THE WORK OF REFORM

In Paris, as in the provinces, a great fear held all hearts in its grip. “ The anarchy is most compleat,” wrote Lord Auckland on August 27 ; “ the people have renounced every idea and principle of subordination … even the industry of the labouring class is interrupted and suspended … in short, it is sufficient to walk into the streets and to look at the faces of those who pass to see that there is a general impression of Calamity and Terror.” [20]

“ The National Assembly,” Fersen wrote a week later, “ trembles before Paris, and Paris trembles before 40,000 to 50,000 bandits and vagabonds encamped at Montmartre and in the Palais Royal.” [21]

In the midst of these alarms the Royalist Democrats of the Assembly struggled bravely on with the work of reform. Already the foundations of the Constitution had been laid at the Séance Royale of the 23rd of June ; it only remained for the nobility and clergy to complete the scheme the King had inaugurated by surrendering their seigneurial rights.

Now “ the people ” of France are by nature retentive of their possessions, and were therefore not disposed to believe that any class enjoying privileges would voluntarily renounce them. The great scheme of the revolutionary leaders from the beginning of the Revolution had been to play on this conviction.[22] In the cahiers drafted by Laclos and

Sieyès the “ privileged classes ” were persistently represented as opposed to reform, and later the disorders in the provinces were instigated by the same propaganda.

The moment had now come to bring off the great coup of the revolutionaries and show the nobility and the clergy to the people as their declared enemies. This was to consist in proposing to the Assembly to abolish at a sweep the entire feudal system. The privileged orders would be sure to protest, and a further triumph would thus be provided for the Orléaniste cause. What a signal for fresh insurrections in the provinces if it could be proclaimed to the people that the nobles and clergy had formally refused to relinquish their privileges ! On the other hand, if the “ privileged orders ” capitulated the Orléanistes would still score a victory, for, as I have shown, the weakening of the noblesse was an essential part of their scheme for making the Duc d’Orléans a monarch à la Louis XIV. “ Thus,” says Montjoie, “ d’Orléans on coming to reign would find no http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (5 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

longer those provincial states, those sovereign courts, that clergy, that noblesse

which formed a tribunate between the King and his subjects … there would be in France only one master and a people without protectors.” [23]

Even the Republican Gouverneur Morris clearly recognized this danger when he urged Lafayette “ to preserve if possible some constitutional authority to the body of the nobles as the only means of preserving any liberty for the people.”

The Orléanistes, of course, had no intention of giving liberty to the people, and so the destruction of both nobility and clergy was necessary to their designs. Accordingly, at a meeting of the Club Breton,[24] it was decided that the Vicomte de Noailles, a penniless

member of the nobility and an ardent supporter of the Duc d’Orléans, should propose to the Assembly the complete abolition of seigneurial rights.

The plan was carried out on the evening of the 4th of August, but to their eternal honour the nobility and clergy of France rose as one man to renounce all their ancient privileges—seigneurial justice, dimes, the rights of the chase, and all those feudal dues the loss of which reduced many landed proprietors to beggary.

At the end of the sitting Lally Tollendal rose to remind the Assembly that it was the King who had first set them the example of self-sacrifice by the surrender of his rights, and to propose that “ Louis XVI. should now be proclaimed the Restorer of French liberty.” [25] This time the eloquence of Lally carried all before him ; the proposal was

instantly taken up by both deputies and people ; for a quarter of an hour the hall of the Assembly rang with shouts of “ Vive le Roi ! Vive Louis XVI, restaurateur de la liberté française ! ”

The decision was conveyed to the King in an address from the Assembly, and Louis XVI., in accepting the title of honour conferred on him, declared his sympathy with the new reforms “ Your wisdom and your intentions inspire me with the greatest confidence in the result of your deliberations. Let us go and pray Heaven to guide us, and render thanks to Him for the generous feelings that prevail in the Assembly.”[26] The last

obstacle to the work of reform had now been removed, and nothing remained but to frame the Constitution in accordance with the wishes of the King, nobles, clergy, and people.

On July 27 the Royalist Democrat, Clermont Tonnerre, had presented to the Assembly the “ Declaration of the Rights of Man,” [27] and by this charter and the résumés of the cahiers the wording of the Constitution was to be framed. Now, on August 27, Mounier, in the name of the Committee of the Constitution, came forward with an improved plan by the Archbishop of Bordeaux. [28] It will be seen, therefore, that the Royalist Democrats were again the leaders of reform and rightly earned the name they bore later http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (6 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

of “ the Constitutionals,” whilst on the other hand we have only to consult the Moniteur to find that in the debates that took place on the subject of the Constitution the revolutionary leaders in the Assembly were conspicuous by their silence. The thunderous eloquence of Mirabeau, the biting irony of Robespierre, so potent to destroy, ceased directly the work of reconstruction began. True, the Abbé Sieyès, that “ dark horse ” of the Assembly—now Royalist, now Republican, and all the while the intime of the Orléanistes—had taken part in framing the Constitution, but when it came to renouncing his own privileges Sieyès showed the worth of his Liberalism and openly opposed the abolition of the dimes, [29] whilst the Archbishop of Paris, hissed by the

mob as an aristocrat, came forward at the head of the clergy to renounce them.[30] The

history of the Revolution is full of these little ironies.

