VI. 1790. 33. speech in the crown on this point. nals that, if this power were not conceded exclusively CHAP. to the Assembly, it would lead to a general massacre of the nobles and clergy, and the most frightful convulsions.* "If, on this subject," said Mirabeau, "we had much to fear from the ambition of kings and the corruption of Mirabeau's their ministers, have we nothing to apprehend from the favour of enthusiasm of a large Assembly, which may mistake a false resentment for the dictates of wisdom, or the counsels of experience? Read the history of republics, and you will see that ambition has always precipitated them into the most unjust and barbarous wars. Is it not under the empire of the passions that political assemblies have ever resolved on war? Are we to reckon as nothing the inconvenience of convoking the Assembly, when action, and decided action, is called for? Can we hope to maintain our constitution, if forms essentially at variance with a monarchy are introduced into it? Rome was destroyed by the strife of monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic forms. A powerful citizen is more dangerous than a victorious king in such a republic. What were Hannibal and Cæsar to Carthage and Rome? (Vehement clamour.) Do not suppose I am to be intimidated by your threats. A few days ago the people wished to carry me in triumph, and now they cry in the streets Great Treason of Count Mirabeau.' I had no need of that lesson to learn, that there is little distance between the Capitol and the Tarpeian rock; but the man who combats for truth, for his country, is not so easily put down. He who is conscious of having deserved well of the commonwealth— fait; "Si le droit de la guerre et de la paix eût été accordé au Roi, c'en était la guerre civile éclatait dans la nuit du Samedi au Dimanche, et aujour d'hui Paris nagerait en sang. A minuit le tocsin aurait appelé les citoyens aux armes le château des Tuileries eût été livré aux flammes; le peuple eût pris sous sa sauvegarde le Monarque et sa famille; mais St Priest, mais Necker, mais Montmorin, auraient été lanternés, et leurs têtes promenées dans la capitale. Qu'on se figure tous les attentats qu'une pareille nuit aurait couverts de son ombre; les massacres, les brigandages, le son des cloches, le fracas de l'artillerie, les cris des mourans ! Aucun aristocrate n'aurait échappé à la fureur du peuple."—Orateur du Peuple, par FRERON, 23 Mai 1790. VI. 1790. May. Hist. Parl. CHAP. Who covets no vain celebrity, and disdains the success of a day for real glory; he who is determined to tell the truth, independent of the fluctuating waves of public opinion, bears within himself his own reward. He awaits his destiny, the only reward which really interests him, from the hand of time, which does justice to all." But it was all in vain; fear of the people prevailed over the 574, 575. eloquence of Mirabeau, the fervour of the Abbé Maury; and the power of declaring peace and war was, without qualification, vested in the National Assembly.1 vi. 84, 112. Moniteur, May 22, 1790, PP. Lab, iv. 276, 280. 34. on the crown. 2 Hist. Parl. Lac. viii. 48. 35. of titles of honour. June 20. Satisfied with having wrested this important preroSettlement gative from the crown, the Assembly, in pecuniary matters, acted with liberality towards the sovereign. Louis demanded twenty-five millions of francs (£1,000,000 sterling) annually for his household expenses and civil June 10. list, which was instantly granted; and the jointure of vi. 246, 249. the Queen was fixed at four million of francs, or Th. i. 238. £160,000 a-year. A conceding monarch is always, for a brief space, a favourite with a democratic legislature." In the fervour of innovation, titles of honour could not Abolition long be maintained. M. Lamboin proposed, and Charles Lameth seconded, a decree, "That the titles of duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, and chevalier, should be suppressed." Hereditary nobility, said the latter, "wounds equally reason and true liberty. There can be no political equality, no virtuous emulation, where citizens have other dignities than those belonging to their office, or arising from their virtues." "Let us annihilate," said M. de Noailles, "those vain titles, the arrogancy of pride, and ignorance, and vanity. It is time that we should have no distinctions save those arising from virtue. What should we say to Marquis Franklin, Count Washington, Baron Fox? Will such titles ever confer the lustre attaching to the simple Franklin, Fox, Washington? I give my warmest support to the motion, and would add to it, that liveries should be abolished." "A nobility," replied the Abbé Maury, "is part of our constitution : VI. 1790. destroy the nobility, and there is no monarchy." So CHAP. determined were the Assembly to extinguish honours, that the decree was passed in an evening sitting with very little discussion. The noblesse and the clergy made vain efforts to prevent the sacrifice; but it was carried by an vi. 284, 298, overwhelming majority.1 1 Hist. Parl. on this change. Thus in one day fell the ancient and venerable insti- 36. tution of feudal nobility; an institution sprung from con- Reflections quest, and cradled in pride, but productive of great and important consequences on the social body, and the cause of the chief distinction between European and Asiatic civilisation. The conquests of the East have seldom produced any lasting institutions, because they have always depended on a single race of warriors, who left behind neither honours nor hereditary possessions to perpetuate the fabric of society. Hence everything has been ephemeral in Eastern dynasties; national glory, public prosperity, have in every age been as shortlived as their original founders. In Europe, on the other hand, the