and to prevent the enactment of additional social legislation. Outside the a.s.sembly few n.o.bles took kindly to the loss of privilege and property: the overwhelming majority protested and tried to stir up civil war, and, when such attempts failed, they left France and enrolled themselves among their country"s enemies.
It is not necessary for us to know precisely who were responsible for the "August Days." The fact remains that the "decree abolishing the feudal system" represented the most important achievement of the whole French Revolution. Henceforth, those who profited by the decree were loyal friends of the Revolution, while the losers were its bitter opponents.
[Sidenote: 2. The Declaration of the Rights of Man]
The second great work of the a.s.sembly was the guarantee of individual rights and liberties. The old society and government of France were disappearing. On what basis should the new be erected? Great Britain had its _Magna Carta_ and its Bill of Rights; America had its Declaration of Independence. France was now given a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." This doc.u.ment, which reflected the spirit of Rousseau"s philosophy and incorporated some of the British and American provisions, became the platform of the French Revolution and tremendously influenced political thought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A few of its most striking sentences are as follows: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." The rights of man are "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression."
"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to partic.i.p.ate personally, or through his representative, in its formation. It must be the same for all." "No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law." Religious toleration, freedom of speech, and liberty of the press are affirmed. The people are to control the finances, and to the people all officials of the state are responsible.
Finally, the influence of the propertied cla.s.ses, which were overwhelmingly represented in the a.s.sembly, showed itself in the concluding section of the Declaration: "Since private property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified."
[Sidenote: 3. Reform of Local Administration]
The next great undertaking of the National a.s.sembly was the establishment of a new and uniform administrative system in France. The ancient and confusing "provinces," "governments," "intendancies,"
"_pays d"etat_" "_pays d"election_" "parlements," and "bailliages" were swept away. The country was divided anew into eighty- three departments, approximately uniform in size and population, and named after natural features, such as rivers or mountains. Each department was subdivided into districts, cantons. and communes,-- divisions which have endured in France to the present time. The heads of the local government were no longer to be appointed by the crown but elected by the people, and extensive powers were granted to elective local councils. Provision was made for a new system of law courts throughout the country, and the judges, like the administrative officials, were to be elected by popular vote. Projects were likewise put forward to unify and simplify the great variety and ma.s.s of laws which prevailed in different parts of France, but this work was not brought to completion until the time of Napoleon Bonaparte.
[Sidenote: 4. Financial Regulation. 5. Secularization of Church Property, the a.s.signats]
Another grave matter which concerned the National a.s.sembly was the regulation of the public finances. It will be recalled that financial confusion was the royal reason for summoning the Estates-General. And in the early days of the a.s.sembly, the confusion became chaos: it was impossible to enforce the payment of direct taxes; indirect taxes were destroyed by legislative decree; and bankers could not be induced to make new loans. Therefore, it was to heroic measures that the a.s.sembly resorted to save the state from bankruptcy. To provide funds, a heavy blow was struck at one of the chief props of the "old regime"--the Catholic Church. The Church, as we have seen, owned at least a fifth of the soil of France, and it was now resolved to seize these rich church lands, and to utilize them as security for the issue of paper money-- the _a.s.signats_. As partial indemnity for the wholesale confiscation, the state was to undertake the payment of fixed salaries to the clergy. Thus by a single stroke the financial pressure was relieved, the Church was deprived of an important source of its strength, and the clergy were made dependent on the new order. Of course, as often happens in similar cases, the issue of paper money was so increased that in time it exceeded the security and brought fresh troubles to the state, but for the moment the worst dangers were tided over.
[Sidenote: 6. Other Legislation against the Catholic Church]
The ecclesiastical policies and acts of the National a.s.sembly were perhaps the least efficacious and the most fateful achievements of the Revolution. Yet it would be difficult to perceive how they could have been less radical than they were. The Church appeared to be indissolubly linked with the fortunes of old absolutist France; the clergy comprised a particularly privileged cla.s.s; and the leaders and great majority of the a.s.sembly were filled with the skeptical, Deistic, and anti-Christian philosophy of the time. In November, 1789, the church property was confiscated. In February, 1790, the monasteries and other religious houses were suppressed. In April, absolute religious toleration was proclaimed. In August, 1790, the "Civil Const.i.tution of the Clergy" was promulgated, by which the bishops and priests, reduced in numbers, were made a civil body: they were to be elected by the people, paid by the state, and separated from the sovereign control of the pope. In December, the a.s.sembly forced the reluctant king to sign a decree compelling all the clergy to take a solemn oath of allegiance to the "Civil Const.i.tution."
