http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (6 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
It is significant that even at this crisis, when the revolutionary leaders had at last succeeded in obtaining a following amongst the populace, the attempt was not renewed to achieve the death of the King at the hands of the mob. But the new demagogues were too expert crowd exponents not to realize the futility of such a project. Madame Roland might imagine that the Faubourgs of Paris could be incited to regicide ; Marat, Danton, and Robespierre well knew that if the King were to die they themselves must perform the deed. For in this matter even the populace they had enlisted in their service was not to be depended on.
“ The people,” writes a contemporary during the King’s trial, “ even that portion of the people who have so often steeped themselves in blood during the Revolution, does not wish to shed that of the King ; but there is a party to which it is necessary, and at this moment it dominates Paris, and even the Convention.”[16]
Dr. Moore, mingling at this date with the people of Paris, likewise realized that the ferocity attributed to them was confined to their socalled representatives. New fears, he writes, have been expressed in the Convention of massacres taking place in the streets. “ If there is really any danger of such an event, the inhabitants of Paris must be the worst of savages, but the only people I see of a savage disposition are certain members of the Convention and of the Jacobin Club, and a great majority of those who fill the tribunes at both those assemblies ; but the shopkeepers and tradespeople (and I take some pains to be acquainted with their way of thinking) seem to be much the same as I have always known them ; I am persuaded that there is no risk of massacres or assassinations but from a set of wretches who are neither shopkeepers nor tradesmen, but idle vagabonds, hired and excited for the purpose. When I hear it asserted from the tribune of the Convention, or of the Jacobin Society, that the people are impatient for the death of the King, or inclined to murder unfortunate men while they are conducted to prison, and yet can perceive no disposition of that nature among the citizens, I cannot help suspecting that those orators themselves are the people who are impatient for those atrocities, and that they spread the notion that this desire is general among the people on purpose to render it easier to commit them, and to make them more quietly submitted to after they have been committed.” [17]
In vain the Commune marshalled deputations from the revolutionary “ sections ” to the bar of the Assembly to demand “ the death of the tyrant ”; the people in the streets and cafés gave the lie to all such demonstrations. Thereupon Prudhomme, still the King’s implacable enemy, angrily apostrophized them “ Frenchmen, where will all this lead you ? … every hour of the day takes away millions of partisans from the Republic to give them to Royalism… . Already in your restaurants hired singers screech inane but touching laments on the fate of the tyrant. (This lament to the tune of ‘ Pauvre Jacques ’
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (7 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
begins thus : ‘ O mon people, que t’ai-je fait ? ’ It is being sold in thousands. The hymn of the Marseillais is forgotten for it.) I have seen, yes, I have seen the toper let fall a tear into his wine in favour of Louis Capet… . The French Republic is already threequarters royalized.”[18]
On the 2nd of January 1793 a Royalist play entitled L’Ami des Lois was produced amidst a wild outburst of popular enthusiasm. The piece in itself was dull, but the opportunity it offered for applauding allusions to royalty and the person of the King, and for jeering at the leading demagogues travestied on the stage, drew an immense audience—the crowd struggling to obtain admittance was numbered at 30,000 people. In vain the Père Duchesne proclaimed his Grande Colère against “ the mounte-banks, heretofore actors of the King ”; in vain the younger Robespierre denounced this “ infamous piece ” in which they had the audacity to introduce his brother and “ the excellent citizen Marat ”; in vain Santerre, surrounded by his staff and later 150 Jacobins, sword and pistol in hand, attempted to put a stop to the performance. The people responded with deafening cries of “ L’Ami des Lois ! The piece ! The piece ! Raise the curtain ! ” The voice of Santerre was drowned in shouts of “ Down with the General Mousseux ! Down with the 2nd of September ! We want the piece ! The piece or death ! ” The demagogues were obliged to submit ; the piece was played not once but again, four times in all, amidst scenes of indescribable enthusiasm.[19]
A still stranger scene took place at Bordeaux, where it was not simply a promiscuous crowd of citizens who protested against the designs of the Convention, but the chosen flock on whom the leaders depended for their following. By way of propaganda the Jacobin Society of Bordeaux had invited its members to a “ patriotic play ” called The Republic of Syracuse, or Monarchy Abolished. The sentiments this piece contained having been heartily approved by the leading members of the Club, it was hoped that the public would receive it with equal favour. This is, however, what occurred—the description must be given in the inimitable words of the patriot of Bordeaux, whose letter was read aloud at the Jacobin Club in Paris :
“ On the day of the performance all the seats were filled at a very early hour. The curtain rises and the theatre represents the place of M. Veto ; he is told of the complaints that his people make against him, and of the depredations of Mme. Veto. He gets angry ; an insurrection makes him gentler. The people wish to become free and give themselves a constitution ; a patriot general is placed at the head of the armed forces ; Mme. Veto tries to seduce him, but in the piece she does not succeed as in our Revolution. [20] The Constitution made, the Constitutional Monarch swears and swears again everything they wish, but keeps nothing ; at last the people open their eyes a http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (8 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
second time, they see that this monarch is deceiving them ; they attack the Château, take M. and Mme. Veto prisoners, and shut them up in a tower. They are brought to trial and the Senate of Syracuse sends them both to the guillotine. Here begins the fifth act. The guillotine on the stage excites a movement of stupor throughout the hall. Some said, ‘
How can they represent such things ? ’ Women fainted. At last, in the midst of the most absolute silence, M. and Mme. Veto arrive at the foot of the fatal instrument. At the moment they mount the ladder a cry from the people demands mercy for them, and condemns them to perpetual imprisonment. At the cry of ‘ Mercy ! ’ the hall resounded with applause, so much has public opinion deteriorated in that city. So no longer there does one hear the générale beaten or the cry to arms ; flat calm reigns. The patriot Terrasson tried to speak at the Society in favour of Marat, Robespierre, Danton, and others, who are regarded as sedition-mongers ; they would not listen to him … the Society passed the resolution that it would suspend all correspondence with the Jacobins of Paris, so long as these members remained amongst them.” [21]
The Convention took a terrible revenge on Bordeaux ten months later.
