THE ASSEMBLY AT VERSAILLES.
♦The King and the Revolution.♦
The States-General were opened by the King at Versailles amid a vast
concourse on May 5, 1789. There were about 1,200 deputies, of whom
about 300 represented the clergy, 300 the nobility, and the other
600 the Third Estate. If the King wished to retain the direction of
affairs, it was imperative for him at once to declare for a single
chamber. The privileged orders could but involve the crown in their
own ruin, whilst behind the deputies of the Third Estate was the
nation. Louis, however, was not prepared to accept the change which
the formation of a single chamber implied--the abolition of all class
distinctions, and the swamping of the nobles in the Third Estate.
Necker, though more alive to the necessity of seeking popular support,
had as little comprehension of the real situation in which the
government stood. He wanted ultimately to establish a constitution
with two houses, and regarded as the most pressing work of the moment
the restoration of the finances. He did not perceive that civil and
political equality was what the deputies of the Third Estate had set
their heart upon effecting; and that until they were convinced that
the government would be on their side, they would pay no attention to
mere financial or administrative reforms. At the opening of the States,
after speaking at length on the subject of the finances, Necker advised
the deputies to appoint commissioners to settle what questions they
would discuss in common session, and what as three separate bodies.
The intention of the Minister probably was that the deputies of the
three orders should sit and vote together only when financial and
administrative questions were under discussion. All other subjects were
to be debated by the three estates sitting apart; and in cases in which
they failed to come to an agreement, the final decision was to be left
to the King.
Experience, indeed, has been in favour of the belief that, in ordinary
times, it is expedient that legislative assemblies should be divided
into two chambers. But in 1789 the work before the States-General was
not one of ordinary legislation. No good could be accomplished until
the abolition of the privileged existence of nobles and clergy had
been effected; and as an upper chamber could at that time only be
composed of nobles and clergy, such a chamber was certain to thwart
the Third Estate in doing that which the nation expected them to do.
It was, therefore, the vainest hope that Necker’s policy should give
satisfaction to the country and enable the King to retain authority.
He could only obtain the leadership of the Assembly by declaring
unreservedly for a single chamber. But to adopt this course Louis
must have been other than he was. Though he wanted to overcome the
opposition of the privileged orders to the crown, he regarded their
existence as inseparable from the monarchy. He was unable to conceive a
monarchy founded on democratic institutions, and strong in proportion
to the trust reposed in it. Education, surroundings, habits, his sense
of duty itself forbade him to break loose from his past and accept the
position of the People’s King. Yet all vestiges of the old feudal order
were doomed to perish, whatever attitude Louis assumed; and it would
have been well, both for him and France, could he at once have resigned
power or been deposed. For if he refused to lead the attack upon the
privileged orders, it would be made with all the greater violence,
and government, in the true sense of the word, there would be none.
Already disorder and riot were rife in many parts of the country.
Peasants refused to pay taxes and feudal dues. Educated men cast
suspicion on the intentions of the government. Officials were powerless
to act with rigour in opposition to the current of public opinion.
Intense excitement everywhere prevailed. In every town and hamlet men
waited with eagerness for the speedy accomplishment of the desires
which had found expression in the _cahiers_ drawn up to be laid before
the States.
♦Mirabeau.♦
If Louis was unable to forecast the future, so too was the great mass
of his subjects. Amongst the throng of deputies who met together
at Versailles, there was but one, the Marquis of Mirabeau, who
comprehended the real meaning of the revolution, and foresaw with
accuracy the course which events would take. This remarkable man was
endowed by nature with enormous energy, mental and physical. While
still a youth, he had left his mark for good or for ill wherever he
went. He had incurred debts, fought duels, kept order amongst hungry
peasants, eating, drinking, and working with them, obtained the
good-will of men prejudiced against him, and won the hearts of women.
His father, according to the fashion of the time, supported paternal
authority by obtaining _lettres de cachet_ from the government,
ordering the imprisonment of his son. Mirabeau was imprisoned, now in
one fortress, now in another, for months at a time. In early manhood,
at the age of twenty-eight, he entered the donjon of Vincennes, a state
fortress, where he inhabited a dark, barely-furnished room, and had
converse with none but his gaoler. His offences against social order
had not been light, for he had deserted his own wife for the wife of
another man. But in his vices Mirabeau was but a type of the generation
to which he belonged, and the real ground of his imprisonment lay
elsewhere. Books and paper were as a favour allowed him. ‘Without
books,’ he wrote, ‘I should be dead or mad.’ He read and wrote for
fifteen hours out of the twenty-four. After a confinement of more
than three years, the quarrel between him and his father was patched
up. In 1780 he was released, broken in health, harassed by debts, and
blackened in fame, but possessed of a large store of knowledge, a ready
pen, a fluent tongue, and a genius for statesmanship which no man in
France could rival. Genius was, however, no ground for advancement.
A man who had sufficiently powerful interest at court might rise to
the highest dignities in Church or State, whatever his incapacity,
or whatever the stains on his past life. Mirabeau had no interest at
court, while by Louis and his councillors talent was distrusted, and
the one statesman that France possessed occupied the position of an
unscrupulous adventurer, seeking by whatever means came first to hand
to force his way into the ministry. It was no matter of surprise that
so signal a victim of arbitrary government should prove an inveterate
enemy to the existing order. But Mirabeau did not, through resentment
for personal injuries, desire to weaken or degrade the royal authority.
