Louis XVI., in 1789, was praised by the mass of the French nation as the
best of monarchs, and as the restorer of national liberties; his name was
coupled with that of Henry IV., a king about whom tradition had thrown a
halo of glory. But, on September 21, 1792, the newly-chosen Convention
abolished the monarchy. So rapid is the transition from the one phase of
the national feeling to the other, that it occasions a surmise either
that the professed loyalty to the monarch in 1789 was not sincere,
or that the action of the Convention was the work of a coterie of
radicals, who misrepresented the popular feeling. A review of the period
intervening between 1789 and 1792 shows that both of these suppositions
are unwarranted, and confirms the conclusion that there was a progressive
development of hostility, first to Louis XVI. and the royal family, and
then to the monarchical government.
Previous to 1789, the term _Republic_ is used by French publicists or
agitators, but it is either in a sense so qualified as to be consistent
with the monarchy, or as a form of government unsuited to France with
its actual traditions and conditions.[93] The very nearly unanimous
feeling and judgment in 1789 was that the monarchy was the best form of
government for France, and that the chief need was to regenerate it.
We have said that one hundred and ninety-four _cahiers_ specifically
asked for the retention of the monarchy; the silence of the others upon
this question must not be construed to mean that their authors were
indifferent or opposed to the monarchy, but rather that they believed it
unnecessary to ask for what they already had, and against which there
was no strong movement. As Paris may rightly be considered the source of
the anti-monarchical agitation, the attitude of the third estate in this
city at the opening of the Revolution may justly be taken to represent
the feeling of the radical element toward the monarchy. In their _cahier_
they said: “In the French monarchy, the legislative power belongs to
the nation conjointly with the king; to the king alone belongs the
executive power.”[94] The _sub-cahiers_ from the districts of the city
expressed the same idea.[95] In truth, in not a single _cahier_ examined
do we find a hint of any opposition to the monarchy. Hence, it is to be
inferred that, if any individuals had Republican inclinations, these
inclinations were not shared by any appreciable part of the nation. A few
men of the reform party, Lauragnais, Lally-Tollendal, and Montlosier,
ventured to say that the French monarchy had originally been elective
and that the elective monarchy would consequently be not an innovation,
but a restoration of their early system;[96] but the adherence of these
men to the monarchy in the early days of the _Constituent Assembly_ is
conclusive that by the elective monarchy they did not mean the Republic
of 1792.
The Constituent Assembly, having been formed out of the States General,
had to formulate a constitution for the regeneration of France, and was
obliged, therefore, to specify the divisions of government, designate
the organs and the functions of each division, prescribe their powers,
limitations, sources and transmission; hence the debates and decrees of
this national body may be taken as indicative of the public sentiment
toward the monarch. Here may be traced the changes worked in the public
mind, the censure or the eulogy of persons and institutions. As this
national assembly itself became transformed by the withdrawal of the more
conservative elements, it reflected rather faithfully the change that was
taking place in the minds of the radical classes of France.
This Assembly frequently gave expression of its satisfaction with the
monarch and with the monarchy. Near the close of the famous session of
August 4, 1789, when feudalism had been so enthusiastically renounced
by its own favored sons, M. Lally-Tollendal proposed that they should
proclaim “Louis XVI. the Restorer of French liberty.” “The proclamation,”
we are told, “was made immediately by the deputies, by the people, and
by all those who were present, and the National Assembly resounded for
a quarter of an hour with the cries ‘_Vive le roi; vive Louis XVI.,
restaurateur de la liberté française_.’”[97] As early as July 4, 1789,
Gouverneur Morris, a careful observer of the French spirit and movements,
wrote: “They wish an American Constitution, with a king in the place of
a president.”[98] On August 28, 1789, Mounier presented a project of the
monarchical element of the Constitution, and a member made the following
statement, the verity of which was not disputed: “Here we should reflect
upon the national spirit. For fourteen centuries the French, free to
direct themselves by the republican spirit, preferred the peacefulness
of the monarchic government to the storms of a republican government....
Louis XVI. is no more upon the throne by the chance of birth, he is
there by the choice of the nation; it has raised him there, as formerly
our brave ancestors raised Pharamond upon the shield. No one contests
the monarchical government. All the _cahiers_ are certainly clear ... we
cannot avoid the conclusion, the only government which is suitable to our
manners (_moeurs_), to our climate, to the extent of our provinces, is
the monarchical government.”[99] Other speeches made on the same occasion
are indicative of the strong monarchical spirit that possessed the
Assembly at this stage of its history.