It will be asked, “ If the people did not wish for the death of the King, why did they not save him ? ” Perhaps if they had known their power they might have done so, but, terrorized as they still were by the September massacres, they no doubt imagined the Commune to be far more powerful than it really was. They could not know, as we know now, that the following on which the leaders depended for support constituted approximately 1-100th part of the population of Paris, [22] and that, had the remaining 99-
100th been able to coalesce, they could have swept away the demagogues almost without an effort. Convinced of their own helplessness, they showed the same submission to the decrees of the Convention concerning the King as they displayed when their own lives were at stake eighteen months later. But, above all, they lacked leaders, men of their own class to defend their interests against those of the middle-class men who composed the Convention. A few energetic working-men, placing themselves at the head of the Faubourgs, must have carried the day, for at this stage of the Revolution the demagogues would not have dared to fire on them—the people so far were not crushed, they were only paralysed.
Meanwhile, had they only realized it, the Convention lived in terror of the people. All through the discussions that took place on the fate of the King there runs a haunting fear lest a popular movement should be made in his favour.[23] It was for this reason that
Chabot urged the necessity for avoiding a Sunday or Monday for bringing the King to trial, since on those days the people were not at work and would be free to assemble.[24]
Robespierre, the better to expedite matters, proposed that the Convention should pass http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (9 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
sentence of death without according Louis XVI. the formality of a trial, whilst St. Just advocated simple murder. “ Caesar,” he said, “ was immolated in the open Senate without any further formality than twenty-two dagger thrusts.”
But the Girondins, either from a desire to maintain a reputation for justice, or because they really wished to save the King, insisted on a trial, and the 11th of December was the day fixed for Louis XVI. to appear at the bar of the Convention.
The debates that took place in the Convention must be read in order to realize the utter futility of the charges brought against the King, from Valazé’s accusation of “ monopolizing wheat, coffee, and sugar,” [25] to the diatribes of Robert—convicted later of cornering large quantities of rum [26]—who declared Louis XVI. to be “ guilty of more cruelties than Nero,” of having “ butchered more human beings than his life counted hours or moments,” of “ aspiring to the absurd privilege of bathing in the blood of his fellow-men.” [27] For want of fresh pretexts all the old threadbare grievances were revived—the closing of the Assembly on the day of the Oath of the Tennis Court, the “ orgy of the Guards ” at Versailles on the 1st of October 1789, the flight to Varennes, the “ massacre of the Champ de Mars ” on July 17, 1791 (when the King was a prisoner at the Tuileries), the refusal to sanction the camp of 20,000 men, and so on. The charge of conspiring with foreign powers, that looms so large in the pages of revolutionary historians, played a comparatively small part in the trial, for no proofs whatever were forthcoming. Great hopes had been entertained of finding incriminating documents in the iron cupboard that Roland had discovered at the Tuileries after the 10th of August, where the King had concealed his private papers, but this find proved disappointing, for though it offered to Roland the opportunity for abstracting documents that could have served to establish the innocence of Louis XVI. [28]—and also certain other documents that might have convicted Roland and his party of offering to sell themselves to the Court [29]—it provided not a shred of evidence that the King had been guilty of traitorous
intrigues with the enemies of France. [30]
When, finally, Louis XVI. appeared at the bar of the Convention, and the long list of paltry charges, drawn up in the form of an indictment, was read aloud to him, he contented himself with brief and dignified denials ; only when they touched on his most vulnerable point, his conduct towards the people, his serenity momentarily deserted him. Thus at the accusation of Barère that he had attempted to conspire by going to the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and distributing alms amongst the poor workmen of the district, his eyes filled with tears as he answered, “ Ah ! monsieur, I have never known greater happiness than in giving to those who were in need.” [31] At this, one of the wretched
women amongst Marat’s following in the tribunes burst into loud sobs, exclaiming, “ http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (10 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
Ah ! men Dieu, how he makes me weep! ” [32] When, again, he was accused of shedding
the people’s blood—the one reproach of all that cut him to the heart—his voice vibrated with emotion as he replied, “ No, monsieur, no, it was not I who shed their blood.” [33]
“ The King’s appearance in the Convention,” says Dr. Moore, “ the dignified resignation of his manner, the admirable promptitude and candour of his answers, made such an evident impression on some of the audience in the galleries that a determined enemy of Royalty, who had his eye upon them, declared that he was afraid of hearing the cry of ‘
Vive le Roi ! ’ issue from the tribunes, and added that if the King had remained ten minutes longer in their sight he was convinced it would have happened : for which reason he was vehemently against his being brought to the bar a second time.” [34]
On the proposal of Pétion the King was allowed to appoint advocates for his defence.
