issue before he declared himself.
He never threw off his nervous hesitation. He never committed himself
to violent risks, or took the initiative in violent courses. These
characteristics are illustrated at each stage of his career. In the
difficult days of July, 1791, at the time of the 'Massacre of the Champ
de Mars,' he conducted himself with exemplary caution. A year later,
on the 10th August, he remained in the background till the battle
was decided, but he joined the Commune openly on the 11th, when the
victory was won. Later still, though he detested the doctrines of the
Hébertists, he did not venture to attack them straightforwardly. He
only threw out hints against them until he saw which way the tide was
running, and then he tried to discredit them by arguing that atheism
was an aristocratic idea! He was absent, on the plea of illness, while
their fate was being decided in the Committee, but he was well enough
to re-appear in public the morning after their arrest. He encouraged
Desmoulins cordially in his crusade against the Commune; but he changed
his tone as soon as Collot d'Herbois' reappearance turned the scale
against Desmoulins' views, and he finally threw over without a struggle
the man who had been for years his warm admirer and friend. With equal
treachery he sacrificed Danton as soon as it was evident that the
strongest party was bent on Danton's destruction, and directly the
arrest was made, he came forward to denounce a colleague, at whose
side, only a few weeks before, he had proudly asked to stand. Of course
it is possible that Robespierre was able, with his remarkable faculty
of self-deception, to persuade his conscience in every case that he
was acting as the interests of virtue required. But it is difficult by
any sophisms to excuse such heartless opportunism, and to avoid the
conviction that, whoever fell, Robespierre was determined to be upon
the winning side.

Hardly less noticeable than his tortuous manœuvring was his
incompetence in practical affairs. His speeches were treatises full of
vague and abstract speculation, in which the same forms and phrases
constantly appeared, but singularly lacking in definiteness and
meaning, with very little bearing upon facts, and generally without
any practical conclusions or result. He seemed to talk for the sake of
talking, but the listeners, who accepted his theory as their gospel,
never seemed to tire of the voice of the priest. At the height of
the struggle between the rival parties in January, 1794, Robespierre
solemnly invited the Jacobins to consider 'the crimes of the English
Government and the vices of the British Constitution.' At another time
of stirring interest and activity, he busied himself with drawing up
a lengthy indictment of the monarchs of the world. At another time,
he contributed to a practical discussion some luminous remarks, in
which he insisted that the outbreak of the Revolution had been largely
due to the determination of 'the London Cabinet ... to place the Duke
of York on the throne of Louis XVI,' and that Pitt was 'an imbecile
... who, abusing the influence acquired by him on an island placed
haphazard in the ocean,' conceived plans only worthy of a madhouse.
It is no wonder if his colleagues in the Government, who were nearly
all of them vigorous men of action, came to regard him with something
like contempt. All through the Revolution Robespierre's attitude was
the same. He never displayed much practical ability. The overthrow of
the monarchy, the establishment of the Republic, the defeat of the
invaders, the triumph of the Revolutionary Government, the organisation
of the national defence, owed little to him. On the Committee of Public
Safety his services, apart from matters of police, were unimportant.
He did little useful work himself, and his jealous interference only
hampered and embarrassed those who did. He never went on mission. The
equipment of the army and navy, the management of the food supply,
the control of the proconsuls, the administration of the country,
the heroic labours of the terrible Committee, rested in other hands.
Robespierre was only its tireless rhetorician, watching, manœuvring,
expatiating incessantly on his ideals, his virtues and himself. Even
after the fall of Danton, when he had ample scope for his designs, all
that he contributed as a practical reformer to the Utopia which he
had described a hundred times, was a masquerade to the discredit of
religion and the most sanguinary police-law which the world has seen.

But wrapped as Robespierre was in self-complacency, he was always
sufficiently awake to suspect and envy others. The doctrine of mistrust
was a part of the Jacobin creed. The habit of suspecting others seemed
to grow upon all those who professed the faith, and gradually to
distort their views and to discolour their judgment. The Robespierre
of 1794, the jealous, nervous, inflated fanatic, was a very different
being from the earnest, narrow-minded lawyer, who had set out from
Arras five years before to take his part in regenerating France. As
Marat had developed, under the influence of the Jacobin theory and
amid the desperate excitements of the time, from a soured idealist
into the furious advocate of murder, so Robespierre had developed
too. The mania of panic and suspicion had settled upon him. The peril
which he and his colleagues encountered had convinced him that he
was a martyr, and that all who did not recognise his virtues were
conspirators seeking for his death. 'Gazing on the multitude of vices
which the torrent of the Revolution has rolled down,' he cried in his
last great speech in the Convention, 'I have sometimes trembled lest
I should be soiled by the impure neighbourhood of wicked men.... I
know that it is easy for the leagued tyrants of the world to overwhelm
a single individual; but I know also what is the duty of a man who
can die in defence of humanity.' In the latter part of Robespierre's
career it seemed that nothing was too innocent for him to mistrust or
too improbable for him to suspect. 'I am not obliged to reflect,' he
told Garat, 'I always rely on first impressions.' He believed that his
instinct could not err, and his instinct always was to think the worst.
'Evidently,' he said one day to Garat, early in the spring of 1793,
'the Girondists are conspiring.' 'Where?' asked Garat. 'Everywhere,'
answered Robespierre. He needed no facts to prove it. His virtue,
the watchdog of the Republic, told him it was true. At one moment
Lafayette was the traitor, at another Brissot, at another Dumouriez,
at another Hébert. Servan, he insisted, was given a command in the
Pyrenees, in order to hand over the keys of France to Spain. 'Is
there no doubt of this in your mind?' asked Garat. 'None whatever,'
replied the infallible pedant. Again and again Robespierre denounced
mysterious conspiracies and treasons in Paris, in the departments, in
the Commune, in the Convention. He had no doubt whatever that he was
unmasking traitors, and traitors he could not scruple to send to the
guillotine. In particular, the generals of the Republic were singled
out by Robespierre as objects of alarm. It was he who sent Custine
to the scaffold, and scouted the suggestion that it was necessary to
offer written proofs of his guilt. It was he who took the chief part in
denouncing Houchard and in consigning him to a similar fate. It was he
who first threw doubts on the good faith of Kellermann. It was he who,
upon no evidence whatever, ordered the arrest of Hoche upon a charge of
treason[11].

The growth of this fever of suspicion, which was common to most of
the Jacobin party, but which was specially marked in Marat and in
Robespierre, enables one to understand how a man naturally neither
cruel nor unprincipled became so largely responsible for the bloodshed
of the Terror. Robespierre's apologists have vainly endeavoured to
defend him against this reproach, and to maintain that he always wished
to stop it. But even their defence of Robespierre contains conclusive
evidence of his guilt. His position, after the fall of Danton, was
unquestionably strong. In the two governing Committees, though he had
enemies and critics, he was closely supported by Couthon and St. Just.
His popularity in Paris was considerable. His reputation within his
own party stood higher than that of any of his colleagues. The Jacobin
Club was his stronghold. On the triumph of the Committee in March,
1794, the Commune had been reconstituted, and its new heads, Fleuriot
and Payan, were devoted to Robespierre's interest. The Revolutionary
Army of the capital had been dissolved, but Hanriot, Robespierre's firm
friend, retained his command in the National Guard, and was zealous
in Robespierre's service. The ministries also had been suppressed.
Twelve new commissions had been appointed to administer affairs in
their place, and in the appointments to these commissions Robespierre's
influence was naturally large. Had Robespierre really cared to use his
power to mitigate the Terror, it is difficult to believe that he could
not have done so with success. In the existing state of public opinion
he could, for such an enterprise, have commanded overwhelming support.
The great majority of the Convention, as their conduct both before
and after proved, were only waiting for an opportunity to throw their
weight into the scale of mercy.

But the fact is that Robespierre's influence was used throughout
in the opposite direction. He detested, it is true, the disorderly
excesses that had accompanied the Terror in the departments. He wished
to centralise and regulate the system, to make it uniform, moral and
decorous, to take the power of the sword out of the hands of men
whom he distrusted and disliked. But he did not wish to end it. The
police-law of April, 1794, which directed that all conspirators should
be brought to Paris for trial, and the establishment of a new Bureau of
police under the supervision of St. Just and of Robespierre himself,
were designed to prevent the occurrence of enormities like those of
Carrier in the provinces, and to deprive Robespierre's opponents in
the Committee of General Security of their monopoly in matters of
police. But they were not measures of compassion. From the first,
Robespierre had taken a prominent part in founding and developing the
Revolutionary Tribunal. Again and again he had protested against its
delays and its unnecessary forms. When he attained the climax of his
power, he swept those forms away. In the Revolutionary Tribunal he
had staunch adherents. His work in the Committee of Public Safety was
always largely concerned with questions of police. The Terror was an
essential part of his system. He honestly believed that his Utopia
could not flourish until he had consumed the wicked, and against the
wicked accordingly he sharpened the sword of death.

With this crusade against the enemies of his ideal he mingled
schemes of arbitrary benevolence. Both St. Just and Robespierre
were determined to found the State which Rousseau had conceived,
wherein all should be equal, virtuous, enlightened, without poverty
or riches, irreverence or sin. As a step towards it they determined
to establish Rousseau's Church. On the 18th Floréal (7th May),
Robespierre induced the Convention to decree its belief in a Supreme
Being and in the immortality of the soul. On the 20th Prairial (8th
June), he celebrated, in one of the strangest pageants of history, the
festival of the new Deity in France. Arrayed in a brilliant uniform,
and carrying a bouquet of flowers and corn sheaves, Robespierre
marched at the head of a procession out to the Champ de Mars, burned
the symbols of Atheism and Vice, and inaugurated the new religion.
'Here,' he cried, 'is the Universe assembled. O Nature, how sublime,
how exquisite, thy power! How tyrants will pale at the tidings of our
feast.' And within two days of this ideal festival he set to work
to re-organise the machinery of the guillotine. A few weeks before
he had taken a chief part in establishing, on the demand of his
adherent Maignet, an extraordinary tribunal at Orange in the South,
and had drawn up with his own hand a paper of instructions, which laid
it down that the conscience of the judges was to be the only test
of the guilt of the accused. In the law of the 22nd Prairial this
monstrous principle was carried further. The decree provided that the
Revolutionary Tribunal should be divided into four sections to expedite
its work, that prisoners should thenceforward be tried in batches, that
they should no longer have counsel to defend them or be allowed to
call witnesses for their defence, and that the question of their guilt
should be left to the enlightened conscience of the jury! The results
of this proposal were that, in the six or seven weeks which followed,
the number of victims guillotined mounted to over thirteen hundred,
a number considerably exceeding the total reached during the first
fifteen months of the tribunal's existence. In face of this measure,
which was unquestionably Robespierre's work, it is idle to pretend that
he wished to check the Terror. No doubt he disliked its extravagance
and license. No doubt he wished to strike some of the Terrorists. But
apart from that there is no evidence that he attempted to stop it, and
against him there is the whole tenour of his policy and the testimony
of this nefarious decree.

