ORGANIZATION OF THE MASSACRES

The manner in which the massacres in the prisons were organized differed entirely from that employed in the former revolutionary outbreaks. In these, as we have seen, the plan had consisted in stirring up the people to rise en masse and fall upon the victims http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (7 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6

designated by the leaders. This plan had failed, and the Commune, led by Marat, realized the futility of depending on Balaam’s ass as a mode of progression ; on the 20th of June it had refused to go forward, on the 10th of August it had gone mad and terrified its riders. The murder of cooks and common soldiers, the hideous scenes of cannibalism and drunken fury that had taken place at the Tuileries, though applauded by the revolutionary leaders, served no real purpose, and if repeated might become dangerous to the leaders themselves. Marat, who had never trusted the people, voiced this fear later on when, in reply to the accusation of his enemies that he aspired to the supreme power, he declared that “ if the whole nation at once were to place the crown on my head I should shake it off, for such is the levity, the frivolity, the changeableness of the people that I should not be sure that, after crowning me in the morning, they would not hang me in the evening.”[20] The people of Paris—those “ pitiable revolutionaries ”—must therefore not be invited indiscriminately to co-operate, so on this occasion no army of pikes and rags was summoned from the Faubourgs, no mob leaders were called out, no conciliabules took place in the taverns of the Soleil d’Or or the Cadran Bleu. In a word, the old revolutionary machine was “ scrapped ”; it had served its purpose, and must be superseded by a more effectual system.

According to Prudhomme the secret councils that preceded the massacres of September took place at the “ Comité de Surveillance ” of the Commune,[21] and were attended by Marat, Danton, Manuel, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d’Herbois, Panis, Sergent, Tallien, and, on the aforesaid two occasions, Maximilien Robespierre. [22] Here the whole

scheme was mapped out with diabolical ingenuity. First of all a number of fresh prisoners were to be incarcerated, principally wealthy people, for the massacres were to be not merely a method of extermination, but a highway robbery on a large scale. The Commune wanted money—for what purpose we shall see later—and the systematic pillage it had inaugurated after the 10th of August, when not only the Tuileries and other royal châteaux but the houses of many private people had been looted by their agents,[23]

had not yet brought in sufficient sums.

But, besides the men whose death was to be effected merely as the means of acquiring their possessions, a number of victims were designated for other reasons by different members of the Commune, and over this question heated discussions arose. Robespierre at one of these meetings, fearing indiscriminate slaughter, had said, “ We must bring only the priests and nobles to justice.” [24] But when Marat proposed to add certain

members of the rival faction—Brissot and Roland[25]—to the list, it seems that Robespierre’s scruples vanished, and from after events it is evident that the hope of finally ridding himself of the hated Brissotins did more than anything else to reconcile http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (8 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6

Robespierre to the idea of the massacres.

Danton, however, showed himself magnanimous. He, too, would gladly have seen Roland removed from his path, for the Minister of the Interior had an inconvenient habit of asking the Minister of justice to tender his accounts to the Assembly, [26] and Danton had recently drawn the sum of 100,000 écus from the public treasury for purposes he declined to reveal, contenting himself with the vague statement that he had given “ 20,000 francs to such an one, 10,000 to another, and so on,” “ for the sake of the Revolution,” “ on account of their patriotism,” etc.[27] Roland, who shrewdly suspected that it was his own patriotism Danton had seen fit to reward, persisted in his demands for the names of the persons to whom these sums had been paid, thereby profoundly irritating Danton. But whether he retained some sense of gratitude for Madame Roland’s soup, of which he had recently partaken, or whether, through their common intrigue with the English Jacobins, he had some secret understanding with the Brissotins, Danton did not wish to have them murdered. So to the proposal that they should be included in the massacres he answered firmly, “ You know that I do not hesitate at crime when it is necessary, but I disdain it when it is useless.” [28] Not content with this remonstrance, Danton went to Robespierre and interceded for Brissot and Roland.

Robespierre said coldly, “ Are not these two individuals counter-revolutionaries ? ” Danton answered, “ That is not yet proved ; besides, we can always find a good moment to judge them.”

But Robespierre already had his plans for bringing them to justice, which he executed two days later.

Danton then hurried to Marat at the Commune.

“ You are a blackguard,” he said in the language habitual to them both, “ you will spoil everything.”

