FROM VERSAILLES TO PARIS
The effect of the insurrection of Paris was immediate. Besenval,
lacking instructions and intimidated by the violence of the rising,
held his troops back; while Louis, shrinking from violence as he always
did, and alarmed at the desertion in the army, decided to bow before
the storm. He had nerved himself to a definite and resolute policy,
but the instant that policy had come to the logical proof of
blood-letting, he had fallen away; his kindliness, his incapacity for
action, had asserted themselves strongly.
Necker was once more recalled, and once more weakly lent himself to
what was rapidly becoming a farcical procedure. The King, without
ceremony, presented himself to the National Assembly and announced that
in view of the events of the day before he had recalled his minister,
and ordered Besenval's troops to be withdrawn. The assembly manifested
its satisfaction, and sent a deputation headed by {71} Bailly to
communicate this good news to Paris. And on the same day began the
first movement of emigration of the defeated courtier caste, headed by
the Comte d'Artois and de Breteuil.
The deputation from the assembly presently reached Paris, and was
received by the committee of the sections at the Hotel de Ville. There
followed congratulation, speech-making, disorder, and excitement; and
out of it the insurrection evolved a political head and a military
leader, Bailly and La Fayette.
Bailly was proposed and acclaimed as Mayor of Paris. This office was
new, and therefore revolutionary, but as the provost of the merchants
had clearly gone for all time, it was necessary to find something to
replace him, and what could be better than this? The new mayor had as
qualifications for his office two facts only: he was the senior deputy
of the city to the National Assembly; he possessed an unquenchable
supply of civic and complimentary eloquence. Behind this figurehead
the sections soon built up a new municipality or town council made up
of delegates from the sections, and that varied in numbers at different
times.
Paris also required a military leader, and for that post the name of
the Marquis de La Fayette was acclaimed. La Fayette is a {72}
personage easy to praise or to blame, but not to estimate justly. At
this moment he enjoyed all the prestige of his brilliant connection
with the cause of American independence ten years before, and of his
constancy to the idea of liberty. His enemies, and they were many in
Court circles, could detect easily enough the vanity that entered into
his composition, but neither they nor his friends could recognise or
appreciate in him that truest liberalism of all which is toleration.
La Fayette had already learned the lesson it took France a century to
learn, that liberty implies freedom of opinion for others, and that
reasonable compromise is the true basis of constructive politics. When
later he appeared to swerve, or to contradict himself, it was often
enough merely because he felt the scruples of a true devotee of
liberty, against imposing a policy. For the moment he had become a
popular idol, the generous, brave, high-minded young knight, champion
of the popular cause. He was to command the civic guards of the city
of Paris, 40,000 armed citizens, the national guards as they became
owing to the rest of France following the example of Paris. His first
act was to give them a cockade, by adding the King's white to the
city's red and blue, thus forming {73} the same tricolour that he had
already fought under in another struggle for liberty ten years before.
The King's withdrawal of the troops implied a policy of conciliation,
and he was therefore unable to resist the demand that he should
demonstrate his acceptance of the events of Paris by a formal visit to
the city. Reluctant, and half expecting violence, he made his entry on
the 17th between lines of armed citizens representing every class of
his Parisian subjects, and proceeded to the Hotel de Ville. It was an
occasion on which a little kingly grace or a little kingly boldness,
which so many of his ancestors commanded, might have fired the flame of
pent-up popular emotion. But there was nothing of this sort to be
found in the apathetic Louis. Bailly's stores of oratory had to be
drawn on freely for what the King found himself unable to supply, and
the honours of the day, which he might so easily have had, were heaped
instead on the dashing La Fayette. As it was, Louis returned safely to
Versailles, having met with a not unfriendly reception, but having
failed to adjust himself to the new situation, which was what he was
bound to attempt, having once abandoned the policy of repression by
force.
{74} The uproar of the 14th of July could not be suddenly changed to a
calm, whatever Louis XVI, La Fayette and Bailly might do. Grave
disorders broke out in many parts of France, and scenes of violence
continued in Paris. On the 20th, Count Lally moved a resolution for
the repression of the excesses that were being committed, but the
assembly, with no sense of responsibility for the conduct of
affairs,--directly interested, on the contrary, in weakening the
executive,--defeated it. In Paris, these scenes culminated on the
23rd, when Foulon, who had been Controleur des Finances, was brought in
to the city from his country estate, where he had been seized. Foulon
represented all that was worst in the old régime. As commissary with
the French armies and later in the internal administration of the
country, he had displayed the most heartless rapacity. His attitude
towards the lower classes was echoed in utterances that were popularly
quoted. The people, he declared, might feed on hay while he was
minister;--the people had now got him in their clutches. In vain
Bailly and Lafayette, during a long agony at the Hotel de Ville,
attempted to save him; the mob would not be denied. Finally Foulon was
seized; he was strung up to a street lantern, and later his {75} head,
the mouth stuffed full of hay and nettles, was paraded in triumph
through the streets.