But Robespierre's ascendency was destined to be brief. The majority of
his colleagues had begun to dread him. They knew that he was jealous
of their authority. After the 10th June he held himself more and more
aloof[12]. He did not resign his place on the Committee; but finding
that he could not make its members accept his ascendency, he began
to form schemes for purging the Government afresh, to dissociate
himself from his colleagues, and to concentrate his forces in the
Commune and at the Jacobin Club. At last, aware that a breach was
inevitable, St. Just and others urged him to take vigorous measures
against his opponents. But Robespierre, always incapable of decisive
action, preferred to confine himself to speeches and to vague hints of
conspiracy and treason. On the 8th Thermidor (26th July), in a long and
mysterious speech, marked by his habitual and astonishing egotism, he
denounced the plots against the Convention, and demanded the punishment
of evil men. But he named no one, and his threats frightened all. That
night the combination which had been gradually forming against him
came to a head. Tallien, Billaud, Bourdon and others, Dantonists and
Hébertists, all parties alike determined to unite, to save their lives.
On the morrow, the 9th Thermidor, the crisis came, and the Convention,
for once acting with unanimity and vigour, rejected Robespierre's
appeal and boldly ordered his arrest. For a few hours the issue of
the struggle hung doubtful. The Commune rallied to Robespierre's
defence. He was delivered from prison and carried to the Hôtel de
Ville in triumph. Hanriot summoned his artillerymen to the rescue,
and once again the Commune proposed to raise an insurrection. But the
name of the Commune was no longer a watchword in the capital. The
Convention held its ground with unusual courage. It outlawed all the
chief conspirators. It took prompt measures to organise resistance,
to rouse Paris, to summon the forces of the Sections to its aid. The
prestige of the National Assembly, when united, was still redoubtable,
and Hanriot's troops hesitated to attack it. Early in the dawn of
the following day the Conventional forces assumed the offensive,
and marched on the Hôtel de Ville. The insurrection collapsed, and
Robespierre and his confederates died. At last the lawful authority in
France, so long paralysed and broken, had dared to act decisively, and
to use force to make itself obeyed. From the moment that its vigour
revived its triumph was assured, and with its triumph the reaction
began.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 11: Even M. Hamel admits this (_Hist. de Robespierre_, III.
p. 499 _et seq._), although he endeavours, in a manner that is not
convincing, to throw the responsibility on to Carnot. Carnot claimed to
have saved Hoche's life. He certainly joined in ordering his release
from prison almost immediately after Robespierre's fall.]

[Footnote 12: Robespierre himself said, on the 8th Thermidor, that
for the last six weeks he had 'absolutely abandoned his functions
as a member of the Committee of Public Safety.' Louis Blanc argues
that he was therefore not responsible for the Terror. But another
of Robespierre's admirers, Hamel, has taken pains to prove that
Robespierre was constantly present at the Committee's meetings up
to the 9th Thermidor, and decides that his alleged retirement must
consequently have been 'toute morale' (vol. III. pp. 594-601).]




CHAPTER XI.

THE REACTION.


With the fall of Robespierre the Terror came to an end. The men who
overthrew him were many of them worse men than he. They did not intend
to repudiate his system. They had acted from personal motives, from
a desire to save their lives and to maintain themselves in power.
But without Robespierre the Terror could not continue. It was his
reputation for moral earnestness and for disinterested conviction which
alone had reconciled to it many honest, narrow-minded men, who accepted
his theory, believed in his sincerity, and had not the capacity to
criticise his actions. In him and his associates the principles of the
Terror perished. There remained no one to throw over the system the
veil of sentimental virtue, and without that veil its uglier aspects
stood disclosed. Men who to the last had respected Robespierre could
not respect Collot d'Herbois or Billaud-Varennes. The Convention which
had revolted against Robespierre was not likely, when once it had
tasted freedom, to replace on its neck the yoke of his colleagues. The
Committee of Public Safety had appeared irresistible so long as it
was undivided. But when it broke up into parties and appealed to the
Convention to protect it, its dictatorship necessarily expired.

Accordingly, in the weeks which followed the 9th Thermidor, a number
of measures testified to the growing reaction. The Committee of Public
Safety was remodelled, and a system was enforced under which three of
its members retired, without the right of re-election, every month.
The Convention and its Committees resumed the powers of government.
The Revolutionary Tribunal was reconstituted and the law of the 22nd
Prairial repealed. The redoubtable Commune was abolished, and for
purposes of local government Paris was placed under the authority
of the Department of the Seine. The staff of the National Guard was
reorganised. The Revolutionary Committees in Paris and elsewhere were
reduced in number and shorn of their powers. The meetings of the
Sections were limited to three a month, and the decree which provided a
payment of forty sous for all citizens who attended them was repealed.
In the departments the officials of the Communes and of the Clubs
were sifted and replaced. Everywhere the prison doors were opened and
hundreds of prisoners were set free. Before the end of August, voices
were raised in the Convention against the Terrorists who continued in
the Government, and at the beginning of September, Billaud-Varennes,
Collot d'Herbois and the remaining Terrorists retired.

As the autumn went on, the pace of the reaction increased. The
Jacobins, it is true, were still numerous and active. Although the
reputation of the leading Terrorists was shaken, the Mountain was
still a force in the Convention. Besides the members of the old
Committees, many deputies, like Romme and Soubrany, Goujon and
Bourbotte, maintained without flinching extreme Jacobin views.
Others, like Thuriot and Cambon, were not prepared to go too far
with the reaction. The Jacobin Club, though weakened by the fall of
Robespierre, had resumed its old activity, and, supported by some of
its confederates in the provinces, determined not to surrender its
power without a struggle. Billaud-Varennes declared passionately that
the old lion was not dead. But the tide flowed heavily against the
Mountain. The majority of the Convention was determined at all costs
to break with the system of the Terror. The deputies of the Right and
of the Centre recovered their voices under the courageous leadership
of Boissy-d'Anglas and Thibeaudeau. The Thermidorians, under Tallien
and Fréron, rallied to the side of the moderate members, and gathered
round them many old Dantonists and many old adherents of the Mountain,
Legendre, Lecointre and Bourdon de l'Oise, Merlin of Thionville and
Merlin of Douai, Cambacères, and André Dumont. Sieyès, released from
the necessity of silence, brought to the same side his affectation
of inscrutable wisdom. Encouraged by the divisions in the Assembly,
public opinion expressed itself outside. The independence of the Press
revived. Fréron's paper, the _Orateur du Peuple_ boldly took the lead
of the reactionary journals. The trial of the prisoners sent up from
Nantes to be tried at Paris revealed for the first time to the public
the worst iniquities of Carrier's rule, and in the weeks and months
which followed, evidence began to pour in against the agents of the
Terror. The indignation against the Terrorists in Paris increased
every day. Reactionary feeling showed itself overwhelmingly strong in
the Sections, in the cafés, in the streets. Bodies of young men, some
of them men of family and wealth, but most of them drawn from the ranks
of tradesmen, clerks and artisans, representing the great majority
of respectable people which had allowed itself to be tyrannised
over so long, and which had shown its readiness to rise as early as
May, 1793, gathering in the Palais Royal, once the headquarters of
revolutionary agitation, organised themselves into an effective force,
armed themselves with short and heavy sticks, and led by Lacretelle
and encouraged by Fréron and Tallien, began to parade the streets, to
suppress Jacobin speakers and meetings, to pour contempt on Jacobin
opinions, and to wage war against Jacobinism in whatever shape it might
be found. Extravagant and ridiculous in some respects the 'Jeunes
Gens' were, and in later days it suited the Thermidorians to turn
their affectation into ridicule, and to denounce them as 'Jeunesse
Dorée,' as 'Elégants' and Muscadins.' But in their origin at any rate
they represented a genuine popular movement, and up to April, 1795,
they acted cordially with the moderate party, and rendered valuable
service in destroying the terrorism which the Jacobins had established
in Paris. With the new movement a new song came into fashion, and
the Jeunes Gens, rejecting the Marseillaise, sang in the streets the
'Réveil du Peuple':--

 'Quelle est cette lenteur barbare?
   Hâte-toi, peuple souverain,
 De rendre aux monstres de Ténare
   Tous ces buveurs de sang humain.'

The reaction in Paris soon made itself felt in the Assembly. The
attacks upon the Terrorists and their supporters redoubled. In October
a law was passed forbidding the federation of popular clubs. On the
12th November, the Committee of Public Safety announced that it had
closed the Jacobin Club. In the same month Carrier was arrested. He
was sent for trial before the Revolutionary Tribunal and a few weeks
later to the scaffold. On the 8th December, the seventy-three deputies
who had been imprisoned for protesting against the expulsion of the
Gironde, were readmitted to their places in the Convention. At the
end of that month the Assembly decided that there was ground for
investigating the charges against Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois,
Vadier and Barère. As the winter went on, the members of the Right,
reinforced by the seventy-three, and determined to undo the work of the
Terror, demanded a reconsideration of the laws against Emigrants and
priests, and the restoration in certain cases of property confiscated
for political offences. In February, 1795, the Convention decreed
the freedom of all forms of religious opinion; but at the same
time it continued the penal enactments against non-juring priests,
imposed a variety of restrictions on the exercise of public worship,
and, while refusing to contribute towards the maintenance of any
religion, retained its hold upon the buildings and property of the
old Church. A further advance made in June towards the principles of
complete toleration was afterwards repealed by the influence of the
Left. On the 2nd March, Legendre carried a motion for the arrest of
Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, Vadier and Barère. On the 8th,
the survivors of the Girondist leaders proscribed on the 31st May,
including Isnard, Lanjuinais and Louvet, were recalled to their seats
in the Assembly. The triumph of the reaction seemed to be assured.

But the Jacobins were not to fall without a struggle. They had more
than once secured the victory by appealing to the physical necessities
of the poor, and it was by that means that they endeavoured to conquer
again. In the spring of 1795 the distress in Paris was exceptionally
keen. With the political reaction an economic reaction had begun. After
Thermidor it became evident that the economic system of the Terror
could not stand. Its drastic laws were on all sides disregarded. No
penalties or prohibitions could force men to observe laws which they
were resolutely determined to infringe. The State might fix the price
of food, but the producers would not produce it at that price, and
when the guillotine had ceased to compel submission, the vain attempts
of the State to fix prices broke down. Economic causes more powerful
than any laws overthrew the Maximum, and at last, towards the end of
December, the Convention recognised the fact and repealed the Maximum
decrees. With the repeal of the Maximum the whole system of Terrorist
finance collapsed. The practice of requisition was abandoned. The
restrictions upon foreign trade and upon the exportation of specie
were removed. In a short time the Bourse was reopened. The intrepid
experiment by which the economists of the Terror had endeavoured to
concentrate in the hands of the Government the whole commercial system
of the country, fell to the ground, and the old methods of monopoly
and competition, which the Terrorists had so constantly denounced, and
which they had so boldly but recklessly attacked, reasserted their
sway and exacted their penalty. The financial system of the Terror was
ruinously mistaken, but by its draconian methods it had to some extent
checked the rise in prices, and had perhaps saved from extinction
the vanishing credit of the Assignats. Yet even under the Terror the
Assignats had deteriorated in value. In spite of the imperious demands
of the Terrorist Exchequer, in spite of its forced loans and wholesale
confiscations, in spite of the plunder which it drew from its victims
and of the money which, as Barère boasted, it coined on the Place
de la Révolution, the Jacobin Government had never been free from
financial troubles. The non-payment of taxes, the peculation of local
authorities, the failure of the forced loans to bring in anything like
the sum expected, the depreciation in value of national property, the
ignorance of economics which prevailed among the ruling party, and
above all the enormous expenses of the war, of the administration,
and of supplying Paris and the great towns with food, had created a
perpetual deficit. 'The Revolution and the war,' said Cambon, the chief
financier of the Terror, in a report of January, 1795, 'have cost in
four years five thousand three hundred and fifty millions above the
ordinary expenses;' and Cambon's estimate was probably much below the
fact. In vain had Cambon by a partial bankruptcy put out of circulation
fifteen hundred million francs of Assignats which bore the image of the
King. In vain had the Convention, in August 1794, decreed, on Cambon's
proposal, the Republicanisation of the National Debt, ordered all the
creditors of the State to send in their claims, entered their titles in
a Great Ledger of the Public Debt, declared the capital borrowed by the
State to be irrecoverable, and, regardless of all engagements entered
into and of all promises of high interest previously made, informed
them that in future the State would pay five per cent interest to all
its creditors alike. This summary method of escaping liabilities had
introduced, it is true, some order into the finances, but it had not
improved the credit of the State. The chief resource of the Government
had continued to be the Assignats, and not even the drastic legislation
of the Terror had been able to keep their credit up.

