Part 10 (1/2)
Nor did it detract from the interest in the conflict that England--England, the hated rival of France--was defied by an indignant people of her own race. There was not a young n.o.ble in the land who would not have rushed, if he could, to the defence of the outraged colonies.
The king, half doubting, and vaguely fearing, was swept into the current, and the armies and the courage of the Americans were splendidly reinforced by generous, enthusiastic France.
Why should the simple-hearted Louis see what no one else seemed to see: that victory or failure was alike full of peril for France? If the colonies were conquered, France would feel the hostility of England; if they were freed and self-governing, the principle of monarchy had a staggering blow.
In the mean time, as the American Revolution moved on toward success, there was talk in the cabin as well as the chateau of the ”rights of man.” In shops and barns, as well as in clubs and drawing-rooms, there was a glimmering of the coming day.
”What is true upon one continent is true upon another,” say they. ”If it is cowardly to submit to tyranny in America, what is it in France?”
”If Englishmen may revolt against oppression, why may not Frenchmen?”
”No government without the consent of the governed?--When has our consent been asked, the consent of twenty-five million people? Are we sheep, that we have let a few thousands govern us for a thousand years, without our consent?”
Poverty and hunger gave force and urgency to these questions. The people began to clamor more boldly for the good time which had been promised by the kind-hearted king. The murmur swelled to an ominous roar. Thousands were at his very palace gates, telling him in no unmistakable terms that they were tired of smooth words and fair promises. What they wanted was a new const.i.tution and--bread.
Poor Louis! the one could be made with pen and paper; but by what miracle could he produce the other? How gladly would he have given them anything. But what could he do? There was not enough money to pay the salaries of his officials, nor for his gay young queen's fetes and b.a.l.l.s! The old way would have been to impose new taxes. But how could he tax a people crying at his gates for bread? He made more promises which he could not keep; yielded, one after another, concessions of authority and dignity; then vacillated, and tried to return over the slippery path, only to be dragged on again by an irresistible fate.
Louis' Minister of Finance, Turgot, was a trained economist and a man of very great ability. When Louis a.s.sured the people, in the speech after his coronation, that there were to be ”no more loans, no fresh burdens on the people,” he did not know how Turgot was going to accomplish this miracle. He was unaware that it was to be done by cutting off the cherished privileges of the n.o.bility, and that the proposed reforms were all aimed at the privileged cla.s.ses. When this became apparent, indignation was great at Versailles. The court would not hear of economy. Turgot was dismissed, and Necker, a Swiss banker (father of Madame de Stael), called to fill his place.
Necker made another mistake. He took the people into his confidence, let them know the sources of revenue, the nature of expenditures, and measures of relief. This was very quieting to the public, but exasperating to the privileged cla.s.ses, who had never taken the people into their confidence, and considered it an impertinence for them to inquire how the moneys were spent. And so Louis, again yielding to the pressure at Versailles, dismissed Necker; then, in the outburst of rage which followed, tried to retrace his steps and recall him.
But events were moving too swiftly for that now. In the existing temper of the people, small reforms and concessions were unavailing.
They were demanding that the States General be called.
The critical moment had come. If Louis of his own initiative had summoned that body to confer over the situation, it would have been a very different thing; but a call of the States-General at the _demand of the people_ was a virtual surrender of the very principle of absolutism. The work of Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV. would be undone; for it would involve an acknowledgment of the right of the people to dictate to the king, and to partic.i.p.ate in the government of the nation. The whole revolutionary contention was vindicated in this act.
The call was issued; and when Louis, in 1789, convoked the States General, he made his last concession to the demands of his subjects.
That almost-forgotten body had not been seen since Richelieu effaced all the auxiliary functions of government. n.o.bles, ecclesiastics, and _Tiers etat_ (or commons) found themselves face to face once more. The courtly contemptuous n.o.bles, the princely ecclesiastics were unchanged, but there was a new expression in the pale faces of the commons. There was a look of calm defiance as they met the disdainful gaze of the aristocrats across the gulf of two centuries.
The two superior bodies absolutely refused to sit in the same room with the commons. They might under the same roof, but in the same room--never.
There was an historic precedent for this refusal. The three estates had always acted as three separate bodies. So the demand in itself was an encroachment upon the ancient dignity of the two superior bodies, which they resented. But they might better have yielded. The _Tiers etat_ with dignity and firmness insisted that they should meet and vote together as one body, or they would const.i.tute themselves a separate body, and act independently of the other two. This was the Rubicon.