While such scenes were being enacted in Paris, and while all through
France the large class of poor and criminals created by Bourbonism was
committing even worse excesses, the assembly was addressing itself to
the task of regenerating France by endowing her with a constitution.
This task appeared comparatively simple and was taken up with a light
heart; it was only by degrees that the assembly discovered the
difficulties in the way, and it proved to be only after two years of
hard labour that it could get its constitution accomplished. And even
then it proved almost useless.
The Constitution may be left for the present, to be considered when, in
1791, it became operative. The general trend of the assembly, however,
was to dissociate itself from practical concerns of government, to
interest itself in the theories of politics, and both in its attitude
toward the events of the day, and in its constitutional policy, to
weaken the executive. The executive and the Bourbon régime were
synonymous, and so the men of the National Assembly, with no
responsibility as it seemed for the good government of France, {76}
tried hard, at the moment when a vigorous and able executive was more
than necessary, to pull down the feeble one that existed. It was the
Nemesis that Bourbonism had brought on itself.
In the midst of these debates the practical question of disorder thrust
itself forward once more in very insistent form, and with very
remarkable results, on the night of the 4th of August. In parts of
France the excitement had taken the form of a regular Jacquerie in
which the isolated country houses and families of the aristocracy had
suffered most. Details were accumulating and a terrible picture was
unfolded before the assembly that night. How was the evil to be dealt
with?
It was the injured themselves who indicated the remedy, at their own
personal sacrifice. The nobles of the assembly, led by Noailles,
d'Aiguillon, Beauharnais, Lameth, La Rochefoucauld, declared that if the
people had attacked the property of the nobles, it was because that
property represented the iniquities of feudalism, that the fault lay
there, and that the remedy was not to repress the people but to
suppress the institution. They therefore proposed to the Assembly that
instead of issuing proclamations calling on the people to {77} restore
order, it should vote decrees for the abolition of feudalism.
And so feudalism, or what passed by the name, went by the board amid
scenes of wild enthusiasm. All the seigneurial rights accumulated
during a thousand years by the dominant military caste, the right of
justice, the privilege of commanding armies, the hunting privileges,
the warren, the dovecot, serfage, were sacrificed on the altar of
patriotic regeneration. The burden of the centuries was suddenly
lifted from the shoulders of _Jacques Bonhomme_.
The men who proposed this surrender of their rights, who had already,
by joining the Tiers, done so much to accomplish the great social
revolution, deserve greater consideration as a class than history has,
as a rule, meted out to them. The French nobility at the close of the
18th century counted in its ranks a great number of admirable men,
admirable for loyalty, for intellectuality, for generosity. It is true
that the most conspicuous, those who made up the Court, or who secured
the lucrative appointments, had caught the plague of Versailles, and
that even, in the provincial nobility there was much copying of the
fashion of the courtiers. But there were other {78} representatives of
the order. Most conspicuous was that large class of liberal nobles who
played so great a part in the early days of the Revolution. The ten
deputies elected by the nobility of Paris to the States-General all
belonged to that category: grave, educated men, writers and thinkers,
versed in questions of politics, economics, religion and education,
experienced in many details of practical government, soldiers and local
administrators, penetrated with the thought of a protesting and
humanitarian age. Some, like La Fayette, had played conspicuous roles,
and proved revolution in the making; others, like La Rochefoucauld, had
mastered every intricacy of political and philanthropic thought; and
some, like Condorcet, had proved themselves among the masters of
science of their time. Counts, marquises, dukes, they were prepared to
lay all aside in the overwhelming demand which suffering humanity made
for release from all its troubles. And alongside of these, more loyal
to their King if less loyal to humanity, no less admirable if lagging a
little in knowledge and development, were those hundreds of country
gentlemen, many of them poor, who, when the day of adversity came,
rallied to their sovereigns, faced the guillotine for them, or laid
down their lives {79} following the fearless standard of Henri de La
Rochejacquelein. The position of the French nobility, and the part it
played, has been too much forgotten. Its most intelligent section
nearly led the Revolution, which later fell into the hands of lawyers
and theorists, then of demagogues, and lastly of soldiers.
What has just been said does not imply that the action of the National
Assembly on the night of the 4th of August was altogether admirable.