Twenty days later, M. de Baron de Juigne proposed to consecrate the
principles of the heredity of the crown and the inviolability of the
king’s person. Scarcely were these principles announced, than the
Assembly proclaimed them by an unanimous movement.[100] These principles
were embodied in the decree of September 17, 1789.[101]
From these citations, we are warranted in the inference that the members
of the Constituent Assembly in its earlier period regarded the monarchy
as the natural and the most suitable form of government for France. On
the question of the division of powers, the number of chambers, the
elective or hereditary kingship, the absolute or limited veto, there were
differences of opinion; but national tradition and personal attachment
to Louis XVI. were of sufficient force to bar any discussion of other
possible forms for the executive branch.
The first strong manifestation of personal displeasure toward the king
reflected in the Assembly, was aroused by his attempt to escape from the
country with the royal family, on June 20 and 21, 1791. Fearing to be
held longer as a hostage by the revolutionary party and to be supplanted
by the invading _émigrés_, the king with his family sought to reach
the eastern frontier and there to be free to act independently of both
factions; but at Varennes he was arrested and brought back to face the
enraged Parisians. It is then that words of displeasure were first heard
in the Assembly. What shall be done with the royal fugitive? was then the
living question. Some contended that he was inviolable and could not be
called to account; others, that his inviolability extended only to public
actions, not to private; while still others maintained that he had, by
his treason, forfeited his inviolability. The agitation which reigned
without found some expression within the Assembly. A committee reported,
July 13, that the flight of the king was not a constitutional offense,
that the principle of inviolability did not permit Louis XVI. to be put
on trial. For three days the discussion over the king’s inviolability
was carried on. Pétion, Putraink, Vadier, Robespierre, Prieur, Grégoire,
Buzot spoke against, and Larochefoucault, Liancourt, Prugnon, Duport,
Goupil de Prefeln, Salles and Barnave for the inviolability. Only
Condorcet attempted to show the fitness of France for a Republic.[102]
The people were astir without; they met on the squares, in the public
places, crowded around the Assembly, and urged the dethronement of the
king or the reference of the question to the people of the eighty-three
departments. Petitions, posters, and ardent declamations were instruments
by which the radicals sought to turn public opinion their way.[103] On
July 16, 1791, a decree of the Assembly defined the acts whereby the
king should be considered as no longer inviolable. Should he, having
taken the oath to the Constitution, violate it: or should he put himself
at the head of an army against the nation, or should he fail to oppose
such an act on the part of his generals, he should be considered to have
abdicated, and might be brought to trial like any ordinary citizen. His
executive functions, suspended June 25, were not to be restored till the
completion of the Constitution.[104]
The Constitution was completed and reviewed, and on September 14, 1791,
the king went to the Constituent Assembly, accepted the Constitution,
and, amid prolonged applause, subscribed to this new instrument that
was to give liberty to France. He was escorted back to the Tuileries
by the entire Assembly. The flight of the monarch seemed forgotten or
forgiven.[105]
On September 30th, the monarch made the closing speech to the
Assembly and was greeted with repeated shouts of _Vive le Roi_. The
President responded to the royal speech by an eulogy upon the monarch
and a compliment upon the form of government inaugurated under the
Constitution.[106] Though the Constituent Assembly had not laid
sacrilegious hands upon the time-honored monarchy of France further
than to divest it of some of its privileges and prerogatives, though
the storm of displeasure, incurred by the ill-advised flight of June
20th, had apparently subsided and the Assembly and the king had
exchanged expressions of mutual esteem, and had sworn to preserve the
great document so laboriously wrought out by the French Lycurguses, yet
the leaven had been engendered which, under favorable circumstances,
would leaven the whole lump and transform the limited monarchy into a
republic. Ideas have their origin in individual minds, are advocated
by these individuals, and by and by the nucleus of devotees has grown
into a party that serves as an organ of propagation and makes use of
the instrumentalities of their age for the dissemination of their
views and for the moulding of public opinion into conformity thereto.
If the conditions are favorable, the new ideas secure acceptance and
are embodied in institutions; but if the conditions are hostile, the
conceptions are rejected and relegated to that vast repository where
are accumulated the world’s Utopias; thence some ardent soul may bring
forward the idea at a time which is propitious, and the Utopia may become
a practical reality. It is our task to endeavor to discover the notion
of a republic for France as it was conceived and promulgated by those
individuals who may be called the precursors of French republicanism, to
trace the formation of an organic body for its promulgation, and to find
the means used in the formation of a public opinion sufficiently strong
to secure the adoption of the Republic of 1792.
There were already in 1789 a few ardent natures enthusiastic over the
transformation to be wrought in France, who harbored a vague desire to
see the monarchy abolished and a more liberal government instituted.
