Lafayette, according to current report at this crisis, retired and slept also. “ Il dormit contre son roi,” wrote Rivarol bitterly. But did he really sleep ? The truth will probably never be known. Montjoie says no ; Lafayette himself said that, worn out with fatigue, he went to the Hôtel de Noailles and was about to snatch a few hours of slumber when http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (33 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
the tumult of the morrow recalled him to the Château. But if he did sleep the fact must surely be attributed not to treachery but uncontrollable physical exhaustion, combined with the conviction that the Gardes Françaises were completely under his control and that further disturbance was impossible.
But the bodyguard, more alive to the danger, had refused on the assurances of Lafayette to leave the Château unprotected, and remained therefore throughout the night as sentries before the doors of the Royal Family. For greater safety the Queen’s waiting-women, Madame Thibault and Madame Augué, seated themselves against the doors of her bedchamber, and by this devotion saved her life.
For nearly three hours all was calm : the Queen slept in her great bedroom looking out on to the quiet Orangerie ; the King slept in his facing the courtyards and the now deserted Place d’Armes ; the crowd slept likewise, anywhere and everywhere—in sheds and stables, on the floors of outhouses and kitchens ; eight or nine hundred spent the night on the benches of the Assembly.
But all night Luillier of the bodyguard, commander of the Scotch company, kept his watch, wandering around the Château and assuring himself that if the tumult began again the great gilded barriers would avail to keep out the raging populace. Then towards dawn an unseen hand unlocked a gate in the railing, and immediately a band of women and armed men streamed through to the courtyards and the garden that lay beneath the Queen’s windows on the other side of the Château.
Luillier in consternation sought the Marquis d’Aguesseau, major of the bodyguard, and, encountering him at the foot of the great marble staircase leading to the Queen’s apartments, said, “Monsieur, the King and Royal Family are lost if the brigands now passing through the courtyards to the terrace penetrate into the Château. I implore you to give positive orders.”
“ Place two sentinels at each of the gates,” answered D’Aguesseau ; and turning to the bodyguard he said, “ Messieurs, the King orders and begs you not to fire, to hit no one—in a word, not to defend yourselves.”
“ Monsieur,” said Luillier, “ assure our unhappy master that his orders will be carried out, but we shall all be assassinated.” For sublime devotion to duty, for heroic obedience to insane commands, the conduct of the King’s bodyguard on this 6th of October can show no parallel in history except, perhaps, in the charge of Balaclava. Of all historians Montjoie alone has paid these gallant men their due, and it is from his pages that we must borrow the glorious story of their stand against odds so terrible and overwhelming. Do not their very names bring with them a breath of chivalry ? Guéroult de Berville, Guéroult de Valmet, Miomandre de Sainte Marie, De Charmand, and De http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (34 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
Varicourt—we seem to be reading in some gold-emblazoned scroll that tells of knightly deeds done by followers of Saint Louis around the walls of Antioch. It has been said that the Old Order was effete, and this might well be so if it were judged by the faithless courtiers who at the first hint of danger deserted King and country ; but amongst these soldiers of the King there was yet stern stuff that, had it been allowed full play, must have saved the monarchy. For the last time we see them, these warriors of old France, rallying in a final expiring effort around the tottering throne. Henceforth the King must look elsewhere for his defenders—Swiss Guards will bleed and die for him, super annuated gentlemen will draw ineffectual swords in his service, women will throw their fragile bodies between the King and his assassins, but the heroic bodyguard will appear no more on the scene—the long romance of French chivalry is ended.
It was a quarter to six in the grey dawn of the autumn morning when the raging mob burst through the side gate into the Cour Royale. The sentinels of the Paris militia, vouched for by Lafayette, offered no resistance, and seeing this the brigands, who at first had trembled at finding themselves within the royal precincts, realized that they incurred no danger, and “ flung themselves like tigers on all the members of the bodyguard that they encountered.” [125] The brave Deshuttes fell pierced with a hundred wounds ; his body was dragged into the Cour des Ministres, where Jourdan “ Coupe-Tête ” cut off his head, and in a sudden access of homicidal fury smeared his face, his arms, his long and ragged beard with the blood of his victim. And at this horrible spectacle the mob went mad likewise and, bespattering themselves in the same manner, danced around the mutilated corpse. Then the cry went up, “ We must have the heart of the Queen ! ” But already a large portion of the mob had poured through the archway by the Chapel and the Cour des Princes and burst into the Château.
The scene that followed was horrible ; even at this distance of time one’s heart stands still as one reads the descriptions of contemporaries who, with awful realism, bring before one’s eyes the mad rush of the crowd up the great marble staircase of the Roi Soleil towards the Queen’s apartments ; we can see, hear, even smell them, those tattered brigands of the Faubourgs, those dishevelled harridans and blaspheming women of the town, mud-stained and haggard with fatigue after the long march from Paris and the few brief hours of sleep snatched on floors and benches, and all mad for blood, all clutching cruel weapons of their own devising—knives tied to broomsticks, scythes and pikes and billhooks—and howling as they tear upwards like a pack of wild beasts rushing on their prey. “ Where is that f … coquine ? We will cut off her head ; we will tear out her heart ; we will make cockades of her entrails, and it will not end there ! “ And amidst these hideous imprecations again the same refrain : “ Long live Orleans !
Long live our father, our king Orleans !”
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (35 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
Was the Duc d’Orléans himself amongst the cannibal horde on the marble staircase ?
Did his hand point the way to the door of the Queen’s apartments ? Many contemporaries believed it, but to this point we shall return later and leave it to the reader to form his own opinion of the evidence brought forward. One thing is certain, the crowd never paused, never hesitated for a moment, as people unfamiliar with the interior of the Château might be expected to do, but made straight for the hall of the Queen’s bodyguard “ as if led by some one who knew the way.” [126]
There on the threshold twelve of the guards were waiting to receive them. Miomandre de Sainte-Marie stepped boldly forward and attempted to check the wild onrush of the mob by one despairing appeal to their vanished loyalty :
“ My friends, you love your King, yet you come to disquiet him in his very palace ! ” For answer the
crowd rushed
upon
Miomandre and
nearly felled
him to the
ground, and the
guards,
forbidden to
defend
themselves,
were driven
back into the
hall where, with
a quick
movement, they
succeeded in
closing the
doors in the
face of their
assailants.
Only three
rooms now
between the
Queen and her
assassins—four
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (36 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
folding doors to
be beaten down
before the
savage horde
could close
around her bed and thrust their terrible weapons into her heart ! The guards, to gain time, barricaded the doors of their hall, but the fragile panels quickly yielded to the blows of pikes and muskets ; the crowd rushed forward into the hall. Already De Varicourt was killed and his head gone to join Deshuttes’ on a pike outside in the courtyard. The guards were driven back step by step over the parquet into the Grande Salle ; Du Repaire was left alone to guard the door of the Queen’s bodyguard. The next moment Du Repaire was overthrown and dragged to the head of the staircase ; a man with a pike and another in woman’s clothes [127] seized him—Miomandre rushed to the rescue and saved the life of Du Repaire who, wresting a pike from his assailants, continued to defend himself. Then Miomandre, his face streaming with blood, realizing that nothing now could keep back the raging mob, dashed to the door of the Queen’s antechamber, opened it, and cried out to Madame Augue, one of the Queen’s women, “ Madame, save the Queen, they have come to kill her ! I am here alone against two thousand tigers ; my comrades have been forced to leave their hall ! ” There was nothing for it but to leave the brave Miomandre to his fate. Madame Augué quickly shut the door, pushed in the great bolt, and flew to the Queen’s bedside : “ Madame, get out of bed ! Do not dress ; escape to the King ! ”
The Queen sprang out of bed ; her ladies threw a mantle around her shoulders, a petticoat over her head, and hurried her through a side door leading to the Œil de Bœuf by a narrow passage. At the end of this the door, invariably open, was, on this day of all others, locked. She beat on the panels ; after five agonizing minutes a servant opened to her, and she reached the King’s rooms in safety, crying out, “ My friends, my dear friends, save me and my children ! ”
So, owing to the courage of the two heroic guards, the Queen still lived—the great coup of the conspirators had failed.
