YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Sassar S»cmi=C-cntcnntal Series

ELIZABETHAN TRANSLATIONS FROM THE ITAL
IAN. By Mary Augusta Scott, Ph.D. (A.B. Vas
sal-, 1876), Professor of English Literature in Smith
College.
SOCIAL STUDIES IN ENGLISH LITERATURE.
By Laura J. Wylie, Ph.D. (A.B. Vassar, 1877), Pro
fessor of English in Vassar College.
THE LEARNED LADY IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY. By Myra Reynolds, Ph.D. (A.B. Vas
sar, 1880), Professor of English Literature in Chicago
University. [/« preparation]
THE CUSTOM OF DRAMATIC ENTERTAINMENT IN
SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS. By Orie J. Hatcher,
Ph.D. (A.B. Vassar, 1888), Formerly Associate Pro
fessor of Comparative Literature in Bryn Mawr Col
lege. \Jn preparation.]
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF VARIABLE
STARS. By Caroline E. Furness, Ph.D. (A.B. Vas
sar, 1891), Professor of Astronomy in Vassar College.
MOVEMENT AND MENTAL IMAGERY. By Mar
garet Floy Washburn, Ph.D. (A.B. Vassar, 1891),
Professor of Psychology in Vassar College. \In prep
aration]
BRISSOT DE WARVILLE : A STUDY IN THE HIS
TORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By Eloise
Ellery, Ph.D. (A.B. Vassar, 1897), Associate Profes
sor of History in Vassar College.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
Boston and New York

BRISSOT de WARVILLE

Baggar £emi-€entennial §>ttiz$
BRISSOT de WARVILLE
A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

BY
ELOISE ELLERY, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of History in Vassar CoUege

BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
@be jfttoetfibe $««£ Cambri&oe
1915

COPYRIGHT, I915, BY ELOISE ELLERY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Published October IQ15

3ob8t.^

PUBLISHED IN HONOR OF THE
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE
FOUNDING OF VASSAR COLLEGE
1865-1915

TO

F. M. E. and M. A. A. E.

PREFACE
The main sources for the study of Brissot's life are his own
works, including his early writings, his political pamphlets, his
memoirs in the new and critical edition of M. Claude Perroud,
his correspondence, also edited by M. Perroud, and especially
the newspaper of which he was the editor, the Patriote Fran
cais. Other material of value is contained in the publications
of the Societe des Amis des Noirs, in the pamphlets and news
papers of Brissot's opponents, in letters and reports found
among the correspondence between the French and English
Foreign Offices, preserved at the Ministere des Affaires Elran-
geres at Paris, in judicial and police reports at the Archives Na-
tionales; and finally in the Craigie Papers among the Antiqua
rian Society collections at Worcester, Massachusetts, and the
Scioto Papers in the collections of the New York Historical
Society. The writer desires to make grateful acknowledgment to
the librarians and archivists of the various libraries where her
investigation has been carried on, both in this country and
abroad, for their help and unfailing courtesy. She is, moreover,
especially indebted to Professor H. Morse Stephens, of the
University of California, for assistance in the initial stages of
her work; to the late Professor Ralph C. H. Catterall, of Cornell
University, for untiring criticism and counsel; to her friend
and colleague, Assistant Professor C. Mildred Thompson, for
generous help in proof-reading, and above all to the inspiration
and encouragement of Professor Lucy M. Salmon of Vassar
College.
E. E.
Vassab College,
September, 1915.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I

Introduction

The importance of Brissot.
Reasons why his life has never been written.
The diversity of his activities.
His connection with a defeated party.
Reasons why his life should be written.
New conception concerning the Girondins.
Brissot — a typical Girondin.

CHAPTER II

Brissot's Early Life 
Brissot's birth and family.
Limitations of his early environment.
Wide interests, large ambitions, and spiritual revolt.
Entrance on a legal career and removal to Paris.
Abandonment of a legal for a literary career.
Difficulties of the beginner.
First opening for journalistic work with Swinton at Boulogne.
Failure, return to Paris, entrance to literary and scientific circles.
Writings in the interest of reform.
Engagement to Felicite Dupont.
Journey to Switzerland and first contact with active revolu
tionists.
Establishment of the LycSe at London.
English friends and unfortunate acquaintances.
Failure of the LycSe, return to Paris and imprisonment in the
Bastille for alleged libel.
Collaboration with Claviere and Mirabeau.
Schemes for reform work for the Duke of Chartres.
Establishment of the Amis des Noirs.
Journey to America.
Return to France at the beginning of the Revolution.

xii CONTENTS
CHAPTER HI
Brissot as Author and Journalist before the Revolution 41
Influence of Voltaire on Brissot.
Influence of Rousseau.
Influence of the humanitarian spirit of the age.
Influence of the physiocrats.
Influence of the institutions of the United States.
His criticism of proposed reforms.
His efforts to extend information and to educate public opinion.
His difficulties with the censorship of the press.
The reception accorded to his works.
His faults as a critic.
The permanent value of his works — their revelation of his
character.
Qualities seen in his works: earnestness, enthusiasm, ambition,
and optimism.
CHAPTER IV
Brissot's Travels in the United States  59
Brissot's early interest in the United States.
His defense of Chastellux's book.
The Gallo-American Society.
His book, De la France et des Etats-Unis.
His plans for the journey to America.
Their final success.
His motives.
His qualifications as an observer.
The voyage across the ocean.
Boston and its vicinity.
His connection with the speculation in the American debt.
His account of the simplicity and democracy of life.
His account of Franklin.
His account of Washington.
His account of the Quakers.
His account of the work for the negroes.
His interest in the public debt.
His interest in western settlement.
Return to France.
Connection with the land companies.
Subsequent influence of his journey to America.

CONTENTS xiii
CHAPTER V
Brissot's Career as a Municipal Politician during the
Constituent Assembly  91
Brissot's ideas concerning the organization and functions of the
States-General.
His part in the electoral campaign; failure to secure election
throws him into municipal assembly.
Questions at issue:
Internal organization of the city government.
Relation to the authority of the national government.
Size of the municipality.
Relation of the municipality to the policy of the National
Assembly.
Rights of the people.
His interest in the development of provincial government.
His part in the ComitS des Recherches.
CHAPTER VI
Brissot's Career during the Constituent Assembly. As
a Journalist — "Le Patriote FRANgAis"  113
Paet I. His Struggles to establish a Newspaper and his
Attitude on Legislation.
Brissot's early journalistic experience.
Difficulties in establishing the Patriote Frangais, his struggles
with the censorship.
The policy of the Patriote Franqais.
Its form and contents.
Its style.
Brissot's collaboration in the Chronique de Mois.
His collaborators in the Patriote Frangais.
His partner, the question of responsibility.
Desmoulins's attack.
Brissot's attitude toward the constitution; questions at issue.
One chamber or two.
The degree of independence of the legislative body.
The veto.
The right of declaring peace and war.
The relation of the ministry to the Legislative Assembly.
The democratic character of the constitution.

xiv CONTENTS
His attitude toward the judicial system.
His attitude toward freedom of the press.
Attacks made upon him.
His attitude toward the administrative work of the Assembly.
Foreign affairs.
The Church.
Sale of church lands.
Financial affairs.
His interest in economic matters.
His use of the Patriote Frangais as an organ of the Amis des Noirs.
CHAPTER VLT
Brissot's Career during the Constituent Assembly. As
a Journalist — "Le Patriote Francais"  156
Part II. His Attitude toward Popular Movements and
Public Opinion.
Popular movements.
The 4th of August.
The 5th and 6th of October.
The affair of Nancy.
Popular societies as a means of instruction.
Brissot's own connection with popular societies.
His democracy in relation to women.
His democracy in relation to socialistic tendencies and social
customs.
His republicanism.
Pre-revolutionary utterances.
Continued support of monarchy in theory, but hesitancy as to
actual change.
Attitude after June 21; connection with Republicanism.
Return to a more moderate position.
His part in the events leading to July 17.
CHAPTER Vni
Brissot as a Humanitarian — La Societe des Amis des
Noirs  182
Brissot's incentive — an English organization against the slave
trade.
Mirabeau's cooperation.

CONTENTS xv
The organization of the society.
Its constitution.
Its decline during Brissot's absence in America.
Revival of interest on his return.
Efforts to interest the government in the work of the society.
Assistance of Clarkson.
Attacks on the society.
The question of the admission of deputies from the colonies to the
States-General .
The question of the status of the mulattoes in the colonies.
The decree of March 8, 1790, against the mulattoes, and its
results.
The decree of October 12, 1790, against the mulattoes, and its
results.
The decree of May 15, 1791, in favor of the mulattoes, and its
results.
The decree of September 24, 1791, against the mulattoes, and its
results.
The question reopened in the Legislative Assembly.
The final struggle.
Results of the colonial policy of the Amis des Noirs.
Charges brought agamst the society and against Brissot.
CHAPTER IX
Brissot as a Member of the Legislative Assembly . . 216
Paet I. His Election and his Relation to the War Question.
Brissot's struggle for election; persistent attacks upon him, the
accusations of Theveneau de Morande.
His election; how received.
His general position.
His views on the organization of the Assembly.
His election to the diplomatic committee.
His attitude toward diplomacy.
His attitude toward special questions:
The SmigrSs.
The princes who had protected the SmigrSs.
Cardmal de Rohan.
His position at the Jacobin Club.
His attitude toward the war question.
His relation to Narbonne.
His contest with Robespierre.

xvi CONTENTS
Desmoulins's attack on Brissot.
Division in the diplomatic committee.
Brissot's attack on Delessart.
Appointment of the Girondin ministry.
Attempt to secure an alliance with England and Prussia.
The declaration of war.
Support given by the other Girondins to Brissot's war policy.
Their motives in adopting this policy.

CHAPTER X
Brissot as a Member of the Legislative Assembly . . 258
Part II. His Interests and Influence.
Brissot's policy toward financial problems.
His policy toward non-juring priests.
The Girondin ministry, Brissot's influence on its composition.
His influence over the policy of this ministry.
Change in his attitude; inconsistencies.
Attacks made upon him.
His attack on the "Austrian committee."
His defense of his alleged republicanism.
His attitude toward the King's vetoes and the dismissal of the
Girondin ministry.
His attitude toward the events of the 20th of June.
His vacillating attitude from June 20 to August 10.
His position after August 10, and as a member of the Commit
tee of Twenty-one.
Action toward Lafayette.
Address to foreign powers.
Radical legislation.
Struggles with the Commune.
Accusations against him.
His relation to the massacres of September.
Summary of his policy during the Legislative Assembly.
CHAPTER XI
Brissot and the Convention  ana
Brissot's election.
The abolition of royalty.

CONTENTS xvii
Quarrel with the Mountain.
Question of the ministry.
Question of the departmental guard.
Brissot's expulsion from the Jacobin Club.
His attitude toward the revolutionary propaganda.
His attitude toward the relations of France to Geneva and to the
Swiss cantons.
His attitude toward Genet's expedition to Spanish America.
Question as to his attitude toward foreign war.
His own contention that he was opposed to it.
His attempt at alliance with England.
His alleged motive for appeal to the people at the king's trial.
His speech of January 14 in favor of war.
His speech agamst the execution of the king on the ground that
it would cause war.
His attitude in the king's trial.
Brissot's interest in social equality.
Revival of the quarrel between the Girondins and the Mountam.
Attacks on Brissot.
His withdrawal from active control of the Patriote Francais.
The popular movement of March 9.
Danton's efforts at reconcfliation.
The desertion of Dumouriez and the final struggle.
Desmoulins's attack — Histoire des Brissotins.
Brissot's address to his Commettans.
The expulsion of the Girondins from the Convention.
Brissot and Federalism.
Meaning of the word.
Accusations of federalism and alleged proof.
Accusations against Brissot.
His defense.
The defense of the Girondins as a whole.
Origin of the change.
Estimate of the value of the defense.
CHAPTER Xn
Arrest, Trial, and Death  351
The situation of the Girondins in the crisis of May 31 to June 2,
1793.
Brissot's flight to Versailles.
His efforts in company with Souque to seek refuge at Chartres.

xviii CONTENTS
His wanderings to Moulins.
His arrest at Moulins.
The perplexities of the authorities of Moulins.
His confession of his identity.
The decision to send him to Paris.
Accusations as to his conduct while at Moulins.
His arrival at Paris.
Report of Saint-Just.
Brissot's answer.
The writing of his memoirs.
Appeals to the Convention.
Amar's indictment.
The answer prepared by Brissot.
The preliminary examination.
The trial.
The verdict.
The execution.
CHAPTER XTH
Brissot's Family Life  387
Brissot's first acquaintance with Felicity Dupont.
Their engagement, a period of happy comradeship.
Their marriage.
Their life in London.
Financial troubles.
The birth of their first child.
Madame Brissot's literary productions.
Birth of two other children.
Difficulties of the wife of a revolutionist — poverty and loneliness.
Her character.
Members of the Dupont family and Brissot's connection with
them.
Frangois Dupont.
Madame Brissot's sisters.
Madame Dupont.
Brissot's tardy recognition of his debt to his family.
Madame Brissot's arrest and imprisonment.
Her petitions for indemnification.
Her subsequent life and struggles.
The career of her children.
Her death.

CONTENTS xix
CHAPTER XIV
Brissot's General Policy and Character  412
His policy in regard to democracy, liberty and sovereignty of the
people.
His patriotism, cosmopolitan character.
How far was he a typical Girondin?
How far was he a leader of the Girondins?
What was his character? Diverse opinions.
How far did he possess fitness for leadership?
Why, in spite of conspicuous faults, did he succeed so well?
Appendix  429
A. Letters by and to Brissot.
B. List of members of the Socie'te' des Amis des Noirs.
C. Accusation against Brissot in connection with the colonies.
D. Brissot's election to the Legislative Assembly. '
E. Letter relating to connection of Brissot with war with England.
Bibliography  453
Index  509

BRISSOT de WARVILLE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The life of Brissot has never been written. Considering the
importance of the r61e which he played in the drama of the
Revolution, this absence of a biography seems strange. At
the beginning of the Revolution he already had considerable
reputation as a writer, philanthropist, and traveler; he took a
prominent part in reorganizing the city government of Paris;
as founder of the A mis des Noirs he had a large share in shaping
the colonial policy of the successive assemblies; he established
one of the most influential newspapers of the period, and used
it constantly to hold up American example to France; he, prob
ably more than any one individual, was responsible for bringing
on that foreign war which ended only with the fall of Napoleon;
he was known as the leader of the Girondins, and indeed gave
his name to a whole section of the party ; and, when that party
fell, he was brought to a trial known as that of "Brissot and his
accomplices." A man of such prominence it might be supposed
would be one of the first subjects of biographical study. That
such has not been the case is accounted for by two reasons,
which, while explaining why his life has not been written, at
the same time suggest why it should be.
In the first place, the very diversity of his activities has
made his career appear to lack unity and therefore interest.
But though his activities were diverse, they all centered, to a
degree unusual even among his contemporaries, upon a firm
belief in the principles of liberty, equality, and the sovereignty
of the people. Of these principles Brissot was one of the earliest
and most ardent advocates, and in the external events which

2 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
turned those principles from theory into practice and trans
formed the bourgeois and limited monarchy into the demo
cratic republic, he was one of the most active participants. His
early life was a struggle against despotism; his early writings
are permeated with revolutionary doctrines; his travels in the
United States were dictated by a desire to see such doctrines
in active operation; his part in building up a new city govern
ment for Paris was an effort to apply these doctrines to local
government; his founding of the Amis des Noirs witnessed his
zeal for liberty and equality for one particular class of the un-
free and the inferior; finally, through his paper, the Patriote
Frangais, he constantly protested against the inequality recog
nized by the limited suffrage, and, while grudgingly accepting
the constitutional monarchy, preached republicanism as a
theory and later upheld it in practice. In the legislature under
the monarchy, to which in spite of his republicanism he sought
election, he used all his influence to bring on foreign war, on
the ground that only by war could the counter-revolutionists
at home and abroad be defeated and liberty be preserved. Al
though not a leader in the final establishment of the republic
he joyfully accepted the result, claimed a share in the credit,
and was elected to the Convention, where, by preaching the
extension of the principles of the Revolution beyond the bor
ders of France, he had a considerable share in involving
France in a general European war.
The failure of the armies of France in that war soon led to
the overthrow of the Girondins, and he fell with them in their
defeat in the Convention. That he belonged to the defeated
party is a second reason for the absence of a study of his life.
As the Girondins passed from the scene at the beginning of the
most dramatic phase of the Revolution, — among the first vic
tims of the Terror, — they have been objects of pity, but have
aroused much less interest than their victorious opponents, the
leaders of the party of the Mountain, Danton, Robespierre,
and Marat.
But this conception of the Girondins, as the last representa-

INTRODUCTION 3
tives of a disinterested love of country and of opposition to
bloodshed, has been given up. It has been shown that among
the Girondins, as well as among the members of the Mountain,
there were both idealism and selfish ambition; that the Giron
dins, after the overthrow of the king, sought to seize for them
selves the power that had been wrested from the king by others ;
that they appealed to the provinces not against the principles,
but against the power of the Mountain ¦ — an appeal which
brought against them the accusation of federalism; that they,
as well as the Mountain, forged the instruments of the Terror,
but that they lacked practical ability to suppress internal dis
sension within their group and to control the situation which
they themselves, by their instigation of foreign war, had had a
large share in bringing about. Of this group Brissot is one of
the most important because he is one of the most typical. He
showed both the lofty idealism and the ambition and weak
ness of the Girondins. He was tremendously earnest in work
ing for the principles of the Revolution, and he was also ex
tremely anxious to be one of the agents through which they
were to be put into operation; at one and the same time he
upheld monarchy and made monarchy impossible. But when
the democratic republic, which had long been his ideal, was
finally established, he did not see that the war which he had
furthered in order to maintain democracy and republicanism,
and to extend them to other lands, demanded strong, vigorous
measures. And thus he ultimately encountered defeat because
of that inability to meet changing conditions — that lack of
practical sense which was characteristic of the Girondins in
general. A study of his varied career as humanitarian, journalist, and
political leader ought, therefore, to contribute to a better un
derstanding both of the policy of the Girondins in the Revolu
tion and also of the Revolution as a whole.

CHAPTER II
brissot's early life
Like many of his fellow revolutionists, Brissot was of humble
origin, being the son of a restaurant keeper. He was born at
Chartres, in the parish of Saint-Saturnin, in a house on what
was then the rue de la Boucherie, number 16, 1 January 15,2
1754, and the same day was baptized Jacques Pierre.3 The
story of his childhood and youth is of significance in that it
throws light on his later career, while the personal characteris
tics and external experiences and limitations of his early life
explain Brissot the revolutionist.4
The most striking facts about his childhood, as he himself
tells of it, were his mother's efforts to secure for him a good edu
cation and his almost abnormal love of study. In this effort
to obtain for her sons opportunities for study, Madame Brissot
found herself opposed by her husband, who did not favor any
thing like a liberal education for his children. His attitude was
not to be wondered at, perhaps, in view of the fact that there
were seven of them to be provided for,5 but according to Brissot
1 An article in the IntermSdiaire des chercheurs of July 30, 1898, vol. n, in
which it was asserted that Brissot was born at number 7 rue des Vieux-Capu-
chins, led to an investigation of the subject by the Soctiti arcUologique d'Eure-
et-Loir. It was shown that this statement was a mistake, but that the real
place of his birth was that given above, number lSruede la Boucherie, now rue
du Cygne, number 6.
2 See the record of Brissot's baptism given in Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les
Girondins, n, 242.
3 Not Jean Pierre, as given in the act of accusation before the revolutionary
tribunal. The mistake must have been of earlier date, however, as Camille
Desmoulins' pamphlet published in February, 1792, is entitled "Jean Pierre
Brissot demasque'."
4 Practically the only source of information on Brissot's early life is his own
memoirs. As far as possible his statements have been verified by other author
ity, but much still remains uncorroborated.
6 Brissot {M6moires, ed. par Perroud, I, 25) says that he was the third child

EARLY LIFE 5
it was due to a narrow-minded fear that they might look down
upon him with scorn if they were too well educated. Brissot's
mother, however, was more ambitious. Not satisfied with the
meager opportunities which Brissot had had in the little dame
school to which he had been sent, she besought his father early
and late till she finally obtained a reluctant consent to further
schooling for her sons.1
Brissot was accordingly taken from this dame school and, in
company with an elder brother, entrusted to an uncle, a priest
in a neighboring town, to be prepared for a higher school. On
the death of his uncle, three months later, he went back to
Chartres to finish his preparation. He now began the study of
Latin with the master of a boarding-school, and the following
year, at the age of eight, he entered the college at Chartres,
where he spent the next seven years of his life.2 Here he re
ceived the usual classical training of the time, consisting of
rhetoric, logic, Latin, and Greek.
As a consequence of the personal interest of one of his teach
ers, he devoted especial attention to Latin.3 So eager was he to
excel that he used to beg a candle from his sister when she went
to mass at four in the morning, and with the aid of a dark lan
tern to conceal the light, that his father should not know what
he was up to, he would pore over his Latin, quite as much a
devotee to his books as his sister to her religion. In after life,
when he became imbued with Rousseauism, he was wont to
criticize the rigidity of the system by which he was taught.
Although it did much to train the memory, it was not calcu-
and that there were four younger than he. Perroud (Brissot, Correspondance et
Papiers, Notice, vni-x) says there were sixteen. In any case only seven hved
beyond infancy. For details as to the career of those seven see, in addition to
Perroud, an article by A. H. Gibon in the Journal des Chartres, September 30,
1899, quoted entire in the Procis-verbaux de la SociiU archiologique d'Eure-et-
Loir, x, 121-23.
1 Memoires, i, 28-29.
2 Ibid., i, 32-34. Brissot speaks of this school as a college. But the so-
called colleges of that time do not correspond at all to our colleges. They were
scarcely of as high a grade as the preparatory schools of to-day.
3 Ibid., I, 33.

6 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
lated to inspire originality nor to develop the individuality of
the student. Such evidences of spontaneity as he did show, far
from being encouraged, were, he asserted, actually repressed.
He declares that even as a child he had an uncomfortable sense
of being cramped by a system which did not fit him, and a
vague longing for better opportunities of self-expression.1
But the prevailing system of education at least gave him the
habit of work and a well-trained memory. He showed an un
usual fondness for study and seems to have been successful in
all his classes.2 His imagination, moreover, found satisfaction
and stimulus in the contents of the library which one of his
teachers kindly placed at his disposal. Here was a perfect mine
of delight, and he fell upon it with avidity. " While reading the
history of China," he wrote in his memoirs, "I was a conquer
ing Tartar; when reading Plutarch, I was eager to be like Pho-
cion. The hut of Philocles, pictured with all the charm of
Fenelon, appeared to me more desirable than all the thrones of
the world. . . . The reading of travels changed the course of my
ideas; I became a traveler. I literally devoured the voyages of
Magellan, of Anson, of Drake, and of Kempfer." 3 All in all,
his school days were happy. When he returned home, exulting
in his little triumphs, he was hurt by his father's coldness and
lack of sympathy; but he found compensation for this disap
pointment in his mother's unfailing pride in his achievements
and in her keen appreciation and constant encouragement.
At the age of fifteen he left the college and had to choose a
vocation. After some hesitation he decided on the legal profes
sion, partly because he had some inclination for the law, but
chiefly, it must be confessed, because that career seemed to be
the only one open to him. Having once made up his mind, he
sought the best lawyer of Chartres, M. Horeau, began his
studies under his direction, and threw himself, heart and soul,
1 Mimoires, i, 35.
! PStion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les Girondins n 220.
These notes by Petion are evidently based on information derived from Brissot
personally and therefore have not the value of an independent source
3 Mimoires, i, 42—13.

EARLY LIFE 7
into the work. He was an indefatigable student in all branches
of the subject, ¦ — of canon, as well as of criminal and civil law.
He soon felt sufficiently sure of his knowledge to venture to
write a short treatise on canon law under the title of Rome
demasque, ou Observations sur le droit canonique.1 This he fol
lowed by an essay on theft and property, in which he argued
that in a state of nature there was no such thing as theft, —
a work which subsequently brought upon him much criticism.2
Nor were his interests confined to legal matters. After the
fashion of the time, he took all knowledge for his province.
M. Horeau's son ppssessed a library containing some works on
physics; Brissot immediately began to read on that subject.
Two Englishmen happened to be stopping at Chartres; he
seized the opportunity to take lessons in English.3 A friend ad
vised him to study Italian; he not only followed the advice,
but went on to the study of Spanish and Portuguese. And
finally, what was very unusual for a Frenchman of the eight
eenth century, he even aspired to learn German.4 According to
Petion he was a veritable prodigy in learning foreign languages.5
At all events, he had unusual aptitude for such studies and made
considerable progress in a short time. He even planned a trea
tise on the Theorie des langues de V Europe et surtout de la langue
frangaise, but the appearance of Gebelin's learned work on this
subject prevented, perhaps fortunately, its publication.6
Still he was not a recluse. He enjoyed an occasional game of
billiards, took some part in social life, and made various friends ;
among them, Blot,7 to whom he remained deeply attached to
the day of his death. About this time the idea of marriage be
gan to present itself to him in a form quite in accordance with
1 Memoires, i, 46-48. J See p. 266.
3 Mimoires, i, 48. Petion, in his Notice sur Brissot, implies that Brissot car
ried on his studies without assistance. Vatel, n, 221.
* Memoires, i, 53-54. 6 Notice in Vatel, n, 221. 6 Mimoires, i, 55-57.
7 Blot, Pierre Charles, began his career as an ecclesiastic, gave up the Church,
married, entered the financial administration of the state at Lyons, and
became one of the leading revolutionists of that city. He came to be closely
associated with the Rolands and with Brissot. See p. 121.

8 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
his intellectual tastes. "I wanted a wife," he writes, "who,
with external attractions, would combine good judgment and
a philosophical spirit; who would prefer not the vain pleasures
of the world, but those of solitude; who would be a good mother
and a good wife; but who, at the same time, would be suffi
ciently well educated to be my friend, my second self, the com
panion of my studies." For so rare a partner he searched in
vain, till his friend Blot, who shared his views, came to the res
cue and told him of some one who, he assured Brissot, had all
these qualifications which he had enumerated, and, moreover,
a very strong character besides. But apparently before Brissot
could even make her acquaintance she gave a peculiar evidence
of her strength of character by killing herself.1 Much disheart
ened, and perhaps alarmed by such possibilities, Brissot seems
to have abandoned the search for a wife and flung himself back
into his studies.
If his intellectual achievements and interests were abnormal,
his religious experience was a more common one. Like many
of his contemporaries, he began with extreme devotion to the
Roman Catholic Church, passed through a severe struggle, and
ended in deism. His early training was under the direction of
priests and in an atmosphere of intense religiousness. He at
tended mass every day, piously confessed his faults, and dis
played all the ardor of a zealous neophyte. In the simplicity
of his faith he attributed all his success to his devotion to the
Virgin, and on the eve of the distribution of prizes, his Ave
Marias were very numerous.2
Out of this comfortable belief he was shaken by the sneers
and ridicule of one of his schoolmates, Guillard,3 who, as it hap
pened, was not only exceptionally clever, but had enjoyed
unusual advantages at home. He was accordingly much looked
up to and his opinion had great weight with Brissot. The latter
now began to read for himself Guillard's favorite authors, such
as Rousseau, Voltaire, and Diderot. La profession de foi du
1 Mimoires, i, 43-14, 62-63. s Jbid. i 87
' Afterward a poet of some note. See p. 11.

EARLY LIFE 9
vicaire Savoyard, to quote his own words, first caused the scales
to fall from his eyes ; but it was only after careful study of all
the books within his reach that he definitely abandoned Chris
tianity, and it was many years before he could entirely get rid
of "the prejudices which had driven long, deep roots into his
soul." l
Once during this struggle he was tempted to become a monk,
not at all on account of any spiritual longing for peace, but be
cause he craved the opportunity which the cloister afforded for
a life of study. A mere subsistence and books were all he
needed to be happy. From any such intention he was dissuaded
by a certain Benedictine monk, who with much frankness pic
tured to him the restrictions of the monastic life in anything
but glowing colors. This episode confirmed him in his opposi
tion to Christianity. He even wrote a savage attack on the
Christian religion, entitled Lettres philosophiqu.es sur la vie et
les ecrits de Saint Paul.2 The result of this experience was that
he became a believer in deism and continued in that faith to the
end of his days.
His struggle was all the harder because he had to fortify him
self against the inevitable opposition of his family. He could
not bear the thought of the strife that was sure to come, and for
a long time concealed his changed views. For the sake of his
sister he even continued to partake of the eucharist after he
had lost all faith in its efficacy. It was the spiritual separation
from his mother, however, which was hardest to endure. She
had made possible his education, sympathized with him in his
struggles, and stood between him and his unsympathetic father.
But the break could not be avoided and was a tragedy for both
sides — for Brissot because he was torn between sorrow for hav
ing wounded his family and irritation at what seemed to him
the most narrow-minded dogmatism; and for his family because
1 Mimoires, I, 38.
2 Of the trenchant and dogmatic tone of this work he was afterward much
ashamed. At the time it seems to have given him a reputation for cutting sar
casm which, to his regret, made the young women of his acquaintance rather
afraid of him. (Mimoires, i, 61-62.)

10 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
they believed him lost to all eternity. As he himself well ex
pressed it, he and his family had ceased to speak a common
language.1 This religious difficulty made his home life unhappy and in
consequence hastened his departure from Chartres. He suf
fered, too, from want of intellectual companionship. In the
words of a modern writer, he felt himself cut off equally from
the blessings of society and of solitude, and longed for life either
in the country or in a large city. The chief reason, however, for
his leaving Chartres was the consuming ambition which was
one of his most marked characteristics. While still in school his
plans for himself had gone beyond anything his native town had
to offer; and when a kindly neighbor, thinking to flatter the
boy, suggested that some day he would be like M. Janvier, one
of the best lawyers of the place, he was actually displeased at
the comparison,2 and the more he studied the more Chartres
seemed to him insupportable. His aspiration was all for a ca
reer in Paris, but it was only after four years of the study of law
in Chartres that an opening presented itself. The opportunity
came through a Paris lawyer, a M. Nolleau, who happened to
be stopping at Chartres. On hearing of his arrival, Brissot
seized the chance, wrote to him at once asking for a position,
and accompanied the application with a copy of one of his legal
essays. This production, according to Brissot's own account,
happened to strike the fancy of M. Nolleau, who offered him
the place of first clerk.3
While still living at Chartres he had added to his name "de
Warville," the anglicized form of Ouarville, a little village
where his father owned some property.4 For this addition to his
name he was afterwards much criticized, on the ground that it
1 Mimoires, i, 28-39. " Ibid., i, 42. 3 Ibid., i, 63, 65.
4 Brissot, Riponse b, tous les libellistes, 5. The account which he there gives
is incorporated by Montrol in his edition of Brissot's memoirs, a fact to which
M. Perroud, in his edition, calls attention, (i, 53.) A writer in the Intermidi-
airedes chereheurs et curieux for January 25, 1876, says: Warville n'est en efet
que la corruption euphonique du mot Warvick [sic] laissi en France par Richard
Nevil, comte de Warvick.

EARLY LIFE 11
betokened an unseemly hankering after aristocratic distinc
tions. Whether this criticism was justified or not, he continued
to sign himself "Brissot de Warville," and by that name has
long been known.1
It was in 1774 that he left Chartres.2 The rest of his life, with
brief intermissions, was to be spent in Paris. The occupations
in which he engaged, and the connections which he made, both
worked toward the development of the future revolutionist.
He was now twenty years of age, abounding in hope and enthu
siasm, and any regret which he might have felt at leaving Char
tres was quite overbalanced by his delight at the prospect of life
in the city which, with a not too modest opinion of his own
ability, he regarded "as the center of science and a stage worthy
of his efforts." 3
Full of confidence in himself, he ventured, on the basis of a
short acquaintance with the theater, to prepare a plan for a
theater which should make a special business of presenting
plays in English, Italian, Spanish, and German; and what was
more, he had the temerity to seek out Linguet, the distin
guished publicist, and present to him his plan.4 Although
warned by Linguet against a literary career, Brissot refused to
be dissuaded, and influenced by the glowing pictures painted by
his young friend, the poet Guillard,5 of the delights of the life of
a man of letters, he soon threw in his fortunes with the latter,
and with a light heart started in pursuit of fame and fortune
as a writer.6 In order to prepare himself for his profession he
devoted his entire time to study. Even on Sundays and holi
days he would not leave his Locke, his Montesquieu, and his
Montaigne,7 and when Guillard would come in from his mid-
1 See pp. 220-21.
2 Brissot does not give the date of his arrival, but says he found the city in
mourning for Louis XV. (Mimoires, i, 67.) As Louis died on the 10th of May,
1774, and the period of mourning for the king was three months, this would fix
the date of Brissot's arrival some time between May 10 and August 10, 1774.
(Franklin, La Vie privie d'autrefois, les magasins des nouveautis, in, 131-32.)
3 Mimoires, i, 66. 4 Ibid., I, 82. 6 See p. 8.
6 Mimoires, i, 102-03. ' Petion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, n, 222.

