FROM APRIL, 1791, TO THE 3OTH SEPTEMBER. THE END OF THE CONSTITUENT
ASSEMBLY
The French revolution was to change the political state of Europe, to
terminate the strife of kings among themselves, and to commence that
between kings and people. This would have taken place much later had not
the kings themselves provoked it. They sought to suppress the revolution,
and they extended it; for by attacking it they were to render it
victorious. Europe had then arrived at the term of the political system
which swayed it. The political activity of the several states after being
internal under the feudal government, had become external under the
monarchical government. The first period terminated almost at the same
time among all the great nations of Europe. Then kings who had so long
been at war with their vassals, because they were in contact with them,
encountered each other on the boundaries of their kingdoms, and fought. As
no domination could become universal, neither that of Charles V. nor that
of Louis XIV., the weak always uniting against the strong, after several
vicissitudes of superiority and alliance, a sort of European equilibrium
was established. In order to appreciate ulterior events, I propose to
consider this equilibrium before the revolution.
Austria, England, and France had been, from the peace of Westphalia to the
middle of the eighteenth century, the three great powers of Europe.
Interest had leagued the two first against the third. Austria had reason
to dread the influence of France in the Netherlands; England feared it on
the sea. Rivalry of power and commerce often set them at variance, and
they sought to weaken or plunder each other. Spain, since a prince of the
house of Bourbon had been on the throne, was the ally of France against
England. This, however, was a fallen power: confined to a corner of the
continent, oppressed by the system of Philip II., deprived by the Family
Compact of the only enemy that could keep it in action, by sea only had it
retained any of its ancient superiority. But France had other allies on
all sides of Austria: Sweden on the north; Poland and the Porte on the
east; in the south of Germany, Bavaria; Prussia on the west; and in Italy,
the kingdom of Naples. These powers, having reason to dread the
encroachments of Austria, were naturally the allies of her enemy.
Piedmont, placed between the two systems of alliance, sided, according to
circumstances and its interests, with either. Holland was united with
England or with France, as the party of the stadtholders or that of the
people prevailed in the republic. Switzerland was neutral.
In the last half of the eighteenth century, two powers had risen in the
north, Russia and Prussia. The latter had been changed from a simple
electorate into an important kingdom, by Frederick-William, who had given
it a treasure and an army; and by his son Frederick the Great, who had
made use of these to extend his territory. Russia, long unconnected with
the other states, had been more especially introduced into the politics of
Europe by Peter I. and Catharine II. The accession of these two powers
considerably modified the ancient alliances. In concert with the cabinet
of Vienna, Russia and Prussia had executed the first partition of Poland
in 1772; and after the death of Frederick the Great, the empress Catharine
and the emperor Joseph united in 1785 to effect that of European Turkey.
The cabinet of Versailles, weakened since the imprudent and unfortunate
Seven Years' War, had assisted at the partition of Poland without opposing
it, had raised no obstacle to the fall of the Ottoman empire, and even
allowed its ally, the republican party in Holland, to sink under the blows
of Prussia and England, without assisting it. The latter powers had in
1787 re-established by force the hereditary, stadtholderate of the United
Provinces. The only act which did honour to French policy, was the support
it had happily given to the emancipation of North America. The revolution
of 1789, while extending the moral influence of France, diminished still
more its diplomatic influence.
England, under the government of young Pitt, was alarmed in 1788 at the
ambitious projects of Russia, and united with Holland and Prussia to put
an end to them. Hostilities were on the point of commencing when the
emperor Joseph died, in February, 1790, and was succeeded by Leopold, who
in July accepted the convention of Reichenbach. This convention, by the
mediation of England, Russia, and Holland, settled the terms of the peace
between Austria and Turkey, which was signed definitively, on the 4th of
August, 1791, at Sistova; it at the same time provided for the
pacification of the Netherlands. Urged by England and Prussia, Catharine
II. also made peace with the Porte at Jassy, on the 29th of December,
1791. These negotiations, and the treaties they gave rise to, terminated
the political struggles of the eighteenth century, and left the powers
free to turn their attention to the French Revolution.
The princes of Europe, who had hitherto had no enemies but themselves,
viewed it in the light of a common foe. The ancient relations of war and
of alliance, already overlooked during the Seven Years' War, now ceased
entirely: Sweden united with Russia, and Prussia with Austria. There was
nothing now but the kings on one side, and people on the other, waiting
for the auxiliaries which its example, or the faults of princes might give
it. A general coalition was soon formed against the French revolution.