[Sidenote: Catholic Opposition to the Revolution]
The pope, who had already protested against the seizure of church property and the expulsion of the monks, now condemned the "Civil Const.i.tution" and forbade Catholics to take the oath of allegiance.
Thus, the issue was squarely joined. Such as took the oath were excommunicated by the pope, such as refused compliance were deprived of their salaries and threatened with imprisonment. Up to this time, the bulk of the lower clergy, poor themselves and in immediate contact with the suffering of the peasants, had undoubtedly sympathized with the course of the Revolution, but henceforth their convictions and their consciences came into conflict with devotion to their country. They followed their conscience and either incited the peasants, over whom they exercised considerable influence, to oppose further revolution, or emigrated [Footnote: The clergy who would not take the oath were called the "non-juring" clergy. Those who left France, together with the n.o.ble emigrants, were called "emigres."] from France to swell the number of those who, dissatisfied with the course of events in their own country, would seek the first opportunity to undo the work of the a.s.sembly. The Catholic Church, as well as the hereditary n.o.bility, became an unwearied opponent of the French Revolution.
[Sidenote: 7. The Const.i.tution of 1791]
Amid all these sweeping reforms and changes, the National Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly was making steady progress in drafting a written const.i.tution which would clearly define the agencies of government, and their respective powers, the new limited monarchy. This const.i.tution was completed in 1791 and signed by the king--he could do nothing else--and at once went into full effect. It was the first written const.i.tution of any importance that any European country had had, and was preceded only slightly in point of time by that of the United States. [Footnote: The present American const.i.tution was drafted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789, the year that the Estates-General a.s.sembled.]
The Const.i.tution of 1791, as it was called, provided, like the American const.i.tution, for the "separation of powers," that is, that the law- making, law-enforcing, and law-interpreting functions of government should be kept quite distinct as the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, and should each spring, in last a.n.a.lysis, from the will of the people. This idea had been elaborated by Montesquieu, and deeply affected the const.i.tution-making of the eighteenth century both in France and in the United States.
[Sidenote: Legislative Provisions]
The legislative authority was vested in one chamber, styled the "Legislative a.s.sembly," the members of which were chosen by means of a complicated system of indirect election. [Footnote: That is to say, the people would vote for electors, and the electors for the members of the a.s.sembly.] The distrust with which the bourgeois framers of the const.i.tution regarded the lower cla.s.ses was shown not only in this check upon direct election but also in the requirements that the privilege of voting should be exercised exclusively by "active"
citizens, that is, by citizens who paid taxes, and that the right to hold office should be restricted to property-holders.
[Sidenote: Weakness of the King under the Const.i.tution]
Nominally the executive authority resided in the hereditary king. In this respect, most of the French reformers thought they were imitating the British government, but as a matter of fact they made the kingship not even ornamental. True, they accorded to the king the right to postpone for a time the execution of an act of the legislature--the so- called "suspensive veto"--but they deprived him of all control over local government, over the army and navy, and over the clergy. Even his ministers were not to sit in the a.s.sembly. Tremendous had been the decline of royal power in France during those two years, 1789-1791.
[Sidenote: Summary of the Work of the National a.s.sembly]
This may conclude our brief summary of the work of the National Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly. If we review it as a whole, we are impressed by the immense destruction which it effected. No other body of legislators has ever demolished so much in the same brief period. The old form of government, the old territorial divisions, the old financial system, the old judicial and legal regulations, the old ecclesiastical arrangements, and, most significant of all, the old condition of holding land--serfdom and feudalism--all were shattered. Yet all this destruction was not a mad whim of the moment. It had been preparing slowly and painfully for many generations. It was foreshadowed by the ma.s.s of well-considered complaints in the _cahiers_. It was achieved not only by the decrees of the a.s.sembly, but by the forceful expression of the popular will.