Whence had come this hazy notion which wrought up their feelings may only
be conjectured. Perhaps the classic studies upon which the Jesuits and
Oratorians nourished their pupils had made them familiar with the Greek
and Roman Republics.[107] Either the Social Contract, or the example of
the American colonies, may have given them their republican notions.
Camille Desmoulins, an ardent, impetuous son of liberty, gave unequivocal
expression of republican sentiments as early as 1789, and even asserted
that the republican form of government was best suited for France.[108]
In May, 1793, in two addresses, made in answer to Brissot, he confirms
his early preference for republicanism. He said: “In the month of July,
1789, the number of Republicans in Paris did not probably exceed ten:
and this it is which crowns with eternal glory those old members of the
_Club of Cordeliers_, who began building the edifice of the republic with
such slight materials.”[109] In June, 1790, he used the term Congress
of the Republic of France in speaking of the Constituent Assembly,
and said that only four republicans had had the courage to resist the
royal budget of 25,000,000 voted upon in the Assembly. Again in the
Jacobin Club, October 21, 1791, at the time when France was big with
hope that the new Constitution would work, Desmoulins pointed out its
imperfections and favored republican institutions. Here then was one
mind already thinking of a republic and claiming that in the _Cordelier
Club_ there were others who, at that early period, shared his opinions.
Who these were he does not say.[110] The district of the city called
the Cordeliers had formed a popular society which manifested a severely
critical spirit toward the monarchical and aristocratic legislation.
This district clamored for liberty of the press,[111] and championed the
political rights of passive citizens.[112] It took the side of the sixty
districts which kept up their popular electoral assemblies and which
continued to meet in the interim of elections, as against the forty-eight
sections, which convened only for elections. The ardent opposition of the
Cordeliers to the Assembly and to the municipality doubtless provoked the
enactment of the law which, on May 27, 1790, transformed these districts
into the sections.[113] Then forming the _Club of Cordeliers, the Society
of the Rights of Man and of Citizens_, this district continued its
policy of aggression upon the conservatives, until their more democratic
programme became an accomplished fact. Here then was a company of men,
having a common interest in extreme radicalism, meeting frequently and
fanning into fuller heat by their addresses the embers of opposition.
This society, anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchical, occasionally uttered
republican sentiments and indulged in the word republic. They remarked
the inconsistency between the principles contained in the Declaration of
the Rights of Man and an hereditary monarchy, resting upon the divine
right of kings.[114] On June 22, 1791, the _Club of Cordeliers_ issued
an address to the Assembly showing its republican proclivities, much
to the displeasure of the Jacobins. They said: “We conjure you, in the
name of the country, either to declare immediately that France is no
more a monarchy, that it is a republic, or at least to wait until all
the departments, until all the primary assemblies, have expressed their
wish upon this important question, before thinking of replacing a second
time the most fair Empire of the world in chains and in the limits of
monarchism.”[115] The flight of the king was the occasion that called
for this expression of animosity to the monarchy and the preference for
a republic. Even before the attempted escape, another newspaper had
joined with Desmoulins in his strong anti-monarchical views and in the
suggestion of a more suitable form of government for France. Prudhomme,
the publisher of booklets and pamphlets of the liberal party previous
to, and during the Revolution, had established a paper devoted to the
new ideas, the _Révolutions de Paris_. The experienced publisher had
discovered the practical sagacity and the sincere democratic proclivities
of a young advocate from Bourdeaux, recently come to Paris, Loustallot,
who had already in 1789 proved himself a good pamphleteer for the
reformers. These two men began the issue of their sheet July 12, 1789. In
its earlier numbers the slavery of the Frenchmen to the aristocracy was
bitterly censured, but the king is not treated so much with hostility as
with pity for his weakness.[116] Whether Loustallot would have continued
to advocate liberal monarchical views had he lived,[117] we shall not
venture to say; but in the spring of 1791,[118] the paper had changed its
spirit toward the king. The issue of April 21-30 gave notice of a decree
proposed to the National Assembly advocating the abolition of royalty.
After citing a long list of considerations, chiefly of the evils of kings
and of the inconsistency of such an institution with the _rights of man_,
twenty-one articles were given proposing the abolition of royalty and the
substitution of a President.[119] Subsequent numbers continued to discuss
favorably the abolition of the monarchy. In No. 91 a letter was printed
which suggested the placing of a ballot-box in each of the churches to
receive the vote of the people upon the question at issue. The writer
shows himself friendly to the change. Another friend of the proposal,
in a letter printed in No. 92[120], opposed this mode of voting, lest
the monarchists should take advantage of it. Instead, he proposed that
the vote should be collected _viva voce_, a list made of those voting;
this list should be sent to the Assembly, yet care should be taken to
keep a duplicate in order to avoid any surprise. No. 96 contained an
article upon “The White Elephant,” advocating, in a facetious manner,
similar ideas. The same number entered into an examination of these
three propositions, the first two of which it decided affirmatively,
the last one negatively. I. Whether the elements and the principles
of our Constitution are not in continual opposition to the form of our
government. II. Whether every hereditary delegation is not a violation of
rights and a contradiction in principles. III. Whether the illustrious
citizen of Geneva is mistaken when he says that the monarchy is a
government contrary to nature.