The repeal of that drastic legislation and the financial policy of the
Convention in the winter of 1794-95 accelerated their decline[13].
Prices, no longer fixed by law, rose rapidly, as the value of the paper
money fell. The Government, no longer able to rely on the methods which
the Terrorists had used to swell their income, and face to face with
high prices and diminishing credit, could think of no better resource
than to issue Assignats faster than before; and of course with every
fresh issue the depreciation increased. At the end of 1794, some seven
thousand million francs of Assignats were in circulation. In May, 1795,
these had risen to ten thousand millions, in the August following, to
sixteen thousand millions, and in the October following that, to many
thousand millions more. In proportion to these enormous issues, the
value of the currency declined. At the end of the reign of Terror,
Assignats had been worth 33 or 34 per cent of their nominal value.
In December, 1794, they had fallen to 22 per cent. In the ensuing
May they stood at 7 per cent, and in the months which followed they
fell to 4, to 2, and even to less than 1 per cent. In vain different
members of the Convention proposed schemes for diminishing the number.
The Government had no other resource to look to, and its expenses
seemed daily to increase, as claims for compensation poured in upon
it from those who had suffered under the Terror. With the fall of
the Assignats, prices rose to an alarming height. All wage-earners
who could not raise their wages in proportion to the rapid rise in
prices, all who lived upon fixed incomes, all who depended on the
paper-money and whose small savings consisted of Assignats, suffered
acutely from the economic crisis. A certain number of people, tenant
farmers for instance, who paid their rent in Assignats, and who made it
many times over by the high prices fetched by corn, debtors who could
pay off long-standing debts in Assignats at their nominal value, and
speculators, who sprang up on all sides to traffic in the fluctuations
of the currency, made heavy profits and enriched themselves. But to
the great majority of people the fall of the Assignats meant grave
distress. The prices of bread, of meat, of fuel, of all the necessaries
of life, rose as in a siege. One reads of the most fantastic payments,
of thousands of francs paid for a dinner, a cab-fare or a load of wood.
The sense of the value of money vanished, when its purchasing power
declined every day. But it was only those who had plenty of it who
possessed the power to purchase at all.

There is overwhelming evidence of the general distress in the winter of
1794-95. From all sides complaints came in of the exorbitant dearness
of food, and that trouble was aggravated by the intense cold. In Paris
and many great cities the authorities bought up food at ruinous prices
and distributed it in meagre rations to the poor. But as the year
advanced, these rations constantly diminished. The country districts
bitterly complained that they were starved in order that the big towns
might be fed. 'Many families, entire communes,' wrote an official from
Laon, in the summer of 1795, 'have been without bread two or three
months and are living on bran or herbs.' Around Caen the peasants
were living on unripe peas, beans and green barley. In Picardy 'the
great majority of people' overran the woods for food. From all sides
the same reports poured in upon the Government. 'Yesterday,' wrote
the authorities of Montreuil-sur-Mer, 'more than two hundred of our
citizens set out to beg in the country;' and those who could not get
food in other ways took it by force. Nor, in spite of the efforts of
the authorities, were the large towns better off. Lyons, in January,
was without bread 'for five full days.' At Troyes, in March, the public
distribution of bread fell to two ounces a day. At Amiens, a few months
later, it ceased altogether. At Nancy a traveller noticed a crowd of
'three thousand persons imploring in vain a few pounds of flour.' In
Paris the police reported case after case of misery and starvation.
'Every day,' wrote a friend to Mallet du Pan, 'I see people of the
poorer class dying of starvation in the streets.... Workmen generally
have to work short time, owing to the weakness and exhaustion caused by
want of food.'

It is no wonder if this acute distress resulted in an outbreak. Many
of those who suffered the most had sympathised with the Jacobin party,
and the arrest of the Terrorist leaders gave a certain political
colour to the agitation which famine had produced. But in the main the
insurrection which broke out on the 12th Germinal (1st April), which
for a time threatened the safety of the Convention, and which joined
to its demand for bread a demand for the Constitution of '93, was a
spontaneous movement due to the pressure of starvation rather than to
political intrigue. The leaders of the Mountain failed to turn it to
account. The Jeunes Gens and the battalions of the Sections enabled the
Government to win an easy victory, and the failure of the rising helped
the reaction on. Motions were quickly passed for the transportation
of Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, Vadier and Barère, and for
the arrest of Cambon, Thuriot, Amar, and other prominent members of
the Mountain. Pichegru restored order in the streets. The Convention
decreed the disarming of the Terrorists and the reorganisation of the
National Guard. The officials of the Departments and of the Districts
were restored to their old authority. The State, which had already
undertaken to pay the debts of Emigrants whose possessions it had
confiscated, now resolved to restore to the families of the victims
the property of all persons who had been executed for political
offences since the 10th March, 1793. A commission of eleven members was
appointed to consider the bases of a new constitution. Early in May,
Fouquier-Tinville and several of his associates in the old Tribunal
were sent to the guillotine.

But the Jacobins were not yet silenced. The rapid progress of the
reaction disquieted many. The reappearance of Emigrants and of
non-juring priests, the extravagance of the Jeunes Gens, the revival
of Royalist opinions in Paris, the terrible excesses which began to
stain the reaction in the South-East of France, and which, under the
direction of the 'Compagnies de Jésus' and the 'Compagnies du Sol,' had
already made Lyons the scene of murder and of civil war, alarmed the
Thermidorians and many other members of the Convention. The majority
oscillated from day to day between their fear of the Mountain and
their fear of a Royalist reaction, and displayed to all the world
the vacillation and weakness of the ruling powers in France. At the
beginning of May, the Jacobins so far prevailed as to carry a decree
for the immediate arrest of returned Emigrants and refractory priests,
and for the prosecution of Royalist publications. The disarming of
Terrorists practically ceased. The high prices of food and the distress
which they occasioned became more serious every day, and Jacobin agents
laboured persistently to rouse the workmen to another insurrection. On
the 1st Prairial (20th May), their efforts succeeded. A second rising,
more formidable and better organised than that of Germinal, confronted
the Government, and the Convention, after a sharp struggle, only saved
itself by yielding to the demands of the insurrectionary leaders.
Fair promises, however, gained the Assembly time to bring up troops
for its defence. On the evening of the 22nd May, a strong force of
cavalry and infantry arrived in Paris. The next day, the Faubourg St.
Antoine was besieged and compelled to surrender at discretion. Numerous
arrests were made. The disarming of the Terrorists was completed.
All pikes were seized. The reorganisation of the National Guard was
accomplished, and the right of serving in it was once more restricted
to members of the bourgeois class. A temporary military commission was
established to try those accused of complicity in the insurrection,
and the Revolutionary Tribunal was abolished. Six prominent deputies
of the Mountain, including Goujon, Romme, Soubrany and Bourbotte,
were sent to the scaffold. Lebon, long since put under arrest, Panis,
almost forgotten, Lindet, Jean Bon St. André, Guffroy and Rühl, all
except three of the members of the two redoubtable Committees, Pache,
Bouchotte, and several of their associates in the former Ministry of
War, shared in the proscription of their party. The influence of the
extreme Jacobins was finally destroyed, and once again the policy of
the reaction triumphed.

The decisive success of the moderate party was not without its effect
upon European politics. At the time of the insurrection of Prairial,
the French arms were completely victorious and many had begun to hope
for the cessation of the war. The history of the revolutionary armies
is the finest part of the French Revolution. There the spirit which
the Revolution had inspired, and which had spent itself so fruitlessly
in Paris, was seen at its best in the enthusiasm, the devotion and the
gallantry of the troops. There too the high qualities of the Jacobin
administrators appeared, their determined patriotism, their dauntless
vigour and resource. There the Government which in Paris seemed to
be only a Government of tyrants, revealed itself as a Government of
heroes. There the politicians and intriguers of the Terror turned to
the nobler work of national defence. Carnot and St. Just, Merlin of
Thionville, Rewbell and Barras, Milhaud and Soubrany, Richard, Drouet,
Cavaignac and Fabre d'Hérault are only some among the many brave men
who, as Representatives on Mission with the armies, inspired the
French troops with their own lofty courage, and both by precept and
example taught them the impossibility of defeat. The enthusiasm which
political intrigues had wasted found a deeper expression in the war,
and the levelling freedom of the Republic threw open to all ranks
alike the prospects of a great career. In the campaigns of 1793-94,
Hoche, Pichegru and Jourdan had already reached the highest place,
and Moreau and Kléber, Bernadotte, Ney, Davoût, Augereau and Victor,
Soult, Masséna, Bonaparte were winning their way to notice and command.
It is true that at the first the French levies were ill-organised and
ill-disciplined, and that their earlier successes were due chiefly to
the disunion or incapacity of their opponents. But the progress of the
war and the vigorous measures of the Jacobin Government soon produced a
remarkable change. There was no lack of material upon which to draw.
To the old royal army there had in turn been added the battalions of
national guards, the volunteers raised in 1792, the _levée en masse_
of the same year, which was, however, of very little use, the levy of
300,000 men formed, largely by conscription, in the spring of 1793, and
the forces raised in the following summer by the imperious decrees of
the Government, which claimed the services of all men between the ages
of eighteen and twenty-five. On this material the Convention set to
work, and the efforts of Dubois-Crancé and Carnot, seconded by their
able advisers, and perfected by the strenuous action and wide powers
of the great Committee, met with complete success. To Dubois-Crancé
especially belongs the credit. It was he who, in the winter of
1793-94, at last carried through the Convention the great scheme for
the reorganisation of the army which he had advocated so long, who
committed the Government to the principle of conscription and to the
amalgamation of the regulars with the volunteers, and who fused the two
elements together by dividing the army into demi-brigades made up of
one battalion of regulars and four of volunteers. The result of these
measures appeared before long in the formation of a magnificent army,
which for numbers, discipline and the spirit of its troops, was a match
for the united forces of Europe.

The campaign of 1793, which at one time threatened France with serious
danger, ended in complete success. The valuable victories of Houchard
and of Jourdan on the North-Eastern frontier in September and October,
drove the Allies back upon Belgium. The equally notable successes of
Hoche and Pichegru, which followed in Alsace, drove the victorious
Austrians and Prussians again across the Rhine. The brave insurgents
of La Vendée found themselves at last opposed by a powerful army under
a general of high ability, and were defeated by Kléber at Chollet in
October, and subsequently routed at Le Mans. By the end of the year
France had ten armies for service in the field and an effective force
of some six hundred thousand men. On the North-East, four armies,
those of the Rhine, of the Moselle, of the Ardennes, and of the North,
stretched from Strasbourg to the sea. Further to the South, the army of
the Alps occupied Savoy, and the army of Italy, which had just reduced
Toulon, waited for a new commander to launch it on an illustrious
career. In the West, two more armies held the Pyrenees, and a third
watched the insurgents of La Vendée; while on the Northern coast, the
army of Normandy, not yet organised into a definite force, guarded the
sea-board and dreamed vainly of invading England.

With these resources the Allies could not compete. But even had the
troops been forthcoming, their disunion would have rendered victory
impossible. In 1794, when France was preparing with the brightest
prospects to reopen the campaign, the long-standing jealousy between
Austria and Prussia reached its climax. Thugut, the Austrian minister,
disliked his Prussian allies even more than his French enemies, and
carrying to an extreme pitch the traditional selfishness of Austrian
policy, intrigued on all sides for territorial aggrandisement, and
meditated schemes for extending the Austrian dominions in every
quarter of Europe, in Flanders and Alsace, in Turkey and Poland, in
Bavaria and Venice. In the North, Russia drew nearer every day to the
completion of her long-prepared attack on Polish freedom, and Prussia,
determined not to be left aside when her rivals shared the spoils of
Poland, turned her attention and her energies towards the Vistula, when
the sympathies of her king would gladly have turned towards the Rhine.
In vain the English Government threw itself with fresh energy into the
war, laboured to draw the coalition together, and promised generous
supplies. In April, 1794, at the very moment when Malmesbury, the
English envoy at the Hague, was pledging England, Holland and Prussia
to renewed efforts in the war with France, the Polish revolt broke
out at Warsaw, and Kosciusko's brave struggle for freedom diverted
the attention of the Central Powers. It was evident that until the
Polish question was settled, neither Prussia nor Austria would act
with vigour against the French. Accordingly, the French armies on the
North-Eastern frontier, now under the command of Pichegru and Jourdan,
advanced against the divided Allies, defeated them at Turcoign and
Fleurus, and entered Brussels on the 11th July. The conquest of Belgium
and the invasion of Holland followed. While Suvórof stamped out the
insurrection in Poland, and Austria and Russia drew up plans for the
partition of that unhappy country, to which Prussia was afterwards
compelled to accede, the French troops advanced into Holland, drove the
Prince of Orange into flight and occupied the Hague and Amsterdam. At
last Prussia, isolated and alarmed, consented to open negotiations,
and on the 5th April, she definitely separated herself from Austria,
and made peace with France in the Treaty of Bâle.

