fruit. Marshal de Broglie, who had found, instead of a loyal
army, only disaffected regiments which had joined or were
preparing to join the mob, sent in his resignation. ... The
king, deserted by his army, his authority now quite gone, had
no means of restoring order except through the Assembly. He
begged that body to undertake the work, promising to recall
the dismissed ministers. ... The power of the king had now
passed from him to the National Assembly. But that numerous
body of men, absorbed in interminable discussions on abstract
ideas, was totally incapable of applying its power to the
government of the country. The electors at the Hotel de Ville,
on the 15th of July, resolved that there must be a mayor to
direct the affairs of Paris, and a National Guard to preserve
order. Dangers threatened from every quarter. When the
question arose as to who should fill these offices, Moreau de
Saint Méry, the president of the electors, pointed to the bust
of Lafayette, which had been sent as a gift to the city of
Paris by the State of Virginia, in 1784. The gesture was
immediately understood, and Lafayette was chosen by
acclamation. Not less unanimous was the choice of Bailly for
mayor. Lafayette was now taken from the Assembly to assume the
more active employment of commanding the National Guard. While
the Assembly pursued the destruction of the old order and the
erection of a new, Lafayette, at the age of 82, became the
chief depositary of executive power. ... Throughout France,
the deepest interest was exhibited in passing events. ... The
victory of the Assembly over the king and aristocracy led the
people of the provinces to believe that their cause was
already won. A general demoralization ensued." After the
taking of the Bastille, "the example of rebellion thus set was
speedily followed. Rioting and lawlessness soon prevailed
everywhere, increased and imbittered by the scarcity of food.
In the towns, bread riots became continual, and the
custom-houses, the means of collecting the exorbitant taxes,
were destroyed. In the rural districts, châteaux were to be
seen burning on all sides. The towers in which were preserved
the titles and documents which gave to the nobleman his
oppressive rights were carried by storm and their contents
scattered. Law and authority were fast becoming synonymous
with tyranny; the word 'liberty,' now in every mouth, had no
other signification than license. Into Paris slunk hordes of
gaunt foot-pads from all over France; attracted by the
prospect of disorder and pillage. ... From such circumstances
naturally arose the National Guard. "The king had been asked,
on the 13th, by a deputation from the Assembly, "to confide
the care of the city to a militia," and had declined. The
military organization of citizens was then undertaken by the
electors at the Hotel de Ville, without his consent, and its
commander designated without his appointment. "The king was
obliged to confirm this choice, and he was thus deprived even
of the merit of naming the chief officer of the guard whose
existence had been forced upon him." On the 17th the king was
persuaded to visit the city, for the effect which his personal
presence would have, it was thought, upon the anxious and
excited public mind. Lafayette had worked with energy to
prepare his National Guard for the difficult duty of
preserving order and protecting the royal visitor on the
occasion. "So intense was the excitement and the
insurrectionary spirit of the time, so uncertain were the
boundaries between rascality and revolutionary zeal, that it
was difficult to establish the fact that the new guard was
created to preserve order and not to fight the king and
pillage the aristocracy. The great armed mob, now in process
of organization, had to be treated with great tact, lest it
should refuse to submit to authority in any shape." But short
as the time was, Lafayette succeeded in giving to the
powerless monarch a safe and orderly reception. "The king made
his will and took the sacraments before leaving Versailles,
for ... doubts were entertained that he would live to return."
He was met at the gates of Paris by the new mayor, Bailly, and
escorted through a double line of National Guards to the Hotel
de Ville. There he was obliged to fix on his hat the national
cockade, just brought into use, and to confirm the
appointments of Lafayette and Bailly. "Louis XVI. then
returned to Versailles, on the whole pleased, as the day had
been less unpleasant than had been expected. But the
compulsory acceptation of the cockade and the nominations
meant nothing less than the extinction of his authority. ...
Lafayette recruited his army from the bourgeois class, for the
good reason that, in the fever then raging for uncontrolled
freedom, that class was the only one from which the proper
material could be taken. The importance of order was impressed
on the bourgeois by the fact that they had, shops and houses
which they did not wish to see pillaged. ... The necessity for
strict police measures was soon to be terribly illustrated.