But the most venomous assault upon the king and upon royalty appeared in
the number of June 18-25, which reported the king’s flight. Denunciatory
epithets were heaped upon the faithless monarch. “Julius Cæsar,
poigniarded by the Romans; Charles I., decapitated by the English,
were innocent, if we compare them to Louis XVI.... If the President
of the National Assembly had put to vote upon the question whether we
should have a republican form of government, in the _Place de Grève_,
in the Garden of Tuileries and in the Palace of Orléans, France would
no more be a monarchy.” Such were some of the contents of this liberal
Parisian paper.[121] The next issue (No. 103) found fault with the
National Assembly for not dealing severely with the king, and said that,
inasmuch as war would come anyway, it had better come under a republic
than under a monarch or a regent. Here also appeared an announcement
of the propagandism of liberty, of which the Girondists spoke so
enthusiastically a year later.[122] A few numbers later, an article
censured the indifference of the people in regard to the elections for
the coming Legislative Assembly, saying that upon the composition of this
body would depend the safety of the republic. The Constituent Assembly
is not spared criticism for making the Constitution unalterable by
the Legislative Assembly.[123] In subsequent numbers of the autumn of
1791, the monarchical features of the Constitution were pointed out and
criticised.[124] Later on, the republic was mentioned less frequently,
nevertheless royalty was still attacked. The issue which gave an account
of the events of August 10, 1792, the determination of the Legislative
Assembly to suspend the king and to call a National Convention to
determine the nature of the executive office, referred to the king as
“Louis XVI., whom we shall call no more the king of the French.” The
number following advised the members of the convention that their first
work should be to dethrone the monarch, but a republic was not explicitly
recommended.[125] That this paper exercised considerable influence in
arousing hostility to the king and to the monarchy, and in suggesting
a republic, seems quite reasonable, when we remember that its weekly
circulation reached nearly two hundred thousand copies.[126]
We have deemed it advisable to follow the _Révolutions de Paris_ through
to the proclamation of the republic, in order to give a connected account
of the direction in which this popular publication attempted to sway
public opinion. Having noted that its positive republicanism was manifest
in April, two months before Louis XVI’s unsuccessful attempt at exodus,
we shall endeavor to see what was the strength which this party possessed
in the summer of 1791.
Bonneville’s paper, _Bouche de fer_, in June, 1791, pronounced against a
monarchy, a protectorate, and a regency, and urged an united declaration
to the effect that they wanted no more of these.[127] A placard was
posted at the door of the Assembly, July 1st, announcing that a society
of republicans had resolved to publish a paper, _Le Republican_, for
pointing out the abuses of monarchy and for enlightening the minds of the
people upon republicanism. This was signed by Duchastellet.[128] A few
copies of this paper were published within this month.[129] Montlosier
mentions the existence of a republican party after the flight of the
king,[130] and Gouverneur Morris wrote, July 13, 1791, what confirms the
same fact. Here is what he said: “This step was a very foolish one....
