THE FLIGHT TO VARENNES
On the 14th of July 1790 was held the first great festival of the
Revolution, the federation of the national guards at the Champ de Mars
in Paris. Federation was the name that had been given all through
France the previous year to district or departmental gatherings or
reviews, at which the newly raised national guards had paraded and,
with great ceremony, sworn patriotic oaths. This was now repeated on a
grander and more centralized scale, to commemorate the fall of the
Bastille twelve months before. On the military exercise ground just
outside Paris, 14,000 national guards assembled. An altar was erected,
at which Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun and deputy, officiated. La
Fayette led the military procession. Louis was made to play an almost
subordinate role. The national guards took an oath of fidelity to La
Fayette, the Law, and Louis XVI; the gradation was intended and
significant.
{106} The festival was, in a sense, merely an echo of the policy which
the assembly was pursuing in regard to the army. The army was a great
factor in the situation; sooner or later, as in most revolutions, it
was likely to prove the decisive one. From the first the pressure of
the armed force on Paris had acted as a powerful irritant; and in
reducing the power of the King nothing seemed more important than to
detach the army from its allegiance. The mutiny and desertion of July
1789 gave the assembly a good starting point; in the spring of 1790 the
troops were placed under oath to obey the law and the King, and not to
act against the citizens. This, however, was not decisive, for on the
northeastern frontier, far from Paris, among the fortresses of Alsace
and Lorraine, a considerable part of the army was assembled. There
French and foreign regiments were well mixed, esprit de corps was
maintained, staunch loyalists were in command, and it was conceivable
that the troops would respond to Louis' appeal if the King summoned
them to his help.
So thought Marat, and many others. The author of the _Ami du peuple_
voiced the popular fear, that the army on the north-eastern frontier
would destroy the national {107} cause. Everything in Marat's career
tended to make him the accredited prophet of the reign of suspicion now
fast becoming established. He had during many years studied science
and philosophy, and had acquired the knack of writing while
unsuccessfully knocking at the doors of the academies. The outbreak of
the Revolution found him soured, and ready to turn a venomous pen
against all detainers of power. A morbid streak fast developed into a
mania of persecution and suspicion, and it was by giving free rein to
his imagination in that respect that he came into line with the frenzy
of starving women and declaiming demagogues ready to believe every
accusation, and to rend every _accapareur_.
Marat's violence had become so great shortly after the taking of the
Bastille that he had been proceeded against by the new municipality of
Paris. He then began a life of hiding, flitting obscurely from point
to point, dwelling in cellars, even at one time concealing himself in a
drain. For a few weeks he fled to London. But in the spring of 1790
he was back in Paris, and at the crisis of the midsummer he published a
violent pamphlet, _C'en est fait de nous_, "it's all up with us," in
which he hysterically demanded the massacre {108} of all traitors and
conspirators as the only means of preserving Paris from the vengeance
of the King and the operations of his army.
The assembly denounced the pamphlet, and steps were taken for the
prosecution of its author. Marat had chosen the moment for his
denunciations badly, for within a few days of the publication of his
pamphlet the army had broken out in open mutiny against its generals.
Bouillé, a staunch royalist and experienced soldier, was in command.
His men were being gradually demoralized by democratic propaganda. At
last, on the 31st of August, several regiments in garrison at Nancy
broke out in mutiny.
Bouillé displayed great vigour in dealing with a difficult and
dangerous crisis. He forced his way into Nancy after severe fighting,
and dealt summarily with the offenders when once he had regained
control. One French regiment he disbanded. The Swiss regiment of
Chateauvieux he handed over to a court-martial of its officers, who
ordered a great number of their men to be shot, or to be sent to the
galleys.
These events caused great excitement. The assembly, now alarmed at the
result of its own work of disintegration, passed a formal vote {109} of
thanks to Bouillé. The democratic party, however, took the opposite
side, strongly led by the Cordeliers, a popular sectional club. Noisy
demonstrations followed in favour of the defeated soldiers, and license
and indiscipline were extolled as the virtues of free men. This more
than anything else broke down the old royal army, and from this moment
the cavalry and infantry officers began to throw up their commissions
and emigrate. And, incidentally, another fragment of the old régime
disappeared in the same storm; Necker, still a royal minister,
unimportant and discredited, was mobbed on the 2d of September, and as
a result resigned and ingloriously left France for his native
Switzerland.
