A RESIDENCE IN FRANCE,
DURING THE YEARS
1792, 1793, 1794, and 1795
DESCRIBED IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
FROM AN ENGLISH LADY;
With General And Incidental Remarks
On The French Character And Manners.
Prepared for the Press
By John Gifford, Esq.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The original 1797 volumes used the long-S which is difficult for us to read. In this html file the long-S has been retained. The main html file with the long-S converted to a normal small-s may be viewed by clicking on this line.
Second Edition.
Plus je vis l'Etranger plus j'aimai ma Patrie.
--Du Belloy.
London: Printed for T. N. Longman, Paternoster Row. 1797.
SAMPLE PAGES FROM THE SECOND VOLUME
CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY REMARKS BY THE EDITOR.
DEDICATION
PREFACE
A RESIDENCE IN FRANCE.
May 10, 1792.
May, 1792.
June 10, 1792.
June 24, 1792.
July 24, 1792.
August 4, 1792.
August 15.
August 22, 1792.
Hesdin.
Arras, August, 1792.
Lisle, August, 1792.
Lisle.
Lisle, Saturday.
Arras, September 1, 1792.
Arras, September.
Arras.
Arras.
September 2, 1792.
September 4.
Arras, September, 1792.
Arras, September 14, 1792.
St. Omer, September, 1792.
September, 1792.
Amiens, 1792.
Abbeville, September, 1792.
October, 1792.
Amiens, October, 1792.
December, 1792.
Amiens, January, 1793.
Amiens, 1793.
Amiens, January 1793.
Amiens, February 15, 1793.
Amiens, Feb. 25, 1793.
Amiens, 1793.
March 23, 1793.
Rouen, March 31, 1793.
Amiens, April 7, 1793.
April 20, 1793.
May 18, 1793.
June 3, 1793.
June 20, 1793.
June 30, 1793.
Amiens, July 5, 1793.
July 14, 1793.
July 23, 1793.
Peronne, July 29, 1793.
August 1, 1793.
Soissons, August 4, 1793.
Peronne, August, 1793.
Peronne, August 24, 1793.
Peronne, August 29, 1793.
Peronne, Sept. 7, 1793.
Maison d'Arret, Arras, Oct. 15, 1793.
Maison d'Arret, Arras, Oct. 17, 1793.
Oct. 18.
Oct. 19.
Oct. 20.
Arras, 1793.
Oct. 21.
Oct. 22.
Oct. 25.
Oct. 27.
Oct. 30.
Bicetre at Amiens, Nov. 18, 1793.
November 19, 1793.
Nov. 20.
December.
Amiens, Providence, Dec. 10, 1793.
[Beginning of Volume II. Of The Printed Books]
January 6, 1794.
January, 1794.
Providence, Jan. 29.
February 2, 1794.
February 12, 1794.
[No date given.]
March 1, 1794.
March, 1794.
March 5, 1794.
March 17, 1794.
Providence, April 15, 1794.
April 22, 1794.
April 30, 1794.
June 3, 1794.
June 11, 1794.
Providence, Aug. 11, 1794.
August 12.
Providence, Aug. 13, 1794.
Providence, Aug. 14, 1794.
Providence, Aug. 15, 1794.
August, 1794.
[No Date Given]
Amiens, Sept. 30, 1794.
Amiens, October 4, 1794.
October 6, 1794.
[No Date or Place Given.]
Amiens, Oct. 24, 1794.
Amiens, Nov. 2, 1794.
Basse-ville, Arras, Nov. 6, 1794.
Amiens, Nov. 26, 1794.
Amiens, Nov. 29, 1794.
Amiens. [No date given.]
Amiens, Dec. 10, 1794.
Amiens, Dec. 16, 1794.
December 24, 1794.
December 27, 1794.
Amiens, Jan. 23, 1795.
Amiens, Jan. 30, 1795.
Beauvais, March 13, 1795.
Amiens, May 9, 1795.
Amiens, May 26, 1795.
Paris, June 3, 1795.
Paris, June 8, 1795.
Paris, June 15, 1795.
Amiens, June 18, 1795.
Havre, June 22, 1795.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS BY THE EDITOR.