12 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
night suppers he would find Brissot still poring over his Greek
dictionary. Meanwhile he had to live, and he was not long in
discovering that the path of a young man dependent on his pen
for support was no easy one. He was obliged to ask his mother
for money, but the amount which she could send him was not
sufficient for his needs; the little pamphlets on matters of the
day, from which he expected to make some money, were indeed
accepted by a publisher, but the publisher failed to pay him
anything for them; a spiteful satire, Le Pot pourri, which, in his
disgust with the chicanery of the law, he wrote in collaboration
with Guillard, brought on him the threat of a lettre de cachet,
on account of some aspersions which it contained on the wife of
a certam lawyer.1 And to crown his misfortunes, just as he was
threatened with the lettre de cachet, he was taken ill with fever,
aggravated, if not brought on, by a combination of overwork,
the excessive use of punch, and insufficient nourishment. Ill as
he was, he was obliged to flee at once; and it was only after an
illness of several months that he was sufficiently restored in
health to return to Paris, weak in body and chastened in spirit.
As nothing better offered, he went back to Guillard. It was
the same struggle to make both ends meet, and they were often
in distress. But it was harder for Brissot than for Guillard, for
the latter was a favorite in literary circles and was frequently
relieved of the necessity of paying for his meals by an invita
tion to dinner, while Brissot, neither so popular nor so well
known, had to provide his own dinner and find consolation by
flattering himself, as he ate his bread and cheese alone, that he
was above being a parasite.2
Meanwhile he was becoming more and more absorbed in
plans for the reform of existing institutions. In the enormous
scale of the works he undertook to write and in the audacious
enterprise with which he brought them to the attention of dis
tinguished men, he showed the same undaunted courage and
large ambition which he had already displayed in his work on
canon law 3 and in his plans for a theater,4 and which he after-
1 Mimoires, i, 104. 2 Ibid., I, 120. 3 See p. 7. * See p. 11.

EARLY LIFE 13
ward showed throughout the Revolution. In addition to a
satirical attack on the English cabinet, entitled Testament poli
tique de I'Angleterre, he planned a Theorie des lois criminelles,1
and sketched the outline of a work to be called Pyrrhonisme
universelle. The last he ventured to send to D 'Alembert and
was much hurt that D 'Alembert gave him only compliments
when he wanted advice and encouragement. Wishing to print
the letter which D'Alembert had written him, and having lost
the original, he had the audacity to submit a copy to him and
to ask for corrections.2
Voltaire seemed to be the one man who inspired him with
awe. He yearned to present the introduction to his work on
the ThSorie des lois criminelles to Voltaire, but after having
been actually admitted to the house where Voltaire was a
guest, his courage suddenly failed him and he quietly stole
out. Ashamed of this performance, he tried again, this time
armed with a letter to present, but again he turned and rushed
down the steps. But as it happened, he ran against Madame
Du Barry, who was just coming away from her one famous in
terview with Voltaire, and Brissot summoned up courage to
address himself to her. She good-naturedly took pity on his
timidity, and called the master of the house. Thus Brissot was
able to give his letter directly into the hands of Voltaire's host.
He was still more delighted to receive from Voltaire a flatter
ing reply, a part of which he inserted in the preface of his
work.3 The plan for the Testament politique de I'Angleterre did not
promise so well at first, though in the end it brought him good
fortune. Vergennes, to whom he sent the manuscript, was so
afraid of irritating the English that he forbade its publication,
but Brissot managed to get it printed surreptitiously, outside
of France. A copy happened to fall into the hands of Swinton,
the publisher, who, in his Courrier de I'Europe, was making a
specialty of English affairs. Being struck with Brissot's knowl-
1 See p. 45. 2 Mimoires, I, 121-23.
3 Ibid., I, 145-47; also Correspondance, 3.

14" BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
edge of the subject, he offered him a place on the French edi
tion of the paper, published at Boulogne.1 This was a godsend
to Brissot personally. Moreover, he looked upon it as an oppor
tunity to better the character of the paper, — which, according
to his own account, was sadly in need of improvement, — and
thus to render a service to men of letters and to the cause of
political liberty.2 Incidentally it would enable him to continue
his scientific and political studies. But most of all it was his
chance to break away from a kind of life for which his con
science had begun to trouble him. Having paid his debts with
money which Swinton advanced, he settled up his affairs and
set out in a state of blissful content for the scene of his new
labors, as delighted to leave Paris as he had been four years
before to arrive there.3
Brissot was forever an optimist. Each new enterprise, each
fresh start, was sure to be a success. The life at Boulogne, he
was confident, was to give him the opportunities he had hitherto
sought in vain. At first everything answered to his expecta
tions. He was pleased with the English household of Swinton, in
which he was received on familiar terms, enjoyed the society of
various families to whom he was introduced, and was charmed
with the country walks in the beautiful surroundings of Bou
logne and along the seashore. Besides all this, he was able to
complete his work on the Theorie des lois criminelles, a part of
which he presented in competition for a prize offered by the
Economic Society of Berne.4 His main attention, of course,
was given to the Courrier, and into his new work he threw him
self with enthusiasm, delighted to have a vehicle for the expres
sion of his ideas. But his good fortune suddenly changed. Ac
cording to his own account he expressed his ideas with too
much freedom, and in consequence brought down upon the
Courrier an order from the censor to confine itself to English
1 Mimoires, i, 137-40. 2 R&ponse d tous les libellistes, 7.
3 Mimoires, i, 139-40. See also Petion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, n, 226.
Petion evidently confuses Brissot's subsequent connection with the Courrier
at London with his work at Boulogne.
4 Mimoires, i, 154-64.

EARLY LIFE 15
news and to let French politics alone. His work being thus re
duced to mere mechanical tasks, he began to lose interest in it.
At the same time Swinton, Brissot asserts, had become ab
sorbed in some new scheme for the development of which he
needed to exercise greater economy. He accordingly sent word
to Brissot from London, where he was staying for the moment,
that he no longer needed his services, but he concealed the real
motive and tried to soften the abrupt dismissal by inviting
Brissot to visit him in his London home. In spite of his dis
charge, Brissot still had confidence in Swinton and accepted
the invitation, thus closing this chapter of his career with a
visit to England, — his first journey out of France.1 This con
fidence, however, seems to have been misplaced, for, with
unpardonable simplicity, having left the settlement of their
financial arrangements to Swinton, he found that Swinton had
made the settlement very much to his own advantage.2 This
account, of course, rests on Brissot's own statement. It is
quite possible there may have been another side to the story.
However that may be, from a busmess and professional point
of view his Boulogne experience had not been the success he had
anticipated.3 It had, however, a lasting importance for him,
aside from the experience with newspaper work, as it was at
Boulogne that he made the acquaintance of the young woman
who was afterwards to become his wife — Felicite Dupont.
After a brief sojourn in London Brissot returned to Paris.
"Thrown back into the whirlpool," to quote his own language,
from which he had been so glad to escape, he had to find a way
to make his living.4 While still at Boulogne he had appealed to
1 Mimoires, I, 169-73. 2 Ibid., I, 173.
3 How long he stayed at Boulogne, Brissot does not say. He apparently went
there in the spring of 1778 (see letter addressed to him at the time he left Paris,
by Voltaire, Mimoires, i, 147, and Correspondance, 3). According to Perroud
[La Revolution Frangaise, xlvii, 127), he returned to Paris in the autumn of
1780, but as he seems to have been in Paris when he was summoned by his
father's last illness (Mimoires, i, 180), and his father died December 24, 1779
(Notice by Perroud in his Correspondance), his stay at Boulogne could have
lasted not more than a year and a half.
4 Mimoires, i, 166-73.

16 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
his father, but received only a chilling response, written, Brissot
was confident, under priestly influence, in which he spoke with
pride of the first mass of another son, and made it uncomfort
ably plain to Brissot that he would give him help only on con
dition of his returning to the true fold.1 Brissot evidently had
nothing to hope from that source. He then applied to Linguet.
But Linguet had been obliged to leave France on account of his
quarrels with the encyclopedists, and was not in prosperous
circumstances. The only work which Linguet would give him
was the making of an index for three or four volumes of his
Annales.2 He also secured some hack work on a Dictionnaire
ecclesiastique de toute la France, but he seems never to have
received a sou for it.
In his discouragement and loneliness he began to think that
it would be a comfortable consolation to have a wife to share his
troubles. He had been greatly taken with Mademoiselle Du
pont, whose family he had come to know at Boulogne, but the
knowledge that she was already engaged had been an effectual
check to his ardor. His thoughts now turned to a daughter of
Swinton, but Swinton, who had higher ambitions for his chil
dren, would have none of Brissot.3
The one offset to these failures and disappointments was the
kindness of Mentelle, the geographer. This Brissot owed di
rectly to Madame Dupont, the mother of Felicite. She had
spoken to Brissot of Mentelle as an old friend of the family,
and when Brissot returned to Paris she recommended him to
Mentelle. The latter responded most cordially, invited Brissot
to his house, and introduced him to his friends.4
Just at this juncture he was called home by the last illness of
1 Mimoires, i, 173-74.
2 Ibid., i, 93. Brissot eventually lost faith in Linguet, partly because he mis
trusted that Linguet's kindness was not altogether disinterested and partly
because of Linguet's quarrels with the encyclopedists. (Ibid., i, 96-98.)
3 Ibid., i, 177-78.
4 Ibid., i, 178. See also p. 888. The one thing which Brissot did not enjoy
at Mentelle's house was the concerts which Mentelle occasionally provided
for his guests. Brissot admits that he not only had no taste for music, but that
it was actually disagreeable to him.

EARLY LIFE 17
his father. He was much touched, after their long estrange
ment, to receive his father's benediction,1 but the softening in
fluence of the occasion was marred for Brissot by the presence
at the deathbed of the priests to whom Brissot felt that the
estrangement was due. He felt, too, that he had further cause
for indignation. His mother had become subject to violent
attacks of insanity during which she imagined herself sur
rounded by horrible demons. This condition Brissot attributed,
in part, to the influence of the priests, who had wrought upon
her imagination with their pictures of the terrors of the next
world, and this conviction only increased his cordial hatred of
the Church.2
He now returned to Paris. Though he occasionally got into
difficulties due, if his own account is to be believed, to a too
great confidence in his fellow men, he was able to continue
extensive studies and to work out schemes for reform, this time
under pleasanter conditions and with happier results. The
legacy of four thousand francs which he received from his
father, small though it was, was of great help. The study of
chemistry, anatomy, and physics, which he now took up for
the first time, afforded him a fascinating field of investigation.3
Through Mentelle he secured the entree to the best literary and
scientific circles; and his own scientific studies brought him
into connection with men of note, among them Chambon 4 and
Marat. The investigations of the latter in physics had attracted
his attention; and when Marat announced himself an apostle of
liberty, Brissot was ready to become his friend. With the im
petuous zeal with which he always flung himself into any plan
for the extension of knowledge, Brissot set to work to extend
the reputation of Marat, both as a physicist and a physician,
only to be met, according to Brissot's account, by ingratitude
1 His father died December 24, 1779. See article by M. A. H. Gibon, ancien
greffier de Chartres, in the Journal de Chartres, September 30, 1799, quoted en
tire in Prods verbaux de la Soctiti archiologique d' Eure-et-Loir, x, 121-23.
1901. 2 Mimoires, i, 181-82. 3 Ibid., I, 181-88.
4 Chambon, afterward Mayor of Paris.

18 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and by demands for introductions which he felt he could not
give.1 Brissot's interests were not confined, however, to matters
scientific. Through Mentelle he was able to renew his acquaint
ance with Felicite Dupont. As her engagement was broken
and there was now no obstacle to his suit, he lost no time in
profiting by the circumstance, and they soon became engaged.
Felicite was also interested in science, and they enjoyed a
charming courtship while carrying on their studies together.2
He was most anxious to hasten his marriage, and as the small
inheritance which he had received from his father would hardly
enable him to support a family, he determined as a means of
increasing his income to seek admission to the bar. He accord
ingly took up the study of law again. It was necessary to get
certain degrees in the law school, but as that was a mere for
mality, he took the usual and shorter method of buying them,
but he soon found insupportable the long novitiate through
which he must pass before being admitted to full standing.
Another cause was his lack of harmony with the lawyers of the
Parlement of Paris, due, according to his own account, to the
radical opinions he had expressed in his recent writings. He
was disgusted, too, he declared, with the pedantry and formal
ism of the system. It is not unlikely, however, that indifferent
success may have had something to do with his disgust. At all
events, he threw up the whole business and went back to his
scientific and philosophical studies. His practical experience
only accentuated his interest in the theoretical side of the law
and strengthened his conviction of the need of reform. During
the three years of his second residence in Paris, he wrote much
on this subject. He had already published, at the time of his
admission to the bar, his ThSorie des lois criminelles, and it was
in part because of the ideas advanced therein that he did not
receive a cordial welcome.3 The work, however, was warmly
1 Mimoires, I, 196-213; also Correspondance, 85-38.
2 Mimoires, i, 185. For the details of this charming companionship, see
chap. xiii. 3 75^ Xj 194_95

EARLY LIFE 19
praised by various writers and brought him into pleasant,
friendly relations with several prominent men. He also wrote
two essays on the same general theme in competition for prizes
offered by the Academy of Chalons-sur-Marne on the specific
questions: S'il etait du des indemnites par la societe a un accuse
dont I' innocence avail ete reconnue; and Quelles pourraient etre en
France les lois pinoles les moins sever es et cependant les plus efficaces
pour contenir et reprimer le crime par des chdtiments prompts
et exemplaires en menageant Vhonneur et la liberie des citoyens.1
His arguments against capital punishment and in favor of a
more humane penal code, which were successful in winning the
prizes, occasioned a furious assault from the Mercure. Brissot
thought that he perceived in the assault the hand of Lacretelle,2
but the satire proved to be the work of Garat.3 Although he
was much hurt at the time, the affair resulted in a pleasant per
sonal acquaintance with both these writers. Another prize
offered by the same academy for an essay on better education,
for which Brissot likewise competed, led to his election to
membership in the academy.4 During this time he also wrote
Un Independant a Vordre des avocats, sur la decadence du barreau
en France? a direct attack on the French bar, and the out
growth of his own experience. And influenced by his disgust at
the quarrels and jealousy among men of letters, of which he
had been a witness, he composed a treatise called De la Verite,
1 Mimoires, i, 228. He had already submitted an essay to the Academy of
Besancon on Des funestes effets de Vigoisme, but received only honorable men
tion. His indignant protests suggest that he himself was not altogether free
from the malady of which he wrote. See his correspondence on the subject.
Correspondance, 7-8.
2 Brissot does not say which Lacretelle, probably Pierre Louis, who was born
in 1751 and died in 1824, a prominent lawyer, writer, and politician, and friend
of Garat, D 'Alembert, and Condorcet. He was especially known for his Dis
cours sur le prijuge des peines infamantes.
3 Garat, Dominique Joseph, born 1749, died 1833. A writer and politician,
was connected with the Mercure, and became a member of the Constituent As
sembly. He was made Minister of Justice after the 10th of August, 1792, but
his moderation in regard to the massacres of September led to a break with
his old friends, the Girondins.
4 Mimoires, i, 230-34. 6 Brissot, Bibliothique philosophique, vi, 344.

20 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
ou meditation sur les moyens de parvenir a la vkiU dans toutes
les connoissances humaines.1 These essays he meant to serve,
however, merely as prefaces to larger works; the treatise on
criminal law was to be followed by a Histoire universelle de la
Ugislation criminelle, and the essay on La Verite by a search for
what was certain in all human knowledge. In the mean time,
while waiting for an opportunity to carry out these ambitious
plans, he began a compilation of material on criminal legisla
tion, which ultimately reached ten volumes, and which he
called a Bibliotheque philosophique des lois criminelles.2 Not
content with merely writing against abuses, he began to cogi
tate on methods of furthering the attack by organized effort.
His idea, which he seems to have borrowed directly from La
Blancherie,3 was to assail despotism and to spread abroad ideas
of political, as well as of legal reform, by means of an organiza
tion of the savants and reformers of all Europe.4 This organi
zation was to be called a LycSe, and was to consist of three
parts, a correspondence between members, a special publica
tion on the arts and sciences in England, and meetings which
were to be held at the local office in London. From that center
of freedom the members of the society were to "inundate
Europe" with their writings against despotism.
But in order to "inundate Europe" Brissot needed coopera
tion and financial support. After some more or less cautious
sounding of various persons on the subject, he found in a certain
Villar 5 apparently just the man he wanted. Villar, although
1 Mimoires, I, 189.
2 Ibid., i, 220, 226. See his correspondence with Droz, the secretary of the
Academy of Besancon, on the subject. Correspondance, 11-19.
3 La Blancherie was born in 1752 and died in 1811. He was known especially
as the founder of the Nouvelles de la ripublique des lettres et des arts. "C'Uait
Vorgane d'une sorte de cercle artistique et scientifique destini afournir aux savants
et aux artistes un centre de ralliement."
4 Mimoires, I, 191.
6 Ibid., i, 239-42. Villar, Noel Gabriel Luce de, was born in Toulouse in
1748 and died in Paris in 1826. In 1791 he was made constitutional bishop of
Mayenne and later was a deputy from that department to the Convention.
His chief work during the Convention was as a member of the Committee of
Public Instruction.

EARLY LIFE 21
not a writer himself, had a wide acquaintance with men of let
ters and professed himself eager to use all his interest in Bris
sot's behalf. He had relations with all kinds of people and in
many countries. He was most optimistic. Russian counts,
Polish princesses, academicians and ambassadors alike, he was
sure, would hasten to support the project. D'Alembert had
written to Berlin, D'Argental to Tuscany; 1 some one else had
written to La Harpe,2 and had recommended him to Russian
friends; Madame de Genlis3 had spoken in his behalf to the
Duke of Chartres, who was just about to start for Italy and who
would further his plans there. Villar had audiences every day
with the ministers, and if need be he would speak directly to the
king. Finally, he introduced Brissot to Elie de Beaumont,4 who
declared that he was enchanted with Brissot's plan, and that he
too was only waiting for the right opportunity to use his pen
and his fortune to overthrow despotism. They would found a
society, they would restore liberty to France, they would bind
each other by the strongest oaths, they would seal the project
with their blood.
Full of confidence in these promises Brissot immediately be
gan to put his plans into operation. The first step was to pro
vide for cooperation in Switzerland, and he accordingly set out
1 D'Argental, Charles Augustus de Ferrol, comte, was born in 1700 and died
in 1788. He was a diplomat and man of letters and was chiefly known as a life
long friend of Voltaire.
2 La Harpe, Jean Frangois de, was born in 1739 and died in 1803. He was
celebrated for his dramatic and literary criticism in the Mercure and for his lec
tures on literature.
3 Genlis, Stephanie Felicity du Crest de Saint-Aubin, comtesse de, born in
1746, died in 1830. At an extremely early age she showed great versatility. At
the age of sixteen she married De Genlis, who afterward became the Marquis
de Sillery, and, through her husband's connection with the house of Orleans,
she came to be charged with the education of the children of the Duke of
Chartres. With all her other natural endowments Madame de Genlis had the
gift of being a successful teacher, and carried on her work with originality
and great success. Having accompanied Madame Adelaide to England, she
was proscribed as an imigrie, but subsequently was allowed to return to
France. 4 Mimoires, I, 240-41 . filie de Beaumont was a lawyer of some reputation,
chiefly known for his memoir on the Calas case.

22 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
for Neuchatel.1 But while on the way he received news from
Geneva which changed his plans. A civil war had broken out
in that city between the aristocratic and democratic factions, —
a war complicated by the interference of the French on the side
of the aristocratic party. It was now reported that the com
bined enemies of France— Berne and Savoy — were about
to besiege the city, whereupon Brissot, getting excited by the
chance of actually seeing a people in active revolt, set off post
haste for Geneva, only fearing that he might not get there be
fore the siege should begin. He had been urged to come by
D'lvernais, the Swiss politician and economist,2 who gave him
a warm welcome and introduced him to the leaders of the pop
ular party, among whom were Duroveray 3 and Claviere.4 He
was deeply impressed by the bravery of the people, and their
efforts to gain their political sovereignty, and before he had
been in the city forty-eight hours he had prepared an address
to "its intrepid inhabitants to encourage them to a vigorous
defense." 5 The lasting results of this experience upon Brissot
were an account which he wrote shortly afterward, under the
title of Le Philadelphien a, Geneve,6 a lifelong enmity with
Mallet du Pan,7 and a lifelong friendship with Claviere.8
On his return to Paris he was quietly married, on the 17th of
1 Mimoires, I, 244.
2 Ibid., I, 269. D'lvernais, Sir Francis de, a Genevese politician and econo
mist, born in 1757, died in 1842. He was exiled from Geneva in 1782 and went
to England. At the time of the fall of Napoleon he returned and represented
Geneva at the Congress of Vienna.
3 Duroveray took a prominent part in the affairs of Geneva and drew up a
code of laws for the city. He was afterward a friend and collaborator of Mira
beau. 4 Claviere, Etienne, financier and politician, born in 1755, died in 1793. He
wrote in collaboration with Mirabeau on financial subjects and became a life
long friend of Brissot. He was made Minister of Finance under the first Giron
din Ministry, and, after August 10, 1792, was one of the provisional executive
council and from that time shared the fortunes of the Girondin party.
6 Mimoires, I, 275. 6 Ibid., I, 271. Also see p. 25.
7 See Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution, by Mallet, 50. Mallet du Pan,
Jacques, born 1749, died 1800, was a Swiss publicist. He was connected with
the Mercure, and in the Revolution espoused the royalist cause.
8 Mimoires, I, 274.

EARLY LIFE 23
September, 1782, to Felicite Dupont.1 Felicite at this time was
employed under Madame de Genlis in the family of the Duke
of Orleans in the capacity of under-governess.2 Until his es
tablishment at London was well started, it did not seem best
for Felicite to accompany her husband, and partially with a
view to retaining her position in the mean time, the marriage
was kept a secret. Although Felicite had little influence on his
political life, in domestic life she never failed to be the good
comrade and helpful wife which her devotion in the days of her
engagement had promised. Moreover, in her family he found
the comradeship which he had missed in his own family circle,
and in her mother a real friend.3
The first proof of her friendship was to furnish him with
money for his new enterprise. For, although Villar and Beau
mont were as voluble as ever in their promises of support, they
did not produce any ready money, and such funds as he had to
meet his immediate expenses were furnished by Madame Du
pont.4 The question of money aside, his undertaking was a de
cidedly presumptuous one for a young man, not yet thirty, who
was but little known in any part of the world, and particularly
in England. But with his usual sublime confidence in success
he set forth.
Aside from the outcome of the Lycee, his residence in Eng
land had two important results: it brought him into relations
with several discredited fellow countrymen which later turned
out to be most unfortunate, and, on the other hand, it gave
him the opportunity of meeting various Englishmen of note,
and of acquiring a knowledge of English political institutions.
Among these fellow countrymen of more or less unsavory repu
tation, Brissot made the acquaintance of an individual named
Pelleport, which was to cost him an accusation for writing a
1 See record of the marriage in archives of the Department of the Seine.
2 This connection was afterward made much of by Brissot's enemies, who
wanted to prove that he was devoted to the house of Orleans. See Mimoires,
n, 15.
3 Ibid., i, 300-01. For the character of Felicite and the details of their life,
see chap. xm. 4 Ibid., i, 300.

24 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
libel; of a certain Receveur, a spy in the employment of the
French police, who, according to Brissot's account, was in part
at least responsible for his imprisonment in the Bastille; and of
the well-known libelist, Theveneau de Morande, to whom Bris
sot took a strong dislike and who afterwards became his bitter
and persistent enemy.1 His dislike for Morande was so in
tense that when the publicist, Swinton, his former employer,2
offered him the position of manager of the Courrier on condition
that Morande be his colleague, he refused the offer and broke
with Swinton. According to the account which Brissot gives
in his memoirs, his feeling was due to the extremely bad reputa
tion of the latter as a libel writer,3 but this explanation seems
hardly adequate. A further and more satisfactory explana
tion is given by Petion, who evidently obtained his information
directly from Brissot, to the effect that certain articles had been
inserted in the Courrier without his knowledge, articles which
directly contradicted his principles, and for which he was made
to appear responsible. The discovery that Morande was the
author aroused his lasting hatred, and led to his refusal to have
anything more to do with him. Whether or not this is the en
tire explanation, Morande in his wrath swore mortal hatred
against Brissot, the result of which Brissot was later to know to
his lasting sorrow.4
Meanwhile, through his journalistic work and his personal
efforts he was making a number of more creditable acquaint
ances among people of note, among whom were Kirwan the
chemist; Maty the scientist; Fanny Burney the novelist, whom
he greatly admired; and Mrs. Macaulay the political pamphlet
eer and historian, with whose radical views he was already in
sympathy.5 He also met Priestly, Price, Mansfield, Gibbon,
1 Mimoires, i, 318. 2 See p. 14. 3 Mimoires, I, 314, 317.
" Petion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les Girondins, n,
227. 6 Mimoires, i, 349-59. Perroud suggests that these references to his acquaint
ances in London may have been drawn from the periodicals which Brissot pub
lished at this time, and that they did not form part of his actual memoirs.
Ibid., i, 354, note.

EARLY LIFE 25
John Adams, David Williams, and Jeremy Bentham. The last
two he especially admired. "Williams," he declared, "of all
the Enghshmen of letters seems to me the one who has the
most universal philosophy, who is the most free from all na
tional prejudices." With Bentham he was on terms of some
intimacy, corresponded with him, and went frequently to see
him.1 With such acquaintances he had unusual opportunities
for studying at first hand English political conditions.
In the midst of these manifold interests Brissot also found
time to publish a criticism of St. Paul, called Lettres philoso-
phiques sur Saint Paul, and to complete Le Philadelphien a,
Geneve, the work inspired by his sojourn at Geneva during the
revolution.2 Meantime he began to find the separation from
his wife insupportable, and in the summer of 1783 he sent for
her to join him in London.3
All this time he was struggling to put the Lycee on a firm
footing. The original promoters having left him in the lurch,4
money for the enterprise was finally furnished by a man named
Desforges, whom he had first met at Mentelle's.5 According to
Brissot's own account, — with which, however, Desforges does
not agree, — it was Desforges who took the initiative and
eagerly pressed funds upon him, while Brissot himself, doubting
whether Desforges was capable of appreciating the noble mo
tives which actuated him in the enterprise, hesitated. Brissot
further declares that from the first moment of his acquaint
ance with Desforges he was suspicious of him, though this may
be a case of being a "prophet after the fact." At all events,
they came to an understanding. It was agreed that Desforges
was to furnish fifteen thousand francs, of which, however, he
paid down only ten or twelve thousand, and a contract was
1 Mimoires, I, 364-66. See also letters of Brissot to Bentham. Correspond
ance, 58, 59, 64. Later during the course of the Revolution Brissot was instru
mental in getting the Legislative Assembly to declare both Williams and Ben
tham French citizens (Moniteur, August 28, 1792), and in having Williams
invited to come over to France to aid the committee of the Convention which
was engaged in drawing up a constitution. See also Correspondance, 305-06.
2 See p. 22. 3 See p. 390. 4 See p. 391. 6 Memoires, i, 235-36.

26 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
drawn up, in which it was stipulated that the Lyce"e was to be
continued for at least seven years, and was to consist of three
branches, an assembly, a correspondence, and a journal of the
arts and sciences in England.1 But this "universal confedera
tion " of the friends of liberty and of truth, as Brissot called it,
was a complete failure. He had already printed a couple of
volumes of the Correspondance, but the publisher absorbed all
the profits of the edition printed in Germany, and not a single
copy was allowed to enter France.2
He now announced the journal or magazine which was to be
entitled Tableau exact des sciences et des arts en Angleterre, but
unfortunately he scorned all the ordinary means of making a
journal attractive, and too frankly announced that its one
object was to be useful.3 The newspapers did not mention the
prospectus, and very few persons paid any attention to it. He
was still hopeful, however, and in a vain attempt to attract sub
scribers he prepared a Tableau des Indes, which he distributed
gratis to the few who did support the establishment. It re
mained to provide a place for the meetings of the society. The
house where he was living contained no room sufficiently large
for the purpose, but his friend David Williams offered to share
with him the hall where he himself was then giving lectures.
Unfortunately, however, Brissot had no money left with which
to pay his share of the expense — nearly eight thousand livres.
He accordingly applied to Desforges for the remainder of the
fifteen thousand francs, which he had not yet paid, but to his
consternation found him unwilling to pay.
Troubles now began to come thick and fast. He had no ade
quate means of providing for his family, recently increased by
the birth of a son.4 Desforges, who had arrived from France,
proved at this juncture a most unwelcome guest. Moreover,
Desforges was discontented with the lack of returns, and not
only refused to furnish the remainder of the money promised,
but requested a dissolution of the society, and loudly demanded
the return of the money he had already invested; and to crown
1 Mimoires, i, 339-42. 2 Ibid., I, 329. 3 Ibid., i, 339. 4 Ibid., I, 389-92.

EARLY LIFE 27
Brissot's misfortunes, within a few days after the birth of his
child, while his wife was still very ill, he was arrested at the in
stigation of his printer, and thrown into prison for debt. After
a brief imprisonment, during which he suffered torturing anx
iety lest his wife or child might die in his absence, he managed,
through the help of friends and of Madame Dupont, to satisfy
his creditors, and was released. But he was at the end of his
resources in London, and, much as he hated to leave his wife, he
had to set out for France at once, in order to try to raise funds.1
As the climax to his misfortunes, shortly after his arrival in
Paris, on July 12, 1784, he was arrested and thrown into the
Bastille, charged with being implicated in the production of
certain libels.2 His first thought was for his wife, who, he
feared, might not be able to survive the shock at hearing what
had befallen him. In his distress he appealed to his mother-
in-law. Madame Dupont was equal to the occasion. In order to
forestall any possible reports which might reach her daughter,
she refused to wait for the ordinary boat and risked crossing
the Channel in a small launch. Though somewhat consoled
by the presence of his mother-in-law with Felicite, he still
feared the machinations of his enemies. His imprisonment he
was sure was due to them — to the denunciations of Swinton,
who had held Brissot's estabhshment responsible for loss of
subscriptions to the Courrier; to Morande and Pelleport, who
were in turn incited by Desforges, whose motive was to profit
by Brissot's detention to settle to his own taste the affairs of
the Lycee?
Desforges had aheady accused Brissot of having swindled
him, and had threatened, if he did not pay the sum demanded,
to denounce him as a disseminator of libels. Meanwhile Brissot
had accused Desforges of libel and of having insisted, in spite of
strenuous objections, on taking up his abode in Brissot's house.4
Desforges now carried out his threat and the result was two
1 Mimoires, I, 391-95.
2 Ibid., n, 5-7. See also Funck-Brentano, Les Lettres de cachet d. Paris, 413.
3 Mimoires, ii, 6-8. * Riplique de Thiveneau de Morande, 100-04.