There were many who hoped that the Treaty of Bâle might prove the
beginning of a general peace, and so prepare the way for a Royalist
restoration. The fresh disturbances among the peasants of La Vendée and
their allies the Chouans of Brittany, which had been provoked in 1794
by the merciless policy of the Republic, by Turreau's 'Hellish Columns'
and by Carrier's tyranny at Nantes, had been quieted, in the spring
of 1795, by the conciliatory policy of the Republican generals, and
the long struggle in the West seemed to be drawing to a close. In the
Pyrenees the advance of the French brought the Spanish Government to
terms, and a peace between France and Spain was concluded in July. In
Paris the suppression of the insurrection of Prairial had raised very
high the hopes of the Royalists. Many things seemed to point towards
the restoration of the Constitution of '91, which at that time, as
at an earlier date, would probably have satisfied the wishes of the
majority of the nation. But events ordered otherwise. The high demands
of the French Government, the vigour of English diplomacy, and the
settlement of the Polish difficulty, which left the Emperor free to
act, disappointed the expectations of a general peace. In the summer
of 1795, England, Russia and Austria drew closer together and formed
a fresh alliance for the prosecution of the war. Early in June, the
unhappy little Dauphin died in prison, and his death dealt a heavy blow
to the hopes of the Constitutional party. Many who would have welcomed
the son of Louis XVI as Constitutional King, could not reconcile
themselves to the restoration of the Comte de Provence, the chief of
the Emigrants in arms against France, the prince who, learning nothing
from adversity, still condemned in the bitterest language all the
changes which the Revolution had introduced, and still denounced as an
enemy of the Bourbons every advocate of moderation or of liberal ideas.
The French people had not made the Revolution in order to restore the
Ancien Régime. The attempt of the Emigrants to renew the war in the
West by an ill-timed descent upon Quiberon, although stamped out by
Hoche in July, and punished with terrible severity by the Convention,
revived the deep-seated hostility which all friends of the Revolution
entertained towards the Emigrants. The fresh tidings which came in from
the South of terrible excesses committed in the name of the reaction
at Marseilles and Avignon, Tarascon and Aix, tended to check the
flowing tide. The rapid advance of Royalist opinions in Paris, and the
threatening demeanour of the Jeunes Gens and of the Sections at length
alarmed the Thermidorians. The members of the Convention recalled to
themselves that they were committed to the measures of the Revolution,
and began to fear lest the march of events should carry them too far
and involve them in a policy perilous to themselves.

Finally the Convention chose a middle course. The Constitution of 1795
retained the Republican form, and divided the supreme executive power
among a Directory of five persons. The legislative power it committed
to a Parliament consisting of two Houses, a Council of Five Hundred,
who must be over thirty years of age, and a Council of Ancients, who
must be over forty. The Parliament was to elect the Directory, but
the functions of each were strictly defined; the legislative and the
executive powers were kept jealously distinct, and cordial co-operation
between them was rendered almost impossible. The Convention had learned
from the experience of the past the necessity of making the Executive
strong, but it had not yet learned the folly of making the legislature
and the Executive independent rivals instead of harmonious allies.
The new Parliament was to last for three years, but one-third of its
members were renewable yearly. Apart from these new regulations, the
Convention, rejecting a series of fantastic proposals brought forward
by Sieyès, adhered to the main lines of the Constitution of 1791. The
system of double election was re-established. The franchise was limited
by a slight property qualification. In the local administration the
division into Departments and Communes was retained. But the Communes
were strictly subordinated to the Departments, the Districts were
abolished altogether, and the numbers and powers of the officials
were so reduced, as to simplify the whole system, and to increase the
authority of the central Government. Other articles established freedom
of worship, the freedom of labour, and the freedom of the Press,
prohibited political clubs and federations, and forbade the return of
the Emigrants to France.

But although the majority of the Convention yielded to the demand
for the establishment of a settled Government, they had no wish to
extinguish themselves. They knew that in the existing temper of the
nation they had little chance of being returned to power, and they
feared the lengths to which the reaction might run. Accordingly,
they proceeded to apply at once the principles laid down by the new
constitution for the renewal of the legislative body, and by the
decrees of the 5th and 13th Fructidor (22nd and 30th August), they
declared that two-thirds of the new Councils must be composed of
members of the Convention, and that only the remaining third should be
chosen from new men at the General Election. These decrees, which were
ratified by the primary assemblies and confirmed by the Convention in
September, aroused general indignation in Paris. The numerous partisans
of the reaction, already long impatient, and bitterly resenting the
device by which the Convention proposed to continue its power in
defiance of the sentiment of the nation, burst into premature revolt.
The Lepelletier Section took the lead of the movement, called out the
National Guards, and summoned the other Sections to rise against the
tyranny of the Convention. On the 13th Vendémiaire (5th October) the
insurrection broke out. The insurgent forces marched upon the Assembly,
to find themselves confronted by the troops of Barras and by the
artillery of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the triumph of the Government was
assured.

With the futile insurrection of Vendémiaire the history of the
Revolution ends. The failure of the rising in the Sections dealt a
sharp blow to the hopes of the reaction. It determined the character
of the new Directory. It installed in power a Government of men chosen
exclusively from the advanced Republicans, never in harmony with their
own Parliament, out of sympathy with the great mass of the nation,
relying on violence to maintain their authority, trusted by few and
respected by none. The Directory rested on the army for support. It
taught the troops what the Jacobins had never admitted, that they
could dispose of the fortunes of the State, and when the occasion and
the leader offered, the troops responded by choosing a ruler of their
own. That ruler all parties welcomed with relief. He accepted at once
the position of head of the nation, for he knew that the nation wanted
rest. 'Now,' said the peasantry of France, as they recounted the
stirring adventures of the past, 'now we are quiet, thanks to God and
to Bonaparte.'

The lessons of the French Revolution it is for others than historians
to point. Even at this distance we are perhaps hardly qualified to
read them. With all its errors and its disappointments, it marks an
epoch in the advance of men, for it assailed and uprooted for ever a
system of privilege and social wrong, based on intellectual bondage
and on the pitiless degradation of the poor. It destroyed that system
not in France alone, but in many parts and principalities of Europe.
It gained for Frenchmen some approach towards equality. It would
have gained them freedom, had they known what freedom was. None can
deny that the Revolution, at its outset, was welcomed in France with
unsurpassed enthusiasm, and that as a whole it has been ratified by
every generation of French people since. But in face of the evidence
before us, it is no longer possible to doubt that the conduct of its
later phases fell into the hands of a well-organised minority, who,
although conspicuous in courage, were in character unworthy of the
trust, whose methods Frenchmen never sanctioned, and whose crimes they
never have condoned. No doubt, in that minority examples may be found
of fine qualities and high desires, of firm if narrow principles, of
pure enthusiasm for social reformation, of staunch devotion to the
public service, of a love of country rarely matched. In summaries of
history the exceptions are too often overlooked, and in classifying men
together it is not easy to be just to all. It may be that some of the
experiments of the Terror are even now destined to awaken the growing
sympathy and interest of the world; and those experiments will not
have been made in vain, if they bring home the inexorable maxim that
no country can be regenerated by bad men, and that noble impulses are
waste and fruitless without the reasoned sense of what is feasible and
just, which nations honour and by which they live.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 13: The Maximum laws were practically repealed by public
opinion after Thermidor. It does not appear that their actual
repeal at the end of December had any marked or immediate effect in
depressing the value of the Assignats. It was rather the new issues
which completed the Assignats' decline. That decline had been going on
steadily since 1791, and was not stopped, though it may very probably
have been delayed, by the legislation of the Terror.]




TABLE

OF THE PRINCIPAL DATES IN THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.