He possessed too strong a capacity for the exercise of power. He saw,
moreover, too directly into the heart of the situation. He comprehended
what no man but himself comprehended at that time, that the real aim
of the French people was the sweeping away of all class distinctions,
and that the monarchy might be immensely strong if only the King could
be brought to adopt new principles of government, in accordance with
the democratic spirit of the age. Had he been at the head of affairs
he would at once have summoned the States-General and led the way
in opening the attack upon the privileged orders. Excluded from all
share in the government, he revenged himself by attacking it on every
side. The proposition was made to him that he should employ his pen
to destroy the popularity of the Parliaments. ‘I will never,’ was
his reply, ‘make war upon the Parliaments except in presence of the
nation.’ The hesitating and shuffling policy of the ministers; their
vain attempts to effect reform through the royal power alone; their
efforts to avoid or defer the meeting of the States; and, finally,
their refusal, after being driven to call the nation to their aid, to
declare for a single chamber, excited his scorn and indignation. He had
not only the clear perception that in order to maintain the monarchy
the first thing to be done was to crush the privileged orders; he had
also the clear perception that the second thing, if indeed it was not
of equal importance, was the organisation of government, and that this
was impracticable so long as distrust existed between the crown and
the nation. When the elections were held, rejected by his own order,
he took his seat as representative of the Third Estate of Aix. At
Versailles he was the mark of all observers. The wildness of his youth,
his long imprisonment, his quarrels with his father, his lawsuits with
his wife, his writings, and his eloquence, had given him notoriety
throughout France. With the meeting of the States Mirabeau knew that
the opportunity had come of making his power felt. ‘At last,’ he said,
‘we shall have men judged by the value of their brains.’
♦Title of National Assembly adopted by the Third Estate.♦
The inevitable consequence of the King’s refusal to declare himself
against the privileged orders at once ensued. Disputes arose between
the deputies as to the form that the legislature should take. There was
a small minority of nobles for union, and a large minority of clergy,
composed almost entirely of parish priests, who had to choose between
alliance with the Third Estate and dependence on their ecclesiastical
superiors. The questions at stake were too vital for compromise to be
possible, and thus, while the people impatiently awaited redress of
grievances, the Third Estate refused to proceed to business until they
were joined by the other two. Political excitement grew greater amongst
the middle classes, irritation and discontent amongst the lower. The
winter had been one of the coldest and longest on record. The price of
bread was rising, and misery, which sufferers expected to vanish on the
first meeting of the Estates, was on the increase. It had always been
a difficult matter to prevent rioting at Paris in times of political
excitement or of scarcity, and now both causes combined to create
disorder. In the Faubourg St. Antoine and other poor quarters of the
city existed a population including great numbers of ruffians, beggars,
and destitute workmen, of whom many were strangers from the country,
largely brought to Paris by hope of finding bread or labour, and whose
passions might readily be worked on with dangerous effect; while
pamphleteers and street orators, without sense of responsibility, and
full of passionate desire to assure the triumph of the Third Estate,
did not measure their words in seeking to rouse popular indignation
against the upper orders. Deputies distinguished as opponents of union
were mobbed and hustled at Versailles, and their names held up to
execration in Paris. The attitude of the capital gave strength to the
deputies of the Third Estate, who finally cut the knot by adopting the
title of National Assembly, inviting nobles and clergy to join them,
and declaring their purpose of proceeding to business without those who
refused to do so (June 17).
♦Royal sitting of June 23.♦
The assumption of this title was held an act of usurpation by the
opponents of union. Court nobles and ecclesiastics appealed to the
King to maintain the authority of his crown by interfering in support
of their rights. The deputies of the Third Estate had, it was said,
grasped at sovereign power to which they had no claim. As yet there
had been no direct collision between the Crown and the deputies of the
Third Estate. The long inefficiency of the King had, indeed, destroyed
belief in the royal power as an instrument of government. Men believed
in themselves, and they believed in the nation. They demanded liberty
for individuals, and they demanded that the nation should govern
itself. Yet, however democratic were the theories that prevailed, the
great body of the French people was deeply attached to monarchy as a
form of government, and thoroughly loyal to the person of the King. If
desire for the establishment of a democratic constitution was intensely
strong, there appeared no other means in the first place of destroying
the upper orders; in the second, of preventing their resurrection. Had
Louis taken the side of the nation, he might, as Mirabeau foresaw, have
exercised immense influence over the course of affairs. If he refused,
nominal sovereignty would be left to him, but men would be careful
that he should have no real power in his hands. Louis was honestly
prepared to cede constitutional rights to the country, which should set
limits to the royal authority, and secure the persons and properties
of his subjects against arbitrary usage. But he would not, so far as
he could prevent it, suffer the abolition of class distinctions, or
allow the real governing power to pass from himself and his council to
the representatives of the nation. Thus, although the deputies of the
Third Estate sought to conceal the fact from themselves, they had to
contend against the Crown as well as against the nobility. Louis, in
alarm for his authority, now thought to maintain it by openly taking
the part of nobles and clergy. Marie Antoinette, less patient than
her husband, witnessed with extreme resentment and indignation the
conduct of the Third Estate. To excited courtiers it seemed as easy a
matter for the King to impose his will on the representatives of the
nation as it had been for his predecessors in times past to impose
theirs on the Parliament of Paris. It was determined that the King
should hold a royal sitting or séance, and declare his intentions to
the assembled Estates. Meanwhile the deputies of the Third Estate were
excluded from their hall on pretext that preparations had to be made
for the reception of the King. Fully expecting a dissolution, they
repaired to a neighbouring tennis court, where with one voice and
hands raised to the sky they swore an oath never to separate before
they had established constitutional government. There was a dense
crowd outside. All approaches to the court were blocked, and the one
deputy who refused to take the oath was with difficulty saved from
outrage (June 20). The cause of the upper orders was now weakened by
desertions from their ranks. A large number of curés as well as a few
nobles joined the deputies of the Third Estate. This in itself, had
Louis been well advised, might have warned him against the course that
he proposed to take. On June 23 he came in state to the hall, where the
whole body of deputies was by his injunction assembled. There, by the
mouths of his ministers, he told them that they were to meet as three
separate orders. With his consent first obtained, they might form one
assembly for the discussion of matters of common interest; from which,
however, all the burning questions of the day, ecclesiastical, social,
and constitutional, were expressly excepted. Necker, who disapproved
the arbitrary form in which the royal will was signified, saved his
popularity by refusing to be present on the occasion. Before retiring,
Louis ordered all to disperse and assemble next day in their separate
chambers. In case of disobedience he would undertake by himself to
secure the happiness of his subjects. ‘Seul,’ he said, ‘je ferai le
bien de mes peuples.’ After he had gone, most of the nobility and the
upper clergy left the hall; but the deputies of the Third Estate as
well as many curés kept their seats. The Master of the Ceremonies, De
Brézé, asked Bailly, the President, whether he had heard the orders of
the King. ‘Yes, sir, we have heard the orders put in the King’s mouth,’
retorted Mirabeau, in words repeated and applauded throughout France,
‘and let me inform you that if your business is to turn us out, you had
better ask orders to employ force, for we shall only quit our seats
at the bayonet’s point.’ Before dispersing the recalcitrants declared
their persons inviolable for all that they said or did as deputies.