Marat replied, “ I answer for success on my head ; if you were all ruffians ( des bougres) like me there would be 10,000 butchered.” [29]

The difficulty of achieving a massacre on a large scale became the subject of discussion at several meetings of the leaders. Even if only 2000 prisoners were incarcerated, how was so vast a number of human beings to be disposed of ? “ Marat,” says Prudhomme, “ proposed to set fire to the prisons, but it was pointed out to him that the neighbouring houses would be endangered ; some one else advised flooding them. Billaud-Varenne proposed to kill the prisoners… . Another said, ‘You propose to kill, but you will not find enough killers.’ Billaud-Varenne replied with warmth, ‘ They will be found.’

Tallien, who refused to take part in the discussion, showed disgust, but had not the courage to oppose the project.”[30]

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (9 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6

Billaud, who, according to most contemporaries, showed himself the most ferocious of all the men who organized the massacres, finally undertook to provide the necessary instruments, and in cooperation with Maillard—he who had led the women to Versailles on the 5th of October—succeeded in forming a band of assassins amongst the Marseillais and the revolutionary elements of Paris, but, contrary to his expectations, this contingent proved insufficient, and it was found necessary to swell its numbers by liberating a quantity of thieves and murderers now in the prisons. [31] Yet even to this

criminal horde the leaders dared not avow their true intentions, and a lurid tale of conspiracies was invented by way of inducement to them to carry out the dreadful work.

They described to the assassins, says Maton de la Varenne, “ Paris given over to the enemy by rascals whose leaders were in the prisons, where they were still conspiring ; gibbets planted in all the streets on which to hang the friends of the Revolution, their wives and children massacred beneath their eyes ; Capet insolently re-ascending the throne and carrying out the most horrible vengeances. Wine flowed in torrents throughout and after this infernal and slanderous harangue, and the lives of those whom they called the traitors were placed at thirty livres independently of the spoils.” [32]

The same fabulous story of conspiracies, the same false alarms, were now spread abroad amongst the people in order to prepare their minds for the massacres and ensure their assent. For, though the people were not to be invited this time to co-operate, the whole movement was none the less to be attributed to them. In each prison a mock tribunal was to be set up at which judges provided by the Commune, and assassins hired by them, armed with lists of proscription drawn up at the secret councils of the leaders, were to carry out socalled “ justice ”—and this was to be described by the highsounding title, “ The Tribunal of the Sovereign People.”[33] The massacres were then to be represented as simply the result of “ irrepressible popular effervescence,” produced by sudden panic at the approach of Brunswick and the discovery of collusion between the invading armies and the “ conspirators ” in the prisons. For this purpose a phrase was invented, which was afterwards to be said to have passed from mouth to mouth amongst the terrified Parisians, namely, that before marching on the enemy they must put all these conspirators to death.[34]

The pretext was palpably absurd. Paris has never been wont to give way to panic in the face of danger from the outside, and it awaited the advancing legions of Brunswick with its habitual sangfroid.

“ Whilst the Prussians were in Champagne,” says Mercier, “ who would not have thought that profound alarm existed in all minds ? Not at all ; the theatres, the restaurants, both full, displayed only peaceful newsmongers. All the vainglorious threats http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (10 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30

 

Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6

of our enemies—we did not hear ; of all their murderous expectations we were far from having the least idea. The capital, whether by its size or by the feeling of its strength, always believed itself unassailable, sheltered from all reverses in battle, and calculated to overawe its enemies. The plans of defence, regarded as absolutely unnecessary, were laughed at, since no one would ever dare to attack the great city. This stoicism was one of the greatest ramparts of liberty … never were the people seriously intimidated, either by the banquets of the bodyguard, at which Antoinette was described under the name of tigress of Germany, holding the Dauphin in her arms and inciting the most bloodthirsty hostilities, or by the flight of the King, which seemed to dissolve all government, or by the taking of Verdun, or by the Manifestos of all the Kings of Europe. It was impossible to make them feel terror of the enemy… .” [35]

And these were the people who were to be represented as so craven-hearted that, in a fit of blind panic, they fell upon their fellow-countrymen and put them indiscriminately to death !

As to the fear of a “ conspiracy ” in the prisons, no such idea ever entered into the heads of the Parisians. How could people, shut up behind bolts and bars, cut off from all communication with the outside world, conspire ? How could the priests, against whom the movement was principally directed, form an effectual reinforcement to the trained legions of Brunswick ? How could unarmed men, women, and children take part in a massacre ? The idea was preposterous, and originated in the minds not of the people but of the members of the Commune, who circulated it through Paris by means of agents placed in the crowd for the purpose. That a certain number of citizens believed it is undeniable, but to attribute to the intelligent Parisians the authorship of such a fable, or the cowardice of acting on it by falling on the prisoners, is a gross and hideous calumny which should be finally refuted.