Meanwhile around the door of the Queen’s guards the fight continued ; now at last the guards made use of weapons—Du Repaire with the pike he had captured, Luillier and Miomandre with their swords, defended their lives against the horde of assassins.
Miomandre by a blow from a pike was thrown to the ground, and an assassin standing over him raised the buttend of his gun, bringing it crashing down on his victim’s skull.
Miomandre, bathed in his blood, was left for dead, but the crowd having swept onwards http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (37 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
through the doorway into the Queen’s apartments, he raised himself, staggered to his feet, and escaped.
The next moment the door of the Queen’s bedchamber was beaten down, and the furious horde, amongst them two of the men disguised as women, rushed forward to the bed to find it empty. It is said by Montjoie and Rivarol that in their rage they plunged their pikes into the mattress, slashed at the bedclothes with their sabres, and then by way of the great Galerie des Glaces proceeded to attack the Œil de Bœuf ; according to Madame Campan they did not enter the Queen’s room, but reached the Œil de Bœuf through the hall of the King’s guards. In either case their intention was to break down the doors of the Œil de Bœuf, where a few remaining members of the bodyguard were entrenched, and having massacred the King’s last defenders to fall upon the Royal Family, who had taken refuge in the King’s bedroom beyond. But this plan was frustrated by an unexpected check—a detachment of grenadiers belonging to the old Gardes Françaises drawn up before the doors of the Œil de Bœuf. What had happened to bring about this sudden return to loyalty in the mutineers who, at the siege of the Bastille, had rallied to the standard of revolt ? One thing only—Lafayette, at last aroused from his optimistic lethargy, had risen to the occasion. From the moment the attack on the Château began—that attack which he had persisted in believing would never take place—his conduct was admirable, and it is unquestionably to Lafayette that must be accorded the eternal honour of saving the lives of the Royal Family on this 6th of October. At the first sound of the tumult he had sprung up, mounted his horse, and summoned his grenadiers to the rescue of the King and the bodyguard. “ Grenadiers,” he cried, “ will you suffer brave men to be basely assassinated ? … Swear to me on your honour as grenadiers that no harm shall be done to them ! ”
The grenadiers took the oath, and rallying around their still adored commander hastened to rescue the guards who had fallen into the clutches of the assassins. They were joined immediately by the men of the Parisian militia, and these, clasping in their arms the white-haired brigadiers of the bodyguard, cried out, “ No, we will not murder brave men like you ! ”
So again, as after the siege of the Bastille, the mutinous soldiers were turned by a word from revolutionary fury to sentiments of humanity, and it was these men who but yesterday had marched against their King that were drawn up in his defence outside the Œil de Bœuf.
Inside the room the officers of the bodyguard, who had been driven back from the door of the Queen’s apartments, were waiting to prevent the insurgents from reaching the Royal Family collected in the King’s bedroom beyond, and the grenadiers, wishing now to effect a coalition with their former enemies, rattled at the door-handle to attract their http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (38 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
attention, whilst at the same time keeping the mob at bay.
Chevannes, Vaulabelle, and Mondollot of the bodyguard cried through the door, “ Who knocks ? ”
“ Grenadiers ! ”
Then Chevannes, opening the door, courageously confronted the men he took to be his enemies. “ Messieurs,” he said, “ is it a victim you seek ? Here is one. I offer myself. I am one of the commanders of the post ; it is to me that belongs the honour of dying the first in defence of my King, but, by God, learn to respect that good King ! ” But Gondran, commander of the grenadiers, held out his hand : “ Far from wishing to take your life, we have come to defend you against your assassins.”
In an instant grenadiers and guards fell into one another’s arms, mingling tears of joy, calling each other friends and comrades ; the guards consented to wear the tricolour cockade, and finally the men of the two regiments joining forces drove the rabble from the Château.
The tide had now turned irresistibly against the conspirators. Down below in the Cour de Marbre the grenadiers were still fighting bravely for the lives of the guards, and the King, seeing the fray from the windows, rushed out on to the balcony of the great bedroom of Louis XIV. and cried out to the people for mercy to be shown to his faithful defenders. Several of the guards in attendance followed after him, and waving their hats, adorned with the tricolour cockade, cried out, “ Vive la nation ! ” The situation was saved ; in a moment that strange Parisian crowd had forgotten their fury, and to the shouts of “ Vive la nation ! ” responded with cries of “ Vive le Roi ! ” Then the conspirators determined on one final effort to achieve their purpose, and voices were raised calling for the Queen to appear likewise on the balcony.
All this time Marie Antoinette had remained in the King’s bedroom with her children, surrounded by her weeping women and distracted courtiers ; the ministers Luzerne and Montmorin appeared incapable of action, whilst in a corner Necker, the people’s idol, sat sobbing helplessly. Marie Antoinette alone was calm, rousing the courage of those around her, quieting the little Dauphin who repeated plaintively, “ Maman, I am hungry.” Only at one moment her serenity failed her, as, looking down from the windows, she perceived suddenly amongst the raging multitude the figure of Philippe d’Orléans walking gaily arm-in-arm with Adrien Duport,[128] and at the sinister vision
the Queen caught the Dauphin to her heart and, half rising from her seat, cried out in an agony of terror, “ They are coming to kill my son ! ” Marie Antoinette well knew that it was not “ the people ” who were most to be feared.
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (39 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
The cries of “ Vive le Roi ! ” that had broken out when the King appeared on the balcony showed that he at least had not lost his place in their hearts, and when at this moment word was brought that the Queen too must show herself to the crowd, she advanced confidently towards the balcony holding the Dauphin and Madame Royale by the hand.
“ She took her children with her for safety,” says a revolutionary writer—she who would have died a hundred deaths to save them ! No more cruel calumny has ever been uttered against Marie Antoinette. It is easy to understand the idea that inspired her action. What mother worthy of the name does not believe that the sight of her offspring must melt the fiercest heart ? And surely no stronger appeal could be made to the women she believed to be the same poissardes who, but a few short years earlier, had presented themselves at this very spot to hail the birth of the Dauphin than to show his younger brother to them now ! Were not the poissardes mothers too ? Undoubtedly, if the poissardes had composed the crowd, the result would have been just as the Queen anticipated, but the conspirators shrewdly foresaw this also, and a man’s voice in the crowd cried out threateningly, “No children ! ” At that Marie Antoinette, comprehending that the rage of the multitude had not abated, handed the children to Madame de Tourzel and came forward alone.
As she stood there on the balcony in the pale light of the October morning, her hair disordered, a little yellow-striped wrapper hastily thrown over her night attire,[129] her
face, of which the dazzling tints had once defied the painter’s art, now changed to a stricken pallor, Marie Antoinette had never seemed so much a Queen. Folding her hands on her breast she raised her eyes above the angry sea of pikes and muskets, filling the courtyards of the Château and stretching right away across the Place d’Armes to the Avenue de Versailles, and looked to heaven, “ like a victim offering herself up to death.” And at this sight a hush fell over the tumultuous crowd, a breathless and tremendous silence during which the Queen’s life hung in the balance. But amongst all that vast multitude only one man was found ready to carry out the design of the conspirators.
This brigand raised his gun to his shoulder, took aim at the Queen, but, according to Ferrières, dared not pull the trigger ; according to Weber, the weapon was angrily dashed from his hand by his companions. The next moment the silence was broken by a wild outburst of applause ; cries of “ Vive la Reine ! ” resounded on every side.
Lafayette, coming forward into the balcony, raised the Queen’s hand to his lips and kissed it. The storm of acclamation redoubled ; the situation was saved.
So once again the designs of the Orléanistes were frustrated ; only one hope remained to them—if the King and Queen were to be brought to Paris the people might yet be http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (40 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
worked up to the pitch of fury necessary to their assassination. Accordingly a voice in the crowd [130] was heard calling out, “ The King to Paris ! The King to Paris ! ” and
instantly the cry was taken up by the multitude. Hearing this the King decided to consult the Assembly, and a message was sent to the hall requesting that the deputies should come to the Château to discuss the situation. “ We must not hesitate,” replied Mounier ; “ let us fly to the King.” But Mirabeau had no mind to expose his person to the tender mercies of the revolutionary crowds whose benevolence he was never tired of praising, [131] and immediately opposed the suggestion. “ It is inconsistent with the dignity of the
Assembly to go to the King ; we cannot deliberate in a King’s palace.” “ Our dignity,” retorted Mounier, “ consists in doing our duty, and at this moment of danger our sacred duty is to be with the King ; we shall reproach ourselves eternally if we neglect it.”