Austria engaged in it with the hope of aggrandizement, England to avenge
the American war, and to preserve itself from the spirit of the
revolution; Prussia to strengthen the threatened absolute power, and
profitably to engage its unemployed army; the German states to restore
feudal rights to some of their members who had been deprived of them, by
the abolition of the old régime in Alsace; the king of Sweden, who had
constituted himself the champion of arbitrary power, to re-establish it in
France, as he had just done in his own country; Russia, that it might
execute without trouble the partition of Poland, while the attention of
Europe was directed elsewhere; finally, all the sovereigns of the house of
Bourbon, from the interest of power and family attachments. The emigrants
encouraged them in these projects, and excited them to invasion. According
to them, France was without an army, or at least without leaders,
destitute of money, given up to disorder, weary of the assembly, disposed
to the ancient régime, and without either the means or the inclination to
defend itself. They flocked in crowds to take a share in the promised
short campaign, and formed into organized bodies under the prince de
Condé, at Worms, and the count d'Artois, at Coblentz.
The count d'Artois especially hastened the determination of the cabinets.
The emperor Leopold was in Italy, and the count repaired to him, with
Calonne as minister, and the count Alphonse de Durfort, who had been his
mediator with the court of the Tuileries, and who had brought him the
king's authority to treat with Leopold. The conference took place at
Mantua, and the count de Durfort returned, and delivered to Louis XVI. in
the name of the emperor, a secret declaration, in which was announced to
him the speedy assistance of the coalition. Austria was to advance thirty-
five thousand men on the frontier of Flanders; the German states, fifteen
thousand on Alsace; the Swiss, fifteen thousand on the Lyonese frontier;
the king of Sardinia, fifteen thousand on that of Dauphiné; Spain was to
augment its army in Catalonia to twenty thousand; Prussia was well
disposed in favour of the coalition, and the king of England was to take
part in it as elector of Hanover. All these troops were to move at the
same time, at the end of July; the house of Bourbon was then to make a
protest, and the powers were to publish a manifesto; until then, however,
it was essential to keep the design secret, to avoid all partial
insurrection, and to make no attempt at flight. Such was the result of the
conferences at Mantua on the 20th May, 1791.
Louis XVI., either from a desire not to place himself entirely at the
mercy of foreign powers, or dreading the ascendency which the count
d'Artois, should he return at the head of the victorious emigrants, would
assume over the government he had established, preferred restoring the
government alone. In general Bouillé he had a devoted and skilful
partisan, who at the same time condemned both emigration and the assembly,
and promised him refuge and support in his army. For some time past, a
secret correspondence had taken place between him and the king. Bouillé
prepared everything to receive him. He established a camp at Montmedy,
under the pretext of a movement of hostile troops on the frontier; he
placed detachments on the route the king was to take, to serve him for
escort, and as a motive was necessary for these arrangements, he alleged
that of protecting the money despatched for the payment of the troops.
The royal family on its side made every preparation for departure; very
few persons were informed of it, and no measures betrayed it. Louis XVI.
and the queen, on the contrary, pursued a line of conduct calculated to
silence suspicion; and on the night of the 20th of June, they issued at
the appointed hour from the château, one by one, in disguise. In this way
they eluded the vigilance of the guard, reached the Boulevard, where a
carriage awaited them, and took the road to Châlons and Montmedy.
On the following day the news of this escape threw Paris into
consternation; indignation soon became the prevailing sentiment; crowds
assembled, and the tumult increased. Those who had not prevented the
flight were accused of favouring it. Neither Bailly nor Lafayette escaped
the general mistrust. This event was considered the precursor of the
invasion of France, the triumph of the emigrants; the return of the
ancient régime, and a long civil war. But the conduct of the assembly soon
restored the public mind to calmness and security. It took every measure
which so difficult a conjuncture required. It summoned the ministers and
authorities to its bar; calmed the people by a proclamation; used proper
precautions to secure public tranquillity; seized on the executive power,
commissioned Montmorin, the minister of foreign affairs, to inform the
European powers of its pacific intentions; sent commissioners to secure
the favour of the troops, and receive their oath, no longer made in the
name of the king, but in that of the assembly, and lastly, issued an order
through the departments for the arrest of any one attempting to leave the
kingdom. "Thus, in less than four hours," says the marquis de Ferrières,
"the assembly was invested with every kind of power. The government went
on; public tranquillity did not experience the slightest shock; and Paris
and France learned from this experience, so fatal to royalty, that the
monarch is almost always a stranger to the government that exists in his
name."