No less than a hundred at once offered their services.[35] The King’s choice fell on his old friend Malesherbes, who at the beginning of his reign had cooperated with him in the work of reform, on Désèze, Tronchet, and Target. Target, it seems, had not volunteered, and had the cowardice to refuse the task. At this the poissardes were so indignant that they presented themselves at his door with birch-rods to scourge him, and the wretched Target, warned of their intention, was obliged to fly ; but to Tronchet who accepted they brought flowers and laurels.[36] They would have crowned, too, the head
of brave old Malesherbes, that venerable white head that, as the penalty of his devotion, was to fall later upon the scaffold, but Malesherbes declined the honour, and the fishwives had to content themselves with hanging their garlands on his gate. [37]
All these symptoms seriously alarmed the revolutionary leaders, and when on the 26th of December the King appeared at the Convention to hear his defence read aloud by Désèze, immense precautions were taken to prevent the people from coming to his rescue. The whole route from the Temple to the Manège was lined with troops ; a mounted bodyguard as well as one on foot surrounded his carriage, six cannons preceded him and six followed behind, whilst strong patrols paraded the streets.[38]
The assembling of this guard had been no easy matter, for the men of the people had absolutely declined to take part in the proceedings. “ It is said,” writes a contemporary that evening, “ that the Faubourgs Saint-Antoine and Saint-Marceau, which are the most thickly populated districts of Paris, refused to-day to form the King’s Guard whilst he was at the Convention, saying that if any harm is to be done to him they will not be accomplices.” [39] It was thus found necessary to form a sort of press-gang, and officers
were sent to tear peaceful citizens from their beds and force them to join the escort. [40]
From the outset it was evident that the King’s trial was to be a mere travesty of justice. “ I look for judges ! ” cried his advocate Désèze, “ and I see only accusers ! ” Even the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (11 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
revolutionary leaders themselves secretly recognized the truth of this indictment. The Convention, Prudhomme pointed out to Danton, had not the right to try Louis XVI.: “ If the Parliament of England tried Charles I., it is because it was not a Convention ; the members of the Conventional Assembly cannot be at the same time accusers, jury, and judges.” “ You are right,” answered Danton, “ nor shall we judge Louis XVI.; we shall kill him.” [41]
This was the plan they now proposed to put into practice, and as soon as the King had retired Duhem rose to demand that his condemnation should be discussed without further delay. The evidence brought forward in his defence was thus not even to be considered.
At so monstrous an outrage on humanity and justice one man was found brave enough to protest—Lanjuinais, a Breton, member for Ile et Vilaine, whose courage and eloquence from this moment until the fall of the Gironde provide a striking contrast to the cowardice and treachery of both Girondins and Montagnards. “ You cannot,” Lanjuinais cried boldly, “ remain judges, appliers of the law, accusers, juries for the accusation, juries for the judgement, having all expressed your opinions, having done so, some of you, with a scandalous ferocity ! ” [42]
The voice of Lanjuinais was drowned in howls of indignation. At last, after scenes of indescribable confusion, the Convention decided that the judgement of the King should be discussed. It seems that the Girondins now really wished to save the King, if only to arrest the increasing despotism of the Mountain ; but, too cowardly to protest against his condemnation, they bethought themselves of a way out of the dilemma by proposing an appeal to the people through the primary assemblies. The Montagnards, who knew as well as the Girondins that the verdict of the people would be in favour of the King, naturally offered a furious resistance to the plan. The question was first put to the Convention by the Girondin Salles on the 27th of December in an admirable speech. “ Either,” he said, “ the nation wishes that Louis should die or it does not ; if it wishes it, you all who wish it also, your expectations will not be disappointed ; but if it does not wish it, what right have you to send him to execution contrary to the wish of the nation ?
”
This was, of course, absolutely unanswerable from the point of view of true democracy, but presented no difficulty to the deputies of the Mountain. Every tortuous argument the heart of sophist could devise was brought forward during the seven days that the discussion lasted, to prove that an appeal to the nation would be in reality un democratic—a betrayal of the people’s trust. “ Virtue,” Robespierre remarked sententiously, “ was always in a minority on earth.” He seemed to have forgotten he had http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (12 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
once said that the people were infallible ; on this occasion he evidently feared they might prove “ subject to error.” St. Just, paying an unconscious tribute to the liberty accorded to public opinion by the Old Régime, asked : “ The appeal to the people …
would that not be bringing back the monarchy ? ” Nothing could be truer. Under the monarchy the poorest of the King’s subjects had enjoyed the right of bringing him petitions ; from St. Louis seated beneath his oak to Louis XVI. receiving the poissardes at Versailles, access had always been granted to “ the people.” But when deputations of poor women gathered around the doors of the Convention to plead for the life of Louis XVI. they were turned away, after waiting long hours, without a hearing, [43] whilst deputies who persisted in demanding an appeal to the people were shouted down with angry cries of “ Death to the traitor ! ” [44] In the streets hawkers shouted, “ Here is the list of the Royalists and aristocrats who voted for the appeal to the people ! ” [45]
For, as usual at a moment of crisis, the revolutionary leaders had recourse to their great expedient— terror.
When the King—against whom nothing had been proved—was finally pronounced “ guilty,” and the appeal to the people was defeated by a majority of 424 to 283 votes, the Mountain put all the machinery of revolution in motion to secure a final verdict of death. Amongst the men employed for this purpose the agents of the Duc d’Orléans were the most active. “ The Orléanistes,” says Montjoie, “ clearly understood that the people were not for them ; they kept the blade unceasingly raised over the heads of the voters ; they surrounded them with assassins.” The deputies of the Gironde, says Madame Roland, were obliged to go about “ armed to the teeth ” in self-defence ; [46]
brigands brandishing sticks and sabres pursued them as they left the Convention, crying out, “ His life or yours ! ” [47]
At eight o’clock on the evening of the 16th of January the debate began that was to decide the great question : “ What penalty shall be inflicted on Louis ? ” “ It is impossible,” says Mercier, “ to describe the agitation of that long and convulsive sitting.” Lehardy opened the proceedings by asking what majority would be necessary for the death sentence to be pronounced. Thereupon Lanjuinais demanded that it should consist in two-thirds of the votes, in accordance with the penal code framed by the Constituent Assembly. But Danton, shrewdly foreseeing that this majority would not be forthcoming, proposed that the Convention should pass a decree ordaining that a majority of one voice should be sufficient—in other words, the law was to be altered to fit the case.
