[1789 A.D.] exercised only by the joint agreement of the national representatives and the hereditary chief of the state; necessity of giving a constitution to France; exclusive right of the states-general to make laws (which should obtain royal sanction before being executed), to control the public expenses, to impose taxes; abolition of the financial immunity and personal privileges of the clergy and nobility; suppression of the last remnants of bondage; eligibility of all citizens to public office; responsibility of the agents of executive authority. (2) For the moral system: freedom of religion and of the press; education by the state of poor and abandoned children. (3) For the judicial system: unity of legislation and jurisprudence; suppression of exceptional jurisdiction; publicity of debates; mitigation of the penal laws; reform of the laws of procedure. (4) For the administrative system: creation of provincial assemblies to control the administration of the royal deputies; unity of weights and measures; new division of the kingdom according to population and revenue. (5) In the economic system freedom of industry; suppression of interior custom-houses; replacement of the various taxes by a tax on land and movable property, which was to affect fruits but never capital. These demands, which comprised the whole Revolution, and characterised its labours at the start, show that the nation which was capable of formulating them deserved to obtain them.1 They have been called by some "the Principles of '89." Napoleon named them more justly "the Truths of the Revolution." On the 2nd of May all the deputies assembled at Versailles were presented to the king. On the 4th they marched in solemn procession to the church of St. Louis. The bishop of Nancy concluded his sermon on that day with these words: "Sire, the people over which you reign have given unequivocal proofs of patience. It is a people of martyrs, who seem to have been kept alive only that they might suffer the longer." All Paris was at Versailles. In the midst of an immense crowd the cortège appeared, the third estate at the head, as it was customary for the least important personages to lead. They were showered with applause. The nobles in their embroidered clothes passed amidst silence, except in the case of a few popular men who were applauded; the same silence greeted the clergy, who came next. Enthusiasm revived only for the king, who closed the procession. The 5th of May the estates met in the Salle des Menus which was designated by the name of Hall of the Three Orders. The king was on the throne surrounded by the princes of the blood; on the steps was the court. The remainder of the hall was occupied by the three orders: at the right of the throne sat the clergy, counting 290 members, of whom 48 were archbishops or bishops, 35 abbots or canons, 204 curés and 3 monks; at the left were the nobles comprising 269 members, to wit: 1 prince of the blood, the duke of Orleans, 240 noblemen, and 28 magistrates of the superior courts; finally in the rear, on lower benches, was placed the third estate composed of 584 members, of whom 12 were noblemen, 2 priests, 18 mayors, 162 magistrates of the bailliage or sénéschaussée, 212 advocates, 16 physicians, 162 merchants or owners and cultivators of land.2 1 We can trace the national history by comparing in connection with this, the demands made by the estates in 1484, 1560, 1561, 1576, 1588, 1614, and it will be seen that the desire to avoid a revolution by instituting reforms was very old in France. When, in 1781, Calonne became a reformer, he remembered these repeated demands; in stating the reasons for one of his projects, he said: "It is a response to the estates of 1614." [2 Other estimates are: Clergy, 308; nobles, 285; third estate, 621, of whom only 10 were of the lower classes.] [1789 A.D.] The king in a few well-chosen words expressed his hopes for the happiness of the nation, invited the estates to work towards that end, recommending to their attention the financial problem especially, and urging them to remedy the evils without being carried away by that exaggerated desire for innovation "which has taken hold of people's minds." Barentin, keeper of the seals, dilated upon the royal speech, seeming to reduce the functions of the estates to a vote on the taxes, to a discussion of a law against the press, and to a reform of the civil and criminal legislation. The floor was then given to Necker, general controller of the finances, and he tired everyone by the length of his discourse. Two passages in it, however, excited lively attention that in which he admitted an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs and of 260,000,000 in anticipation, and the one in which he declared that the king asked the estates to help him establish the prosperity of the kingdom on firm foundations. "Look for them," he said, "point them out to your sovereign, and you will find on his part the most generous assistance." Thus there was anarchy in the council itself. The keeper of the seals, the organ of the court, considered the present crisis to be a financial, rather than a political and social one, and the controller of the finances seemed to give full range to the states-general. To establish the political and social unity of the nation by equality before the law and to guarantee it by liberty-this in two words was the whole spirit of 1789. Three societies were in existence; it was necessary that there should be but one. In the discussion raised in connection with the first question to be decided, the examination of the powers of the deputies, the third estate declared in favour of making this examination jointly, the clergy and nobility wished each order to examine the power of its members separately. The method of deliberation which would be adopted in other cases, and the vote by estates or by individuals depended