♦Union of the three orders.♦
After this defiance of the royal authority, the Queen and the court
would gladly have obtained the dissolution of the States. Difficulties,
however, stood in the way. The financial embarrassments of the
Government were still unrelieved. Further, it was clearly impossible
for the King to cause his commands to be obeyed, unless he was prepared
to appeal to military force, and the consequences of so doing were
exceedingly doubtful. Class distinctions prevailed in the army as in
other institutions of the old system. The officers, who were all noble,
lived in luxury, largely on perquisites made at the men’s expense.
The men, cheated of their pay, badly fed, and subjected to a harsh
discipline, bitterly resented their wrongs, and despised and hated
their officers. If an attempt were made to use intimidation there was
great probability that resistance would be offered, that Paris would
rise, and that the troops would refuse to fire on the insurgents.
Louis was never willing to take decided action, and, for the time, the
deputies of the Third Estate were left in enjoyment of victory. The
King himself requested the nobles and ecclesiastics, who still kept
aloof, to abandon further struggle, and thus after a delay of seven
weeks the three Estates were finally constituted as one assembly.
♦Excitement in Paris.♦
The evil consequences of that delay were already but too plainly
apparent. Since the meeting of the Estates agitation in Paris had
spread from day to day. The Government, unable to use arbitrary and
violent means of obtaining order, could no longer effectively perform
its duties, because no trust was reposed in it. Political liberty
threatened to degenerate rapidly into anarchy. No moral restraints
existed amongst a people for centuries unaccustomed to self-government.
There was no political organisation, and no standard of political
morality. There were no recognised leaders weighted with a sense of
responsibility, nor journals with a character to maintain. Appeals were
made to the lowest passions, rumours and libels circulated without
question of their truth or justice. The fiercer and more bitter his
language, the more sure was the orator or journalist to gain a hearing
and exert influence.
In the garden, surrounded by book and coffee shops, which was
attached to the Palais Royal, a palace belonging to the Duke of
Orleans--who, although distantly related to the King, had taken the
popular side--agitators, mounted on chairs and tables, discoursed to
excited throngs on the sovereignty of the people, and denounced the
opponents of a single chamber to popular wrath. Here neither police
officers nor supporters of the claims of nobles and clergy could
enter except at peril of violent and brutal usage. This licence was
the more dangerous because the hard times made the people more ready
for the commission of criminal actions. Nevertheless, the tradesmen,
merchants, and other persons in the middle class of life, who
under ordinary circumstances are the first to feel the effects of mob
violence, regarded the designs of the court as far more dangerous than
the oratory of the Palais Royal. For while the court demanded the
maintenance of class distinctions, the demagogues of the Palais Royal
demanded their abolition, guaranteed by the establishment of a free and
democratic constitution.
[Illustration: REVOLUTIONARY PARIS
_Longmans, Green & Co. London, New York, Bombay, Calcutta & Madras_.]
♦The fall of the Bastille, July 14.♦
The government, on the pretext of maintaining order, quartered round
and in Paris and Versailles regiments of Swiss and German troops
in the service of France. The Queen and the Court desired, if not
immediately to dissolve the Assembly, to compel its removal to some
provincial town, where the deputies might more readily be forced to
accept the terms offered by the King on June 23. Necker, supported by
a minority of his fellow-councillors, was opposed to any plans for the
intimidation of the Assembly; but he had no influence with the King,
and was detested by the Queen and the King’s brothers, the Counts
of Provence and Artois, of whose projects he was left in ignorance.
Louis relied on the troops to overawe the capital, but was averse to
resort to military force unless in self-defence. Meanwhile, their
neighbourhood increased excitement in Paris, and the middle classes
found themselves between two fires. On the one side they feared an
armed occupation of the town, and the proclamation of martial law; on
the other a rising of the populace, which might end in the dissolution
of all authority. The elections of deputies of the Third Estate had
been by two degrees. Paris had been divided into sixty districts,
returning 120 electors, who had elected twenty deputies to sit in
the States-General. These electors, wishing to induce the Government
to remove the troops, proposed the establishment of a civic guard
for the maintenance of order. It was not, however, an easy matter to
obtain the sanction of the Government to a measure that would put an
armed force at the disposition of the capital. The National Assembly,
agitated by fear lest violence should be exercised against itself,
repeatedly besought the King to order the withdrawal of the troops.