Until the winter of 1790 the Revolution had not shown signs of becoming
anti-monarchical, but at the turn of the year republicanism at last
raised its head. In the attitude of the French towards this question
one must bear in mind the historical precedents before them. French
opinion was strongly impregnated with the apparent lessons of the great
revolution that had occurred in England a little more than one hundred
years before. There a republic, founded in revolt from incompetent
{110} monarchy, had failed, and had made way for a military
dictatorship, which also had failed, to be replaced by the restored
monarchy. And, last of all, eventual success had come from a bargain
or compromise between the upper and middle class on the one hand and
the King on the other. This was the historic precedent best known and
generally uppermost in the minds of the men of the national assembly.
But there was another precedent, that of the American revolution, and
it tended in the opposite direction. Few, indeed, perceived that
Washington had succeeded where Cromwell had failed; and the event was
too near in time, too distant in space, too remote in surroundings, to
have as much bearing as it should. Yet the impression made was
considerable. Benjamin Franklin's picturesque and worthy republicanism
was not forgotten: his plain clothes and robust sense, his cheerful
refrain of _ça ira_,--it's all right,--so soon to be the song of the
French republicans themselves. The men of Rochambeau's army too, had
caught the infection, had seen republicanism in war, the brave and
capable commanding whatever their station in life; and in that army
were many rankers, held down by the Bourbon régime, who were soon to
become the {111} victorious generals of the French Republic. Again the
constitutional documents of the Americans had been consulted,
studied,--declarations of right, State constitutions. And all this
tended towards republicanism.
Yet even the American example did not mean republicanism in the
democratic sense. And the movement that became so marked about
December 1790 was distinctly towards a democratic republic. Many
prominent journalists were of that way of thought. Desmoulins had been
even in 1789. The franchise restrictions which the assembly was
drafting into the Constitution gave the papers a good text. It was
pointed out that whereat all Frenchmen had been admitted to vote for
the States-General, under the proposed constitution there would be but
two million voters. Why should not the poor man have a vote? Why
should not even women have a vote? Should there not be equality of
rights and no invidious distinctions?
Pamphlets began to appear in favour of a republic. Popular societies
were formed, and became the vogue, with a programme of universal
suffrage, and fraternization as a social characteristic. Women,
occasionally children, were admitted; the members called one {112}
another brother and sister, having discarded more formal modes of
address; popular banquets were held. The influence of woman, of which
something has already been said, was widened by the action of these
societies; that influence a little later tended to give the Revolution
the hysterical turn which it took.
The professional politicians showed little inclination to follow the
lead of the _Sociétés populaires_. The assembly remained rigidly
middle class in its attitude. The Jacobin Club maintained the same
position, though a few of its members were now inclining towards
democracy, and one of them, Robespierre, not quite so isolated as a few
months earlier, came forward as its official mouthpiece. In April 1791
he issued a speech, printed in pamphlet form, in which he ably argued
the case for democratic suffrage. He was hailed as the champion and
friend of the poor man, the apostle of fraternity.
Since he had been compelled to accept the civil constitution of the
clergy the King's revolt had become more marked. He declared to his
friends that he would sooner be king of Metz than king of France under
such terms. The rise of the democratic movement in the winter had not
tended to allay his fears, and by the {113} spring of 1791 he was
decided, so far as it was in his nature ever to be decided, to remove
from Paris and find some way out of his difficulties. His hopes of
escape centred on the northeastern frontier. There, at Metz, 200 miles
from Paris, were the headquarters of the energetic Bouillé; and beyond
Metz was the Rhine, where the Emperor Leopold, his brother-in-law, was
already assembling troops that might prove a further support.
With such an outlook, it was natural that the Court, and in this case
the Court meant the Queen, should attempt to concert measures with
Vienna; the phantom of the Austrian alliance, so detested at the time
of the Seven Years' War, was reappearing. Marie Antoinette held
numerous conferences with the foreign ambassadors on the subject and
wrote frequent letters to her brother invoking his aid; all of which
was more or less suspected or known by the public outside the palace
walls.
Paris was, indeed, guarding her king very jealously. Marat constantly
preached suspicion. Zealous sections formed watch committees that kept
the palace under keen observation. If the King attempted to leave
Paris violence must be used to keep him there. Royalists offered their
protection to the King; {114} and in February a bad brawl took place
within the palace walls, between the two factions.