28 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
suits; one in the civil, the other in the criminal courts. These
suits were brought in 1784; and in 1791, when Brissot was a
candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly, they were
still pending.1
The whole affair was then raked up afresh by Theveneau de
Morande.2 He revived the charge made by Desforges and de
clared that it was true that Brissot had swindled Desforges out
of fifteen thousand livres. Desforges was the dupe and the vic
tim, he asserted. In the first place, Brissot had inveigled Des
forges into investing his funds, and in order to do this he had
deceived him as to the state of his own finances. In proof of
this assertion Desforges adduced a letter of Brissot's, in which
he declared that his father was worth two hundred thousand
livres and that on his father's death he was sure to receive
thirty thousand livres. Morande then put this letter in con
trast with another letter of Brissot's, in which he admitted that
he had nothing, and that he could count on nothing from his
parents. Morande further declared that the Lycee never ex
isted at all, that Brissot rented a house too small for the assem
bly which was to form so important a part of the LycSe,3 and
that he and his family lived at the expense of the society.4 In
substantiation of the last charge, Morande cited a statement
from Brissot's accounts, in which the expenses of the society
were set down in lump sums. As for the charge that Desforges
had thrown himself upon Brissot's household, he had remained
there only to prevent the sale of the furniture.5
In reply to these allegations Brissot declared that the anxiety
to embark in the enterprise was all on the side of Desforges;
that at first Desforges was ready to lend forty thousand livres,
when he was asked for only ten thousand. The discrepancy in
the two accounts of his prospects he explained by showing that
one was written before, the other after, the death of his father.6
1 Petion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, n, 230-31, note.
2 See p. 219. 3 Riplique de Thiveneau de Morande.
4 Ibid., 68; Lettre aux ilecteurs, 15. B Riplique, 77, 94.
6 Although in his memoirs the account of Brissot's connection with Des-

EARLY LIFE 29
The charge that the Lycee never existed he met by declaring
that it was agreed upon that the Lycee was to consist of three
parts, and as two of the three — the Correspondance, and the
Journal of arts and sciences — were established, the absence of
the third — the assembly — did not prove that the Lycee did
not exist. As for his expenses, after having charged Desforges
with juggling with the figures so as to convey a false impression,
he produced an itemized account which very nearly covered
the sum in question, and offered to show his receipts. That his
family had lived at the expense of the society he absolutely
denied.1 He then accused Desforges of having libeled him, of
having persisted in staying in his house during his imprison
ment in the Bastille, and of having insulted his wife, mother-
in-law, and sister-in-law.
The question is: In view of the evidence submitted on both
sides, was or was not Brissot guilty of fraud? Of the charges
there are two points on which he does not clear himself. The
letter which he wrote to Desforges, setting forth his prospects,
could hardly be justified, even on the plea of extreme opti
mism, since he was on bad terms with his father, and in any
case was but one of a number of heirs. Again, his defense that
the Lycie existed because the Correspondance and the Journal
had been established, was in the nature of quibbling, since
Morande had used the term Lycee to mean the assembly,
which clearly did not exist. Moreover, there are two charges
which he admits — that he did rent a house too small for the
meetings of the assembly, though it served as an office; and
that he furnished the house at the expense of the society.2
On the other hand, Brissot did succeed in showing that Des
forges alone was to be responsible for the funds, and that, as he
himself had contributed out of his own pocket, he was the cred
itor, not the debtor; that Desforges had refused arbitration
and had approved his accounts.3 It is also to be taken into
forges follows the account of the death of his father, there is nothing to show
that he had not made his acquaintance before that time.
1 Riplique de Brissot. 2 Ibid., 4-19. 3 Ibid., 4-8.

30 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
consideration that Desforges's side of the matter is presented
by Theveneau de Morande, a professional libel writer.1 Indeed,
according to Vatel, Desforges tried to restrain Morande, and
even disavowed some of his utterances.2 And finally, if the ar
rangement was not a loan, but a partnership, as it had every
appearance of being, and as it was evidently regarded, Des
forges would have but doubtful claim to the money he had in
vested. That Brissot misused the money is probable, but that
he deliberately planned to defraud Desforges is hardly credible.
That Desforges was directly responsible for Brissot's impris
onment in the Bastille is also a matter of doubt. The formal
charge brought against him was that he had written libelous
pamphlets agamst Marie Antoinette, and especially that he
had had part in the production and circulation of a pamphlet
entitled ie Diable dans un benitier.3 The latter did not concern
1 In his early youth Morande was involved in various scandals and in
trigues, which led to his imprisonment by lettres de cachet. On his release he fled
to England; there he devoted himself to writing violent libels on various per
sons of prominence in France. His unexpected success suggested to him a new
means of hvelihood and he proceeded to engage in a system of blackmail. His
most successful effort in this line was an infamous attack on Madame Du Barry,
for the suppression of which he demanded a large sum from the French Court.
He managed to foil the attempts of the police sent to arrest him, and as a last
resource Louis XV entrusted the affair to Beaumarchais, who was obliged to
pay Morande twenty thousand livres and a pension of four thousand hvres for
the suppression of the libel. Not long after this episode he was hired by Louis
XVI as a pohce agent in England to suppress libels, evidently on the principle
of " set a thief to catch a thief." During the Revolution he returned to France,
where in 1791 he founded the Argus patriote, devoted to the interests of royalty,
thus becoming the ally of the monarchy which, earlier in his career, he had
insulted. See Thiveneau de Morande, by Robiquet.
2 Vatel, n, 231, note.
3 Brissot, Riponse d tous les libellistes, 40. See also Mimoires, i, 813-17; and
Funck-Brentano, Les Lettres de cachet a Paris, 413. "Brissot de Warville
(Jacques Pierre) avocat au Parlement. Entri le 12 juillet, 1784, sur ordre contre-
signi Breteuil. Pour UbeUes. Sorti le 10 septembre, 1784, sur ordre contresigni
Breteuil." Also see Petion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les
Girondins, ii, 228. "Cette Mention avait pour pritexte de pritendues liaisons
avec un nommi belleport [sic], ce belleport avait publii d Londre un libelle infame
contre la Reine def ranee et on voulut bien supposer que Brissot avait travailli A ce
libelle." Petion evidently confuses here Le Diable dans un binitier with the
libels against the queen.

EARLY LIFE 31
the queen, but was an arraignment of Receveur and Theveneau
de Morande as spies of the French police and was afterward
made much of by Morande in his attack on Brissot. The
explanation given by Brissot was that Pelleport, in exaspera
tion because Receveur had refused to pay the price demanded
for a libel on Marie Antoinette which he (Pelleport) claimed to
have in his possession, had published this satire, Le Diable dans
un benitier, against Receveur and Receveur's protege Mo
rande. But that he himself had any part, either in the libel on
the queen or in the satire, Brissot indignantly denied. He as
serted that, on the contrary, he had done his best to induce
Pelleport to give up his traffic in libels and to suppress the
satire.1 This explanation is in large part corroborated by certain re
ports at the Minister e des affaires etr anger es at Paris. It seems
that the affair of the libels against Marie Antoinette dated
from the year before, and for some time Brissot's name figured
in the reports of the police spies on the matter.2 He was sus
pected of being the joint author,3 and further was represented
by Receveur in a report to Lenoir as the possible author also
of some of the letters written by Pelleport in the course of his
attempts to traffic with the Government.4 Lenoir, however,
was not inclined to put much faith in Receveur's suspicions.
1 Mimoires, i, 321; also Riplique, 26. According to Robiquet (Thiveneau de
Morande, 64) the authorship of Le Diable dans un binitier has never been defi
nitely fixed and has even been attributed to Morande himself. At all events,
the whole matter is of interest as throwing light on the police spy system of
the Old Regime. Receveur and Morande, both men of more than doubtful
reputation, and the latter himself a libelist, were hired by the French Govern
ment to find the sources of certain libels against the queen and to pay for their
suppression. Brissot's statement that Receveur refused to pay Pelleport five
hundred louis, seems probable in view of Robiquet's statement that Receveur
had only two hundred guineas with which to make the purchase. See Rece
veur's own statement in his report to the French Ambassador, of May 22, 1783.
(Af. itrangeres, Angleterre, 542, f . 278.) In the same report Receveur speaks of
Pelleport having showed to Brissot this libel against the queen.
2 See Aff. itrangeres, Angleterre, 542, f. 278.
3 See Notefaite d la hate, April 21, 1783. Aff. itrangires, Angleterre, 542, f . 79.
4 Lenoir au Comte de Vergennes, May 4, 1783. Aff. itrangeres, Angleterre,
542, f. 183. Also Compte rendu par Receveur, May 22, 1783, 542, f. 278.

32 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Because Brissot was acquainted with various refugees, Lenoir
declared, Receveur had jumped to the conclusion that Brissot
was also a refugee. Receveur's suspicions, moreover, were per
haps quickened by the personal grudge which he bore against
him. At all events, the affair blew over so far as Brissot was
concerned till it was again brought up against him as a reason
for his imprisonment in the Bastille.
As for Le Diable dans un benitier, the whole evidence against
Brissot consisted, first, in a certificate by a printer's assistant
to the effect that Brissot had corrected the proofs of Le Diable,
and second, in a letter written by a man named Vingtain, in
which arrangements were referred to for the distribution of the
pamphlet.1 In answer, Brissot adduced a report of the matter
made by the Minister Breteuil in which the certificate that
Brissot had corrected the proofs was stated to be of doubtful
value.2 The other piece of evidence Brissot apparently did not
try to disprove. Moreover, it is to be remembered that he cor
dially disliked both Morande and Receveur. It seems not im
probable, therefore, that he was guilty of having assisted in the
circulation of the pamphlet. Nor is it to be wondered at con
sidering that they in turn cordially disliked him, that they may
have had something to do with instigating his arrest.
But whether guilty or not, two months, which seemed to him
two centuries, passed before he could obtain his release. All
this time his family and friends — the number of whom was a
tribute to the interest he had inspired — were exerting their ut
most efforts in his behalf. Loyseau, the distinguished jurist,
wrote to an influential woman of his acquaintance, asking her
in turn to get the Prince de Conti 3 to write to the commandant,
Delaunay; Mentelle urged Madame Genlis-Sillery to work
through the Duke of Chartres, while various literary men, both
in England and France, including Condorcet, Bernardin de
1 Riplique de Thiveneau de Morande, 58, 106.
2 Riponse de Brissot, 19-20.
3 Prince de Conti, Louis Frangois Joseph, a member of the famous house
of Conti, was born in 1734 and died in 1814, an ardent royalist and supporter
of monarchy.

EARLY LIFE 33
Saint-Pierre, Kirwan, Priestly, and Lord Mansfield, took up his
cause and proclaimed their belief in his innocence.1 Most of all
his release was due, so he felt, to the efforts of his wife, who
moved heaven and earth to secure it. The authorities, how
ever, made what seemed to Brissot a hard condition, — he had
to promise to give up his Lycee.2 It is a significant fact that in
enumerating those who aided him, Brissot omits altogether to
mention the help received from the Duke of Chartres, after
ward the Duke of Orleans,3 and that he minimizes the help of
Madame Genlis-Sillery,4 and denies that he ever had any sub
sequent relations with her.5 This is not to be wondered at,
considering that one of the charges for which, at the time he
wrote his memoirs, he was in prison and under sentence of
death, was of adherence to the house of Orleans.
On his release from the Bastille, September 10, 1784,6 Brissot
found his finances in desperate condition, and was only saved
from complete bankruptcy by the generosity of Claviere and
of his mother-in-law.7 For a time, at least, there were to be no
more schemes for Lycees nor "universal confederations." He
had all that he could do and more to provide for his family,
soon to be increased by the birth of a second child.8 He and
1 Mimoires, n, 10.
2 Ibid., n, 24. See also Biographical Dictionary, n, 9. Why this should
be a hard condition, when the Lycie had already failed, is not clear. See fur
ther Brissot's account in his Riponse d tous les libellistes, 20.
4 Charpentier, La BastiUe devoitee, I, troisieme livraison, 78 .
3 See the account of the matter given by Madame Genlis-Sillery herself.
6 According to her story she did help him subsequently to get employment
in the household of the Duke of Orleans, but says that before his incarceration
in the Bastille she had never even heard of him. In other particulars, too, her
account contradicts Brissot's memoirs; for instance, she makes his imprison
ment antedate his marriage. Her story is evidently not to be relied upon.
6 Funck-Brentano, Les Lettres de cachet, 413. 7 Mimoires, n, 24.
8 See Archives nationales, F la 1570,9 florial, an IV. Among the Roland pa
pers at the Bibliotheque Nationale (n. ac. fr. mss. 9534, fol. 328) is a rough draft
of a letter written three weeks after the birth of his child, asking for some sort
of an appointment which would enable him to go to America. M. Perroud, in
his Notice sur la Vie de Brissot (p. xl), in the Correspondance calls attention to
the revelation contained in the letter of " une vraie ditresse morale et mime ma-
tirielle, car, dans un coin du papier on trouve un compte de 'dipense pour la
couche ' s'ilevant d la somme de six livres, six sols [sic]."

34 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Felicite lived with the greatest frugality, but in spite of rigid
economy and unremitting industry, he had frequently to
borrow from his friends.1 His best friend seems to have been
Claviere, who lent him money, took him into his house, and
helped him out in difficulties.
While struggling with his own personal finances he began to
write on financial subjects for Mirabeau. He had already had
some correspondence with Mirabeau on behalf of the English
Ambassador at Copenhagen,2 and he was now brought into
closer relations with him through Claviere. The latter was one
of the men whose pen Mirabeau knew so well how to use for his
own advantage, and Brissot was soon induced to lend his assist
ance. He and Claviere worked together on the Caisse d'es-
compte, which was published under Mirabeau's name.3 They
also wrote the Banque de Saint Charles, which they intended to
publish themselves, and which was in fact out of the press
when they were prevailed upon by Mirabeau to turn it over to
him. Mirabeau had been asked to furnish such a work by
Calonne, and promptly availed himself of this opportunity.
According to Brissot,4 Claviere paid the expenses and Mira
beau pocketed the profits. Brissot was probably mistaken in
this, however.5
1 " II itoii impossible d'Stre plus simple dans sa parure d'avoir des appartemens
moins recherchis d'avoir une table plus frugal et de faire enfin moins de dipenses ;
sa femme itoit igalement la simplicity mime une excellente mire defamille unique
ment occupie de ses enfans. Souvent brissot [sic] n' avail pas six francs dans sa
poche, il itoit obligi de faire d chaque instant de petits emprunts a ses amis et cet
Hat de midiocriti a toujours existi pour lui cependant il ne dSpensoit jamais un sou
a ses plaisirs cependant personne ne travailloit plus que lui." Potion, Notice sur
Brissot, in Vatel, n, 231-32.
2 Memoires, n, 28-32.
3 Ibid., ii, 31. This statement throws light on Mirabeau's assertion that
the work was written within four days after it was promised to Calonne, and
published eight days after. Lomenie, Les Mirabeau, m, 630.
4 Mimoires, n, 31. Mirabeau, however, declared that he did not receive any
money from Calonne. Lomenie, m, 633.
6 The following letter tends to strengthen Mirabeau's assertion that Brissot
was paid . The original is in the collection of the late M . Paul Arbaud, of Aix, in
Provence, and for a copy of it the writer is indebted to Professor Fred Morrow
Fling, of the University of Nebraska: "Lettre de M. le Comte de Mirabeau a M.

EARLY LIFE 35
With the free-and-easy fashion with which Mirabeau took
the credit of the work of other people, Brissot professed to be
much shocked. Nevertheless, he himself did not seem to have
very rigid ideas of the rights of authors, for, apparently without
any thought of impropriety, he proceeded to have printed a
manuscript bearing the name of Turgot, which had fallen into
his hands, and which bore the title of Plan des administrations
provinciales, whereupon Mirabeau, for some reason, which was
not clear at the time, became very angry and threatened Bris
sot with a lettre de cachet. Later the reason became apparent.
It seems that Mirabeau, who had previously had possession of
the manuscript, had already sold it to Calonne as his own
work.1 Although Brissot had given the supposed author full
credit and so had not been guilty of Mirabeau's sin of plagia
rism, his action offered Mirabeau a point of attack. It was
most unbecoming, he declared, for a man of his lofty princi
ples not to recognize the sacred rights of property.2 This
accusation Brissot denied. He reminded Mirabeau that the
author had been dead several years and that he himself had
published the manuscript in the full persuasion that there was
no one who had a right to claim it.3
le Confl* G1^. Paris, SO Mai, 1785. Monsieur: J'aitens vos ordres; la premiere
ibauche de mon travail estfaite et n'exige meme plus que quelques notes, les der-
nieres touches de Vicrivain et votre approbation. J'ai cru qu'il ne fallait pas un
panflet qu'on ne lit point, mais un ouvrage (ex professo) ; et quoique fait trop vile,
pour etre bien ridigi, celui-ci contiendra au moins des principes sains et les f aits '
principaux avec leurs consiquences naturelles. J'ai I'honneur de vous addresser
la note des diboursis de V edition que vous m'avez charge de faire arreter, tel que M.
Brissot de Warville me la fait remettre et voila pourquoi le costume de cette note est
si peu decent ; c'est d lui ou a M. Claviere que vous voulez bien en faire remettre le
montant, ce ditail m'etant absolument itranger. Je crois V ouvrage St. Charles tres
presse; ainsi j'ose solliciter lafaveur d'une prompte audience."
1 The plan, although bearing the name of Turgot, was written, in part at
least, by Dupont de Nemours-Lomenie, Les Mirabeau, iv, 87. Brissot dis
covered the fact later. Calonne, it seems, showed the manuscript to Dupont,
who "lui apprit que ce manuscrit sur les Administrations provinciales n'appar-
tenait meme pas en entier a Turgot, et que c'etait lui qui en avait compost autrefois
le plan pour le ministre." Brissot, Mimoires, n, 37.
2 See the Correspondance, 94-95.
3 As a governmental decree of August 30, 1778, gave the control of a man's
manuscript after his death to his heirs, Brissot was legally in the wrong.

36 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
In spite of this quarrel, Brissot seems to have fallen again
under the spell of Mirabeau's charms. At all events, he ad
mired "his hatred of despotism and the courage with which he
attacked it when he found it." At this time Mirabeau was
planning to publish a paper with the innocuous title of Analyse
des papiers anglais, in which he proposed to set before the
French people certain truths which would not be welcome to
the French Government, but unfortunately he was not any too
familiar with the English language or with the state of Eng
land. Brissot could not resist this temptation and of his own
accord offered his services to Mirabeau. But the views which
Brissot expressed in his articles on the trial of Warren Hastings,
and the situation of the English in the East Indies, led to dis
putes between Mirabeau and Mallet du Pan. In these disputes
Brissot, who had aheady come into collision with Mallet on
account of their opposing views on the Genevan revolution,
took a not unwilling part — in some cases writing letters to
Mallet which were published under Mirabeau's name.1
Meanwhile Brissot continued writing on his own account,
and in the course of the four years from his release from the
Bastille to his departure for America, pubhshed a considerable
number of works. His three aims were to popularize knowledge,
to attack abuses, and to further reform. To this end he con
tinued the publication of the Bibliotheque philosophique,2 and
brought out his attack on canon law, L'Autorite legislative de
Rome aneantie, written some years before;3 translated Mackin
tosh's Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa; 4 and published, be
sides, two letters to the Emperor Joseph II, on emigration and
punishment for crime,5 a criticism of the travels in America by
the Marquis de Chastellux,6 an attack on a new plan for an in-
1 Mimoires, n, 38. 2 See p. 20. 3 See p. 41.
4 Voyage en Europe, en Asie, et en Afrique. 2 vols., London, 1786.
6 Un Difenseur du peuple d I'Empereur Joseph II, sur son riglement concern-
ant V emigration, ses diverses riformes, etc. Dublin, 1785. And Lettre a I'em-
pereur sur Vatrociti des supplices qu'il a substituis comme adoudssement d la
peine de mort. Bruxelles, adut, 1787.
6 Examen critique des voyages dans VAmirique septentrionale de M. le Mar
quis de Chastellux. London, 1786.

EARLY LIFE 37
surance company,1 and a denunciation of a threatened proposal
of bankruptcy.2 He also, with the assistance of his wife, trans
lated a History of England in a series of letters from a nobleman
to his son; 3 and in collaboration with Claviere, wrote what was
up to this time his most important production, De la France et
des fitats Unis.* The ostensible object of this work was solely
to promote commercial and political relations between France
and the United States; its real purpose was, further, to present
so attractive a picture of the future prosperity of the Americans
that his fellow countrymen would be tempted to imitate their
conduct and to recover their own liberty.5 But Brissot was
never content with merely writing in the interests of reform;
he must also be organizing. With the two objects in view just
stated he now projected an organization to be called the Societe
Gallo-Americaine, but it seems never to have been carried out.6
In the midst of all this literary work Brissot somehow found
time to take an interest in the discoveries which were being
made in so-called animal magnetism. Learning that Bergasse
was the chief exponent of these studies, he hastened to make
his acquaintance and even wrote a pamphlet on the subject
himself, Un mot aux academiciens, in which he told them in no
flattering terms what he thought of them for their scorn of
Bergasse's discoveries.7
1 Dinonciation au public d'un nouveau projet a" agiotage, London, 1786, and
Seconde Lettre contre la compagnie d 'assurance, London, 1786.
2 Point de banqueroute ou Lettres a un criancier de Vital, sur I'impossibiliti de
la banqueroute nationale et sur les moyens de ramener la credit et la paix. Londres,
1787. See p. 39. The pubhcation of this work brought upon Brissot a lettre de
cachet, to escape the consequences of which he was obliged to flee to England.
He soon returned to France. Mimoires, ii, 69.
3 Pubhshed under the title of Lettres philosophiques et politiques, sur Vhis-
toire de I'Angleterre dipuis son origine jusqu'd nos jours. Traduis de I 'anglais.
2 vols. London, 1786.
4 See p. 48. 6 Mimoires, ii, 52. ' 6 See p. 61.
1 Mimoires, n, 53. Bergasse, Nicholas, lawyer and politician, was born in
1750. He became known for his researches in animal magnetism, and later for
his connection with the celebrated suit of Korman. In pleading the case of Kor-
man against his wife, he attacked ministerial despotism and came into conflict
with Beaumarchais who defended Korman's wife. Elected to the States-
General he presented a draft of a constitution, but on its rejection retired in

38 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
He was delighted to find that Bergasse too was interested
in political reform, and like himself was secretly working for it.
"The time has arrived," Brissot quoted Bergasse as saying to
him, "when France has need of a revolution. But to work
openly for it is to fail; to succeed some mystery is necessary;
men must be brought together under pretext of physical ex
periments, but in reality for the purpose of overthrowing des
potism." 1 Brissot was also delighted to take part in these
gatherings. They were held at the house of Korman,2 which
appears to have been a regular foyer of revolution.3 According
to Brissot's own account in his memoirs, he was the only one
who preached there an out-and-out republicanism.4 It is to be
remembered, however, that at the time he wrote the memoirs
it was to his advantage to appear to have been a republican
at as early a date as possible.
Just at this juncture an unexpected chance was offered to
Brissot to engage in practical work in philanthropy and reform.
The Duke of Orleans, who had recently succeeded to the head
of the house, determined for his own ends to encourage a spirit
of political agitation and criticism. As a man known to repre
sent this spirit Brissot was invited by the Marquis Du Crest,
whom the Duke of Orleans had put in charge of the undertak
ing, to enter his service. That the opportunity came through
his own reputation, and not as a result of Madame Brissot's
early connection with the house of Orleans, Brissot was careful
to emphasize.5 He hesitated for a moment about accepting the
offer, fearing that it might involve some loss of independence,
but at the same time he felt that here under the guise of philan
thropic effort was a glorious opportunity to make the palace of
Orleans a center of revolutionary ideas, and to share in helping
disgust. His name was associated with Brissot's in the prospectus of the Sociiti
Gallo-Amiricaine. See p. 61.
1 Mimoires, n, 54.
2 Korman, known for his suit against his wife, which became celebrated
through the connection with it of Bergasse on one side and Beaumarchais on
the other.
3 Mimoires, n, 56. « Ibid., n, 54.
6 Ibid., u, 14; also Biographical anecdotes, ii, 9.

EARLY LIFE 39
to restore liberty to France. He accordingly accepted the offer,
at a salary which was uncomfortably small, though he refused
to add to it by any underhand means or even by ways usually
considered legitimate.
To this enterprise Brissot not only devoted himself with ar
dor but enlisted the help of his friends. The Rolands assisted
to found a Maison philanthropique at Villefranche. L Brissot's
friend, Blot, became secretary of a similar institution at Lyons,
and Petion worked to found a third at Chartres. Meanwhile,
he seems to have been laying plans for reform of a large and
constructive order. Du Crest, it appears, was ready to de
nounce the existing ministry to the king, but Brissot assured
him he must do more; that if he wanted both reform and glory,
he must identify his cause and that of the house of Orleans with
that of the people. He then proceeded to sketch a bold and
comprehensive plan of procedure. They must form a party
which should demand radical reform, and this party must find
its support in the Parlement, which, in turn, must make every
effort to gain popular support.2
These plans, however, were not carried out, and Brissot soon
severed his connection with the house of Orleans. The immedi
ate occasion of his withdrawal seems to have been a lettre de
cachet with which he was threatened on account of his pam
phlets on bankruptcy.3 About this time, and perhaps because
of the desirability of absence from France, he made a brief visit
to England. Before leaving the service of the Duke of Orleans
he had visited Holland also, just at the height of the republican
rising against the stadtholder. Thus for a second time Brissot
had the opportunity of seeing a people actually in revolt.4
1 Lettres de Madame Roland, ed. by Perroud, n, 730-31.
2 Correspondance, 139, 160.
3 The lettre de cachet was doubtless occasioned in part by the suspicion with
which he was regarded as being connected with the schemes of the house of
Orleans. See Notice sur la vie de Brissot by Perroud in the Correspondance,
p. xiv. Petion does not connect the severing of his connection with the house
of Orleans with this lettre de cachet, but says it was due to his independence
of spirit. Notice in Vatel, n, 232.
4 See Perroud, Notice in the Correspondance, p. xliv; also Brissot, Mimoires,

40 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
He now threw himself into another kind of reform. He had be
come deeply interested in the agitation, especially in England,
against the slave trade, and, unmindful of his former failures
in philanthropic schemes, proceeded to establish a society
called the Amis des Noirs, whose object, as the name implies,
was to work in behalf of the negro. The importance of this so
ciety, and of Brissot's influence in connection with it, demands
treatment at some length, but the story can best be told in con
nection with Brissot's career during the Revolution, when the
society was most prominently before the public.1
Meanwhile he had become so discouraged by the slowness of
reform in France, that he began to think of the possibility of
emigrating to America. The desire to obtain information on the
state of the negro in America, and also to investigate that coun
try as a possible place of residence for himself and his family,
made him eager to undertake a journey to the new world. An
opportunity soon presented itself. Some one was needed to
carry on certain financial negotiations with the United States.
Brissot was chosen, and in the spring of 1788 he set out.2 He
was still in the United States, at the close of 1788, when the
news from France suddenly brought him to the realization
that a revolution might be really at hand. A man who all his
life had been working to bring about a revolution, was not go
ing to miss the chance of being an active participant in it, and
with all possible haste he hurried back to France.
ii, 67. In his Riponse Brissot says that he fled to Holland on account of the
threatened lettre de cachet and thence to England, but from his Mimoires it
would appear that his trip to England antedated the lettre de cachet.
1 See chap. vm.
2 For the story of these travels and of their subsequent influence on Brissot's
career, see chap. iv.

CHAPTER III
BRISSOT AS AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION
The external facts of Brissot's early life have been presented.
They show in some measure his ideals and aims and interests,
but the picture needs to be completed by a portrait of the man
as seen in his writings. During the fifteen years from 1774 to
1789, which were devoted in large part to hterary work, he pro
duced an enormous amount and on a great variety of subjects
from the customs of ancient India to the "search for truth."
All this work in its anti-Christian tendency, its emphasis on
natural rights, its gospel of humanitarianism and political re
form, was typical of eighteenth-century thought. Moreover,
it throws light on Brissot's personal characteristics, plainly
revealing in the youth the father of the maturer man, and
forecasts the part which he was to play in the Revolution.
Brissot was at the same time the disciple of Voltaire, of
Rousseau, and of Montesquieu. The influence of Voltaire was
perhaps the least, but it is unmistakable in the general atti
tude and trenchant tone of his earlier works L'Autorite legis
lative de Rome aneantie l and Lettres philosophiques sur Saint
Paul. The former was an attack on canon law. The whole sys
tem, Brissot declared, rested on an extremely shaky foundation.
The Holy Scriptures contained but little material on dogma or
discipline, the decisions of the councils were not infallible, the
decrees of the Popes had, in many cases, proved to be only a
tissue of falsehood, and the authority of the writings of the
church fathers was more than doubtful. And then, coming
nearer home, French canon law was drawn from sources which
were either uncertain or corrupt. In his Lettres philosophiques
sur Saint Paul he attacked the teachings even of Scripture.
1 See p. 36.

42 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The authority of his epistles was doubtful in the first place,
and St. Paul himself was a dangerous fanatic, who deliberately
invented stories of visions and miracles in order to gain power.
His preaching, moreover, consisted of intolerant and harmful
doctrines injurious both to the individual and to society. The
doctrine of predestination Brissot held in special abhorrence.
"The system of predestination," he declared, "destroys all
noble ideas of courage and of patriotism; the soul plunged into
a state of flabby inertia, expects everything from the hand of
its God, favors on earth and salvation in heaven. This doc
trine is therefore pernicious and enervating to society, in that
it destroys all its energy; cruel to man, in that it makes him a
mere slave; outrageous to the Supreme Being in that it makes
him a capricious tyrant. St. Paul is, then, a dangerous dreamer,
whose opinions ought to be proscribed." x Not only was St.
Paul entirely wrong, but Christianity itself had done much
harm. It was inevitable that it should work mischief, he as
serted, because it was "contrary to the passions which nature
has graven on the soul of man." Nature speaks with impera
tive command and legislators should take warning and deal
much more leniently with those alleged crimes or vices, such as
prostitution, adultery, and bigamy, which have their root in
natural instincts.
Here Brissot was moved not so much by the rationalism of
Voltaire as by the sentimentalism of Rousseau. He further held
Rousseau's belief in man's natural goodness, or at least in his
capacity for goodness, and in this belief he saw a further objec
tion to predestination with its assumption of man's natural
depravity. In language which was the very echo of Rousseau,
he declared: "Man is naturally good, or at least he is born in
different alike to vice and to virtue. Guide his steps in child
hood by good example, by habits of justice, of social respon
sibility, of equality, and he will become just and upright." 2
1 Lettres philosophiques sur Saint Paul, 105-06. Had Brissot forgotten the
Puritans? 2 Lettre d Barnave, 61.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 43
In his love of physical, as well as of human nature Brissot
was also influenced by Rousseau. He was an indefatigable
reader of Rousseau, especially of his Confessions, which he had
read at least six times, and he was always quoting from his
writings. Like Rousseau, he discoursed at length on the joys
of solitude, and like him too, he was moved almost to tears by
the beauty of a rustic life. But Brissot's assertion that they
were much alike, not only in tastes but also in character, is
amusing, considering that they represented the most divergent
possible types, and proves either that Brissot did not under
stand Rousseau or that he did not understand himself.1 But
influenced he certainly was by Rousseau, and that influence is
perhaps chiefly seen in his constant reference to a state of na
ture. In his work Recherches philosophiques sur la propriete et le
vol, he undertook to show that in a state of nature there was no
such thing as theft.2 His argument was as follows: Everything
is in movement; there can be no improvement without action;
all action presupposes the application of one body upon an
other, and all such application means friction and hence de
struction. Destruction, then, is the necessary consequence of
movement; all things, therefore, are bound to destroy each
other; and property is the right which one body has of destroy
ing another body in order to preserve itself. But to preserve
itself the body must satisfy its needs. The satisfaction of needs,
then, is the end and cause of property. The right of property
may be exercised upon animals as well as upon vegetables, and
even upon man. There are no classes in nature. Each may live
on his own species, if necessary. But as the cause of property
is need, so the limit of property is the extinction of need. Hence
there can be no exclusive property in a state of nature, neither
can there be theft. The word "property" is erased from her
code. She no more authorizes man to the exclusive enjoyment
of the land than of air, or fire, or water.3
1 Mimoires, I, 18-24, 249.
2 See Goupil, La PropriMi selon Brissot de Warville.
' Recherches philosophiques, in Bib. phil., vi, 323.