Then the King, with the courage which the deputies lacked, announced his intention of going to the Assembly since the Assembly would not go to him, and thereupon the Assembly, “ with the sound of musketry fire all around,” settled down to a long discussion on the manner of receiving him. [132]
Whilst these inconceivable delays were taking place the crowd was becoming more and more excited, and at last the King, despairing of the Assembly’s cooperation, resolved to take the matter into his own hands and accede to the demands of the people. Going out once more on to the balcony he accordingly addressed them in these words : “ My children, you wish that I should follow you to Paris. I consent, but on the understanding that I shall not be separated from my wife and children, and I ask for the safety of my bodyguard.”
The crowd replied with cries of “ Vive le Roi ! Vive les gardes du corps ! ” Guns were fired as a sign of rejoicing. But once again the agitators succeeded in turning the tide of popular feeling, and it was in the midst of a raging herd that the Royal Family set forth on the terrible seven hours’ drive to Paris. Around the carriage the vilest of the rabble had collected, pressing against it so closely that it seemed to be borne upon their shoulders ; sitting astride on cannons were the sham fishwives, carrying branches of poplar adorned with ribbons, and women of the streets, still drunk with blood and wine, singing foul songs of the gutter, and insulting the Queen by their gestures and grimaces.
In order to give colour to the story that the Court had been monopolizing the grain, the Orléanistes now released supplies and brought up wagon-loads of grain to join in the procession. [133] The people, completely duped by this manœuvre, surrounded the wagons, crying out repeatedly, “ We are bringing you the baker, the baker’s wife, and the baker’s boy ( Nous vous amenons le boulanger, la boulangère et le petit mitron).” http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (41 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
In the rear were the tragic remnants of the bodyguard—forty to fifty shattered men, disarmed, bareheaded, worn with hunger and fatigue, their garments torn and blood-stained, led prisoner by brigands armed with pikes and sabres, to meet, for all they knew, with a fate as hideous as their comrades Deshuttes and Varicourt, whose heads had been carried two hours earlier to Paris, and brought in triumph to the Palais Royal.[134]
As the procession passed through Passy the Duc d’Orléans, who had hurried on ahead, was seen on the terrace of his house surrounded by his children, and with them Madame de Genlis, frantically impatient to witness the humiliation of the Queen, to whose Court she had never been able to gain admittance. At the sight of their vanquished rivals joy unrestrained broke out on the countenances of this ignoble family. Mademoiselle d’Orléans gave way to hysterical laughter. Some of the brigands in the crowd, recognizing the duke, in spite of his efforts to conceal himself behind the rest of the group, cried out, “ Vive le Duc d’Orléans ! Vive notre père d’Orléans ! ” nor could ducal frowns and gestures silence these incriminating acclarnations.[135]
It was seven o’clock in the evening when the Royal Family reached the Hôtel de Ville to be complimented by Bailly on “ the beautiful day ” that had brought the King to Paris.
Louis XVI., in a voice faint with hunger and exhaustion, replied that he came “ with joy and with confidence into the good city of Paris.” Bailly, in repeating the King’s words to the people, omitted to say “ with confidence,” but the Queen, whose presence of mind even at this crisis had not deserted her, interposed in clear tones “ You forget, Monsieur, that the King said ‘ and with confidence.’ ” Whereat Bailly, turning to the people, added, “ You hear, Messieurs ? You are more fortunate than if I had said it myself.” At half-past nine, by the glare of torches, the Royal Family entered the palace of the Tuileries that for nearly three years was to be their prison. It is said that the King was radiant, his confidence in his people once more restored, for at this, as at every other crisis of the Revolution, he never lost sight of the fact that the people were misled and to be pitied rather than blamed.
“ There are evil men,” he said next day to the little Dauphin, “ who have stirred up the people, and the excesses committed are their work ; we must not bear a grudge against the people.” In this conviction, which to the last day of his life Louis XVI. never relinquished, is to be found the secret of that amazing spirit of forbearance which has been attributed to his weakness.
THE RÔLE OF THE PEOPLE
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (42 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
The point that Louis XVI. failed to realize was that the revolutionary mob which marched on Versailles was not the people at all, but an assemblage composed of impostors both male and female, and of hired rabble from the Faubourgs ; the only element that could be described as representing the people being those poor women forced against their will to march.
So indignant were the true women of the people at the masquerade conducted in their name that, on the morning after the arrival of the Royal Family in Paris, a deputation of the “ Ladies of the Market ” presented themselves at the Commune of Paris to repudiate all complicity with the movement by means of the following petition : “ Messieurs, we come to represent to you that we at the corn market took no part in what happened yesterday ; we disapprove of it … ; we devote to public justice women who have no other qualification than that of light women ( femmes du monde) and prostituted to those who, like themselves, only wish to disturb the peace and tranquillity of good citizens.” [136]
The deputation proceeded to declare that “ they disapproved of the indecent way in which the women had presented themselves to the King and Queen, and that, far from having spoken against Messieurs Bailly and Lafayette, they would defend them to the last drop of their blood.” They requested that the National Guard should be ordered to bring these women back to order. This little petition was deposited on the table and signed by the members of the deputation, but amongst these only three were able to write their names. [137]
According to Rivarol the poissardes also went to the Tuileries on the same morning and “ presented a petition to the King and Queen to demand justice for the horrible calumny which rendered them accomplices of the violence committed the day before towards their Majesties.”[138]
In the light of the deputation to the Commune this statement of Rivarol’s seems credible enough ; if the women protested to the electors of Paris, why should they not have protested to the King and Queen ? It may be suggested that it was the women of the corn market only who went to the Commune, but if so, why did they not say that it was from the women of the fish market that they wished to disassociate themselves, instead of stating distinctly that the women who marched on Versailles were of a totally different class—the class of “ light women ” that the “ respectable poor ” usually hold in abhorrence ?
The whole of this incident has been very carefully kept dark by the conspiracy of history, for, of course, it effectually disposes of the cherished revolutionary legend that the march on Versailles was conducted by women of the people. Even if we doubt the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (43 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
veracity of Rivarol, the petition to the Commune is an absolutely unanswerable refutation of this theory, and therefore no mention has been made of it by any revolutionary writer, either amongst contemporaries or amongst posterity.
From the point of view of the people the march on Versailles proved naturally disastrous ; the cause of liberty had been disgraced in the eyes of the world and the work of reform arrested in full swing. Several of the democratic deputies realizing this left the country in despair, and amongst this number were two of the most ardent defenders of the people—Mounier [139] and Lally Tollendal. Clermont Tonnerre remained to be massacred at his post, Virieu to perish on the scaffold ; Malouet alone of the Royalist Democrats survived the succeeding storms of the Revolution.
THE RÔLE OF THE ORLÉANISTES
Even the eyes of Lafayette were now at last opened to the truth about the Orléaniste conspiracy. Hitherto his Republican fervour had prevented him from offering a too determined opposition to the revolutionary movement, but if the 14th of July had moderated his revolutionary ardour, the 6th of October, he declared to the Comte d’Estaing, had made him a Royalist.[140] It was all over with liberty, he now saw, if the
Orléanistes were to prevail, and with a courage he too seldom displayed he resolved to tell the King the whole truth, and to insist on the exile or conviction of the duke. At the same time Lafayette sought an interview with the duke himself, of which the following account is given in the Correspondence of Lord Auckland :
“ The duke was at the head of a formidable party, the purpose of which was to send the King away, if not worse, and to make himself to be named Regent, etc. M. de Lafayette has worked out this plot in wonderful silence, and once master of every proof he waited on the duke last Saturday (Oct. 10) for the first time, and told him these words on which you may depend :
“ ‘ Monseigneur, I fear there will soon be on the scaffold the head of some one of your name.’
“ The duke looked surprised.