Meantime Louis XVI. and his family were drawing near the termination of
their journey. The success of the first days' journeys, the increasing
distance from Paris, rendered the king less reserved and more confident;
he had the imprudence to show himself, was recognised, and arrested at
Varennes on the 21st. The national guard were under arms instantly; the
officers of the detachments posted by Bouillé sought in vain to rescue the
king; the dragoons and hussars feared or refused to support them. Bouillé,
apprised of this fatal event, hastened himself at the head of a regiment
of cavalry. But it was too late; on reaching Varennes, he found that the
king had left it several hours before; his squadrons were tired, and
refused to advance. The national guard were on all sides under arms, and
after the failure of his enterprise, he had no alternative but to leave
the army and quit France.
The assembly, on hearing of the king's arrest, sent to him, as
commissioners, three of its members, Pétion, Latour-Maubourg, and Barnave.
They met the royal family at Epernay and returned with them. It was during
this journey, that Barnave, touched by the good sense of Louis XVI., the
fascinations of Marie Antoinette, and the fate of this fallen family,
conceived for it an earnest interest. From that day he gave it his
assiduous counsel and support. On reaching Paris the royal party passed
through an immense crowd, which expressed neither applause nor murmurs,
but observed a reproachful silence.
The king was provisionally suspended: he had had a guard set over him, as
had the queen; and commissioners were appointed to question him. Agitation
pervaded all parties. Some desired to retain the king on the throne,
notwithstanding his flight; others maintained, that he had abdicated by
condemning, in a manifesto addressed to the French on his departure, both
the revolution, and the acts which had emanated from him during that
period, which he termed a time of captivity.
The republican party now began to appear. Hitherto it had remained either
dependent or hidden, because it had been without any existence of its own,
or because it wanted a pretext for displaying itself. The struggle, which
lay at first between the assembly and the court, then between the
constitutionalists and the aristocrats, and latterly among the
constitutionalists themselves, was now about to commence between the
constitutionalists and the republicans. In times of revolution such is the
inevitable course of events. The partisans of the order newly established
then met and renounced differences of opinion which were detrimental to
their cause, even while the assembly was all powerful, but which had
become highly perilous, now that the emigration party threatened it on the
one hand, and the multitude on the other. Mirabeau was no more. The
Centre, on which this powerful man had relied, and which constituted the
least ambitious portion of the assembly, the most attached to principles,
might by joining the Lameths, re-establish Louis XVI. and constitutional
monarchy, and present a formidable opposition to the popular ebullition.
This alliance took place; the Lameth party came to an understanding with
André and the principal members of the Centre, made overtures to the
court, and opened the club of the Feuillants in opposition to that of the
Jacobins. But the latter could not want leaders; under Mirabeau, they had
contended against Mounier; under the Lameths against Mirabeau; under
Pétion and Robespierre, they contended against the Lameths. The party
which desired a second revolution had constantly supported the most
extreme actors in the revolution already accomplished, because this was
bringing within its reach the struggle and the victory. At this period,
from subordinate it had become independent; it no longer fought for others
and for opinions not its own, but for itself, and under its own banner.
The court, by its multiplied faults, its imprudent machinations, and,
lastly, by the flight of the monarch, had given it a sort of authority to
avow its object; and the Lameths, by forsaking it, had left it to its true
leaders.
The Lameths, in their turn, underwent the reproaches of the multitude,
which saw only their alliance with the court, without examining its
conditions. But supported by all the constitutionalists, they were
strongest in the assembly; and they found it essential to establish the
king as soon as possible, in order to put a stop to a controversy which
threatened the new order, by authorizing the public party to demand the
abolition of the royal power while its suspension lasted. The
commissioners appointed to interrogate Louis XVI. dictated to him a
declaration, which they presented in his name to the assembly, and which
modified the injurious effect of his flight. The reporter declared, in the
name of the seven committees entrusted with the examination of this great
question, that there were no grounds for bringing Louis XVI. to trial, or
for pronouncing his dethronement. The discussion which followed this
report was long and animated; the efforts of the republican party,
notwithstanding their pertinacity, were unsuccessful. Most of their
orators spoke; they demanded deposition or a regency; that is to say,
popular government, or an approach towards it. Barnave, after meeting all
their arguments, finished his speech with these remarkable words:
"Regenerators of the empire, follow your course without deviation. You
have proved that you had courage to destroy the abuses of power; you have
proved that you possessed all that was requisite to substitute wise and
good institutions in their place; prove now that you have the wisdom to
protect and maintain these. The nation has just given a great evidence of
its strength and courage; it has displayed, solemnly and by a spontaneous
movement, all that it could oppose to the attacks which threatened it.