Louis refused, and at the same time dismissed Necker from office,
ordering him to leave the kingdom immediately (July 11). It was on
the presence of Necker in the council that the popular party relied
as security that force would not be employed against the Assembly or
the capital. Accordingly, the news of his dismissal, reported the
next morning, set Paris in motion. All believed that troops would
immediately advance, and the revolution be suppressed in blood. In
the Palais Royal a young man, Camille Desmoulins, leaping on a table,
exclaimed, ‘Citizens, they have driven Necker from office. They are
preparing a St. Bartholomew for patriots. To arms! To arms! For a
rallying sign take green cockades, the colour of hope.’ The leaves were
torn from the surrounding trees to serve as cockades. There was, in
fact, but one course which Louis could consistently pursue after he had
dismissed Necker from office. He must use force to suppress opposition,
taking whatever risk there was. But of decisive action there was no
chance. The King had dismissed Necker without making up his mind what
he would do afterwards. There was no plan formed, and no understanding
between different authorities. A regiment of German cavalry charged,
first, into a procession parading the streets with a bust of Necker,
and afterwards into the Tuileries gardens, dispersing the throngs which
excitement and curiosity had brought together. After blood had thus
been shed, and the alarm and rage of the populace had increased, no
further attempt was made to suppress the insurrection. Officers of the
army were afraid to act without authorisation, and could not trust
their men, many of whom deserted their regiments. The French guards,
3,600 strong, went over in a body to the people. Paving stones were
torn up to erect barricades. The cry was raised for arms; pikes were
fabricated by thousands; gunsmiths’ shops were ransacked, military
storehouses broken open, and muskets and powder carried off in triumph.
During the following night and day (July 13) the barriers where the
excise was levied were set on fire, the prisons opened, and bakers and
wine shops pillaged. There were none in authority, and none who obeyed.
The electors, sitting at the Hôtel de Ville, usurped what authority
they could, which they exercised surrounded by a raging mob at imminent
peril of their lives. At their appeal the bourgeoisie began promptly
to raise an organised militia force in each of the sixty districts.
Early next morning, July 14, the fury of the people was directed
against the Bastille, the great State fortress and prison in the
Faubourg St. Antoine, the ‘Tower’ of Paris, where for centuries past
prisoners, often without charge of crime, had wasted their lives away.
Its commander, the Marquis de Launay, had long since pulled up his
drawbridges and made ready for defence as he watched the insurrection
grow. His garrison was small, consisting only of thirty-two Swiss and
eighty-two old French soldiers or Invalides. But the massive walls of
the fortress and its double moat would effectually guard it against
the assault of an undisciplined multitude. Summoned to surrender by a
deputation from the Hôtel de Ville, De Launay replied that he would
rather set fire to the powder magazine and blow the place to the skies.
The population streamed by thousands to the spot, and the fortress
was soon surrounded by a surging mob. An old soldier succeeded in
cutting the chain which held up the drawbridge of the outer moat. A
shout of triumph was raised. The assailants rushed over the fallen
bridge, but only to be confronted by the second moat and unscaleable
walls of the fortress. The French guards, bringing with them cannon,
joined the besiegers, but all efforts to force the passage of the moat
were frustrated. For five hours an incessant fire of musketry had
been kept up. A hundred of the assailants lay dead, and but one of
the garrison, when the Bastille unexpectedly and suddenly succumbed.
The Invalides refused longer to resist, and compelled De Launay to
surrender. Hulin, an officer leading the French guards, accepted the
terms proposed--pardon and immunity for all. But he could not enforce
their observance. The mass of human beings behind knew nothing of what
those in front did. Enraged and uncontrollable, the mob broke into
the fortress, those behind pushing aside those who went before, and
striking blows at random. Six of the garrison were killed. De Launay
was sent with an escort of French guards to the Hôtel de Ville. On the
way the escort was hustled aside and the old man savagely murdered.
His head, fixed on a pike, was carried in triumph about the streets.
Late at night the news reached Versailles that the Bastille had fallen.
‘But,’ said Louis, ‘that is a revolt.’ ‘Sire,’ replied his informant,
the Duke of Liancourt, ‘it is not a revolt, it is a revolution.’
♦Establishment of a Municipality and of a National Guard in Paris.♦
A great revolution had indeed been accomplished. The fall of the
Bastille indicated the fall of the old monarchy, in which the King
alone represented the nation. Louis had said to the Assembly that,
unless he were obeyed, he would secure the happiness of his subjects
without its aid, and Paris had replied by rising in support of the
Assembly against himself. The falling away of the army had unmistakably
revealed his weakness and powerlessness to resist the national will.
His brother, the Count of Artois, and other unpopular courtiers, known
to be especially hostile to the people’s cause, fled the country
in disgust and alarm. Louis himself had no choice but to yield all
that was demanded of him. He ordered the withdrawal of the troops,
and recalled Necker to office. The Assembly sent eighty-eight of
its members to announce the good news to Paris. They were received
with enthusiasm, and escorted by thousands of national guards to
the Hôtel de Ville, where the electors exercised the functions of a
provisional municipality. Two deputies were singled out for special
honours. A young and popular nobleman, Lafayette, who had fought in
America against the English, and since the meeting of the Assembly had
supported the cause of the Third Estate, was by acclamation chosen
commander-in-chief of the new militia or national guard. Bailly, a
mathematician, who had been president of the Third Estate when the oath
was taken in the tennis court, was after the same fashion chosen mayor
of Paris. To the blue and red, the colours of Paris first worn by the
national guard, was subsequently, on Lafayette’s suggestion, added
white, the colour of France. This new flag would, he magniloquently
said, make the round of the world. Thus was instituted the famous
tricolour, the emblem to France of the revolution.