Incidents kept occurring. In March the assembly voted that the King
was the first public functionary, and therefore, like other
functionaries, responsible for carrying out certain duties. One of
these was declared to be that he must reside within 20 leagues of the
assembly. This measure was in one sense restrictive; in another it
seemed slightly to loosen the King's fetters. To test whether he could
not take advantage of this decree to enlarge his radius of movement, it
was decided that Louis should attempt an afternoon's excursion as far
as St. Cloud.
In all this matter Mirabeau had been consulted. His advice had been
constant and correct. If the King would make his departure from Paris
coincide with taking the lead in a real reform he might get most
support and rouse least opposition by going to Rouen, the capital of
Normandy, a very accessible point; to go to Metz was to touch the
self-same chord that had whipped Paris into open revolt in July 1789.
But although Mirabeau's advice was asked, what he said was only half
listened to. No one could trust him now, no one could believe {115}
him--and besides, he was dying. Battling in the assembly for measures
of constructive statesmanship, spending his life outside with profuse
extravagance, his vitality was now gone, and a fever carried him off on
the 2d of April. His death caused a great sensation, though few would
say a word of praise for the great orator. He realized that his death
removed the last possible hope for the monarchy, and Louis himself,
when Marie Antoinette showed her satisfaction at the news, rebuked her
and declared that he had lost a friend.
Friendless, what could Louis do now? The obscure Robespierre,
tortuous, fanatical and tenacious, had risen to importance; hitherto
the giant Mirabeau had held down the smaller man and his little group
by his breadth, his vigour and his crushing apostrophes:--_Silence aux
trente voix_! But now that Mirabeau was gone, Robespierre suddenly
appeared almost the first figure of the assembly; and Robespierre stood
for the rising tide of democracy. What could Louis do? To escape from
Paris seemed the only course.
The King had occasionally been to St. Cloud in the year 1790, and the
recent edict of the assembly formally assured his freedom of movement
for a much greater distance; it only {116} remained to test whether the
people of Paris would attempt to restrain him from acting in a manner
that was customary and within his constitutional rights.
The test proved conclusive. A large mob, including a number of
national guards, assembled at the palace on Easter Sunday. It had been
announced that on this day the King would visit St. Cloud to hear mass
performed by priests who had not accepted the civil constitution. He
was not allowed to proceed. After sitting in his carriage several
hours awaiting the moment when the mob would give him passage, he
returned to his apartments defeated.
Louis was a prisoner. Not only was he a prisoner, but he was compelled
by the assembly to have within the palace only priests whom he
considered schismatic, and compelled to appear in the assembly and
there declare solemnly that he was a free agent and enjoyed entire
liberty of action. This drove him to a definite purpose, and
preparations were now secretly begun for the flight to Metz.
On the 20th of June the attempt was made. The King's brother, the
Comte de Provence, who afterwards became Louis XVIII, managed his
escape well, and was driven over the {117} frontier into the
Netherlands,--an experience he was to repeat in 1815. The King's
arrangements had been placed in the hands of a Swedish nobleman
attached to the Queen, Count Fersen. False passports were obtained.
The royal family was smuggled out of the palace in disguise. Several
bodyguards dressed as couriers acted as escort. A large travelling
carriage was ready. A start was successfully made on the great
northeastern road.
All went prosperously until the fugitives reached Varennes, a village
in the frontier district not more than 15 miles from Verdun, where
Bouillé had a strong garrison. At this point the scheme broke down.
Bouillé should have been able to place a large cavalry escort about the
King's carriage at Varennes, but his arrangements were defective and
went wrong. This was not altogether his fault, for Louis had wasted
much precious time on the way, and had shown no sense of the resolution
required by the circumstances. And lastly the patriots had discovered
who the traveller was; the postmaster of Ste Ménehould had recognised
the King, had ridden on ahead, had roused the national guard of
Varennes--and now the game was up.
{118} After a slight skirmish between a detachment of Bouillé's cavalry
and the national guard of Varennes, Louis was started back for Paris,
surrounded by armed contingents from all the near-by villages. The
whole course of the Revolution had for an instant wavered, hesitating
whether to turn this way or that. Now it had turned in a direction
that could not be mistaken. Louis himself speaking to one of the
officials of Varennes said to him: "If we return to Paris, we shall
die."
