THE HOTBED OF REVOLUTION

Whilst these scenes were taking place at Versailles the agitators of Paris, in close touch with the revolutionary factions of the Assembly, had been busy stirring up insurrection.

Night and day the dusty garden of the Palais Royal was filled to overflowing ; no longer merely a haunt of vice, it had now become a political arena—a sort of Trafalgar Square and Burlington Arcade combined—where every device was employed to play upon the passions of men—women, wine, the lust of gold, envy, hatred, and revenge. At the little tables outside the cafes idlers gathered in heated debate ; under the long arcades, where the marchands de frivolités displayed their wares, painted women of the town walked arm-in-arm attracting with bold glances the soldiers who passed by ; in the gambling hells the rattle of the dice and the clink of coin continued far into the night, and under the trees cheap-jack politicians with rolling eyes and furious gestures stirred the people to violence. With these mob orators noise was of the first importance, and working themselves up into convulsions of revolutionary frenzy they shrieked invectives against the aristocrats and the Court, or yelled foul blasphemies on God and religion.

Most violent of all was the Marquis de St. Huruge, an ex-convict, whose stentorian voice seemed indefatigable ; above the heads of the crowd his white hat could be seen afar, a rallying point for disorder, whilst with an immense cudgel, manipulated like a conductor’s baton, he roused or soothed the passions of his auditors. Philippe d’Orléans, looking down on this scene from his windows at the end of the long square, had reason to congratulate himself on the vast machinery that the genius of Choderlos de Laclos had set in motion. Recently a number of new recruits had been added to the conspiracy, of which the most important was a young journalist from Guise, Camille

Desmoulins—discovered by Mirabeau—who tempted the greed of the populace with promises of booty to be wrested from the nobility and clergy :

“ The brute is in the trap, then kill it ! … Never was richer prey offered to the conqueror ! Forty thousand palaces, hotels, and chateaux, two-fifths of the wealth of France, will be the price of valour ! ”[12]

The services of several new agitators had also been enlisted—the comedian Grammont, a man of extraordinary ferocity, with, as we shall see later, a literal “ taste for blood ” ; a convict from San Domingo known as Fournier l’Américain, Stanislas Maillard, a future director of the September massacres, and one woman whose wit and daring was to prove an immense acquisition to the cause.[13]

Anne Terwagne of Mercourt was a Belgian demi-mondaine and an old friend of the Duc d’Orléans when the Revolution broke out. Several years before she had been introduced http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (11 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

to him in London by the Prince of Wales, and it was to the duke she owed her rise to fortune, for on her return to Paris she became a brilliant courtesan with jewels, carriages, and horses, and under the name of “ Comtesse de Campinados ” travelled about the Continent with various rich protectors.[14] The “ Comtesse ” was in Rome when the States-General met, but the gathering of the revolutionary storm brought her hurriedly back to Paris, where, adopting “ Théroigne de Méricourt ” as her nom de guerre, she threw herself into the cause of her old benefactor, the Duc d’Orléans. Théroigne was far from resembling the “ unfortunate female ” burning to avenge her wrongs on a corrupt society, who masqueraded under her name through the pages of Carlyle, for it was with the most corrupt portion of society that she now identified herself. Small and fragile, with brilliant black eyes, an impertinent retrousse nose, and “ a waist that a man could encircle with his ten fingers,” Théroigne at her salon in the Rue de Bouloi reigned as a queen of the demi-monde, assembling around her the leaders of the Orléaniste conspiracy, of which the Abbé Sièyes was her particular idol.

The rôle played by courtesans in the earlier stages of the Revolution has never been properly estimated by historians ; but for the cooperation of these women, from Théroigne de Méricourt down to the humblest fille de joie, it is doubtful whether the great scheme of the Orléanistes—the defection of the army—could ever have been realized. The French Guards, the gayest and most essentially Parisian regiment in the army, were habitual frequenters of the Palais Royal, and thus became the allies of the courtesans who lodged in the surrounding houses and haunted the arcades ; in some cases the soldiers played the part of souteneurs, sharing the incomes of the filles de joie, and these incomes being now largely increased by the bounty of the duke, both reaped the golden harvest sown by the conspirators. By this means the French Guards, who had stood firm at the Affaire Réveillon, were gradually turned from their allegiance.

Towards the end of June, the regiment having been confined to barracks for insubordination, three hundred broke loose and paraded the streets of Paris, finally presenting themselves at the Palais Royal, where they received a rapturous reception from the courtesans and were regaled with wine and good cheer.

