When it is ſaid that a people are republicans, we muſt ſuppoſe they are either partial to republicaniſm as a ſyſtem, or that they prefer it in practice. A little retroſpection, perhaps, will determine both theſe points better than the eloquence of your orators.
A few men, of philoſophic or reſtleſs minds, have, in various ages and countries, endeavoured to enlighten or diſturb the world by examinationſ and diſputes on forms of government; yet the beſt heads and the beſt hearts have remained divided on the ſubject, and I never heard that any writer was able to produce more than a partial conviction, even in the moſt limited circle. Whence, then, did it happen in France, where information was avowedly confined, and where ſuch diſcuſſions could not have been general, that the people became ſuddenly inſpired with thiſ political ſagacity, which made them in one day the judges and converts of a ſyſtem they could ſcarcely have known before, even by name?—At the depoſition of the King, the French, (ſpeaking at large,) had aſ perſpicuous a notion of republics, as they may be ſuppoſed to have of mathematics, and would have underſtood Euclid's Elements as well as the Social Contract. Yet an aſſemblage of the worſt and moſt daring men from every faction, elected amidſt maſſacres and proſcription, the moment they are collected together, declare, on the propoſal of Collot d'Herbois, a profligate ſtrolling player, that France ſhall be a republic.—Admitting that the French were deſirous of altering their form of government, I believe no one will venture to ſay ſuch an inclination was ever manifeſted, or that the Convention were elected in a manner to render them competent to ſuch a deciſion. They were not the choice of the people, but chiefly emiſſaries impoſed on the departments by the Jacobinſ and the municipality of Paris; and let thoſe who are not acquainted with the means by which the elections were obtained, examine the compoſition of the Aſſembly itſelf, and then decide whether any people being free could have ſelected ſuch men as Petion, Tallien, Robeſpierre, Briſſot, Carrier, Taillefer, &c. &c. from the whole nation to be their Repreſentatives.—There muſt, in all large aſſociations, be a mixture of good and bad; but when it is incontrovertible that the principal memberſ of the Convention are monſters, who, we hope, are not to be paralleled— that the reſt are inferior rather in talents than wickedneſs, or cowardſ and ideots, who have ſupported and applauded crimes they only wanted opportunity to commit—it is not poſſible to conceive, that any people in the world could make a ſimilar choice. Yet if the French were abſolutely unbiaſſed, and of their own free will made this collection, who would, after ſuch an example, be the advocates of general ſuffrage and popular repreſentation?—But, I repeat, the people were not free. They were not, indeed, influenced by bribeſ—they were intimidated by the horrors of the moment; and along with the regulations for the new elections, were every where circulated details of the aſſaſſinations of Auguſt and September.*
* The influence of the municipality of Paris on the new elections iſ well known. The following letter will ſhow what inſtruments were employed, and the deſcription of Repreſentatives likely to be choſen under ſuch auſpices. "Circular letter, written by the Committee of Inſpection of the municipality of Paris to all the departments of the republic, dated the third of September, the ſecond day of the maſſacres: "The municipality of Paris is impatient to inform their brethren of the departments, that a part of the ferocious conſpirators detained in the priſons have been put to death by the people: an act of juſtice which appeared to them indiſpenſable, to reſtrain by terror thoſe legions of traitors whom they muſt have left behind when they departed for the army. There is no doubt but the whole nation, after ſuch multiplied treaſons, will haſten to adopt the ſame ſalutary meaſure!"—Signed by the Commune of Paris and the Miniſter of Juſtice. Who, after this mandate, would venture to oppoſe a member recommended by the Commune of Paris?
—The French, then, neither choſe the republican form of government, nor the men who adopted it; and are, therefore, not republicans on principle.—Let us now conſider whether, not being republicans on principle, experience may have rendered them ſuch.
The firſt effects of the new ſyſtem were an univerſal conſternation, the diſappearance of all the ſpecie, an extravagant riſe in the price of proviſions, and many indications of ſcarcity. The ſcandalous quarrels of the legiſlature ſhocked the national vanity, by making France the ridicule of all Europe, until ridicule was ſuppreſſed by deteſtation at the ſubſequent murder of the King. This was followed by the efforts of one faction to ſtrengthen itſelf againſt another, by means of a general war—the leaders of the former preſuming, that they alone were capable of conducting it.
To the miſeries of war were added revolutionary tribunals, revolutionary armies and committees, forced loans, requiſitions, maximums, and every ſpecies of tyranny and iniquity man could deviſe or ſuffer; or, to uſe the expreſſion of Rewbell, [One of the Directory in 1796.] "France was in mourning and deſolation; all her families plunged in deſpair; her whole ſurface covered with Baſtilles, and the republican government become ſo odious, that the moſt wretched ſlave, bending beneath the weight of hiſ chains, would have refuſed to live under it!"
Such were the means by which France was converted into a land of republicans, and ſuch the government to which your patriots aſſert the French people were attached: yet ſo little was this attachment appreciated here, that the mere inſtitutions for watching and ſuppreſſing diſaffection amount, by the confeſſion of Cambon, the financier, to twenty-four millions ſix hundred and thirty-one thouſand pounds ſterling a year!
To ſuppoſe, then, that the French are devoted to a ſyſtem which haſ ſerved as a pretext for ſo many crimes, and has been the cauſe of ſo many calamities, is to conclude them a nation of philoſophers, who are able to endure, yet incapable of reaſoning; and who ſuffer evils of every kind in defence of a principle with which they can be little acquainted, and which, in practice, they have known only by the deſtruction it haſ occaſioned.
You may, perhaps, have been perſuaded, that the people ſubmit patiently now, for the ſake of an advantage in perſpective; but it is not in the diſpoſition of unenlightened men (and the maſs of a people muſt neceſſarily be ſo) to give up the preſent for the future. The individual may ſometimes atchieve this painful conqueſt over himſelf, and ſubmit to evil, on a calculation of future retribution, but the multitude will ever prefer the good moſt immediately attainable, if not under the influence of that terror which ſuperſedes every other conſideration. Recollect, then, the counſel of the firſt hiſtorian of our age, and "ſuſpend your belief of whatever deviates from the laws of nature and the character of man;" and when you are told the French are attached to a government which oppreſſes them, or to principles of which they are ignorant, ſuppoſe their adoption of the one, and their ſubmiſſion to the other, are the reſult of fear, and that thoſe who make theſe aſſertions to the contrary, are either intereſted or miſinformed.
Excuſe me if I have devoted a few pages to a ſubject which with you iſ obſolete. I am indignant at the peruſal of ſuch falſehoods; and though I feel for the humiliation of great talents, I feel ſtill more for the diſgrace ſuch an abuſe of them brings on our country.