It only remained for Louis to recognise these new revolutionary
authorities, which made the capital of his kingdom independent of him
and of his government. Leaving the Queen weeping at Versailles in alarm
for his safety, he drove to Paris, attended merely by some members
of the Assembly and a few national guards. At the barrier of Passy,
the mayor, Bailly, presented him with the keys of the city, the same
which, on an occasion dissimilar to this had been presented to Henri
IV., when Paris had surrendered to him, ‘He,’ said Bailly to Louis,
‘had made conquest of his people. Now the people have made conquest of
their King.’ Arrived at the Hôtel de Ville, Louis fixed a tricolour
cockade on his hat and appeared on a balcony in front of the building.
The thousands assembled outside applauded him loudly, and shouts of
‘Vive le Roi’ mingled with shouts of ‘Vive la Nation.’ The enthusiasm
exhibited in his favour was not unreal. Amongst the multitude present,
no stronger desire existed than that of accomplishing the revolution in
accordance with the crown.
♦Risings in the provinces.♦
While political strife was raging at Paris, in the provinces the
people, impatient for relief, were taking upon themselves the work of
redressing their wrongs. Since the meeting of the States riots had
broken out by scores over the face of the country. Taxes were refused,
barriers for the collection of custom and excise duties burnt, the
collectors driven off, markets pillaged, municipal officers forced at
peril of their lives to fix a price for corn and bread. The news of the
great insurrection of July 14 gave courage to agitators, and added fuel
to the flame. In Paris, street mobs, goaded by hunger, were not easily
restrained from hanging objects of suspicion on the nearest lamp-post.
Foulon, an officer of the Government, accused truly or falsely of
having said that the people if hungry might eat grass, was savagely
murdered. His son-in-law, Berthier, suffered a like fate. Many other
persons escaped but narrowly with their lives. Nevertheless, owing to
the exertions of the new municipality and the national guard, life
and property were more secure in the capital than in many provinces.
Risings accompanied by pillage and murder took place in Strasbourg,
Rouen, Besançon, Lyons, and other provincial towns. In the east,
through Alsace, Franche-Comté, Lorraine, Burgundy and Dauphiny, the
rural population sought to settle the question of feudal services by
burning together the residences and the title-deeds of the seigneurs.
In the Maconnais and Beaujolais, bands of peasants sacked and burned
seventy-two country-houses in a fortnight. A panic spread through
the country on the report that brigands, instigated by the enemies
of the revolution, were on the march to destroy the crops. A general
cry was raised for arms; the example set by Paris was followed; the
middle classes combined to restore order; provisional municipalities
were established and national guards instituted. The order obtained,
however, was still most precarious. Municipal officers were in constant
danger of falling victims to mob violence, while in country districts
national guards often made common cause with the rioters.
Thus the result of the insurrection of July 14, and of the risings in
the provinces, was the utter disorganisation of all the old machinery
of government. Royal officers where they remained could not exercise
authority. The army was in mutiny; the people were armed. New popular
authorities had, as it were, of themselves sprung up over the face of
the country, and the National Assembly, in place of the royal council,
became the centre of government, so far as any government existed.
♦Decrees of August 4.♦
The Assembly was far more disquieted by the risings in the provinces
than by the insurrection of July 14. The fall of the Bastille assured
political power to the middle classes. This burning of country-houses
and the refusal to pay taxes and feudal dues struck at all alike,
and sapped the base on which the whole framework of society rested.
As yet, in the south-west and centre, where feudal dues were less
burdensome, riots were isolated and bloodshed rare, but there was
every probability that the movement, if unchecked, would spread over
the whole country. The injustice of the existing order, by which
provinces, towns, and individuals were privileged without regard to
public utility, the injury inflicted on agriculture by feudal dues,
and the oppressive nature of many rights exercised by seigneurs had
been demonstrated over and over again, and were admitted on all sides.
In an evening sitting on August 4, the Assembly laid the axe to the
root of the old order by adopting decrees based on the principles of
unity of State institutions, equality before the law, and individual
liberty. There was no province, town, class, or corporation whose
special interests these decrees did not touch. They were in part the
work of design, in part of the enthusiasm of the moment. No voices
were raised in opposition. Nobles, bishops, curés, representatives of
towns and provinces, vied with one another in proposing the abolition
of privileges and rights which stood in the way of the common good.
The decrees declared the feudal order destroyed, deprived seigneurs of
the exclusive right of hunting and of keeping rabbits and pigeons, and
abolished serfdom and servile dues off-hand; abolished also all special
privileges belonging to provinces, towns, and corporations, and laid
open to all citizens, without regard to birth, civil, military, and
ecclesiastical preferment; and, finally, abolished tithes paid to the
Church, and made promise of ecclesiastical reform in the future.
These decrees were not practical laws, but little more than an
enunciation of general principles in accordance with which reform was
afterwards to be effected. Thus the mass of feudal dues had still to
be rendered until compensation had been given to the proprietors; the
old taxes were to be paid until a new system of taxation based on
principles of equality had been introduced. This hasty legislation
could not, therefore, allay discontent, but excited a stronger
reluctance on the part of the people to endure burdens, the injustice
of which the National Assembly itself publicly proclaimed.
♦Composition of the Assembly.♦
The Assembly, on which rested the task of founding a new order amid
the ruins of the old, was without political experience or recognised
principles of action. It contained about 290 representatives of the
nobility, of whom 140 were provincial noblemen, 20 judges in the upper
courts, and 125 belonged to the court aristocracy. The clergy had
returned 200 curés and only 100 bishops, abbés, and other dignitaries.
A few more than 600 deputies represented the Third Estate, of whom
4 were ecclesiastics and 15 noblemen. The great majority were men
independent of the Government. The profession by far the most largely
represented was the law. There were 360 judges, barristers, and law
officers of various kinds. The chamber was fitted up like a theatre,
with a semi-circle of seats facing the president’s chair, beneath which
was a tribune whence all set speeches were made.