establishment of hereditary dignities, and of the right of primogeniture, has perpetuated the influence of the first leaders of the people; and, by creating a class whose interests were permanent, has given a degree of durability to human institutions, unknown in any other age or quarter of the globe. Whatever may be said of the vanity of titles, and the unworthy hands into which they frequently descend, it cannot be denied that they have stamped its peculiar character upon European civilisation; that they created the body of nobility who upheld the fabric of society through the stormy periods of anarchy and barbarism, and laid the first foundation of freedom, by forming a class governed by lasting interests, and capable, in every age, of withstanding the efforts of despotic power. Whether the necessity of such a class is now superseded by the extension of knowledge and the more equal diffusion of property, and whether a system of tempered liberty can subsist without an intermediate body VOL. II. C VI. CHAP. interposed between the power of the crown and the ambition of the people, are questions which time alone can resolve, but on which the leaders of the French Revolution had unquestionably no materials to form an opinion. 1790. 37. But all these changes, great and important as they Military or- were, yielded in importance to the military organisation ganisation. which at this period took place throughout all France. The progress of the Revolution, the overthrow of the invading armies, the subjugation of the European powers, were mainly owing to the military establishments which sprang up during the first fervour of patriotic exertion. The army of France, under the old government, partook of the aristocratic spirit of the age: the higher grades of military rank were exclusively reserved for the court nobility; and even ordinary commissions were bestowed only on those whose birth or connections united them to the favoured class of landed proprietors. The consequences of such an exclusive system, in an age of advancing civilisation, might easily have been anticipated. The privates and non-commissioned officers had no interest in common with their superiors, and, like the parochial clergy, felt their own inclinations coincide with those of the Tiers Etat. Hence the rapid and decisive defection of the whole army, the moment that they were brought into collision with the Revolution, and exposed to the contagion of popular enthusiasm. Injudicious changes in the regulation of the household troops had recently introduced extensive dissatisfaction even amongst that favoured body, and furnished a pretext for the revolt of the Guard, which was the immediate cause of the fall of the royal authority.' 1 Toul. i. 124, 126, 127. 38. The difficulties experienced by the military in all conExtraordi- tests with the populace at this time were so great, that nary diffi- they practically amounted to an entire suspension of the perienced by authority of government. The duties of a municipal culties ex the military ing with the in contend- officer, or of the commander of a fortress, were more people. appalling than those arising from the most formidable force of regular enemies. In most places the troops, VI. 1790. seized with the same mutinous spirit as the nation, refused CHAP. to act against the insurgents, or openly ranged themselves on their side. A handful of mutineers-a despicable rabble-were thus sufficient to make the governor of a citadel tremble: every act of vigour, even in self-defence, came to be considered as a capital crime; and the clamours of the populace were regarded with more alarm than the thunder of the enemy's artillery. It was universally felt, that in all contests between the military and the people, the officers, even if obeyed by their men, ran far greater risks than the mob to whom they were opposed if not so obeyed, their immediate destruction was inevitable. Hence anarchy was universal in the army, and more formidable than among the people, from the arms and superior discipline which the former possessed. Out of a hundred and twenty battalions and eighty squadrons that M. de Bouillé had under his command in the east of France, he could only reckon on five battalions, all of them composed of foreign troops, as likely in a crisis to support the royal cause. Mirabeau became fully sensible, when it was too late, of the ruinous consequences of such a distracted state of things, and proposed to remedy it by the proclamation of martial law; but the Assembly, terrified at the very thought of offending the nation, did not venture to adopt so vigorous a step; and even if passed, how could it have been enforced against the recreant military, themselves the culprits? Shortly after * * M. de la Tour Dupin, minister of war, on the 4th June 1790, gave the following account, in a Report to the Assembly, of the disorders of the army :--"His Majesty has this day sent me to apprise you of the multiplied disorders of which every day he receives the most distressing intelligence. The army is threatened with ultra-anarchy. Entire regiments have dared to violate at once the respect due to the laws, to the order established by your decrees, and to the oaths which they have taken with the most awful solemnity. Whilst you are indefatigable in moulding the empire into one coherent and consistent body, the administration of the army exhibits nothing but disturbance and confusion. The bonds of discipline are relaxed or broken-the most unheard-of pretensions are avowed without disguise-the ordinances are without force, the chiefs without authority-the military chest and the colours carried off-the authority of the King himself is proudly defied-the officers are despised, degraded, threatened, or prisoners in the midst of their corps, dragging on a |