Continue the same precautions; let our boundaries, let our frontiers be
powerfully defended. But while we manifest our power, let us also prove
our moderation; let us present peace to the world, alarmed by the events
which take place amongst us; let us present an occasion for triumph to all
those who in foreign lands have taken an interest in our revolution. They
cry to us from all parts: you are powerful; be wise, be moderate, therein
will lie your highest glory. Thus will you prove that in various
circumstances you can employ various means, talents, and virtues."
The assembly sided with Barnave. But to pacify the people, and to provide
for the future safety of France, it decreed that the king should be
considered as abdicating, _de facto_, if he retracted the oath he had
taken to the constitution; if he headed an army for the purpose of making
war upon the nation, or permitted any one to do so in his name; and that,
in such case, become a simple citizen, he would cease to be inviolable,
and might be responsible for acts committed subsequent to his abdication.
On the day that this decree was adopted by the assembly, the leaders of
the republican party excited the multitude against it. But the hall in
which it sat was surrounded by the national guard, and it could not be
assailed or intimidated. The agitators unable to prevent the passing of
the decree, aroused the people against it. They drew up a petition, in
which they denied the competency of the assembly; appealed from it to the
sovereignty of the nation, treated Louis XVI. as deposed since his flight,
and demanded a substitute for him. This petition, drawn up by Brissot,
author of the _Patriote Français_, and president of the _Comité des
Recherches_ of Paris, was carried, on the 17th of July, to the altar of
the country in the Champ de Mars: an immense crowd flocked to sign it. The
assembly, apprized of what was taking place, summoned the municipal
authorities to its bar, and directed them to preserve the public
tranquillity. Lafayette marched against the crowd, and in the first
instance succeeded in dispersing it without bloodshed. The municipal
officers took up their quarters in the Invalides; but the same day the
crowd returned in greater numbers, and with more determination. Danton and
Camille Desmoulins harangued them from the altar of the country. Two
Invalides, supposed to be spies, were massacred and their heads stuck on
pikes. The insurrection became alarming. Lafayette again repaired to the
Champ de Mars, at the head of twelve hundred of the national guard. Bailly
accompanied him, and had the red banner unfurled. The crowd was then
summoned to disperse in the name of the law; it refused to retire, and,
contemning authority, shouted, "Down with the red flag!" and assailed the
national guard with stones. Lafayette ordered his men to fire, but in the
air. The crowd was not intimidated with this, and resumed the attack;
compelled by the obstinacy of the insurgents, Lafayette then ordered
another discharge, a real and effective one. The terrified multitude fled,
leaving many dead on the field. The disturbances now ceased, order was
restored; but blood had flown, and the people never forgave Bailly or
Lafayette the cruel necessity to which the crowd had driven them. This was
a regular combat, in which the republican party, not as yet sufficiently
strong or established, was defeated by the constitutional monarchy party.
The attempt of the Champ de Mars was the prelude of the popular movements
which led to the 10th of August.
While this was passing in the assembly and at Paris, the emigrants, whom
the flight of Louis XVI. had elated with hope, were thrown into
consternation at his arrest. _Monsieur_, who had fled at the same time as
his brother, and with better fortune, arrived alone at Brussels with the
powers and title of regent. The emigrants thenceforth relied only on the
assistance of Europe; the officers quitted their colours; two hundred and
ninety members of the assembly protested against its decrees; in order to
legitimatize invasion, Bouillé wrote a threatening letter, in the
inconceivable hope of intimidating the assembly, and at the same time to
take upon himself the sole responsibility of the flight of Louis XVI.;
finally, the emperor, the king of Prussia, and the count d'Artois met at
Pilnitz, where they made the famous declaration of the 27th of August,
preparatory to the invasion of France, and which, far from improving the
condition of the king, would have imperilled him, had not the assembly, in
its wisdom, continued to follow out its new designs, regardless at once of
the clamours of the multitude at home, and the foreign powers.