“ ‘You intend, Monseigneur, to have me assassinated, but be sure that you will be yourself an hour later.’
“ The duke swore on his word of honour that he was not guilty.
“ The other continued, saying :
“ ‘ Monseigneur, I must accept your word of honour, but as I have under my hand the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (44 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
strongest proof of your whole conduct, your Highness must leave France or else I shall bring you before a tribunal within twenty-four hours. The King has descended several steps of his throne, but I have placed myself on the last ; he will descend no further, and in order to reach him you will have to pass over my body. You have cause for complaint against the Queen, and so have I, but this is the moment to forget all grievances.’
“ The duke consented to depart. The day after they were with the King, before whom the marquis repeated to the duke all he had said.” [141]
But Louis XVI., always magnanimous, refrained from humiliating his cousin by a public exposure of his conduct, and contented himself with sending him on a pretended mission to England. According to Montjoie he hoped by this indulgence to dissuade the duke from continuing to monopolize the grain. “ In the situation where so many misfortunes and crimes have placed me,” he said to Orléans, “ I see only the needs of the people. My sole desire and likewise my first duty is to give them back their subsistence.” Accordingly he agreed to forgive everything that had taken place on the condition that the duke would open his granaries, of which a number were in England, and restore the corn he had concealed. A mission to the English Court was to be the pretext for his departure.[142]
Whether Montjoie is right on the real object of the duke’s journey—and his statement is confirmed by the revolutionary Désodoards [143]—it is certain that the mission of the Duc d’Orléans to England was not, as his supporters would have us believe, an official one, but a pretext either to cover his restoration of the grain or simply to get him out of the country. The correspondence of English contemporaries on this point is conclusive, and shows that in England likewise the Duc d’Orléans was universally regarded as the author of the atrocities committed on the 6th of October.[144]
The Royalist Democrats, amongst whom we may now count Lafayette, refused, however, to be satisfied with the mere exile of the duke, and resolved to expose the whole design of the Orléaniste conspiracy. Mounier was the chief instigator of this movement.[145]
Accordingly in November the Châtelet of Paris opened an immense inquiry into the events of October 5 and 6. In spite of the threats of the Orléanistes a great number of witnesses came forward to testify against the infamous manœuvres of the duke and his supporters, and these witnesses were not taken only from amongst aristocrats or Royalists, but from amongst men and women of all classes—soldiers, hairdressers, deputies of the Assembly, washerwomen, ladies-in-waiting, tradesmen, and domestic servants jostle each other in the 570 pages published by the Châtelet, and no one should attempt to write a line on October 5 and 6 without consulting the graphic descriptions http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (45 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
given by these eyewitnesses of the manner in which the march on Versailles was engineered.[146] In the light of this great mass of evidence no impartial mind can
possibly doubt that the whole insurrection was the work of the Orléaniste conspiracy—the forcing of the women to march, the men in women’s clothes, the money distributed amongst the crowd, the presence of the duke himself and of his supporters in the thick of the tumult always followed by cries of “ Vive le bon duc d’Orléans ! Vive notre roi d’Orléans ! ” All these facts were proved beyond dispute.
That the duke was indeed actually amongst the crowd on the marble staircase showing them the way to the Queen’s apartments can hardly be doubted, but on this point the reader must be left to form his own opinion from the evidence given in the Appendix of this book.[147]
The Châtelet having thus accumulated information from every quarter, finally sought the testimony of the victim against whom all the worst outrages of October 6 had been directed—the Queen of France. But to the inquiries of the commissioners who presented themselves at the Tuileries for the purpose, Marie Antoinette made only the reply : “ I saw everything, I heard everything, I have forgotten everything ( J’ai tout vu, j’ai tout entendu, j’ai tout oublié).” [148]
The supreme opportunity had been given her to bring her arch-enemy to justice—a course that might have saved the lives of the Royal Family and put an end to the whole Revolution, but with sublime magnanimity she chose to reject it. Yet there are still historians capable of saying that Marie Antoinette “ knew not to forgive ” !
But the evidence collected by the Châtelet was already more than sufficient to prove that the events of October 5 and 6 were the work of a conspiracy. Even the “ Comité des Recherches ” of the municipality of Paris, to whom the Châtelet applied for information, though in collusion with the Orléanistes—Brissot was, in fact, one of its leading members—admitted in its report that “ the execrable crime which defiled the Château of Versailles in the morning of Tuesday the 6th of October had for instruments bandits set in motion by clandestine manœuvres who mingled with the citizens,” but in order to avert investigation as to the authors of these manœuvres the Comité refused to extend its inquiries to anything that took place before the morning of the 6th. By this means, as Mounier points out, all the preparations that led up to the march on Versailles, and even the organization of the march itself, were to be kept dark, so as to throw the entire blame on a “ few obscure ruffians ” whom the conspirators were quite ready to deliver over to justice. [149]
In spite of these obstacles the Châtelet had no difficulty, however, in deciding who were the true authors of the insurrection, and on the 5th of August 1790 the magistrates http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (46 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
unanimously convicted the Duc d’Orléans and Mirabeau as deserving of arrest.
The following day a deputation from the Châtelet presented themselves at the Assembly and placed all the documentary evidence they had collected on the table.
Boucher d’Argis then opened the debate with these dramatic words :
“ At last we have torn aside the veil from the deplorable event now all too celebrated.
They will be known—those secrets full of horror ; they will be revealed—those crimes that stained the palace of our kings in the morning of October the 6th ! ” But the Orléanistes had still far too much power over the Assembly to be brought to justice. Chabroud, the hireling of the duke,[150] was deputed to draw up a report
exonerating both the delinquents, and this was followed by tirades from Mirabeau and the Duc de Biron, which had the usual effect of cowing the Assembly. To any impartial mind these speeches for the defence are hardly less convincing proof of the conspirators’
guilt than the report of the Châtelet. Not a single charge against the defendants is effectually refuted ; the feebleness of the arguments employed is equalled only by their audacity. The “ people ” whom these demagogues did not hesitate to stigmatize as “ ruffians ” or as “ tigers ” [151] were alone to blame ; the only conspiracy was that of the “
enemies of the Revolution ” ! In other words, it was the “ aristocrats ” who had organized the march on Versailles !
Mirabeau, adopting his usual device of drowning his lack of reason or logic in floods of meaningless verbiage, thundered against the Chatelet : “ This history is profoundly odious. The annals of crime offer few examples of infamy at the same time so shameless and unskilful.” Several of the most incriminating accusations he boldly admitted, [152] but endeavoured to explain them away by sophistries so futile that even the Assembly would have been forced to reject them had not Mirabeau, with superb cunning, hit on an argument that terrified the Assembly into acquiescence. “ It is not the 6th of October,” he cried, “ that is being brought to trial—it is the Revolution ! ” And at this the Assembly, dominated by the two revolutionary factions, who well knew that if the Revolution ended it was all over with them, hastily reversed the judgement of the Châtelet and declared both Orléans and Mirabeau innocent. At this monstrous decision of the Assembly a cry of indignation went up from all those who loved justice, and who from the beginning of the Revolution had striven for the cause of true liberty.[153]
Amongst these was Mounier, who wrote from Switzerland his Appeal to the Tribunal of Public Opinion denouncing the report of Chabroud : “ I can conceive nothing so revolting as the efforts of M. Chabroud to justify the most frightful crimes, his indulgence towards the assassins, his hatred for the victims, his outrages against the witnesses and against the judges (of the Châtelet), the threatening tone of the Duc http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (47 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
d’Orléans and the Comte de Mirabeau, the eagerness with which the conclusions of the reporter (Chabroud) were hastily admitted, without examination and without discussion.
Nothing of all this should surprise me, yet it provoked in me indignation almost equal to that which I felt on October 5 and 6, 1789. Perhaps the apology of crime should inspire more horror than crime itself.”
Yet it is this apology of the crimes of October 5 and 6 that for more than a hundred years has triumphed over truth and justice ; by nearly all historians the Procédure du Châtelet and the great denunciation of Mounier—whom up to this point they have quoted unceasingly in support of revolutionary doctrines—have been persistently ignored, and the character of the French people has been blackened for the better whitewashing of an ignoble prince and his boon companions. Such is the “ democratic ” method of writing history !