 1774.             Accession of Louis XVI.
 1774-76.          Ministry of Turgot.
 1776-81.          First Ministry of Necker. Alliance with America,
                    and War with England.
 1783-87.          Ministry of Calonne.
 1787. _Feb._      Convocation of the Notables.
       _April._    Dismissal of Calonne.
 1787-88.          Ministry of Loménie de Brienne. Struggle with
                   the Parlements. Louis promises to summon
                   the States-General.
 1788. _Aug._      Return and second Ministry of Necker.
       _Nov._      Second convocation of the Notables.
 1789. _Apl._ 28.  The Réveillon riot, the first serious riot in Paris.
       _May_   5.  Meeting of the States-General at Versailles.
       _June_ 17.  The States-General assume the title of National
                    Assembly.
        "   20.    The Oath in the Tennis Court.
        "   23.    The Royal Sitting. The Commons defy the Crown.
                    Union of the Three Estates. Reactionary plans
                    at Court.
       _July_ 11.  Dismissal of Necker. Appointment of a reactionary
                   Ministry, supported by a strong display
                   of troops.
 1789. _July_ 14.  Rising in Paris and capture of the Bastille. The
                   King's submission and the recall of Necker.
        "   17.    Louis' visit of conciliation to Paris. Establishment
                    of the Parisian Municipality and of the National
                    Guard.
                   The Emigration begins.
                   Risings and disorder begin in different parts of
                    France.
       _Aug._ 4.   Summary abolition of feudal rights, of tithes, and
                    of all kinds of privileges.
       _Sept._     Increasing distress and excitement in Paris.
       _Oct._ 1.   Military banquet and Royalist demonstration at
                    Versailles.
        "  5-6.    March of the Parisian women to Versailles, and
                    their return with the Royal family to Paris.
       _Nov._ 2.   A decree of the Assembly declares the goods of
                   the Church to be the property of the Nation.
        "   7.     A decree of the Assembly renders it impossible for
                    Ministers to be Members of the House.
 1790. _May_  10.  Mirabeau's Notes for the Court begin.
       _July_ 12.  The Civil Constitution of the Clergy adopted by
                    the Assembly.
        "   14.    Feast of the Federation, to celebrate the fall of
                    the Bastille.
       _Aug._      Serious mutiny in the army of Nancy suppressed
                     by Bouillé.
      _Sept._ 10.  Resignation of Necker.
       _Nov._ 27.  A decree of the Assembly compels the Clergy,
                     under pain of dismissal, to take the oath to
                     observe the new Constitution (sanctioned by
                    the King on December 26).
       _Dec._      Mirabeau President of the Jacobin Club.
 1791. _Jan._ 30.  Mirabeau elected President of the Assembly.
       _April_ 2.  Death of Mirabeau.
         "  18.    The King attempts to leave Paris for St. Cloud,
                     but is stopped by a mob.
       _June_ 20.  The flight to Varennes.
       _July_ 17.  The Republican demonstration and the Massacre
                     of the Champ de Mars.
                   Rally of the Constitutional Party, and re-establishment
                    of the King.
       _Aug._ 27.  The Emperor Leopold and the King of Prussia
                    meet the French emigrant Princes and issue the
                   Declaration of Pillnitz.
       _Sept._ 4.  Louis publicly accepts the new Constitution.
         "  30.    Last sitting of the Constituent Assembly.
       _Oct._ 1.   First sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
       _Nov._ 1.   The Emperor Leopold issues a circular to the
                    Powers against interference in France.
        "   9.     A decree of the Assembly orders the Emigrants,
                    under the severest penalties, to return to France
                    (vetoed by the King).
        "  17.     Pétion elected Mayor of Paris over Lafayette's head.
        "  29.     A decree of the Assembly orders the expulsion of
                    priests who will not take the oath to the Constitution
                    (vetoed by the King).
       _Dec._ 7.   Narbonne appointed Minister of War.
 1792. _Mar._ 1.   Death of the Emperor Leopold.
        "   9.     Dismissal of Narbonne.
                   Formation of a Girondist Government.
       _Apl._ 20.  France declares war against Austria.
                   The French troops cross the Belgian frontier, but
                     meet with reverses.
        _May_ 27.  Decree authorising the banishment of refractory
                    priests (vetoed by the King).
         "  30.    Dismissal of the King's Constitutional Guard.
        _June_ 8.  Decree for assembling a force of 20,000 Fédérés at
                     Paris (vetoed by the King).
         "  12.    Louis dismisses his Girondist Ministers.
         "  20.    Invasion of the Tuileries by a mob.
       _July_ 11.  The country declared to be in danger.
        "   25.    Prussia declares war on France.
                   Manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick.
        "   30.    The Fédérés from Marseilles arrive in Paris.
       _Aug._ 10.  Capture of the Tuileries and overthrow of the
                     Monarchy.
        "   20.    Desertion of Lafayette.
        "   23.    Surrender of Longwy.
        "   28.    Search for arms and arrest of suspects in Paris.
      _Sept._ 2.   The Prison Massacres begin in Paris. Surrender
                    of Verdun.
        "   20.    Dumouriez at Valmy checks the advance of the
                    Allies.
        "   21.    Meeting of the National Convention.
                   Proclamation of the Republic.
       _Oct._ 20.  The French under Custine capture Mayence.
       _Nov._  6.  Dumouriez wins the battle of Jemappes, and conquers
                     Belgium.
        "   18.    Decree offering the assistance of France to all
                     nations desirous of freedom (withdrawn in the
                     following spring).
       _Dec._      The King's trial begins.
 1793. _Jan._ 21.  Execution of Louis.
       _Feb._ 1.   France declares war against England and Holland.
                   Reverses of the French army; the invasion of
                    Holland abandoned.
       _Mar._ 9.   Formation of the Revolutionary Tribunal.
        "  10.     Abortive Jacobin rising in Paris.
        "  18.     Defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, and loss of
                    Belgium.
      _April_ 3.   Desertion of Dumouriez.
        "   6.     Establishment of the Committee of Public Safety.
                   First important successes of the insurgents in La
                    Vendée.
        _May_ 31.  Jacobin rising against the Girondists.
       _June_ 2.   Final victory of the insurrection and proscription
                    of the Girondist leaders.
       _July_ 13.  Assassination of Marat.
                   Advance of the Allies; the French lose Condé,
                     Valenciennes, and Mayence.
       _Sept._ 5.  Terror decreed to be the order of the day.
       _Sept._ 5.  Houchard wins the battle of Hondschöten, and
                     gains other successes, which compel the Allies
                     to retreat.
         "  17.    Establishment of the Maximum and of the Law
                     against Suspected Persons.
                   The Austrians invade Alsace.
     _Oct._ 15-16. Jourdan, having superseded Houchard, wins the
                    battle of Wattignies.
       " 16.       Execution of Marie Antoinette.
       " 17.       Decisive defeat of the Vendéans at Chollet.
       " 31.       Execution of the Girondist leaders in Paris.
    _Nov._ 10.     Establishment of the worship of Reason, and
                     ascendency of the party of the Commune.
    _Dec._         Camille Desmoulins starts the Vieux Cordelier.
                   Struggle of parties at the Jacobin Club.
                   Destruction of the Vendéan army at Le Mans.
                   Hoche and Pichegru, by a series of successes,
                     drive the Austrians out of Alsace.
 1794. _Mar._ 24.  Execution of Hébert and the leaders of the Commune.
       _April_ 5.  Execution of Danton, Desmoulins and their
                   friends.
                   Outbreak of Kosciusko's revolt in Poland.
        _May_ 18.  Pichegru, having superseded Jourdan, defeats the
                    Allies in the battle of Turcoign.
        _June_ 1.  Lord Howe defeats the French fleet in a great
                    battle at sea.
         "   8.    (20th Prairial). Festival of the Supreme Being.
         "  10.    (22nd Prairial). Law reconstituting the Revolutionary
                     Tribunal.
         "  26.    Jourdan, having superseded Hoche, wins the battle
                     of Fleurus. The French re-occupy Belgium.
       _July_ 27.  (9th Thermidor). Fall of Robespierre.
       _Sept._     Successes of Suvórof in Poland.
       _Oct._ 10.  Crushing defeat of the Poles at Maciejowice.
       _Nov._ 7.   Capitulation of Warsaw to the Russians.
        "  12.     Closing of the Jacobin Club in Paris.
       _Dec._ 8.   The seventy-three Girondist Deputies recalled to
                     the Convention.
        "  23.     Repeal of the Maximum Laws.
                   Decisive movement of the French troops against
                     Holland.
 1795. _Jan._ 3.   Russia and Austria in the Treaty of St. Petersburg
                    settle the terms of the final partition of Poland.
                   The French enter Utrecht, Amsterdam and the
                     Hague, and the Stadtholder flies. The complete
                     conquest of Holland follows.
       _Feb._      Truces between the Republican generals and the
                     Vendéan chiefs.
       _Mar._ 2.   Arrest of Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois,
                     Barère and Vadier decreed by the Convention.
        "  8.      The survivors of the Girondists proscribed on the
                     31st May recalled to the Assembly.
     _April_ 1.    (12th Germinal). Bread riots and attack on the
                     Convention.
       "   5.      Treaty of Bâle between France and Prussia.
      _May_ 20.    (1st Prairial). Jacobin rising and attack on the
                     Convention.
      _June_ 8.    Death of the Dauphin in prison.
      _July._      Peace between France and Spain.
                   Failure of the Emigrants' expedition to Quiberon.
      _Aug._       In the debates on the new Constitution, the Convention,
                     by the decrees of the 5th and 13th
                     Fructidor (August 22 and 30), secures the re-election
                     to the legislature of two-thirds of its
                     own body.
      _Sept._ 23.  Proclamation of the Constitution of the Year III,
                     and of the electoral decrees.
                   Fresh coalition between England, Austria and
                     Russia against France.
      _Oct._ 5.    (13th Vendémiaire). Rising of the reactionary
                     Sections against the Convention, defeated by
                     Bonaparte.
       "  26.      Close of the National Convention.




APPENDIX.

 NOTE.--_The following list of books does not profess to be
 comprehensive. It is a selection of some of the most important for the
 use of students. Those marked with an asterisk ought alone to give a
 fairly accurate knowledge of the period._


I. Text-book.

 * Mrs. Gardiner's _French Revolution_ (Longmans' Epoch Series,
 two shillings and sixpence) is decidedly the best and most useful
 text-book.


II. Complete Histories.

 *Carlyle's _French Revolution_ is still unapproached for the dramatic
 splendour of its narrative and the brilliant portraits which it
 contains.

 Von Sybel's _History of the French Revolution_ (4 vols. tr.) is
 perhaps the most valuable of the many large histories, but is severely
 critical, and sometimes unfair to the advanced Revolutionists. It
 is largely occupied with the history of Germany, Poland and other
 countries at the time.

 Louis Blanc's _Histoire de la Révolution Française_ (12 vols.) is
 a long and eloquent defence of the Revolution, and especially of
 Robespierre.

 Michelet's _Histoire de la Revolution Française_ (7 vols.) is a
 brilliant and sympathetic work, rather more critical than that of
 Louis Blanc.

 *Morse Stephens' _History of the French Revolution_ (3 vols.--the
 last as yet unpublished) is the latest English narrative of the
 period, and has much valuable biographical information. In tone it is
 favourable to the Jacobin party.

 (The histories of Mignet, of Thiers, of Quinet, of the 'Deux Amis de
 la Liberté,' and of others are also of considerable value.)


III. Critical and Illustrative Works.

 *Rousseau's _Contrat Social_; published at 25 centimes in the
 Bibliothèque Nationale.

 Arthur Young's _Tour in France_.

 *De Tocqueville's _L'Ancien Régime_ (tr. as _France before the
 Revolution_); of the greatest value in studying the condition of
 France in the eighteenth century.

 *Taine's _Les Origines de la France Contemporaine_ (4 vols.); a
 brilliant work, long, diffuse, and severely critical in its judgments,
 but, in spite of its bias, full of valuable information, especially in
 the notes. The first volume deals with the 'Ancien Régime,' the next
 three with 'La Révolution.'

 Burke's _Reflections on the French Revolution_.

 Sorel's _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_ (2 vols.); a very able
 and recent work on the foreign aspects of the Revolution.

 Schmidt's _Tableaux de la Révolution Française_ (3 vols.); a
 collection of papers relating largely to the secret police of Paris,
 some of which are of great value.

 Mortimer-Ternaux's _Histoire de la Terreur_ (8 vols.); a long and
 careful work, written with great minuteness, and very critical in tone
 towards the Revolutionary leaders.


IV. Biographies, Memoirs and Correspondence.

 Voltaire, Life, by John Morley.

 Diderot, Life, by John Morley (2 vols.).

 Rousseau, Life, by John Morley (2 vols.). The second volume contains
 an admirable account of the Social Contract.

 *Turgot, an Essay by John Morley (Miscellanies, vol. II).

 Bailly, _Mémoires_ (3 vols.); the best original account of the first
 five months of the Revolution.

 *Mirabeau, _Correspondance avec La Marek_ (3 vols.); by far the most
 important book on Mirabeau's policy and views. Dumont's _Souvenirs sur
 Mirabeau_ are personal and very interesting.

 Ferrières, _Mémoires_ (3 vols.); a good account of events down to the
 10th August, from the point of view of an independent Conservative.

 *Madame Roland, _Mémoires_.

 Marat, Life, by Chèvremont.

 Danton, Lives, by Bougeart and Robinet.

 *Robespierre, an Essay by John Morley (Miscellanies, vol. I). M.
 Hamel has published in three long volumes an elaborate _Histoire de
 Robespierre_, which contains an enthusiastic panegyric of his hero.

 St. Just, Life, by Hamel.

 Pontécoulant, _Souvenirs historiques et parlementaires_ (4 vols.);
 valuable for the period after Robespierre's fall.

 (The Memoirs of Malouet, Bouillé, Dumouriez, Madame de Campan,
 Bertrand de Molleville, Mallet du Pan, Garat, Barère and very many
 others are all of interest and value.)




INDEX.


  A.

  _Actes des Apôtres_, Royalist newspaper, 111.

  Aiguillon, Duc d', 104.

  Aix, Archbishop of, 99;
    reaction at, 279.

  Aix-la-Chapelle, Emigrants at, 160.

  Albitte, 216.

  Allies, Louis' dealings with the, 173-174;
    advance of, in 1792, 177;
    retreat of, 180;
    renewed advance of, in 1793, 194, 205;
    retreat of, 206, 275-277.

  Alsace, war in, 276.

  Amar, 212, 271.

  America, sympathy with, in Europe, 42;
    expenses of alliance with, 48;
    Lafayette in, 116.

  _Ami du Peuple_, Marat's newspaper, 109-111.

  _Ami du Roi_, Royalist newspaper, 111.

  Amiens, relief works in, 134;
    distress at, in 1795, 270.

  Amsterdam, French conquest of, 277.

  Anjou, Métayers in, 20.

  Aranda, 42.

  Army, disorderly state of, 80-83, 170;
    reorganisation of, under the Terror, 273-276;
    power of, 282.
    _See_ War.