44 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
After having stated these somewhat radical views, Brissot
goes on to consider property in society. This kind of property,
he declares, "has borrowed the features of property in a state
of nature, and under this imposing mask has known how to
secure for itself a veneration which it does not deserve, and
defenders blinded by the desire for exclusive possession. It is
this alleged property which is claimed by the rich financier who
has constructed superb palaces at the expense of the public
funds ; by the greedy prelate who swims in opulence ; by the lazy
man of the middle class, who takes his ease while the day laborer
is suffering. It is this alleged property which is claimed by that
seigneur who, jealous of his rights, shuts his gates and closes his
park and his gardens. ... It is this property which has created
locks and bolts and a thousand other inventions which sepa
rate man from his fellows and isolate him, and which protect
the alleged right of exclusive possession, the curse of natural
rights. The characteristic of property in a state of nature is
that it is universal, while property in society is individual,
special. People ascribe to these two things — property in
nature and property in society — the same origin and the same
attributes, but they are absolutely different." 1
The doctrines and the conclusions to which these views
inevitably pointed were sufficiently startling to evoke bitter
criticism, of which Brissot apparently never heard the end. It
certainly was not difficult to find in them a defense of canni
balism and a direct attack on property. When, therefore, early
in 1792, the question of property rights was under discussion,2
his enemies made haste to confront him with these early utter
ances. In defense he declared that he had not meant his state
ments to apply to organized society, and cited various passages
from this and other early works in substantiation of this con
tention. It was indeed true that Brissot, like Rousseau, was
frequently inconsistent; and like Rousseau too, frankly ad
mitted the impossibility of the logical carrying out of his ideas.
1 Recherches philosophiques, in Bib. phil., vi, 323-24.
2 The question of rights of property in negroes was involved. See p. 266.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 45
For instance, in this very essay on property and theft in which
he had savagely attacked property, Brissot says almost in the
same breath that property must be protected; in the essay on
the Moyens d'adoucir en France la rigueur des lois pinales he
speaks with a sigh of regret of a proposition to distribute riches
in a just proportion among all the citizens as a dream of the
golden age, and in Le Sang innocent venge he declares that the
triple basis of the social contract is formed by liberty, security,
and property.
But it was rather with the practical betterment of existing
society than with theories concerning the state of nature that
Brissot was chiefly concerned. He was imbued, not merely
with the sentimentalism but with the humanitarian spirit of
the age. Voltaire and Beccaria, Montesquieu and Filangieri,
were pleading for a wider toleration, a milder penal system,
and a more reasonable legal code. To this company Brissot
joined his voice: "To better the penal legislation of all the
peoples of Europe" was his somewhat comprehensive aim,1
and it was to this end that he wrote treatises, compiled dic
tionaries, and founded societies. His fundamental premise,
which, however, far from being original with him, was com
mon to most of the humanitarians of the time, was that crime
was in large measure a disease, the result of ignorance, oppres
sion, and poverty. To imagine, therefore, that it could be
lessened by severe and cruel punishments was sheer folly.2
The only effective way was to get at the root of the diffi
culty and to remove the causes of crime — in other words,
make people happy and crime would almost disappear of it
self. The particular means by which people were to be made
happy, Brissot continued, — and here he showed the evident
influence of Montesquieu, — depended in some measure on
climate,3 but in general he advocated lowering the taxes, rais
ing the moral standard, which in turn would be furthered by a
1 Bib. phil.. Preface, I, iv.
2 Moyens de privenir des crimes en France, in Bib. phil., vi, 3.
3 Theorie des lois criminelles, I, 113.

46 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
reform of national education, the encouragement of arts and
letters, the extirpation of begging, and the establishment of
better police protection, — in short, more liberty and equality.1
But the process of education was slow and existing crime
must be dealt with. Here Brissot pleaded for greater modera
tion. The motives of the criminal should be taken into account,
and a crime committed through fear of death or because of
hunger or distress should be treated with more leniency than
crimes committed tlirough other motives. Theft, for example,
so often occasioned by want and even by actual starvation, was
punished far too severely. " It is not the poor starving wretch,"
he declared, "who deserves to be punished; it is the rich man
who is so barbarous as to refuse to help his fellow man in dis
tress who is worthy of condemnation." 2 Moreover, the end of
punishment must be borne in mind, to make reparation to
society or to the individual wronged, to warn by example and
to prevent the guilty from doing further injury.3 Any punish
ment which fails to fulfill these ends was unjustifiable. This
was true, he declared, of the punishment of death, which not
only did not prevent crime, but instead, by familiarizing peo
ple with the shedding of blood, offered an example of cruelty,
and, moreover, involved the possibility of a fearful mistake.4
Forced labor would act as a better deterrent and at the same
time be more useful to society. Torture and mutilation were
almost as objectionable as the death penalty, and for much the
same reasons.5 In fact, the severity of punishment should be
moderated and in all cases the punishment should fit the
crime, both in proportion and in kind. Crimes against the
state should be punished more severely than crimes against
morality, because they injure the public welfare,6 and in this
connection crimes against the dominant religion should be pun-
1 Moyens d'adoucir la rigueur des lois pinoles.
2 Recherches philosophiques, in Bib. phil., vi, 334.
3 Moyens d'adoucir la rigueur des lois pinoles, 83.
4 Ibid., 75-83; and Le Sang innocent venge.
6 Bib. phil., iv, 179-80.
6 Thiorie des lois criminelles.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 47
ished as anti-patriotic.1 The state, moreover, should exercise
control over punishment meted out by the ecclesiastical au
thorities, such as excommunications and exemptions, in so far
as they applied to the individual citizen.2 Imprisonment for
debt should be abolished, and many offenses against morality
might well be left to the scourge of an enlightened public
opinion. There was crying need, Brissot argued further, of a radical
change in the procedure of the criminal courts. Forced con
fession should be abolished, proof by direct witnesses and by
experts should be better regulated, circumstantial evidence
should be surrounded by greater safeguards, more publicity
should somehow be secured, a fuller communication of the
charges should be made to the accused at an earlier stage in the
trial, and he should always be given a lawyer for his defense.3
All this would tend to prevent the conviction of the inno
cent, but, if in spite of all reasonable precautions, an innocent
person should be convicted, provision should be made for re
paration.4 Above all, the accused must be separated from the
convicted, and even among the latter there must be some divi
sion, according to the nature of the crime.5 Furthermore, the
bar itself was in a state of decadence. This was due to the poor
education of the would-be lawyer, the obscurity of the laws,
the insufficient pecuniary rewards of the profession,6 and the
narrow-minded spirit which pervaded the entire body of ad
vocates. In short, in order to reform penal legislation the legal
profession must be reformed.7
If Brissot's ideas on penal legislation show the influence of
the humanitarians, his ideas on economic principles show the
1 Moyens d'adoucir la rigueur des lois pinoles, 72-74.
2 Theorie des lois criminelles.
3 Moyens d'adoucir la rigueur des lois pinoles, 94-112.
4 Le Sang innocent vengi. This work was severely criticized in the Mercure
of August 3, 1782.
6 Thiorie des lois criminelles, i, 180-86.
6 Un Indipendant d V ordre des avocats sur la dicadence du barreau en France.
' Point de banqueroute.

48 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
influence of the physiocrats. Like them he declared that the
sole source of riches was in the soil, and not in money brought
into the country in payment of exports; and that to try to en
rich the country by so restricting foreign trade that the exports
might always be greater than the imports and the balance of
commerce be in favor of the home country, was sheer futility.
These ideas he developed at length in the work which he pro
duced in collaboration with Claviere, De la France et des Etats
Unis. France and the United States have need of each other's prod
ucts, he argued. The latter being a new country must first
develop her agriculture, and meanwhile she must depend for
her manufactured articles on Europe. England is quite alive
to this situation, and is bestirring herself to develop commer
cial relations with the United States. France will lose her op
portunity. She ought to act quickly, for she needs commerce
with the United States in order to develop her marine, and at
the same time she stands in need of those very raw materials
of which the United States has an abundance. To this end,
protective duties should be removed, or at least lowered.1
There must be hberty, and it must be as complete as possible.
Freedom of trade also meant to Brissot freedom of internal
trade, and, above all, abolition of monopolies. He was espe
cially anxious to have the government monopoly removed on
tobacco and salt.2 Monopoly, he declared, might enrich some
few individuals, but it was destructive of national commerce.
Many other evils, too, from which France was suffering were
due, he maintained, to inherent injustice in the government
itself. Rather than provide charitable institutions for the poor,
he cried, do away with privilege, and you will find that there
is little need of such institutions. Equality is the imperative
need. In this connection, France might well learn from Eng
land where there exist much better resources against injustice
1 De la France, 293. See also Journal du Lycte, 13. For a fuller statement, see
p. 64.
2 De la France, 86.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 49
and oppression than in France.1 At the same time, Brissot was
no blind admirer of England, and while he was continually
trying to extend in France information about English institu
tions, he by no means refrained from criticizing their defects.
He recognized, of course, the superiority of England over
France in that the English people through their representa
tive institutions had a part in the government; but he agreed
with David Williams in declaring that England had lost much
of her vaunted political liberty because, as a matter of actual
fact, the people had no adequate method of controlling either
the legislative or the executive branch of the government.2
But if Brissot was lukewarm in his approval of England, he
was most enthusiastic in his admiration for the United States.
In fact, there was hardly a chapter in any of his works in which
he did not allude to the importance of following American ex
ample. It was not in the formless and obsolete institutions of
England, he asserted again and again, but in the free institu
tions of the new republic across the water that a people seeking
to recover its liberty might find the true model.3 There was to
be found liberty, equality, and the sovereignty of the people.
The Americans had done well, he declared, to avoid following
too closely the example of England in their constitutions; and
to illustrate his meaning he compared, point by point, the new
constitution of Pennsylvania with the corresponding English
constitutional provisions, much to the advantage of the former.
If the people of Pennsylvania only showed the same wisdom,
he added, in working out their system of legislation, they would
be doubly happy.4 In his theories regarding government Bris
sot was greatly influenced by Montesquieu, and a further cause
of his admiration for the United States was that he saw there
1 Moyens d'adoucir la rigueur des lois pinoles, 36, and Dinonciation d'un
nouveau projet d' agiotage, 47.
2 Lettres sur la liberti politique.
3 "Je vis qu'on devait pricher, aux sociMis, non d' adopter la charte informe et
presqu'effacie des Bretons, mais le module simple, puisi dans la nature par les
Amiricains." Riponse & tous les libellistes, 22.
4 Bib. phil, m, 254-58.

50 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
that system of checks and balances so warmly advocated in
Montesquieu's L' Esprit des lois ; x but above all, he admired the
United States because it was democratic in spirit and repub
lican in government. He was a thorough-going democrat, and
was constantly preaching equahty. "There can be a real senti
ment of patriotism," he declared, "there can be real public
welfare only when the individual of the lowest class is happy
and free." 2 "Political nomenclature itself must be changed
and the word people substituted for the Gothic and disgrace
ful term third estate." 3 If complete equahty were imprac
tical under a monarchical form of government, he would
have at least civil equahty, that is to say, equahty before the
law. But however fully Brissot might adjust himself to existing
conditions, at heart he was a republican. If he had carried out
his theories, he would not have had monarchy at all. "Noth
ing that was unjust could be good politically," he maintained,
and the inevitable limitations of equality under a monarchy
were not consistent with the fullest justice. It did not always
seem to him wise to proclaim his conviction, but he was cer
tainly bold enough in the defense of the alliance of France with
the republican party in Holland, in opposition to the stadt
holder,4 and in his criticism of the systems of provincial
administration proposed by Necker and by Turgot, he came
out with great frankness. The title itself of the latter work
was courageous, Observations of a Republican, and the views
which he expressed therein did not belie the title. "Au
thority is everything, the people is nothing," he declared;
"this is true of all monarchical governments."5 Again: "The
methods of a republican government cannot be harmonized
with the spirit and customs of a monarchy." And finally he
declared it his opinion — an opinion of some importance, in
view of his later attitude — that Turgot, in attempting to
1 Le Philadelphien & Geneve, 174.
2 Bib. phil. Discours priliminaire, i, xxxiv.
3 Point de banqueroute, 31. 4 Ibid., 80. « See p. 253.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 51
make a constitution without changing the form itself of the
government, had undertaken an impossibility.
But putting aside the question of the theoretically best gov
ernment and accepting the existing monarchy, he was con
vinced that the reforms advocated by Necker and Turgot were
not thorough-going enough even for the actual situation. Both
these reforms, though differing in detail, provided for provincial
assemblies which should have power to discuss and to oppose
the taxes. Brissot particularly objected to the limitations put
upon these assemblies in Necker's plan; namely, that they were
to meet but rarely, remain in session only for a limited time,
and not to correspond with each other. In view of these re
strictions he declared that Necker, instead of being a defender
of the people, was really an advocate of absolute sovereignty.
Turgot 's plan, while it did oppose some check to the intendants,
put the property qualification too high for electors of these
local assemblies. Until a new system of taxation should be
established, — that is, a tax laid on land only, — the con
sumer ultimately had a part in paying the tax and should be
recognized. In short, every consumer of adult years should
have a voice in choosing the men who were to control the ap
portionment of the taxes. Merely to apportion the taxes, how
ever, was not sufficient, and both plans failed to go to the root
of the evil in that they did not provide for any real control of
taxation. To be of any practical use, the provincial assemblies
must have the right to refuse to pay the taxes, and also the
means of backing up their refusal. This criticism of the alleged
conservatism of Necker and Turgot is interesting, in view of
the fact that they both fell because they were thought to be
too radical.
Meanwhile the existing taxes were proving more and more
inadequate to meet the expenses of the government, the Parle
ment of Paris had resisted the imposition of new taxes, and the
minister Brienne in despair had projected a declaration of
bankruptcy. Apropos of this situation, Brissot wrote his essay
Point de banqueroute,in which he upheld Parlement, vehemently

52 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
opposed the declaration of bankruptcy, and declared that there
must be no halfway measures, that thorough-going reform was
needed. This included the determination of the deficit, the
suppression of the particular taxes under discussion tiU the
amount of the deficit should be ascertained and the said taxes
consented to by the States-General, the establishment of a
regular administration of the finances, a prompt calling of the
States-General, and the abohtion of lettres de cachet.
To bring about such reforms there were two methods: a slow
process of education and actual revolt. Both of these methods
Brissot advocated, though he laid more stress on the former.
Indeed, a large part of his writing had for its direct and avowed
purpose to extend information and to educate public opinion.
Such was his purpose, it will be remembered, in the Theorie
des lois criminelles,1 Un Independant a, V ordre des avocats,2 De
la Verite,3 Le Philadelphien a, Geneve,* the Correspondance uni
verselle, 5 Lettres sur la liberie politique, the Journal du Lycee, 6 the
Tableau de la situation actuelle des anglais dans les Indes orien-
teles,7 Examen critique des voyages dans VAmerique septentrio-
nale de M. le Marquis de Chastellux,* De la France et des Etats
Unis,9 and above all, in his Bibliotheque philosophique.10 Like
the encyclopedists, he would popularize knowledge. He would
unite men of letters of all quarters of the globe in a single body,
so that, to quote his own language, "a Laplander transplanted
to Paris or Madrid would be as much at home as though he were
a Frenchman or a Spaniard, since he would realize that as a
man of letters he belongs to all countries." n
In this connection it is to be noted that Brissot went even
further and advocated, not merely a universal brotherhood of
savants, but of nations. In fact, he held ideas which to-day
would place him among the leaders of the Peace Movement.
In his arguments in De la France et des Etats Unis, against re
strictive tariffs, he declared that nature evidently meant all
1 See p. 13. « See p. 19. 3 See p. 20. 4 See p. 22.
6 See p. 26. « See p. 29. ' See p. 26. » See p. 36.
' See p. 48. " See p. 20. » Journal du Lycie.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 53
men to be brothers,1 and, apropos of the conclusion of peace
between Great Britain and her former colonies, he wrote: "Let
all men, English, French, Spaniards, Dutchmen, Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, abjure the fatal prejudices which divide
them. Let them hold out to each other the hand of friendship,
let there be no more distinctions, no more of that national
pride, no more of that antipathy which dishonors humanity
and stains the earth with blood." 2
This, however, was but a remote Utopia. Brissot's imme
diate aim was to bring about reform in existing governments.
Education of both prince and people was necessary, but if it
happened that the people were educated up to the necessity of
reform while the prince was not, then revolt might be necessary.
In fact, revolt occasioned by the vexatious acts of a magistrate
who had abused his power in injuring the life or liberty of his
people was not merely justifiable but a real duty. The revo
lutions in Holland,3 in Geneva,4 and in Hungary,5 he held to
be cases in point, and wrote at length in their justification.
In getting his works printed, Brissot had the usual struggle
with the censorship of the press. This censorship was quite
rigorous enough to justify Beaumarchais's famous satire.
"They all tell me," Beaumarchais makes Figaro say, "that
if in my writings I mention neither the government, nor public
worship, nor politics, nor morals, nor people in office, nor in
fluential corporations, nor the opera, nor the other theaters,
nor any one who has aught to do with anything, I may print
everything freely, subject to the approval of two or three
censors." 6 The truth of this satire Brissot might well have
reahzed when he secured permission to print his Tableau des
anglais dans les Indes only on condition of submitting each
number to the censorship of four ministers.7 Considering the
object of his work it is not to be wondered at that he was in
1 See p. 49. 2 Correspondance universelle, i, 169.
3 Point de banqueroute. 4 Le Philadelphien a Genive.
6 Un Defenseur du peuple d Vempereur (Joseph II).
8 See Le Mariage de Figaro, Act v, Scene iii.
7 Reponse d tous les libellistes, 17-18.

54 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
continual difficulties with the censorship. These difficulties
account, perhaps, for the anonymous publication of several of
his works,1 and explain why he took the usual expedient of
having so many of his books printed outside of France. It by
no means follows, however, because his books bore the imprint
of a certain place, that they were actuaUy printed there. All
of his works, for example, which were marked Berlin came from
the press of Neuchatel.2 But to get his works printed was but
the beginning of his troubles; he then had the further difficulty
of getting them introduced into France. When he did secure
a permission, he could never be sure that it might not be with
drawn at any time.3 The Correspondance, for instance, which
he had tried to introduce clandestinely, was seized by the
French government, so that he lost the whole edition and was
forced to mourn at the same time the loss of ten thousand
hvres and the destruction of a work which he had hoped might
hasten the reign of hberty in France. Taught by this lesson,
he determined to be more cautious and to conceal the fact that
his real object was reform; to quote his own expression, to sub
stitute the mine for the open assault. The mine which he pre
pared was an account of the Enghsh constitution. "The
French government, however, fearing to see much light thrown
on the subject, was on its guard. Some deception was neces
sary. I therefore asked permission to print a journal which
was to be called Le Tableau exact des sciences et des arts en
Angleterre. There was nothing alarming about that title, and
the support of certain influential persons secured me a permit,
to which, however, was attached the condition that the jour
nal must be written and printed in England, reprinted at Paris
and submitted to a very rigorous censure." 4
1 At least three of his early works were published anonymously.
2 "11 y a des exemplaires de cette edition [1781] avec des titres ajouUs apres
coup, qui portent Vindication d' Utrecht. Tous des icrits de Brissot qui portent
la rubrique de Berlin ont iti imprimis d Neuchdiel d'ou Us Uaient ensuite im-
porUs clandestinement en France." Edition of 1836 of the Thiorie. Avis de
I'iditeur, i, 1, note.
3 Mimoires, i, 329. 4 Riponse a tous les libellistes, 15.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 55
The mine was, in fact, Brissot's favorite mode of attack and
one which he employed in several other works. What would
have been considered radical and dangerous doctrines if put
into practice, he concealed, for example, in the case of the
Theorie des lois criminelles in an apparently harmless treatise on
the theoretical side of the subject; while the Bibliotheque philo-
sophique was announced as a dictionary of information,1 and
the work, De la France et des Etats Unis as a treatment of com
mercial relations.2 In short, the real object of all these works,
as well as of most of his other writings, was to bring about
radical reform — in the phraseology of the declaration of
rights, liberty, equality, and sovereignty of the people — by
peaceable means if possible, but if necessary by revolution.
The reception which these various works received differed.
Some of them, such as the Independant a, I'ordre des avocats
and the Examen critique des voyages dans I'Amerique septen-
trionale de M. le Marquis de Chastellux, in part, perhaps, be
cause of their polemic nature, attracted considerable attention
and provoked the criticism of journalists and pamphleteers.3
The work, De la France et des Etats Unis, though it was like
wise criticized, seems to have had much success on its own
merits.4 Brissot, indeed, complains that the journals paid no
attention to it, but at least it was translated into several lan
guages.5 Some of his other works apparently found but few
readers besides the censors. According to Petion, who, however,
as Brissot's friend, was perhaps prejudiced, they deserved a
better fate. Le Sang innocent venge, he declared, was full of
energy and eloquence, the letters to the Emperor Joseph were
veritable masterpieces, and the Bibliotheque philosophique, if it
1 Mimoires, I, 226. 2 See p. 48.
3 The Indipendant d I'ordre des avocats created a great furor among the mem
bers of the bar. A couple of pamphlets were written against it and steps taken
to suppress it. Bibliotheque philosophique, vi, 344. On the Examen critique,
see the Journal de Paris of November 16, 1786, for a defense of Chastellux's
opinion of the Quakers.
4 See the Mercure politique of June 30, 1787, for an attack on De la France
and for the answers of Brissot and Claviere.
6 See Bibliography.

56 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
had only been the work of a writer with an aheady established
reputation, would have been celebrated far and wide.1 As a
matter of fact, Brissot's writings at best were comparatively
little known, and were it not for their relation to his subsequent
important political career, they might remain forgotten.
The reason for his failure as a writer is not far to seek. He
was not original. What he said had, for the most part, been
said before by such writers as Montesquieu and Rousseau,
Diderot and Voltaire, Beccaria and Filangieri. Moreover, it
had been said more effectively. The trouble with Brissot was
that he was so absorbingly interested in knowledge for its own
sake that he did not realize the necessity of clothing it in
pleasing garb. He had a prodigious memory for all that he
read 2 and so keen a relish for information as such that he
sometimes forgot "that there is nothing so bete as a fact." His
constant impulse to popularize knowledge, and to teach others
what he had just learned himself, would, as M. Aulard re
marks, have been pedantic if it had not been so generous and
disinterested. But he was always in too much haste to popu
larize to pay sufficient attention to form. To quote M. Aulard
again: "What Brissot lacks as a writer is style. . . . He is clear
and fluent, but his pen runs along without any attention to
form, his only care being to get down all he has to say." 3 At
the same time his writing is simple and direct, but he was lack
ing in a light touch, the ability to make an abstruse subject
attractive; and, moreover, he had absolutely no sense of humor.
In one or two of his early works he made use of sarcasm, but
he soon realized that sarcasm was not his forte, and abandoned
it. His work, further, is unrelieved by imagery or imagination.
Although he was sentimental to a degree, one can hardly con
ceive of him as a writer of real poetry. When roused by great
emotion, his writing became forceful, but ordinarily it lacked
force, for the same reason that it lacked finish.
But, although Brissot's writing is not of great importance
1 Petion, Notice sur Brissot, Vatel, n, 224-34. 2 Ibid., II, 222.
3 Aulard, Les Orateurs de la ligislative, I, 223, 227-28.

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST 57
as literature, in connection with his future career it is of the
greatest importance. It shows, as has been seen, the interests
¦of a reformer. It also shows a reformer who, on little provoca
tion, would become a revolutionist. In the first place, he was
tremendously in earnest. That he had a mission he did not
doubt, nor did he lack aprophet's confidence in its righteousness.
His Bibliotheque philosophique, to take but a single example,
was to be useful to his own age and useful to posterity. In the
variety of his interests and in his unceasing efforts for reform
of all kinds, he suggests Benjamin Franklin, but unlike Frank
lin, he had not the vestige of a sense of humor, and took all the
world, including himself, with profound seriousness. As a con
sequence, he was often unable to put himself in the place of
others, and so did not come to an understanding of the men
with whom he had to deal. But even men with whom he failed
to make connections and who were inclined to mock at his
seriousness could not help but admire his enthusiasm, even
when it seemed to them misplaced to the point of absurdity.
This enthusiasm was not always disinterested. He was
intensely ambitious for himself, as well as for his cause, and in
whatever else he was lacking he did not lack belief in his own
powers. From very early childhood he made large plans and
was possessed of abundant confidence to carry them out. Noth
ing could daunt him. He was ready to write on the most ab
struse subjects. While his companions were painfully strug
gling with the rudiments of a foreign language, or striving to
master the elements of legal studies, or enjoying plays in their
native tongue, Brissot was working out a theory of all the lan
guages of Europe, writing treatises on canon law,1 and laying
plans for a theater for foreign plays.2 Witness, too, his schemes
for all-inclusive philosophical dictionaries, for international
societies and universal brotherhoods, not to mention his temer
ity in bringing them to the attention of the most distinguished
men of his time. With this ambition went an indefatigable
perseverance. His faith in his ultimate success was such that
i See p. 7. 2 See p. 11.

58 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
nothing could discourage him. If one distinguished critic dis
approved of his work, he submitted it to another; if one edition
of a book were suppressed, he prepared a second; if his cher
ished plans for a newspaper did not meet with a ready wel
come, he sought new friends and began again.
His optimism equaled his ambition and his perseverance,
with the result that he often undertook impossible schemes.
He established newspapers for which there was no demand, he
entered into unwise business arrangements for the publication
of his works, and on the strength of the slightest encourage
ment he embarked with a light heart on undertakings from
which more cautious people would have shrunk in dismay.
With the same breath in which he expressed contempt for those
vain persons who thought they could compile dictionaries and
edit newspapers, he had the temerity to announce a dictionary
and a newspaper of his own, in supreme confidence that he
could succeed where others had failed.1
These qualities account both for Brissot's success and for
his failure. It needs no prophet's vision to see in his earnest
ness, ambition, and optimism a leader in the approaching
Revolution. But the defects of those very qualities — the
over-seriousness, the stubbornness which would not abandon a
hopeless scheme, and the optimism which would not see in
surmountable obstacles — explain also why his career finally
ended in failure. 1 De la Viriti, 142-43.

CHAPTER IV
BRISSOT'S TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES
Among his many and varied interests no subject had for
Brissot a greater charm than the United States. It epito
mized for him the liberty and democracy which he had longed
for in France, and furnished the ideal toward which he hoped
to see France progress. In pursuance of this ideal he was al
ways referring in his writings to American example as a model,
not only for France, but for all Europe.
Works dealing with America had, therefore, a special fas
cination for him. This was particularly true of Crevecoeur's
Letters of an American Farmer.1 Crevecceur, like Brissot, was
an admirer of America; and after reading his book Brissot felt
sure that he had found a congenial spirit and hastened to make
his acquaintance. It was Crevecoeur's criticism of slavery and
his appreciation of the Quakers which especially won Brissot's
heart; and when shortly afterward, the Marquis de Chastellux,
in his Voyages dans VAmerique septentrionale, ventured to ex
press opinions not altogether favorable to the negroes and the
Quakers, Brissot seized the cudgels in defense of Crevecceur
and rushed into the arena with more zeal than discretion. His
weapon was a pamphlet which he called an Examen critique,2
in which he compared Chastellux most unfavorably with Creve
cceur, and boasted of his friendship with the latter.3 Chastel-
lux's book, Brissot declared, contained poison, for he had had
1 Published in London early in 1782, and in France in 1784, under the title
of Lettres d'un cultivateur amiricain. Saint-John de Crevecasur, by R. de
Crevecceur, 295-96.
2 Examen critique des voyages dans I'Amirique septentrionale de M. le Marquis
de Chastellux, ou Lettre d M. le Marquis de Chastellux dans laquelle on refute
principalement ses opinions sur les Quakers, sur les negres, sur le peuple et sur
I'komme. 3 Saint-John de Crevecamr, by R. de Crevecceur.

60 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the audacity to assert that the Quakers were guilty of Jesuit
ism, were indifferent to the public good, and were averse to
shedding blood; though when it came to commercial profit they
were ready enough to sell provisions at a high price, to foe as
well as to friend. In answer Brissot maintained that Chastel
lux produced no evidence to substantiate his statements, and
that he did not know what he was talking about. The com
parison with the Jesuits was most unfair, Brissot continued,
since the Quakers did not try to exert authority, had no ambi
tion, and were decidedly tolerant. To furnish provisions to
both Americans and English was not a crime, neither was it a
crime to demand a good price for them. The Quakers had,
moreover, a high standard of morality, and their religion was
not, as Chastellux seemed to think, a subject for jest.1 As for
their political ideas, Chastellux had asserted that they were
indifferent to the public good. If by that, Brissot retorted,
Chastellux meant that they were indifferent to the disputes of
sovereigns, it might be true, but indifferent to the interests of
humanity they certainly were not, as witness their work for
the negroes. On this latter subject, too, Brissot differed from
Chastellux, and took umbrage at his claim that the negroes had
not the sensitiveness of the whites; they were equally sensitive,
he maintained. Chastellux and he were once again in disagree
ment on the importance of the art of war. To.pay it the atten
tion which Chastellux did, Brissot declared, was to favor aris
tocracy. This, indeed, was the root of the whole difficulty.
Brissot and Crevecceur in their attitude toward America were
in sympathy with democracy, and Chastellux was not. But
Crevecceur was not willing to go as far as Brissot, and as Chas
tellux and Crevecceur had common connections, Brissot's at
tack on Chastellux and defense of Crevecceur put the latter
in a very embarrassing position, and involved him in a contro
versy much against his will.2
1 Brissot admitted, however, it might be because Chastellux did not under
stand the English language that he found their service amusing.
2 Saint-John de Crevecosur, by R. de Crevecceur, 130, 162. See p. 70. Also

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 61
Brissot's interest in the negroes and their protectors, the
Quakers, as well as in the United States as a possible place
for emigration, inspired him with an ardent desire to make a
journey himself to the new world. One obstacle stood in the
way, — he had no money. His first thought was to apply for
a government position of some kind which would take him to
America. He accordingly drafted a note to M. Colonne, set
ting forth the desirability of collecting information about the
new world which might be useful to France, and stating as his
special qualifications for such a mission his researches on the
relation of England to India, his numerous works published
with a utilitarian purpose, and his acquaintance with the Eng
lish language and the English constitution.1 It is doubtful
whether this application was ever sent. At all events, it came
to naught. The idea then occurred to him of getting some sort
of a private endowment. He knew several persons, he wrote,
who might be willing to join together for this object, and in
general for "all projects tending to favor liberty and the prog
ress of the light." To extend the connections of France in
America would be the apparent object.2 This frank avowal of
his purpose made the scheme look very like an underhand at
tempt to further his own personal ends under the cloak of a
public enterprise for the general good. And this would have
been the case had he been working solely for his own interest,
but though he may have had visions of wealth to be gained for
himself through land speculation, the situation was saved by
his firm conviction that in trying to bring about closer relations
between France and the United States, he was working for the
public good, and especiaUy for the advancement of France.
To this end he called in his friends, Claviere, Crevecceur,
and Bergasse, and in company with them organized a Gallo-
Americaine society. As the society was to be universal in its
Journal de Paris, November 16, 1786, where Philippe Mazzei, under the
name of Ferri, defends Chastellux against the attacks of Brissot; and Nouveau
Voyage de Brissot, n, 190.
1 Draft of a letter to Colonne, April 4, 1786. Correspondance, 90-92.
2 Rough draft of a plan for a voyage to America, Correspondance, 92-93.

