THE PROCLAMATION OF THE REPUBLIC

The idea no doubt prevails in this country that France became a Republic because the French nation was finally convinced of the advantages offered by a Republican form of government. Nothing is further from the truth. France, as the cahiers had shown, was solidly monarchical, and the protests following on the 20th of June gave evidence that this sentiment still prevailed throughout the country. “ The Republicans,” said Danton in September 1792, “ are an infinitesimal minority … the rest of France is attached to the monarchy.” [1]

If, however, any doubt existed on this point, if the demagogues had any reason to suppose that the opinion of the people had changed since the formation of the cahiers, the only course in accordance with the principles of democracy would have been to make a fresh appeal to the nation. For, however impossible it may be to consult the people on the details of legislation, it is obviously a farce to describe a State as democratic in which the form of government is not the choice of the nation as a whole.

The only legitimate method by which the form of government can be changed is, http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (1 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7

therefore, a referendum to the people.

Nothing of this kind was done in France. When, on the list of September, the Convention that now superseded the Legislative Assembly held its first sitting, none of the deputies—amongst whom all the leading revolutionaries, Girondins, Dantonistes, and Robespierristes alike, were included—had made any attempt to discover the real wishes of their constituents on the question of abolishing the monarchy, whilst in the provinces the idea of a Republic had not even been considered. [2]

At one moment it seemed as if the new Assembly were endowed with some appreciation of the principles of democracy, for it began by passing this admirable resolution : “ The National Convention declares that there can be no Constitution unless it is accepted by the people.”

Yet after this, at the very same sitting, it proceeded with ludicrous inconsequence to discuss the fundamental point of the Constitution, the question of a Republic, without any reference whatever to the wishes of the people !

It was Couthon, the ally of Robespierre, who had first proposed the abolition of the monarchy, and the proposal was now seconded by Collot d’Herbois amidst “ universal applause.” True, one obscure member named Quinette rose to observe : “ It is not we who are the judges of the monarchy, it is the people. We have only the mission to form a definite government, and the people will choose between the old one which included the monarchy, and the new one which we shall present to them.” But the protest of Quinette was overruled by Grégoire, who declared that “ no one could ever propose to preserve in France the disastrous race of kings… . We know too well that all dynasties have only been devouring races living on human flesh… . I ask that by a solemn law you should ordain the abolition of monarchy.”

In vain Bazire interposed with the remonstrance that the Assembly should not allow itself to be carried away by a “ moment of enthusiasm,” that “ the question of abolishing the monarchy should at least be discussed by the Assembly.”

“ What need is there for discussion,” answered Grégoire, “ when every one is agreed ?

Kings are in the moral order of things what monsters are in the physical order … the history of kings is the martyrology of nations. Since we are all equally penetrated by this truth, what need is there for discussion ? ”

And, in response to this dignified discourse, the Assembly, without further debate, passed the resolution : “ The National Convention decrees that monarchy is abolished in France.” [3]

Thus, in flagrant violation of the first principle of democracy, rule by the will of the people,[4] in direct contradiction to the resolution passed by the Convention itself at that http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (2 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7

same sitting, the Republic was proclaimed by an infinitesimal minority of political adventurers. For if these men who took upon themselves to overthrow the ancient government of France had been honest in their intentions, if they had themselves been convinced of the advantages of a Republic over a monarchy, their action might, to a certain extent, be condoned by their enthusiasm. But it was not so. These men were not Republican by conviction, for, as we have already seen, they were actuated by various policies far removed from Republicanism. Still, at the inauguration of the Convention, it seems that the same schemes for a change of dynasty survived ; the factions had merely undergone some slight modifications. Now, although at most stages of the Revolution we find contemporaries disagreed on the aims of the factions, it is curious to notice the extraordinary resemblance between the explanations given by writers belonging to completely different parties of the motives that inspired the proclamation of the Republic.