This open revolt at last spurred the authorities to action and eleven of the ringleaders were imprisoned in the Abbaye. Immediately a yell of indignation went up from the Palais Royal, and an army of brigands, led by Jourdan, with Maillard as his aide-de-camp and Théroigne de Méricourt as Amazon, set forth to deliver the “ victims of despotism.” With clubs and hatchets the doors of the Abbaye were broken down, and all the prisoners—not only the deserters but a number of criminals—were let loose in the streets. Once more the Palais Royal received the rebels ; a magnificent supper was spread, whilst bonfires and fireworks turned night into day. Yet even after this outbreak http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (12 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

the King was persuaded to pardon the insurgents. It is the custom of historians, whether Royalist or Revolutionary, to accuse Louis XVI. of weakness. This charge, brought by those who believe that a king should be the ruler and not the servant of his people, is certainly consistent, but for believers in the sovereignty of the people to accuse Louis XVI. of weakness is both unjust and illogical. Louis XVI. carried out the principles of democracy to their utmost conclusion ; he believed that he existed for his people, not his people for him. “ Despotism,” says the democratic Bailly, “ had no place in the King’s character ; he never desired anything but the happiness of his people ; this was the only means that could be employed to influence him—a less kind-hearted king, cleverer ministers, and there would have been no revolution.” As long, therefore, as the mob orators inveighed against the Court, and the agitators incited the people to rise against his own authority, the King refused to put down sedition by force ; only when the people turned on each other he held it his duty to save them from themselves. When at last the scenes of violence taking place at the Palais Royal had reached such a pitch that no lawabiding citizen could venture inside the garden, the King was placed in the frightful dilemma of having to decide whether to bring out troops to restore order, and, as at every crisis in the Revolution, he found himself torn between conflicting counsels.

On the one hand the socalled democrats of the Assembly represented the iniquity of opposing the “ sovereign will of the people,” on the other hand the noblesse and clergy protested that it was “ a cruel derision thus to confound the people it was necessary to restrain with those it was necessary to protect,” and therefore urged the King to order out troops for the defence of the town. So great, indeed, was the alarm of the citizens that by the end of June the commons of Paris began to inaugurate a garde bourgeoise for protection against the brigands. Since the assembling of the troops round Paris has been habitually accepted as the principal reason for the Revolution of July, this point is important to remember.

The King finally decided to employ the army for the defence of the town ; and as it was essential to guard against further defection, two regiments of Swiss and German auxiliaries were included, partly because these men were especially amenable to discipline, but mainly because their ignorance of the French language rendered them less liable to corruption by the agents of the Palais Royal. [15] The circumstance of their

nationality, however, afforded a fresh pretext for stirring up the crowd—“ foreign legions to be employed against the nation ! ” Yet the revolutionaries did not hesitate to welcome these foreigners into their own ranks when by their usual methods of women, wine, and money they succeeded in seducing them from their allegiance to the King. A German hussar mounted in the ranks for the defence of French citizens was a “ foreign mercenary ” ; the same hussar drinking with the courtesans of the Palais Royal to the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (13 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

downfall of the French monarchy was a man and a brother. This throughout the Revolution, as we shall see, was the “ patriotism ” of the leaders.

The presence of any loyal troops, whether foreign or otherwise, was naturally calculated to thwart the designs of the conspirators, for, apart from the opposition they offered to in surrection, the troops acted as a guard to the convoys of grain intended for the capital.

The Maréchal de Broglie, the Baron de Bézenval, and the Prince de Lambesc had proved untiring in their efforts to protect the wagons of corn from the onslaughts of the brigands that lay in wait round Paris, and for this reason had become odious to the agitators. [16]

The mob orators of the Palais Royal therefore set to work to stir up a fresh panic. “ Vast hordes of foreign soldiers were to be marched against the capital to massacre the citizens—the Palais Royal would be given over to pillage—the city was to be bombarded with red-hot cannon-balls and everything put to fire and sword. Meanwhile at Versailles the National Assembly was to be blown up by mines laid beneath the floor.” This wild farrago of nonsense was believed not only by the ignorant populace of Paris, but was seriously repeated by the deputies themselves. Mirabeau at the Assembly, working on their alarms, exerted all his energy to fan the flame of insurrection : “ When troops advance from all sides, when camps are formed around us, when the capital is besieged, we ask ourselves with astonishment, ‘ Does the King doubt the fidelity of his people ? What means this threatening display ? Where are the enemies of the King and State that must be subdued ? Where are the plotters that must be restrained ? ’ ”

This whilst the Palais Royal was a hotbed of sedition, when “ almost every day produced some act of violence,”[17] when the citizens of Paris themselves were arming for

purposes of selfprotection !

The tirade was a masterpiece of hypocrisy and cunning ; no one knew better than Mirabeau the necessity for maintaining order, no one realized more keenly the horrors of anarchy, and no one was less truly democratic.