The following Letters were ſubmitted to my inſpection and judgement by the Author, of whoſe principles and abilities I had reaſon to entertain a very high opinion. How far my judgement has been exerciſed to advantage in enforcing the propriety of introducing them to the public, that public muſt decide. To me, I confeſs, it appeared, that a ſeries of important facts, tending to throw a ſtrong light on the internal ſtate of France, during the moſt important period of the Revolution, could neither prove unintereſting to the general reader, nor indifferent to the future hiſtorian of that momentous epoch; and I conceived, that the oppoſite and judicious reflections of a well-formed and well-cultivated mind, naturally ariſing out of events within the immediate ſcope of its own obſervation, could not in the ſmalleſt degree diminiſh the intereſt which, in my apprehenſion, they are calculated to excite. My advice upon this occaſion was farther influenced by another conſideration. Having traced, with minute attention, the progreſs of the revolution, and the conduct of its advocates, I had remarked the extreme affiduity employed (as well by tranſlations of the moſt violent productions of the Gallic preſs, as by original compoſitions,) to introduce and propagate, in foreign countries, thoſe pernicious principles which have already ſapped the foundation of ſocial order, deſtroyed the happineſs of millions, and ſpread deſolation and ruin over the fineſt country in Europe. I had particularly obſerved the incredible efforts exerted in England, and, I am ſorry to ſay, with too much ſucceſs, for the baſe purpoſe of giving a falſe colour to every action of the perſons exerciſing the powers of government in France; and I had marked, with indignation, the atrociouſ attempt to ſtrip vice of its deformity, to dreſs crime in the garb of virtue, to decorate ſlavery with the ſymbols of freedom, and give to folly the attributes of wiſdom. I had ſeen, with extreme concern, men, whom the lenity, miſtaken lenity, I muſt call it, of our government had reſcued from puniſhment, if not from ruin, buſily engaged in thiſ ſcandalous traffic, and, availing themſelves of their extenſive connections to diffuſe, by an infinite variety of channels, the poiſon of democracy over their native land. In ſhort, I had ſeen the Britiſh preſs, the grand palladium of Britiſh liberty, devoted to the cauſe of Gallic licentiouſneſs, that mortal enemy of all freedom, and even the pure ſtream of Britiſh criticiſm diverted from its natural courſe, and polluted by the peſtilential vapours of Gallic republicaniſm. I therefore deemed it eſſential, by an exhibition of well-authenticated facts, to correct, as far as might be, the evil effects of miſrepreſentation and error, and to defend the empire of truth, which had been aſſailed by a hoſt of foes.
My opinion of the principles on which the preſent ſyſtem of government in France was founded, and the war to which thoſe principles gave riſe, have been long ſince ſubmitted to the public. Subſequent events, far from invalidating, have ſtrongly confirmed it. In all the public declarationſ of the Directory, in their domeſtic polity, in their conduct to foreign powers, I plainly trace the prevalence of the ſame principles, the ſame contempt for the rights and happineſs of the people, the ſame ſpirit of aggreſſion and aggrandizement, the ſame eagerneſs to overturn the exiſting inſtitutions of neighbouring ſtates, and the ſame deſire to promote "the univerſal revolution of Europe," which marked the conduct of BRISSOT, LE BRUN, DESMOULINS, ROBESPIERRE, and their diſciples. Indeed, what ſtronger inſtance need be adduced of the continued prevalence of theſe principles, than the promotion to the ſupreme rank in the ſtate, of two men who took an active part in the moſt atrocious proceedings of the Convention at the cloſe of 1792, and at the commencement of the following year?