According to such divergent authorities as Montjoie, Pagès, Prudhomme, and “ The Two Friends of Liberty,” Carra and his party still inclined to the Duke of Brunswick ; Brissot and his party to the Duke of York ; Sillery, Sieyès, and Laclos to the Duc d’Orléans ; Dumouriez, Biron, and Valence to the Duc de Chartres ; whilst Marat and Danton, now less disposed to support the Duc d’Orléans, began to think of their own elevation and joined forces with Robespierre, in order to establish either a Dictatorship under one of their number or a Triumvirate composed of all three. Owing to these conflicting policies, none of which could be openly avowed, every one was obliged to profess Republicanism—“ some voted for the Republic for fear Orléans should be King, others in order not to appear Orléanistes ; all wished to acquire or maintain their popularity.” This was what Robespierre meant when he said later on, “ The Republic slipped in furtively between the factions.” [5]

But once the Republic had been proclaimed and the monarchy declared to be finally abolished, it became necessary for the factions to reconstruct their policies, and so three main parties were formed in the Convention. These became known as the Gironde, the Plain, and the Mountain.

The first of these parties consisted of the deputies of the Gironde who had sat in the Legislative Assembly—Vergniaud, Guadet, Gensonné, Ducos, and Fonfrède—and also Brissot with his following, which included Buzot, Valazé, Isnard, and Condorcet. All these were henceforth described collectively as Girondistes or Girondins, and it was they who, as time went on, came to represent the truly Republican party in the Convention.

The Plain or Marais was composed of several hundred nondescript deputies, non-committal in their views, and afraid to move boldly in any direction.

But the real force of the Assembly lay in the Mountain, that fierce and subversive http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (3 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7

minority dominated by Danton, Marat, and Robespierre, and including the most violent members of the Jacobin and Cordelier Clubs—Camille Desmoulins, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d’Herbois, Fabre d’Églantine, Panis, Sergent, Legendre, and also the Duc d’Orléans, who, by the usual methods of bribes and cajolery, by dinners lavished on the new members of the Commune, and, in the opinion of many contemporaries, by the payment of 15,000 livres to Marat, succeeded in securing election as a deputy for Paris. [6]

Inevitably the Montagnards carried all before them ; it was they and not the pedantic Girondins who understood the art of rousing popular passions. Hitherto, as we have seen, even the mob of Paris had needed to be systematically stirred up in order to take part in the revolutionary movement, and this is not surprising, for the issues at stake were outside their comprehension. What matter to them whether the “ patriot ministers ” were recalled or not, whether the King had the right of Veto, whether the non-during priests were deported, and so forth ? As to the leaders of the Legislative Assembly, none had appealed to their mentalities ; the eloquence of Vergniaud left them cold ; the speeches repeated parrot-like by the socalled deputations from the Faubourgs were unintelligible alike to orators and audience.

But when Marat, Danton, and Robespierre assumed the reins of power everything was changed. Marat spoke a language the populace could understand ; instead of bewildering their minds with political subtleties he simply ordered them to go out and burn and pillage and destroy. By this means he appealed irresistibly to the craving for excitement which distinguishes the populace in every city, particularly in Paris, whilst his ostentation of poverty imposed for a while on some of the more credulous amongst the people themselves. It has been said that “ Marat loved the poor,” that from the beginning of the Revolution he had lived on the barest necessaries of life. This we now know to be untrue ; Marat, though of filthy and neglected appearance, lived in the greatest comfort, and was never known to make any personal sacrifices for the poor of Paris.[7] The vicious, the wastrel, the degraded alone inspired his sympathy ; honest and lawabiding men of the people, especially those who by their industry had achieved some degree of prosperity, became the objects of his contempt and hatred. “ Give me 300,000 heads,” he said, “ and I will answer for the country being saved… . Begin by hanging at their doors the bakers, the grocers, and all the tradesmen.” When the people failed to respond to these suggestions, Marat turned and rent them : “ Oh ! babbling people, if you but knew how to act ! ” [8] or again : “ Eternal idlers, with what epithets

would I not overwhelm you if, in the transports of my despair, I knew of any more humiliating than that of Parisians ! ”[9] In this lay the difference between the policies of

Robespierre and Marat. Robespierre aimed at democracy, not in the sense of government by the people, but of a State solely composed of “ the people ”; [10] he would