The truth is that the march on Versailles was nothing but an Orléaniste rising ; not only must the people be exonerated from blame, but so must also the other revolutionary intrigues. In all the preparations that took place beforehand, in all the sidelights thrown by the Châtelet on the crimes committed, we can find no trace of either Anarchist, English, or Prussian cooperation ; the leaders were men known to be devoted solely to the interests of the Duc d’Orléans, the instruments were in his pay. But if these other intrigues took no actual part in the movement, they accorded it their heartiest sympathy.
The outrages of the 6th of October had furthered the cause of anarchy. Robespierre could still afford to lie low, biding his time, whilst the Orléanistes proceeded with the work of demolition.
By the revolutionaries of England the events of October 5 and 6 were hailed with fresh rejoicings. At the meeting-house of the Old Jewry on November 4, Dr. Price delivered his famous political sermon in praise of the French Revolution. “ What an eventful period is this ! I am thankful that I have lived to see it ; I could almost say ‘ Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation ’—I have lived to see a diffusion of knowledge which has undermined superstition and error… . I have lived to see thirty millions of people indignant and resolute, spurning at slavery and demanding liberty with an irresistible voice. Their king led in triumph, and an arbitrary monarch surrendering himself to his subjects.”
After this discourse the members of the Revolutionary Society of Great Britain adjourned to the London Tavern and passed an address of congratulation on the “ glorious example of France,” which was transmitted by Lord Stanhope to the National Assembly.
But there was one man in England whose passionate love of liberty inspired him with http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (48 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
the eloquence that alone could counteract these monstrous libels on a noble cause.
Burning with indignation Edmund Burke arose and in his immortal Reflections opened the eyes of his fellow-countrymen to the true character of the French Revolution and the outrages of October 6. “ Is this a triumph to be consecrated at altars ? to be commemorated with grateful thanksgiving ? to be offered to the divine humanity with fervent prayer and enthusiastic ejaculation ? … I shall never think that a prince, the acts of whose whole reign were a series of concessions to his subjects, who was willing to relax his authority, to remit his prerogatives, to call his people to a share of freedom not known, perhaps not desired, by their ancestors … I shall be led with great difficulty to think that he deserves the cruel and insulting triumph of Paris and of Dr. Price. I tremble for the cause of liberty, from such an example to kings. I tremble for the cause of humanity in the unpunished outrages of the most wicked of mankind.” Burke’s stirring appeal met with a prodigious success and carried all the sane portion of the people with him. Hitherto they had retained a certain sympathy with the Revolution ; the national “ sporting ” instinct had responded, as we have seen, to the enterprise of attacking the Bastille, but this same instinct recoiled at the cowardly attempt to massacre the defenceless Royal Family in their beds. “ After the 6th of October,” says the Republican Dumont, “ many sensible men (in England) began to think that the French treated infamously a king who had done so much for them.” [154]
The effect of Burke’s speech was undoubtedly to save England from revolution ; Dumont even goes so far as to question whether he was not “the saviour of Europe.” In vain the English revolutionaries retorted with a storm of seditious pamphlets ; their efforts were speedily transformed into waste paper, whilst Burke’s denunciation will live as long as the English tongue is spoken.
“ Its merit,” wrote the contemporary John Adolphus, “ can only be appreciated by the never-dying rancour it excited in the minds of his opponents, a rancour which age, affliction, sickness, and even death could not assuage.” [155] It is not assuaged yet !
Still, after more than a hundred years, the Radical press does not weary of reviling the author of the great Reflections, and owing to its unremitting efforts England has never been allowed to know the debt she owes to Edmund Burke.[156]
But if England began henceforth to regard the French Revolution with aversion, Prussia continued to express unfeigned admiration for the principles of French liberty. The decrees of August 4, which deprived the German princes of their estates in Alsace and Lorraine, had already embittered feeling between Austria and France, and paved the way for the dissolution of the hated Franco-Austrian alliance ; and, although perhaps Prussia hardly realized it at the time, the first step had been taken towards the incorporation of http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (49 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
these provinces with the future German Empire. Well might Hertzberg and Von der Goltz rejoice at each succeeding stage of the Revolution ! “ A King without authority,” wrote the Minister of Saxony to Berlin, whilst the march on Versailles was preparing, “ a state without money or military power ; in a word, a vessel caught in a storm and of which Mirabeau is the only pilot—what importance can France have henceforth in Europe ? ” [157]
Prussia had indeed every reason to be grateful to the Revolution. Was it a recognition of this debt that inspired the Prussians to enter Versailles eighty-two years later to the strains of the “ Marseillaise ” ? The 6th of October 1789 had proved but the prelude to the 8th of January 1871, and in the great gallery of the palace, stained with the blood of the King’s bodyguard, William I. of Prussia was proclaimed German Emperor amidst the acclamations of his conquering hordes.
1. Memoirs of Buzot, p. 61.
2. It is probable that Buzot was never an Orléaniste but, like Robespierre, he worked with them at the beginning of the Revolution.
3. Essais de Beaulieu, i. 506.
4. Moniteur, i. 324 ; Beaulieu, i. 506 ; Appel au Tribunal de l’Opinion Publique, by Mounier ; Mémoires de Frénilly, p. 121. See the very curious account of the scene that took place at Forges in Normandy given by Mme. de la Tour du Pin, Journal d’une Femme de Cinquante Ans, i. 191. Note that the manœuvre was admitted and approved by Louis Blanc, La Révolution, i. 337.
5. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 105 ; Deux Amis, ii. 255 ; Moniteur, i. 324 ; Essais de Beaulieu, ii. 16.
6. Deux Amis, ii. 257.
7. Lettres d’Aristocrates, published by Pierre de Vassière, p. 256 ; Deux Amis, ii. 258.
8. Deux Amis, ii. 93 ; “ Report of Deputation from St. Germain to the National Assembly,” Moniteur, i. 184.
9. Montjoie, Conjuration, ii. 91 ; Deux Amis, ii. 172.
10. In Maçonnais, not far from Vesoul, banditti to the number of 6000, collected together, set fire to the houses of those peasants who would not join them, and cut down 230 of them ( Report to the National Assembly, March 22, 1791).
11. Le Ministre de l’Interieur aux Corps Administratifs, September 1, 1792.
12. See, for example, Deux Amis de la Liberté, ii. 90 and following pages, where all the excesses described by Montjoie are related in almost identical language, but the recital ends with the words : “ Such was the march of aristocracy ! ” Let any one who can make sense out of the following passage : “ The enemies of the Revolution, profiting by the general disposition to credulity, strove to fatigue the people by alarms spread for the purpose in order afterwards to lull them into a false security : their plan was to drive them to excesses so as to bring them through licence under the yoke of despotism.” Since few reprisals were ever taken, however, it is difficult to follow this line of reasoning.
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (50 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
13. Moniteur, i. 324 ; Fantin Desodoards, p. 196 : “ Hordes of brigands paid by the Due d’Orléans devastated rural property without distinguishing to which party the proprietors belonged ; the granaries disappeared with the grain they contained.”
14. La Conspiration révolutionnaire de 1789, by Gustave Bord, p. 62 ; Chassin, i. 109 ; La Révolution, by Louis Madelin, p. 74.
15. Arthur Young was present when one of these letters was received in the provinces. “ The news at the table d’hôte at Colmar curious, that the Queen had a plot, nearly on the point of execution, to blow up the National Assembly by a mine, and to march the army instantly to massacre all Paris… . A deputy had written it ; they had seen the letter… . Thus it is in revolutions, one rascal writes and a hundred thousand fools believe ” ( Travels, date of July 24, 1789).
16. Ferrières, i, 161.
17. Moniteur, i. 183.
18. Article on Lally Tollendal in Biographie Michaud ; also Second Letter of Lally Tollendal to his Constituents.
This speech of Lally’s and the exclamation of Barnave, though recorded by countless contemporaries, are suppressed in the Moniteur’s account of the debate that took place on July 23.