At this Lanjuinais rose again in wrath : “ You say all the time that we are a jury ; well, it is the penal code I invoke, it is the form of trial by jury for which I ask… . You have http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (13 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
rejected all the forms that perhaps justice and certainly humanity demand, the right of challenging the jury and voting in silence. We seem to be deliberating in a free Convention, but it is beneath the daggers and the cannons of the factions.” And he ended by demanding that three-fourths of the votes should be necessary for condemnation to death.
But the Convention without further discussion decreed that a majority of one vote should suffice.
Then the voting began and continued for twenty-four hours without intermission. One by one the deputies arose, and through the tense silence of the hall the fatal word rang out again and again : “ Death ! ” Some of the more violent—Marat, Frèron, Billaud-Varenne—added vindictively, “ within twenty-four hours ”; several even amongst the Girondins now allowed themselves to be terrorized into voting for immediate death, others pleaded tremblingly for respite. It was reserved for Philippe d’Orléans to give the last touch of infamy to this terrible night. When in the semi-darkness of the hall, illumined only by a few feebly-burning candles, the bloated face of Égalité appeared in the tribune, the Assembly waited breathlessly for the words that were to fall from his lips : “ Solely occupied by my duty, convinced that all those who have violated the sovereignty of the people deserve death, I vote for death.”
At this cowardly betrayal of his kinsman even the Convention shuddered ; a low murmur of indignation ran through the hall ; men rose from their seats with gestures of disgust, crying out incontrollably, “ Oh ! horror ! Oh ! the monster ! ” [48]
The miserable prince had shown his hand at last, had given the lie once and for all to his apologists, who declared him to be the weak and amiable puppet of a faction ; even in the eyes of the regicides he now became a thing of loathing, a pariah to be repudiated by each faction in turn.
The vote of the Duc d’Orléans was of paramount importance in the final decision, for, according to the official report, when the votes came to be counted up there were found to be 360 for imprisonment, banishment, for death with respite or conditional death, and exactly 361 for immediate and unconditional death ; if this were so, then Philippe’s had been the casting vote, and by throwing it into the scale of instant death he murdered the King as surely as if he had stabbed him to the heart with his own hand. But so much jugglery went on behind the scenes, and the votes of many deputies were so vaguely worded, that it is impossible to discover the exact figures. [49] According to a prevailing
opinion at the time, there was a real majority of five votes for immediate and unconditional death. “ They murdered him,” Arthur Young wrote indignantly, “ by a majority of five voices, though their law required three-fourths at least for declaring guilt http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (14 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
or for pronouncing death—and the majority obtained by the menaces of the assassins paid by Égalité. The consummation of political infamy ! ”
The Convention itself recoiled in shame before the crime it was about to perpetrate. “ The silence of terror,” says Beaulieu, “ reigned during the deliverance of this disastrous judgement, and even long after the President had ceased speaking. It seemed as if the revolutionaries were already plumbing the abyss they had created without being able to discover its depth.”
The same evening the news was brought to the King’s counsels that a majority of five votes had been obtained in favour of death. Thereupon Louis XVI. instantly demanded that an appeal should be made to the people, and Désèze, Tronchet, and Malesherbes came to lay the request before the Convention. Malesherbes, overwhelmed with grief, was unable to utter more than a few broken sentences, but his colleagues forcibly portrayed the iniquity of pronouncing the death sentence contrary to the penal code by means of a decree passed at this same sitting. Robespierre replied that the King’s defenders had no right to attack “ great measures taken for public safety,” and demanded that their appeal should be rejected. This proposal was adopted by the Convention.
The Girondins, now more than ever alarmed at the tyranny of the Mountain, ventured to remonstrate ; Guadet asked that the objections of the King’s defenders should be considered. Buzot two days later protested against condemnation on so diminutive a majority, and even went so far as to declare that the party which desired the immediate death of the King wished to place the Duc d’Orléans on the throne. Thomas Paine represented the “ universal affliction ” the execution of Louis XVI. would create in America, where he was regarded by the people as “ their best friend, the one who had procured them their liberty.”
In the end the Girondins succeeded in carrying the motion that the question of postponing the sentence should be put to the vote. But by this time the whole Assembly was so cowed by the menaces of Orléans and the Mountain that the sentence of immediate death was carried by a majority of 380 to 310. The President then pronounced sentence of death to be executed within twenty-four hours.
Malesherbes has related that when he went to the Temple to break the news to Louis XVI. he found him seated in the semi-darkness, his back turned to the lamp, his elbows resting on a little table, and his face buried in his hands. As the old man entered the King rose and, looking him in the eyes, said solemnly : “ Monsieur de Malesherbes, for two hours I have been trying to discover whether in the course of my reign I have deserved the least reproach from my subjects. Well, I swear to you in all truth as a man about to appear before God that I have always wished for the happiness of my people, http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (15 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
that I have never formed a wish opposed to them.”
“ Ah, Sire,” answered Malesherbes with tears, “ I still have hope ; the people know the purity of your intentions, they love you and they feel for you. I found myself, on going out from the debate, surrounded by a number of people who assured me that you would not perish, or at least not until they and their friends had perished themselves… .” “ Do you know these people ? ” Louis XVI. interposed hastily; “ go back to the Assembly, try to find some of them, tell them that I should never forgive them if a drop of blood were shed for me ; I refused to shed it when it might have saved me my throne and my life … and I do not repent, no, Monsieur, I do not repent.” The cause of this unrepentance is not far to seek. Louis XVI. realized that his trust in the people had not been misplaced, for it was not by the people he had been condemned—an appeal to the people must inevitably have saved him. He knew, no doubt, the intrigues that had brought about the fatal sentence. To numberless contemporaries it was evident that the influence of the Duc d’Orléans had contributed even more than that of Robespierre towards this end. According to rumours current at the time a certain Marquis de Lepeletier St. Fargeau had intended to vote against the King’s death, and to induce twenty-five of his fellow deputies to do the same, but at the last moment he and his companions were persuaded by Orléans to throw their weight into the opposite scale.