It now became evident to the revolutionary leaders that the tide was turning irresistibly against them ; during the discussion on the Constitution the existence neither of the monarchy nor of the reigning dynasty had been brought into dispute—for, so far, no one dared to differ from the unanimous demands of the cahiers—and it was plain that not only the monarchists but Louis Seizistes were leading the House. “ Louis XVI.,” a deputy had declared, “ is no longer on the throne by accident of birth ; he is there by the choice of the nation.”[31]

To both Orléanistes and Subversives the future, therefore, looked very black indeed ; at this rate France would be regenerated without further convulsions, and both monarchy and reigning dynasty established more firmly than ever. From the Orléaniste point of view the Constitution would inevitably prove disastrous, for either it would stop the Revolution altogether, or, if they were able to continue it and bring about the desired change of dynasty, the Duc d’Orléans would have to content himself with becoming a Constitutional monarch—a position it would not amuse him in the least to occupy.

Some pretext must therefore be found immediately for creating fresh dissensions. This was provided by the debate on the “ royal sanction ” which began on August 29 and turned on the questions : “ Should the King be allowed to retain the right of the ‘ Veto ’ ? If so, should the ‘ Veto ’ be ‘ absolute ’ or ‘ suspensive ’—in other words, should the King be able absolutely to ‘ veto ’ the promulgation of a law or merely to suspend its promulgation until a later date ? ”

Undoubtedly the Royal Veto was a relic of autocracy, and as such might reasonably be condemned by independent democratic thinkers, but, as several deputies immediately pointed out, the question was one on which the Assembly had no power to deliberate, since “ the royal sanction had been demanded by the people in the cahiers.” [32]

“ The law was made by the nation,” said D’Espréménil, “ we have only to declare it.” [33]

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (7 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

Thus spoke the spirit of pure democracy.

The Royalist Democrats, true to their cahiers as to their King, therefore unanimously supported the royal sanction. “ I regard the royal sanction,” declared Lally Tollendal, “ as one of the first ramparts of national liberty.” [34] “ I would defend it,” he said again, “ to my last breath, less for the King than for the people.” [35]

Here, then, was the pretext needed by the revolutionary leaders for once more stirring up insurrection, and agitators were sent into the clubs and cafés of Paris to tell the citizens that “ traitors in the Assembly had voted for the absolute Veto of the King, who would now revoke all the decrees of August the 4th and France would be again enslaved.”[36]

They were careful, however, not to mention to the people that several of the Orléaniste deputies, including Mirabeau himself—acting presumably in the interests of the duke—had voted for the absolute Veto.[37] The Royalist Democrats alone, and not the Royalists who opposed reform, were represented to the people as their enemies. Playfair is one of the few English contemporaries who have commented on this significant fact : “ Perhaps the thing that may the most convince impartial men of the existence of a criminal plot is, that the moderate party of the reformers in the Assembly, that is those who were royalists, but had obtained popular favour by their eloquence and love of liberty, were those whom the party in power, the Lameths, Barnave, Mirabeau, etc., turned against with the greatest fury. Mounier, the Count de Lally Tollendal, and upwards of forty more of the moderate party, received anonymous letters threatening their lives…. This would seem to be proof that the reigning party were more afraid of the men who were attached to liberty than of the pure royalists, as the personal characters of the former left no hopes of leading them over to the violent measures in view.” [38]

So again we find the revolutionary movement diametrically opposed to the work of reform. Let any one who challenges this statement explain the following circumstance : the plan of the Constitution founded on the Declaration of the Rights of Man—universally agreed to be the purest expression of democracy—was given to the Assembly by the Royalist Democrats on August 28, and two days later a price was set on the heads of all these men by the revolutionaries at the Palais Royal.[39] Mounier,

who from the first had shown himself the most intrepid champion of liberty—Mounier who in an excess of democratic zeal had proposed the oath of the Tennis Court, and to whom more than to any one the principles of the Constitution were due—was now held up to popular execration, and from this moment his life was perpetually threatened. [40]

Could there be any explanation but the one offered by Mounier himself—that the whole agitation was a plot to prevent the framing of the Constitution ? [41]

 

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (8 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

 

FIRST ATTEMPT TO MARCH ON VERSAILLES

 