62 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
scope, it was only fitting that there be no religious qualification
required for membership in it, but that it be open to men of aU
faiths and creeds.1 "To be useful to both the old world and the
new," Brissot wrote, in speaking of their aims, such "is the
purpose of this society. Everything which is connected with
this end is to be the object of its attention. It is to be composed
of men of every country, of every profession, of every religion,
provided they are capable of devoting themselves constantly
and seriously to the good of humanity." 2
Their plans for universal good, irrespective of national dif
ferences, received a slight check from Philips,3 Brissot's Enghsh
friend, to whom he had written asking for information on the
state of English commerce. In reply Philips wrote that whfle
he could answer most of Brissot's questions, he gave him fair
warning that he himself was too good an Englishman to sacri
fice the interests of his country to friendship, and that, in con
sequence, he would undertake nothing which might tend to di
minish English commerce.4 Not at aU daunted by this rebuff,
they continued their plans. Persons possessed of ideas or
information useful to them were to be sought out; English
and American newspapers were to be secured, and the society
in seeking the good of France was to devote itself not only to
furthering the external relations of France, but also to improv
ing its moral and economic condition within. It would be iU-
advised, however, they decided, to speak too freely of their
larger purpose. In their prospectus, therefore, they announced
the society as an organization for the dissemination of informa
tion concerning France and the United States, with a view
to promoting closer commercial relations between them. The
membership was to be limited, consisting of twelve persons in
Paris, twenty-four in the provinces, the same number in the
United States, and of an indefinite number in other foreign
1 Procis^verbaux de la Sociiti Gallo-Amiricaine. Correspondance, 111.
2 De la France (edition of 1791), 409, note.
3 James Philips, an English Quaker and bookseller with whom Brissot was
on terms of friendship.
* Correspondance, 107.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 63
countries. For admission to resident membership a unanimous
vote was necessary. Quality, rather than quantity, was thus
emphasized, perhaps with a further idea of making the society
attractive by reason of its exclusiveness. Although the mem- x
bers among themselves may have cherished large schemes for
the universal good, their discussions were of a decidedly prac
tical character. Brissot, for instance, presented a memoir
drawn up by a member of the Royal Agricultural Society,
giving a list of trees indigenous to America, which might, with
profit, be naturalized in France. In turn he proposed to bene
fit America by introducing a new French process for the cheaper
manufacture of paper.1 The work of the society at home was
soon somewhat interrupted by the departure of Crevecceur for
New York, where he went to take up his work as Consul of
France. It was an opportunity, however, for the extension of
the influence of the society in America, and Crevecceur set out
charged with the mission of spreading abroad news of its prin
ciples and purpose.2
As one contribution to this immediate end, that of establish
ing better commercial relations between France and the United
States, Brissot had undertaken to write a book dealing with
economic conditions in the two countries. That there was
great need of such a book he was convinced.3 He was equally
convinced, at least at first, of his own ability to meet that
need; but soon finding the task rather too much for him, he
sought and secured the cooperation of Claviere. This work,
De la France et des Etats Unis, was therefore published under
their joint names.4
1 Proces^verbaux de la Sociili Gallo-Amiricaine. Correspondance, 103-36.
2 Ibid., 134-36.
3 As one excuse for his work, Brissot quoted a remark of Thomas Paine:
" Je remarquerai que je n'ai pas encore vu une description de VAmirique faite en
Europe sur lefidilitS de laquelle on puisse compter." De la France, 7.
4 De la France et des Etats Unis, ou de I'importance de la rivolution de VAmir
ique pour le bonheur de la France ; des rapports de ce royaume et des Etats Unis,
des avantages riciproques qu'ils peuvent relirer de leurs liaisons de commerce, et
enfin de la situation actuelle des Etats-Unis. See p. 90.
The title-page contains the following passage from a speech of Lafayette to

64 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The argument — aheady referred to in connection with
Brissot's writings — was developed with care, and was sup
ported by much material drawn from documentary sources.
It was as follows: France can derive much profit from the
American Revolution, in the first place because that revolution
has increased human knowledge and furthered the reform of
social prejudices ; and in the second place, because it has made
people see the value of commerce. England is most alive to the
latter point and is now bestirring herself to develop commercial
relations with the United States. England is better informed
on the subject than France, owing to the better understanding
there of the theoretical science of commerce, and to the free
dom of the press.1 France also ought to bestir herself, but in
the first place her ignorance must be dissipated.
Having thus sketched the end to be attained, Brissot and
Claviere then proceeded to lay down general principles of com
mercial relations. Direct commerce, they argued, is better than
indirect, and cheaper; mutual interest is the surest means of
sustaining commerce between two nations; the prosperity of a
nation does not consist in a cash balance in its favor; metals
are not real riches; the only way of estimating correctly the
increase of commerce is by the increase of the population.
Mutual interest, they continued, that most important fac
tor in developing commerce, exists between France and the
United States. France needs new markets in which to dispose
of her superfluous productions, to encourage her manufactures,
and to employ labor. Commerce with the United States would
tend to better conditions in France, and moreover, aU is ripe
for it, for just as France needs a market for her manufactured
the American Congress: "Le passi assure I alliance de la France avec les Stats-
Unis, Vavenir ne fait qu'agrandir la perspective, et Von verra se multiplier ces
rapports qu'un commerce indipendant et avantageux doit produire, en raison de
ce qu'il est mieux connu."
The work is dedicated to the American Congress and the friends of the
United States in both hemispheres.
1 In this work Brissot made frequent comparisons between England and
France, to the disadvantage of the latter.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 65
articles, the United States needs those articles. As a new coun
try, the latter must first develop her agriculture and de
pend on Europe for manufactured goods. At the same time,
she can furnish in exchange her own raw products.
Among the things which she can obtain from France are
wine, brandy, oil, olives, dried fruits, cloth, linens, silks, ribbons,
and hats. France, on the other hand, needs the raw products
of America, such as tobacco,1 fish, whale oil, candles, grain,
and materials for shipbuilding. All this commerce, Brissot and
Claviere held, should be encouraged to the greatest possible
extent; the old idea of maintaining a balance of trade was
absurd and erroneous. Moreover, — and this was a pivotal
point of their thesis, — there should be the least possible inter
ference with trade on the part of the government. Freedom, not
protection, was the law of nature. "It is a misfortune," they
wrote, "that the United States was not able from the start to
adopt so noble a system; that in order to pay the public debt,
they were forced to have recourse to this miserable system
of ancient governments — to tax foreign merchandise. Every
other tax except that upon the soil is a source of error. It is in
consequence of such errors that there has arisen in Europe that
system of protective duties for national industry, whose effect
is to mislead governments till they are persuaded that they
have in their hands a creative force equal to that of the
Almighty." 2
Finally, they declared, there is no reason to hesitate to em
bark on this commerce on account of the condition of the
United States. Despite reports to the contrary, it is by no
means in a desperate condition. There is no anarchy; the war
with the Indians wiU not last; the troubles over paper money
are but local. There is, therefore, every reason why France
1 Brissot here deals with the government monopoly of tobacco. He would
have this removed, and would favor a plan proposed by Lafayette, by which
leaf tobacco, coming into the country, would be subject only to a very moder
ate duty. Then if it were desirable, a further sum might be paid for permission
to manufacture and sell.
2 De la France, 293.

66 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
should profit by her opportunity, and, to the utmost extent of
her ability, develop commercial relations with the United States. l
The investigations in which Brissot had engaged in order
to write this work only increased his longing to make a journey
to the new world, in order to see for himself the conditions
which he had been describing. About a year after its publica
tion the longed-for opportunity came, not through the govern
ment, as he had at first hoped, but through his friend Claviere,
who, with two other gentlemen, had entered into an agree
ment to speculate in the American debt.2 Some one was needed
to go to America to investigate the matter, and Brissot was
precisely the man they wanted. He was aheady in corre
spondence with the chief authors of the American Revolution;
he was weU informed on conditions in America, and he was
deeply interested in the financial situation.3 He was accord
ingly offered the chance, and he eagerly seized it.4 Mr. Daniel
Parker, who was connected with the operations of the Ameri
can speculators, WiUiam Duer and Andrew Craigie, and who
seems to have been back of the whole proceeding, wrote to the
latter, in Brissot's behalf, and pointed out that in addition to
Brissot's other qualifications, the fact of his having been known
as a literary man would make him a safe agent as he would not
be suspected of any financial schemes.5
1 A contemporary criticism from an English point of view is of interest. It
is from the Monthly Review, lxxvi, 593. "Messrs. Claviere and De Warville
are spirited writers; but sometimes they are too violent. The ardor of liberty
is liable to break out into the flame of licentiousness, unless restrained by the
superior judgment of calm and unbiased reasoners. The authors are justly en
titled to the united thanks of the French and the Americans; for they have
plainly shown the mutual advantages that may accrue from a commercial
intercourse between the two nations; and they have, at the same time, given
a just view of a foreign trade and the benefits thence arising."
2 The names of the two gentlemen were Stadinski and Cazenove, — the
latter an Amsterdam banker. Correspondance, 179.
3 For a letter to Jefferson making inquiries as ,to the public debt, see
Appendix A.
4 Petion, Notice, in Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les Girondins, n, 236.
6 Parker to Andrew Craigie, June 2, 1788, Craigie Papers, American Anti
quarian Society. See Appendix A.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 67
His contract provided that he was to start at the earliest
possible moment, and on his arrival at New York he was to
seek information on the following points: first, the present
total of the domestic debt of Congress; second, the price at
which contracts for that debt are sold; third, what are the best
contracts; fourth, the way in which the interest is paid; fifth,
the probable date of reimbursement; sixth, events in the
United States — such, for example, as the ratification by the
states of the new plan for a federal system — which might affect
the stability of the debt; seventh, the debts of each of the
states. As soon as he secured any useful information, he was
to inform each of the three men respectively, and he was,
moreover, not to give to any one else such information as might
lead to rival speculation. On the other hand, Claviere, Caz-
enove, and Stadinski agreed to pay Brissot ten thousand livres
for the expenses of his journey and investigations, and to give
him besides a commission on their purchase in American funds.1
This was to Brissot a heaven-sent opportunity. Though
commissioned to study financial conditions, he now had the
chance which he had long sought, to investigate the state of
the negroes and to make connections between their bene
factors, the Quakers, and the society of the Amis des Noirs,
which he had just established in Paris; 2 and incidentally, per
haps, to substantiate his arguments against Chastellux.
In the second place, he wished to investigate the country as
a possible place of settlement. He was thoroughly weary of the
1 Contrat de Brissot avec Claviere, Cazenove, et Stadinski, pour sa mission
aux Etats Unis. Correspondance, 179-81.
According to Petion, he asked only that his expenses be paid. Notice sur
Brissot, Vatel, n, 236.
Brissot evidently took every means to inform himself on financial questions,
as is evident by a rough draft of a questionnaire on matters pertaining to the
debt of the United States. It consists chiefly of answers to questions previously
propounded. Correspondance, 181-84. Similar notes, questions, and answers,
including a list of questions proposies par M. Stadinski, are found in an inter
esting collection of Brissot's papers loaned to the writer by M. Charles Vellay,
of Paris.
2 See p. 184; Mimoires, ii, 74.

68 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
limitations imposed by despotism, and had formed a tenta
tive plan with some of his friends, to emigrate to America.
Brissot had a good deal of the frontiersman in his make-up,
and the prospect of establishing a permanent home for him
self on the borders of civilization appealed to his adventurous
disposition. Before embarking on such an enterprise, however,
some preliminary investigation was desirable. This Brissot
now proposed to make.1 He not only had a general plan, but
was incidentaUy considering certain definite places as feasible
for settlement, as is evident from the character of the informa
tion he was seeking. These, for instance, are some of the ques
tions which he noted: "What kind of goods would one need to
bring from France for family use?" "What part of the terri
tory of the Mohawks is the best? " "Would it not be better to
be somewhere along the Hudson?" "Would there be any
hope" — and here crops up Brissot's never-ceasing desire to
take part in public affairs — "for a Frenchman who settled
there, of being elected to the county assemblies?" "What is
the cost of the passage from France to New York for each per
son, — for a child?" 2 A third motive — one which at the
time he naturaUy said less about — was to learn in America
the means of bringing about a like revolution in France.3
For this task of investigating American conditions Brissot
was weU fitted. He had a fair knowledge of the language of the
country; he was already in correspondence with some of its
most famous men; 4 he had valuable letters of introduction; 5
and, moreover, he was possessed of considerable reputation as
a writer on America — aU of which gave him an unusual chance
1 Riponse & tous les libellistes, 25. See also Riplique de J. P. Brissot d Stanis
las Clermont, 9.
2 This is a part of the same questionnaire in which financial matters are dis
cussed. Correspondance, 184—86. Similar lists of questions on agricultural life
in the United States are found in M. Vellay's collection, referred to above.
3 Projet de defense, Mimoires, ii, 275.
4 For instance, announcement is made in the Charavay Catalogue of 1858, of
sixty-five letters addressed to Brissot by Americans. Correspondance, aver-
tissement, 11. See Bibliography.
6 Lafayette gave him a letter to Washington. Correspondance, 192.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 69
to increase his acquaintance and to acquire further knowledge.
He was, therefore, no casual traveler, jotting down what
ever happened to strike his passing fancy. In his own opinion
there were three requisites for the traveler whose journeyings
were to be useful to others: he must be well informed regarding
the country he is to visit; secondly, — to quote Brissot's own
words, — he must have a "plan of observation"; and, thirdly,
he must not be content with a superficial view, but must make
a thorough investigation for himself.1 All three of these re
quirements Brissot met fairly well. In preparation for his
work, De la France, he had used aU the books on the subject
on which he could lay his hands; as for a "plan of observa
tion," he was ready with a definite outline of points to be
observed; and finally, his stay in America, although cut short
by the beginning of the Revolution in France, was of suffi
cient length for him to make observations of thoroughness.
Between his arrival in Boston in July, 1788, and his departure
from America, at the end of the same year,2 he traveled from
Boston to Virginia,3 visited numerous educational and phil
anthropic institutions, saw something of the workings of the
government, and made the acquaintance of many men of note.
Among these were John Adams; General Heath; General Han
cock, Governor of Massachusetts; James Madison; Hamilton;
Warren Mifflin; Colonel Duer; Griffin, the President of Con
gress; Franklin; Temple Franklin, his grandson; Miers Fisher;
Crevecceur; De Moustier, the French ambassador; and Gen
eral Washington.4
1 Nouveau Voyage, preface, xxxvi. 2 See p. 85 and note.
3 From the dates of his letters and other evidence, the following itinerary
may be given: July 24 at Boston; from thence by way of Cambridge, Spencer,
Brookfield, Springfield, Hartford, Wethersfield, Middletown, New Haven,
Fairfield, Rye, New Rochelle, to New York, August 9. From New York, Aug
ust 25, by way of Newark, Trenton, Bristol, to Philadelphia. By October 2 he
was back in Boston. From there he visited Salem, Beverly, Newburyport,
Portsmouth, and Andover. October 12, he left Boston for Providence, whence
he went by boat to New York, and thence to Philadelphia, Chester, Wilming
ton, and Mount Vernon.
4 Nouveau Voyage, I, 147-52, 242-48, 268, 281, 312; n, 250.

70 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Despite his advantages of language, information, wide in
terest, an extended acquaintance,1 and the means of increasing
it, Brissot nevertheless lacked one essential requisite for reach
ing sound conclusions concerning what he heard and saw. He
was already prejudiced in favor of American mstitutions. To
him America was the seat of liberty and the home of freedom,
and it was extremely difficult for him to see anything but good
in her customs and institutions. Moreover, having set forth
in print views favorable to America, he was naturally anxious
to substantiate his preconceived idea. To such an extent was
this the case that, when certain foreign consuls who had lived
in America for some time attempted to point out to him
weaknesses and dangers in American life, he refused to credit
their statements or to listen to their opinions.2 It is to be
remembered, too, that interest in furthering emigration to
America led him to look on the situation with a favorable eye.3
But although Brissot observed to prove a thesis and wrote
to set an example, he was never insincere, and always endeav
ored to set down conditions as he saw them. He usually saw
them, however, in a rosy hght. From the American point of
view, this bias of Brissot's is not without compensation. The
time of his journey was just at the end of the government
under the Articles of Confederation; the new constitution had
been drawn up and its fate was now hanging in the balance.
The period was, in truth, a critical one in the history of the
1 With but two exceptions Brissot seems to have been received everywhere
with the utmost cordiality. These two exceptions were the French ambassador,
M. De Moustier, and, strange as it may seem, Crevecceur. See Saint-John de
Crivecoeur, by R. de Crevecceur, 162, note. As to the latter, we have only the
details given by Brissot himself. Brissot says in his Mimoires (n, 50) that
Crevecceur barely received him, kept him only one night, and gave him no
introductions. This seems strange in view of their recent friendly relations
in the Sociiti Gallo-AmeWicaine. Brissot says it was because Crevecceur was
dependent on the ambassador De Moustier. But the Voyage contains at least
twenty times the praise of Crevecceur, who must have aided him. Perhaps the
account in the memoirs is colored by later events.
2 Nouveau Voyage, preface, xxxix.
3 See p. 88, note, for a criticism of his account of the Scioto Company as
being too favorable for one interested in it.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 71
United States, but the judgment of a man who saw in these
conditions, not a comparison with earlier prosperity and later
stable government, but a contrast with far worse conditions in
France, served to show wherein those years, even at the worst,
held hope for the future.
In the spring of 1788 Brissot set out for this new country,
sailing from Havre on the Cato.1 It was characteristic of his
insatiable thirst for information, and of his desire to spread it
abroad, that just before starting he should write an account
of the country through which he had passed on his way, and
of the city of Havre. Finally, on June 3, he sailed away on his
voyage of discovery, pessimistic for the land which he was
leaving, but full of enthusiasm for the future of America, and
for his possible part in it. His experience on the sea was the
common one of having moments of regret that he had ever
left dry land, but he soon recovered his usual health and spirits,
and also his characteristic interest in every new detail of his
surroundings: the kind of food served, where it was obtained,
the life of the sailors, and the fishing vessels they met. Much
of his time was naturally devoted to reading and studying
English. One outcome was a theory — a not unusual result
with Brissot — that in order to bring different peoples nearer
together, an effort ought to be made to produce a greater sim
ilarity in their languages, by incorporating the terms and
phraseology of one in the other.2
Finally, after a voyage of fifty -one days, Brissot arrived at
Boston, the 24th of July. It was to him a moment of supreme
happiness. He was fleeing from despotism, and was about to
enjoy the life of a people who were in the actual possession of
that liberty and equahty which everywhere else was regarded
as a chimera. He was especiaUy delighted to find himself in
Boston, the first city to throw off the yoke of the English. He
was charmed, he declared, to see how different it was from the
1 Craigie to D. Parker, July 27, 1788. Craigie Papers, American Anti
quarian Society.
2 Nouveau Voyage, I, 91-108.;

72 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE]
disagreeable, noisy whirlpool of Paris. He was especially im
pressed with the absence of that restless, busy seeking for
pleasure which characterized his fellow countrymen; and "of
that proud and haughty air of the Englishman." "Here was
simplicity, goodness, and that dignity of man which is the pos
session of those who realize their liberty and who see in their
fellow men only brothers and equals." 1
He did not, however, allow the delightful novelty of his new
surroundings to distract him from the business of the important
commissions with which he was entrusted, and without delay
he made connections with Andrew Craigie and other specula
tors to whom he had been especially commended.2 They were
only too ready to foUow Parker's suggestion in his note of in
troduction,3 and pay Brissot every attention, as it was with his
assistance that they hoped to carry through a scheme of "great
magnitude."4 This scheme, the two parts of which were
closely connected, consisted in a speculation in the American
debt and in western lands, and the assistance of European
agents was indispensable. They accordingly made much of
Brissot. Indeed, their fear that he might be made use of by
some one else, hastened the development of their plans,5 while
Brissot on his side was anxious to further profitable invest
ments for his friends at home. The result of their common
interests and ambitious undertakings was a contract, dated
October, 1788, which reads in part as follows : —
Articles of Agreement entered into and fully agreed upon betwixt
J. Peter Brissot de Warville for himself and Stephen Claviere of the
Kingdom of France, and William Duer,6 and Andrew Craigie of the
State of New York, viz. :
The parties mutually agree and covenant with each other to use
1 Nouveau Voyage, i, 110-11.
2 Craigie to D. Parker, July 27, 1788. Craigie Papers, American Antiqua
rian Society.
3 See above, p. 66. 4 Duer to D. Parker, November 5, 1788. Ibid.
B Craigie to D. Parker, December 3, 1788. Ibid. See Appendix A.
6 William Duer was born in England, in 1747. After serving with Clive in
India, he gave up army life. Coming to New York on business, he settled there,
and took the part of the colonists in the Revolutionary War. He was known as

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 73
their best exertions to form an association whose object of negotia
tion [sic] shall be as follows :
To obtain from the Court of France a transfer of the debt due to
that crown from the United States;
To get such transfer ratified by the United States; and to obtain
such a convention for the payment of the principal and interest due
thereon, as shall be judged most advisable by the parties interested in
the transfer;
To purchase from time to time as large a proportion of the do
mestic debt of the United States as they shall be able to procure, and
on such terms as shall be agreed upon by the Company, or the parties
interested in their behalf, to manage such speculation;
To obtain such loans of money as may hereafter be judged neces
sary by Congress, to enable them to pay the interest of their debt,
foreign and domestic, and to discharge the other exigencies of the
Union.1 It was further agreed that Mr. Daniel Parker should be
authorized to accede to the agreement on the same terms as the
subscribing parties. With the other plans of Craigie and Duer
— the Scioto land speculation 2 — Brissot was not so immedi
ately connected, and the carrying out of his part of the specu
lation in the debt he had to defer till his return to France.
Meantime, his personal interest in the development of the
United States could not but be increased. One of the first
things that struck him was the spirit of tolerance which pre
vailed. Judging from the Lettres d'un cultivateur americain,
he had expected a "ferocious Presbyterianism," and was sur
prised to find, instead, a wide tolerance in practice, and little
reference to dogma in the pulpit.
In their manner of life, especially in their picnics and their
tea-drinkings, the Americans seemed to him to resemble the
English.3 Another thing which struck him was a growing spirit
of commercial rivalry with England. It was this spirit which
a bold speculator and successful financier. After the resignation of Robert
Morris as superintendent of finance, he became secretary of the treasury board.
(See Belote, The Scioto Speculation, 14, note.)
1 Correspondance, 208, 212. See also the Craigie Papers, American Anti
quarian Society.
2 See p. 85. 3 Nouveau Voyage, I, 112-16; 123-29.

74 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
was leading to so rapid a development of manufactures of all
kinds. But he also remarked, as a natural corollary, in a coun
try devoted chiefly to commerce, that the sciences had not
reached a very high degree of development. Exception to the
absence of intellectual life he found, however, at Cambridge,
and with all that he saw there he was delighted — the quiet
peace of the place, its proximity to Boston, the type of presi
dent and professors of Harvard, its library and equipment.1
With the men whom he met he was also much pleased, and
especially with the simplicity in which they lived. To see men
who had played a distinguished part in the American Revolu
tion pursuing the occupation of farmers, seems to have caused
him a momentary surprise, but he was none the less delighted
that so simple a life was adopted by the nation's leaders. He
was especially impressed with John Adams, as an example of
a statesman who had returned to his plow from the court of
kings. "I have seen Adams," he wrote, "occupied in the culti
vation of his farm, forgetting the role which he played when he
trampled under foot the pride of his king, that king who had
set a price upon his head, and who was forced to receive him
as ambassador from a free country. Such, surely," he added,
rising to a comparison with classic times, "were the generals
and ambassadors of the glorious epochs of Rome and Greece;
such were Epaminondas, Fabius and Cincinnatus." Holding
such an exalted opinion of Adams, he was distressed to find
that he did not have great faith in the possibility of much
liberty in France. "He does not even beUeve," Brissot adds
sorrowfully, "that we have the right, according to our old
States-General, of asking that no tax be laid without the con
sent of the people." 2
But whatever view Adams might hold of the possibilities
of a republican form of government for other nations, Brissot
was ready to admit that Adams himself was a fine example of
republican virtues. Nor was he the only notable example of
such virtues. Brissot was also much impressed by General
1 Nouveau Voyage, i, 130-36. 2 Ibid., I, 146-47.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 75
Heath, Samuel Adams, and Hancock, the Governor of Mas
sachusetts. "General Heath was one of those worthy imita
tors of the Roman Cincinnatus; for he does not like the Ameri
can Cincinnati; their eagle seemed to him a gew-gaw, suitable
only for children. . . . With what joy did this respected man
show me all parts of his farm ! What happiness he enjoyed there !
He was a true farmer. ... A glass of cider, which he presented
to me in the spirit of good comradeship, seemed to me superior
to the most exquisite wines."1 Of Samuel Adams he said:
"He has the republican virtues to an unusual degree, im
peccable uprightness, simplicity, modesty, and above all,
severity; he is unwiUing to have any capitulation with abuses.
He fears the despotism of virtue and ability as much as the
despotism of vice. In spite of his love and respect for Wash
ington, he voted to deprive him of his command at the end of a
certain time."2 In General Hancock, Brissot found another
example of courage, patriotism, and democracy. This sim
plicity Brissot perceived was common to the people at large.
It seemed to him the very basis of their high standard of
morality, and he was never weary of calling attention to its
various manifestations. The secret of this general high standard
of morality, he, in common with Rousseau, attributed to a
rural life,3 and as substantiating his belief, he adduced the fact
that nine tenths of the Americans lived in the country.4
After a stay of some two weeks in Boston and vicinity, Bris
sot set out for New York and Philadelphia. The journey from
Boston to New York was accomplished in four days, but at the
expense of a four o'clock start each morning.5 The inconven
iences of travel appeared to Brissot slight, however, in com
parison with those of France. If the roads left much to be de
sired, the stage coaches seemed to him infinitely superior to
1 Nouveau Voyage, i, 150. 2 Ibid., I, 152.
3 Ibid., Preface, xii. But see p. 83, where he attributes this high standard
of morality to liberty.
4 He excepted, however, the plantation life of the South, on account of the
inequalities inseparably connected with slavery.
5 Ibid., I, 157.

76 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the lumbering dUigences of his own country. Moreover, the
absence of any class distinctions between travelers delighted
him beyond measure. "These carriages," he explains, "keep
up the idea of equality. The member of Congress is placed by
the side of the shoemaker who elected him; they fraternize and
chat together. You see no person here taking upon himself
those important airs which you too often meet with in France.
In that country, for instance, a gentleman would blush to
travel in a diligence; it is a common carriage; you never know
with whom you may be thrown. . . . The artisan or the laborer
who finds himself in any one of these stages with a gentleman,
keeps still and attends to his own business, or, if he does take
part in the conversation, he does his best to rise to the level
of others." l At the inns, too, Brissot was pleased with the
spirit of good-comradeship which existed between the tavern
keepers and their guests, and by the absence of the spirit of
servility, evidenced by the fact that the servants did not
expect fees.
The contrast between American women and French women
also greatly impressed him. On this subject Brissot, like every
Frenchman, before or after him, who has come to America,
had much to say. Like every Frenchman, too, he was struck
with the freedom with which American women went about
unattended. He often met them driving or riding alone on the
country roads, and was constantly surprised that their doing
so was taken as a matter of course, and provoked no comment
or criticism. It argued well, he thought, both for the safety of
the roads and the morals of the community. Wherever he went
he was impressed with their freedom and lack of affectation
— a forcible contrast to the manners of women in France.2
He noted with pain, however, beginnings of what he con
sidered old-world luxury and formality. This was particularly
true of New York, where the dress of the women, the elegant
equipages and the luxurious tables betokened a growing taste
for display.3 The introduction of carpets, which, he com-
1 Nouveau Voyage, i, 234-56. 2 Ibid.,i, 183; see also 113, 255. 3 Ibid.,\,iSl.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 77
plained, was due to English influence,1 was one of the luxuries
which he deplored. The increasing study of music also gave
him concern, and he uttered a pious wish that the women of
Boston might never be taken with the malady of desiring per
fection in the musical art.2 The prevalent use of the cigar dis
gusted him, though he thought that it had the advantage of
assisting reflection by interfering with the smoker's immediate
response to queries or arguments.
After the luxury of New York, it was a great relief to Brissot
to visit the Quakers in Pennsylvania, among whom simplicity
stiU reigned. He had solemnly espoused their cause, against
the aspersions of Chastellux, and through their common inter
est in the slave trade, had made connections with some of their
members. He naturally met a very cordial reception, and had
the opportunity of seeing, at first hand, their mode of life, and
of visiting various charitable institutions under their control.
AU that he saw only served to corroborate his former opinions,
and in describing their virtues, he never missed the chance to
give a fling at Chastellux, and to hold up his attitude to ridi
cule. Discussing two of their chief peculiarities, their refusal
to take an oath and to bear arms, he declared that their ob
jection to an oath was no indication of a wish to escape reC-
sponsibUity for their actions. He could wish, however, that
since the war of the colonies against Great Britain was justi
fied by that divine principle which authorizes resistance to
oppression, they had seen fit to take part in it. But as they
were consistent in their action, and as their neutrality did not
mean a secret attachment to the British, he held that it was
unjust to persecute them. It was their simplicity which most
attracted him. He took pleasure in contrasting their worship
with that to which he was accustomed; their life with that
of the French. "What a difference," he writes, "between the
simplicity of this and the pomp of the Catholic worship.
1 For his aspersions on the English Brissot was sharply criticized in a
review of the travels, in the Monthly Review for 1791, p. 531.
2 Nouveau Voyage, i, 112; n, 80.

78 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Reformation in aU its stages has diminished its formalities.
It is thus that human reason progresses towards perfection." 1
And again: "Simplicity, candour and good faith characterize
the actions, as weU as the discourses of the Quakers. They are
not affected, but they are sincere; they are not polished but
they are humane; they have not that wit — that sparkling wit
— without which a man is nothing in France, and with which
he is everything; but they have good sense, sound judgment,
upright hearts and honest souls." 2
WhUe at Philadelphia he also had the opportunity of visiting
Franklin, for whom he had long cherished a profound admira
tion, and who seemed to him the very embodiment of aU the
virtues. "I have found in America," he wrote, "many en
lightened politicians, many virtuous men; but I have seen no
one who appeared to me to possess in so high a degree as Frank
lin the characteristics of a true philosopher." 3
One reason for Brissot's keen interest in the Quakers was, as
has been pointed out, their common enthusiasm in work for
the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery. The societies
formed by them seemed to him the most adequate agencies
possible. Through his connection with the Amis des Noirs, in
Paris, he was brought into relation with hke societies in America,
was everywhere received by them with cordiahty, was shown
every courtesy, and was elected an honorary member of several
branches. The work which he saw accomplished in the growing
sentiment against the slave trade, and in the North against
slavery itself, encouraged him to hope for a like success on the
part of his own society. In his enthusiasm he seems to have
gone too far and to have displeased even the Quakers them
selves by the extravagance of his praise, while the Penn
sylvania Dutch, the Methodists, and others complained that
1 Nouveau Voyage, i, 290.
2 Ibid., n, 169. He followed the Quaker example of simplicity by leaving
his hair unpowdered at a time when powder was the almost universal fashion.
Quoted from Beaulieu, by Aulard, Orateurs de la legislative, i, 219.
3 Nouveau Voyage, ii, 312.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 79
they too had worked against slavery, and that to ascribe aU
efforts in behalf of the negro to the Quakers alone was most
unjust.1 In addition to organized societies, Brissot had two other
means to suggest which would tend towards the abolition of
slavery: the substitution of maple sugar for the sugar cane,
and the emigration of negroes to Africa. The first, he claimed,
would do away with the necessity of slave labor, and would, in
itself, be a profitable enterprise; the second would add greatly
to the happiness of the negro. It would, in turn, be directly
advantageous to commerce, for the African negroes would be
civilized by contact with the colonists from America, and the
civilization thus established would create new markets for
Europe. He was most optimistic in regard to the capacity of the
negro for civilization. The statement of Chastellux that "it
is not only the slave who is beneath the master; it is the negro
who is beneath the white man," he denied in toto, and as
serted on the contrary that the reason why the negro had not
risen was not because he lacked ability, but because the white
man kept him down. In order to substantiate this opinion,
Brissot made throughout his trip a special study of the con
dition of the negro. He visited numerous schools for colored
children, and was always delighted whenever he was able to
cite marked instances of ability. As a further confirmation
of his belief that the difficulty with the negro was not hered
ity, but environment, he noted the contrast between the free
negroes of the North and the slaves of the South.2 His feeling
on this subject was so strong that it prevented a full enjoy
ment of that part of his journey which lay south of Mason and
Dixon's line. Even his admiration for Washington was clouded
by the realization that he was a slave-owner. Brissot, indeed,
in the course of a visit to Mount Vernon, tried to convert
1 See letter of November 28, 1791, to Brissot, apparently from Francis
Dupont. Scioto Papers, New York Historical Society.
2 Nouveau Voyage, n, 34.