The King’s reply to the demands of the deputies for the withdrawal of the troops was brief and to the point :

“ No one is ignorant of the disorders and scandalous scenes that have taken place repeatedly in Paris and Versailles under my eyes and those of the States-General. It is necessary that I should employ all the means within my power to restore and maintain order in the capital and its surroundings. It is one of my principal duties to guard public safety. These are the motives that led me to assemble troops round Paris, and you can assure the States-General that they are intended only to repress or rather to avert such-like disorders, to enforce the law, even to assure and protect the liberty that should reign http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (14 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

in your deliberations… . Only evilly-disposed persons could mislead my people as to the true motives for the precautionary measures I have taken. I have invariably sought to do all that I could to contribute to their happiness, and I have always had reason to believe in their love and loyalty.”

That the King was absolutely sincere in making these assurances was afterwards proved by the trial of Bézenval, the commander of the Swiss Guard. In January 1790 the Commune of Paris, at the instigation of the Orléanistes, arraigned Bézenval before the tribunal of the Châtelet for “ having entered into a conspiracy formed against the liberty of the French people, of the National Assembly, and particularly of the city of Paris ” in the preceding July. No proof whatever of a conspiracy was forthcoming ; on the contrary, it was proved by documentary evidence that the intentions of the Ministry and of M. de Bézenval “ were the most pacific and paternal ” ; the letters produced “ manifested the plan of this officer for guarding the provisionment of Paris, for which purpose the troops were assembled, and that, far from any design to destroy the citizens, they had been assembled to protect them.” They were necessary also “ to repress the brigands who had already caused disorders in Paris and who might be plotting further disorders.” These facts having been proved Bézenval was acquitted, and, in spite of the protests of Marat, the Moniteur itself recognized the justice of the decision : “ The information taken was immense, but nothing criminal was discovered against the defendant and he was acquitted. It would be necessary to have very strong proofs to suspect a perfidious collusion between a respected municipality and an esteemed tribunal only for the purpose of deceiving the populace concerning pretended offences of which the most minute investigation has been unable to prove the reality.” [18] That the troops were therefore intended for no aggressive purpose is certain, and the necessity for assembling them is now recognized by enlightened French historians.[19]

The King’s speech had the effect of allaying public anxiety, and Mirabeau thereupon set immediately to work on a new address that would stir up fresh discontent.[20]

To Louis XVI. the situation now became completely bewildering. Content to do his duty according to his lights, he could not understand why his actions were perpetually misconstrued by the people, he could not guess the existence of the influences brought to bear on their minds by the agitators who made it their business to avert popular satisfaction at every concession to the people’s desires.

Why did none of the Royalist democrats in the Assembly enlighten the King on the true state of affairs ? That they knew of the Orléaniste conspiracy is certain, for they afterwards described the efforts made by the duke’s supporters to secure their cooperation—overtures that were all indignantly repulsed. Mounier and Bergasse were http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (15 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

approached by Mirabeau, [21] Virieu by Sillery,[22] and both conspirators met with almost identically the same reply : “ Understand, monsieur, that if any one here were to dare to call M. le due d’Orléans to the throne in the place of the King, I would stab him with my own hand ! ” Lafayette, whose first enthusiasm for the Revolution had raised hopes in the minds of the conspirators, proved no less intractable, for if he cared little for the King he detested Orléans, and to the suggestion that a price having been set on his head and on that of the duke by the Court he would do well to join forces with him, Lafayette coldly replied that “ the Due d’Orléans was nothing to him, and that it was needless to form a party when one was with the whole nation.” [23]

But instead of merely rejecting these advances, why did not these men use their immense influence to quell the intrigue ? We cannot believe that they lacked courage, since later on they faced the full tide of revolution to support the tottering monarchy ; why then did they wait until it was too late ? The only explanation seems to be that at this crisis they believed the Orléaniste conspiracy to be incidental to the Revolution ; they recognized its existence but failed to realize its extent, and feared that in crushing it they might arrest the whole revolutionary movement which they still held to be necessary to the regeneration of the kingdom. In a word, they were visionaries, and at times of national crisis visionaries are of all men the most dangerous ; intent on the pursuit of unattainable ideals they shut their eyes to realities, and instead of facing danger prefer to ignore it.

Most culpable of all was Necker—Necker whom both the King and Queen had trusted to steer the ship of state to safety. From the beginning his only consideration had been popularity, his only policy to temporize. His method of dealing with the financial crisis had consisted in raising perpetual loans ; in the matter of the famine Arthur Young declared that “ his edicts had operated more to raise the price of corn than all other causes together,” and though having made this initial mistake he apparently did his best to repair it by untiring efforts to feed the people, he shrank from taking the most effectual step towards this end—that of exposing the monopolizers.