In all the various conſtitutions which have been ſucceſſively adopted in that devoted country, the welfare of the people has been wholly diſregarded, and while they have been amuſed with the ſhadow of liberty, they have been cruelly deſpoiled of the ſubſtance. Even on the eſtabliſhment of the preſent conſtitution, the one which bore the neareſt reſemblance to a rational ſyſtem, the freedom of election, which had been frequently proclaimed as the very corner-ſtone of liberty, was ſhamefully violated by the legiſlative body, who, in their eagerneſs to perpetuate their own power, did not ſcruple to deſtroy the principle on which it waſ founded. Nor is this the only violation of their own principles. A French writer has aptly obſerved, that "En revolution comme en morale, ce n'eſt que le premier pas qui coute:" thus the executive, in imitation of the legiſlative body, ſeem diſpoſed to render their power perpetual. For though it be expreſſly declared by the 137th article of the 6th title of their preſent conſtitutional code, that the "Directory ſhall be partially renewed by the election of a new member every year," no ſtep towards ſuch election has been taken, although the time preſcribed by the law iſ elapſed.—In a private letter from Paris now before me, written within theſe few days, is the following obſervation on this very circumſtance: "The conſtitution has received another blow. The month of Vendemiaire iſ paſt, and our Directors ſtill remain the ſame. Hence we begin to drop the appalation of Directory, and ſubſtitute that of the Cinqvir, who are more to be dreaded for their power, and more to be deteſted for their crimes, than the Decemvir of ancient Rome." The ſame letter alſo contains a brief abſtract of the ſtate of the metropolis of the French republic, which is wonderfully characteriſtic of the attention of the government to the welfare and happineſs of its inhabitantſ!
"The reign of miſery and of crime ſeems to be perpetuated in thiſ diſtracted capital: ſuicides, pillage, and aſſaſſinations, are daily committed, and are ſtill ſuffered to paſs unnoticed. But what renderſ our ſituation ſtill more deplorable, is the exiſtence of an innumerable band of ſpies, who infeſt all public places, and all private ſocieties. More than a hundred thouſand of theſe men are regiſtered on the books of the modern SARTINE; and as the population of Paris, at moſt, does not exceed ſix hundred thouſand ſouls, we are ſure to find in ſix individualſ one ſpy. This conſideration makes me ſhudder, and, accordingly, all confidence, and all the ſweets of ſocial intercourſe, are baniſhed from among us. People ſalute each other, look at each other, betray mutual ſuſpicions, obſerve a profound ſilence, and part. This, in few words, iſ an exact deſcription of our modern republican parties. It is ſaid, that poverty has compelled many
There is not a ſingle abuſe, which the modern reformers reprobated ſo loudly under the ancient ſyſtem, that is not magnified, in an infinite degree, under the preſent eſtabliſhment. For one Lettre de Cachet iſſued during the mild reign of LOUIS the Sixteenth, a thouſand Mandats d'Arret have been granted by the tyrannical demagogues of the revolution; for one Baſtile which exiſted under the Monarchy, a thouſand Maiſons de Detention have been eſtabliſhed by the Republic. In ſhort, crimes of every denomination, and acts of tyranny and injuſtice, of every kind, have multiplied, ſince the abolition of royalty, in a proportion which ſetſ all the powers of calculation at defiance.
It is ſcarcely poſſible to notice the preſent ſituation of France, without adverting to the circumſtances of the WAR, and to the attempt now making, through the medium of negotiation, to bring it to a ſpeedy concluſion. Since the publication of my Letter to a Noble Earl, now deſtined to chew the cud of diſappointment in the vale of obſcurity, I have been aſtoniſhed to hear the ſame aſſertions advance, by the memberſ and advocates of that party whoſe merit is ſaid to conſiſt in the violence of their oppoſition to the meaſures of government, on the origin of the war, which had experienced the moſt ample confutation, without the aſſiſtance of any additional reaſon, and without the ſmalleſt attempt to expoſe the invalidity of thoſe proofs which, in my conception, amounted nearly to mathematical demonſtration, and which I had dared them, in terms the moſt pointed, to invalidate. The queſtion of aggreſſion before ſtood on ſuch high ground, that I had not the preſumption to ſuppoſe it could derive an acceſſion of ſtrength from any arguments which I could ſupply; but I was confident, that the authentic documents which I offered to the public would remove every intervening object that tended to obſtruct the fight of inattentive obſervers, and reflect on it ſuch an additional light as would flaſh inſtant conviction on the minds of all. It ſeems, I have been deceived; but I muſt be permitted to ſuggeſt, that men who perſiſt in the renewal of aſſertions, without a ſingle effort to controvert the proofs which have been adduced to demonſtrate their fallacy, cannot have for their object the eſtabliſhment of truth—which ought, excluſively, to influence the conduct of public characters, whether writers or orators.