His departure changed everything, and now the general wish seems to be
for a republic, which is quite in the natural order of things.”[131]
On the eve of the convening of the Legislative Assembly, September 30,
1791, Morris wrote to Washington the following explicit observations
upon the status of the republican movement: “The new Assembly, as far
as can at present be determined, is deeply imbued with republican or,
rather, democratic principles. The southern part of the kingdom is in the
same disposition; the eastern is attached to Germany and would gladly
be united to the empire; Normandy is aristocratical, and so is part of
Brittany; the interior part of the kingdom is monarchal. This map is
(you may rely on it) just, for it is the result of great and expensive
investigation made by the Government.”[132] Brissot’s paper, _Patriote
français_, of June 25, 1791, in analyzing the proposals then made for
the executive department of the government, said: “The first opinion
which has been presented to the public is decisive,—No more kings, let
us be republicans,—such has been the cry of the Palais Royal, of some
societies, of some writers.”[133] Thomas Paine’s letter in response to
Siéyès, published in the _Patriote français_, July 11, declares the
American system of government superior to every other, and closes the
letter with these suggestive words: “Enfin c’est à tout l’enfer de la
monarchie que j’ai déclaré la guerre.”[134]
From these accumulated statements, we infer that about Paris, in the
spring of 1791, especially after the 20th of June, there was much
agitation in favor of the dethronement of Louis XVI, some for the
change of the royal family, and a perceptible tendency in favor of a
republic. After the acceptance of the Constitution by the king and by
the Legislative Assembly, the constitutional question of the kingship
is little discussed till in the summer of 1792. Then the Legislative
Assembly was frightened over the defeat of the French army at Lille
and at Tournay, the disastrous defeat of Biron’s army at Mons, and the
probable advance of the Austrian army upon Paris. The king, following
the advice of Montmorin and Malouet, had sent Mallet du Pan on a mission
to the German courts to secure a manifesto of intimidation against the
factious Frenchmen.[135] The _Austrian committee_ was denounced boldly in
the journals and in the Assembly.[136]
Incited by this array of reverses, royal intrigues, and threatened
invasion, the Assembly passed three decrees for the protection of the
country: May 27, the deportation of the non-juring priests; May 29,
the dismissal of the king’s guard; June 8, the formation of a camp of
20,000 fédérés at Paris. The king opposed his veto to the first and last
of these. The Girondin ministry was dismissed early in June.[137] The
invasion of the Tuileries, June 20, was the result of these aggravations.
The petition presented to the Legislative Assembly by the crowd on
that day does not solicit the establishment of a republic, but urges
that the king should fulfill his constitutional function of protecting
liberty.[138] The king continued to be disturbed by the people. The
manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick, July 27, greatly excited the
Parisians, already much aroused. Then from the sections of Paris, from
administrative bodies, and from communes, addresses were sent in asking
for the suspension or the dethronement of the king.[139] The significant
fact about this outcry for the removal of Louis is the silence about what
is to supersede him. The _commune_ representing the forty-eight sections
of Paris, through Pétion, presented at the bar of the Assembly, August 3,
a petition most vehement in its denunciation of the faithless monarch and
most startling in the picture presented of the country’s danger; but this
_commune_, the most radical, perhaps, in France, invoked the Constitution
in praying for his dethronement.[140]
The Legislative Assembly hesitated to take upon itself the work of
deposition. The sections gave it till midnight of the 9th of August to
decide; if at that time the dethronement had not been voted, the tocsin
should sound and the _générale_ should beat for the insurrection. The
Assembly adjourned at 7 o’clock without deciding the question. The 10th
of August the King was driven from the Tuileries, and took refuge in the
Assembly. Even then the legislators only suspended the King until “the
National Convention should pronounce upon the measures which it believes
ought to be adopted for assuring the sovereignty of the people and the
reign of liberty and equality.”[141]
August 11, the Assembly provided for the mode of election for the members
of the new Convention, and gave universal suffrage to males over 21
years. Did it ask that the delegates should be instructed to vote for
the monarchy or the republic? No; but they were to be given “unlimited
confidence.”[142] M. Aulard has analyzed for us the powers given by the
primary assemblies to the electoral assemblies of the Departments and by
the latter to the deputies. He notes that almost universally the primary
assemblies conformed to the advice to grant unlimited powers to the
departmental electors. At the final election of deputies, September 2,
in thirty-four Departments the electors made no allusion to what powers
should be bestowed upon their representatives; in thirty-six they gave
them “unlimited powers” or “unlimited confidence;” in two Departments,
the Lower Pyrenees and Somme, the previous question was raised upon the
powers to be given; in a single one (Charente) they gave as mandate
the oath taken by the electors, “to maintain equality and liberty.” In
three Departments, Aisne, Eure-et-Soir, and Paris, they gave full powers
with the restriction that the constitutional laws to be made shall be
submitted to the ratification of the people. Thus all either “inscribed
the formula prescribed by the Legislature or omitted it as useless and
self-evident.”
Shall there be a monarchy or a republic? What was the voice of the
departments upon this question? Only one out of the eighty-three
Departments expressed a clear demand upon this point. This one, that
which includes Paris, asked for “the form of a republican government.”
In the other eighty-two the word republic was not pronounced. One
Department, Jura, however, attempted to define in rather express terms
the sort of government to be formed, “A temporary executive power,
removable at the option of the people,” but it does not use the term
_republic_.[143] Four Departments were pronounced against royalty, and
swore eternal hostility thereto; these were Aube, Charente-Inférieure,
Jura, and Paris. No Department asked the continuance of the monarchy,
and only a few primary assemblies asked this. These assemblies were in
four Departments, _i. e._, five in Allier, one in Ariége, three in the
Gironde, and two in Lot-et-Garonne.