[50] Whether this was so or not, it provides the only explanation to a mysterious incident that occurred the evening before the King’s execution. Lepeletier was dining in a restaurant of the Palais Royal when a man with black hair, dressed in a long grey overcoat, entered. This man was Paris, a member of the King’s old bodyguard ; all day he had wandered about the city, sabre in hand, seeking the Duc d’Orléans in vain.[51]
Now he had found Lepeletier, and, going up to him, he accosted him thus : “ You voted for the death of the King ? ” “ Yes, Monsieur, I voted according to my conscience.
What matters it to you ? ” But Paris, drawing out his sabre from beneath his cloak, cried, “ Wretch, then you shall vote no more ! ” and he plunged his weapon into the body of Lepeletier.
So little did the citizens who filled the dining-room resent the crime that not a murmur arose, and Paris was allowed to leave the restaurant unmolested.[52]
Such manifestations of public feeling were naturally disquieting to the regicides, and now more than ever they dreaded that a popular movement might be made in favour of the King. On the following day a formidable guard was again summoned to surround him on his way to the Place de la Révolution. “ According to two Marseillais very hostile to the King,” says M. Madelin, “ Paris had been literally placed in a state of siege.” Meanwhile Philippe Égalité, foreseeing that Louis XVI. might succeed in http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (16 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
bringing the crowd to his rescue by words spoken from the scaffold, took elaborate precautions against such an eventuality. “ D’Orléans,” says Senart, “ fears that he may speak to the people ; he fears that the people may deliver him, for the head of Capet was necessary to him at any price. There were various rendezvous for the Orléans faction. It was at one of these rendezvous that Santerre swore to D’Orléans, glass in hand, that he would make use of a sure method to prevent Capet from speaking, and thus was formed the plot of the famous roll of drums which occurred at the death of Capet.” [53]
When the wet and dreary morning of January 21 dawned, the city was wrapped in the silence of consternation. “ All the shops were shut ; silent patrols, composed of ill-clad men, moved slowly about the streets, where one met only pale, sad, and gloomy faces ; executioners and victims alike seemed aghast at the cruel sacrifice that was to be consummated ; stupor alone seemed to inhabit Paris. Such was the situation of that famous city, once so brilliant and the rendezvous for all pleasures.” [54]
Mercier, who invariably endeavours to throw on the people the blame for all the crimes of the Revolution, has represented Paris as presenting a normal, even a gay appearance on this dreadful day—a testimony eagerly seized on by revolutionary historians, but which is contradicted by innumerable contemporaries, even by Prudhomme. Fockedey, a member of the Convention, has thus confirmed the evidence of Beaulieu : “ This day was for France, and above all for Paris, a day of bitterness and grief, of fear and mourning : the capital was in anguish. Almost all the shops and houses were closed, whole families were in tears. Consternation was seen on all the faces one met ; a great number of the National Guards, on foot since the morning, appeared themselves to be going to execution. No, never will the scenes I witnessed on that day be effaced from my memory. How many were the tears I saw flow ! What imprecations I heard against the authors of such a crime… . The Assembly that day was silent and gloomy, the voters for regicide were pale and shattered, they seemed to have a horror of themselves.” [55]
As to the poor people of Paris, they could hardly bring themselves to believe that so dreadful a deed could really be accomplished. “ On the 21st of January,” writes the Comtesse de Bohm, “ I saw upon the ramparts people of the lowest classes weeping, showing openly their grief at the outrage that was to take place. ‘ There are too many of them in Paris,’ they said, ‘ they will prevent it.’ The sun pierced through the clouds, shining on this crime. That national sense of shame that will be transmitted from age to age, of which the remorse will become for every Frenchman a personal offence, weighed heavily upon me.”
But the Parisians made no effort to prevent the crime. The little band of Royalists, under http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (17 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
the Baron de Batz, that dashed towards the King’s carriage, crying, “ Join with us, you who would save the King ! ” met with neither resentment nor response ; the immense multitude stood by stupefied and mute, hypnotized, it would seem, by the horror of the whole proceeding, for not a cry broke from them as the dark green coach passed between their ranks towards the great Place de la Révolution. Through the windows the outline of the King’s face could be dimly seen beneath the shadow of his large hat, bent downwards to his breviary open at the prayers for the dying. He was, perhaps, the most tranquil man in Paris on that grey January morning. “ God is my comforter,” he had said to his confessor, the Abbé Edgeworth ; “ my enemies cannot take His peace from me.” Every effort was made by the revolutionary journalists to minimize the King’s courage at the supreme moment. “ Louis,” Le Thermomètre du Jour declared, “ had shown courage and assurance only because he did not believe the sentence would really be carried out, that to the very moment of his death he had reckoned on being saved.” When he realized, however, his delusion, his serenity deserted him, and he “ struggled with the executioner’s assistants, by whom at last he was forcibly tied to the plank of the guillotine.” It was Sanson, the executioner himself who refuted this lie, by coming forward boldly to testify not only to the King’s courage but to the cause that inspired it.