19. Eighteenth Letter of Mirabeau to his Constituents. See Moniteur, i. 191, note 2.
20. Letter of Lord Auckland to Pitt, Auckland MSS.
21. Le Comte de Fersen et la Cour de France, i. xlix.
22. Mémoires de l’Abbé Morellet, i. 335.
23. On this point the opinion of Montjoie is confirmed by no other than Robespierre himself, for in his illuminating Rapport on the Orléaniste conspiracy, delivered four years later through the mouth of St. Just, we find this passage : “ They (the Orléanistes) made war on the noblesse, the guilty friends of the Bourbons, in order to pave the way for d’Orléans. One sees at each step the efforts of this party to ruin the Court and to preserve the monarchy.”
24. Montjoie, Conjuration, ii. 120 ; Histoire de l’Assemblée Constituante, by Alexandre de Lameth, i. 96.
25. Moniteur, i. 287 ; Bailly, ii. 217 ; article on Lally Tollendal in Biographie Michaud.
26. Moniteur, i. 335.
27. Ibid. i. 216.
28. Ibid. i. 390.
29. Ibid. i. 328 ; Mémoires de Rivarol, p. 147.
30. Moniteur, i. 331 ; Rivarol, p. 146.
31. Moniteur, i. 391.
32. See Articles VI. and VII. quoted on pp. 7 and 8.
33. Moniteur, i. 397.
34. Ibid. i. 419.
35. Moniteur, i. 399.
36. Deux Amis, ii. 361 ; Mémoires de Bailly, ii. 327 ; Ferrières, i. 222.
37. According to the Mémoires de La Fayette, Mirabeau had voted for the absolute Veto on the advice of Clavière, the future Girondin : “ ‘ You see that bald head,’ he said, pointing out Clavière to several deputies who spoke to http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (51 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
him in favour of the Suspensive Veto, ‘ I do nothing without consulting it.’ And the bald head, Republican in Geneva on the 10th of August (1792), had declared for the absolute Veto ” ( Mémoires de La Fayette, iii. 311).
38. Playfair’s History of Jacobinism, p. 244.
39. Article on Mounier in Biographie Michaud by Lally Tollendal.
40. “ M. Mounier, one of the principal authors of the Revolution and one of the first leaders of the patriotic party, became suddenly the object of the people’s hatred and of the favour of aristocracy ! ” ( Deux Amis, iii. 166). For “ people ” as usual read “ revolutionaries ” !
41. Mounier to the Assembly, August 31 : “ It is evident that perverse men desire to build up their fortunes on the ruins of the country. You see the plan to prevent the Constitution from being formed and developed ” ( Moniteur, i.
400).
42. La Révolution, by Louis Madelin, p. 87.
43. Article on St. Huruge in the Revue de la Révolution, published by Gustave Bord, vol. vi. p. 251.
44. Procédure du Châtelet, evidence of Dwall, witness cccxvil.
45. Ferrières, i. 220 ; Deux Amis, ii. 360.
46. Mémoires de Bailly, ii. 327.
47. Appel au Tribunal de l’Opinion publique, by Mounier, p. 65.
48. Mémoires de Bailly, iii. 392.
49. Esquisses historiques de la Révolution Française, by Dulaure, p. 286.
50. A contemporary records that St. Huruge having been once reproached for allowing himself to be flogged without retaliating, he replied, “ I never interfere with what goes on behind my back ” ( L’Ami des Lois, 17 pluviose, An VIII). See article on St. Huruge in the Revue de la Révolution edited by Gustave Bord, vol. vi.
51. The King is frequently stated to have refused this sanction until October 5, but contemporaries of all parties are explicit on this point. See Deux Amis, iii. 29 ; Mémoires de Bailly, ii. 379 ; Marmontel, iv. 238 ; Histoire de l’Assemblée Constituante, by Alexandre de Lameth, i. 142.
52. Moniteur, i. 496 ; Bailly, ii. 389. On the question of the King’s “ rigid economy ” with regard to his personal expenses see the address from the National Assembly on January 5, 1790 ( Moniteur, iii. 52).
53. Moniteur, i. 519. Molé, the actor, who was present on this occasion, delighted Mirabeau by telling him he had missed his vocation—he should have gone on the stage ! ( Souvenirs d’Étienne Dumont, p. 133).
54. The use of the word “ republican ” by Desmoulins at this date may seem to contradict the statement that he was an Orléaniste, but the word was frequently used during the earlier stages of the Revolution to signify simply “ public-spirited ” (see, for example, the remark of Mounier to Mirabeau on p. 140). On the other hand, Montjoie may be right in saying that at this moment Camille Desmoulins had temporarily gone over to Lafayette and Republicanism ( Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 153). This would explain the disagreement that seems to have taken place between Desmoulins and Mirabeau at the end of this visit to Versailles.
55. Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, p. 121.
56. Fragment de l’Histoire secrète de la Révolution, 1793.
57. Appel au Tribunal de l’Opinion publique, p. 67.
58. Deux Amis, iii. 101 ; Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 167.
59. Deux Amis, iii. 112 ; Bailly, ii. 281 ; Rivarol, p. 256.
60. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 172 ; Ferrières, ii. 273 ; evidence of Elizabeth Pannier, wife of a http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (52 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
restaurant keeper at Versailles, witness xx. in Procédure du Châtelet.
61. Correspondance secrète, i. 414.
62. Faits relatifs à la dernière insurrection, by Mounier.
63. Evidence of De Pelletier and of De Grandmaison in Procédure du Châtelet.
64. Mémoires de Mme. Campan, p. 248 ; speech of the Marquis de Bonnay to the Assembly on October 1, 1790, in Moniteur for this date ; evidence of La Brousse de Belleville, witness xxii. in Procédure du Châtelet, etc.
65. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 173 ; Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. III.
66. Ferrières, i. 275.
67. Ibid. i. 260 ; Deux Amis, iii. 128.
68. Faits relatifs à la dernière Insurrection, by Mounier, p. 9.
69. Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. 91.
70. Deux Amis, iii. 134 ; Ferrières, i. 279.
71. Appel au Tribunal, p. 65.
72. Correspondance entre Mirabeau et La March, p. 107.
73. “ I know that several of the libels published then (before the 5th of October) were paid for by the agents of the Duc d’Orléans” ( Mémoires de Malouet, i. 344. Others were undoubtedly paid for by Von der Goltz.
74. Lettre d’un Français sur les moyens qui ont opéré la Révolution, pp. 11, 12, and 31.
75. La Conspiration révolutionnaire de 1789, by Gustave Bord, p. 211.
76. See, amongst the assertions of innumerable contemporaries, that of Mounier, Appel au Tribunal, p. 74 : “ At the time of October the 5th, means were adopted that had been tried several times before, that of creating a famine and then accusing those who were called aristocrats so as to give the impression that abundance was at the disposal of a prince without power, and thus to associate the feeling of vengeance with the feeling of want.” Mounier goes on to point out that Brissot himself was obliged to admit that before the insurrection of October 5 “ there had existed for some days that apparent famine of which we spoke before. This famine did not really exist.” Brissot then proceeded to accuse “ the aristocrats,” but as Mounier observed : “ We will not seek to show how absurd it was to accuse of these manœuvres those who were to be the victims of them, whilst it would have been much more correct to conclude that since the aristocrats of Versailles were the objects of the people’s hatred, that hatred was excited by the partisans of the democracy. It is at any rate true that M. Brissot admitted the famine was fictitious and consequently that a plot existed.”
77. Bailly, ii. 406.
78. Ibid. ii. 359.
79. Gonchon received the sum of 30,000 to 40,000 francs for each insurrection he succeeded in exciting ( Memoirs of the Comtesse de Bohm, p. 196, edited by De Lescure).
80. Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. 123.
81. Histoire de la Révolution de France, by Fantin Désodoards, i. 340.
82. Crimes de la Révolution, by Prudhomme, iii. 161.
83. Appel au Tribunal, p. 123 : “Those who directed it (the insurrection) had judged it expedient to make it begin with women, so that the soldiers would be less likely to use force.”
84. Mémoires de Rivarol, p. 263.
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (53 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
85. Mémoires de Mme. Campan, p. 167.
86. Evidence of M. de Blois, member of the Commune, witness xxxv. in the Procédure du Châtelet.
87. Appel au Tribunal, p. 124.
88. On the men in women’s clothes see Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. 124, and the testimony of eyewitnesses vii., ix., x., xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxv., xliv., lix., xcviii., cx., cxlvi., clxv., ccxxxvii., cccxvi., and many others in the Procédure du Châtelet.