THE LIMITED MONARCHY IN OPERATION: THE LEGISLATIVE a.s.sEMBLY (1791-1792) AND THE OUTBREAK OF FOREIGN WAR
[Sidenote: Brief Duration of Limited Monarchy in France, 1791-1792]
Great public rejoicing welcomed the formal inauguration of the limited monarchy in 1791. Many believed that a new era of Peace and prosperity was dawning for France. Yet the extravagant hopes which were widely entertained for the success of the new regime were doomed to speedy and bitter disappointment. The new government encountered all manner of difficulties, the country rapidly grew more radical in sentiment and action, and within a single year the limited monarchy gave way to a republic. The establishment of the republic was the second great phase of the Revolution. Why it was possible and even inevitable may be gathered from a survey of political conditions in France during 1792,-- at once the year of trial for limited monarchy and the year of transition to the republic.
[Sidenote: Sources of Opposition to the Limited Monarchy]
By no means did all Frenchmen accept cheerfully and contentedly the work of the National Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly. Of the numerous dissenters, some thought it went too far and some thought it did not go far enough.
The former may be styled "reactionaries" and the latter "radicals."
[Sidenote: Reactionaries]
[Sidenote: 1. The emigres]
The reactionaries embraced the bulk of the formerly privileged n.o.bility and the non-juring clergy. The n.o.bles had left France in large numbers as soon as the first signs of violence appeared--about the time of the fall of the Bastille and the peasant uprisings in the provinces. Many of the clergy had similarly departed from their homes when the anticlerical measures of the a.s.sembly rendered it no longer possible for them to follow the dictates of conscience. These reactionary exiles, or emigres as they were termed, collected in force along the northern and eastern frontier, especially at Coblenz on the Rhine. They possessed an influential leader in the king"s own brother, the count of Artois, and they maintained a perpetual agitation, by means of newspapers, pamphlets, and intrigues, against the new regime. They were anxious to regain their privileges and property, and to restore everything, as far as possible, to precisely the same position it had occupied prior to 1789.
[Sidenote: 2. The Court]
[Sidenote: The Flight to Varennes]
Nor were the reactionaries devoid of support within France. It was believed that the royal family, now carefully watched in Paris, sympathized with their efforts. So long as Mirabeau, the ablest leader in the National a.s.sembly, was alive, he had never ceased urging the king to accept the reforms of the Revolution and to give no countenance to agitation beyond the frontiers. In case the king should find his position in Paris intolerable, he had been advised by Mirabeau to withdraw into western or southern France and gather the loyal nation about him. But unfortunately, Mirabeau, worn out by dissipation and cares, died prematurely in April, 1791. Only two months later the royal family attempted to follow the course against which they had been warned. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, in an effort to rid themselves of the spying vigilance of the Parisians, disguised themselves, fled from the capital, and made straight for the eastern frontier, apparently to join the emigres. At Varennes, near the border, the royal fugitives were recognized and turned back to Paris, which henceforth became for them rather a prison than a capital. Although Louis subsequently swore a solemn oath to uphold the const.i.tution, his personal popularity vanished with his ill-starred flight, and his wife --the hated "Austrian woman"--was suspected with good reason of being in secret correspondence with the emigres as well as with foreign governments. Marie Antoinette was more detested than ever. The king"s oldest brother, the count of Provence, was more successful than the king in the flight of June, 1791: he eluded detection and joined the count of Artois at Coblenz.
[Sidenote: 3. Conservative and Catholic Peasants.]
Had the reactionaries been restricted entirely to emigres and the royal family, it is hardly possible that they would have been so troublesome as they were. They were able, however, to secure considerable popular support in France. A small group in the a.s.sembly shared their views and proposed the most extravagant measures in order to embarra.s.s the work of that body. Conservative clubs existed among the upper and well-to-do cla.s.ses in the larger cities. And in certain districts of western France, especially in Brittany, Poitou (La Vendee), and Anjou, the peasants developed hostility to the course of the Revolution: their extraordinary devotion to Catholicism placed them under the influence of the non-juring clergy, and their cla.s.s feeling against townspeople induced them to believe that the Revolution, carried forward by the bourgeoisie, was essentially in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Riots occurred in La Vendee throughout 1791 and 1792 with increasing frequency until at length the district blazed into open rebellion against the radicals.