  Arras, Lebon at, 217;
    Robespierre at, 249.

  Artisans, position of, before the Revolution, 17-18;
    distress of, in 1789, 58-61, 68-69;
    disappointment of, 131-134, 136-137, 197;
    under the Terror, 217, 226, 269, 271.

  Artois, one of the Pays d'État, 6;
    Comte d', 116, 160, 161.

  Assignats, origin of, 90-91;
    depreciation of, 91-92, 196-197, 224, 267-270.

  Augereau, 274.

  Austria, Joseph's reforms in, 156;
    policy of, 276-278.
    _See_ Leopold _and_ Allies.

  Autun, Talleyrand bishop of, 102.

  Auvergne, Malouet's fame in, 100.

  Avignon, revolutionary excesses at, 141;
    reaction at, 279.


  B.

  Babœuf, 220.

  Bailly, Mayor of Paris, 67, 68, 145;
    character of, 102;
    political views of, 135;
    action of, on the 17th July, 1791, 151;
    retirement of, 165;
    death of, 207.

  Bâle, Peace of, 278.

  Barbaroux, 184.

  Barère, in the Constituent Assembly, 104;
    as a journalist, 108;
    in the Committee of Public Safety, 214, 220, 221;
    fall of, 265, 271.

  Barnave, in the Constituent Assembly, 104;
    at the Jacobins, 106;
    political views of, 126, 135, 150, 152;
    death of, 207.

  Barras, 217, 274, 281.

  Bassano, Maret, Duc de, 108.

  Bastille, destruction of, 58, 89.

  Bazire, 237.

  Béarn, one of the Pays d'État, 6.

  Beauharnais, Madame de, 185.

  Belgium, war in, 170, 180, 194, 275, 277.

  Bernadotte, 274.

  Bernard de Saintes, 217.

  Besançon, rising at, 61;
    relief-works at, 134.

  Billaud-Varennes, at the Jacobins, 150, 167;
    in the Committee of Public Safety, 214, 215, 234, 240, 259;
    retirement of, 262;
    fall of, 265, 271.

  Bô, 216

  Boissy d'Anglas, 263.

  Bonaparte, 274, 281, 282.

  Bordeaux, trade of, before the Revolution, 43;
    connection of, with the Gironde, 184, 205;
    under the Terror, 217, 224, 225.

  Borie, 217.

  Bouchotte, 236, 273.

  Bouillé, 82.

  Bourbon, Duchesse de, 44.

  Bourbotte, 263, 273.

  Bourdon, Léonard, 217;
    de l'Oise, 237, 259, 263.

  Bourgeois. _See_ Middle Class.

  Bourges, suggested as meeting-place for Convention, 201.

  Brienne, Loménie de, Archbishop of Toulouse, 15;
    Comptroller-General, 49-51.

  Brissot, as a journalist, 107-108;
    political influence of, 150, 164, 167, 184;
    death of, 207.

  Brittany, one of the Pays d'-État, 6;
    the Chouans in, 278.

  Broglie, Maréchal de, 58;
    Madame de, 185.

  Brumaire, 227.

  Brunswick, Duke of, 173, 174, 180.

  Brussels, journalism in, 107;
    taken by the French, 277.

  Buffon, 34.

  Burgundy, one of the Pays d'État, 6.

  Burke, 64, 194.

  Buzot, 105, 184.


  C.

  Cadillac, dearth in, 225.

  Caen, rising at, in 1789, 61;
    connection with the Gironde, 205, 206;
    distress in, in 1795, 270.

  Cahiers, the, 51.

  Caisse d'Escompte, Necker's loans from the, 88.

  Calendar, the New, 227, 228.

  Calonne, 48, 160.

  Cambacères, 263.

  Cambon, 233, 263, 267, 271.

  Camus, 103.

  Capitaineries, the, 21, 22.

  Carnot, in the Committee of Public Safety, 214, 215, 234, 241;
    representative on mission with the Army, 274.

  Carrier, at Nantes, 217, 232, 236, 278;
    Robespierre and, 250;
    arrest of, 265.

  Catherine of Russia, 42, 156;
    designs of, on Turkey, 157, 159;
    negotiations with the Comte d'Artois, 160.
    _See_ Russia.

  Cavaignac, 274.

  Cazalés, 99.

  Chabot, 143, 237.

  Chambon, 190, 193.

  Chambonas, Madame de, 185.

  Champ de Mars, Massacre of, 151;
    Feast of Supreme Being in, 257.

  Chaumette, among the Jacobin leaders, 143;
    in the Commune of Paris, 190, 212, 227, 229, 236.

  Chollet, Battle of, 276.

  Chouans, the, in Brittany, 278.

  Church, jealousy of local Parlements towards, 6;
    relations of, to State under Ancien Régime, 6, 15;
    privileges and dignitaries of, 15, 16;
    poverty of parish priests in, 16;
    tyranny of, 28, 33;
    attack on by Encyclopaedists, 33, 34;
    property of, declared to belong to the nation, 83, 84;
    reorganisation of, by Constituent Assembly, 84-87;
    sale of lands of, 90, 132, 133, 140;
    disorder caused by attack on, 141;
    attitude of Legislative Assembly towards, 165;
    attitude of Convention towards, 265.

  Civil Code, the, 211.

  Civil Constitution of Clergy, the, 84-87.
    _See_ Church.

  Classical spirit, influence of the, 29.

  Clermont-Tonnerre, Comte de, 100, 126.

  Clootz, Anacharsis, 143, 236.

  Club, des Impartiaux, 106;
    Monarchique, 106;
    of 1789, 106;
    Feuillant, 152;
    clubs prohibited by Convention, 280.
    _See_ Cordeliers _and_ Jacobin Club.

  Coblentz, emigrants at, 161.

  Coffinhal, 212.

  Collot d'Herbois, among the Jacobin leaders, 143;
    elected to Convention, 182;
    at Lyons, 217, 232, 241;
    in the Committee of Public Safety, 214, 215, 234, 236, 240, 244, 246;
    retirement of, 262;
    fall of, 265, 271.

  Commission of Twelve, appointed, 201;
    cancelled, 205.

  Committee of General Security, appointed by Convention, 195;
    functions of, 212;
    Commune and, 236.

  Committee of Public Safety, appointed by Convention, 195;
    powers and members of, 212-215;
    Convention and, 236, 242, 244, 246;
    Danton and, 245-247;
    Robespierre and, 255, 259;
    remodelled in 1794, 262.

  Committees of the Convention, work of, 210, 211.

  Committees, Revolutionary, in Sections of Paris, 200, 212, 262;
    in the provinces, 213.

  Commune of Paris, organisation of, 145;
    Sections of, 145-147;
    Insurrectionary Commune of the 10th August, 174-178;
    its attitude towards the September Massacres, 178, 179;
    its leaders elected to the Convention, 182, 183;
    its dissolution, 189, 190;
    the Jacobins regain control of, 193;
    action of, in 1793, 197, 199, 202;
    Insurrectionary Commune of the 31st May, 204, 205;
    power of, under the Terror, 212, 218, 227, 229, 231, 236, 237, 241;
    reaction against, 240-245;
    fall of, 245, 246;
    supports Robespierre, 255, 259, 260;
    abolition of, 262.

  Compagnies de Jésus, 272.

  Compagnies du Sol, 272.

  Comptroller-General, powers of, 7, 9, 10.

  Condé, Fortress of, taken by the Allies, 205;
    Prince of, at Worms, 161.

  Condorcet, Madame de, 185, 186;
    Marquis de, 184, 193.

  Constituent Assembly, constituted, 57;
    character of, 64;
    early history of, 65-72;
    jealous of executive, 71-74;
    new system of Local Government, 75-79;
    judicial reforms, 79, 80;
    passion for electoral contrivances, 74, 75, 79, 82, 83, 85;
    military reforms, 80-83;
    church reforms, 83-87;
    confiscation of church property, 84, 90;
    finance, 87-96;
    parties in, 98-105;
    close of, 153.

  Constitution, of 1791, 71-87, 131, 132, 152-154, 278;
    of 1793, 208-210, 271;
    of 1795, 279-281.

  Constitutional Party, the, 135, 150-154.

  Contrat Social, doctrine of the, 39-41, 137-140.

  Convention, meeting of, 182;
    early parties in, 183, 186-190;
    demoralisation of, 192;
    decrees of, early in 1793, 195, 196-198;
    defeat of Girondists in, 201-205;
    the rule of the Jacobins in, 208-235;
    reforms of, 210, 211;
    representatives of, on mission, 215-217;
    Jacobin schisms in, 236-260;
    struggle with the Commune, 237, 242-246;
    struggle with Robespierre, 259, 260;
    reaction in, 261-273;
    finance of, 218-223, 266-270;
    close of, 279-281.

  Corday, Charlotte, 186, 206.

  Cordeliers Club, 105, 150, 236, 246.

  Corvée, the, 22, 45.

  Côte-d'Or, the Terror in the, 217.

  Council, of the King at Versailles, 7;
    of the Ancients and of the Five Hundred, 279-281.

  _Courrier de Provence_, Mirabeau's paper, 107.

  Couthon, 213, 214, 217, 241, 255.

  Custine, 255.


  D.

  D'Alembert, 34.

  Danton, rise of, 105, 143;
    in July, 1791, 150, 151;
    protests against war, 167;
    on the 20th June, 172;
    on the overthrow of the Monarchy, 175-180;
    views on the September Massacres, 179;
    elected to Convention, 182;
    policy in Legislative Assembly, 193-201;
    during the Terror, 237-241;
    final struggle and fall, 242-248.

  Dartigoyte, 217, 231.

  Dauphin, death of the, 278.

  Dauphiné, popular movement in, 50, 100.

  Davoût, 274.

  De Lessart, 166.

  Departments, created by Constituent Assembly, 75;
    under Constitution of 1795, 280.

  D'Eprémesnil, 99.

  Desfieux, 237.

  Desmoulins, Camille, rise of, 109, 143;
    attacks the Terror, 237-244;
    arrest of, 247;
    Lucile, 185-186.

  Diderot, 31, 34.

  Dijon, rising in, 61.

  Directory, establishment of, 279-282.

  Districts, division of France into, 75,
    abolished, 280.

  Dom Gerle, 103.

  D'Ormesson, 190.

  Drouet, 274.

  Dubarry, Madame, execution of, 207.

  Dubois-Crancé, 275.

  Dumont, André, 216, 263.

  Dumouriez, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 167-171;
    Lafayette and, 171;
    wins the battles of Valmy and Jemappes, 180;
    defeat of, at Neerwinden, 194;
    desertion of, to Austrians, 195.

  Duport, 104, 106, 113.

  Dutard, reports of, 202-204.


  E.

  Economists, the, 36.

  Elections, of 1789, 52, 53;
    small polls at, in 1790 and 1791, 130, 131, 153, 154;
    of Mayors of Paris, 165, 190, 193;
    to the Legislative Assembly, 153, 154;
    to the Convention, 182, 183;
    under the Constitution of 1795, 280, 281.

  Elégants, the, 264.

  Elsinore, sympathy for American Revolution at, 42.

  Emigrants, selfish policy of, 159-163, 174, 279;
    decrees against, in 1791, 165;
    the Reaction and the, 265, 271, 279, 280.

  Encylopaedia, the, 33-36.

  England, policy of, 194, 277, 278.

  Evêché, Section of the, 204.


  F.

  Fabre d'Églantine, 237, 245.

  Fabre d'Hérault, 274.

  Farming, system of, before Revolution, 19, 20.

  Faubourg St. Antoine, 174, 273.

  Fédérés, the, 173, 174, 190.

  Fernig, Demoiselles de, 186.

  Feudal Privileges, 11, 21, 22;
    attacks on, 61, 67.

  Feuillants, club of the, 152.

  Finance, of the Ancien Régime, 7, 12, 15, 23-25, 45, 48, 49;
    of the Constituent Assembly, 87-96;
    of the Terror, 266-268.
    _See_ Assignats and Taxes.