♦The Reactionary Right.♦
Four main lines of opinion divided the Assembly roughly into four
sections. The majority of nobles and the upper clergy sat together on
the president’s right hand, forming the right side of the Assembly.
Their standpoint was reactionary, in favour of the privileged orders.
The fusion of the three orders having been accomplished against
their will and in defiance of the royal authority, they regarded the
Assembly’s work as resting on no justifiable foundation, and looked
forward to reversing it on the first occasion. Here an officer,
Cazalès, eloquently and loyally defended monarchical principles of
government; the Abbé Maury, with vehemence and ability, the cause of
the upper clergy; and D’Espréménil, a judge in the Parliament of Paris,
the institutions of the old order.
♦The Right Centre.♦
The second section comprised deputies of all three orders. They were
defenders of individual liberty and parliamentary control, but were
bitterly opposed to the establishment of democratic institutions. They
did not believe in the endurance of monarchy without an aristocracy
and aristocratical institutions, and aimed at replacing the effete
nobility by an aristocracy of wealth. For the exercise of political
rights they would have required a high property qualification; and,
copying the constitution of the English parliament, would have
established a legislature composed of two houses, in both of which the
landed interest was to predominate. They detested insurrection as a
weapon, and were thoroughly alive to the danger in which since July 14
all authorities stood--of falling beneath the sway of mob violence.
The restoration of order was, from their point of view, the matter
of first moment, and they accordingly desired that the Assembly, in
place of discussing constitutional questions, should at once turn its
attention to the reform of the taxes and to other remedial laws, and
that at the same time ministers should be empowered to use coercive
measures for the punishment of rioters and the maintenance of the
public tranquillity. The upholders of these views, who sat next the
reactionary right, were but a small minority. Their most able speakers
were two deputies of the Third Estate--Mounier and Malouet, and two
nobles--Clermont-Tonnerre and Lally-Tollendal.
♦The Centre and Left.♦
The third and most numerous section, forming the centre and left of the
Assembly, consisted of curés and deputies of the Third Estate, with a
sprinkling of nobles and upper clergy. Though considerable differences
of opinion prevailed in this body of seven to eight hundred men, two
sentiments were common to all--passion for equality and desire for
self-government. Hence no schemes calculated to vest power in the
hands of large landed proprietors found favour with them. They were
not, however, pure democrats, nor by sentiment republicans. Their real
aim was government by the middle classes. To monarchy as a form of
government they were not only attached, but regarded its maintenance
as necessary to give stability to the constitution they were about
to establish. Amongst the most prominent men on this side of the
house were Thouret, Merlin of Douai, and other eminent lawyers, the
Marquis of Mirabeau, Lafayette, the Abbé Siéyès, two brothers, the
Lameths--both of them nobles and officers--and a young and eloquent
barrister, Barnave.
♦The Extreme Left.♦
The fourth section, sitting on the extreme left--which must be
distinguished from the left--was formed of a few deputies, some twenty
or thirty in all, who were pure democrats, and whose programme included
manhood suffrage, and the eligibility of all citizens to office
without property or other qualifications. A republic was their ideal
form of government, which they held alone compatible with free and
democratic institutions. At the same time they entertained no thought
of establishing such a government in France. The possibility of getting
rid of the throne had not yet suggested itself to their minds. In
the Assembly their opinions were regarded as exaggerated, and their
influence was small. Amongst them sat Pétion and Robespierre, whose
names afterwards rose into notoriety.
None of these four groups, except the last, properly speaking formed
a party of which the members ordinarily voted in a body. There was
no concerted action, no party discipline, no recognised leaders. The
galleries were often filled by an excited and noisy audience, which
interrupted debates and menaced unpopular speakers. Each deputy voted
independently, and was subject to be swayed by whatever influence at
the moment predominated--were it eloquence, enthusiasm, fear, or
prejudice. The provincial nobility followed but sullenly in the wake
of the court nobility, and on every opportunity made its hostility
manifest. Deputies belonging to the centre and left constantly voted
on opposite sides. According to the special point at issue, more or
less democratic opinions were entertained by the same person. Thus
Lafayette, although as a rule he was found in opposition to Malouet,
wished like him for the establishment of a legislature composed of
two houses, having become strongly convinced of the advantages of
that system through his affection to American institutions. The most
advanced group of the whole centre and left, headed by Barnave and the
Lameths, sat furthest left, next to Buzot and Robespierre, with whom
they not seldom voted.
♦Causes giving ascendancy to the Left.♦
In the chamber thus constituted, a variety of causes often gave
ascendancy to the group which followed Barnave and the Lameths. The
events of June 23 (p. 39) had destroyed confidence in the King, and
though not expressed in words fear always prevailed that Louis would
hereafter use whatever powers were given to him to effect a restoration
of the old order. The reactionary right also refused to work with
the advocates of the system of two chambers, such as Malouet and
Mounier, thus alienating the less democratic members of the centre
and propelling them towards the left. Nobles and ecclesiastics, who
had opposed the union of the three orders, in place of seeking to
establish a constitution based on monarchical principles, made it their
policy to vitiate the Assembly’s work and so increase the elements
of disorder as the surest and speediest means of producing reaction.