89. Mémoires concernant Marie Antoinette, by Joseph Weber, ii. 210 ; Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii.
245 ; evidence of the Chevalier de La Serre, witness ccxxvi. in Procédure du Châtelet.
90. Evidence of La Serre and St. Martin (officer in the Regiment de Flandre), witness xcviii. in Procédure du Châtelet.
91. Taine, La Révolution, i. 153.
92. Evidence of St. Firmin, bourgeois de Paris, witness xlv. in Procédure du Châtelet.
93. St. Huruge was still safely lodged in the Châtelet, so his courage could not be put to the test.
94. Evidence of Jeanne Martin, a sick-nurse forced to march “ with threats of violence,” witness lxxxii., and De Villelongue, witness lxxxix. In Procédure du Châtelet.
95. Evidence of Jeanne Martin and of Madeleine Glain, charwoman, witness lxxxiii. in Procédure du Châtelet.
96. Evidence of witnesses x., lvi., lxxxii., cxcix., cclxxii., and ccclxxxvii. in Procédure du Châtelet.
97. Evidence of Maillard, witness lxxxi. in Procédure du Châtelet ; Deux Amis, iii. 178.
98. No messengers were able to reach the King, as they were all stopped by the mob of women on the road from Paris ( Deux Amis, iii. 177).
99. Moniteur, vi. 31.
100. Ibid. ii. 8.
101. Principles of the Constitution, article iii. : “ The supreme executive power resides exclusively with the King ( réside exclusivement dans les mains du roi) ” (Moniteur, i. 390).
102. Ferrieres, i. 295.
103. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 204.
104. This scene is, of course, not recorded in the Moniteur. It was related by the Marquis de Digoine du Palais, witness clxviii., and the Marquis de Raigecourt, witness cciv., in the Procédure du Châtelet, and confirmed by other witnesses present, including Mounier, president of the Assembly, in his Appel au Tribunal, p. 233.
105. Evidence of the Marquis de Digoine du Palais in Procédure du Châtelet ; Ferrières, i. 299.
106. Faits relatifs à la dernière Insurrection, by Mounier.
107. Note that Mirabeau afterwards stated that he only guessed “ by the nature of things ” that Paris was marching on Versailles. See Moniteur.
108. Appel au Tribunal, p. 302. Mirabeau, in recounting this scene ( Moniteur, vi. 31), described Mounier as saying, “ So much the better, we shall be all the sooner a republic ! ” This was probably intended to discredit Mounier in the eyes of the Royalists, but it is obvious that Mounier, who never concealed his allegiance to the monarchy, could not have said this, and that he used the word république in the sense of res-pucblica—the public good—in which it was frequently employed at this period by Royalists as well as revolutionaries.
109. De Juigné, to whose benevolence I have already referred.
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (54 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
110. Deux Amis, iii. 183.
111. These words, uttered by the people themselves and heard by a member of the deputation, Alexandre de Lameth (see his Histoire de l’Assemblée Constituante, i. 150), were afterwards attributed by Mirabeau to St. Priest in the Assembly ( Moniteur, ii. 36), evidently as a revenge on St. Priest for having explained to the women that the Commune of Paris and not the King was responsible for the provisioning of the capital (see St. Priest’s letter to the National Assembly in Mémoires de Bailly, iii. 422). But if, as several contemporaries state, Mirabeau himself was amongst the crowd outside the grille of the Château when these words were uttered, it is evident where he really heard them.
112. Evidence of the Chevalier de la Serre, witness ccxxvz. in Procédure du Châtelet.
113. Ferrières, i. 308.
114. Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. 145. Evidence of La Brosse de Belville, witness xxii. in Procédure du Châtelet. Miomandre de Sainte Marie, garde du corps, witness xviii., also stated that it was Lecointre who stirred up the crowd against the bodyguard.
115. Appel au Tribunal, by Mounier, p. 155.
116. Ibid. p. 148.
117. Appel au Tribunal, p. 148. Alexis Chauchard, captain of infantry, witness ci. in Procédure du Châtelet, stated that “ the King’s guards behaved in this affair with the greatest circumspection ; that he saw the people throw mud and stones at them and vomit imprecations against them without their making any attempt to repulse this attack.” 118. It should be noted that eyewitnesses, unlike historians, do not describe the women who created this uproar in the Assembly as poissardes but as “light women,” some even of a class too superior to be regarded as “ kept women ” (see evidence of the Vicomte de Mirabeau, witness cxlvi. in Procédure du Châlelet), whilst nearly all state that a great many men disguised as women were seen amongst them. No doubt there were a certain number of “ women of the people ” who had been forced to march to Versailles amongst those calling out for bread, but the “ indecent scenes ” described were evidently produced by the Orléaniste conspirators and the women they had brought with them. It was mainly the leaders of the expedition who crowded into the Assembly ; most of the poor creatures from the Faubourgs were left outside in the rain.
119. Mémoires de Madame de la Tour du Pin, i. 222.
120. Ferrières, i. 313 ; evidence of De Boisse of the King’s bodyguard, witness ccxiv. in Procédure du Châtelet.
121. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, iii. 90 ; Weber, ii. 207 ; Fantin Desodoards, i. 213 ; Procédure du Châtelet, witnesses xxxvi., clvii, clxi., ccxxvi. ; Ferrières, i. 307.
122. Procédure du Châtelet, witnesses xci. and clvi.
123. Evidence of an eyewitness, Anne Marguerite Andelle, ccxxxvi. in Procédure du Châtelet, a linen-worker dragged by force to Versailles. On the money distributed amongst the soldiers of the Régiment de Flandre and amongst the people see also witnesses XLIX., LVI., LXXI., LXXXIL, cx. and cxxvi.
124. “ All the roués of the Palais Royal, the accomplices, or rather the instigators of the Duc d’Orléans, Laclos, Sillery, Latouche, d’Aiguillon, d’Oraison, Mirabeau, and several other minor personages, were on foot all night in the midst of this rabble, whom they intoxicated in every manner. Public evidence subsequently showed some of them as having adopted the most ignoble disguises so as not to be recognized ” (Weber, ii. 210). See also Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 245, and evidence of the Chevalier de Lasserre, witness ccxxvi. in Procédure du Châtelet. Jean Diot, curé and deputy of the National Assembly, witness cx., described a conversation he heard during this night in which a man dressed as a woman, “ tall and of great corpulence,” offered two of the people fifty louis on behalf of the Due d’Orléans to murder the Queen on the following morning.
125. Evidence of M. de Sainte-Aulaire, lieutenant-commander in the bodyguard, witness clviii. in Procédure du Châtelet.
126. Mémoires de Madame de la Tour du Pin, i. 227.
127. “ At the moment that he was thrown down he saw a coloured trouser beneath the skirt of one of those who http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (55 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
attacked him ” (evidence of Du Repaire, witness ix. in Procédure du Chételet).
128. Ferrières, i. 327. See also the evidence of the Marquis de Digoine du Palais, witness clxviii. in Procédure du Châtelet : “ In the same place (the Cour de Marbre) was M. le Due d’Orléans walking with M. Duport whom he held under the arm, and with whom he was talking in a very gay and easy manner.” The duke was also seen at this hour by witnesses cxxvii., cxxxii., cxxxiii., cxxxvi., cxcv., who described him playing with a light switch he carried in his hand and “ laughing incessantly ”
129. Evidence of the Comte de Saint-Aulaire, witness clviii. in Procédure du Châtelet.
130. Ferrières says “ a few voices ” ; Bertrand de Molleville, “ one voice only.” 131. “ M. le Comte de Mirabeau represents the danger of leaving the accustomed place for sittings ” ( Moniteur, ii.
12).
132. Moniteur, ii. 12.
133. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 272.
134. Many contemporaries, including Madame de Campan, say that these heads were carried in the procession, but Weber, the Deux Amis, Bertrand de Molleville, and Gouverneur Morris distinctly state that they were carried on ahead and arrived in Paris at twelve o’clock, before the procession had started from Versailles. The Chancelier Pasquier saw them carried into the Palais Royal ( Mémoires, p. 72).