  Fleuriot, 256.

  Floréal, 228.

  Fouché, 217, 232, 236.

  Foulon, murder of, 67.

  Fouquier-Tinville, 212,  232, 272.

  Fox, 42.

  Francis, Emperor, 168.

  Frederick the Great, 42.

  Frederick William, King of Prussia, 156.

  Fréron, 143, 217, 232, 263, 264.

  Frimaire, 227.

  Fructidor, 228.


  G.

  Gabelle, the, 24, 25;
    abolition of, 94.

  Garat, 103, 193, 201, 202, 254.

  Gard, District of the, 217.

  Gardes Françaises, the, 60, 68.

  _Gazette de France_, the, 106, 107.

  Geneva, Journalism at, 107.

  Genlis, Madame de, 185.

  Gensonné, 164, 184.

  German Empire, foundation of, ultimately due to the Wars of the
  Revolution, 181.

  Germinal, 228.
    _See_ Insurrection.

  Gers, District of the, 217.

  Girondists, the, in the Legislative Assembly, 163, 164, 165;
    war policy of, 166-168;
    attitude of, towards king, 171, 172, 174, 175, 191;
    and towards the Prison Massacres, 179;
    in the Convention, 183, 184;
    principles of, contrasted with those of the Jacobins, 187-189;
    struggle of, with the Jacobins, 189-204;
    fall of, 204-207;
    recall of, 265, 266.

  Gorsas, 184.

  Gouges, Olympe de, 186.

  Goujon, 263, 273.

  Gouly, 216.

  Grégoire, 103, 143.

  Guadet, 164, 184.

  Guffroy, 231, 273.

  Guilds, monopoly of, in eighteenth century, 17, 18;
    suppression of, 45, 46, 95.

  Gustavus III, King of Sweden, 156, 160.

  Guyardin, 217.


  H.

  Hague, Treaty of the, 277.

  Hanriot, 204, 205, 212, 256, 260.

  Haute Loire, District of the, 217.

  Hébert, rise of, 143, 178, 190;
    attack on, by Girondists, 204;
    under the Terror, 212, 222, 227;
    character of, 231;
    as a journalist, 231, 236;
    attack on, by Robespierre and others, 241-245;
    fall of, 246.

  Helvetius, 35, 110.

  Hérault de Séchelles, 208, 214, 241.

  Herman, 212.

  Hoche, 255, 276, 279.

  Holbach, 35.

  Holland, invasion of, 194, 277.

  Hondschöten, Battle of, 206.

  Houchard, 206, 207, 255, 275.


  I.

  Illuminati, the, 42.

  Indre, Districts of the, 225, 226.

  Insurrection, of 14th July, 1789, 58;
    of 5th and 6th October, 1789, 69;
    of 20th June, 1792, 172;
    of 10th August, 1792, 174, 175;
    of 31st May, 1793, 204, 205;
    of Robespierre, 260;
    of Germinal, 271;
    of Prairial, 272;
    of Vendémiaire, 281.

  Intendants, position of, 7-10;
    decline of, 47;
    fall of, 62.

  Isnard, 184, 266.

  Issy l'Evêque, priest of, 138.


  J.

  Jacobin Club, origin of, 105,106;
    organisation of, 142-145;
    attitude of, in summer of 1791, 150-154;
    protests against war, 167;
    share of, in elections of 1792, 182, 183;
    under the Terror, 213;
    parties at, in 1793-94, 241-246;
    under Robespierre, 255, 259;
    close of, 263, 265.

  Jacobins, rise of the, 129-154;
    theory of the, 137-140, 209;
    numbers and organisation of the, 142-147, 199;
    leaders of the, 143, 229-235;
    in the Constituent, 105, 149-153;
    in the Legislative, 163, 164;
    opposed to war, 166, 167;
    attitude of, towards Prison Massacres, 178, 179;
    in the Convention, 182-183;
    attitude of, on question of Louis' death, 191;
    struggle with Girondists, 189-206;
    Government of, 212-216;
    principles applied, 218-229;
    character of, 187, 216, 217, 229-235, 283;
    schisms and struggles among, 237-260, 262-273.

  Jansenists, the, 103.

  Javogues, 217, 231.

  Jemappes, Battle of, 180.

  Jeunes Gens, the, 264, 272, 279.

  Jeunesse Dorée, the, 264.

  Jews, attacks on the, 61.

  Joseph, Emperor, 42, 156-158.

  Jourdan, 206, 274, 275.

  _Journal de Paris_, the, 106.

  _Journal des Débats_, 108.

  _Journal des Etats-Généraux_, Mirabeau's journal, 107.

  _Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville_, Reactionary journal, 112.


  K.

  Kellermann, 255.

  King. _See_ Louis XVI.

  Kléber, 274, 276.

  Kosciusko, 277.


  L.

  Labourers. _See_ Peasants and Artisans.

  Laclos, 113, 144.

  Lacombe, Proconsul in Bordeaux, 217;
    Rose, 186.

  Lacretelle, 264.

  Lacroix, 237.

  Lafayette, and the National Guard, 67, 68, 118, 153;
    on 5th October, 70;
    Marat and, 111;
    Orleans and, 114;
    character and views of, 116-118;
    Mirabeau and, 73, 121, 122;
    party of, 131, 135, 150, 153, 163;
    at Massacre of Champ de Mars, 151;
    not elected Mayor, 165;
    policy of, in spring and summer, 1792, 166-173;
    flight of, 177.

  Lakanal, 216.

  Lally-Tollendal, 100.

  La Marck, 121, 123.

  Lameths, the, in the Constituent, 104;
    party of, 131, 135, 150.

  Landes, District of the, 217.

  Languedoc, one of the Pays d'État, 6.

  Lanjuinais, 103, 184, 266.

  Laon, distress in, 270.

  Laplanche, 231.

  Lebon, 143, 217, 232, 273.

  Lecarpentier, 216.

  Lecointre, 237, 263.

  Legendre, 237, 263, 265.

  Legislative Assembly, meeting of, 163;
    parties in, 163, 164;
    policy of, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179.

  Le Mans, Battle of, 276.

  Leopold II, succeeds Emperor Joseph, 157, 158;
    policy of, 159-163;
    death of, 168.

  Lepelletier Section, the, 281.

  Lindet, 214, 215, 234, 273.

  Linguet, 107.

  Local Government, new system of, 75-79.

  Locke, 110

  Loire, war on the, 205.

  London, Journalism in, 107.

  Longwy, surrender of, 177.

  Louis XI, 5.

  Louis XIV, 14.

  Louis XVI, Court of, 44;
    emancipates serfs, 44;
    charities of, 44, 45;
    character of, 45;
    early reforms of, 45-47;
    States-General and, 53, 55, 57, 58, 67;
    visit to Paris, 67;
    on 5th and 6th October, 69, 70;
    Constituent Assembly and, 73, 74, 87, 150, 152;
    flight to Varennes, 149;
    army under, 81;
    deposition demanded, 150;
    Legislative Assembly and, 165-173;
    Lafayette and, 70, 172;
    the Allies and, 173, 174;
    Girondists and, 167, 171, 174, 175, 191;
    dethroned, 175;
    executed, 191, 194.

  Loustallot, 108, 109.

  Louvet, 184, 266.

  Lyons, troubles at, 61, 134, 141;
    declares against Jacobin Government, 205, 216, 217;
    trade of, ruined by Revolution, 224;
    distress in, 225, 270.


  M.

  Maignet, 217, 258.

  Mallet du Pan, 107, 112, 173, 174.

  Malmesbury, 277.

  Malouet in Constituent Assembly, 64, 100, 101, 152;
    his estimate of the Jacobins, 143;
    Louis and, 173.

  Manfredini, 42.

  Marat, editor of _Ami du Peuple_, 109;
    early career and character of, 109-111;
    in July, 1791, 150, 151;
    protests against war, 167;
    approves, September Massacres, 178;
    in the Convention, 182, 190, 197, 210;
    assassination of, 206.

  Maréchaussée, the, 8.

  Maret, 108.

  Marie Antoinette, character of, 48;
    political influence of, 48, 58, 125, 162, 165, 186;
    execution of, 207.

  Marseilles, disorder in, 141;
    declares against Jacobin Government, 205;
    under the Terror, 216, 217, 225;
    reaction at, 279.

  Massacre, of Champ de Mars, 151;
    of September, in the prisons, 178.

  Masséna, 274.

  Maury, 99.

  Maximum, the, established, 198, 222, 223;
    repealed, 266-270.

  Mayence, emigrants at, 159;
    retaken by Allies, 205.

  _Mercure_, Constitutional journal, 106, 112.

  Méricourt, Théroigne de, 186.

  Merlin, of Douai, 105, 263;
    of Thionville, 263, 274.

  Mesmerists, the, 42.

  Messidor, 228.

  Métayers, position of the, 20, 21, 132.

  Middle classes, under Ancien Régime, 16, 17, 18, 43;
    gainers by Revolution, 132;
    cease to support Revolution, 202, 203;
    Jacobin measures against, 222, 223;
    in the Reaction, 264.

  Milhaud, 274.

  Militia, the, 22, 23.

  Mirabeau, Comte de, in the Constituent Assembly, 57, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73,
  74, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 103, 106, 122, 123;
    as journalist, 107;
    political aims, 118, 119, 120;
    Lafayette and, 121,  122;
    notes for the Court, 123-127;
    pensioned by the Court, 127, 128;
    character of, 128;
    death of, 128, 147;
    Marquis de, 44;
    Vicomte de, 99.

  Molleville, Bertrand de, 166.

  Momoro, 237;
    Sophie, 186.

  Monasteries, abolition of the, 84, 85.

  Monciel, Terrier de, 172, 173.

  _Moniteur_, the, 107, 108.

  Monsieur. _See_ Provence.

  Montaubon, religious troubles at, 141.

  Montesquieu, 31, 32.

  Montmartre, relief works at, 69.

  Montmorin, 122, 126, 166, 173.

  Montreuil-sur-Mer, distress at, 270.

  Moreau, 274.

  Morelly, 36.

  Mounier, 50, 100, 101.

  Mountain, the, 197, 198;
    after Thermidor, 262, 263, 271.
    _See_ Jacobins.

  Municipality of Paris. _See_ Commune.

  Muscadins, the, 220, 264.

  Mysticism, revival of, in eighteenth century, 42.


  N.

  Nancy, mutiny at, 82;
    distress at, 270, 271.

  Nantes, Vendéans at, 206;
    Carrier at, 217;
    decline of commerce at, 224.

  Napoleon, at the capture of the Tuileries, 175.
    _See_ Bonaparte.

  Narbonne, 166, 167.

  National Agents, 213.

  National Assembly, title taken by Commons, 57.
    _See_ Constituent Assembly.

  National Debt. _See_ Finance.

  National Guard, creation of the, 62, 76, 78;
    Lafayette and the, 67, 68, 118, 153, 172;
    action of the, 136, 140, 141, 179;
    reorganised as battalions of the Sections, 199;
    under Hanriot, 204, 205, 212, 256, 260;
    changes in the, after Thermidor, 262, 271, 273;
    on 13th Vendémiaire, 281.

  Necker, reforming ministry of, 14, 42, 46;
    fall of, 47, 48;
    recall of, 51;
    vacillation of, 53, 56;
    dismissed again, 58;
    finance of, 88, 89;
    failure of, 114, 115;
    Madame, 185.

  Neerwinden, defeat of Dumouriez at, 194.

  Newton, 110.

  Ney, 274.

  Nice, French successes at, 194.

  Nîmes, religious troubles at, 141.

  Nivôse, 227.

  Noailles, Vicomte de, 104.

  Nobles, under the Ancien Régime, 11-14, 44;
    in States-General, 56, 57.

  Notables, of 1787, 49;
    of 1788, 53.

  Notre Dame, Goddess of Reason installed in, 227.


