"In France, on the contrary, if Louis XVI. had openly resisted, if he had had the courage, activity, and ardour of Charles I. he would have triumphed.
"During the whole conflict, Charles I., isolated in his kingdom, was surrounded only by partisans and friends, and was never connected with any constitutional branch of his subjects.
"Louis XVI. was supported by a regular army, by foreign aid, and two constitutional portions of the nation—the nobility and the clergy. Besides, there remained to Louis XVI. a second decisive resolution, which Charles I. had it not in his power to adopt, namely, that of ceasing to be a feudal Chief, in order to become a national Chief. Unfortunately he could not decide on either the one or the other.
"Charles I. therefore perished because he resisted, and Louis XVI. because he did not resist. The one had a perfect conviction of the privileges of his prerogative; but it is doubtful whether the other had any such conviction, any more than he felt the necessity of exercising its privileges.
"In England, the death of Charles I. was the result of the artful and atrocious ambition of a single man.
"In France, it was the work of the blind multitude, of a disorderly popular assembly.
"In England, the representatives of the people evinced a slight shade of decorum, by abstaining from being the judges and actors in the murder which they decreed; they appointed a tribunal to try the King.
"In France, the representatives of the people presumed to be at once accusers, judges, and executioners.
"In England, the affair was managed by an invisible hand: it assumed an appearance of reflection and calmness. In France, it was managed by the multitude, whose fury was without bounds.
"In England, the death of the King gave birth to the Republic. In France, on the contrary, the birth of the Republic caused the death of the King.