“ Citizen,” he wrote to the editor of the Thermomètre, “ a short absence has prevented me from replying sooner to your article concerning Louis Capet, but here … is the exact truth concerning what passed. On alighting from the carriage for the execution he was told that he must take off his coat ; he made some difficulty, saying that he could be executed as he was. On being assured that this was impossible he himself helped to take off his coat. He then made the same difficulty when it came to tying his hands, but he offered them himself when the person who was with him (the Abbé Edgeworth) had said to him that it was a last sacrifice. He inquired whether the drums would go on beating ; we answered that we did not know, which was the truth. He ascended the scaffold, and tried to advance to the front as if he wished to speak, but it was represented to him that the thing was again impossible ; then he allowed himself to be led to the place where he was tied, and where he cried out loudly, ‘ People, I die innocent ! ’ Then turning towards us he said to us, ‘ I am innocent of all that is imputed to me. I desire that my blood may seal the happiness of the French people.’ Those, citizen, were his last and exact words. The kind of little debate which occurred at the foot of the scaffold turned on his not thinking it necessary that his coat should be taken off and his hands tied. He also made the proposal to cut off his own hair.
“ And in order to render homage to truth, he bore all this with a sangfroid and firmness which astonished us all, and I remain convinced that he had derived this firmness from http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (18 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
the principles of religion, of which no one could seem more persuaded and imbued than he. You can be sure, citizen, that here is the truth in its fullest light.—I have the honour to be your fellow-citizen,
“ SANSON.”
Not content with maligning the King, the revolutionaries as usual maligned the people.
“ After the execution,” says Mercier again, “ they laughed and chattered, they walked home arm-in-arm as if returning from a feast, the theatres remained open as usual throughout the evening.” True, hideous scenes of mirth took place on the Place de la Révolution ; joy shone out exultingly from the face of Orléans, watching the execution from his cabriolet ; around the scaffold brigands danced together, shouting “ Vive la République ! ” A citizen ascending the guillotine plunged his arm into the blood of the King and dashed it in the faces of the crowd. Then once again, like a tiger that has tasted blood, the mob went mad and broke out likewise into dancing ; wild, blood-bespattered figures whirled round in each other’s arms ; all over the great Place de la Révolution the hoarse roar arose, “ Vive la République ! Vive la Liberté ! Vive l’Égalité ! ” [56]
But after this one moment of “ crowd hysteria ” it seems that even the mob came to its senses, and Paris once more relapsed into stupor. The people did not go home rejoicing ; on the contrary, says Lacretelle, they “ returned gloomy and absorbed ; the multitude itself, whether from pity or from resentment at its curiosity being disappointed, loaded Santerre with imprecations for having drowned the last words of the King. All through the day that followed ”—for the execution took place at half-past ten in the morning—“ Paris was silent, almost deserted ; people shut themselves up with their families to weep.” The women, Prudhomme reluctantly admits, were sad, “ which contributed not a little to that gloomy air which Paris presented throughout this day.” As to the theatres, it is true that they were open that evening, but also they were empty, and the managers found themselves obliged to return the money paid for seats. [57] In the
streets, say the Two Friends of Liberty “ people dared not look each other in the face …
the day after the execution they had not recovered from this overwhelming dejection.” Had France indeed, like Louis XVI. himself, some premonition of the immense misfortunes this day was to bring her ? “ I see the people,” he had said to Cléry on the night of his condemnation, “ given over to anarchy, becoming the victim of all the factions ; I see crimes following one upon another and long dissensions rending France.” For the people he grieved, knowing well in what hands he was leaving them. Here, in the white light of eternity, we see him at his best, his blunders atoned for by his great sincerity. To the cause of despots he had proved a traitor, to “ aristocracy ” he had http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (19 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
shown scant sympathy, but to the people he had been true. In him they lost not their best but their only friend. Carlyle has written of “ the great heart of Danton ”—Danton, whose last words, like those of nearly every one of the demagogues, were to revile the people—for the great heart of Louis XVI. he has nothing but contempt. Yet, of all the men who played their part in the Revolution, there was only one who, realizing that no hope for his life remained, could say from the depths of his heart, as he stood on the threshold of the other world—the platform of the guillotine—“ I desire that my blood may seal the happiness of the French.” That one true patriot, that one man ready to die for France and for the people, was the King.
ENGLAND AND THE DEATH OF THE KING
In England the news of the King’s death was received by all classes with horror. “ I cannot describe to you,” Lord Grenville wrote to Lord Auckland on the 24th of January, “ the universal indignation it has excited here … the audience at one of the playhouses stopping the play, and ordering the curtain to be dropped as soon as the news was announced to them.”
The Prince of Wales, hearing of the vote for death given by his former boon-companion Philippe d’Orléans, pulled down the portrait of the duke—a masterpiece by Sir Joshua Reynolds from the wall in Carlton House, and tore it into shreds with his own hands. [58]
But the lovers of true liberty mourned the most profoundly. It was because the murder of Louis XVI. was the greatest crime ever committed against democracy that Arthur Young, that ardent democrat, denounced it in unmeasured terms :
“ This great abomination … ought to generate (for the real felicity of the human race) a tighter rein in the jaws of that monster … the metaphysical, philosophical, atheistical Jacobin Republican, abhorred for ever for holding out to all the sovereigns of the earth that the only prince who ever voluntarily placed bounds t0 his own power DIED FOR IT
ON THE SCAFFOLD, and ruined his people while he destroyed himself. He gave ear to those who told him of abuses ; he wished to ease his people ; he fought popularity …
he would not shed the blood of traitors, conspirators, and rebels… . This damned event, deep written in the characters of hell, has thrown a stupor over mankind.” [59]
In Parliament Pitt spoke of “ the murder of the King ” as “ that dreadful outrage against every principle of religion, of justice, and of humanity, which has created one general sentiment of indignation and abhorrence in every part of this island, and most undoubtedly has produced the same effect in every civilized country … it is the foulest http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (20 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
and most atrocious deed which the history of the world has yet had occasion to attest.” And here, for the honour of our country, it is impossible to pass over in silence the accusation brought against Pitt in this connection by an English historian. “ Information,” wrote the late Lord Acton, “ was brought to Pitt from a source that could be trusted, that Danton would save him (the King) for £40,000. When he made up his mind to give the money, Danton replied that it was too late. Pitt explained to the French diplomatist, Maret, afterwards Prime Minister, his motive for hesitation. The execution of the King of France would raise such a storm in England that the Whigs would be submerged.” [60]
In other words, Pitt was willing for the sake of party interests to act as murderer to Louis XVI. And on what does Lord Acton found this monstrous charge ? On the assertion of Maret—a revolutionary emissary to England ! Now, even if Pitt had entertained so dastardly a plan, is it conceivable that he would have confided it to such a man as Maret ? The only grain of truth in the whole story seems to be that Pitt did refuse to bribe Danton, but as he was very well aware of Danton’s true character—was not Bertrand de Molleville in London at the time and able to enlighten him on the financial transactions he had conducted on behalf of the King with that “ thorough patriot ” ?—it is hardly surprising that Pitt should have hesitated to put £40,000 into the pocket of a man who would in all probability make no return. The Revolutionary Tribunal was probably much nearer the mark when it declared that Pitt had assisted Malesherbes financially in defending the King [61]—a course the great statesman may well have held
to be more reputable and at the same time more expedient than bribing Danton.