  O.

  Orange, tribunal of, 258;
    Prince of, 277.

  _Orateur du Peuple_, Fréron's journal, 263.

  Orleans, high court at, 80;
    Duke of, 12, 14, 69, 112-114, 150, 207.


  P.

  Pache, minister of war, 190, 192, 193;
    Mayor of Paris, 193, 212, 236;
    proscription of, 273.

  Palais Royal, meetings in, 60, 69, 113, 264.

  Panckoucke, 106, 107.

  Panis, 178, 212, 273.

  Paris, excitement and distress in, 26, 51, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69, 133,
  136, 171, 173;
    influence of, on finance of Constituent Assembly, 89, 95;
    clubs in, 105, 106, 144;
    numbers of Jacobins in, 143;
    government of, 145-147;
    Prison Massacres in, 175-179;
    agitation against Louis, 171, 173, 191;
    the Girondists and, 193, 196-205;
    under the Terror, 222-228, 242, 260;
    Reaction in, 263, 264, 271, 272, 273, 279, 281.

  Paris, Parlement of, 49, 50.

  Parlements, the local, 6, 7, 79.

  Parties, in Constituent Assembly, 98-105;
    in Legislative Assembly, 163, 164;
    in Convention, 183, 184, 237, 240, 259, 262, 263, 273, 279.

  _Patriote Français_, Brissot's journal, 108.

  Payan, 256.

  Pays d'Élection, provincial assemblies created in, 46.

  Pays d'État, the, 6.

  Peasantry, condition of, under Ancien Régime, 19-27;
    outbreak of, in 1789, 58-62;
    disappointed with the Revolution, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 141;
    under the Terror, 217, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225;
    in the Reaction, 270, 282.

  _Père Duchesne_, Hébert's journal, 231.

  Pétion, in Constituent Assembly, 105, 106, 153;
    Mayor of Paris, 165, 179, 184, 190.

  Petit Gautier. _See_ _Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville_.

  Philippe Egalité. _See_ Orleans.

  Philippeaux, 237, 245.

  Philosophers, the, in eighteenth century, 28-36.

  Physiocrats, the, 36.

  Picardy, distress in, 270.

  Pichegru, 271, 274, 275, 276.

  Pillnitz, conference of, 159-162.

  Pitt, policy of, 42, 156, 157, 194;
    Robespierre on, 252.
    _See_ England.

  Pluviôse, 228.

  _Point du Jour_, Barère's paper, 108.

  Poland, influence of, on European politics, 157-159, 277;
    Kosciusko's revolt in, 277.

  Police of Paris, under Ancien Régime, 60;
    during Revolution, 199, 200, 202.

  Poll-tax, 12, 24, 95.

  Pombal, 42.

  Pope, the, alienated by Constituent Assembly, 86, 87;
    rule of, at Avignon, 141.

  Prairial, 228.
    _See_ Insurrection.

  Press, the, controlled by Church, 15, 33;
    new power of, 106-112;
    during the Reaction, 263.

  Prieur (of the Côte-d'Or), 214, 215.

  Prieur (of the Marne), 214, 215.

  Provence, Comte de, policy of, 115, 116;
    Mirabeau and, 126;
    Emigrants and, 161, 165, 279.

  Provincial Assemblies, in 1787, 46.

  Prudhomme, 106, 107.

  Prussia, policy of, 156-162, 276-278.
    _See_ Allies.


  Q.

  Queen. _See_ Marie Antoinette.

  Quesnai, 36.

  Quiberon, Emigrants at, 279.


  R.

  Rabaut de St. Etienne, 103.

  Reason, worship of, 186, 227, 237.

  Representatives on mission, 195, 213, 215-217, 274.

  Republic, talk of, 150;
    proclamation of, 189.

  _Réveil du Peuple_, Reactionary song, 264.

  _Révolutions de France et de Brabant_, Desmoulins' paper, 109.

  _Révolutions de Paris_, Democratic paper, 107, 108.

  Revolutionary Army, the, 199, 212, 233.

  Revolutionary Government, the, 212-217.

  Revolutionary Tribunal, the, established, 195;
    reorganised, 212, 257, 258;
    abolished, 273.

  Rewbell, 105, 274.

  Reynaud, 217.

  Rhine, war on the, 194, 276, 277.

  Richard, 274.

  Richelieu, policy of, 5.

  Rights of Man, declaration of the, 66.

  Robespierre, in the Constituent Assembly, 105, 106, 147-153;
    the typical Jacobin, 41, 143, 147;
    policy and position of, in 1791, 147-153;
    opposes war, 167;
    action on the 20th June, 172;
    elected to the Convention, 182;
    attacks of Girondists on, 190;
    in Committee of Public Safety, 213, 214, 220, 221, 226, 228, 229, 230, 234;
    attacks the Commune, 241-246;
    deserts Danton, 247;
    ascendency of, 248-260;
    character of, 148, 248-255;
    review of his career, 249-255;
    power of, in 1794, 255, 256;
    his belief in the Terror, 255-257;
    his action when in power, 257, 258;
    his fall, 259, 260.

  Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Duc de, 100.

  Rohan, Cardinal de, 16.

  Roland, Minister of the Interior, 167;
    dismissal of, 171;
    return of, to office, 175;
    and September Massacres, 179;
    carries dissolution of Insurrectionary Commune, 189;
    resignation of, 192;
    Madame, 164, 171, 184, 185, 207.

  Romme, 263, 273.

  Ronsin, 232, 236, 243.

  Rosicrucians, the, 42.

  Rouen, Archbishop of, 15, 99;
    rising at, 61;
    Mirabeau advises the King to retire to, 121;
    distress at, 225.

  Rousseau, influence of, 31, 34, 36-41.
    _See_ Contrat Social.

  Rühl, 212, 273.

  Russia, policy of, 156-159, 277, 278.
    _See_ Catherine _and_ Allies.


  S.

  Sabran, Madame de, 185.

  Sainte-Amaranthe, Mme de, 185.

  Santerre, 172.

  Sardinia, policy of, 160.

  Saverne, Cardinal de Rohan's palace at, 16.

  Savoy, war in, 194.

  Sections, organisation of the Parisian, 145-147, 199, 200, 212, 213, 242;
    insurrections prepared in the, 174, 175, 198, 201, 203, 204, 205, 260, 281;
    committees in the, 146, 195, 200, 212, 213;
    battalions of the, 199;
    police of the, 146, 199, 200;
    reaction in the, 264, 271.

  Seigneur, rights of. _See_ Feudal.

  Sémonville, 126.

  _Sentinelle du Peuple_, Democratic paper, 107.

  Serfdom, extinction of, 20, 44.

  Sergent, 178.

  Servan, 170, 171, 254.

  Sieyès, Abbé, writings of, 51;
    in the Constituent Assembly, 84, 102;
    the Girondists and, 164;
    in the Convention, 211;
    during the Reaction, 263, 280.

  Social Compact. _See_ Contrat Social.

  Socialism, beginnings of, 36, 218-226.

  Soho, Marat in, 110.

  Soubrany, 263, 273.

  Soult, 274.

  Spain, policy of, 156, 160, 278.

  St. André, Jean Bon, 214, 234, 273.

  St. Antoine, Faubourg, insurrection of, 174;
    disarmed, 273.

  St. Domingo, trouble in, 71.

  St. Etienne, Terror at, 217.

  St. Hurugues, Marquis de, 113.

  St. Just, among the Jacobin leaders, 143;
    in Committee of Public Safety and Convention, 213, 214, 220, 221,
    222, 226, 229, 234, 241;
    on mission, 216, 274;
    relations with Danton and Robespierre, 245, 246, 255, 256, 257,
    259, 260.

  Staël, Madame de, 166, 185.

  States-General, elections to the, 31-54;
    opening of the, 55-57.
    _See_ Constituent Assembly.

  Strasbourg, Bishop of, 16;
    rising at, 61;
    plots at, 161;
    decline of trade in, 224;
    working men imprisoned in, 225.

  Subdelegates, powers of, 9, 47.

  Suvórof, 277.

  Sweden, policy of, 156, 160.
    _See_ Gustavus.

  Swedenborgians, the, 42.


  T.

  Taille, the, 23, 24.

  Talleyrand, 102, 106.

  Tallien, on mission, 216;
    in Thermidor, 259;
    during the
  Reaction, 263, 264;
    Madame, 186.

  Talma, Madame, 185.

  Talon, 126.

  Tarascon, Reaction at, 279.

  Target, 103.

  Taxes, under Ancien Régime, 23-25;
    of the Constituent Assembly, 93-96;
    resistance to, 139, 196, 267;
    on the rich, 198, 220.
    _See_ Finance.

  Tennis Court Oath, the, 57.

  Tenures, of the Ancien Régime, 19-21.

  Terror, establishment of the, 170, 195, 206, 212;
    government of the, 212-217;
    principles of the, 218-230;
    character of the leaders of the, 230-235, 283;
    Danton and the, 238, 240, 242;
    Robespierre and the, 256, 257, 258, 261;
    end of the, 261, 262, 273.

  Thermidor, 228;
    insurrection of, 259, 260.

  Thermidorians, the, 263, 279.

  Thibeaudeau, 263.

  Thouret, 103, 126.

  Three Hundred, the, 145.

  Thugut, 276.

  Thuriot, 263, 271.

  Tiers-État, importance of the, 51, 52, 53;
    constitutes itself the National Assembly, 57.

  Toulon, declares against Jacobin government, 205, 216, 217;
    capture of, 244.

  Toulouse, Archbishop of, 15, 49;
    distress in, 134.

  Trèves, Emigrants at, 159.

  Trianon, the Queen at, 44.

  Tronchet, 103.

  Troyes, Bishop of, 15;
    rising at, 61;
    distress in, 270.

  Tuileries, attacks on, 172, 175.

  Turgot, observations of, 23, 26;
   contributes to Encyclopaedia, 34;
    one of the economists, 36;
    Comptroller-General, 45;
    fall of, 47.

  Turkey, critical position of, 157.

  Turreau, 'Hellish Columns' of, 278.


  V.

  Vacheron, 231.

  Vadier, in Constituent Assembly, 105;
    in Committee of General Security, 212, 232;
    fall of, 265, 271.

  Valenciennes, captured, 205.

  Valmy, Battle of, 180.

  Varennes, Louis' flight to, 149.

  Vaucluse, Terror in the, 217.

  Vendée, la, nobles of, 13;
    rising in, 199, 205, 206, 276, 278, 279.

  Vendémiaire, 227;
    insurrection of, 281.

  Ventôse, 228.

  Verdun, surrender of, 177, 178.

  Vergniaud, in the Legislative, 164;
    in the Convention, 183, 184;
    on the execution of the King, 191;
    death of, 207.

  Versailles, King's Council at, 7, 9;
    Court at, 12, 13;
    States General at, 55-58, 63-67;
    Parisian mob at, 69;
    suggested meeting of Convention at, 201.

  Veto, debates on the, 67.

  Victor, 274.

  _Vieux Cordelier_, Desmoulins' paper, 242-245.

  Vincent, 236, 243.

  Vingtièmes, the, 12, 24.

  Vizille, Assembly of, 50.

  Volney, 107.

  Voltaire, 31-33, 110.


  W.

  War, desired by Girondists, 164;
    opposed by Jacobins, 166, 167;
    declared against Austria, 168;
    effects of, 168, 169, 170, 181, 224;
    progress of, 170, 173, 177, 180, 181, 194, 205, 206, 235, 273-279;
    in La Vendée, 199, 205, 206, 276, 278, 279.

  Warsaw, Polish revolt at, 277.

  Wattignies, Battle of, 206.

  Westermann, 237.

  West Indies, trade of, affected, 224.

  Women, part played by, in the Revolution, 184-186.

  Worms, Emigrants at, 161.


  Y.

  Young, Arthur, observations of, 19, 43, 224.

  Ysabeau, 216.


THE END.