For a week past a large crowd composed of starving workmen,
country beggars, and army deserters, had thronged the streets,
angrily demanding food. The city was extremely short of
provisions, and it was impossible to satisfy the demands made
upon it. ... On July 22, an old man named Foulon, It member of
the late ministry, who had long been the object of public
dislike, and was now detested because it was rumored that he
said that 'the people might eat' grass,' was arrested in the
country, and brought to the Hotel de Ville, followed by a mob
who demanded his immediate judgment." Lafayette exerted vainly
his whole influence and his whole authority to protect the
wretched old man until he could be lodged in prison. The mob
tore its victim from his very hands and destroyed him on the
spot. The next day, Foulon's son-in-law, Berthier, the
Intendant of Paris, was arrested in the country, and the
tragedy was re-enacted. "Shocked by these murders and
disgusted by his own inability to prevent them, Lafayette sent
his resignation to the electors, and for some time persisted
in his refusal to resume his office. But no other man could be
found in Paris equally fitted for the place; so that on the
personal solicitation of the electors and a deputation from
the 60 districts of the city, he again took command."
_B. Tuckerman,
Life of General Lafayette,
volume 1, chapters 9-10._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French
Revolution, book 2, chapters 1-2._
{1264}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July-August).
Cause and character of the "Emigration."
"Everything, or nearly everything, was done by the party
opposed to the Revolution in the excitement of the moment;
nothing was the result of reasoning. Who, for instance,
reasoned out the emigration? It has oftentimes been asked how
so extraordinary a resolution came to be taken; how it had
entered the minds of men gifted with a certain amount of sense
that there was any advantage to be derived from abandoning all
the posts where they could still exercise power; of giving
over to the enemy the regiments they commanded, the localities
over which they had control; of delivering up completely to
the teachings of the opposite party the peasantry, over whom,
in a goodly number of provinces, a valuable influence might be
exerted, and among whom they still had many friends; and all
this, to return for the purpose of conquering, at the sword's
point, positions, a number of which at least could be held
without a fight. No doubt it has been offered as an objection,
that the peasantry set fire to châteaux, that soldiers
mutinied against their officers. This was not the case at the
time of what has been called the first emigration, and, at any
rate, such doings were not general; but does danger constitute
sufficient cause for abandoning an important post? ... What is
the answer to all this? Merely what follows. The voluntary
going into exile of nearly the whole nobility of France, of
many magistrates who were never to unsheath a sword, and
lastly, of a large number of women and children,--this
resolve, without a precedent in history, was not conceived and
determined upon as a State measure; chance brought it about. A
few, in the first instance, followed the princes who had been
obliged, on the 14th of July, to seek safety out of France,
and others followed them. At first, it was merely in the
nature of a pleasant excursion. Outside of France, they might
freely enjoy saying and believing anything and everything. ...
The wealthiest were the first to incur the expense of this
trip, and a few brilliant and amiable women of the Court
circle did their share to render most attractive the sojourn
in a number of foreign towns close to the frontier. Gradually
the number of these small gatherings increased, and it was
then that the idea arose of deriving advantage from them. It
occurred to the minds of a few men in the entourage of the
Comte d'Artois, and whose moving spirit was M. de Calonne,
that it would be an easy matter for them to create a kingdom
for their sovereign outside of France, and that if they could
not in this fashion succeed in giving him provinces to reign
over, he would at least reign over subjects, and that this
would serve to give him a standing in the eyes of foreign
powers, and determine them to espouse his cause. ... Thus in
'89, '90, and '91, there were a few who were compelled to fly
from actual danger; a small number were led away by a genuine
feeling of enthusiasm; many felt themselves bound to leave,
owing to a point of honor which they obeyed without reasoning
it out; the mass thought it was the fashion, and that it
looked well; all, or almost all, were carried away by
expectations encouraged by the wildest of letters, and by the
plotting of a few ambitious folk, who were under the
impression that they were building up their fortunes."
_Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
pages 64-66._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August).
The Night of Sacrifices.
The sweeping out of Feudalism.
"What was the Assembly doing at this period, when Paris was
waiting in expectation, and the capture of the Bastille was
being imitated all over France; when châteaux were burning,
and nobles flying into exile; when there was positive civil
war in many a district, and anarchy in every province? Why,
the Assembly was discussing whether or not the new
constitution of France should be prefaced by a Declaration of
the Rights of Man. In the discussion of this extremely
important question were wasted the precious days which
followed July 17. ... The complacency of these theorists was
rudely shaken on August 4, when Salomon read to the Assembly
the report of the Comité des Recherches, or Committee of
Researches, on the state of France. A terrible report it was.
Châteaux burning here and there; millers hung; tax-gatherers
drowned; the warehouses and depots of the gabelle burnt;
everywhere rioting, and nowhere peace. ... Among those who
listened to the clear and forcible report of Salomon were
certain of the young liberal noblesse who had just been dining
with the Duc de la Roehefoucauld-Liancourt, a wise and
enlightened nobleman. At their head was the Vicomte de
Noailles, a young man of thirty-three, who had distinguished
himself at the head of his regiment under his cousin,
Lafayette, in America. ... The Vicomte de Noailles was the
first to rush to the tribune. 'What is the cause of the evil
which is agitating the provinces?' he cried; and then he
showed that it arose from the uncertainty under which the
people dwelt, as to whether or not the old feudal bonds under
which they had so long lived and laboured were to be
perpetuated or abolished, and concluded an impassioned speech
by proposing to abolish them at once. One after another the
young liberal noblemen, and then certain deputies of the tiers
état, followed him with fresh sacrifices. First the old feudal
rights were abolished; then the rights of the dovecote and the
game laws; then the old copyhold services; then the tithes
paid to the Church, in spite of a protest from Siéyès; then
the rights of certain cities over their immediate suburbs and
rural districts were sacrificed; and the contention during
that feverish night was rather to remember something or other
to sacrifice than to suggest the expediency of maintaining
anything which was established. In its generosity the Assembly
even gave away what did not belong to it. The old dues paid to
the pope were abolished, and it was even declared that the
territory of Avignon, which had belonged to the pope since the
Middle Ages, should be united to France if it liked; and the
sitting closed with a unanimous decree that a statue should be
erected to Louis XVI., 'the restorer of French liberty.' Well
might Mirabeau define the night of August 4 as a mere 'orgie.'
... Noble indeed were the intentions of the deputies. ...
{1265}
Yet the results of this night of sacrifices were bad rather
than good. As Mirabeau pointed out, the people of France were
told that all the feudal rights, dues, and tithes had been
abolished that evening, but they were not told at the same
time that there must be taxes and other burdens to take their
place. It was of no use to issue a provisional order that all
rights, dues, and taxes remained in force for the present,
because the poor peasant would refuse to pay what was illegal,
and would not understand the political necessity of supporting
the revenue. ... This ill-considered mass of resolutions was
what was thrown in the face of France in a state of anarchy to
restore it to a state of order."
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution,
(American edition), volume 1, pages 81-84.
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August-October).
Constitution-making and the Rights of Man.
The first emigration of nobles.
Famine in Paris.
Rumors of an intended flight of the King.
"One may look upon the peculiarity of the Assembly as being a
singular faith in the power of ideas. That was its greatness.
It firmly believed that truth shaped into laws would be
invincible. Two months--such was the calculation--would
suffice to construct the constitution. That constitution by
its omnipotent virtue would convince all men and bend them to
its authority, and the revolution would be completed. Such was
the faith of the National Assembly. The attitude of the people
was so menacing that many of the courtiers fled. Thus
commenced the first emigration. ... As if the minds of men
were not sufficiently agitated, there now were heard cries of
a great conspiracy of the aristocrats. The papers announced
that a plot had been discovered which was to have delivered
Brest to the English. Brest, the naval arsenal, wherein France
for whole centuries had expended her millions and her labours:
this given up to England! England would once more overrun France!
