The Rise of the Jacobin Party.
The French Revolution can be divided into many periods, and several parties directed it in turn. But, broadly speaking, besides its minor phases, it contained two movements, successive and distinct. The first movement began in 1789, and lost its force in 1791. The second movement came to the front in 1791, when the earlier one was dying out; helped by external circumstances, it quickly swept everything before it; and it carried on the Revolution, by new methods and for different objects, until 1794. The first movement was chiefly political in form, and although social questions entered deeply into it and gave it its irresistible force, still to the end its social aspects were subordinate. Its leaders were politicians. Its object was the creation of a new political order. Its attention was fixed upon political change. The second movement had its political aspects too, and political issues mingled largely with it. But it sprang primarily from social causes. Its leaders succeeded because they claimed to be social reformers. Its favourite objects were the transference of property, the extinction of poverty and riches, the creation of a new social state. The one movement of course was inextricably bound up with the other, and no exact dates marked their beginnings or their ends. But the rise of the new principles, and their triumph over the old, was the chief characteristic of the later Revolution, and was the reason why, after 1791, the Revolution went forward and developed afresh.
There is no doubt that in 1791 there were many signs of a pause and a reaction. The Revolution was clearly victorious. The worst features of the old system—its despotism, its privilege, its inequality, its corrupt Court, its antiquated law-courts, its favoured aristocracy and Church—had been swept away. The widest freedom in politics, in industry, in discussion, had been established, though it was not always observed on the popular side. The blight of feudalism and the intolerable burdens of taxation had disappeared. The majority of Frenchmen felt that their wishes were satisfied and their aims attained. Accordingly, the fever and enthusiasm of the earlier days naturally abated. Men began to long for a period of quiet, after the stormy triumphs and excitement of the past two years, and to fall back out of the turmoil of politics into the routine of daily life. Such a movement was both natural and inevitable, and in 1791 it involved no serious danger to the cause of progress. The consequence was that the great mass of citizens gradually withdrew from politics. The numbers at the polls steadily fell. In 1790 and in 1791, all over the country, the elections showed an increasing number of absentees. In many places only a third or a fourth of the electorate voted. In others only a tenth or a twelfth appeared. In Paris less than one-tenth of the number of voters continued to take part in the elections, and even that proportion steadily tended to decline. The duties of voting imposed by the new Constitution were so cumbrous that they demanded a great sacrifice of time. Politics had become both laborious and disorderly; and most men would only consent to the sacrifice and discomfort which they involved, under the influence of strong excitement. Thus, when the excitement began to lessen, the part which busy people played in politics declined, and the control of the elections, and the power which it carried, fell to those who had no pressing occupations and whose enthusiasm had not waned.
But while the majority thus passed out of politics, an active and dissatisfied minority remained. All over France, and especially in Paris and in the great provincial cities, there were many, in 1791, to whom the policy of the leaders of the Revolution, and the action of the great party which ranged itself behind Lafayette and the Lameths, had caused increasing discontent. To them the Revolution, so satisfactory to many, had brought only disappointment. Their vague but ardent anticipations of a new social state seemed as far as ever from realisation. The leaders of the Assembly were beginning to speak of the Revolution as accomplished, and yet all over France there were unmistakable evidences of disorder and distress. It is true that trade had been largely stimulated by the issue of the Assignats; but the credit of the Assignats did not last long, and the improvement was consequently temporary and fictitious. The condition of the labouring class was still unsettled. The pressure of hunger, in spite of the abundant harvest of 1790, was still in many places keen.