upon the way in which they decided on this point. Were the vote to be by estates, the majority was assured to the clergy and nobility; were it to be by individuals, the third estate would have the largest number of votes, since it outnumbered the other estates by a majority of 584 to 561. During five weeks the deputies of the third estate, who controlled the common hall, employed every means to get the first two orders to join in the sittings; they invited the clergy "in the name of God, in the name of peace, and in the name of public interest." The clergy was in a grievous position; its doctrines drew it one way, its interests another. As a privileged body it was hostile to the Revolution; as an exponent of the Gospels, it favoured it. Those of its members who profited least from its privileges led the defection. The 13th of June three curés from Poitou came to take their place among the third estate; in the days following, their example was followed by many others. Finally on the 17th of June, on the motion of abbé Sieyes, the commons constituted themselves into the national assembly, considering that "this assembly is already composed of deputies sent by at least 96 hundredths of the nation and that such a number of deputies cannot remain inactive on account of the absence of deputies from a few bailiwicks or of some classes of citizens." Three weeks afterwards, in order better to define its position, it added the word "constituent" to its title (July 9th). This declaration, which opened the Revolution, threw terror into the court and into the ranks of the first two orders. Nevertheless the clergy, in spite of brilliant efforts on the part of the abbé Maury, decided in favour of attending the sittings, by a small majority caused by the curés (June 19th). The court, the more incensed, urged the king to adopt violent measures.? Louis Blanc's Picture of the Assembly [1789 A.D.] The old feudal system had crumbled into dust. The national assembly became a constituent assembly [assemblée constituante]. It remained to be seen on what basis the new society would be raised. The assembly itself was divided. On the right-hand benches sat, in the pride of a rapidly passing splendour, archbishops, bishops, marquises, and barons, with a few deserters from the tiers-état. It is hardly possible that these phantoms of the past believed in the Revolution. They spent their force in fanning with bravado and jest the last sparks of the old court spirit. Some, who professed to be thinkers, rejoiced greatly at the rapid progress of revolutionary feeling, believing that such rapidity would speedily insure its destruction. Others, younger, swore by their MIRABEAU sword and the foreigner that the nobility would never give in, that they would march to their doom with firm eye and unlowered head, a smile of contempt on their lips; march triumphantly towards death, led by Cazalès and the abbé Maury - two great powers of the past-soldier and priest the soldier a man of eloquent sensibility, whose vehemence was only an exaggeration of his tenderness; the priest a man of cold calculation, "on whose face," says Carlyle,s "were depicted all the cardinal sins," and who, more than anyone, provoked the gross apostrophe which came threateningly from the highest tribune: "Gentlemen of the clergy, you are being shaved. If you don't keep still you will be cut." The centre of the assembly was occupied by a mass of men who had gained the sobriquet of Stick-in-themud or Bog-folk. Indecision charac terised this party. They had for mouthpiece, Lally-Tollendal; for agent, Malouet; and, for real director, Mounier. Mounier, the resolute general of a changeable army, had a soul above fear, intelligence without audacity, and brought a tireless energy to strengthen the timid opinions of others. The popular party sat on the left. There were found persons each famous in different ways: the duke of Orleans, head of a party to which one doubts whether he really belonged; La Fayette, entirely wrapped up in courting favour; Duport, whom deep meditation and study had prematurely aged; Barnave, elegant and frivolous; Lameth, a type of courtier who sought popularity only to gain honours, and whose misplaced ambition sought through public office a place in the ministry. It is said of these last three that "Duport thought, Barnave talked, and Lameth acted." But all agreed that the real thinker of the popular party was the abbé Sieyès. Much was expected of this grave personage who spoke so little and yet to such purpose. His thoughtful look, his keen eye, the light shed by his brief sentences on his method and aims, made him considered superior to any. One could [1789 A.D.] not help admiring his firm mouth, or crediting him with wonderful power merely from his ways. He had serious reserve too, a reserve which might be interpreted into a wise contempt or too great modesty. It was not for him, however, to lead the Revolution. Robespierre was there! Not that the future ascendency of Robespierre was then guessed at. Indeed the Arras advocate was frequently an object of ridicule in the eyes of those gentlemen who adopted the Greek rôle with languid ease and wit. He was not yet transformed by the revolutionary spirit. His speech was awkward and hesitating. His appearances on the tribune which later on made men tremble now provoked only smiles. Nothing in the man's outward appearance indicated his real power. Yet he alone, in each debate, sifted each question thoroughly. Alone in the midst of men tossed hither and thither by contrary opinions, he went straight forward fearlessly, unhesitatingly, with no regard for what others thought of him, his eyes fixed on the future. But those around him did not comprehend this man. His passion for ruling was of the head rather than the heart. With a keen intellect he had firm beliefs, but was as cold as steel. His convictions were unshakable