Sometimes they abstained from voting or attending debates; sometimes
they interrupted debates; at others they voted with the left against
the constitutional right. The ministry was too feeble and too divided
to exercise influence over the Assembly. It was without the first
requisite for acquiring confidence, a declared and open policy. Necker,
whose principles and aims coincided for the most part with those of
Malouet and Mounier, always received hearty support from them and
their friends. But, proud and irritable, accustomed to command and
not to lead, he did not take advantage of the opportunities which he
had for forming a ministerial party. While devising expedients for
avoiding bankruptcy, he failed even to lay before the Assembly any
complete account of the state of the finances. The reactionary right,
which never forgave him for recommending the double representation
of the Third Estate, and the extreme left, which distrusted him,
concurred in attacking him on every opportunity. His popularity rapidly
decreased, and his position in the ministry grew weak in proportion
as his relations to the Assembly became strained. Mirabeau, the most
powerful man in the house, was his enemy. The mass of deputies, without
trust in the Government and menaced by the right, looked to the people
for support, and through desire of maintaining popularity were the
more ready to adopt measures urged on them by the ultra democratic
press. Their minds were undisturbed, either by the violent language
of Parisian demagogues, or by the existence of riots and bloodshed in
many provinces. The one object that they kept steadily in view was
the establishment of constitutional government on foundations that
should make reaction hopelessly impossible; and compared with this the
restoration of order was to them a matter of secondary importance.
They had no fear of the people. Following the one-sided philosophy of
their day, and leaving out of account the dense ignorance of the lower
classes, the pride and prejudices of the upper, they believed that the
establishment of a free constitution, followed by remedial legislation,
would bring the revolution to an end within the course of a few months,
and render the country law-abiding, prosperous, and contented.
♦Policy of Mirabeau.♦
How vain was this dream, entertained by those with whom he sat
and voted, Mirabeau was well aware. He saw the people ignorant
and credulous, without confidence in the middle class, and ready
to follow the guidance of whoever promised them most; the middle
class unaccustomed to take part in government and divided into
factions, which were united merely by common hatred of aristocratic
institutions. Under such conditions Mirabeau gave small credit to
his countrymen for political capacity, and had no faith in the
endurance of any constitution which cast upon the nation the entire
work of administration and government. But, on the other hand, he did
not seek, like Malouet, to found a strong monarchy on aristocratic
institutions. No real aristocracy existed, and the passion for equality
was irresistible, for the very reason that it was justified by the
incapacity of those classes which had hitherto claimed to rise above
their fellow countrymen. The government which Mirabeau regarded as
alone suited to the requirements of the time was constitutional
monarchy, based on principles of equality and individual liberty,
upheld by the confidence of the middle class, and exercising influence
over the direction of public opinion. Local administration was to be
under the control of the central government; ministers were to have
seats in the legislative body; and the king, in case of difference
between himself and the legislature, was to have the right of refusing
his consent to bills and of appealing by a dissolution to the
constituencies. Mirabeau prophesied that unless the distrust which
the Assembly felt towards Louis were dissipated, the throne would be
overturned by the Parisian populace. His sense of danger quickened
his desire to obtain a place in the council. He had many qualities
fitting him to the task to which he aspired of at once domineering
over Louis, and obtaining a majority in the Assembly to follow his
guidance. He had insight into character, was master of his temper, and
able to inspire men with his own belief, and to fascinate those who
were prejudiced against him. As an orator he was unrivalled. The effect
that he produced on his hearers was so powerful that his very opponents
applauded him. But there were many drawbacks in his way. He came to the
Assembly with an ill reputation that told heavily against him. His life
even now was riotous and profligate, and he was known to be harassed
by debts and unscrupulous in action. His fellow deputies, afraid of
the crown acquiring influence over the Assembly by corruption, even
whilst they were under the spell of his genius, were mistrustful of
his political integrity. Lafayette refused to have dealings with a
man whom he contemned as a libertine. Barnave and the Lameths were
Mirabeau’s rivals for popularity, and jealous of the influence that
his superior eloquence at times allowed him to exercise. On the side
of the Government, which had no chance of surmounting the crisis under
any other guidance, he received no encouragement. Necker feared and
hated him as a dangerous and unprincipled demagogue, and repelled his
overtures; while the aversion of the Queen to all noblemen who took the
popular side was intense. ‘I trust,’ she one day said, ‘we shall never
be reduced to the painful extremity of seeking aid of Mirabeau.’
Thus circumstanced, Mirabeau did his best to weaken and degrade the
Government, expecting that in the course of a few months the King
would be compelled to recognise his claims to office. He never missed
an opportunity of undermining Necker’s popularity, and while defending
with vehemence what he held to be the essential prerogatives of
monarchy, maintained sway over the Assembly and the populace by fierce
attacks directed against the nobles, the clergy, and the court.
♦Declaration of the Rights of Man.♦
The first legislative work of the Assembly after the decrees of August
4 (p. 50), was a Declaration of the rights of man, which, in general
language, stated the aims which the greater part of the Assembly had in
view. This manifesto of the principles of the revolution declared that
men have natural and imprescriptible rights to liberty, property, and
security, and also the right of resisting tyranny; that men are born
equal in rights; that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law,
and are equally admissible to all offices without other distinctions
than those of virtue and talent; that the nation is sovereign, and
that laws are the expression of the general will. In accordance with
these principles, the Declaration announced the abolition of all orders
and corporations, and proclaimed liberty of the press and liberty of
worship.
♦Veto given to the King.♦
Debates on the form to be given to the new legislature followed the
adoption of the Declaration of the rights of man. The proposal that
there should be two houses was negatived by 499 against 89 votes. The
new legislature was to meet every two years. The question whether the
King was to have power to refuse his consent to decrees or exercise
a so-called veto upon them was the cause of great excitement both
at Versailles and Paris. Ultra-democratic agitators and journalists
declared that to allow the King a share in the legislative power was
to wrong the sovereignty of the nation. The relation existing between
Louis and the Assembly was thoroughly false. The deputies of the
centre and left were eager to avoid coming into collision with him,
but were aware that he was only following by compulsion in their wake.