The middle classes, both in the towns and in the country, had clearly been great gainers by the Revolution. They had broken down the insolent ascendency of the class above them. They had secured for themselves the chief authority in the State. They were enjoying to the full the sense of their new importance—the sense that from a position of utter insignificance they had risen to be the actual rulers of the land. Thus the tradesmen, the lawyers, the prosperous artisans, the 'active citizens' of the towns, proud of their rights and places in the new Constitution, in the municipalities, in the National Guard, rejoiced in the success of the Revolution, and only regretted that it gave them so much to do; while the farmers and proprietors in the country districts, set free from the yoke of feudalism, shared the satisfaction of the bourgeois in the towns. But below these classes came another, which had no such cause for self-congratulation. The Métayers and smallest land-owners, the holders of an acre or half an acre of land, the labourers who had no land at all, had gained far less than their superiors. They had indeed escaped from the cruel burden of the old taxes, from the personal tyranny of their seigneurs, from the militia-service, from the necessity of forced labour. But they looked for more than that. They had not yet seen opened to them any path towards prosperity. The wealthy neighbours, who added to their earnings, had been scared or swept away by the Revolution. Wages were even more difficult to obtain than before. The prospect of living without hunger seemed to their troubled minds to be as distant and remote. Men who had no capital could not profit by the sale of the Church lands. Even some of those who, having a little capital, had hurried to invest it in the purchase, found too late that the bargain was a bad one, for the lands had been so much neglected that they required fresh capital to work them up. The consequence was that, although the sale of Church lands must in very many cases have been of advantage to the peasants, yet in some cases the small buyers, who had expended all their savings in the purchase, were ruined by the rash investment, and joined the great army of the needy poor.
The causes which led to disquiet in the country were reproduced still more strongly in the towns. To Paris and the great provincial cities flocked many of those who could not find subsistence in the country. There work might be more easily forthcoming. There, at any rate, it was easier to make their voices heard. But in Paris the same dislocation of industry prevailed. The National Assembly had abolished the guilds and the old restrictions upon trade, and had established complete freedom of labour. But a change so large, however beneficial it might be—and there were not wanting politicians in Paris, among whose voices Marat's diatribes rose most shrilly, to criticise the Assembly's action—could not be accomplished without much confusion. Moreover, the influx from the provinces tended to make employment scarcer, and the influence of political excitement did not help towards tranquillity. The consequence was that the general destitution did not disappear. In vain the State came forward to appease it by opening public workshops in Paris. The regular work and the high wages offered, which were actually equal to the highest day-wages then to be obtained in France, drew applicants from all quarters, but only increased the difficulties of the problem. The great towns in the departments followed the example of the authorities in Paris. Toulouse and Amiens, Besançon and Lyons, and many other places speedily found that they had thousands of applicants for work which nobody required to have done, and which was generally neglected by those who undertook to do it. In Paris the numbers employed by the municipality rose to twenty and then to thirty thousand, but still the outlook remained as unsatisfactory as ever, and the discontent of the poorest classes unallayed.
There were thus, by the summer of 1791, large numbers of people, both in town and country, who would not tolerate the idea that the Revolution was over, and who still hoped for a share in the spoils of freedom. To meet and govern their wishes, to remove the causes of their trouble, to convert them into fairly contented citizens, was no easy task. The greatest statesmen might well have failed in the endeavour, for social perplexities are wont to tax the wisdom of the most experienced politicians. Unfortunately, the politicians then at the head of affairs in France were neither experienced nor wise. They were not alive to the dangers which threatened. They did not attempt to understand their cause. Satisfied that they had regenerated France, they did not fully believe in the existence of the grievances put forward, and they had no notion of what they ought to do to meet them.
The truth is that the dominant party in 1791, the party represented by Lafayette and Bailly, by Barnave and the Lameths, were in an impossible position. They were pledged to support the King and the new Constitution. They were pledged to resist republicanism. Their instincts led them to sympathise with the idea of a well-ordered freedom, based on property and on the predominance of the middle-class. But such a system was difficult to reconcile with the theory which they preached. For two years past they had been proclaiming the absolute equality of men, the sovereignty of the whole people, the pure democracy of Rousseau's dream. For two years past they had been busy stripping the Crown of its attributes, denouncing its agents, limiting its power. Thus, when they endeavoured to pause, when they began to insist upon the necessity of maintaining the monarchical system, when they plainly showed their intention not to admit the poorest class to power, that class retorted by echoing the theories which they had taught them, and by resenting the consequences which they deduced. Logically, the position of the Constitutional party was untenable, and to fail in logic was then a crime in France. Morally and materially their position was untenable too. For their action could not be reconciled with the dogmas on which they professed that all government was based.