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (4 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7

have liked to turn the whole world into a vast working-man’s settlement, of which he would be the presiding genius ; whilst Marat wanted ochlocracy, a State dominated by that small portion of the people known as the “ mob,” making of the world a huge thieves’ kitchen, in which he would play the part of brigand chief. Robespierre, now falling more and more under the influence of Marat, began to realize the superiority of Marat’s method ; he perceived that in times of revolution it is to the subversive minority that a demagogue must look for support, and that to appeal to the reason of the people must ever prove less effectual than to rouse the passions of the mob. Hitherto he had sought to establish his popularity by fulsome adulation of the people’s virtues, [11] but

from this time onward we find him gradually abandoning the attitude of moderation he had maintained during the preceding year, and reverting to the subversive methods he had employed at the outset of the Revolution. Inveighing against the rich and great, appealing always to cupidity and envy, it was principally amongst the women of the Société Fraternelle and the female convicts released during the massacres of September that he found his following, and this dishevelled band that Danton derisively described as the jupons gras of Robespierre[12] filled the tribunes of the Convention and the Jacobin Club, drowning the debates in their clamour.

Danton, on the other hand, never theorized about democracy. Too lazy to put pen to paper, he is almost the only revolutionary leader who owned no journal and wrote no pamphlets ; his speeches, admirably suited to a recruiting platform with their sounding refrains of “ Let us beat the enemy ! ” “ Let us save the country ! ” served merely to electrify the Assembly, especially the tribunes, and afford evidence of no definite or coherent political creed. It is, therefore, by his sayings that we know Danton best—words flung out at impetuous moments, recorded by innumerable contemporaries, and bearing so strong a family resemblance that it is impossible not to believe that some at least are authentic. It was thus that, like Mirabeau, he frankly admitted his own corruptibility. “ Danton,” says Prudhomme, “ was known as a man who displayed little delicacy in revolution ; that is why he was always surrounded by bad characters and swindlers. Here is a remark habitual to him : ‘ The Revolution should profit those who make it, and if the Kings enriched nobles the Revolution should enrich patriots.’ ” [13]

We shall find Danton giving vent to the same sentiments up to the very foot of the scaffold. Danton’s own greed for gold led him to believe that the people were to be won by the same means ; money he held to be the great lever by which the revolutionary mobs could be moved to action. [14]

The fact is, Danton was not a politician, but simply a great agitator ; the “ people ” to whom he openly referred as the canaille must be made to serve the purpose of the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_07.html (5 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:42

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 7

demagogues, and he moved amongst them with no show of “ fraternity ” like Robespierre or Marat, but, as Garat expressed it, like “ a grand seigneur of the Sans-Culotterie,” scattering largesse and thundering words of command. Robespierre’s scheme of a Socialist State held, therefore, little attraction for Danton, who had no desire to exchange his comfortable flat in Paris and his château at Arcis-sur-Aube for a cottage in a working-man’s settlement.

But, although divided in their ultimate aims—and also secretly hostile to each other—the members of the Triumvirate that headed the Mountain were agreed in regarding a period of anarchy as necessary to the realization of their schemes, and were therefore content to work together in order to destroy existing conditions. For this purpose it was necessary to enlist the aid of the mob—that portion of the people, mainly women, who, having nothing to lose by general confusion, were ready in return for adequate remuneration to stamp and shout for each party in turn.[15]

Buzot has thus described the aspect of the deputations and audiences collected by Marat and Robespierre at the Convention :

“ It seemed as if they had sought in all the slums of Paris and of the large cities for everything that was filthiest, most hideous, and polluted. Dreadful earthen faces, black or copper-coloured, surmounted by a thick tuft of greasy hair, with eyes half sunken in their heads, they gave vent with their fetid breath to the coarsest insults and shrill screams of hungry animals. The tribunes were worthy of such legislators : men whose frightful appearance gave evidence of crime and wretchedness, women whose shameless air expressed the foulest debauchery. When all these, with hands, feet, and voices, made their horrible din, one would have imagined oneself in an assembly of devils.” Such were the elements that now usurped the power, taking as their watchword the cry that Taine truly calls “ the résumé of the revolutionary spirit ”: “ The will of the people makes the law, and we are the people.” Henceforth the Revolution enters on a new phase, monarchy and aristocracy have both retired from the lists, and the struggle has begun between democracy and ochlocracy, between the people and the populace. And since the demagogues are on the side of the populace, inevitably ochlocracy triumphs, and everywhere, in the tribunes of the Convention and of the Jacobin Club, in the streets and public places, Marat’s rabble, though an infinitesimal minority, holds sway over the great mass of the people.