It was early on the morning of the 21st of June that Paris learnt that
the King had left the capital; intense excitement resulted. No doubt
could be felt as to the significance of the event; the King himself had
taken care that there should be none by leaving behind a lengthy
proclamation of which the upshot was that all the decrees he had signed
were null and void because of compulsion. The people answered this in
the way that might be expected; every emblem of royalty was torn down
through the city.
The assembly was in a state of the greatest uncertainty. It had two
dangers to face, one from the King, immediate, another from the people,
less immediate yet calling for much prudence. In this moment of crisis
and doubt, {119} numerous solutions of the political problem were put
forward, of which several demand notice.
Marat, in _l'Ami du peuple_, declared that a military dictator was the
only remedy for the situation; a curiously logical perception of what
was to be the outcome of the Revolution. This opinion did not obtain
any success.
The duc d'Orléans proposed another solution. This personage was the
head of the branch of the French Bourbons that stood next to that
holding the throne. He had long been on bad terms with the Court and
had assiduously cultivated popularity among the Parisians. During the
winter of 1788-89 he had spent much money and effort in charity and the
relief of distress, and had his reward on the assembly of the
States-General at which, while the Queen was received in stony silence,
he had met with an ovation. He did his best to create an Orléans
party, to push for the throne, and devoted to the purpose the large
sums of money which his great fortune placed at his disposal. At every
crisis in the Revolution small groups, mostly subsidized, attempted to
provoke demonstrations in his favour. And now, on the 21st of June,
with the throne derelict, he thought his opportunity had come, and
ostentatiously paraded through {120} the central quarters of the city
in hopes of a popular movement. But the popular movement would not
come. The duke was too well understood; his vices were too well known;
his treachery to his cousin aroused no enthusiasm; the people wanted a
more complete solution.
That more complete solution was voiced by the Club of the Cordeliers
and by its formidable spokesman Danton. Like Mirabeau, Danton was of
large physique and stentorian voice, an orator by nature, a man whose
unusual if far from handsome features fascinated the crowd. But,
unlike his great predecessor, he could hold the affection of the
people, indeed, he proved one of the few conspicuous leaders against
whom the people did not turn on the day of going to the guillotine. A
lawyer, and of a lawyer's family, he was in lucrative practice when the
Revolution broke out, a fine advocate, not overscrupulous in method,
flexible, but large in view, generous in heart, irresistible in
courage, strong in political instincts, a man of the greatest
possibilities. He espoused the popular cause, and the popular cause in
the democratic sense. He stood for the sections against the central
Commune; he defended Marat and the liberty of the press; he opposed the
bourgeois régime and La Fayette {121} at every step; he led the
battalion of the Cordeliers section to the Tuileries to prevent Louis'
visit to St. Cloud in April 1791. Such was the man who now headed a
deputation of the Cordeliers Club to the assembly and presented a
petition demanding the deposition of Louis XVI.
The demand of the Cordeliers for the deposition of the King was not the
thing to please the assembly. The situation was doubly difficult, for
apart from the uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the King and the
possibility of civil war, there was a difficulty in regard to the
Constitution. For two years past the assembly had been labouring hard
to complete the work it had sworn to accomplish by the oath of the _Jeu
de Paume_. That work was now nearly completed, but was almost as
unpopular with the masses as it was hateful to the King. It had not
even been elaborated in a spirit of compromise between the extreme
claims of autocracy on the one hand and of democracy on the other, but
was frankly middle-class legislation. But the King was an essential
part of the constitutional mechanism and his flight had occurred just
in time to wreck the Constitution as it was coming into port--that was
the prevailing sentiment of the {122} members of the assembly. When on
the 24th it was known that Louis had been stopped and was returning to
Paris, the relief of the deputies was great,--their long-laboured
Constitution was safe after all.
It was not till the next day that the royal family reached the capital;
and before their arrival more than one exciting scene occurred. The
duc d'Orléans was admitted a member of the Jacobin Club. Danton,
apparently not unfriendly for the moment to d'Orléans, harangued the
Jacobins in favour of the appointment of a regency. But the assembly
maintained a negative attitude. It seized control of the
administration by ordering the ministers, now little more than chief
clerks of departments, to report to it for orders, and for the rest
awaited the return of the King.
On the 25th Louis and his family reached Paris. The whole population
turned out to watch his return, but it gave him no greeting. The
crowd, obeying a common instinct, received the King in dead silence.
Not a voice was heard, not a hat was raised, as Louis once more passed
into his palace of the Tuileries.
{123}