On the ground that the nation was entitled to choose its own form of
government, they took for granted that Louis must sanction without
question or criticism all constitutional decrees. But they dared not
trust the King, whom they excluded from any share in the formation of
the new constitution, with authority which he might hereafter employ to
subvert it. On the question of the veto a compromise was adopted, and
the King empowered to refuse to pass the same decree during the sitting
of two consecutive legislatures (September 20).
♦Scarcity of bread.♦
While the Assembly was engaged in discussion on the rights of man,
all the causes which had been productive of crime and riot were still
at work. The price of bread remained high after the harvest. This was
due in part to deficiency in the crops, but much more generally to
interference with the corn trade. The Assembly, acting in accordance
with the free trade theories of the Economists, annulled all
regulations impeding the free circulation of corn and flour. But the
people, ignorant, distrustful and fierce, used the power that was in
their hands to carry out the old system more methodically, threatening
municipal officers with personal violence unless they took measures to
insure that markets were well supplied. Pillage of corn on transit and
purchases made by public bodies stopped ordinary trade, and produced an
appearance of scarcity even where corn was plentiful. In every large
town bread was sold under cost, the municipalities making good the
loss to the bakers. To provision Paris, convoys of flour were brought
into the town under military escort; large purchases of foreign corn
were made, the Government supplying funds; and by these means bread
was sold at about three halfpence the pound. But bread, if cheap, was
scarce. Purchasers stood for hours in long ranks or _queues_ at the
bakers’ doors, and those who came last often left empty-handed. On the
municipality and the national guard devolved the task of maintaining
order. The national guard formed an organised police force. Most
of those who served were volunteers, but 6,000, with whom had been
incorporated the French guards, were paid and lodged in barracks. The
officers were elected by the men. Lafayette, the commander-in-chief,
was a brave and chivalrous soldier, whose enthusiasm for liberty and
equality was unmixed with motives of personal aggrandisement. He was
very popular with his troops, but his influence over them was confined
within narrow limits. The guard, composed principally of the middle
and lower middle classes, retained its character of a citizen force,
possessing a strong political bias, and capable at any time of taking a
course of its own.
♦The 6th October.♦
During the month of September the idea of going to Versailles and
bringing the royal family to Paris fermented in the minds of the poorer
inhabitants of the city. There were rumours that the King intended
flight. The hungry people believed that their sufferings were solely
due to the intrigues of reactionary nobles and ecclesiastics, and that
bread would be abundant were the King once securely established in
their midst. Whatever was proposed at Paris was known at Versailles.
Since the revolution of July, plans of retreat to Metz and other
towns had been urged on Louis. It was impossible to adopt this course
without contemplating resource to arms. The Queen was willing, but
Louis preferred to let events drift on sooner than give occasion to
his subjects to throw on him the reproach cast on Charles I., of
having roused civil war and caused the shedding of blood. Meanwhile
the policy pursued was of a piece with that which preceded the fall
of the Bastille. Paris was defied by bringing an additional force of
a thousand foreign troops, the regiment of Flanders, from Arras to
Versailles, but no further measures were taken to repel aggression.
The officers of the royal body-guard held a banquet in honour of the
new comers in the palace theatre before a large audience. The occasion
was taken to make a strongly pronounced display of royalist sentiment.
Insulting words were spoken against the Assembly; national toasts
were left undrunk; the tricolor replaced by white cockades. The King
was induced to come to the theatre, and the Queen, with the Dauphin
in her arms, went the round of the table, making gracious speeches
(October 1). Exaggerated reports of what had taken place spread through
Paris. National guards were eager to avenge the insult offered to the
tricolour, which, it was said, had been trampled under foot. Early
on the morning of October 5 many thousands of hungry women began a
march from Paris to Versailles, stopping and forcing all of their own
sex whom they met on the way to accompany them. Bands of men soon
followed, and the national guards, in place of opposing the movement,
compelled Lafayette to march at their head after the mob. There was
heavy rain all day, and the women on their arrival at Versailles were
weary, fasting, and wet. They surrounded the palace, and broke into
the hall of the Assembly, shouting, in reply to the speeches of the
deputies, ‘Bread, bread, and not so many words!’ All through the day
new bands continued to arrive, composed of both men and women. The
royal body-guard, between whom and the mob shots were exchanged, were
withdrawn within the palace gates. A little before midnight Lafayette
at last arrived at the head of an orderly force of 20,000 men. He set
watches at the palace gates, and afterwards entered to take a short
rest. But at daybreak some of the mob broke into the palace courts,
killed two soldiers of the body guard who fired on them, wounded
others, and burst into the ante-room of the Queen’s bedchamber. Marie
Antoinette, roused by her women, fled for her life to the King’s
apartment. The alarm was given, and national guards arrived on the
spot in time to avert more bloodshed, and to drive back the intruders.
Louis, who had not been able to decide on flight while he still had
opportunity, yielded to the will of the populace. A dense crowd was
assembled in front of the palace, shouting, ‘The King to Paris!’ Louis
stepped out on a balcony, in sign of assent. The popular instinct
rightly fixed on the Queen as much more hostile to the revolution than
the King. As she stepped out after her husband, with her girl and boy
by her side, voices from below shouted, ‘No children.’ Pushing the
children back, she bravely advanced without hesitation alone, while
Lafayette, afraid for her safety, sought to make her peace with the
people by stooping and kissing her hand. All steps were now turned
towards Paris. First went a disorderly mob, rejoicing in their capture
of the royal family, and shouting that bread would be plentiful, for
they were bringing with them the baker, the baker’s wife, and the
baker’s boy. The heads of the slain body-guards, ghastly trophies of
their triumph, were carried on pikes. The royal carriages, surrounded
by national guards, followed in the wake of the mob. On their arrival
in Paris, the King and Queen were conducted to the Tuileries. The
Assembly, which after a few days followed the King, was established in
a riding-school in the neighbourhood of the palace.