80 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Washington to his own views.1 Washington, however, while
protesting his sympathy for the movement as a whole, main
tained that the time was not yet ripe in Virginia for radical
action against slavery, to which Brissot retorted that he was
mistaken, and that it would be a task worthy of Washington
to begin the revolution and to prepare the way for emancipa
tion. He failed, however, to convince him that the moment
was favorable for the formation of an anti-slavery society.2
In all other respects Brissot greatly admired Washington.
His was another example of the ideal private life of a great
man. "You have heard him compared to Cincinnatus," Bris
sot wrote, "the comparison is weU made. This celebrated gen
eral is nothing more at present than a good farmer, constantly
occupied in the care of his farm, as he caUs it, in improving the
methods of farming, in building barns. . . . Everything has an
air of simplicity in his home; his table is good, but there is
no display, and everything in the domestic arrangements is
weU regulated. Mrs. Washington superintends the whole, and
combines the qualities of an exceUent farmer's wife with that
simple dignity which ought to characterize a woman whose
husband has acted the greatest part in the theater of human
affairs." 3
In the general economic problems of the United States, as
well as in the special problem of the negro, Brissot was deeply
interested. The treatment of the Indian involved certain dif
ficulties, he admitted, but some of the trouble had been brought
on, it seemed to him, by the whites, by their own conduct, and
might have been avoided if aU the whites in their dealings with
the Indians had followed the example of the Quakers. The
Indians might be led to accept European civilization, though
it was, perhaps, not altogether desirable that they should; but
at least with skiU and forbearance on the part of the whites,
more peaceable relations might be established.4
Not only a general state of peace was to be looked for, but
1 Brissot was indebted to Lafayette for a letter of introduction. See p. 68.
2 Nouveau Voyage, ii, 44. s Ibid., n, 265-67. 4 Ibid., n, 427-31.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 81
commercial prosperity. Commerce with the East Indies was
being developed and both imports and exports were increasing.1
This seemed to Brissot a hopeful sign, particularly in its bear
ing on the abUity of the Americans to pay their debts. He was
in fact much more ready to listen to the optimistic opinions of
Adams as to the future of America than to the doubts of the
French ambassador. It was, moreover, a favorable time for
making a study of economic conditions. Western expansion
was just beginning, and manufactures were springing up. Some
thing of the future development of the frontier, as well as of the
geographical lines along which it was to advance, Brissot seems
to have perceived. He speaks, for example, of the commercial
advantages which New York State would acquire through the
connection of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers with the Great
Lakes by a series of canals;2 and of the possibilities of ex
pansion beyond the Mississippi. Unlike many Americans of
the time, he saw no reason to fear that the Western states, would
separate from the Union. He predicted, on the contrary, that
in case Spain were so foolish as to insist on closing the Mis
sissippi, these states, instead of transferring their allegiance to
Spain, would rise in their might and drive her out of- her west
ern possessions.3
This question of western expansion was not merely a matter
of public interest to Brissot, it was also of vital personal con
cern, because of its bearing on a possible place of settlement for
himself, his family, and his friends. The future of America was,
after all, less important to him than the present and practical
problems of a prospective settler. "What was the price of
land?" "What were the wages of a farm laborer?" "Was it
easy to get labor?" "How much land would it take to sup
port a man, his wife, and two or three children?" These were
some of the points on which Brissot was seeking information.4
Brissot's wife, meanwhfle, was likewise preparing for life in
America. He must not forget, she wrote to him, to let her know
1 Nouveau Voyage, n, 364, 383, 397. 2 Ibid., i, 224. 3 Ibid., n, 432-35.
4 See M. Vellay's collection of notes referred to above, p. 67 and note.

82 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
what they would need for the journey, particularly for the
ocean voyage. What would life be like; how much comfort
would they be likely to have; what must they bring with
them? 1
Although as a place for his own settlement the Mohawk Val
ley and Pennsylvania seem to have been the regions he most
seriously considered, lands further west also claimed his atten
tion. He was keenly alive to the difficulties of individual set
tlement, and welcomed, as a means of overcoming them, the
formation of land companies.2
He foresaw with clearness something of the future of western
expansion, but it would have taken a wiser man than he to
foresee the material inventions which were to develop that
western territory, by making its water-ways so tremendously
important. The primitive steamboat which he saw being ex
perimented with on the Delaware, seemed to him merely an
interesting novelty; it was too expensive, too cumbersome,
and required too many men to operate it, to be very useful.3
But if Brissot failed to perceive the means by which the
country was to be developed, of its capacity for development
he had not the slightest doubt. The taxes appeared to him to
be low, at least in comparison with those of France. Large
families were common; prices, if judged by the ordinary cost
of living, and not by the tavern charges, were moderate; and,
what seemed most remarkable of all, there were few signs of
extreme poverty, except in the large cities. The striking ex
ceptions to this prosperity were in Rhode Island and New
Jersey, where, as a result of a craze for paper money, economic
distress prevailed.
The existence of paper money was one of the few things
which Brissot criticized in the United States. He was thor-
1 Correspondance, 205.
2 See the questions which he asked as to the relative merits of those two
localities. Correspondance, 185-86. See also his notes in the collection of M.
Vellay on the Illinois Company and the settlements made under its aus
pices. 3 Nouveau Voyage, I, 340.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 83
oughly convinced of the evils of this irredeemable paper cur
rency, and considered it a signal merit of the new constitution
that, by taking away from the states the power of issuing paper
money, it relieved existing evils and gave promise of safety for
the future. Conditions in Rhode Island, on account of the paper
money, appeared to him especially bad. He also criticized the
constitution of that state, because it permitted too frequent
elections of the legislative body, and made the judicial body
too much subject to the control of the people.1
But with these few exceptions Brissot had nothing but warm
est praise for America. And that American life was so simple
and wholesome, and the standard of morality so high, was due,
he declared again and again, to the liberty which formed the
basis of the government.2 In his enthusiasm he was guilty of a
good deal of triviality. Liberty, in his opinion, accounted for
everything, from the good temper of the stage-driver to the
large size of the windows in the hospitals, ¦ — both of which,
he declared, would be exceptional in a land of despotism. To
liberty and equality was due the longevity of the people. To
the absence of entire liberty and equality in the case of women,
was due the greater prevalence of consumption among their
sex. "They are more susceptible to consumption," he ex
plained, "on account of the absence of a civil existence. The
submission to which women are habituated, to which they are
condemned, has the effect of chains, which compress and gnaw
the flesh, cause obstructions, deaden the vital principle, and
impede the circulation." 3
The constitution, which was to Brissot the tangible embodi
ment of liberty and equality, was the aU-absorbing topic of
discussion at the time of his visit. At the date of his departure
from Havre, June 3, 1788, its fate hung in the balance. When
1 Nouveau Voyage, I, 200-12.
* He had previously attributed all that was good in American institutions to
life in the country. See p. 75. The Monthly Review, for 1791 (p. 531), in
speaking of the Voyage, reminded Brissot that the excellent conditions which
he ascribed to hberty, were in existence under the British government.
3 Nouveau Voyage, u, 133.

84 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
he wrote his first letter from America, July 30, the acceptance
of the constitution by New Hampshire, Virginia, and New
York, had made the new government a certainty. In this polit
ical agitation Brissot took an absorbing interest, and through
his letters of introduction he had the opportunity of meeting
some of the men who had most to do with the formation and
adoption of the new constitution. He visited Franklin, whom
he had long admired for his part in the American Revolution;
dined with Madison and Schuyler; and made the acquaintance
of Hamilton, King, and Jay. In Hamilton he saw the "deter
mined air of a republican " ; in Madison, the " meditative air of
a profound pohtician." He agreed with Madison that the re
fusal of North Carolina to accept the constitution would have
little influence on the minds of the Americans, but he was in
clined to lay more weight than Madison on the criticism with
which that refusal would be received abroad. "People over
there," he declared, "wiU not take the trouble to inquire into
the motives which dictated the refusal, nor wfll they consider
the smaU consequence of this state in the confederation. On
the contrary, they wfll look upon it as a germ of perhaps lasting
division." x The one blot upon the constitution was, in Bris
sot's mind, the recognition which it gave to slavery. He was
hopeful, however, that the slave trade would soon be abohshed,
and that a growing sentiment against slavery would lead to
the extinction of that evil.
Influenced by his belief in the future prosperity of America,
he now came to a decision on the question he had been con
sidering, and definitely made up his mind to settle in Amer
ica, chose Pennsylvania as the place of his abode, and sent for
his brother-in-law, who was then living in Russia, to come to
join him.2 In the midst of these plans his eye feU upon a notice
1 Nouveau Voyage, I, 242, and Correspondance, 202.
2 Potion, Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel, n, 237-38. See also Riplique d Stanislas
Clermont, 9 : " Celle qui par sa grandeur et sa simplicitS meritoit plus mon estime
et mon attachment, la Pennsylvanie [sic] m'avoit adopts pour un de ses enfants."
He seems to be speaking here only in a figurative sense. There is no record that
the State of Pennsylvania bestowed citizenship upon him.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 85
in the American papers, to the effect that the date of the meet
ing of the States General had been put forward from May to Jan
uary. It seemed that revolution was to begin, and without even
waiting the arrival of his brother-in-law, Brissot hastened back
to France,1 in the hope, as he says, of being useful to the cause
of liberty.2
But though he unexpectedly ended his American travels and
thus changed the whole course of his life, his experience in
America continued to be an important factor in its influence
both upon his private life and upon his public career. Immedi
ately on landing he made connections with Parker, the agent of
Duer and Craigie, with the purpose of furthering speculation
in the American debt,3 but he soon lost confidence in him.
The operations in which they were engaged were not successful,
and instead of immense gains the association appears to have
come out of the transaction minus both glory and profit.4
Besides the speculation in the American debt, Brissot was
also interested in the speculation in western land, particularly
in the operations of Duer and Craigie in connection with the
so-called Scioto Company. The situation was this: an asso
ciation had been formed in America, known as the Ohio Com
pany, which had obtained a grant of land from Congress. Tak
ing advantage of this situation, Duer and his friends organized
a private association — the Scioto Company — to buy land
from Congress under the shadow of the Ohio Company's bar
gain.5 The Scioto Company then intended to sell in Holland
1 He sailed December 3, 1788, and "after a long, tedious and stormy pas
sage of 41 days," disembarked at Falmouth, England. (Letter of Craigie to
Dupont, February 2, 1789, Craigie Papers, American Antiquarian Society; and
letter of Brissot to Duer, dated Falmouth, January 15, 1789, Scioto Papers,
New York Historical Society.)
2 Riponse d tous les libellistes, 25. 3 See pp. 66-67.
4 See the Craigie Papers, American Antiquarian Society; also Scioto Papers,
New York Historical Society, especially letters of Craigie to Brissot, of June
13, July 28, 1789, and October 6, 1790; and letters of Brissot to Duer, of Jan
uary 31, and April 28, 1789.
5 "It was intended by the Scioto Company to make an immediate sale of its
rights of preemption in Holland and France. In both these countries large
amounts of United States securities were held. These securities were then

86 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and France its right of preemption, and to this end they sent
Joel Barlow to France to act as their agent. He arrived in June,
1788, just after Brissot had saUed for America, and promptly
set to work to accomplish his task. He soon found, however,
that it was very difficult to sell a mere preemption in smaU lots
to individual purchasers. To create public confidence a com
pany was accordingly formed at Barlow's instigation, which
took over the sale of the land, and which for the time being
was successful; but the public soon lost confidence and it was
thought necessary to organize a new company, the formation
of which was made public in July, 1790. The operations of
these several companies in many instances were not such as to
bear the light, and the whole thing ended in faUure.1
Just what was Brissot's relation to this affair is not clear.
According to Todd, in his life of Joel Barlow, Brissot, before
his journey to America, made some effort to seU the company's
lands, but without success. There is no reliable evidence, how
ever, to indicate any such attempt, and from the correspond
ence between Brissot and the American speculators at the
time of his journey to the United States, it would not appear
that they had had previous intercourse. Because of their as
sociation in connection with the American debt, he would
naturally be connected too with their land schemes. He cer
tainly advocated the formation of a European firm for the sale
of American land. The land companies, he was persuaded,
would make profit only if they developed a European market.
It was necessary further, he argued, to open the lands for sale
through a European house. People would lack confidence in
any American house.2 What was needed was a European con-
almost worthless. It was natural to suppose that their holders would gladly
part with them in exchange for fertile lands in the west of the United States.
The securities thus acquired could be used by the Scioto Associates to pay
Congress for their lands. Since Congress would accept the securities at par
while the Scioto Associates had received them at a greatly depreciated value,
the latter would soon be able to pay for their lands and the sums derived
thereafter would be clear profit." Belote, The Scioto Speculation, I, 20.
1 Ibid.
2 Observations on the scheme of lottery, respecting the contract of lands on

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 87
nection. How this should be worked out he set forth in what
he called a "Plan of a society for promoting the emigration
from Europe in the [sic] United States." There were many
sober, industrious people in the various countries of Europe
who, he was convinced, would be only too glad to emigrate to
the new world if they could do so with safety and profit. But
they were ignorant of the good opportunities which awaited
them in the western lands; they lacked money and they did
not know how to get there. This was a rare chance for an enter
prising company. Such a company should buy lands, establish
a house, or else enter into a partnership with a house already
established in a "part of Europe: 1, not very far from home;
2d, in the center of Europe; 3d, in a free government where its
operations should not be liable to be enquired into." y Such a
society, he continued, ought further to distribute throughout
Europe pamphlets in various languages, setting forth the phys
ical, pohtical, and commercial advantages to be enjoyed in the
United States. It ought, moreover, to assist worthy emigrants
with money, grants of land, and agricultural implements.
Whether these attempts of Brissot's to promote a European
company were in the interest of the French Scioto Com
pany or in opposition to it in order to further his own private
interests, is not clear. But whatever may have been his rela
tions to Barlow and the French Company up to the spring of
1789, it is clear that from that date he attacked the French
Scioto Company most bitterly, and tried to divert interest
from it to schemes of his own for American settlements. Wit
ness the announcement in the Patriote Frangais of April 23,
1790, of a proposed French settlement in America, not con
nected — it is significantly added — with the Scioto Company.
the Mississippi (undated). Notes by Brissot in the collection of Brissot's papers
belonging to M. Charles Vellay, referred to above.
1 The plan is undated, but according to M. Perroud, it was probably drawn
up about 1786 or 1787. It would fit in, however, he adds, with the announce
ment in the Patriote Frangais of April 23, 1790. Correspondance, 458-60. It
is in Brissot's handwriting and in English, and incidentally shows how much
grasp he had of the language.

88 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The advantages of such a settlement, at this juncture, are
portrayed in glowing terms, but at the same time persons in
tending to emigrate are warned that unless they are lovers of
democratic simplicity and of liberty and equality, they will not
be suited to the life of the settler. It is added that the posses
sion of some means is also necessary. "From what has just
been said," the writer continues, "it is evident that this estab
lishment does not resemble at all that proposed by the Scioto
Company. That company demands a considerable fortune,
this one does not; that one carries on its operations in a coun
try not yet inhabited, this one in a country already settled."
Persons wishing further information are directed to write, care
of the Patriote Frangais. A few months later the Patriote
Frangais made a more direct attack on what it designated
as the "so-called Scioto Company." This company, it was
alleged, was victimizing French citizens.1
It was only the French Company, however, which Brissot
had attacked; the original company he continued to defend,
and with good reason, for he had been given power of attorney
by Craigie for the sale of a tract of land on the Susquehanna,2
and if suspicion were thrown upon the company, his own in
terests would suffer. In the published account of his travels,
the Nouveau Voyage, which appeared in April, 1791, he ac
cordingly spoke in the highest terms of the Scioto Company,
and expatiated on the advantages of the western lands.3 In
deed, his wish to portray the United States as a desirable place
for emigration may have been quite as potent a factor in has
tening the publication of the work as his endeavor to further
liberty in France. Furthermore, just at this time he was
brought into connection by an American friend, Miers Fisher,
with American agents interested in the lands near the Ohio,
1 Patriote Frangais, August 4, 1790.
2 Craigie to Brissot, January 24, 1789. Scioto Papers, New York Historical
Society. 3 In a letter, apparently from Dupont, of November 28, 1791, Brissot is
informed that he is criticized for speaking so highly of a company in which he
is himself interested. Scioto Papers, American Antiquarian Society.

TRAVELS IN THE UNITED STATES 89
and asked to assist in the sales in company with Claviere at a
commission of two and one half per cent.1 He was also inter
ested in the Illinois Company, and eagerly searched for infor
mation concerning its lands and settlements.2 In all these va
rious ways he tried to further emigration, sometimes, it would
appear, with more zeal than discretion. That a man wanted to
settle in America was sufficient for Brissot; whether he had the
proper qualifications for a settler on the frontier mattered little.
The letters of Madame Brissot at this epoch throw a side
light on the matter. From them it is evident that Brissot's
home was a rendezvous for would-be emigrants, not always
of the most desirable character.3
He even thought of emigrating himself. Indeed, when he left
America it was with the evident intention of returning,4 but
as political affairs more and more absorbed his attention, he
gave it up. However, the charm of country life as he had seen
it there stiU fascinated him and was probably one of the in
fluences which led to his plans for the Societe agricole ou d'amis.
This was an association, which he tried to form in connection
with the Rolands and other friends, for buying lands from the
government and establishing a common life in the country.5
The project, however, did not materialize.
But although Brissot never returned to America, he main
tained an active correspondence with numerous friends there,
both personal and professional. The settlement of his brother-
in-law in Pennsylvania kept him in close touch with Ameri
can affairs, while his connection with the land speculations
influenced his ideas and activities.
1 Letter of Miers Fisher to Brissot, February 2, 1791. Correspondance, 261,
and another letter of November 3, 1790, in Scioto Papers, American Anti
quarian Society.
2 Notes in Brissot's writing communicated to the writer by M. Charles
Vellay of Paris.
3 Correspondance, 242-45.
1 Letter of Frangois Dupont. Craigie Papers, American Antiquarian So
ciety. 6 See p. 150. See also for the constitution of the society, Correspondance,
461.

90 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The political influence of Brissot's travels was also of much
importance and is seen throughout his career in the Revolution.
Indeed, it was largely with the purpose of bringing American
example before France that he decided in the midst of the tur
moil of the Revolution to publish an account of his journey.
Such an undertaking might seem out of place, he wrote in his
preface, since "we also have acquired our liberty, but to ac
quire liberty is only the first step; we must learn from the Ameri
cans the secret of preserving it." That secret, Brissot con
tinued, consisted chiefly in a high standard of morality. "I
see with pain," he went on, "not only that we do not yet
possess it, but that we are not yet persuaded of the absolute
necessity of it for the maintenance of liberty. . . . Without
private morality, no pure public morality, no public spirit, no
liberty ! " x To make the work more complete, he added the
volume already published in coUaboration with Claviere, —
De la France et des Etats Unis. To round out the whole, a fourth
volume was needed, dealing with political connections, but the
time failed him for that.2 Indeed, in order to publish the work
at all, he was obliged to sacrifice polish; but the time was ripe,
he was convinced, for just such information, and if he were to
help France in her revolution he must publish the work as it
was.3 Throughout the Revolution America continued to be his
model. His constant appeals to American precedent in foreign
affairs, his attempt to mould a constitution for France on the
lines of the Constitution of the United States, his furtherance of
Genet's appointment and of his mission to Spanish America,
and, finally, his alleged adherence to federalism based on the
ground of his admiration for the Republic across the water,4 —
all this is evidence both of the lasting results of his travels upon
himself and also of the influence which, through him, was
exerted upon the French Revolution by American institutions.
1 Nouveau Voyage, preface, I, xii. 2 Ibid., preface, I, xxi, xxx.
3 The work was published in April, 1791.
4 See chapters vi, vm, and x.

CHAPTER V
BRISSOT'S CAREER AS A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN DURING
THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
The news of the rapidly rising tide of excitement at the
approaching meeting of the States-General had cut short Bris
sot's travels in the United States and brought him back post
haste to France. He found that the country was indeed in a
ferment of excitement, people everywhere were discussing the
organization and functions of the States-General, and the press
was pouring forth a flood of pamphlets on the subject. Here
was his opportunity of applying his ideas of reform, and into
this ferment he threw himself with characteristic ardor. He
wrote pamphlets, organized committees, and made political
addresses. In his friend Claviere he found active sympathy,
and his house and Claviere's soon became centers for political
discussion. According to Dumont who sometimes attended
these meetings it was aU useless chatter.1 The active partici
pants, however, were tremendously in earnest and felt that they
were performing a most useful and indispensable work in draw
ing up declarations of rights and laying down principles for con
ducting the proceedings of the States-General. His own ideas
on these subjects Brissot hastened to set forth in a pamphlet
caUed Plan de conduite pour les deputes du peuple aux Etats-
Generaux de 1789, a production of considerable importance
for the light it throws upon Brissot's attitude at this important
epoch. Like most of the pamphleteers of the time, he began
with a discussion of the system of voting. After considering
various methods of voting, par ordre, par tete, by a number of
bureaus, by two chambers, one of which should be composed of
clergy and nobility, the other of members of the third estate,
1 Dumont, Souvenirs de Mirabeau, 33; see also Lettres de Mme. Roland, ed.
by Perroud, n, 737, Appendix Q.

m BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
he declared himself opposed to aU these methods, and proposed
instead voting by two chambers, each of which should be con
stituted as follows: clergy, 125; nobility, 125; third estate, 250.
In case of failure to agree, the two chambers were to meet
together as one body, and decide the matter by a majority vote.
As for the powers and duties of the States-General, it should in
the first place take steps to secure the inviolability of letters
committed to the post, and also the liberty of its members; and
in order to do its work uninfluenced by the court, it should re
move to Paris. Further, in order that no able men should be
shut out of the States-General, no matter what their financial
condition, the members should be paid. " Not to pay a salary,"
he maintained, "would lead in France, as it has in England, to
corruption." It would shut out from the assemblies men of
talent who are not always in easy circumstances. They have
had experience in this matter in America, and that is why the
members of Congress are paid. The salary ought to be suf
ficiently large to provide for the daily expenses of the members,
but not so large as to make the position of deputy sought for as
a profession or profitable employment. The business of this
body, he declared, was purely legislative. To make a constitu
tion was outside of its province; it could only decree that the
nation caU a special body for that purpose. It would not be
sufficient, however, to give to the States-General control of the
taxes and of the army, as in England; there must be permanent,
annual, and independent meetings of this body. Such meetings
wiU serve to counterbalance the bad influence of the ministers,
but they will not destroy monarchy. "On the contrary," he
declared, "the true support of the French monarchy wUl be
in annual meetings of the States-General. The present reign
ing family cannot have a surer and more invariable support."
This statement was somewhat startling from a man who less
than three years before had declared that no radical reform
was possible under a monarchy. It shows that Brissot had
either modified his ideas or else, in view of the possibility of
election to the States-General, had modified their expression.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 93
Meanwhile he actively engaged in the actual preliminaries
of the elections. For electoral purposes, Paris had been divided
into sixty districts. Each district was to choose delegates to
the general electoral assembly of the third estate, and the gen
eral electoral assembly, in turn, was to choose twenty rep
resentatives to the States-General. In his own district, that of
the Filles-Saint-Thomas, Brissot hardly arrived on the scene
before he stepped into a place of prominence and was soon
elected as its president. Even before the district had finished
its legitimate business of choosing electors, he came forward
with a plan, the object of which was to enable the districts to
exercise some surveillance over the States-General, — in other
words to enable the people to maintain their sovereignty.
This was to be accomplished by means of committees of cor
respondence between the districts, the electors, and the depu
ties of Paris. Ii the two orders should fight for their preten
sions, he argued, the third estate would fight for its " inalienable
rights." In case a schism should result, the deputies would
return to their constituents, the inhabitants of the districts.
The districts, therefore, should remain in readiness to assemble,
and the only means of assembling the people was by a com
mittee of correspondence always in activity. As a result of his
argument, his district appointed such a committee, with Bris
sot himself at its head, and invited the other districts to take
like action.1 The invitation met with a speedy response, and
there was thus created, largely through Brissot's instrumental
ity, permanent organizations, which were to have an important
part in the development of the future government of Paris.2
He next proceeded to draft a statement of grievances for the
use of the electoral assembly in drawing up its cahier of com
plaints. Although not a member of this assembly he did not
hesitate to offer his advice. They would do well, he wrote, to
1 Observations sur la nScessiti d'itablir, dans les differents districts et dans
VAssemblie ginirale des ilecteurs de Paris, des comit&s de correspondance avec
les diputis de Paris aux Etats-Ginireaux, Slavril, 1789.
2 Chassin, Les Elections, n, 403.

94 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
limit their instructions to their deputies to four subjects —
the organization of the States-General, and the manner of its
deliberation, a declaration of rights, the consolidation of the
debt and temporary means of payment. Then after summing
up what he had already said on these subjects in his Plan de
conduite, he reiterated with especial emphasis his previous
statement that untfl fundamental rights were established,
Paris had better be sflent as to her own special grievances.1
While dealing with the principles to be upheld by the elec
toral assemblies and by the States-General he was quite as
vitally interested in the persons to be elected. One may be sure
that the frequent excited gatherings at his house and the hur
ried notes which he and his friends were constantly sending to
each other were not concerned with principles alone, but also
with the interests of individuals. One may be sure, too, that
all this activity of Brissot's was not entirely disinterested. He
looked forward to the States-General as a means of overthrow
ing various forms of despotism which he had long and vigor
ously attacked, and he was desperately anxious to have a part
himself in the final assault. The 25th of April he wrote in
English to a friend : " We are in the electioneering fire. There is
some chances [sic] for me. I have preached very successfuUy
[sic] the people. However, there are so many intrigues that
I am quite desponding." 2 His friends at Chartres, among
whom were Petion and the Countess de Seinie, were specially
active in his behalf and put him forward as a candidate for
deputy from his native place.3 But their efforts were unsuc
cessful, and at Paris, notwithstanding his prominence in his
district, for some reason he was not chosen even to the elec
toral assembly.4 Although discouraged, he stiU hoped that he
1 Pricis adressi d VAssembUe ginirale des ilecteurs de Paris pour servir d la
redaction du cahier des doliances de cette ville. May, 1789. See Chassin, m, 211.
2 Correspondance, 230. This note shows the extent of his knowledge of
English. 3 Ibid., 225-28.
In his Pricis adressi d VAssembUe he alluded to the singular circumstances
which prevented his election. See also his Discours prononci d Vilection du
district des Filles-SaintrThomas, le SI avril, 1789. Note also that some hght is

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 95
might be chosen to the States-General, and it was, undoubt
edly, as much to further his own cause, as to set forth his
principles, that he drew up the advice as to the cahier. In
deed, this draft of a statement of grievances was in part at
least the expression of his own grievance in not being elected,
and an excuse for calling the attention of the electors to the
fact that in choosing the deputies they were not limited to
their own number.1
His reputation as a pamphleteer and a humanitarian helped
his cause, and his name was inserted fourth in a list of "twenty-
one friends of the people who deserve to be the choice of the
electors of Paris." The document in which this assertion was
made further declared that " there had been distributed in Paris
lists in which celebrated names were mixed with the names of
obscure and dangerous men." But in this list, the public was
assured, were inscribed " only those persons who had made open
profession of defending the cause of the people." 2 But in spite
of all these efforts, he was not elected, a result which he after
ward declared was due in part to the influence of the Duke of
Orleans against him, though his reason for the supposition is
not clear.3 He was naturally bitterly disappointed, but a man
thrown on the matter by Etienne Dumont. He says: "J'itais a la section des
Filles-Saint-Thomas ; c' itait un quartier central, occupi par la classe la plus
opulente : pendant long-temps U n'y avait pas deux cent individus. L'embarras
de se mettre en action itait extreme ; le bruit itait affreux. Tout le monde itait
debout, tous parlaient d la-fois ; les plus grandes efforts du prisident n'obtenaient
pas deux minutes de silence. II y eut bien d' autres difficultis sur la maniere de
prendre les suffrages, et de les compter. J'avais recueilli pluisieurs traits curieux
de cette enfance de la dimocratie, mais ils sont a-peu-prh effacis de ma mimoire.
Us revenaient tous a V empressement des hommes d pritention, qui voulaient parler
pour se faire connditre, et se faire connditre pour itre ilus.
"On voyait les premiers essais de l'art des intrigues et des cabales pour faire
tomber les nominations sur ceux de son partie. On ne voulait point de listes de
candidats; tous Haient appelis d choisir sur tous. Les voix se disperserent teU
lement dans les premieres operations, qu'on ne pouvait obtenir la majoriti ab-
solue pour aucun des designis. II fallut riitirer I'ilection jusqu'd ce qu'enfin on
obtint le risultat nicessaire." Dumont, Souvenirs, 39-40.
1 Pricis adressi d VAssembUe ginirale des tlecteurs de Paris.
2 Chassin, n, 312.
8 Mimoires, i, 119. It must be remembered that at the time Brissot wrote

96 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
of his interests and ideas was not going to sit quietly by and let
reform go on under his eyes without taking some part in it.
Though cut off from participation in legislation, he was by no
means cut off from exercising influence upon it. There were
other opportunities, and he seized upon them, threw himself
heart and soul into the work of the Amis des Noirs, and
made it a factor with which the States-General had to deal.
He established a newspaper — the Patriote Frangais — which
helped to create public opinion, and so, in turn, influenced
legislation, and if he could not be a leader in the reorganization
of France, he played a very important part in the reorganiza
tion of Paris, in establishing its liberty, and in transferring
authority from the central government to the people.
"The Revolution made Paris a commune before it made
France a nation," says M. Monin.1 The old government of
the city was divided between the parlement, the Chatelet, the
ministry of Paris, the heutenant-general of the police, certain
guilds, the hotel de ville, the church, and the university. "It
was a chaos of competing authorities, a tangle of obsolete priv-
Ueges, and a nest of scandalous abuses. Anomalous courts
jostled and scrambled for jurisdiction, ancient guUds and cor
porations blocked every reform, atrocious injustice and in
veterate corruption reigned high-handed in the name of king,
noble or church." By a single event, the storming of the Bas
tille, this ancient municipal regime was swept from power and
a clear field was left for the development of a modern city gov
ernment in Paris. But to tear down was one thing; to build up
quite another. Immediately on the fall of the BastiUe and the
flight of the constituted authorities, the instinct for law and
order asserted itself and led to the acclamation of Baflly as
his memoirs, it was to his interest to show that there was no connection
between him and the Duke.
1 L'Etat de Paris en 1789, 27. A comparison of the present government of
London and of Paris makes clear the advantage which the latter gained in the
Revolution. Whereas London still suffers from the overlapping of authori
ties and from antiquated tradition, the government of Paris is clear cut and
thoroughly modern.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 97
Mayor of Paris and of Lafayette as commander of the national
guard, but it was not until October, 1790, after several unsuc
cessful experiments and organizations, that anything like a
permanent and legal form of municipal government was estab
lished. In the actual attack on the Bastille, there is no record
that Brissot took any part, but with the resulting events he was
closely connected. As the president of the district of the Filles-
Saint-Thomas he had the honor of receiving the keys of the
fortress,1 he is said to have been prominent in putting forward
Lafayette 2 as commander of the national guard, and in the
slow process of building up the new city government, he was
one of the leaders.
The machinery for forming a new government was set in
motion by the electoral assembly. This assembly had been
chosen in the spring of 1789 and was charged solely with the
duties of drawing up a general cahier and of electing the depu
ties of the third estate of Paris to the States-General. After
performing these duties it had no further legal warrant for
existence, but nevertheless it did not dissolve; and, when on
July 13 and 14 the old city government fell to pieces, it slipped
into the vacant place, and with the assistance of the electoral
organizations of the districts, proceeded to take upon itself
the government of the city. The district assemblies, like the
general assemblies of the electors, were formed with the one
1 This rests on Brissot's own statement given by Charpentier in La Bas
tille dhoilie, i, troisieme livraison, 78. It is also mentioned in the introduction
to the Moniteur. But the original Moniteur was not published till November,
1789, and the edition containing the introduction was not published till 1796.
This reference is therefore not contemporaneous and is probably derived from
Brissot's own statement. A key of the Bastille was sent to Washington by
Lafayette (Washington's Writings, ed. by Ford, xi, 493). It is possible that
Lafayette may have received the key from Brissot.
2 " On se rappelle que c'est lui [Brissot] qui appuya a la Maison Commune, la
motion faite par le flagorneur Fauchet, de nommer le sieur Mottii, giniralissime
desguardes nationale." Note of Delacroix in V Intrigue divoilee, ou Robespierre
vengi des outrages et des calomnies des ambitieux, quoted in Annates rivolu-
tionnaires, i, 338-39, April, 1908. This is very doubtful authority, however,
as it was to the interest of Delacroix to make out Brissot as closely connected
with Lafayette.