The attitude of Necker admits only of two explanations—either he was in league with the Orléanistes or he was afraid of them. In either case his conduct was contemptible, as contemporaries of all parties agree. It is a strange fact that, although Necker is the only demagogue of the period who has never found a panegyrist—except in his own daughter, Mme. de Staël—it was the King’s discovery of his incapacity, which all the world now acknowledges, that has been accepted as an adequate pretext for the Revolution of July.

By the beginning of this month Louis XVI. finally realized that Necker must go and a http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (16 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

strong ministry be formed if the impending crisis was to be averted. Accordingly he dismissed his ministers and nominated in their place De Breteuil, De Broglie, La Galaiziere, and Foullon.

Joseph François Foullon was an old commissary of ’74 who had grown grey in the service of the army. His large fortune, attributed by the revolutionary leaders to speculation or monopoly in grain, resulted from the emoluments of his office and from his marriage with a Dutch heiress.[24] It is evident that Foullon was unpopular with the people, yet no proof is forthcoming that he had ever treated them with harshness ; on the contrary, during the preceding winter he had spent no less than 60,000 francs in providing work for the peasants of his province, “ not wishing to humiliate them by charity.” [25] A stern man, however, and a believer in discipline, Foullon came forward at

this juncture to offer the King his advice on the situation in the form of two alternative schemes by which he believed the Revolution might be averted. In the first he expressed himself plainly on the Orléaniste conspiracy ; he advised that the duke and his accomplices amongst the deputies of the Assembly should be arrested, and that the King should not be parted from his army till order was re-established ; in the second he suggested that the King should identify himself with the Revolution before its final explosion, that he should go to the Assembly, demand the cahiers himself, and then make the greatest sacrifices in order to satisfy the true desires of the people before the sedition-mongers could turn them to the advantage of their criminal designs. [26]

This proposal of the new minister throws an important light on the Revolution of July, for according to Madame Campan it reached the ears of the Orléanistes by means of the Comte Louis de Narbonne and Madame de Staël, and naturally explains their fury at the change of ministry and also their animosity to Foullon. Whichever of the two schemes were followed their doom was equally certain, since a peaceful settlement of the crisis would have proved no less fatal to their designs than the more rigorous measure of their own arrest.

It is evident that they were aware of Necker’s impending dismissal several days before it actually took place, and immediately in the midnight council of Montrouge a scheme of insurrection was planned. The advance of the troops and the departure of Necker were to be made the pretexts for stirring up the people ; with that superb capacity for eating their own words which is the true art of demagogy, Necker, whom they had hitherto overwhelmed with their sarcasms and openly accused of monopolizing the grain, was to be represented to the people as their one hope of salvation, and in the panic that would follow on his dismissal the people—“ that foolish herd ” that, as Chamfort said, “ good shepherds could drive as they pleased ”—were to be worked up to revolt. Then the Duc d’Orléans, profiting by the general confusion, was to be made lieutenant-general of the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_02.html (17 of 66)5.4.2006 10:39:44

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 2

kingdom, if not raised at once to the throne. “ It only depended on himself,” said Mirabeau, who admitted the whole scheme later to Virieu ; “ his part had been arranged for him ( on lui avait fait son thème) ; the words he had to use had been prepared.”[27]

Mirabeau rose triumphantly to the occasion. Hitherto he had frankly disparaged Necker, referring to him as “ the Genevese penny-snatcher ” [28] ( le grippe-sou genevois) or “the clock that always loses,” and on the eve of his dismissal had already prepared a speech for the Assembly accusing him of complicity with the famine. But now that Necker’s dismissal was to be made a pretext for insurrection, Mirabeau, like the gigantic humbug that he was, declared that “ we can only regard with terror the abyss of misfortune into which the country will be dragged now that the exile of M. Necker, so long desired by our enemies, has been accomplished.” [29]

Already on the 9th of July the agitators of the Palais Royal had begun to alarm the people concerning the fate destined for their idol. “ Listen to me, citizens ! ” cried a mob orator who had succeeded in collecting a crowd around him ; “ we have assembled here in order to declare to you that we shall regard as a traitor to the country any one who shall make an attempt not only on the life but on the ministerial office of M.

Necker, whom we intend to make permanent minister of the nation, and since our King, though good and confiding, is incapable of governing his kingdom, we nominate M. le duc d’Orléans lieutenant-general of the kingdom ! ” [30]

The proposition does not seem to have been received with great enthusiasm, and the agitators merely succeeded in producing in the people a state of mind aptly described by M. Louis Madelin as a crise de nerfs. Already they had sufficient causes for alarm—the growing fear of famine, the brigands that surrounded them, the assurances of the Palais Royal orators that the King’s troops were closing in on them for the purpose of massacre, and now, following on all these terrors, came the fresh alarm that Necker was to be dismissed, and the country involved in bankruptcy and ruin. What wonder that the unhappy people were thrown into a condition bordering on hysteria ?