but melancholy. No one guessed the power he possessed and only the Revolution revealed it. Even when he had sometimes given utterance to his deep thoughts in inflexible formulas, only insulting laughter arose from every part of the hall. Yet, in listening to his stubborn argument, in running counter to his unbendable faith, in wondering what meant the keen gaze of his curious blue eyes, in looking at that face whose green tinge often resembled that of the sea, many had a confused presentiment that the man was born to be heard. "This man," said Mirabeau once in an excess of involuntary emotion, "will do something great; he believes in his own words." There was also in the assembly a fourth party of which the elements changed every hour, who acted on the impulse or inspiration of the moment; which by turns made itself accepted, admired, feared, despised, or compelled submission. This party was one man alone, and that man Mirabeau. But the assembly taken in its entity- what was it? First, it must be remembered that three orders composed it. The clergy alone had 308 representatives; the nobility sent 266 gentilshommes and 19 magistrates; also there were 160 parliamentarians of different degrees. Fifteen gentilshommes and four priests were included in the third estate. It would indeed have been wonderful if an assembly so formed had not been subject to disturbance, internal strife, and occasional downfalls. The assembly had to control a tempest which threatened to burst the walls of the room, a tempest of which it hardly grasped the tremendous force. It is true that a certain unity ruled among the divisions and contrary opinions. In the midst of passions and hostile interests certain leading tendencies stood out. But what were these tendencies? Those which the philosophy of the eighteenth century had begotten, stopping at Montesquieu and not going beyond Voltaire; originating with the majority, the third estate, that is, the phalanx of merchants, writers, advocates, sceptical gentilshommes, discontented priests, who trembled at having to yield to popular opinion the place they themselves had so largely occupied in the fray. There are parvenues in power no less than in riches, and the characteristic vices of exclusiveness, injustice, and pride. exist no less in the middle class than in the upper. On the débris of feudal power in decay, what the majority of the constituents really considered themselves called upon to found was the power of the middle classes and nothing else. [1789 A.D.] But the constituent assembly is shown as furnishing, above and beyond its chosen work, the stamp of an often brilliant career. Have we not already seen signs of it sufficient to command respect? Its oath of the Jeu de Paume [oath of the tennis court], its serenity among bared swords, its strong, inflexible will in the drama of its conquered unity, its intrepid deliberations with the dragons raised by the court on one side and a people pulling down. the Bastille on the other. All that bore an indelible seal; all that was worthy of the new era then opening. It was because the people were there and fought with the assembly. Behind that third estate, that grew weaker every time it consulted its own interests alone, the great and incomparable Revolution was working, urging it forward, animating and enveloping it with its fiery breath. If it paused, a voice, a startling voice, a voice one-toned though formed, like ocean roaring, of countless murmuring waves, cried: "Advance yet and always!" If the members drooped discouraged, a thunder-clap awakened them. This explains the double character that one notices in the acts of this constituent assembly. It shut itself in the narrow path of duty, and rose occasionally to sublime heights. It made a perishable constitution and proclaimed immortal truths, because it was upheld by two distinct forces, coming from itself and from the people. These facts are undeniable. Those modern historians who have reproached the assembly with being completely subservient to the Palais Royal and its wire-pullers have missed the mark entirely. Not only did the national assembly resist street clamours, but came, as we shall see, to do its duty under the domination of the false idea that it was the nation. This much is true. It experienced in many circumstances a mysterious pressure unaccountable to itself. This is also true that the chief mainspring of action in deceiving its egotism of caste was a passion, then new to France, of popularity. In reality, the assembly feared the threats though it sought the praise of the Palais Royal. Bearing this in mind one can follow its actions more clearly. It was general, moreover - this rivalry in seeking public applause. Each century has idols that it presents for human worship. Liberty and equality were the divinities of the day, though as yet veiled and only half comprehended. One had to offer incense, even at a distance, or be deemed behind the times. So it resulted that many supported the Revolution to gain public favour, a favour almost indispensable to a successful career, even an empty one. What said opinion in the faubourgs? What did the newsmongers think? Thus the spirit of flattery descended gradually from the high spheres it had lately inhabited. Sovereignty displaced, had, in its turn, displaced court flatterers. Now the people had for flatterers those who had once insolently deemed themselves the masters. They were avenged. It is a calumny to depreciate the revolutionary force because it influenced frivolous passions and cowardly thoughts; because innumerable impurities are in the wide bosom of the ocean is it less imposing? Because millions of individuals are represented in the work of humanity, is it less majestic? When truth is fiery, passionate, the story of her triumph is not dimmed by the baseness of those who serve her. Men are insignificant. Man is great.t |