The example of the nobles was infectious. A consuming fervour of
self-sacrifice seized every member of the house. Archbishops, bishops
and abbots rushed to the tribune and offered all they could. Tithes,
pluralities, and every sort of ecclesiastical privilege were
sacrificed. The unprivileged class attempted desperately, but in vain,
to hold its own in the contest, and could find nothing more to
surrender than some of the special privileges and franchises attached
to certain provinces and cities of the kingdom.
Now all this was generous and admirable,--it forms one of the most
generous and admirable pages in history. It was even more. It was the
emphatic and right declaration that privilege and class distinction was
the root of all the evils of the old system and had been {80} condemned
by the French nation. But it had none of the qualities of practical
statesmanship. It did not tend to decrease disorder but the contrary;
and for the moment, with reform advancing so prosperously, order was
the first consideration. The effects of the decrees were disastrous
and intensified the bad conditions of the country. The woodlands were
immediately invaded by armies of timber and fuel cutters. Game was
killed off. The poor country priest found his salary gone. The
_gabelle_ itself was disregarded. Local justice came to an end. And
so the Government, with all its extra load, found the already failing
revenue almost entirely cut off. The peasants and people of France
interpreted the decrees after their fashion, refused to pay taxes and
abused the surrendered privileges.
Through August and September the assembly continued its constitutional
debates, one of the three actors in this great political tragedy; the
other two, Paris and King Louis, watched its proceedings with growing
impatience. Uneasy at the increasing unrest of the capital, at the now
popular cry that the King ought to reside in Paris, and at the
constitutional demands which the assembly was gradually formulating and
accumulating, Louis decided to bring {81} some troops into Versailles
for his protection, this duty being assigned to the regiment of
Flanders. This was a small enough matter when compared with the
formidable preparations of de Broglie and Besenval three months before,
yet it served the purpose of immediately crystallizing two opposite
currents of opinion.
In Paris suffering was intense. There had been a good harvest, and in
many respects the economic situation was better. But there was a
drought, and the millers, depending on water to drive their mills,
could not produce flour. There had been a sudden curtailment of Court
and aristocratic expenditure, so that the Parisian wage earner was
unemployed. The emigration had thrown many retainers out of their
places. Paris was starving even before the summer months were over,
and the agitators and political leaders were not slow to point to
Versailles as the cause. That city, owing to the King's presence, was
always comparatively well supplied with provisions; if only Louis could
be brought to the capital, Versailles might starve and Paris would
fatten. And winter was fast coming on.
At the palace of Versailles offended pride and rebounding hope were
going out to the regiment of Flanders. On the 1st of October {82} the
crisis was reached. On that day the assembly sent to the King a
declaration of rights to which his assent was demanded. In the evening
a banquet was given in the palace to bring together the officers of the
King's bodyguard, of the regiment of Flanders and of the national
guards of Versailles; and it resulted in a demonstration. The King and
Queen visited the assembled officers and were received with great
enthusiasm. _O Richard, o mon Roi_, the air that Blondel sings to
Richard, the imprisoned king of England, in the then popular opera by
Grétry, was sung, and officers of the national guard were moved to
change their tricolour cockade for the white one of the King. All
this, if not very dangerous, was exciting; it was immensely magnified
by rumour. In Paris the popular orators soon conjured up visions of a
great royalist plot, and the renewal of military operations against the
city.
On the 5th of October, the King, struggling against the pressure of the
assembly, sent in a conditional acceptance of the proposals of the 1st,
making some reservations as to the declaration of rights. He did not
know that at the very moment Paris had risen once more, and was already
marching out to Versailles to {83} carry him off and bring him back to
the capital.
The insurrection of the 5th of October had rather obscure origins.
Some of its leading factors, however, stand out clearly enough. First
there was the slowly rising tide of the popular impatience, the feeling
that after all the efforts and success of the spring and summer the
situation of affairs was still no better, and that to improve it the
King must come to Paris; all this increasing vastly in force since the
1st of October. Then there was the fact that Paris knew on the evening
of the 4th, that Louis would refuse, or in part refuse, the demands of
the assembly, and it was necessary, therefore, to find a reply to the
King's move. Last of all was hunger. And it was the part of the
Parisian people most nearly touched by hunger that actually raised the
standard of revolt.