On one side compromise, and possible co-operation of the three legislative bodies; on the other, revolution, in charge of the people.
Aristocratic France was offered its last chance, and committed its last act of arrogance and folly. The ultimatum was refused by the n.o.bles and clergy. And the _Tiers etat_ declared itself the National a.s.sembly, in which was vested all the legislative authority of the kingdom. The people had taken possession of the Government of France!
The predetermined destruction of the monarchy seems evident, when at the most critical point, and at the moment calling for the most careful retrenchment and reform, fate had placed Louis XV., acting like a madman in the excesses of his profligacy; and, at the next stage, while the last opportunity still existed by main force to drag the nation back, and hold it from going over the brink, there stood the most excellent, the kindest-hearted but weakest gentleman who ever wore the name of king! When the distracted Louis gave the impotent order for the National a.s.sembly to disperse, and for the three bodies to a.s.semble and vote separately, according to ancient custom; and then when he gave still further proof of childish incompetency by telling the _Tiers etat_ they were ”not to meddle with the privileges of the higher orders,” kings.h.i.+p had become a mockery. It was a child telling the tornado not to come in that direction.
When the king's herald read to the National a.s.sembly this foolish message, ending with the formula, ”You hear, gentlemen, the orders of the king,” Mirabeau sprang to his feet, saying, ”Go, tell your master we are here by the will of the people, and will be only removed at the point of the bayonet,” the pitiful king then yielding to this defiance, even begging the n.o.bles and deputies of the clergy to join the National a.s.sembly--a revolutionary a.s.sembly, which was holding its meetings in his own Palace of Versailles, and which was every day gravitating from its original lofty purpose; its rallying cry for justice and reform of abuses changing to ”Down with the Aristocrats!” It was becoming alarming, so Louis ordered the body to disperse; and when soldiers stood at the door to prevent its a.s.sembling, it took possession of the queen's tennis court, and there each member took a solemn oath not to dissolve until the object they sought had been secured.
There were some among the clergy and the n.o.bles who realized the necessity for reforms, and who would gladly have joined a movement inaugurated in a different spirit. Hence, partly from alarm, and partly impelled by other reasons and purposes, more or less pure, there was finally a secession from the two aristocratic bodies; the Duke of Orleans, cousin of the king, leading the movement in one, and three archbishops in the other. These, with their followers, appeared among the _Tiers etat_ as converts to the popular cause, the Marquis de Lafayette, hero of the late American War, sitting next to Mirabeau, the powerful and eloquent leader of the whole movement in its first days.
Concerning the genius of Mirabeau there is no difference of opinion.
All are agreed that intellectually he towered far above every one about him. But whether he was the incarnation of good or of evil, the world is still in doubt;-and also whether he could have guided the forces he had invoked, if a premature death had not swept him off from the scene, leaving Robespierre, a man concerning whom there is no disagreement of opinion, to guide the storm.
Paris was becoming wild with excitement. Clubs and a.s.sociations were in every quarter, and detachments of a Parisian mob marched and sang at night, firing the hearts of the rabble. But it was the Palais Royal, the home of the Duke of Orleans, that friend of the people, which was the heart of the whole movement. There, patriots and lovers of France, their hearts aflame with n.o.ble aspiration for their country, met with schemers without heart, more or less wicked, the Camille Desmoulins and the Marats all fused into one body under the leaders.h.i.+p of the Duke of Orleans, cousin of the king, who, rising superior to aristocratic traditions, believed in _Equality_, and was the man of the people--_Philippe Egalite_! His young son Louis Philippe perhaps listened with wonder to the sounds of strange revelry and the wild shouts which greeted the eloquence of Camille Desmoulins and of Marat.
At last a rumor reached the Palais Royal, and from there ran through the streets like an electric current, that the king's soldiers were marching upon the a.s.sembly to disperse it. Mad with wine and excitement, a common impulse seized the entire populace, to destroy the Bastille, that old stronghold of despotism, that symbol of royal tyranny. This prison-fortress, with its eight great round towers, and moat eighty-three feet wide, had stood since 1371, and represented more tragic human experiences than any structure in France. In an hour the doors were burst open, and before the sun went down the heads of the governor and his officials were being carried on pikes through the streets of Paris. The horrible drama had opened. The tiger in the slums had tasted blood, and would want it again.
Thus far it was only an insurgent mob, committing violence, and the National a.s.sembly at once created a body of militia, under the direction of Lafayette, for the protection of Paris.