... It was amidst these cries of alarm--with on one hand the
emigration of the nobility, on the other the hunger of a
maddened people; with here an irresolute aristocracy, startled
at the audacity of the 'canaille,' and there a resolute
Assembly, prepared, at the hazard of their lives, to work out
the liberty of France; amidst reports of famine, of
insurrections, and wild disorders of all sorts, that we find
the National Assembly debating upon the rights of man,
discussing every article with metaphysical quibbling and
wearisome fluency, and, having finally settled each article,
making their famous Declaration. This Declaration, which was
solemnly adopted by the Assembly, on the 18th of August, was
the product of a whole century of philosophical speculation,
fixed and reduced to formulas, and bearing unmistakeable
traces of Rousseau. It declared the original equality of
mankind, and that the ends of social union are liberty,
property, security, and resistance to oppression. It declared
that sovereignty resides in the nation, from whence all power
emanates; that freedom consists in doing everything which does
not injure another; that law is the expression of the general
will; that public burdens should be borne by all the members
of the state in proportion to their fortunes; that the
elective franchise should be extended to all; that the
exercise of natural rights has no other limit than their
interference with the rights of others; that no man should be
persecuted for his religious opinions, provided he conform to
the laws and do not disturb the religion of the state; that
all men have the right of quitting the state in which they
were born, and of choosing another country, by renouncing
their rights of citizenship; that the liberty of the press is
the foremost support of public liberty, and the law should
maintain it, at the same time punishing those who abuse it by
distributing seditious discourses, or calumnies against
individuals." Having adopted its Declaration of the rights of
man, the Assembly proceeded to the drawing up of a
constitution which should embody the principles of the
Declaration, and soon found itself in passionate debate upon
the relations to be established between the national
legislature and the king. Should the king retain a veto upon
legislation? Should he have any voice in the making of laws?
"The lovers of England and the English constitution all voted
in favour of the veto. Even Mirabeau was for it." Robespierre,
just coming into notice, bore a prominent part in the
opposition. "The majority of the Assembly shared Robespierre's
views; and the King's counselors were at length forced to
propose a compromise in the shape of a suspensive veto;
namely, that the King should not have the absolute right of
preventing any law, but only the right of suspending it for
two, four, or six years. ... It was carried by a large
majority." Meantime, in Paris, "vast and incalculable was the
misery: crowds of peruke-makers, tailors, and shoemakers, were
wont to assemble at the Louvre and in the Champs Elysées,
demanding things impossible to be granted; demanding that the
old regulations should be maintained, and that new ones should
be made; demanding that the rate of daily wages should be
fixed; demanding ... that all the Savoyards in the country
should be sent away, and only Frenchmen employed. The bakers'
shops were besieged, as early as five o'clock in the morning,
by hungry crowds who had to stand 'en queue'; happy when they
had money to purchase miserable bread, even in this
uncomfortable manner. ... Paris was living at the mercy of
chance: its subsistence dependent on some arrival or other:
dependent on a convoy from Beauce, or a boat from Corbeuil.
The city, at immense sacrifices, was obliged to lower the
price of bread: the consequence was that the population for
more than ten leagues round came to procure provisions at
Paris. The uncertainty of the morrow augmented the
difficulties. Everybody stored up, and concealed provisions.
The administration sent in every direction, and bought up
flour, by fair means, or by foul. It often happened that at
midnight there was but half the flour necessary for the
morning market. Provisioning Paris was a kind of war. The
National Guard was sent to protect each arrival; or to secure
certain purchases by force of arms. Speculators were afraid;
farmers would not thrash any longer; neither would the miller
grind. 'I used to see,' says Bailly, 'good tradesmen, mercers
and goldsmiths, praying to be admitted among the beggars
employed at Montmartre, in digging the ground.' Then came
fearful whispers of the King's intention to fly to Metz. What
will become of us if the King should fly? He must not fly; we
will have him here; here amongst us in Paris! This produced
the famous insurrection of women ... on the 5th October."
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapter 9._
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._
{1266}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
The Insurrection of Women.
Their march to Versailles.