If we examine the proceedings of the Jacobin Club, we find that
this society was devoted for some time to the King and to the
constitution.[144] No bitter opposition to the monarch is found till
after June 20, 1791. Then it was his violation of the constitution that
caused his denunciation. After the two famous vetoes, a member proposed
in the Club that they make use of Art. vi, Sec. 10, Chapt. 2, of the
Constitution, “If the King puts himself at the head of an army and
directs the forces against the nation ... he will be considered to have
abdicated royalty.”[145] The printing of this discourse was urged on all
hands. The Club frequently mentioned the calling of a convention. Its
sympathy with the work of August 10 is evident,[146] and its hostility to
the monarchy is more pronounced from this period.[147]
A definite suggestion of the constructive scheme was made in the Club,
September 7; Chabot introduced the discussion of the form of government,
and referred to two kinds, (1) the federation of the departments, and
(2) a National Council, which should be presided over in turn by one
of the deputies of one of the portions of the empire. Chabot favored
the latter.[148] Again returning to the same question, September 10,
Terrasson pronounced a preference for the federation, and cited Rousseau
as his authority and America for a successful example.[149] Two days
after, September 12, a letter was proposed and was adopted in the
Jacobin Club of Paris, to be sent to the affiliated societies. In it
were contained these three proposals, which may be regarded as setting
forth the policy of the democratic party of Paris; the popular sanction
or popular revision of all the constitutional decrees of the National
Convention; the total abolition of royalty, and the penalty of death
against those who proposed to re-establish it; the _republican form of
government_.[150]
The significance of this movement on the part of the parent Jacobin Club
must not be overlooked in tracing the progress of republicanism. The
affiliation of well nigh a thousand societies in other parts of France
with the parent society afforded a strong and thoroughly organized
means for concerted political action.[151] The nominees of the popular
societies were nearly everywhere chosen to represent the provinces
in the Convention.[152] In the list of deputies from Paris appeared
the names of pronounced republicans and radical Jacobins who might be
expected to take a stand for a popular form of government.[153]
The Convention held its first meeting in the Tuileries; only 371 members
were present. They verified their powers, organized by choosing Pétion as
President, and by naming five Secretaries. September 21, they occupied
the place of the Legislative Assembly in the Riding School. Here they had
declared in favor of the following measures suitable for allaying the
fears of disorder: (1) The National Convention declares that there can
only be a constitution when it is accepted by the people; (2) that the
security of person and of property is under the safeguard of the nation;
(3) that all laws not abrogated, and all powers not revoked or suspended
are maintained; (4) that the existing taxes shall be collected as in the
past.
This effected, they were about to adjourn, when Collot d’Herbois ascended
the tribune and said: “You have just passed a wise resolution, but there
is one which you can not put off till tomorrow, which you can not put off
till this evening, which you can not put off a single instant without
being unfaithful to the wish of the nation; that is the abolition of
royalty.” Unanimous applause greeted this speech. M. Grégoire proposed
that “by a solemn law they sanction the abolition of royalty,” and
the entire Assembly by a spontaneous movement arose and voted this
proclamation by acclamation; a brief discussion followed, and then with
loud bursts of applause they voted, “The National Convention decrees
that royalty is abolished in France.” For some time the cry “_Vive la
Nation_” was prolonged. At this juncture a company of 150 _chasseurs_
were admitted to the hall and swore upon their arms to return only after
having triumphed over all the enemies of liberty and equality. But as yet
the word Republic had not been mentioned in the new Convention.
At the evening session of that day the time was consumed in hearing of
the discourses of divers deputations that had come to congratulate the
Convention upon the great work done that day. Two of these spoke of the
Republic as an already established fact,[154] while on the streets,
however, of the city the cry was resounding, “_Vive la République_.” One
orator spoke of nine battalions already sent to the front, and reported
that another was on the way. “They were coming,” he said, “to pray your
blessing upon their arms, when they learned on the way that they were
to fight no more for kings. They were happy to go to save the Republic.
When they were informed that all your moments must be consecrated to it,
they renounced the enjoyment of receiving your blessing and went on their
way. Our Department is busy forming new battalions, in seeking to arm
them, and especially in inspiring them with republican manners.” This was
greeted with new applause. The section of Quatre-Nations was represented
by its orator, who said among other things; “We have given three thousand
men for the frontier; these are three thousand republicans.... We ask to
defile through your midst. If arms are needed, speak, we shall hasten
to use them in the defense of the country, too happy to pay with our
blood for the Republic which you have decreed for us.” Applause greeted
this expression of devotion.[155] The newspapers signaled the decree of
abolition in enthusiastic descriptions, but only Brissot’s _Patriote
français_ proclaimed, “Royalty is abolished; France is a Republic.”[156]
On the morrow early in the session, Billaud-Varenne moved, and the
Convention decreed, that “all public acts were to be dated from the first
year of the Republic.” A new seal of State bearing the words “_République
de France_” decided upon and national colors were proposed, but not
adopted.[157] The journals took little notice of this new name with which
France had been baptized. Nevertheless, the members of the Convention
seemed to take it as a matter of course and to make repeated use of
the term Republic. For instance, on September 22, it appeared in the
following decree: “The National Convention decrees that the committees of
the legislative assembly and the members of the executive council shall
render an account to the National Convention of the state of their work
and of the condition of the different parts of the French Republic....”