The women felt the pinch of famine more bitterly than the men, and the
women played a noteworthy part in the formation of those deep strata of
popular opinion, or instinct, on which in turn each of the
revolutionary parties had to build their power. The women were the
first to turn the cannon against the King, and they were the last to
raise the horrible howl of the guillotine at the prisoners as they {84}
passed the prison gates to go to the scaffold. And the reason is not
far to seek. It was they who had to look after the household, to tend
the sick, to feed the children, and it was they who day after day, year
after year, formed in the long procession waiting to reach the baker's
or the butcher's stall. Often enough they stood and struggled for
hours, sometimes through the whole night, their hearts aching for the
loved ones at home,--at the end of all to find nothing left, to return
empty-handed. So late as the year 1795 there was a period of several
months during which the individual ration, for those who could pay and
for those who were lucky, was but 2 oz. of black bread a day; while
butcher's meat failed completely on many occasions and was always a
costly luxury. The details of the famine are scattered broadly through
the pages of the contemporaries, and at every point the woman appears,
wretched, lamenting, furious, ravenous for food, fighting for it and
plundering, her heart dulled with bitterness, and her mouth distorted
with curses for those pointed out to her as the cause of all her
sufferings. Louis, Marie Antoinette, Brissot, Vergniaud, Hébert, she
cared little what the name was, but was equally ready to rend them when
told that they stood for the starvation of {85} her children, her sick,
or her husband. And she was easily enough persuaded that some one
person was responsible. In the morning hours of the 6th of October she
was convinced that Louis was that person.
In the early hours of that day a knot of women, one of them beating a
drum, others lugubriously chanting _du pain, du pain_, bread, bread,
appeared in the streets of Paris. Growing in numbers as they advanced,
an inchoate mob of women, men and boys, they proceeded to the Hotel de
Ville; there perhaps they would find relief? But there was no relief,
only tumult, until Maillard, a patriot agitator, conspicuous as one of
the captors of the Bastille and since, harangued them. Maillard, who
was in touch with the leading spirits among the politicians of the
sections, told the women that there was nothing to do at the Hotel de
Ville, but that he would lead them to Versailles, where they could see
the King and persuade him to give them bread and to come back with them
to Paris.
A motley procession poured out from Paris, following Maillard into the
country roads and villages on the way to Versailles. Armed men had
joined the women, and a few cannon had been found and were dragged by
hand. {86} Meanwhile La Fayette, always sent for in emergencies, had
arrived at the Hotel de Ville; while alarming reports began to reach
Versailles of the approach of the women of Paris. La Fayette was
quickly joined by a large force of national guards, and while he
awaited instructions and pacified them with occasional harangues,
Bailly and his councillors debated as to what course to take. Finally
about five in the afternoon it was decided that La Fayette and his men
should proceed to Versailles to preserve order and act according to
circumstances.
Long before the Parisian troops could arrive, Versailles had been taken
by storm by the women. They tramped in under a beating rain, many
having lagged or fallen exhausted by the way, and at once sent
deputations to the assembly and the King. They wanted food, and they
wanted decrees that would put an end to starvation. To the men of the
regiment of Flanders, drawn up to protect the palace, they announced
the same thing, and their appeals were so irresistible that after some
hours the colonel of the regiment, on declaring that he could not
answer for his men any longer, got permission to return to barracks.
{87} But by this time La Fayette had reached the scene, and had
stationed his battalions so as to protect the palace. An anxious night
was passed. In the mob were very dangerous elements. The grilles and
walls, the courts, the grounds and the buildings of the palace, covered
a wide area. The organization for defence was defective; the _gardes
du corps_ were trustworthy but not numerous; the King gave few orders,
and those benevolent or timid; the unrest and pressure of the mob was
irresistible. In the early hours of the morning a determined group of
men got into the palace, and immediately began to force their way
towards the Queen's apartment.
As the 6th of October opened, a scene of great excitement took place
within the palace. _Gardes du corps_ were cut down while protecting
the Queen's flight to the King's apartments. La Fayette was sent for
in haste, and some sort of order was restored. But meanwhile the mob
had invaded the main courtyard, and it required all La Fayette's great
popularity and tact to avert a fatal outbreak. As it was, he persuaded
Louis that the only course was to accept the popular demand for his
removal to Paris; he harangued the mob; he induced the {88} King and
Queen to show themselves at a window; he gracefully kissed the Queen's
hand; and he eventually prevailed.
At noon Paris began to flow back from Versailles to the capital once
more, but now Louis and his family were in the midst of the throng. In
a great lumbering coach, surrounded by the populace, Louis and his wife
and children were proceeding from the palace of Versailles to that of
the Tuileries; an epoch of French history was coming to a close. The
Austrian princess, looking out and seeing a man of the people riding on
the step of her coach, declared contemptuously that this was the first
occasion on which an individual not wearing knee breeches, an
individual _sans culotte_, had occupied so honourable a position. The
cry of _sans culotte_ was taken up, and approved on the spot as the
symbol of worthy citizenship. But the cant phrase that belongs most
closely to the event of the 6th of October, was that whereby the
Parisians declared triumphantly that they had now brought into their
midst _le boulanger, la boulangère, et le petit mitron_,--the baker,
the baker's wife and the little cook boy.
{89}