[Sidenote: Radicals]
[Sidenote: 1. The Bourgeois Leaders]
[Sidenote: 2. The Proletarians]
More dangerous to the political settlement of 1791 than the opposition of the reactionaries was that of the radicals--those Frenchmen who thought that the Revolution had not gone far enough. The real explanation of the radical movement lies in the conflict of interest between the poor working people of the towns and the middle cla.s.s, or bourgeoisie. The latter, as has been repeatedly emphasized, possessed the brains, the money, and the education: it was they who had been overwhelmingly represented in the National a.s.sembly. The former were degraded, poverty-stricken, and ignorant, but they const.i.tuted the bulk of the population in the cities, notably in Paris, and they were both conscious of their sorry condition and desperately determined to improve it. These so-called "proletarians," though hardly directly represented in the a.s.sembly, nevertheless fondly expected the greatest benefits from the work of that body. For a while the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cooperated: the former carried reforms through the a.s.sembly, the latter defended by armed violence the freedom of the a.s.sembly; both partic.i.p.ated in the capture of the Bastille, in the establishment of the commune, and in the transfer of the seat of government from Versailles to Paris. So long as they faced a serious common danger from the court and privileged orders, they worked in harmony.
[Sidenote: Conflict of Interests Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat]
But as soon as the Revolution had run its first stage and had succeeded in reducing the royal power and in abolishing many special privileges of the n.o.bles and clergy, a sharp cleavage became evident between the former allies--between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, to whom was due the enactment of the reforms of the National Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly, profited by those reforms far more than any other cla.s.s in the community. Their trade and industry were stimulated by the removal of the ancient royal and feudal restrictions.
Their increased wealth enabled them to buy up the estates of the outlawed emigres and the confiscated lands of the Church. They secured an effective control of all branches of government, local and central.
Of course, the peasantry also benefited to no slight extent, but their benefits were certainly less impressive than those of the bourgeoisie.
Of all cla.s.ses in France, the urban proletariat seemed to have gained the least: to be sure they were guaranteed by paper doc.u.ments certain theoretical "rights and liberties," but what had been done for their material well-being? They had obtained no property. They had experienced no greater ease in earning their daily bread. And in 1791 they seemed as far from realizing their hopes of betterment as they had been in 1789, for the bourgeois const.i.tution-makers had provided that only taxpayers could vote and only property-owners could hold office.
The proletariat, thereby cut off from all direct share in the conduct of government, could not fail to be convinced that in the first phase of the Revolution they had merely exchanged one set of masters for another, that at the expense of the n.o.bles and clergy they had exalted the bourgeoisie, and that they themselves were still downtrodden and oppressed. Radical changes in the const.i.tution and radical social legislation in their own behalf became the policies of the proletariat; violence would be used as a means to an end, if other means failed.
Not all of the bourgeoisie were thoroughly devoted to the settlement of 1791. Most of them doubtless were. But a thoughtful and conspicuous minority allied themselves with the proletariat. Probably in many instances it was for the selfish motive of personal ambition that this or that middle-cla.s.s individual prated much about his love for "the people" and shed tears over their wretchedness and made all manner of election promises to them. But, on the other hand, there were sincere and altruistic bourgeois who had been converted to the extreme democratic doctrines of Rousseau and who were deeply touched by the misery of the lowest cla.s.ses. It was under the leadership of such men that the proletariat grew ever more radical until they sought by force to establish democracy in France.
[Sidenote: Center of Radicalism in Paris]
The radical movement centered in Paris, where now lived the royal family and where the legislature met. With the object of intimidating the former and controlling the latter, the agitation made rapid headway during 1791 and 1792. It was conducted by means of inflammatory newspapers, coa.r.s.e pamphlets, and bitter speeches. It appealed to both the popular reason and the popular emotions. It was backed up and rendered efficient by the organization of revolutionary "clubs."
[Sidenote: The Clubs]
[Sidenote: Cordeliers and Jacobins]
These clubs were interesting centers of political and social agitation.
Their origin was traceable to the "eating clubs" which had been formed at Versailles by various deputies who desired to take their meals together, but the idea progressed so far that by 1791 nearly every cafe in Paris aspired to be a meeting place for politicians and "patriots."
Although some of the clubs were strictly const.i.tutional, and even, in a few instances, professedly reactionary, nevertheless the greater number and the most influential were radical. Such were the Cordelier and Jacobin clubs. The former, organized as a "society of the friends of the rights of man and of the citizen," was very radical from its inception and enrolled in its membership the foremost revolutionaries of Paris. The latter, starting out as a "society of the friends of the const.i.tution," counted among its early members such men as Mirabeau, Sieyes, and Lafayette, but subsequently under the leadership of Robespierre, transformed itself into an organization quite as radical as the Cordeliers. It is an interesting tact that both these radical clubs derived their popular names from monasteries, in whose confiscated buildings they customarily met.