By the usual methods of calumny and terror the mind of the populace was once more stirred up, and a panic on the subject of the Veto spread through Paris. The fact that to many of the people the Latin word conveyed no meaning whatever greatly facilitated the work of the agitators. “ Do you know what the Veto is ? ” they cried out at the street corners. “ Listen, then. You go home and your wife has prepared your dinner, then the King says ‘ Veto ! ’ and you get nothing to eat ! ” [42]

The “ suspensive Veto,” a peasant told Bertrand de Molleville, was the right of the King to suspend, i.e. to hang, any one he pleased. Some people, indeed, believed the Veto to be alive : “ What is he, this Veto ? What has he done, this brigand Veto ? ” [43]

By the evening of Sunday, August 30, the garden of the Palais Royal had become once more a raging sea ; so immense was the crowd that it overflowed into the surrounding houses ; the windows and the very roofs were packed with people. Suddenly from a window of the Café de Foy there shot forth the shoulders and shaggy black head of Camille Desmoulins, who shouted excitedly to the assembled multitude : “ Messieurs, I have just received a letter from Versailles telling me that the life of the Comte de Mirabeau is no longer safe, and it is for the defence of our liberty that he is exposed to danger ! ” [44]

The panic news was passed from mouth to mouth—“ Mirabeau has paid with his life-blood his attachment to the cause of the people”—“ Mirabeau has been stabbed to the heart—no, poisoned ”—a letter from Mirabeau himself warned the people that the country was in danger, that fourteen men had betrayed their cause. [45]

These tidings drove the crowd into a frenzy of alarm, and thus the ridiculous situation was created of a vast multitude inveighing against the Veto and at the same time stricken with panic for the safety of its chief supporter—Mirabeau ! “ The people,” remarks Bailly, “ did not as yet know their lesson.” [46]

It was now that the Orléanistes saw their opportunity for launching their great scheme of a march on Versailles. If the King persisted in retaining his popularity with the people by giving into their demands and continuing to favour reforms, it was idle to hope that the people would rise against him. The remoteness of Versailles from the centre of agitation added greatly to the glamour that surrounded the person of the King ; shut in behind the gilded barriers and the dim red walls of the great château of the Roi Soleil, Louis XVI. still retained to some degree the character of a sacred being, whose infrequent appearance in public inspired the great mass of the people with wondering http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (9 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

awe. But if Louis XVI. could be brought to Paris to become the object of everyday contemplation by the multitude, the halo might be expected to fall from his head. At the palace of the Tuileries, close to the Palais Royal, the revolutionary leaders would have him in their power,[47] and the populace they held at their command could be trained to

degrade the Royal Family in the eyes of the still loyal people.

Accordingly it was announced at the Palais Royal that in order to save the country from the horrors of the Veto, and to ensure the safety of Mirabeau, a deputation must be sent to the Assembly to insist that the King and the Dauphin should be brought to Paris.

Camille Desmoulins shrieked that the Queen must be imprisoned at St. Cyr and that the deputation should consist of 15,000 armed men. At the same time threatening messages were despatched to the President of the Assembly, the bishop of Langres ; one signed by St. Huruge ran thus : “ The Patriotic Assembly of the Palais Royal have the honour to inform you that if that portion of the aristocracy, composed of a party in the clergy, a party in the noblesse, and 120 members of the Commons, ignorant and corrupt, continue to disturb harmony and to demand the ‘ absolute sanction,’ 15,000 men are ready to light up their houses and châteaux, and yours in particular, Monsieur, and to inflict on the deputies who betray their country the fate of Foullon and of Berthier.” [48]

The authorship of these two murders was thus clearly revealed. But the number of insurgents promised by the leaders was not forthcoming, and at ten o’clock in the evening St. Huruge, armed with the petition, set forth at the head of only 1500 unarmed men for Versailles. The aspect of their leader was terrible enough to inspire his followers with courage—a massive figure surmounted by a huge red face, eyes of extraordinary audacity flaming forth from under a thick black wig, St. Huruge appeared the very incarnation of the revolutionary spirit.[49]

But the daring of St. Huruge, like the daring of Danton, was more apparent than real ; the first sight of danger reduced him to the utmost meekness.[50] On this occasion danger of a very formidable kind confronted him—Lafayette, the great opponent of the Orléaniste conspiracy, was ready for him. The procession having marched boldly down the Rue Saint-Honoré found their passage blocked by the National Guard, of which Lafayette was the commander, and being turned back they proceeded to march to the Hôtel de Ville, where Bailly and Lafayette himself were waiting to receive them. The popular general had little difficulty in reducing St. Huruge to submission ; perfectly docile and even “ contented ” he consented to retire from the scene, but for greater safety Lafayette imprisoned him in the Châtelet.

So ended this first attempt to march on Versailles. But the project was not abandoned.

On the contrary, from this moment it was perpetually discussed, and a fresh pretext was http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (10 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3

sought for stirring up the people.