98 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
purpose of carrying on the election, and on the completion of
that work should have dissolved. Instead, they proceeded to
effect a more or less permanent organization and to take part
in political discussion. This was due to Brissot, who with his
plan of committees of correspondence, furnished the means for
permanency. There was thus created a number of local organ
izations to which the electoral assembly could appeal. This
assembly was perfectly aware of the irregularity, not to say
the illegality of its position as a city government, and within
a few days after the fall of the BastUle it suffered the districts
to make formal choice of a regular central assembly. The muni
cipal government thus created was caUed the assembly of the
representatives of the Commune and met for the first time,
July 25, 1789. 1
As the president and most prominent representative of the
district of the Filles-Saint-Thomas Brissot was elected to the
new municipality, and thus he found his first real opportunity
of applying his political theories to the solution of practical
problems. These theories, as has been seen, tended toward
democracy and popular sovereignty. The first problem which
presented itself was that of providing a permanent municipal
organization. Where, for instance, was the balance of power
to be, — with the district, or with the central administrative
body? — a question of sovereignty. In the formation of a muni
cipal constitution how far was the city to act independently of
the National Assembly? — a question of liberty or sovereignty
under another aspect. Was Paris, like other cities, to be in
cluded in a department, or was it to form a government by
itself? — a question of equahty.
To each of these questions Brissot had a ready answer, but
1 The successive stages of the development of this city government may be
very briefly stated as follows: (1) the assembly of the electors of Paris from
July 14 to July 25, 1789; (2) the temporary Commune which lasted from July
25 to September 18, 1789; (3) the second temporary Commune from September
25, 1789, to October 8, 1790; (4) the permanent Commune which was estab
lished October 8, 1790. See Lacroix, Actes de la Commune de Paris, pendant la
Rivolution; Introduction, i, n.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 99
as he was not elected to the constitutional committee of the
municipal assembly, it seemed at first that he was to have little
chance to exert his influence. A general laxity in the manage
ment of committee business, however, had made it possible for
persistent outsiders to take part in the discussions and influ
ence the decisions. Taking advantage of this state of things,
Brissot succeeded in attaching himself to the committee as
a kind of unofficial member, and in exercising considerable in
fluence upon its conclusions. For instance, the plan for a con
stitution as it had been originally presented to the committee
had contained no declaration of rights. This seemed to Brissot
so glaring an omission that he promptly drew up a municipal
charter which did contain such a declaration and submitted it
to the committee. The declaration asserted that cities had the
right to form their own government, subject to the general
supervision of the central government; that Paris, as a unique
city, ought to have a special form of government and be con
sidered both a city and a province; that all citizens ought to
have part in the elections; and that the preponderance of power
should he with the central city administration and not with the
districts.1 Brissot unfortunately does not seem to have been
consistent, for in his Motifs des commissaires pour adopter le
plan de municipality he makes the suffrage depend on the pay
ment of a direct and personal tax.
The plan itself provided for the division of Paris into sixty
districts; for a central legislative body of three hundred mem
bers, five from each district ; for the renewal of one fifth of the
legislative body each year; and for a conseil de ville of sixty
members, the majority of whom were to be chosen by the legis
lative body of the municipality. Its fundamental principle,
the concentration of power in the legislative body of three hun
dred, was certainly not in harmony with the declaration of
rights nor with Brissot's ideas of democracy, and was a de
cided contrast to other plans which gave more power to the
1 Observations sur le plan de municipality de Paris, suivies du plan original
et d'une declaration des droits des municipalitSs.

100 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
mayor or to the districts. Two of its features suggest the
arrangements frequently carried out in a modern city govern
ment: the close relation of the districts to the central govern
ment, secured by making the president of each district a mem
ber of the legislative body; and the system of partial renewal
of that body. This concentration of power naturally met with
much opposition on the part of the districts. It was asserted
that places would be open only to the rich. In consequence the
municipality would degenerate into an aristocracy, and finaUy,
these class distinctions could be avoided only by such gen
eral periodic renewals in the assembly as would leave at each
renewal only a minority of former members in office. The dis
tricts also claimed that the choice of the conseil de ville be
longed of right to them, and not to the legislative body; and
further, that one member should be chosen to this council from
each district, — a claim which suggests the modern question
of ward representation.1 Brissot's plan was accordingly modi
fied in this particular, the choice of the conseil de ville being
transferred to the districts.2 Nevertheless, the essential part
of his plan was accepted and formed the basis of the successive
provisional organizations under which Paris was governed from
September, 1789, to October, 1790. Brissot was elected to the
assembly of the representatives under this new government and
endeavored to take an active part in municipal affairs.
The second important question in regard to the new city
government, the proper relation of the national government to
municipal government, Brissot answered quite in accord with
his principles of democracy and with the most modern ideas of
"home rule for cities." 3 Municipal and provincial assembhes,
he declared, ought, as far as their objects and their power are
concerned, to be entirely distinct and separate from the national
legislative assembly. The function of the latter was merely to
give its sanction to every municipal and provincial constitu-
1 Robiquet, Le personnel municipal, 147-148, note; 162. 2 Ibid., 162.
3 Discours prononci par Brissot de Warville au district des Filles-Saint-
Thomas, July 21, 1789. Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, i, 292.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 101
tion. In short, cities ought to have the right to form their own
municipal governments; to the central government belonged
only the veto power over the clauses of the municipal constitu
tions. Indeed, Brissot was so jealous of the rights of the new
government of Paris that when Mirabeau, in speaking of the
rights of local civil authorities, criticized the municipalities as
being aristocratic and despotic,1 he saw in Mirabeau's remarks
an attack on Paris and immediately proceeded to arraign Mira
beau in a letter published in the Patriote Frangais in which he
reiterated his former arguments, declaring again that it was
the province of the municipalities to draw up their own system
of government, and that the legislative power had only the most
limited control over their charters. He soon discovered on
reading a fuller report of the speech in question that Mirabeau
had really cast no aspersions on Paris. He was therefore obliged
to retract his too hasty criticisms.2
The third important question was that of the advisability of
including Paris in a department of the same size as other de
partments, or of forming it into a department by itself. Here
Brissot took what has proved to be the modern view, advocat
ing a special form of government for Paris and claiming that it
was not a violation of equality since Paris was a unique city.
In a speech before the city council he advanced the argument,
since justified by experience, that the exceptional conditions of
a large city require a particular kind of government, and that
to make such a city dependent on a department in just the same
manner as smaller cities were dependent, is to work against the
interests of its inhabitants.3 In this case, however, Brissot was
not altogether successful, for although the Department of the
Seine was so constituted as to include but little territory out
side of Paris, yet the Commune of Paris did not secure an
independent government but was made subordinate to this
departmental government.4
1 Moniteur, August 10-14, 1789. 2 Patriote Frangais, August 17-18, 1789.
* Opinion de J. P. Brissot de Warville sur la question de savoir si Paris sera
le centre d'un dipartement, December 15, 1789.
4 Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, in, Introduction, and p. 197.

102 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Meanwhile, in the administration, as well as in the organiza
tion of the city government, he was taking an active part. He
served on committees, made speeches both in his district and
section, and in the central assembly, drew up addresses, and at
the same time, by means of his newspaper, the Patriote Fran
gais, kept the public informed of municipal affairs and of his
own views upon them. EspeciaUy on occasions when the muni
cipality had a communication to make to the National As
sembly or undertook in other ways to make its influence felt in
national affairs, Brissot was sure to appear at the front, if he
did not himself take the initiative. For example, on the bring
ing of the king and queen and the National Assembly to Paris,
he was appointed as one of the committee to draw up an ad
dress to be sent to all the municipalities of France,1 and on
another committee to draw up and present an address to the
National Assembly on the same occasion. Both addresses ap
pear to have been Brissot's own work and were skillfuUy ex
pressed. They minimized the actual events of October 5
and 6, dwelt on the advantages of the removal to Paris in
that the Assembly would be more under the influence of the
people, and assured the Assembly that the municipality of
Paris would take aU measures in its power for its protection.
Again when it was a question of stating the opinion of the muni
cipal government on toleration for the Jews, Brissot was ap
pointed to examine a work on the subject.2 And once more
when the very important matter of the ecclesiastical property
was under discussion he was named on the committee to pre
sent an address to the National Assembly.3 In this case it was
strange that Brissot should have been put on the committee,
for, in a recent address, he had expressed views with which the
municipal assembly was not in sympathy. The National As
sembly had offered to the municipalities of France the op
portunity to purchase the lands of the Church, to re-seU them,
and to keep a generous share of the proceeds. This opportu-
1 Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, ii, 245-47.
2 Ibid., v, 498. 8 Ibid., vi, 130.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 103
nity, Brissot declared, ought to be confined in the case of each
municipality to ecclesiastical territory within its own limits,
for, he argued, municipalities were local administrations; they
could look after distant property only with great inconvenience
and expense; and finally, the conflicting interests which would
inevitably arise would put a severe strain upon the spirit of
fraternity. Furthermore, if the municipalities were really dis
interested, they would also give up the profits accorded to them
by the re-sale. Paris, he added, had had a fine chance to offer
to all the other municipalities of France an example of patriot
ism.1 This opportunity Paris declined to avail herself of, on
the ground that a large part of the ecclesiastical property in
the city of Paris was unproductive, and that as it might be
years before she could re-sell, her interests would be sadly in
jured if she were limited in her acquisitions to Paris itself.2
Meanwhile, the city had a more pressing difficulty to meet
in the scarcity of currency, and on this question, too, Brissot
had something to say. The trouble, he declared, was due to the
suspension of payment of its notes by the caisse d'escompte.
This institution was a bank of issue founded during the reign
of Louis XV, and reestablished under Turgot. It had not been
sufficiently controlled by the government, had gotten into
difficulty and suspended payment. The remedy, according to
Brissot, was not to lessen the difficulty for Paris by circulating
the bills of the caisse in the provinces, neither was it to issue
small notes, but solely to limit its privileges by making the
caisse d'escompte redeem all its bills in cash. Every bill, he
declared in terms which were hardly consistent with his argu
ments in favor of assignats, which was not instantly converti
ble into specie, was a dangerous kind of paper. The muni
cipality ought to appeal to the National Assembly to forbid a
further suspension of payment of the caisse d'escompte, and to
1 Motion sur la nicessiti de circonscrire la vente des Mens ecclisiastiques aux
municipalitis, dans leur territoire. Prisentie d VAssembUe ginirale des repri-
sentants de la Commune de Paris, May 22, 1790.
8 Lacroix, v, 457, 500; vi, 51, 59, 130.

104 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
make aU possible haste to discover and announce the real state
of the finances.1
The finances were not the only branch of the administration
which Brissot felt the people of Paris ought to censure, and in
a speech before the general assembly of the section of the Bib
liotheque, the 24th of October, 1790, he emphasized his ideas
of popular sovereignty and made an appeal for the dismissal of
the entire ministry, including the first clerks. The request for
the dismissal of the ministry had aheady been made, but
hitherto without result. "The National Assembly has suc
cumbed," he cried; "it is now time for the people to triumph,
it is time for them to make their voice heard. The ministers
of the army and navy have protected aristocratic officers; the
minister of foreign affairs has protected officers who have not
taken the oath, the minister of finance has badly mismanaged
the finances. They should all be dismissed." In this case Bris
sot was successful, at least to the extent that a resolution was
passed urging their dismissal and sent to the National As
sembly.2 According to the Journal general de la cour et de la
ville, he was not content with his success in the section of the
Bibliotheque, but had thousands of copies of his address printed
and distributed throughout Paris.3 Meanwhile, he was standing
for the right of the people to criticize, not only the ministry but
their own city officers. He also boldly upheld Marat and Dan
ton who represented the democratic party in their attacks on
the moderates and aristocrats, as represented by the mayor,
BaUly. Brissot thus aUied himself, not only with freedom of
speech, but with democracy.
But Brissot by no means confined his attention to Paris and
the influence of Paris on the National Assembly; he was equally
interested in the development of local government throughout
1 Discours sur la rareti du numeraire et sur les moyens d'y remidier, prononci
d VAssembUe ginirale des reprisentants de la Commune de Paris, le 10 fivrier,
1790. Le Patriote Frangais, February 15, 1790. c
2 Discours prononci & la section de la Bibliotheque dans son AssembUe ginirale
le 24 octobre, 1790, sur la question du renvoi des ministres.
* Journal giniral de la cour et de la ville, November 9, 1790.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 105
France. He was a member of the society of "patriotic elec
tors" whose object was to further the election of good local
officers and of the Societe des anciens representants de la Com
mune who tlirough their comite de surveillance kept up a cor
respondence with the directories,1 while in the columns of the
Patriote Frangais he devoted much space to local municipal
affairs and gave frequent advice as to the dangers to be avoided.
For example, in the issue of the 8th of June, 1790, he warned
the electors to be cautious in the choice of their officers and to
avoid all frivolous and vain persons who were incapable of
understanding the meaning of the word equality. On a previ
ous occasion he had been more precise and inserted an article
which advised the electors in organizing a new government not
to choose the present officers, nor, in short, any person who
belonged to the old order of things. Such advice naturally did
not escape the attention of the proscribed classes and was the
occasion of an acrimonious pamphlet directed agamst the
Patriote Frangais by one of their number.2
Throughout his career as a municipal politician, Brissot
showed himself thoroughly radical in his hostility to the old
regime and in his approval of the new. He even tried to use his
position of influence in municipal affairs to further a new colo
nial regime. He endeavored to interest his fellow politicians in
the cause of the negro, and sent copies by the hundred to the
central municipal assembly of addresses of the Societe des Amis
des Noirs. These addresses were apparently favorably received,
but when he attempted to bring the cause before his district,
his constituents told him plainly that his advocacy of the anti-
slave trade propaganda was untimely, refused to support his
1 Reflexions sur Vitat de la sociili des ilecteurs patriotes sur ses travaux, sur
les formes propres d faire de bonnes ilections, — luis a Vassemblie de cette socUti,
dans la siance du SI dicembre, 1790, par J. P. Brissot, ilecteur, Paris, 25 dicem-
bre, 1790.
2 Lettre & M. Brissot de Warville sur ses Reflexions importantes relatives aux
ilecteurs futurs des municipalitis contenus dans le supplement du No. CLXIV
de son Journal intituli Le Patriote Frangais, par Verney, avocat Lyon, January
30, 1790.

106 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
measures in favor of the negro, and expressed their strongest
disapproval of any steps which might interfere with colonial
commerce.1 Meanwhile, he was sharply criticized by the press
for dragging such a topic into the discussion, while the real
business of the municipality, the formation of a permanent
government, was stiU unfinished.2
Brissot's main work, however, in the new city government,
that in connection with which he was best known and most
severely criticized, was as a member of the ComitS des Re
cherches. This committee was organized October 22, 1789, and
the same day Brissot was chosen a member. Its functions —
" to receive denunciations and depositions of intrigues, plots,
and conspiracies, in case of necessity to keep under surveiUance
the persons denounced, to examine them, to collect proof " 3 —
were not unlike those of the governmental police under the old
regime. The very nature of such functions, involving of neces
sity a certain amount of secrecy and arbitrary action, was
sufficient to bring the committee into disfavor and to arouse
bitter criticism.4 They had to meet the impossible problem
of reconciling the methods of a special tribunal with the new
democratic ideas of liberty and equality. But to stand for law
and order, and at the same time to show their abhorrence of
the old regime and aU its works, was a matter of some dif
ficulty. For example, it was apparently their business to in
vestigate the disorder of the 5th and 6th of October at VersaUles
and punish the authors of it; but they were obviously afraid to
1 Lacroix, in, 366, 370, note 2; rv, 100; also Extrait des registres des dilibira-
tions du district des Filles-Saint-Thomas. Supplement au procfa-verbal de
Vassemblie nationale, Colonies, i; Traite des Nigres, ii.
2 Les Revolutions de Paris, February 13-20, 1790.
' Lacroix, n, 376-77.
4 A report of the work of the committee, made November 30, 1789, only
a little more than a month after its formation, will serve to indicate the kind
of work in which it was engaged. "The committee," says the report, "finds
three kinds of plots to deal with: (a) those attributed to the aristocratic
party; (b) such abnormal excesses as those committed in the Chateau of Ver
sailles; (c) schemes for frightening the people, — such as incendiary motions
and seditious writings." Lacroix, in, 76-81.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 107
do so lest they might be thought to be on the side of royalty
against the people. They had no such scruples, however, about
attacking representatives of the old regime, no matter what
their rank or official position.
The prominence of the persons thus accused made the com
mittee and its methods very conspicuous. It was a situation of
which the royalist newspapers were not slow to take advantage.
They defended the victims of the committee and assailed its
principles. "You may pride yourselves," they said, "on your
democratic principles; you may put these principles into prac
tice by attacking representatives of royalty, but in spite of
your pretensions, you yourselves are using power nothing short
of despotic; and, while bringing accusations against the old
regime, you are employing its very methods." On account of
his reputation as an opponent of despotism, Brissot was the
most conspicuously inconsistent member of the committee and
was accordingly singled out for special attack. "We know
very well," declared the Actes des Apdtres, "that no ComitS
des Recherches has the right to hold citizens accountable for
theh ideas or for their opinions; that Comites des Recherches
and municipalities are not tribunals instructed to judge such
matters; that there is no law in existence against the liberty of
the press. We know all this, and if we did not know it M. Bris
sot de Warville, the president of the Comite des Recherches,
would tell us." Nor was such criticism confined to the royalist
journals. So advanced a paper as the Revolutions de Paris also
called Brissot to account. "A longer exercise of power," it
declared, "might become fatal to the virtues of that com
mittee. The decemvirs oppressed no one at the beginning of
their magistracy; it was only as they became familiar with the
power with which they were clothed that they became tyrants.
... It is time that they abdicated. The spirit of the inquisition
seems to have already destroyed the good principles of that
member of the committee who, a martyr of liberty under the
ministerial regime, we thought, was going to be its defender
under the coming new regime. 'Some authors of incendiary

108 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
writings have been arrested,' says M. Brissot de Warville in his
paper of November 8. . . . Before going further we ask M.
Brissot de WarvUle, the journalist, by what rule M. Brissot
de WarviUe, the member of the Comite des Recherches, decides
whether a certam piece of writing is incendiary or whether it
is not." l
These general charges received a special and damaging ap
plication in the affair of MM. Dhosier and Petit-Jean. The
case itself was of little moment, but it was important in the
accusations to which it gave rise, and because it provoked a
defense of the committee of which Brissot was the author.2
MM. Dhosier and Petit-Jean were two men who had appeared
at the Chateau of Saint-Cloud, June 29, 1790, and aroused sus
picion by their peculiar actions. On being questioned, they pro
duced a paper purporting to contain directions from the Virgin
Mary to the king, which they declared was given to them by
Madame Thomassin, who, while in a state of somnambulism,
had received it directly from the Holy Virgin. This paper,
which at first sight appeared to be the production of some weak-
minded individuals, seemed to the authorities to contain evi
dences of a conspiracy. Madame Thomassin and her friend
Madame Jumilhac were accordingly arrested, and after ex
amination the committee reported to the effect that although
there were suspicious circumstances, the affair was not worth
investigation.3 This report was taken up by Stanislas Clermont,4 who made
it the basis of an attack on the ComitS des Recherches. He ac
cused the committee of the following offenses : 5 they arrested
Madame Jumilhac on insufficient evidence; they did not make
any effort to obtain the corpus delicti; they used an unneces-
1 Les Revolutions de Paris, November 8-14, 1789.
2 Brissot, Rapport dans V affaire de MM. Dhosier et Petit-Jean . . . le 29
juillet, 1790.
3 Brissot . . . d Stanislas Clermont, 89.
4 Stanislas Clermont was a leader of the liberal nobility.
5 Reflexions sur V ouvrage intituli : " Projet de contre-rivolution par les som
nambulists ou rapports dans Vaffaire de MM. Dhosier et Petit-Jean," aout, 1790.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 109
sary display of force in order to arrest her; they did not con
front her with the accuser; they neither acquitted nor con
demned her. The committee, in short, was a tribunal which
considered itself above law, arresting, imprisoning, punishing,
according to its wiU — a veritable inquisition. To these ac
cusations Brissot made a formal reply 1 to this effect: that the
paper in question was of a treasonable nature, and that there
was, therefore, due reason for Madame Jumilhac's arrest; that
the order for her arrest came from the Comite des Recherches
of the National Assembly; that the high rank of Madame
Jumilhac afforded no ground for treating her with more con
sideration than other people; that a large force was necessary
in arresting her to prevent opposition by her friends and serv
ants; that the verdict was necessary from the circumstances of
the case. The general charge that the committee was an in
quisitorial body, Brissot denied most emphatically. This tri
bunal was not an inquisition, he declared, for it was not secret;
the same proofs were required as in ordinary tribunals; the
prisoners were not refused permission to see their friends, and
were not kept in solitary confinement. Surely such a committee
was necessary in time of crisis. Very much the same accusa
tions had been made by the Chevalier de Pange, in answer to
whom Brissot had already made a formal defense of the com
mittee, in which he declared that there was no such thing as
delation under a free government.2 To the accusation that the
committee was simply the old police under a changed name, he
answered that although it might have the same powers, it was
like the old police neither in function nor in spirit. It did not
work in secret nor pronounce sentence, but merely sent the
accused to the proper tribunal; further, its object was not,
as with the old police, "to support despotism, but to defend the
temple of liberty." While Brissot was undoubtedly justified
on account of the extraordinary circumstances of the time in
1 J. P. Brissot . . . d Stanislas Clermont, and Riplique d Stanislas Cler
mont. 2 Lettre de Brissot a M. le Chevalier de Pange, 1790.

110 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
making these distinctions, he showed a perverse tendency to
exaggerate the importance of a change of motive, especiaUy
in his assertion that a committee of inquhy might justly use the
machinery of despotism provided it were done in the interests
of liberty.
The real justification for such a committee was in the neces
sities of the time. As early as October, 1790, when conditions
seemed to have become more normal, the question of its dis
solution was discussed and the motion for its continuance
passed by a very smaU majority.1 Brissot himself shortly after
ward withdrew from the committee.2 A year later, the com
mittee as a whole resigned, on the ground that "the Revolu
tion was ended and the reign of law established." 3
Meanwhile Brissot had aroused opposition of another kind,
on account of his principles regarding the distribution of au
thority in the city government. The form of government which
went into effect in September, 1789, was, after all, only provi
sional, and the city council stiU had„ as its chief work, the
formation of a permanent organization. The main issue was,
as before, the balance of power between the central council
and the districts. Brissot continued to support the central coun
cil, and thereby came into renewed conflict with the districts.
The 30th of November, 1789, he made a motion in the city
council that they should ask the National Assembly to au
thorize its constitutional committee to consult with the com
mittee chosen by the city council for the purpose of presenting
a plan of organization for Paris. In this motion Brissot ap
peared to be desirous of confining all collaboration in the matter
to a committee of the council to the exclusion of the councU
itself, not to mention the districts.4 Such a proposition was
naturally opposed by large numbers of the councU, while nu
merous representatives of the districts appeared to express their
vehement disapproval, and after much discussion it was voted
1 Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, 2d series, i, 125.
2 Robiquet, Le personnel municipal de Paris, 441. 3 Ibid., 465.
4 Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, in, 82, 89-90.

A MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN 111
down. The affair seems to have provoked great excitement.
Brissot was called to account for not having given a correct
report of it in the Patriote Frangais, whereupon he promised
to set the matter right and at the same time protested that
he had not intended to deprive the districts of all voice in the
matter.1 But the districts were not to be convinced. He soon
stirred up the enmity of his own district by an unwise advocacy
of his propaganda against the slave trade.2 Furthermore, in the
matter of the administration of the sale of ecclesiastical lands,
he aroused not only his own, but all the districts. The man
agement of these sales was claimed by the districts, — a de
mand which Brissot opposed on the ground that the districts
were not administrative bodies. The management belonged
therefore not to them but to the bureau de ville, the adminis
trative branch of the general city government.3 The districts
had their revenge when, in the estabhshment of the permanent
municipal government, in October, 1790, they refused to elect
Brissot to the municipal council or to any other office. His
active part in the municipal politics of Paris thus came to an
end. In view of his later mortal combat with the municipal gov
ernment of Paris, his early connection with it is of special inter
est. In view, also, of the ground of that combat, — the strife
between the provinces and Paris, — his early insistence on the
importance of Paris is noteworthy. Because it was so impor
tant he argued it must have a special form of government. But
also because of its importance it must recognize its duties. For
this reason — because it was the foremost city — he had in
sisted that it ought not to state its own grievances till the
general grievances were adjusted, that it ought not to lessen
its own burdens by floating the notes of the caisse d'escompte
on the country at large; and on the other hand that it should
1 Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, ni, 124; and Les Revolutions de Paris,
November 28 to December 5, 1789.
2 See p. 197.
3 Motion sur la necessiti de circonscrire la vente des Mens ecclisiastiques aux
municipalitis, May, 1790.

112 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
set a good example to France by a disinterested policy in the
matter of church lands. In short, Paris must take her place
as the first city of France.
While remaining true to his ideals of equality and govern
ment by the people, he found it necessary to modify them some
what in practical politics; for example, in limiting the power
of the districts and in the case of the Comite des Recherches,
whfle continuing to preach liberty he had not hesitated to use
despotic power to preserve it. If his interests subsequently
changed, and if from being an enthusiastic representative of
the municipality of Paris he became one of its most bitter
foes, his fundamental policy did not change, and in his future
work as a legislator in helping to transform France the lim
ited monarchy into Brance the republic, he showed the same
ideals and the same policy that he had shown in his work as
a municipal politician in changing Paris of the old regime into
Paris the modern city.

CHAPTER VI
BRISSOT'S CAREER DURING THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
AS A JOURNALIST  LE PATRIOTE FRANCAIS
Part I
His Struggles to Establish a Newspaper and his Attitude on Legislation
Brissot had failed to be elected to the Constituent Assem
bly,1 but he was none the less to exert an important influence
during its session, not only as a municipal politician, but to a
greater degree as the editor of one of the chief newspapers of
the period, — the Patriote Frangais. In starting this journal
Brissot was a pioneer in two respects. In the first place he
established one of the first real newspapers in anything like
the modern sense of the term. Up to the time of the French
Revolution such periodic pubhcations as existed were more
like series of essays or pamphlets, "periodic books" — to use
Brissot's own phrase. In the production of this kind of litera
ture Brissot himself had had some experience in his work on
the Annales of Linguet and the Courrier of Swinton and in
his own Correspondance Universelle. The French Revolution
now brought about a great and sudden change. It converted
the pamphlet into the regular newspaper, and led to the found
ing of a large number of daily journals of every shade of opinion
and of every degree of excellence. Of these new journals Bris
sot's Patriote Frangais was practically the first. In the second
place he took the lead in a valiant struggle against the censor
ship of the press,2 — a struggle which brings into high relief
a picture of the gradual crumbling of the old regime and the
slow and painful building up of the new.
1 The name afterwards given to the body summoned as the States-General.
! Note also the part taken by Mirabeau in this struggle in his attempt to
establish his newspaper, the Etats-GinSrauz.

114 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
It was a courageous attempt that he made, in view both of
his own unfortunate encounters with government repression
and of the existing restrictions on the press. On March 16,
1789, he issued his first prospectus, in which, after portraying
the advantages of the newspaper over the pamphlet, he stated
his intention of founding a newspaper which should further ;
revolution in France, just as the newspaper had furthered!
revolution in America. He declared, moreover, in unmistak-*
able terms that he proposed to make that newspaper not only
truly national and free, but also independent of the censorship
and of every kind of influence. As to the details of the publica
tion, he stated that the paper would appear about the first of
April and that the price of subscription would be 24 livres a
year.1 A few days later he published a second prospectus, in
which he announced that the paper would be published four
times a week instead of twice, as at first stated; that subscrip
tions might be left with the bookseller, Buisson, and that the
first number would appear about April 20.
This seemed to the authorities "the last degree of audacity,"
and they immediately took steps to show Brissot that he had
made a serious mistake in assuming that any such ideas could
be carried out. The lieutenant of the pohce and the director-
general of the book trade first warned the authorized journals
to make no announcement of the prospectus in question. They
then dispatched a circular letter to the inspectors of the book
trade, urging them to take all measures within their power to
stop the circulation of the prospectus and the printing and dis
tribution of the journal.2 These measures were effective at
least in frightening Buisson who, it had been announced, was
to receive the subscriptions, for he promptly disavowed his
connection with Brissot's newspaper and declared that his
name had been used without his consent.3 He seems subse-
1 See the prospectus as quoted in Tourneux, Bibliographic de Vhistoire de
Paris pendant la Revolution frangaise, n, 500.
2 Lettre de Maissemy, Archives nationales, v1, 551.
3 This claim appears to be true, for, in his protest to Maissemy, of April 13
(Archives nationales, v1, 551), he, Buisson, incloses a copy of a letter which reads

A JOURNALIST 115
quently to have recovered from his fright, for when the paper
began to appear regularly, it was at his shop that subscrip
tions were received.1
Brissot himself was not at aU daunted, and on the 6th of
May he boldly pubhshed the first number of the Patriote Fran
gais. It appeared as a tiny sheet of eight duodecimo pages and
consisted of two parts : an account of the opening of the States-
General at VersaUles, and a discussion of the cahier of the third
estate of Paris, in which the public was urged not to be dis
couraged in spite of the attitude of the king and Necker to
ward the third estate. Meanwhile Brissot's cause was becoming
a general one. Other newspapers were being established and
the authorities thus had to contend with a rapidly rising tide
of opposition to their power. To meet it, they re-inforced the
circular to the inspectors of the book trade, which was directed
especiaUy against Brissot, by a general decree of the royal coun
cil which forbade the unauthorized announcement for distribu
tion of any new newspaper whatever.2
This decree Brissot could not ignore, as he had the previous
orders. To continue the publication of his paper was for the
moment clearly impossible, and he reluctantly addressed a letter
to his subscribers, informing them that the publication of the
Patriote Frangais was stopped. But, he assured them, the sus
pension would be but temporary; he was preparing a memoir to
the States-General on the subject, and the first thing the States-
General would do, as soon as it was organized, would doubtless
be to establish freedom of the press. In this memoir he made
in part: "Ci-joint M[onsieur] le prospectus d'un J[ourn]al sur lequel j'ai cru
devoir imprimer votre nom pour recevoir les subscriptions et que je vais faire dis-
tribuer. Je ne pense pas qu'il puisse iprouver aucune difficulti puisque'en y
destinant moi meme mon nom, je me rends responsable de tout ce qui sera im-
primi dans ce journal."
1 They soon came to a break, however. For the dissolution of their con
nection, see Archives nationales, v\ 553; also the Patriote Frangais, September
14, 1789. Avis important de M. Brissot de Warville aux souscripteurs de ce
journal. 2 Quoted in Tourneux, Bibliographic, n,- 502. See also Lettre aux souscrip
teurs, May 12, 1789.

116 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
an ardent plea for such freedom. There could be no free con
stitution without it, he declared. Moreover, it was a natural
right necessary for the States-General and necessary for the
government. To be effective it must be given freely and fuUy,
and all newspapers ought to be allowed to be sent by post with
out any previous permission. In giving such freedom there
was no occasion to fear its abuse, for too great license could be
prevented by special laws. Their execution, moreover, should
be intrusted to independent tribunals and not left to arbitrary
rules of the ministers. Finally, in view of these principles, he
demanded freedom to pubhsh the Patriote Frangais.1 Although
he did not receive a formal decision from the States-General
in his favor,2 the events of July established freedom of the
press de facto, and without waiting for its estabhshment de
jure, on July 28 he again started his newspaper, and issued
the second number, the first of the uninterrupted series.3 Thus
was established the Patriote Frangais, one of the most impor
tant newspapers of the period of the French Revolution. It was
true to the motto printed at the head of each number: "A free
newspaper is a sentinel who always stands on guard for the
people." Indeed, to quote the ardent republican, Manuel, it
"was the first sentinel who cried Constitution, Truth, Liberty." 4
Of liberty in aU its forms the Patriote Frangais was con
sistently the champion. Throughout the session of the Con
stituent Assembly it opposed those who would emphasize the
constitution at the expense of the declaration of rights, and
maintained that the declaration of rights was, on the contrary,
the ideal to which the constitution ought to conform. Under
1 Mimoire aux Etals-Giniraux, June, 1789.
2 On May 19, Maissemy, the director-general of the book trade, made what
was virtually a confession of complete defeat on the part of the authorities, by
issuing an order which permitted newspapers to publish the proceedings of the
Assembly but forbade them to make any commentary or reflections. Avenel,
Histoire de la presse frangaise, 48.
3 The delay was probably due in part to the active r61e which he had played
in the election of representatives of the third estate in Paris. Tourneux, n,
503. See also p. 94.
4 Quoted in Hatin, Bibliographic de la presse piriodique, 142.

A JOURNALIST 117
the Legislative Assembly and the Convention it became the
leading organ of the Girondins in opposition to the Mountain,
and finally came to an end with the fall of the Girondins. It
was at the same time "the scourge of the court and the terror
of the terrorists." 1
In its form and content the Patriote Frangais compared fa
vorably with the best newspapers of the time. Despite the
legal difficulties encountered and despite numerous other hin
drances then incident to the pubhshing of a first-class journal,
Brissot not only managed to continue his newspaper without
interruption but to make some improvements in his original
plan. Instead of appearing only four times a week as was an
nounced in the original prospectus, it was published every day
but Sunday, and from November 1, 1789, on Sundays also;
and instead of a duodecimo sheet, it came out as a large quarto
of four pages to which supplements were frequently added.2
From the first it paid particular attention to the National As
sembly, and whfle not attempting to give verbatim reports, de
voted much space to comments and observations upon its pro
ceedings. Even this did not satisfy some of Brissot's readers
and he was reproached for not giving more details. In reply he
urged the wide scope of his journal as an excuse and complained
that it was unfair to compare his newspaper, "which embraced
aU that patriotism embraced," with the Moniteur which made
the reports of the debates its almost exclusive busmess. His aim
certainly was extensive. He proposed, according to both his
announcements, to do five things: (1) to set forth facts faith-
fuUy; (2) to reproduce all the publications of the government
and to outline the debates of the States-General; (3) to register
the transactions of the provincial assemblies; (4) to discuss
current questions, and (5) to review political pamphlets. In
his second prospectus he announced further that he would in
clude in his newspaper the results of his researches on the con
stitutions of England and of the United States. After the first
1 Hatin, Bibliographic de la presse piriodique, 143.
2 January 1, 1791, the size was enlarged.