With regard to the negotiation, I can derive not the ſmalleſt hopes of ſucceſs from a contemplation of the paſt conduct, or of the preſent principles, of the government of France. When I compare the projects of aggrandizement openly avowed by the French rulers, previous to the declaration of war againſt this country, with the exorbitant pretenſionſ advanced in the arrogant reply of the Executive Directory to the note preſented by the Britiſh Envoy at Baſil in the month of February, 1796, and with the more recent obſervations contained in their official note of the 19th of September laſt, I cannot think it probable that they will accede to any terms of peace that are compatible with the intereſt and ſafety of the Allies. Their object is not ſo much the eſtabliſhment aſ the extenſion of their republic.
As to the danger to be incurred by a treaty of peace with the republic of France, though it has been conſiderably diminiſhed by the events of the war, it is ſtill unqueſtionably great. This danger principally ariſeſ from a pertinacious adherence, on the part of the Directory, to thoſe very principles which were adopted by the original promoters of the abolition of Monarchy in France. No greater proof of ſuch adherence need be required than their refuſal to repeal thoſe obnoxious decrees (paſſed in the months of November and December, 1792,) which created ſo general and ſo juſt an alarm throughout Europe, and which excited the reprobation even of that party in England, which was willing to admit the equivocal interpretation given to them by the Executive Council of the day. I proved, in the Letter to a Noble Earl before alluded to, from the very teſtimony of the members of that Council themſelves, as exhibited in their official inſtructions to one of their confidential agents, that the interpretation which they had aſſigned to thoſe decrees, in their communications with the Britiſh Miniſtry, was a baſe interpretation, and that they really intended to enforce the decrees, to the utmoſt extent of their poſſible operation, and, by a literal conſtruction thereof, to encourage rebellion in every ſtate, within the reach of their arms or their principles. Nor have the preſent government merely forborne to repeal thoſe deſtructive lawſ—they have imitated the conduct of their predeceſſors, have actually put them in execution wherever they had the ability to do ſo, and have, in all reſpects, as far as related to thoſe decrees, adopted the preciſe ſpirit and principles of the faction which declared war againſt England. Let any man read the inſtructions of the Executive Council to PUBLICOLA CHAUSSARD, their Commiſſary in the Netherlands, in 1792 and 1793, and an account of the proceedings in the Low Countries conſequent thereon, and then examine the conduct of the republican General, BOUNAPARTE, in Italy—who muſt neceſſarily act from the inſtructions of the Executive Directory——and he will be compelled to acknowledge the juſtice of my remark, and to admit that the latter actuated by the ſame pernicious deſire to overturn the ſettled order of ſociety, which invariably marked the conduct of the former.
"It is an acknowledged fact, that every revolution requires a proviſional power to regulate its diſorganizing movements, and to direct the methodical demolition of every part of the ancient ſocial conſtitution.— Such ought to be the revolutionary power.
"To whom can ſuch power belong, but to the French, in thoſe countrieſ into which they may carry their arms? Can they with ſafety ſuffer it to be exerciſed by any other perſons? It becomes the French republic, then, to aſſume this kind of guardianſhip over the people whom ſhe awakens to Liberty!*"
* Conſiderations Generales fur l'Eſprit et les Principes du Decret du 15 Decembre.
Such were the Lacedaemonian principles avowed by the French government in 1792, and ſuch is the Lacedaimonian policy* purſued by the French government in 1796! It cannot then, I conceive, be contended, that a treaty with a government ſtill profeſſing principles which have been repeatedly proved to be ſubverſive of all ſocial order, which have been acknowledged by their parents to have for their object the methodical demolition of exiſting conſtitutions, can be concluded without danger or riſk. That danger, I admit, is greatly diminiſhed, becauſe the power which was deſtined to carry into execution thoſe gigantic projects which conſtituted its object, has, by the operations of the war, been conſiderably curtailed. They well may exiſt in equal force, but the ability is no longer the ſame.
MACHIAVEL juſtly obſerves, that it was the narrow policy of the Lacedaemonians always to deſtroy the ancient conſtitution, and eſtabliſh their own form of government, in the counties and cities which they ſubdued.