135. Montjoie, ii. 273 ; Histoire de la Révolution de France, by the Vicomte F. de Conny ; evidence of the Vicomte de Mirabeau, witness cxlvi. in Procédure du Châtelet.
136. A confirmation of the statement made by certain contemporaries that Laclos, Chamfort, and other leading Orléanistes took their mistresses with them.
137. “ Extrait du prociès verbal des representants de la Commune de Paris,” published in the Histoire Parlementaire of Buchez et Roux, iii. 137.
138. Mémoires de Rivarol, p. 263. Madame Campan in her Mémoires also refers to this visit of the poissardes to the Tuileries, but, contrary to Rivarol, describes them as identical with the women who marched on Versailles, and declares that they opened the interview with reproaches against the Queen, though they ended by crying “ Vive Marie Antoinette ! Vive notre bonne reine ! ” But Madame Campan’s account of the 6th of October is incorrect in several points ; moreover, we know that her loyalty to the Queen is more than doubtful, and since she refrained from any reference to the deputation to the Commune which testified so strongly in the Queen’s favour, she is quite as likely to have misrepresented the truth about the deputation to the Tuileries. On the loyalty of the “ Dames de la Halle ” at this moment see also Lettres d’un Attaché de Légation, date of October 16 ; Documents pour servir à l’Histoire de la Révolution Française, by Charles d’Héricault and Gustave Bord, 2nd series, p. 260.
139. Mounier’s denunciation of the 6th of October in his Appel au Tribunal de l’Opinion publique contains one of the most eloquent testimonies to the democracy of Louis XVI. : “ Without doubt the nation had been long oppressed by a crowd of abuses ; the rights of citizens were not sufficiently protected against arbitrary power. But had these abuses begun under the reign of Louis XVI. ? Had he done nothing to merit our gratitude ? What prince ever lent a more attentive ear to all those who spoke to him in favour of his people ? … Did he dishonour his reign by sanguinary orders, by proscriptions ? Did he steal property ? And what an atrocious exaggeration to describe the mistakes of his Ministers as excesses which wore out the patience of the people, and to consider them as sufficient reasons for dethroning the King ! I will not speak here of all the advantages we owe to his benevolence—the abolition of servitude in his domains, the abolition of corvées and of torture, the establishment of provincial administration, the civil state of the Protestants recognized, the liberty of the seas. Would he have lost all his authority if he had had less confidence in the love of his people ? ” Note that all these reforms mentioned by Mounier dated from before the Revolution.
140. “ M. de Lafayette swore to me on the road (from Versailles to Paris on Oct. 6) that the atrocities had made a Royalist of him ” (Letter from the Comte d’Estaing to the Queen, October 7, 1789).
141. Letter from Mr. Huber in Paris to Lord Auckland, dated October 15, 1789. The above conversation is given by http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (56 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
Mr. Huber in French. His account of the incident is confirmed in the Memoirs of Lafayette.
142. Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 318.
143. Histoire Philosophique, by Fantin Désodoards, i. 222.
144. See besides the foregoing letter to Lord Auckland those from Lord Henry Fitzgerald in Paris to the Duke of Leeds, published in Dispatches from Paris, edited by Oscar Browning. On October 29 Fitzgerald writes : “ In short, my Lord, the general impression is that the Prince was chief promoter of all the disturbances here, of the expedition on Monday the 5th of this month to Versailles, that his designs against the King were of a very criminal nature, that he aimed at the Regency of the kingdom for himself and proposed to bring his own party into power. It is supposed also that M. de Lafayette is the person who discovered the conspiracy forming, and that, having made it known to the King, his Majesty in goodness of heart employed him on a pretended commission to England, as a pretext only, and to shield him by honourable exile from further pursuit.” Again on November 6 : “ I must assure your Grace that I have every reason to believe that his commission to England was a pretended one,” etc.
See also Playfair’s History of Jacobinism, p. 220, note ; Biographical Memoirs of the French Revolution, by John Adolphus, ii. 249 and following.
145. Avant-propos to the Tableau des Témoins … daps la Procédure du Châtelet, 1790.
146. The whole of the inquiry is to be found at the British Museum under the heading Procédure criminelle instruite au Châtelet de Paris sur la dénonciation des faits arrivés à Versailles dans la journie du 6 octobre 1789.
Imprimée par ordre de l’Assemblée Nationale. Museum press mark, 491.1.2. Readers should beware of consulting the Orléaniste publication, Abrégé de la Procédure criminelle instruite au Châtelet, etc., in which the most important evidence is suppressed, but the brochure entitled Tableau des Témoins et recueil des faits les plus intéressants, etc., an answer to the aforesaid Abrégé, is a genuine résumé of the inquiry.
147. Von Sybel, the German historian, considers that “ the strongest evidence against the Duc d’Orléans was furnished several years later by the discovery of a letter bearing the date of October 6 in which he directs his banker not to pay the sums agreed upon : ‘ Run quickly, my friend, to the banker … and tell him not to deliver the sum ; the money has not been gained, the brat still lives ! ’ ( le marmot vit encore).” This would seem to indicate that some one had been bribed to murder the Dauphin, but the incident rests only on the authority of Réal, minister of police under the Empire, who declared that he had held the note in his hands. See Philippe d’Orléans Égalité, by Auguste Ducoin, p. 72.
148. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, ii. 71 ; Dispatches from Paris, ii. 311.
149. Appel au Tribunal, p. 76. See also Fantin Désodoards, p. 283 : “ The Orléanistes had no doubt that the Châtelet would regard this affair from the point of view indicated by themselves, and would throw all the odium on a few obscure ruffians who could easily be represented as secret agents of the Royalists.” 150. Montjoie, Conjuration de d’Orléans, iii. 84. Fantin Désodoards ( Histoire Philosophique, etc. i. 286) says Chabroud received 60,000 francs from the Duc d’Orléans for this report.
151. “ Perhaps ruffians had mingled with the multitude and it had become their mobile instrument…. A homicidal band advances, in its frenzy it respects nothing. Soon there is nothing between the tigers and Louis XVI.” (Speech of Chabroud).
152. For example, Dr. la Fisse, witness lv. in the Procédure du Châtelet, had stated that Mirabeau, on receiving a note from the Duc d’Orléans after the 6th of October saying that he was leaving for England, had exclaimed furiously to those around him, “ See here read ! He is as craven as a lackey, he is a blackguard ( jean foutre) who does not deserve all the trouble taken for him ! ” (Compare this with Camille Desmoulins’ description of Mirabeau’s “ anger at seeing himself abandoned,” quoted on p. 126 of this book.) Mirabeau admitted having made this remark, but explained he only meant it was “ a mistake ” for the duke to go to England !
153. For the opinions of English contemporaries on the absolution of the Assembly at the instigation of “ the whitewasher Chabroud,” see, for example, Playfair’s History of Jacobinism, p. 220 ; Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy, p. 392 ; and the statement of Helen Maria Williams, a bitter enemy of the King, in her http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (57 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
Correspondence of Louis XVI. i. 235. Even Dumont, the friend—and evidently, for a time, the accomplice—of Mirabeau, admitted the doubtful honesty of the Assembly in exonerating him. “ The events of October 5 and 6,” wrote Dumont, “ have been imputed to the Due d’Orléans, and the Châtelet implicated Mirabeau in the conspiracy.
The National Assembly declared that there was no case for conviction against one or the other. But the absolution of the Assembly is not the absolution of history, and many veils yet remain to be raised before these events can be pronounced on ” ( Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, p. 117).
154. Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, p. 96.
155. History of the French Revolution, by John Adolphus, ii. 298.
156. So thoroughly has this propaganda been carried out that in the popular edition of the Reflections, which the good taste of the British public made it necessary to publish, a preface has been inserted explaining that Burke was ill-informed on the subject and urging the reader to consult Mr. Arthur Young’s Travels in France. But the writer carefully refrains from mentioning Arthur Young’s later work, The Example of France, which confirms every word uttered by Burke in rather stronger language !
157. L’Europe et la Révolution Française, by A. Sorel, ii. 26.
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (58 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 4