When on the 18th of September the King made his reply to the demands of the Assembly requesting him to sanction the reforms of the 4th of August, it became evident that no opposition could be hoped for from the royal authority. The King’s reply was both reasonable and sympathetic ; in a long and detailed analysis he discussed each reform in turn, pointing out that certain articles were only the text for laws that the Assembly must frame. He ended with the words : “ Therefore I approve the greater number of these articles, and I will sanction them when they have been drawn up into laws.”
This conciliatory reply left the revolutionary leaders no further ground for agitation, and they contented themselves with insolently remarking that the King had not been asked to “ sanction ” the decrees of the Assembly but only to “ promulgate ” them. Floods of rhetoric were then expended on the precise significance of the two words. But as the King sensibly observed, how was it possible to “ promulgate ” laws that had not yet been framed ? However, in order to pacify the contentious deputies, he finally yielded to their demands, and two days later, on August 28, accorded his “ acceptation pure and simple ” to the decrees of August 4. [51]
The Assembly then proceeded to discuss the embarrassment in the finances. But here again the King showed his desire to relieve the situation by coming forward to offer all his silver plate to the nation, whilst at the same time the Queen sent 60,000 livres’ worth to the Mint. The proposition met with immediate remonstrance from the Assembly, but the King persisted in his resolution. [52]
This was the moment chosen by Mirabeau for a tirade against “ the rich ”—“ the frightful gulf of bankruptcy must be filled,” he declared to the Assembly. “ Well, then, here is the list of French proprietors. Choose amongst the richest so as to sacrifice the fewest citizens… . Strike ! Immolate without pity those wretched victims ; precipitate them into the abyss ; it will close again ! … You shrink with horror ? Inconsistent men ! Pusillanimous men ! ” [53]
The speech was received with “ almost convulsive applause ” by the Assembly.
Yet how was Mirabeau himself carrying out the principle of austere self-sacrifice ?
Camille Desmoulins will tell us. On the 29th of September—exactly three days after Mirabeau’s tirade—Camille wrote these words : “ I have been for a week at Versailles http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (11 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
with Mirabeau. We have become great friends ; at least he calls me his dear friend. At every moment he takes me by the hands, he thumps me, then he goes off to the Assembly, resumes his dignity as he enters the hall and works wonders, after which he comes back to dine with excellent company and sometimes with his mistress, and we drink excellent wine. I feel that his too delicate fare and overloaded table corrupt me.
His claret and his maraschino have a virtue that I vainly seek to ignore, and I have all the difficulty in the world in resuming my republican [54] austerity and in detesting the
aristocrats whose crime is to give these excellent dinners. I prepare motions, and Mirabeau calls that initiating me into great affairs. It seems to me that I ought to think myself happy when I remember my position at Guise… .” Oh, people, these are your defenders !
It is said that only a few weeks before, Mirabeau, looking out of the window and seeing a crowd of poor people fighting at a baker’s shop for bread, uttered the cynical remark, “ That canaille there well deserves to have us for legislators ! ” Like Danton he at least was frank, and no one would have been more amused than Mirabeau himself at the efforts of his biographers to represent him as a lofty idealist and lover of the people.
What was the truth about Mirabeau at this juncture when the march on Versailles was being planned in the councils of the Orléaniste leaders ? Was he amongst them ? His panegyrists have vainly endeavoured to absolve him from complicity, but contemporaries, even those who were his friends, are obliged to admit that he knew what was to take place even if he did not help to prepare the movement.
“ I am inclined to think,” says Dumont, “ that Mirabeau was in the secret of the events of the 5th and 6th of October. … What I believe is, taking everything into consideration, supposing that the insurrection of Versailles was led by the agents of the Duc d’Orléans, that Laclos was too clever to confide everything to the indiscretion of Mirabeau, but that he had made sure of him conditionally… . It is impossible not to believe in some liaison between them.” [55] This from the intime of Mirabeau is conclusive. Camille Desmoulins, who at this date “ idolized ” Mirabeau, also gave away his friend later on : “ Will any one make me believe that when I stayed at Versailles with Mirabeau immediately before the 6th of October … I saw nothing of the precursory movements of the 5th and 6th ? Will any one make me believe that when I went to Mirabeau at the moment that he heard the Duc d’Orléans had started for London, his anger at seeing himself abandoned, his imprecations … made me conjecture nothing ? ”[56]
The plan of the conspirators was undoubtedly either to persuade the mob to march on Versailles and murder the King and Queen, or more probably to murder the Queen only and bring the King to Paris. Of all this Mirabeau was evidently well aware—even if he http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (12 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
was not one of the authors of the scheme—and it would seem that at moments the dreadful secret preyed on his mind. Perhaps amidst the mire of his life some hereditary traditions of honour, some instincts of chivalry, had survived which made him shrink from the brutal crime of which a noble and beautiful woman was to be the chief victim, and at these moments he was almost tempted to abandon the sordid intrigue into which he had been drawn and throw himself into the worthier cause of defending his King against the designs of a usurper. Yet if he did so, what reception would he meet with from the Court ? The King and Queen, he well knew, regarded him with aversion. Was it not possible, therefore, that by deserting the conspiracy he might simply become the enemy of Orléans and gain no favour with the King ? Thus haunted with the horror of the thing he wished the King would find out for himself the tragedy that was impending.
Often at this time Mirabeau, in speaking of the Court to his friend La Marck, would ask uncontrollably, “ What are these people thinking of ? Do they not see the abyss that is opening under their feet ? ” Once in a violent outbreak of exasperation he cried out, “ All is lost ; the King and Queen will perish—you will see it—and the populace will batter their corpses.” And then, seeing the horror on the face of La Marck, he repeated, “ Yes, yes, their corpses will be battered—you do not understand sufficiently the danger of their position ; it ought to be made known to them.”
But it had been made known to them, and by Lafayette himself in a letter to the Comte de St. Priest dated September 17. On the 23rd, therefore, the King warned the Assembly of “ the threats of ill-disposed persons to march out of Paris with arms,” and of the measures he had taken for the protection of the deputies. The Assembly, however, was already aware of the intention. “ I repeat without fear of contradiction,” says Mounier, “ that every day the ministers received the most alarming information on this subject, and the King’s Guards were several times obliged to spend the night in readiness to mount their horses.”[57]
If under these circumstances a plan was formed by certain Royalists to convey the Royal Family to Metz or to some other place of safety, is it altogether surprising ? That any such project existed has never yet been proved—the only evidence brought forward by the revolutionary writers being the rough copy of a letter from the Comte d’Estaing to the Queen[58] which fell into the hands of the conspirators—but even if the supposition
were correct, what perfidy would this imply on the part of the Royalists ? Why, if the lives of the King and Queen were daily threatened, should not their loyal supporters attempt to rescue them from their assassins ? The scheme involved no design on the liberties of the nation, and the flight of the Royal Family to Metz would have been undertaken, like the flight to Varennes two years later, simply in self-defence. At any rate, one undeniable fact remains—the plan was not attempted, the King and Queen of http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_03.html (13 of 58)5.4.2006 10:39:58
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 3
their own free will decided to stay at Versailles and face the danger.