But though I maintain the exiſtence of danger in a Treaty with the Republic of France, unleſs ſhe previouſly repeal the decrees to which I have adverted, and abrogate the acts to which
In paying this tribute to truth, it is not my intention to retract, in the ſmalleſt degree, the opinion I have ever profeſſed, that the reſtoration of the ancient monarchy of France would be the beſt poſſible means not only of ſecuring the different ſtates of Europe from the dangers of republican anarchy, but of promoting the real intereſts, welfare, and happineſs of the French people themſelves. The reaſons on which this opinion is founded I have long ſince explained; and the intelligence which I have ſince received from France, at different times, has convinced me that a very great proportion of her inhabitants concur in the ſentiment.
The miſeries reſulting from the eſtabliſhment of a republican ſyſtem of government have been ſeverely felt, and deeply deplored; and I am fully perſuaded, that the ſubjects and tributaries of France will cordially ſubſcribe to the following obſervation on republican freedom, advanced by a writer who had deeply ſtudied the genius of republics: "Di tutte le fervitu dure, quella e duriſſima, che ti ſottomette ad una republica; l'una, perche e la piu durabile, e manco ſi puo ſperarne d'ufare: L'altra perche il fine della republica e enervare ed indebolire, debolire, per accreſcere il corpo ſuo, tutti gli altri corpi.*"
JOHN GIFFORD. London, Nov. 12, 1796.
* Diſcorſi di Nicoli Machiavelli, Lib. ii. p. 88.
P.S. Since I wrote the preceding remarks, I have been given to underſtand, that by a decree, ſubſequent to the completion of the conſtitutional code, the firſt partial renewal of the Executive Directory was deferred till the month of March, 1979; and that, therefore, in thiſ inſtance, the preſent Directory cannot be accuſed of having violated the conſtitution. But the guilt is only to be tranſferred from the Directory to the Convention, who paſſed that decree, as well as ſome others, in contradiction to a poſitive conſtitutional law.——-Indeed, the Directory themſelves betrayed no greater delicacy with regard to the obſervance of the conſtitution, or M. BARRAS would never have taken his ſeat among them; for the conſtitution expreſſly ſays, (and this poſitive proviſion was not even modified by any ſubſequent mandate of the Convention,) that no man ſhall be elected a member of the Directory who has not completed his fortieth year—whereas it is notorious that Barras had not thiſ requiſite qualification, having been born in the year 1758!
I avail myſelf of the opportunity afforded me by the publication of a Second Edition to notice ſome inſinuations which have been thrown out, tending to queſtion the authenticity of the work. The motives which have induced the author to withhold from theſe Letters the ſanction of her name, relate not to herſelf, but to ſome friends ſtill remaining in France, whoſe ſafety ſhe juſtly conceives might be affected by the diſcloſure. Acceding to the force and propriety of theſe motives, yet aware of the ſuſpicions to which a recital of important facts, by an anonymous writer, would naturally be expoſed, and ſenſible, alſo, that a certain deſcription of critics would gladly avail themſelves of any opportunity for diſcouraging the circulation of a work which contained principles hoſtile to their own; I determined to prefix my name to the publication. By ſo doing, I conceived that I ſtood pledged for itſ authenticity; and the matter has certainly been put in a proper light by an able and reſpectable critic, who has obſerved that "Mr. GIFFORD ſtandſ between the writer and the public," and that "his name and character are the guarantees for the authenticity of the Letters."
This is preciſely the ſituation in which I meant to place myſelf— preciſely the pledge which I meant to give. The Letters are exactly what they profeſs to be; the production of a Lady's pen, and written in the very ſituations which they deſcribe.—The public can have no grounds for ſuſpecting my veracity on a point in which I can have no poſſible intereſt in deceiving them; and thoſe who know me will do me the juſtice to acknowledge, that I have a mind ſuperior to the arts of deception, and that I am incapable of ſanctioning an impoſition, for any purpoſe, or from any motives whatever. Thus much I deemed it neceſſary to ſay, aſ well from a regard for my own character, and from a due attention to the public, as from a wiſh to prevent the circulation of the work from being ſubjected to the impediments ariſing from the prevalence of a groundleſſ ſuſpicion.
I naturally expected, that ſome of the preceding remarks would excite the reſentment and draw down the vengeance of thoſe perſons to whom they evidently applied. The contents of every publication are certainly a fair ſubject for criticiſm; and to the fair comments of real critics, however repugnant to the ſentiments I entertain, or the doctrine I ſeek to inculcate, I ſhall ever ſubmit without murmur or reproach. But, when men, aſſuming that reſpectable office, openly violate all the dutieſ attached to it, and, ſinking the critic in the partizan, make a wanton attack on my veracity, it becomes proper to repel the injuriouſ imputation; and the ſame ſpirit which dictates ſubmiſſion to the candid award of an impartial judge, preſcribes indignation and ſcorn at the cowardly attacks of a ſecret aſſaſſin.
April 14, 1797.
RESIDENCE IN FRANCE
DEDICATION
To The RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE.
SIR,
It is with extreme diffidence that I offer the following pages to Your notice; yet as they deſcribe circumſtances which more than juſtify Your own prophetic reflections, and are ſubmitted to the
While Your puny opponents, if opponents they may be called, are either ſunk into oblivion, or remembered only as aſſociated with the degrading cauſe they attempted to ſupport, every true friend of mankind, anticipating the judgement of poſterity, views with eſteem and veneration the unvarying Moraliſt, the profound Politician, the indefatigable Servant of the Public, and the warm Promoter of his country's happineſs.
To this univerſal teſtimony of the great and good, permit me, Sir, to join my humble tribute; being, with the utmoſt reſpect,
SIR,
Your obedient Servant, THE AUTHOR. Sept. 12, 1796.
PREFACE
After having, more than once, in the following Letters, expreſſed opinions decidedly unfavourable to female authorſhip, when not juſtified by ſuperior talents, I may, by now producing them to the public, ſubject myſelf to the imputation either of vanity or inconſiſtency; and I acknowledge that a great ſhare of candour and indulgence muſt be poſſeſſed by readers who attend to the apologies uſually made on ſuch occaſions: yet I may with the ſtricteſt truth alledge, that I ſhould never have ventured to offer any production of mine to the world, had I not conceived it poſſible that information and reflections collected and made on the ſpot, during a period when France exhibited a ſtate, of which there is no example in the annals of mankind, might gratify curioſity without the aid of literary embelliſhment; and an adherence to truth, I flattered myſelf, might, on a ſubject of this nature, be more acceptable than brilliancy of thought, or elegance of language. The eruption of a volcano may be more ſcientifically deſcribed and accounted for by the philoſopher; but the relation of the illiterate peaſant who beheld it, and ſuffered from its effects, may not be leſs intereſting to the common hearer.
Above all, I was actuated by the deſire of conveying to my countrymen a juſt idea of that revolution which they have been incited to imitate, and of that government by which it has been propoſed to model our own.
Since theſe pages were written, the Convention has nominally been diſſolved, and a new conſtitution and government have ſucceeded, but no real change of principle or actors has taken place; and the ſyſtem, of which I have endeavoured to trace the progreſs, muſt ſtill be conſidered as exiſting, with no other variations than ſuch as have been neceſſarily produced by the difference of time and circumſtances. The people grew tired of maſſacres en maſſe, and executions en detail: even the national fickleneſs operated in favour of humanity; and it was alſo diſcovered, that however a ſpirit of royaliſm might be ſubdued to temporary inaction, it was not to be eradicated, and that the ſufferings of its martyrs only tended to propagate and confirm it. Hence the ſcaffolds flow leſſ frequently with blood, and the barbarous prudence of CAMILLE DESMOULINS' guillotine economique has been adopted. But exaction and oppreſſion are ſtill practiſed in every ſhape, and juſtice is not leſs violated, nor iſ property more ſecure, than when the former was adminiſtered by revolutionary tribunals, and the latter was at the diſpoſition of revolutionary armies.
The error of ſuppoſing that the various parties which have uſurped the government of France have differed eſſentially from each other is pretty general; and it is common enough to hear the revolutionary tyranny excluſively aſſociated with the perſon of ROBESPIERRE, and the thirty-firſt of May, 1793, conſidered as the epoch of its introduction. Yet whoever examines attentively the ſituation and politics of France, from the ſubverſion of the Monarchy, will be convinced that all the principles of this monſtrous government were eſtabliſhed during the adminiſtration of the Briſſotins, and that the factions which ſucceeded, from Danton and Robeſpierre to Sieyes and Barras, have only developed them, and reduced them to practice. The revolution of the thirty-firſt of May, 1793, was not a conteſt for ſyſtem but for power—that of July the twenty-eighth, 1794, (9th Thermidor,) was merely a ſtruggle which of two parties ſhould ſacrifice the other—that of October the fifth, 1795, (13th Vendemiaire,) a war of the government againſt the people. But in all theſe convulſions, the primitive doctrines of tyranny and injuſtice were watched like the ſacred fire, and have never for a moment been ſuffered to languiſh.
It may appear incredible to thoſe who have not perſonally witneſſed thiſ phoenomenon, that a government deteſted and deſpiſed by an immenſe majority of the nation, ſhould have been able not only to reſiſt the efforts of ſo many powers combined againſt it, but even to proceed from defence to conqueſt, and to mingle ſurprize and terror with thoſe ſentiments of contempt and abhorrence which it originally excited.
That wiſdom or talents are not the ſources of this ſucceſs, may be deduced from the ſituation of France itſelf. The armies of the republic have, indeed, invaded the territories of its enemies, but the deſolation of their own country ſeems to increaſe with every triumph—the genius of the French government appears powerful only in deſtruction, and inventive only in oppreſſion—and, while it is endowed with the faculty of ſpreading univerſal ruin, it is incapable of promoting the happineſs of the ſmalleſt diſtrict under its protection. The unreſtrained pillage of the conquered countries has not ſaved France from multiplied bankruptcies, nor her ſtate-creditors from dying through want; and the French, in the midſt of their external proſperity, are often diſtinguiſhed from the people whom their armies have been ſubjugated, only by a ſuperior degree of wretchedneſs, and a more irregular deſpotiſm.
With a power exceſſive and unlimited, and ſurpaſſing what has hitherto been poſſeſſed by any Sovereign, it would be difficult to prove that theſe democratic deſpots have effected any thing either uſeful or beneficent. Whatever has the appearance of being ſo will be found, on examination, to have for its object ſome purpoſe of individual intereſt or perſonal vanity. They manage the armies, they embelliſh Paris, they purchaſe the friendſhip of ſome ſtates and the neutrality of others; but if there be any real patriots in France, how little do they appreciate theſe uſeleſs triumphs, theſe pilfered muſeums, and theſe fallaciouſ negotiations, when they behold the population of their country diminiſhed, its commerce annihilated, its wealth diſſipated, its moralſ corrupted, and its liberty deſtroyed—
Unfading verdure glads the roving eye,
While ſecret flames with unextinguiſh'd rage
Inſatiate on her wafted entrails prey,
And melt her treach'rous beauties into ruin."
Thoſe efforts which the partizans of republicaniſm admire, and which even well-diſpoſed perſons regard as prodigies, are the ſimple and natural reſult of an unprincipled deſpotiſm, acting upon, and diſpoſing of, all the reſources of a rich, populous, and enſlaved nation. "Il devient aiſe d'etre habile lorſqu'on ſ'eſt delivre des ſcrupules et des loix, de tout honneur et de toute juſtice, des droits de ſes ſemblables, et des devoirſ de l'autorite—a ce degre d'independence la plupart des obſtacles qui modifient l'activite humaine diſparaiſſent; l'on parait avoir du talent lorſqu'on n'a que de
* "Exertions of ability become eaſy, when men have releaſed themſelves from the ſcruples of conſcience, the reſtraints of law, the ties of honour, the bonds of juſtice, the claims of their fellow creatures, and obedience to their ſuperiors:—at this point of independence, moſt of the obſtacles which modify human activity diſappear; impudence is miſtaken for talents; and the abuſe of power paſſes for energy."
The operations of all other governments muſt, in a great meaſure, be reſtrained by the will of the people, and by eſtabliſhed laws; with them, phyſical and political force are neceſſarily ſeparate conſiderations: they have not only to calculate what can be borne, but what will be ſubmitted to; and perhaps France is the firſt country that has been compelled to an exertion of its whole ſtrength, without regard to any obſtacle, natural, moral, or divine. It is for want of ſufficiently inveſtigating and allowing for this moral and political latitudinarianiſm of our enemies, that we are apt to be too precipitate in cenſuring the conduct of the war; and, in our eſtimation of what has been done, we pay too little regard to the principles by which we have been directed. An honeſt man could ſcarcely imagine the means we have had to oppoſe, and an Engliſhman ſtill leſs conceive that they would have been ſubmitted to: for the ſame reaſon that the Romans had no law againſt parricide, till experience had evinced the poſſibility of the crime.
In a war like the preſent, advantage is not altogether to be appreciated by military ſuperiority. If, as there is juſt ground for believing, our external hoſtilities have averted an internal revolution, what we have eſcaped is of infinitely more importance to us than what we could acquire. Commerce and conqueſt, compared to this, are ſecondary objects; and the preſervation of our liberties and our conſtitution is a more ſolid bleſſing than the commerce of both the Indies, or the conqueſt of nations.
Should the following pages contribute to impreſs this ſalutary truth on my countrymen, my utmoſt ambition will be gratified; perſuaded, that a ſenſe of the miſeries they have avoided, and of the happineſs they enjoy, will be their beſt incentive, whether they may have to oppoſe the arms of the enemy in a continuance of the war, or their more dangerouſ machinations on the reſtoration of peace.
I cannot conclude without noticing my obligations to the Gentleman whoſe name is prefixed to theſe volumes; and I think it at the ſame time incumbent on me to avow, that, in having aſſiſted the author, he muſt not be conſidered as ſanctioning the literary imperfections of the work. When the ſubject was firſt mentioned to him, he did me the juſtice of ſuppoſing, that I was not likely to have written any thing, the general tendency of which he might diſapprove; and when, on peruſing the manuſcript, he found it contain ſentiments diſſimilar to his own, he waſ too liberal to require a ſacrifice of them as the condition of hiſ ſervices.—I confeſs that previous to my arrival in France in 1792, I entertained opinions ſomewhat more favourable to the principle of the revolution than thoſe which I was led to adopt at a ſubſequent period. Accuſtomed to regard with great juſtice the Britiſh conſtitution as the ſtandard of known political excellence, I hardly conceived it poſſible that freedom or happineſs could exiſt under any other: and I am not ſingular in having ſuffered this prepoſſeſſion to invalidate even the evidence of my ſenſes. I was, therefore, naturally partial to whatever profeſſed to approach the object of my veneration. I forgot that governments are not to be founded on imitations or theories, and that they are perfect only as adapted to the genius, manners, and diſpoſition of the people who are ſubject to them. Experience and maturer judgement have corrected my error, and I am perfectly convinced, that the old monarchical conſtitution of France, with very ſlight meliorations, waſ every way better calculated for the national character than a more popular form of government.
A critic, though not very ſevere, will diſcover many faults of ſtyle, even where the matter may not be exceptionable. Beſides my other deficiencies, the habit of writing is not eaſily ſupplied, and, as I deſpaired of attaining excellence, and was not ſolicitous about degreeſ of mediocrity, I determined on conveying to the public ſuch information as I was poſſeſſed of, without alteration or ornament. Moſt of theſe Letters were written exactly in the ſituation they deſcribe, and remain in their original ſtate; the reſt were arranged according aſ opportunities were favourable, from notes and diaries kept when "the times were hot and feveriſh," and when it would have been dangerous to attempt more method. I forbear to deſcribe how they were concealed either in France or at my departure, becauſe I might give riſe to the perſecution and oppreſſion of others. But, that I may not attribute to myſelf courage which I do not poſſeſs, nor create doubts of my veracity, I muſt obſerve, that I ſeldom ventured to write till I was aſſured of ſome certain means of conveying my papers to a perſon who could ſafely diſpoſe of them.
As a conſiderable period has elapſed ſince my return, it may not be improper to add, that I took ſome ſteps for the publication of theſe Letters ſo early as July, 1795. Certain difficulties, however, ariſing, of which I was not aware, I relinquiſhed my deſign, and ſhould not have been tempted to reſume it, but for the kindneſs of the Gentleman whoſe name appears as the Editor.
Sept. 12, 1796.