In the declaration of Pilnitz, the sovereigns considered the cause of
Louis XVI. as their own. They required that he should be free to go where
he pleased, that is to say, to repair to them that he should be restored
to his throne; that the assembly should be dissolved, and that the princes
of the empire having possessions in Alsace, should be reinstated in their
feudal rights In case of refusal, they threatened France with a war in
which all the powers who were guarantees for the French monarchy would
concur. This declaration, so far from discouraging, only served to
irritate the assembly and the people. Men asked only another, what right
the princes of Europe had to interfere in the government of France; by
what right they gave orders to great people, and imposed conditions upon
it; and since the sovereigns appealed to force, the people of France
prepared to resist them. The frontiers were put in a state of defence; the
hundred thousand men of the national guard were enrolled, and they awaited
in calm serenity the attack of the enemy, well convinced that the French
people, on their own soil and in a state of revolution, would be
invincible.
Meantime, the assembly approached the close of its labours; civil
relations, public taxation, the nature of crimes, their prosecution, and
their punishment, had been by it as wisely regulated as were the public
and constitutional relations of the country. Equality had been introduced
into the laws of inheritance, into taxation, and into punishments; nothing
remained but to unite all the constitutional decrees into a body and
submit them to the king for his approval. The assembly was growing weary
of its labours and of its dissensions; the people itself, who in France
ever become tired of that which continues beyond a certain time, desired a
new national representation; the convocation of the electoral colleges was
therefore fixed for the 5th of August. Unfortunately, the members of the
present assembly could not form part of the succeeding one; this had been
decided before the flight to Varennes. In this important question, the
assembly had been drawn away by the rivalry of some, the disinterestedness
of others, the desire for anarchy on the part of the aristocrats, and of
domination on that of the republicans. Vainly did Duport exclaim: "While
every one is pestering us with new principles of all sorts, how is it
overlooked that stability is also a principle of government? Is France,
whose children are so ardent and changeable, to be exposed every two years
to a revolution in her laws and opinions?" This was the desire of the
privileged classes and the Jacobins, though with different views. In all
such matters, the constituent assembly was deceived or overruled; when the
ministry was in question, it decided, in opposition to Mirabeau, that no
deputy could hold office; on the subject of re-election, it decided, in
opposition to its own members, that it could not take place; in the same
spirit, it prohibited their accepting, for four years, any post offered
them by the prince. This mania of disinterestedness soon induced Lafayette
to divest himself of the command of the national guard, and Bailly to
resign the mayoralty. Thus this remarkable epoch entirely annihilated the
constituent body.
The collection of the constitutional decrees into one body led to the idea
of revising them. But this idea of revision gave great dissatisfaction,
and was almost of no effect; it was not desirable to render the
constitution more aristocratic by after measures, lest the multitude
should require it to be made more popular. To limit the sovereignty of the
nation, and, at the same time, not to overlook it, the assembly declared
that France had a right to revise its constitution, but that it was
prudent not to exercise this right for thirty years.
The act of the constitution was presented to the king by sixty deputies;
the suspension being taken off, Louis XVI. resumed the exercise of his
power; and the guard the law had given him was placed under his own
command. Thus restored to freedom, the constitution was submitted to him.
After examining it for several days, "I accept the constitution," he wrote
to the assembly; "I engage to maintain it at home, to defend it from all
attacks from abroad; and to cause its execution by all the means it places
at my disposal. I declare, that being informed of the attachment of the
great majority of the people to the constitution, I renounce my claim to
assist in the work, and that being responsible to the nation alone, no
other person, now that I have made this renunciation, has a right to
complain."
This letter excited general approbation. Lafayette demanded and procured
an amnesty in favour of those who were under prosecution for favouring the
king's flight, or for proceedings against the revolution. Next day the
king came in person to accept the constitution in the assembly. The
populace attended him thither with acclamations; he was the object of the
enthusiasm of the deputies and spectators, and he regained that day the
confidence and affection of his subjects. The 29th of September was fixed
for the closing of the assembly; the king was present; his speech was
often interrupted by applause, and when he said, "For you, gentlemen, who
during a long and arduous career have displayed such indefatigable zeal,
there remains one duty to fulfil when you have returned to your homes over
the country: to explain to your fellow-citizens the true meaning of the
laws you have made for them; to counsel those who slight them; to clarify
and unite all opinions by the example you shall afford of your love of
order, and of submission to the laws." Cries of "Yes! yes!" were uttered
by all the deputies with one common voice. "I rely on your being the
interpreters of my sentiments to your fellow-citizens." "Yes! yes!" "Tell
them all that the king will always be their first and most faithful
friend; that he needs their love; that he can only be happy with them and
by their means; the hope of contributing to their happiness will sustain
my courage, as the satisfaction of having succeeded will be my sweetest
recompense"
"It is a speech worthy of Henry IV.," said a voice, and the king left the
hall amidst the loudest testimonials of love.