If any members of the British Parliament are to be accused of complicity in the murder of Louis XVI., it is certainly the Whigs ; Pitt, whom the revolutionaries regarded as their arch-enemy, would only have increased their animosity towards the King by interceding for him, but Fox, Sheridan, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Lauderdale, and Lord Stanhope were all on the best of terms with the members of the Convention, and might surely have exerted their influence to avert the crime. With the exception of Lord Stanhope—who, we know, definitely refused to intercede for Louis XVI., giving as his reason that “ new discoveries of his treachery, perfidy, and duplicity ” had just been made [62]—we may do these men the justice to believe that if they refrained from
intervention it was because, like Pitt, they knew it would be hopeless.
A rupture between France and England had now become inevitable, for it was evident that the Anarchists of Paris, not content with devastating their own country, proposed to carry out the same process in every other country which they could succeed in entering.
On the 19th of November they had issued the following proclamation :
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (21 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
“ The National Convention declares in the name of the French nation that she will accord fraternity and assistance to all peoples who wish to recover their liberty, and charges the Executive Power to give the necessary orders to the generals in order to render assistance to these peoples, and to defend the citizens who have been vexed or who might be so for the cause of liberty.” [63]
This decree, which the Convention ordered to be translated into “ all languages,” was therefore not an appeal merely to the peoples of the countries with which France was then at war, but a call to universal insurrection. A few weeks later the revolutionary leaders explained their intentions towards the countries they had already entered in a further proclamation. On the 15th of December, Cambon, “ in the name of the financial, military, and diplomatic committees,” rose to define the line of conduct the generals of the revolutionary armies were to pursue :
“ It is necessary that we should declare ourselves a revolutionary power in the countries that we enter… . Your committees consider that, after expelling the tyrants and their satellites, the generals on entering every ‘ Commune ’ must publish a proclamation, showing the people that we bring them happiness, that they must immediately suppress tithes and feudal rights, and all forms of servitude.
“ But you will have accomplished nothing if you confine yourselves only to these destructions. Aristocracy governs everywhere ; therefore all existing authorities must be destroyed. Nothing of the Old Régime must survive when revolutionary power shows itself.” [64]
This, however, was not to be effected by the will of the people in the invaded countries, who indeed displayed no great enthusiasm for the benefits of French liberty. As in France, deputations and declarations, purporting to express the wishes of the people, were engineered by Jacobin agents,[65] and in no way represented public opinion. So,
although it was announced that Belgium desired to embrace revolutionary doctrines and to be united to the French Republic, “ the immense majority of the Belgian population remained attached to its old beliefs,” and regarded the anarchic schemes of the invaders with horror. [66] In Germany the apostles of “ democracy ” met with a like resistance.
Mayence boldly protested ; at Frankfort the citizens refused to plant a tree of liberty at the command of Custine.[67] But the revolutionary leaders were not to be baffled by these obstacles ; if the people did not accept “ liberty, equality, and fraternity ” when offered them with honeyed words, these inestimable blessings must be forced on them at the point of the sword.
It was in consequence of this recalcitrance that Cambon in the same speech went on to say : “ But you will have accomplished nothing if you do not loudly declare the severity http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (22 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
of your principles against whosoever desires only a half-liberty. You wish that the people against whom you carry arms should be free. If they reconcile themselves with the privileged castes you must not suffer this traffic with tyrants. You must therefore say to the people who wish to preserve the privileged castes, ‘ You are our enemies,’ and then treat them as such, since they desire neither liberty nor equality.” At the end of this speech, delivered amidst unanimous applause, the Convention issued a further decree to each country entered by their armies, declaring that “ from this moment the French Republic proclaims the suppression of all your magistrates, civil and military, of all the authorities that have governed you, and proclaims in this country the abolition of all the taxes you endure, under whatsoever form they exist,” etc. In a word, every country entered by the French was to be thrown into chaos. [68]
Beside this proclamation it must be admitted that the Manifesto of Brunswick appears almost benign. The Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia had definitely declared therein that they had “ no intention of meddling with the domestic government of France ”; the revolutionaries announced their determination to destroy the existing form of government whether the people desired it or not. The Manifesto of Brunswick, moreover, had repudiated all ideas of annexation ; the revolutionaries made no attempt to conceal the fact that the conversion of the invaded countries to “ democratic ” doctrines was to be but the prelude to incorporation with the French Republic.
The moment the retreat of the foreign armies began, after Valmy, the pretext of carrying on war for the defence of France was abandoned, and the Republic embarked on its career of aggrandizement. Belgium, the Rhine provinces, Savoy, and Nice were all successively annexed without any pretext being offered for these acts of brigandage.
Writers who enthuse over the glorious successes of French arms from the battle of Jemmapes onwards would do well to ask themselves by what right the French Republic pursued the invading armies beyond the frontier for the purpose of annexing territory ?
It will be answered Louis XIV. had done the same. True, but was not the spirit of the Revolution until 1792 diametrically opposed to the policy of Louis XIV. ? Had not the French democracy itself declared that war was never justified except in self-defence ?
only two and a half years earlier—in May 1790—at the Constituent Assembly, a league of perpetual peace had been decreed amidst immense enthusiasm. “ Let all nations be free like ourselves,” a deputy had cried, “ and there will be no more wars ! ” And on the proposal of Robespierre the Assembly formally declared : “ The French nation renounces the idea of undertaking any war with a view of conquest, and will never employ its forces against the liberty of any people.” Yet it was the very men who framed it, Robespierre and his allies, who now repudiated this resolution and advocated pure aggression, and thus the League of Peace proved but the prelude to the greatest war http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (23 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
of conquest the civilized world had ever seen. Had not Mirabeau foretold this when, in response to the enthusiasts of 1790, he had declared “ free people to be more eager for war, and democracies more the slaves of their passions than the most absolute autocracies ” ? [69]
It was not, then, as is frequently and falsely stated, that Pitt “ sought a pretext ” for joining “ the coalition of Kings ” against the French Republic ; it was the wanton aggression of the Republic culminating in the seizure of the mouth of the Scheldt and of Antwerp—that in the hands of a dangerous enemy must inevitably prove, as Napoleon perceived, “ a pistol held at the head of England ”; it was the example of inhumanity and injustice offered to Europe by the murder of Louis XVI.; above all it was the declaration of world anarchy published by the Convention, threatening not only England but the whole of civilization, that led Pitt to conclude his speech on the death of Louis XVI. by proposing preparations for war : “ There can be no consideration more deserving the attention of this House than to crush and destroy principles which are so dangerous and destructive of every blessing this country enjoys under its free and excellent constitution. We owe our present happiness and prosperity, which has never been equalled in the annals of mankind, to a mixture of monarchical government. We feel and know we are happy under that form of government. We consider it as our first duty to maintain and reverence the British Constitution.” He went on to present the contrast between England and “ that country (France) exposed to all the tremendous consequences of that ungovernable, that intolerable and destroying spirit, which carries ruin and desolation wherever it goes ! Sirs, this infection can have no existence in this happy land, unless it is imported, unless it is studiously and industriously brought into this country.”
Pitt well knew the efforts that were being made to spread this infection, the insidious influences that emanated from Parliament itself. England has always had her “ Illuminati,” who, holding loyalty and patriotism to be “ narrow-minded prejudices incompatible with universal benevolence,” have ever been ready to plead the cause of their country’s enemies—whether these enemies masqueraded under the name of democracy as in 1793, or rallied round the standard of autocracy as in 1800. Now at this most critical moment this band of antipatriots came forward in defence of the French Jacobins ; Fox, Sheridan, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Lauderdale, Lord Stanhope poured forth floods of oratory to prove that public opinion on the revolutionary leaders had been influenced by “ the absurdities of madmen, the monstrous propositions of the heated imaginations of individuals ”; [70] to show by tortuous sophistries that black was really white ; that if, indeed, crimes had been committed, the best way to express disapproval would be by shaking hands with the criminals. They themselves, honoured by the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (24 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7
friendship of such men as Brissot—whom to their indignation Burke at this same sitting described as “ the most virtuous of all pickpockets ”—could answer for the pacific disposition of the French revolutionaries, their ardent desire to retain the good opinion of England. Yet less than three weeks earlier Brissot himself had referred at the Convention to “ the comedy played in the House of Commons by the party of the Opposition ” ! [71] and it was likewise Brissot who, in the following May, justified Pitt
for refusing to form an alliance with the French Republic.[72]
But any illusions concerning the conciliatory sentiments of the French revolutionary leaders were abruptly dispelled by a declaration of war on England issued by the Convention two days after this debate took place. As long as possible Pitt had striven to bring the Jacobins of France to reason ; even at the last moment he had made a further attempt at conciliation by agreeing to a conference between Lord Auckland, the British ambassador at the Hague, and Dumouriez, commander-in-chief of the French armies in the Netherlands,[73] but on the very day arranged for the conference to take place the
Convention precipitated matters by declaring war and thus incurred the full responsibility for the twenty-two years’ conflict that followed. Yet even now the English admirers of the Jacobins were for conciliation ; even when the overture of Pitt had been thus insolently rejected they pleaded that England should humiliate herself and sue for peace—a peace, Pitt declared, that would be “ precarious and disgraceful… .
What sort of a peace must that be in which there is no security ? Peace is desirable only in so far as it is secure.” War with the French Republic was finally voted by 270 votes to 44.
These, then, were the causes that led up to the inevitable rupture between France and England. To accuse Pitt of wishing to “ destroy French liberty ” is, therefore, a monstrous calumny ; for in France liberty had completely ceased to exist. Already the blade was suspended over the heads of the Whigs’ supposed allies, the Girondins, and the country was rapidly passing under the most frightful tyranny the civilized world has ever seen—the reign of Robespierre. It was against this atrocious system, it was against anarchy and bloodshed, against cruelty and oppression, that England took up arms. So, by the master hand of Pitt, the ship of State was steered to safety, and England, true to her traditions, entered the lists in the cause of liberty and justice.