The report of the Minister of the Interior, M. Gorsas, in the session of
September 23, contained this report of the state of public opinion: “The
will of the French is pronounced. Liberty and equality are their supreme
good; they will sacrifice all to preserve these. They have a horror for
the crimes of the nobles, the hypocrisy of the priests, the tyranny of
kings. Kings! they wish no more of them, they know that outside of a
Republic there is no liberty.” Again on September 24, the Convention
decreed “that there shall be named six commissioners charged with
rendering as full an account as shall be possible, of the present state
of the _Republic_ and that of Paris.” On September 25, the Convention
declared “the French Republic is one and indivisible.”[158]
Here we have passed to the period in which the Republic had become an
accepted fact for France. Robespierre said truly that it had “glided
in furtively among the factions,” and we may say that to Frenchmen,
interested in the national defence, it was a welcome change. Gouverneur
Morris is authority for this in a note of October, 1792, in which he
said: “These are the outlines made use of on either side to convince
the public that each is exclusively the author of a Republic which the
people find themselves possessed of by a kind of magic, or at least, a
sleight of hand, and which, nevertheless, they are as fond of as if it
were their own offspring.”[159]
It would be interesting to know how completely this Parisian enthusiasm
was shared by the nation. Grave objections may have been offered, but it
soon came about that to be disloyal to the Republic was to be a foe of
liberty and equality, and, worse yet, a traitor to France. So far as we
are able to discover, the army accepted the Republic with enthusiasm. On
September 9, General Valence wrote to Dumouriez _that he would run to the
Republic with transport_. Prieur (de la Marne) awakened enthusiasm in the
army of the Ardennes by announcing to them on September 29, the news of
the birth of the Republic.[160] And a report from the camp of volunteers
at Châlons speaks of a like worthy sentiment.[161]
These are the facts about the growth of republican ideas in Revolutionary
France and of the proclamation of the Republic. We can sum them up
as follows: At the meeting of the States-General in 1789 France was
pronouncedly monarchic. A little coterie of men became anti-monarchical;
these developed the Club of Cordeliers. In 1791, when Louis XVI showed
his distrust of the French people and tried to escape, hostility to the
monarch and also to the monarchy was strong. Even republicanism was
championed by an orator in the Assembly and by a few newspapers; one of
these journals, the _Révolutions de Paris_, had a large circulation. The
king however accepted the Constitution in September, 1791, and the outcry
against him and in favor of the abolition of the monarchy subsided. Not
until in the summer of 1792 did the royal vetoes, the menacing manifesto
of the allies, the actual advance of the Prussian army toward Paris,
call forth many petitions and requests for the suspension or for the
dethronement of the king, or for the abolition of the monarchy.
Comparatively little was said, however, about the form to be given to the
executive. On August 10, the Legislative Assembly only “suspended Louis
XVI provisionally, until the National Convention should pronounce upon
the measures it believed ought to be adopted for assuring the sovereignty
of the people and the reign of liberty and equality.” Clubs, sections,
journals, and provinces, and even radical democrats, are rather silent
about a substitute for the monarchy. When the abolition came on September
21, it was received as the news of a national victory; but at first the
term Republic, used on the 22nd, was little greeted by the nation. It
however became the shibboleth of the army and of the patriots. For this
revival of republicanism, Paris, and perhaps the army, are responsible.
The Jacobin Club of Paris also made use of its influential position to
encourage republican inclinations in the affiliated societies throughout
France, and, what was more important still, to secure the election of
anti-monarchical and of democratic deputies to the Convention.
A few questions remain to be answered. First among these is, What was
the relation between the republican movement of 1791 and that of 1792?
The earlier movement must have had a tendency to increase the number in
France who perceived the inconsistency between individual rights and
the equality of men on the one hand, and the hereditary kingship on the
other. It also increased the number of those who believed a republic
suited for France and who, though they recognized that the realization
of their opinions was for the time being impossible, yet were ready
to strive for its establishment when the circumstances should give
opportunity. To this group of men belongs the credit of having secured an
expression from Paris in favor of the Republic, and of having secured its
early recognition in the city on the abolition of royalty.
A second question is, Why was there so much said in 1792 about the
abolition of monarchy, and so little about the Republic that should
replace it? Why were those of republican preferences so slow to say
it? This may be answered by the statement that generally, in movements
depending upon public opinion, the people are more pronounced against
an abuse or misuse which they have experienced than about an untried
theory; are more capable to pronounce upon a destructive than upon a
constructive scheme, are more enlightened in their negative than in their
positive actions. The Constituent Assembly was happy in its negative
work of destroying the abuses of the old régime, but less felicitous
in its positive work of reconstruction. The French people of 1792 were
conversant with the vacillations of the king, the treasonable intrigues
and anti-popular feelings of the court, but a Republic was as yet an
untried and unproved expedient. Under its name anarchy, or, what to the
Parisians was little less odious, _federalism_, might become the order
of the day. Hence the very friends of a strong united Republic hesitated
to use the word till the form of the institution should be shaped by the
tendency of affairs. The very friends of Republican government might have
remembered that their use of the word Republic in 1791 had been fraught
with bitter schismatic tendencies among the friends of the Revolution;
and how much more dangerous such a schism in 1792, when the nation found
itself called upon to resist the humiliating invasion of its territory
by the allies. They also knew that to be a republican in 1791 had been
unpopular,[162] and were chary of exposing themselves to unnecessary
odium, knowing that the monarchy once abolished, they would be by
necessity under a liberal form of government, call it what they might.
A third query is, Why did the Conventionalists choose the republican
government? The question is easily answered by another question, _i.
e._, What other expedient was possible, considering the state of public
opinion? Was it an aristocracy? But the Revolution in its incipient
stages was a revolt against an aristocracy. Was it a regency? But here
the difficulty was to find a regent who did not share the obloquy of
the dethroned monarch, or was not incapable of commanding the respect
of the nation. Was it under the protection of a foreign prince or
power? Not so; the spirit of national independence was too strong to
suffer even a dispassionate consideration of this. What way could the
Constitutionalists turn? Sorel has truly said: “The abolition of royalty
was the acknowledgment of a fact; the proclamation of the Republic was
the recognition of a necessity. A government was necessary to France,
and no other than a republican government was possible.”[163] And the
Republic had existed in fact in France for two short, but very critical
periods. From June 21 to September 14, 1791, the king had been suspended
and the Constituent Assembly had conducted through the ministry the work
of the executive. And again from August 10 to September 21, 1792, the
same expedient was resorted to. But it may be said that the Republic was
not in accord with French national traditions, and that, therefore, it
could never be accepted by the nation. True, France had been a monarchy
for centuries, and the history of her kings was dear to the people in
1789; but there was a stronger tradition to which the people were more
devotedly attached than to royalty, and now the king had forced the issue
between these two traditions, that is, the tradition of the monarchy and
the tradition of nationality and independence. So soon as it seemed clear
that the French must choose between these, the choice was made by the
abolition of royalty.
Royalty was thus abolished on September 21, 1792: the republic was
recognized by the Convention as its legitimate successor. The name had
been adopted, now a new constitution was necessary; not one like that of
1791, a base accommodation of hereditary powers and democratic rights;
but one consistently constructed. The Convention early appointed its
Committee of Constitution. The leader in the committee was Condorcet,
and the majority were Girondists. Their work was ready to be reported
February 15 and 16, 1793. But by this time the republicans themselves had
formed two antagonistic factions, the Girondists and the Montagnards. The
latter were the men of action, and now held the power in the Convention.
Condorcet’s Constitution was not submitted to the nation.
On May 30, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was augmented by five
members. These were Couthon, Herault de Séchelles, Mathieu, Ramel, and
Saint Just. They lost no time in the elaboration of a Constitution, and
by June 22, were ready to report. Herault de Séchelles made the final
reading June 24. Delegates were sent all over France to receive the vote
of the primary assemblies for the acceptance of the Constitutional Act;
1,801,918 votes were cast for its adoption. Their glowing report was made
August 9th by Gossuin, and the next day was fixed as a national festival
“consecrated to the inauguration of the Constitution of the Republic.”
The artist, David, planned the ceremonies.
The glorious fundamental law was not, however, to reign in France. France
must be defended from invasion, civil war must be subdued, and then the
rest of Europe must be delivered from political slavery. In just two
months after this inaugural festival, the Convention decreed that the
provisional government should be revolutionary till peace. When peace
came, a new monarch was enthroned. But these enthusiastic men of 1792
and 1793 had given France a name and an ideal; they had placed above her
horizon a star of hope. When oppression shall make them weary, or when
the popular spirits shall rise, they shall think of a republic as the aim
and end of political effort.