Then Thouret, in a loud voice, and addressing the people, exclaimed: "The
constituent assembly pronounces its mission accomplished, and that its
sittings now terminate." Thus closed this first and glorious assembly of
the nation. It was courageous, intelligent, just, and had but one passion
--a passion for law. It accomplished, in two years, by its efforts, and
with indefatigable perseverance, the greatest revolution ever witnessed by
one generation of men. Amidst its labours, it repressed despotism and
anarchy, by frustrating the conspiracies of the aristocracy and
maintaining the multitude in subordination. Its only fault was that it did
not confide the guidance of the revolution to those who were its authors;
it divested itself of power, like those legislators of antiquity who
exiled themselves from their country after giving it a constitution. A new
assembly did not apply itself to consolidating its work, and the
revolution, which ought to have been finished, was recommenced.
The constitution of 1791 was based on principles adapted to the ideas and
situation of France. This constitution was the work of the middle class,
then the strongest; for, as is well known, the predominant force ever
takes possession of institutions. When it belongs to one man alone, it is
despotism; when to several, it is privilege; when to all, it is right;
this last state is the limit, as it is the origin, of society. France had
at length attained it, after passing through feudalism, which was the
aristocratic institution, and absolute power, which was the monarchical
institution. Equality was consecrated among the citizens, and delegation
recognised among the powers; such were to be, under the new system, the
condition of men, and the form of government.
In this constitution the people was the source of all powers, but it
exercised none; it was entrusted only with election in the first instance,
and its magistrates were selected by men chosen from among the enlightened
portions of the community. The latter constituted the assembly, the law
courts, the public offices, the corporations, the militia, and thus
possessed all the force and all the power of the state. It alone was fit
to exercise them, because it alone had the intelligence necessary for the
conduct of government. The people was not yet sufficiently advanced to
participate in power, consequently, it was only by accident, and in the
most casual and evanescent manner, that power fell into its hands; but it
received civic education, and was disciplined to government in the primary
assemblies, according to the true aim of society, which is not to confer
its advantages as a patrimony on one particular class, but to make all
share in them, when all are capable of acquiring them. This was the
leading characteristic of the constitution of 1791; as each, by degrees,
became competent to enjoy the right, he was admitted to it; it extended
its limits with the extension of civilization, which every day calls a
greater number of men to the administration of the state. In this way it
had established true equality, whose real character is admissibility, as
that of inequality is exclusion. In rendering power transferable by
election, it made it a public magistracy; whilst privilege, in rendering
it hereditary by transmission, makes it private property.
The constitution of 1791 established homogeneous powers which corresponded
among themselves, and thus reciprocally restrained each other; still, it
must be confessed, the royal authority was too subordinate to popular
power. It is never otherwise: sovereignty, from whatever source derived,
gives itself a feeble counterpoise when it limits itself. A constituent
assembly enfeebles royalty; a king who is a legislator limits the
prerogatives of an assembly.
This constitution was, however, less democratic than that of the United
States, which had been practicable, despite the extent of the territory,
proving that it is not the form of institutions, but the assent which they
obtain, or the dissent which they excite, which permits or hinders their
establishment. In a new country, after a revolution of independence, as in
America, any constitution is possible; there is but one hostile party,
that of the metropolis, and when that is overcome, the struggle ceases,
because defeat leads to its expulsion. It is not so with social
revolutions among nations who have long been in existence. Changes attack
interests, interests form parties, parties enter into contest, and the
more victory spreads the greater grows opposition. This is what happened
in France. The work of the constituent assembly perished less from its
defects than from the attacks of faction. Placed between the aristocracy
and the multitude, it was attacked by the one and invaded by the other.
The latter would not have become sovereign, had not civil war and the
foreign coalition called for its intervention and aid. To defend the
country, it became necessary that it should govern it; then it effected
its revolution, as the middle class had effected its own. It had its 14th
of July in the 10th of August; its constituent assembly, the convention;
its government, which was the committee of public safety; yet, as we shall
see, without emigration there would have been no republic.
THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY