sharpening hand of the new President, who had himself complained personally of the mode in which he had been received at the Palace.

Condorcet was not a fluent orator:-he also wanted both voice and nerve for the tempest of revolutionary debate and he made a very inefficient President as to keeping order; but nevertheless, so long as the Girondists were in command of the majority, he was regarded as in the very first rank of influence and even while President, the more important addresses-circulars-proclamations of the Assembly, were for the most part drawn up by his practiced pen. It must be allowed that no pen ever produced writings which obtained a more unbounded circulation, or excited profounder emotions.

We are not attempting an abridgment of the history of the Revolution. M. Condor cet's marking labors in its cause are omitted in none of the comprehensive works on the subject. To him, for example, belongs the honor of having brought forward the motion "sur la nécessité d'ôter au clergé l'état civil des citoyens." But, above all, it was the representative of Turgot who, both within the Assembly and in his journals and pamphlets, took and kept the undisputed lead as advocate of the two great principles of Revolutionary Economics namely, 1. - the abolition of all indirect imposts—and 2. the impôt progressif—that is, the principle of a sliding scale of taxation, passing wholly over all citizens who live by the pay of their daily labor, and taxing those above that class more and more heavily according to the proportion of their means.

Condorcet's course, however, gave no satisfaction to many different sections of the revolutionists. Though determined in his hostility to the church and the aristocracy as institutions, he was on the side of personal gentleness to an extent which displeased even the majority of his friends, the Girondists. They were, for example, disgusted with his proposal to allow all dispossessed clergymen life-pensions to the value of a third of their benefices. Their oracle, Madame Roland, said, "On peut dire de l'intelligence de Condorcet, en rapport avec sa personne, que c'est une liqueur fine imbibée dans du coton;" to which M. Arago adds triumphantly, "We shall see by-and-bye whether he could not be cotton as respected men but bronze as to principles." We, too, shall see. Another lady used a similitude which had greater vogue, if not greater justice. She called our

philosopher the mouton enragé-the sheep gone mad. On the other hand, the Parisian electors could by no means understand his dallying between Girondin and Jacobin;— with them the influence of the latter faction was already supreme, and bitterly of course did they vituperate many of his reservesecpecially that, on the proposition for making it penal to use any of the abolished titles, he produced an amendment to the effect that it was below the dignity of the Assembly to treat such fréloques in a serious manner, and that it would be sufficient to declare all citizens at liberty to assume, from that time forth, any name, title, or designation whatsoever, according to individual fancy. This is talked of by some of the biographers as a characteristic piece of irony. We suspect that Condorcet had a fixed and not unnatural dislike to the vulgar neologism of " Citizen Caritat "at all events, he continued to call himself by the name which was in fact a title. At best, however, such irony of the ci-devant Marquis-so lately the denouncer of Sire and Majesty-must have failed of its object. It was the small sword of the fencing-master against pikes and bludgeons

and it was nothing the better for him that his own voice had had no small share in evoking and exciting the "stupid enthusiasm from which there is but one step to ferocity." The Girondins as a party were much in the same situation with this their "Seneca of the Revolution," as M. de Lamartine styles him. That party claimed in the sequel the honor of having mainly stimulated the insurrections of June and August, 1792-of which the first utterly degraded the crown, and the second, after sacking the Tuileries and massacring its few faithful defenders, and many helpless inmates, ended with the imprisonment of the King and his family. Nor was their claim a vain boast-nor, of all who usually acted with them, did the responsibility of those terrible scenes rest more heavily on one than on Condorcet. On both occasions the preparatory inflammation was largely the work of his pen and of his voice.

We have already alluded to his motion for the public burning of all documents nobiliaires. M. Arago is indignant that some modern historian should have dubbed him “ the Omar of the Revolution," and expatiates on the absurdity of exalting "patents and pedigrees" into "materials of history." We are at a loss to understand his acerbity. However sincerely he may hate, however stu| diously he may affect to despise nobility, he

can hardly deny that to individuals of the noble classes his country had owed a very large proportion of whatever, either in arts or arms, dignified her ancient existence before the eyes of all Europe: at all events, he cannot venture to deny that the claims, pretensions, struggles of the French aristocracy constituted a very considerable element in the political development and career of the nation; nor could any one but an astronomer fail to see that it would be utterly impossible for a historian of France to make the subject intelligible in the absence of truthful documents concerning the origin and alliances of her high families. But waiving controversy on these heads, what we complain of is, 1st, that M. Arago slurs over the extent of Condorcet's motion-which was, "That although the Assembly had already decreed the incremation in the capital of the immense volumes which attest the vanity of that class [i. e., the books of the Crown-heralds], this was not enough; that vestiges of the same vanity existed in the public libraries, in the Chamber des Comptes [the exchequer], in the Archives, and in the houses of the genealogists; and that all these dépôts should be enveloped in a common destruction.' The Assembly "declared urgency," and passed the law unanimously-nor among all the acts of that Assembly can we point to one either of more contemptible folly or of more audacious tyranny. But, 2dly, M. Arago, with all his love of exact science, passes wholly sub silentio the date of the motion-and the date is the key to its motive. Condorcet produced this harangue and this new law on the 19th of June, 1792 -the very day before the insurrection. His proceeding was evidently part and parcel of the Girondin preparation of the revolt. That party were eager to convince the populace that they were as good haters of nobility as their rivals the Jacobins--and the motion devised as evidence of this their republican purity was of course to acquire additional weight by coming from almost the only man of noble birth who condescended to follow the guidance of that knot of shallow and impudent parvenus.

We cannot pass from the 20th of June without observing that that day was in fact fatal to the first and best patron of M. de Condorcet -the Duke of Rochefoucauld. This nobleman's mother, already more than once mentioned, may be said to have spent her life in active hostility to the monarchy; yet she had herself received signal and special favors from the crown.

She was

born in 1716-the only child of the last Rochefoucauld of the direct line, the grandson of the author of the Maxims. On her marriage with a cousin, the Comte de Roucy, he received in compliment to her the title of Duke d'Enville, and the ancient dukedom of Rochefoucauld was in due time revived in favor of her male issue. She brought up the young Rochefoucauld in the principles of her philosophic friends, and when Turgot was no more, he followed mainly the political guidance of Condorcet, who had in earlier life owed so much to his influence and liberality. As the revolution advanced, the great lord fell by degrees behind the march of his Mentor, and at length their alienation had become complete-a total breach. We have not space for the particulars-we hope it was not the fact that the amiable and generous Duke had reason to accuse Condorcet of having violated his confidence by an unauthorized communication of something said in private through one of the ultrademocratic journals-but there was a quarrel in form, and from that time, while Condorcet wavered between Girondins and Jacobins, the Duke so conducted himself as to earn the combined enmity of both. He was head of the Commune of Paris, and in that capacity approved of some proceedings against the Mayor, Pétion, for the attentat of the 20th of June. After the 10th of August he was arrested-and the sequel is told by Maton de la Varenne, a conscientious and trustworthy writer, in more detail than elsewhere, and with expressions so seriously implicating Condorcet that we are astonished at Arago's utter, though no doubt dignified, silence as to the whole matter. The passage is as follows:—

des fureurs populaires pour signer un ordre d'ar"Santerre, sollicité, dit-on, par Condorcet, profita

reter le Duc. Un commissaire de la Commune en fut charge, et se rendit a Forges; mais, plus humain que ses confreres, il l'avertit du danger, et le fit consentir a se rendre a sa terre de la

Roche Guyon, où il le garderait. Ils partirent dans la meme voiture. En passant par Gisors ils furent rencontres, le 14, comme par hasard, par un detachement des egorgeurs de Paris, qui demanderent a grands cris la tete du Duc. Des forces vinrent a son secours. Il traversa la ville au milieu d'une quadruple haie de Gardes Nationaux, de leur Commandant et du Maire. Une charrette embarrassait un chemin etroit a la sortie de Gisors; un assassin se trouva pres du Duc, et lui Madame d'Enville, sa mère, âgee de quatre-vingt lança un pave qui l'atteignit dans les bras de treize ans, et le renversa sans vie."

Observing that the authors of the "Picto

rial History of England" (who have bestow- | ed very great care on the details of the French Revolution) accept La Varenne's words as cruelly decisive against Condorcet, we think it right to say, as M. Arago should have done, that the on dit reported by La Varenne might be correct, and yet the fact not leave Condorcet under the hideous imputation handed on by later writers. He might have suggested the arrest of his old friend and patron in the hope of saving him from massacre by the mob; and it seems, by the relation, that the police agent acted in that design. We hope and believe that this is the right interpretation. It is, however, not wonder that Condorcet's character should have been irretrievably degraded in the eyes of such a man as La Varenne by his alliance with the execrable conspiracy-be it Girondin or Jacobin-of June and August, 1792. All know how the policy of the Girondists was rewarded. Condorcet fared no better than his allies in the crisis which their cunning cowardice had made inevitable. The metropolitans refused to nominate him for the Convention-but four provincial constituencies competed for the honor-and he took his part in the ulterior proceedings against the king as deputy for the department of the Aisne.

We have seen what he said in 1787 of the trial and execution of Charles I.-and, notwithstanding all his hatred of monarchy and the offensiveness of various of his writings and motions as regarded Louis XVI. person ally, it must be allowed that the views which

he announced when the trial of Louis was first formally broached in the Convention, were not on all points in opposition to those of the passage we quoted from his Notes to Voltaire. He argued vigorously (Dec. 22nd, 1792) that the Convention derived no right from the constitution to sit in judgment on the King-that, if he were to be tried, the Nation must interfere directly, and the tribunal be composed of judges elected ad hoc by each Department. Furthermore, he avowed that "an assembly at once legislatrice, accusatrice, et juge s'offrait a ses yeux comme une monstruosite de l'example le plus dangereux." "In all times"-he said—" and in all countries, it has been held that the accused was entitled to reject the judge who had previously expressed an opinion on his guilt or innocence; now, the Convention had already pronounced the culpability of the King." Condorcet ended with a solemn repetition of the doctrine which had already been proclaimed over and over by him in

every shape, that all capital punishments were barbarous. "Their abolition will be one of the most effectual means for perfecting the human species, in destroying that tendency to ferocity which has so long been its dishonor. Punishments which admit of repentance and amendment are the only ones which can suit the regenerated race of man."

We must state shortly and plainly what Condorcet's procedure throughout this business was. From first to last his system was evidently evasion-a compromise between his natural instinct of justice and decency and the risk and peril of his personal position. We have seen on what grounds he objected to the trial in limine. After the Convention had decided on the trial, Condorcet, being more human than Roman, "did not refuse to co-operate in what he had so lately characterized as a monstrosity of the most frightful example." Four votes followedthe first on the 15th of January, 1793, “Is Louis guilty?" To this Condorcet answered "Yes"-thus being, contrary to his own principle, both judge and jury. The second question, on the same day, was, "Shall the sentence be submitted to the ratification of the people?" To this Condorcet answered:

66

66

Supposing the Assembly to have given sentence of death, my wish would be that its execu tion might be suspended until the Constitution had been settled and published, and the people had then pronounced in its primary Assemblies should have regulated. But consulted to-day, in according to the forms which the Constitution virtue of a decree, if there ought to be an appeal to the people, I say No."

The third question was on the 16th and 17th, "What shall be the punishment?" Condorcet answered:

"All difference of penalty for the same crimes is an outrage against equality. The penalty for conspirators is death: but that punishment is against my principles. I will never vote for it. I cannot vote for solitary confinement, for the law recognizes no such punishment. I vote for the severest punishment short of death. I ask the Assembly to discuss the suggestion (reflexion) of Mailhe, for it deserves it."-Moniteur, Jan. 20.

The "severest punishment short of death" would be, or might be inferred to be, perpetual labor in fellers!-and for this, therefore, he voted-though he had an instant before denounced it as a sin against Equality to vote for any punishment but that assigned by law to the crime of conspiracy-viz., deathand explained that he could not vote for sol

itary confinement, because that was a punishment unknown to the law-as if it could make any difference, especially in a trial before an (in his opinion) illegal tribunal, whether they decreed a penalty unrecognized in their code, or a penalty different from that assigned by their code to the alleged crime. The "reflexion de Mailhe" (a previous speaker) was whether, after passing sentence of death, it might not be expedient to suspend its execution. Now mark the sequel. On that 17th the majority voted for death. The fourth debate was on the 19th-its subject distinctly this "reflexion de Mailhe "the question, "Shall execution be suspended?" Condorcet's Opinion," spoken from the tribune, and next day published by himself on a flying sheet, is certainly among the curiosities of the Revolution. He said:

"CITIZENS! Whatever your decision on this important question may be, it will expose our country to great dangers. I have endeavored to weigh them, and I acknowledge that I do not feel my hand firm enough to hold that balance. There is nevertheless one danger on the side of a prompt execution which has seemed to me to merit your attention. It is the only one of which I have been really afraid; but I believe that it is in your power to parry it. I will therefore speak of that danger alone, and the means of escaping it. Hitherto we have only had to combat kings and their armies trained to a servile obedience. Those kings are now laboring to inspire in other nations their own hatred for France, and for this end their instrument-that so familiar in Courts-is Calumny. They will say that the Convention has immolated Louis merely to satiate its vengeancethey will paint us as men greedy of blood. Citizens! this is the only means they have for injuring us; but if we be united, if our conduct be worthy of our cause, we may brave it.

"When I saw my colleagues ascend the tribune to give their vote, I observed that many of the firmest patriots did not pronounce the word death without a shudder. Eh bien! abolish the pain of death for all private offences, and reserve for your examination whether it should be kept to in crimes against the state. That question is different. Considerations which are without force when we have to do with private offences acquire in that case a high importance-while, on the contrary, the most powerful arguments for abolishing the penalty of death, lose a great part of their weight.

"Citizens! a speedy judgment is a duty of humanity; and yet in Paris there is a complaint that the prisons are full of persons under accusation-dark murmurs are rife as to their fate-we hear of movements in preparation. What is the cause of this? It is that in Paris there is only one tribunal! The law has determined that there shall be one for each Department-but this apparent equality conceals a real inequality-what

equality is there in having here one tribunal for 800,000 men, there one for 200,000? I propose that the number of tribunals for Paris shall be raised to three.

"You have hitherto testified an active solicitude

for the maintenance of liberty-you have even been charged with exaggerating it. I do not propose to you to renounce it, but I ask you to add to it a solicitude of benevolence! Hasten to enact laws which shall establish Adoption! Hasten to secure the lot of children born out of wedlock! Take such steps as that the words Foundling and Bastard shall pollute no longer a republican lan

guage!

"The necessities of the state require taxes: but there exists means to prevent them from pressing any longer on the poor. A respectable citizen, Dusaulx, has prepared a report on that Lottery, ci-devant Royal, which is at once an oppressive tax, a well-spring of poverty, and a hotbed of corruption. Hasten to listen to him. It will not be difficult to suggest measures which, while makirg up the loss to the revenue, so far from being burdensome to the poor, will offer them new re

sources.

"Submit to the scrutiny of humanity and of justice those useless and barbarous laws that give a creditor a power over the liberty of his debtor, for which neither nature nor the true interests of commerce can be appealed to.

"The organization of public charity asks all your cares-but humanity demands also provisWhen we see our streets, our ional measures.

public walks filled with wounded, mutilated men reduced to an evident impossibility of providing for their wants, how can we recognize a Nation in which Equality has been solemnly proclaimed? If society wishes that this equality should not be a vain name, does it not owe to these men a retreat and a subsistence?

Such, citizens! are the laws with which the necessity of repelling a dangerous calumny makes it your duty to occupy yourselves: then, if the despots should still dare to reproach you with the judgment of Louis, you will say to them :— We have punished a King, but we have saved a hundred thousand Men!

66

There exists in Europe a nation which loves liberty sincerely, though it deceives itself both as to the nature of that sacred right and as to the means of preserving it. The ministers of England are now trying to excite that nation against us! Do you believe that they will dare to persist in their calumnious declamations when you can say to them: We have abolished the punishment of death, and you maintain it for the theft of a few shillings. You surrender your debtors to the rapacity and spleen of their creditors: our laws know how to respect poverty and misfortune. Judge between yourselves and us!

"Citizens if you adopt a severer course, whatever dangers may threaten you, they will not be able to reach you, provided that by wise, humane and just laws you render yourselves respectable and dear to humanity everywhere outraged, everywhere oppressed!"-Euvres, vol. xii. p. 307.