118 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
few months he was able to carry out fairly weU this extensive
plan, and about the first of February, 1791, he made stiU further
improvements, and included regularly a column on the money
market and a list of the current plays. Besides its extensive
reports of the proceedings of the National Assembly, the Pa
triote Frangais paid much attention to the municipal affahs
of Paris. This was particularly true during the period of Bris
sot's career as a municipal politician, when the concerns of the
city government naturaUy occupied a large share of his inter
est. A special column was devoted to Paris; the proceedings of
the municipal assemblies were reported and the pohcy of the
city government defended, especially in the case of the Comite
des Recherches. But the Patriote Frangais by no means con
fined its attention to Paris. It also took a keen interest in the
course of the Revolution in the provinces and foUowed the
development of local government throughout France. In these
particulars it was not so different from some of the other jour
nals, but in the amount of attention it paid to the cause of the
negro and to American affairs it stands alone. It was in fact
the organ of the Societe des Amis des Noirs, publishing its ad
dresses, defending its policy, and attacking its opponents. As
for his interest in the new world Brissot had already pointed
out in his prospectus that the Patriote Frangais was to be the
means for spreading abroad information about America and
for impressing upon the public the ideas that he had gained
from his own experience. Hardly a number appeared in which
he did not make some reference to the United States. He
covered the whole range of the subject, from an advertisement
by a man who was looking for a partner in his Kentucky lands
to a discussion of the fundamental principles of the American
constitution. In everythmg connected with the establishment
of the new government of the United States he was especially
interested. He approved of Washington's cabinet appoint
ments,1 printed a copy of his first Thanksgiving proclamation,2
and reviewed the proceedings of Congress at Philadelphia. Yet
1 Patriote Frangais, November 26, 1789. 2 Ibid., January 18, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 119
it was not as a matter of merely abstract interest that Brissot
referred so frequently to America; it was rather that its recent
history might serve as a precedent to France. He praised the
democratic spirit of the United States in proscribing all titles
of nobility; he commended theh tolerance for establishing free
dom of religion;1 when plans for the municipal government
of Paris were under discussion, he argued, from the separation
of national, state, and city affairs in the United States, that
the drawing up of the plan belonged not to the National As
sembly, but to the city itself; and when, at the opening of the
Legislative Assembly, the question was raised whether they
should have few or many committees, he made use of the
example of the American Congress as a weighty argument in
favor of having as few as possible.2
This wide range of contents appealed to a variety of readers,
and the Patriote Frangais became very popular. Its style was
perhaps not equal in merit to its contents. Like his other works
it showed a lack of a sense of humor and of a light touch; but
if wanting in the wit and brflliancy of Desmoulins's Revolu
tions de France et de Brabant or the virility of Prudhomme's
Revolutions de Paris it was a decided improvement on Brissot's
earlier writings, both in force and vigor. He was obliged, how
ever, to defend himself against the charge of too great serious
ness. "People have said to me," he wrote, "that I was too
serious; they want me to make fun, to chaff and to draw cari
catures. That role does not suit me; one must be himself, and
if the French people fall again into the taste for political and
literary buffooneries, a writer whose only desire is to be useful,
ought never to lend himself to such things." 3 Brissot might
indeed be charged with a lack of humor, but he certainly could
not be accused of the scurrUity and personal invective which
marked the Pere Duchesne and the Ami du Peuple. Whatever
the Patriote Frangais was or was not, it never, at least, lacked
1 Patriote Frangais, May 7, 1790.
2 Discours sur V organisation des comitis, October, 1791. See p. 226.
3 Patriote Frangais, April 9, 1790.

120 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
in dignity. Its radical stand naturaUy brought it into conflict
with the conservative press, but although it had numerous
sharp controversies with royalist and moderate journals, when
it concerned personalities, it was generally inclined to limit
itself to the defensive. In matters of general policy it could
count on the invariable support of the Courrier des DSparte-
ments and the Chronique de Paris and the invariable hostility
of the Actes des Apotres, the Journal de Paris, the Journal ge
neral de la cour et de la ville, and later of the Ami du Peuple;
while the Revolutions de France et de Brabant and the Revolu
tions de Paris approved and criticized in turn. His most seri
ous conflicts arose from his zealous attacks on despotism and
more than once led to accusations for libel.
Besides carrying on the Patriote Frangais, Brissot was one
of the coUaborators of the Chronique du Mois. This publica
tion which appeared monthly from November, 1791, to July,
1793, was not, properly speaking, a newspaper at aU, but merely
a series of essays.1 It was founded, so the prospectus set forth,
to further the public good. It might more truly have been said,
to further the interests of the Girondin party. To this periodi
cal Brissot made a number of contributions, but they consisted
chiefly of reproductions of articles which had aheady appeared
elsewhere, and hence do not add materiaUy to the knowledge
of Brissot as journalist or politician.2
1 La Chronique du Mois ou Les Cahiers patriotiques de E. Claviire, C. Con
dorcet, L. Mercier, A. Auger, J. Oswald, N. Bonneville, J. Bidermann, A. Brous-
sonet, A. Guy-Kersaint, J. P. Brissot, J. Ph. Garran de Coulon, J. Dussaulx,
F. Lanthenas, et Collot d'Herbois, November, 1791, to July, 1793.
2 Each number was headed by a full-page portrait of one of the collaborators
of the paper or of some man prominent in public affairs. Brissot's portrait ap
pears in the number for July, 1792. His part, advertised to consist of "some of
his eloquent speeches upon our rights which he knows so well how to defend,"
was made up of nine contributions as follows: —
(a) Sur les reproches qu'on fait d VAssembUe nationale, March, 1792.
(6) Sur la justice de la guerre contre VAutriche, May, 1792.
(c) Observations sur Helvetius, July, 1792. A criticism of Helvetius' theory
— that all passions have their origin in the physical senses, in love of pleasure,
or in aversion to pain — as being on too low a plane.
(d) Politics de Paul, August, 1792. An extract from his work: Lettres sur
Saint Paul.

A JOURNALIST 121
In carrying on his own paper Brissot was in turn assisted by
numerous coUaborators: by Claviere, with whom he had long
been on terms of intimacy; by Gregoire, his fellow worker in
the Society des Amis des Noirs; by Petion, the Mayor of Paris; 1
Thomas Paine, the Anglo-American; and, above all, by the
Rolands and a little group of friends who centered around them
and which included Blot, the friend of Brissot's childhood,2
Lanthenas,3 Bosc,4 and Bancal des Issarts.5 According to M.
Perroud something over one hundred contributions to the Pa
triote Frangais may be attributed to members of this group.
Brissot's acquaintance with the Rolands dated from the pub
lication of his book De la France et des Etats Unis. In this work
Brissot frequently quoted from Roland, praised his learning
and courage, and when the book was published sent him a
copy. There resulted a lively correspondence between Bris
sot and the Rolands. Through Bosc and Lanthenas, whom
(e) Sur les motifs de ceux qui defendant la monarchic et qui calomnaient le
ripublicanisme. J. P. Brissot d N. Bonneville, October, 1792.
(/) A tous les ripublicains de France : sur le SocUte des JacoMns de Paris,
1792, already published in pamphlet form.
(g) De la marche des agitateurs, January, 1793.
(h) Sur le terns [sic], March, 1793.
(i) De quelques erreurs dans les idees et dans les mots relatifs a la rivolution
frangaise, March, 1793.
1 Petion y faisait paraitre les lettres, avis, observations qu'il avait d publier
comme maire de Paris. Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les Girondins, i, 240, note.
2 See p. 7.
3 Frangois Lanthenas, a physician and author of numerous political pam
phlets, was born in 1754 and died in 1799. He was a friend of the Rolands, and
under the first Roland ministry was given the first place in the department of
public instruction. Although arrested with the Girondins he escaped proscrip
tion and was elected to the Council of 500.
4 Louis Augustin Guillaume Bosc was a French naturalist, born in 1759 and
died in 1828. He was a friend of Madame Roland and one of her correspond
ents, and under the Roland ministry became director of the post-office. He
remained attached to Madame Roland, risked his life by visiting her in prison,
and preserved the manuscript of her memoirs. He escaped the guillotine and
under the Directory was sent on a diplomatic mission to the United States.
6 Jean Henri Bangal des Issarts was born in 1750 and died in 1826. He rep
resented Auvergne in the National Assembly and founded a society of the
Jacobins at Clermont. Later, he became a friend of Madame Roland and aD
avowed republican and an ally of the Girondins.

122 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Brissot came to know at Paris, he was brought into still more
friendly relations with them though without ever having seen
them; and when he projected his newspaper, he found his new
friends ready to sympathize with his plans and to help him by
their correspondence. They lent copies of the Patriote Fran
gais to their friends, tried to increase its circulation, and sent
him articles for publication on the course of the Revolution at
Lyons. He seems to have been especiaUy delighted with the
contributions of Madame Roland, who was, he declared, "both
well informed and of a truly strong character." He even ven
tured to insert in his newspaper passages from her letters to
Bosc and Lanthenas which had been passed on to him; 1 and
when at a later period she criticized him for not being sufficiently
radical, he took the criticism with good grace and attacked the
royalist party in Lyons with more vehemence.2 WhUe the
Rolands were writmg for the Patriote Frangais of the struggle
in Lyons against despotism, Lanthenas was writing agamst
despotism in general, his chief articles being on the freedom of
the press and on the organization of popular societies.3 Bangal
meanwhile kept the Patriote Frangais informed of events in
Clermont. In turn, Brissot supported the interests of his
friends in local and national elections.4
The Rolands were his chief correspondents, but the financial
support for his journal came from a man named LePage, to
whom, apparently, he left much of the business management.
LePage is said to have made money out of it for himself, but
Brissot, according to Madame Roland, instead of likewise
profiting, was content with the small salary allowed him by
his partner and came out of the enterprise as poor as when he
1 For the details of their early correspondence, see Perroud, Lettres de Madame
Roland, u, 55 and note, 61,64 and note, 77, 78, 95, 114; Mimoires de Madame
Roland, i, 61, 191, 192, and Brissot et les Roland, Collaboration des Roland au
Patriote Frangais, in La Revolution frangaise, xxxiv, 403, May, 1898.
2 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 174, 175, note.
3 See, for example, the Patriote Frangais of February 5, 14, 28, 1791.
4 See article by Perroud in La Rivolution frangaise, xxxiv, 403-22, May,
1898.

A JOURNALIST 123
went into it.1 In true French fashion the members of his family
assisted in the business, his mother-in-law and one of his sisters-
in-law helping in the office.2 His main collaborator, and most
of the time his partner, was Girey-Dupre,3 a young journalist
of Girondin sympathies. On several occasions Brissot turned
over to Girey-Dupre a considerable share in the responsibility
for the newspaper. The first time was at the opening of the
Legislative Assembly, when, quite overcome by the responsi
bilities of his new position as legislator, he announced that "in
order to devote himself entirely to the important functions to
which the choice of his fellow citizens called him," he would
abandon the chief editorship to his colleague.4 But it was not
long before he realized the importance of the post he had sur
rendered, and re-assumed control of that part of his paper
dealing with the reports of the National Assembly.5 Again,
during the trial of the king it was Girey-Dupre who was en
trusted with the reports on the ground that Brissot whfle act
ing as judge had no right to express his opinions editorially.6
Finally, when the decree of the Assembly on March 9, 1793,
forbade the members of the Convention to conduct news
papers,7 Brissot definitely turned over the management of the
paper to his partner. Three months later, with the fall of the
Girondins and the flight of both Brissot and Girey-Dupre, the
Patriote Frangais came to an end. The partnership in the con
duct of the journal naturally raised the question of respon-
1 Mimoires de Madame Roland, i, 197-98. Brissot felt that LePage did not
always treat him fairly. See, for instance, a letter of Madame Brissot, of Octo
ber 22, 1791 (Correspondance, 276). Again, in writmg to her brother, January
15, 1792, she says, "Le Journal ne rapport que 4,000 livres et mon mari a di-
pensi en impressions 100 louis." Correspondance, 279.
2 Article by M. Perroud, La Famille de Madame Brissot in La Revolution
Frangaise, Lix, 270-74, September, 1910.
3 Joseph Marie Girey-Dupre was born in 1769. He cast in his fortunes with
Brissot and the Girondin party and, after May 31, 1793, was proscribed, and
was executed November 21, 1793, for his connection with the Patriote Fran
gais. See pp. 233 n., 329.
4 Patriote Frangais, September 23, 1791.
6 Ibid., January 1, 1792. 6 Ibid., December 12, 1792.
7 Moniteur, March 11, 1793.

124 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
sibility. It came up apropos of an article which had appeared
in the Patriote Frangais reflecting on CamUle Desmoulms, who
proceeded to caU Brissot to account. His defense was that the
article under discussion was Girey-Dupre's. To this Desmou
lins replied, with his Jean Pierre Brissot dSmasque : "It is of no
use to say that the diatribe is not yours, that it is acknowl
edged and signed by Girey-Dupre. The master is responsible
for the misdemeanor of the servant. It is convenient for a
journalist to take M. Girey thus on the croup to cover his
back, but I jump to seize the bridle because it is really you
who hold it and it is you who gave me that dressing."
Desmoulins was right. Whoever may have been technicaUy
and legally responsible for certain numbers, the fact remains
that from first to last the Patriote Frangais represents Brissot's
own ideas as a politician and his influence as a journalist. The
period of its greatest influence was perhaps that of the Legisla
tive Assembly, but during the session of the Constituent it was
the center of Brissot's interest and his chief means of expres
sion. In the Patriote Frangais, therefore, can be traced Bris
sot's attitude toward the constitution in the making, his views
on the destructive and constructive work of the National As
sembly, his relation to the progress of the Revolution, his part
in the republican crisis of 1791, and finally, his acceptance of
the constitution and of constitutional monarchy.
In his Plan de conduite Brissot had declared that the making
of a constitution was not within the province of the States-
General, but the opposition of the court had changed the situa
tion; and if Brissot had been a member of the States-General,
— now become the National Assembly, — he would most cer
tainly have joined in the oath taken by the members not to
separate till they had made a constitution for France. The
drawing-up of this constitution was now the chief work of the
Assembly, and party divisions, already outlined, began to show
themselves more distinctly. They turned on the fundamental
question whether reform should be brought about by modifying
the old system of government or by developing an entirely new

A JOURNALIST 125
system. In this tremendous task Brissot's sympathies were
with that section of the left well toward the extreme which at
first had supported the monarchy, on condition that the king's
power be strictly limited, but which now began to incline to
ward a republic. He took an absorbing interest in the pro
ceedings of the Assembly, reported the debates at length, espe
cially those which represented his own views, and sought in
every way to influence public opinion. He was especially ac
tive in urging American, rather than English example upon
France. The Constitution of the United States seemed to him
a well-nigh perfect model, and the necessity of drawing up a
new form of government for France gave him the chance to
plan for a French adaptation of that model. He was also
interested in the state constitutions, and his admiration was
shared, though perhaps in a less degree, by many of the leaders
of the Assembly. Editions of these American constitutions,
both state and national, had been published in France, and
there had grown up a strong feeling among such men as Lafay
ette and De Saint-Etienne l that in the fundamental principles
of her proposed constitution France could find no better
model than America. While these men were supporting Ameri
can ideas by their votes in the National Assembly, Brissot was
guiding and directing public opinion toward the same end. The
recent American experience in constitution-making was a sub
ject in which every one was interested. As Brissot had enjoyed
the advantage of travel in America, he was regarded as an
authority, and his opinions were listened to with respect, even
where they were not followed. As a recent writer has pointed
out, the precise extent of American influence is not suscep
tible of measurement; 2 its working, however, may be observed
with profit.
1 Jean Paul Rabaut Saint-Etienne, born in 1743, was a Protestant pastor.
He was a member of the States-General and of the Convention, and stood al
ways for moderation and tolerance. As a member of the committee of twelve,
which provoked the revolution of May 31, he was outlawed and fled. On his
discovery he was executed.
2 Aulard, Histoire politique de la Revolution, 19-28. See the article by

126 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The first subject of discussion was a declaration of rights:
what rights should be included and whether there should be a
declaration at all. That any one should question for a moment
such a necessity seemed to Brissot absurd. "A declaration of
rights," he declared, "is a chapter as necessary for a constitu
tion as a foundation for a house. The constitution may change;
the declaration of rights ought never to change." J He also
objected strenuously to Mirabeau's proposition that the con
sideration of the declaration of rights might well be put off till
the constitution was finished. If the declaration were the
foundation it must of necessity be laid first.2 Mirabeau, if not
convinced, yielded to the pressure of opinion and presented a
draft of a declaration. This draft met Brissot's approval in
that it was short and clear; he objected, however, to a state
ment that it was drawn up in the name of the representatives.
It ought to be in the name of the French people. And the
whole thing ought, he complained, to be drawn up more rapidly.
Why could not the Assembly take example from the prompt
ness with which the Americans produced their Declaration
of Independence? 3
The two most important problems in the formation of the
constitution itself concerned the distribution of power between
the king and the legislative body and the extent to which de
mocracy was to prevail. The former involved the question of one
chamber or two, the degree of independence of the legislative
body, the veto, the right of declaring peace and war and the
relation of the ministry to the legislature.
On the question of a bicameral versus a unicameral system,
Brissot supported Buzot's plan for a single chamber divided
into two sections. He was careful to explain, however, that in
so doing he was not advocating anything which resembled the
English parliament. The ignorant and the unreflecting, he de-
Henry E. Bourne, entitled "American Constitutional Precedents in the French
National Assembly," in the American Historical Review, April, 1903, vm,
466-86. 1 Patriote Frangais, August 1, 1789.
2 Ibid., August 20, 1789. 3 Ibid., August 24, 1789.

A JOURNALIST 127
clared, had raised the cry that it would mean two chambers.
Their assertion, he argued, was not true. Aside from the num
ber two there was nothing in common between the two sections
proposed and the two chambers of the English Parliament. In
the first place the members of the House of Lords and of the
House of Commons were not drawn from the same classes, and
the division was permanent; whereas the members of the two
sections in the proposed French legislature were drawn from
the same body and the division into two sections would be but
temporary, being made every two months and by lot. Hence
there would be no reason to fear intrigue or any esprit de corps.
In the second place the object of the two chambers was both to
discuss and to vote; whereas the object of the two sections
would be only to discuss, the voting being done in the united
assembly. In the third place the House of Lords had a veto on
the House of Commons; whereas in the plan of the sections
neither would have a veto upon the other.1 But whatever the
number or the division of the chambers, Brissot stood firmly
for the permanency of the legislative assembly, by which he
meant annual meetings which should convene regularly with
out being called.2
Closely connected with the question whether there were to
be two chambers — one to have a veto on the other — was a
question of another kind of veto, that exercised by the king
upon the legislative body. This brought up the whole subject
of the relative proportion of power to be given to the king and
to the Assembly. Opinion was sharply divided: one section
demanded that the power of the king be reduced to the nar
rowest possible limits, while the other stood for a strong execu
tive. Of the former section Brissot was one of the most ardent
advocates, while the other was ably represented by Mirabeau,
who declared that in order to make the constitution workable,
the executive must be given considerable power. To this end
Mirabeau proposed to give the king an absolute veto and some
1 Patriote Frangais, May 24, 1791.
2 Observations sur la nicessiti d'itablir . . . des comitis de correspondance, 6.

128 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
real influence in making peace and declaring war as well, and
also to have the ministry chosen from the legislative body.
"The absolute veto," he maintained, "would not give too
much power to the king, because any long-continued and per
sistent opposition to the wishes of the people would result in
revolution, and therefore public opinion might safely be trusted
as a sufficient check to the apparently arbitrary power in
volved in giving the king an absolute veto." This opinion
Brissot vigorously combated in the Patriote Frangais. In the
issue of September 15, 1789, he took up a speech by Mirabeau
on the subject and assailed it point by point. His argument
deserves quotation at length, not only on account of the im
portance of the subject, but also because of the frankness with
which he expressed republican sentiments.
"Mirabeau," the Patriote Frangais declared, "begins by say
ing that the greater a nation is the more active ought the exec
utive power to be: from which comes the necessity of a mo
narchical government in large states. . . .
"This is an error sanctioned by Montesquieu, of which one
is disabused if one reflects on the history of America. It is not
the number of individuals nor the extent of country which
demands a monarchical government. The moral state of a na
tion is the only thing which ought to decide its government.
If America had fifty million inhabitants of whom four fifths
were laborers, as is the case to-day, the republican form of gov
ernment would be the natural one for it. Moreover, a republic
like that of the Americans has no need of this great activity
in the government, because it is a government of peace in
harmony with society, while in a monarchy, the government is
constantly at war with society, and consequently needs great
strength. I do not say on this account that France ought not to
have a monarchical government, but I do say that it is not on
account of its population but because of its moral maladies.
" The prince is the protector of the people.1
1 In this and the following italicized statements Brissot is citing Mira
beau.

A JOURNALIST 129
"He may and he may not be. The representatives may be
and they may not: they are under the hand of the people.
"If the king does not have the sanction he will be obliged to use
armed force against the people.
"Rarely, and if he does have it, he will turn it against them
very often. Why? For the same reason that for six centuries
has kept us in slavery. The man who does not take an unfair
advantage when he can do it with impunity is an angel.
" The representatives may be badly chosen.
"But they are chosen everywhere at the same time. They
are changed at the end of two years, and if they have made a
bad law, their successors change it. The prince, on the con
trary, is not chosen; he holds his office for life.
" The grandeur of the prince depends on the prosperity of the
people. "A political fable on which we have been brought up since
the making of books began. These protectors of the people
have even amused themselves (with the exception of a few)
in heaping up debts, taxes, vexations . . . the true protection
of the people is in its representatives and especially in the con
stituent power frequently exercised.
" The prince is the perpetual representative of the people, as its
deputies are its temporary representatives. Why not give them the
same part in the law ?
"Because the one is a perpetual representative and not
chosen, and the others are chosen and for short terms, and are
consequently less dangerous; because the latter have only one
kind of power, and the other, if he had a veto, would have a
terrible power joined to the most terrible of all powers — the
executive. "If the prince has not the veto, what will prevent the representa
tives from prolonging their authority and holding it indefinitely?
"The constitution, which preserves in the hands of the peo
ple the right of reforming it and of choosing special assemblies
at fixed terms and thus putting a stop to the usurpations of its
representatives. . . .

130 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
" What is there to fear from the royal veto if the taxes and the
existence of the army are provided for annually ?
"Everything, for the people wiU never dare to stop the pay
ment of the taxes, or to dismiss the army. The evil which will
result from this state of things wUl fall more upon the people
than upon the king.
"Finally, if the Prince does not have the veto, and if he is
obliged to sanction a bad law, the only remedy is in insurrection.
"An error. The representatives who follow can change the
law, according to the will of the people."
Brissot objected also to the alternative involved in a sus
pensive veto which would necessitate the reenactment of any
vetoed measure by the next two legislatures. In opposition
to both alternatives, he proposed a veto like that given to the
President of the United States, which would check legislation,
but only temporarily. If ever Brissot longed to have a voice in
the Assembly it was that he might plead for this American
veto. Lacking such opportunity, he tried through the columns
of the Patriote Frangais to arouse public opinion on the matter.
It was so reasonable, he urged; it prevented hasty and ill-con
sidered legislation on the one hand, and on the other gave no
dangerous power to the President. It only necessitated further
discussion and could not prevent the passing of any law which
was really good and widely demanded.1
On the question of the right of declaring war and making
peace, Brissot and Mirabeau again came into clash. As in the
matter of the veto, Mirabeau exerted all his energy to securing
some effective authority for the king. Realizing that it was
hopeless to propose that the king alone should have the right of
declaring war, he contented himself with a compromise, and
proposed instead that the right of making peace and declaring
war belonged to the nation, but that in the case of threatened
hostility the king should be allowed to make preparation for
war and afterward to appeal to the legislative body for sanc
tion of his course of action.2 This proposal to leave a virtual
1 Patriote Frangais, September 4, 1789. 2 Moniteur, May 21, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 131
initiative to the king, aroused great indignation, which Brissot
was one of the first to voice. Mirabeau's plan, he declared, was
not clear, since it did not make sufficiently plain the line of
demarkation between the executive and the legislative, and it
ignored the rights of the nation. The debates on this subject
Brissot reported at length, but with perhaps more than usual
partisanship. He spoke, for instance, of the miserable subtle
ties of a Malouet who pretended that "almost all wars were
undertaken in the interests of the people rather than by the
caprices of kings," and supported Petion in his argument that
under a king who exercised the right of making war, liberty
could not long exist.1 In spite of this opposition Mirabeau
secured the adoption of the fundamental principle of his bill.
On the question of choosing the ministry from the legisla
tive body Brissot was again opposed to Mirabeau. To estab
lish such a connection would obviously bring about greater
harmony between the executive and the legislative depart
ments of the government, but Brissot strenuously opposed it,
on the ground that it savored too much of the English con
stitution and that in any case it would give too much power to
the executive. In answer to Mirabeau's argument that under
existing conditions such separation would result in anarchy,
he pointed to the example of the United States. "Admit the
ministers to the Assembly," he declared, "and you wiU give
them the means of executing the schemes which they have de
vised in their cabinets. . . . Such is the history of the parlia
ment of England [ministerial corruption]. It is because the
United States were familiar with that daily experience that
they have forever excluded the secretaries of state from the
meetings of Congress. If, then, in a country where there is
little opportunity for corruption, and where there are no pen
sions or lucrative places, and where assemblies are frequently
renewed ... If , I say, in that country the influence of minis
ters is feared, how much more ought it to be feared in a coun
try where corruption and the most frightful luxury reign? " 2
1 Patriote Frangais, May 18-21, 1790. 2 Ibid., November 8, 1789.

132 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
"Further," he argued, "ministers not only should be al
lowed no chance for control of the legislative body; but, on the
contrary, the legislative body should have that control over the
ministers which would come from some voice in choosing them.
The choice and dismissal of the ministers and ambassadors
ought not to be left to the king alone, the representatives of the
people should have something to say in the matter. Leave to
the king, for instance, the right of naming three or four persons
for each vacancy, and then let the National Assembly choose
one from this list. Under the new regime," he added, " it would
not be difficult to find sufficiently able ministers." Now that
many of their former functions had been taken over by the
legislative body no extraordinary ability was needed to fill the
office. Ordinary inteUigence, some knowledge of affahs, dig
nity and diligence were quite sufficient.1
In the method of amending the constitution Brissot was not
quite so anxious to foUow American example. Indeed, this
seems to be one of the few cases where he realized that a dif
ference in conditions might require a modification in the model
followed. France, not being a federation of states and having
a legislative body of one chamber instead of two, lacked the
machinery for amending the constitution which was employed
in the United States. However well it might work there, Bris
sot feared giving an initiative in changing the constitution to
the legislative body. As it was not practicable for the people
themselves, gathered in primary assembhes, to change the
constitution, conventions should be called. And, as it was not
desirable to leave the caUing of conventions to the very powers
they were summoned to censure, they ought to be periodic. If
it were objected that conventions might dare to change the
fundamental principles of the constitution, this danger, Bris
sot replied, would be slight compared with the evils which
would result from the absence of conventions altogether. One
method of preventing it would be to take a hint from the
method employed in the United States, and, while rejecting
1 Patriote Frangais, September 26, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 133
the initiative of the legislative body, allow that body to veto
amendments by a two-thirds vote.1 The arrangement for
proposing amendments only on the demand of three succes
sive legislatures would, on the contrary, he declared, be ab
solutely ineffective, since three successive legislatures would
never want the same thing.2 Brissot's ideas did not prevail on
all these important questions — a unicameral system being
adopted instead of the two-sectioned chamber, a really sus
pensive veto instead of the modified American system and a
method of amendment which did not provide for elections at
fixed periods. On the other hand, his ideas did prevail in the
manner of choosing the ministers, and on those points where
his views were not carried out he assisted in forcing a compro
mise, and in preventing the complete adoption of Mirabeau's
plans. The constitution in its solution of the relation between
the king and the legislature conformed far more closely to the
ideas of Brissot than to those of Mirabeau. This was unfor
tunate, as the outcome proved.
With the solution of the other main question — how far the
constitution should be democratic in character — Brissot was far
from satisfied. As might have been expected from his attitude
in his early writings, he not only demanded that the power of
the king be weakened, but that democracy prevail to the great
est possible extent. To this end he supported with all his might
that small section of the left of the Assembly which stood for
a democratic as opposed to a bourgeois constitution. In his
Bibliotheque philosophique he had said that under a monarchy
he would be content with civil equality,3 but he now demanded
political equality. Indeed the division into active and passive
citizens seemed to him not only unwise, but positively iniqui
tous, and through the columns of the Patriote Frangais he stren
uously and repeatedly objected to all legislation based upon it.
To withhold the right of suffrage from passive citizens was, he
1 Discours sur les conventions, 8 aout, 1791.
2 Patriote Frangais, September 5, 1791.
ue, in, 235.

134 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
declared, a violation of the principle laid down by the Assembly
that a man can be subject only to those laws to which he or his
representatives have given theh consent. Can the Assembly
thus violate that principle with regard to any one class of citi
zens without hopelessly contradicting itself? he asked. Why,
to take a particular instance, should domestics be specifically
excluded? Were they not men? They were in a state of de
pendence, it was asserted; but that was true of many profes
sions.1 Another vicious law, he declared, was that providing
that the national guard should be composed only of active citi
zens, and to enforce his point he published, though with some
omissions, a vehement letter of Madame Roland in protest.2
He even went so far as to assert that some of those who had
striven for this division into active and passive citizens, had
done it with malice aforethought, with the secret purpose of
creating in the passive citizens an agency which might be used
in the interests of despotism.
A representation which rested on territory and taxes, as well as
on population, he assailed as likewise undemocratic and quoted
at length Petion's arguments to prove that since men alone were
represented, population should be the sole basis for national
representation.3 He objected also to the indirect method of
election to the legislative body; it was better than destroy
ing the influence of the people by two intermediary degrees in
the elections, but it would have been better yet to foUow the
example of England and America, and have elections directly
by the people.4 Whfle arguing for the rights of the people in the
matter of elections, he took up the cause of the Protestants,
Jews, and actors, and was one of the first to plead, both in his
newspaper and before the city council, that they be given civil
1 Patriote Frangais, October 24, 1789.
2 Madame Roland wrote: "J'ai mi aujourd'hui cette assemblie qu'on ne
saurait appeler nationale (c'est I'enfer mime avec toutes ses horreurs), la raison,
la viriU, la justice y sont itouffies, honniis (conspuies) ." The words between the
parentheses are omitted in the Patriote Frangais. See Lettres de Madame
Roland, n, 269-71 and note, 271; also Patriote Frangais, April 30, 1791.
3 Patriote Frangais, November 10, 1789. 4 Ibid., November 18, 1789.

A JOURNALIST 135
rights.1 The power accorded to an hereditary, immovable, and
non-elective regency he also objected to, as another thoroughly
undemocratic feature of the constitution, criticized Barnave
severely for supporting it, and praised Petion warmly, as the
one man who had opposed it.2
In spite of the efforts of the left in the Assembly, represented
by such men as Petion, and by such journalists as Brissot, a
constitution was finally adopted which, if it greatly limited the
power of the king, was far from being democratic, and it was
further decreed that it should go into effect without being sub
mitted to the people. To such a decision Brissot had been con
stantly opposed as another evidence of an undemocratic spirit.
In his Plan de conduite he had spoken in favor of the submittal
to the people,3 and when the constitution was first discussed he
published an excited letter of Madame Roland on the subject,4
and wrote himself with much sphit that not to submit the con
stitution to the people seemed to him so dangerous, so destruc
tive of a free constitution, that he could not conceive how such
an idea could find partisans in the Assembly, and especially
among the defenders of the people.5 But in view of the crisis of
the summer of 1791, he came to doubt the advisability of sub
mitting this particular constitution to the people at a time of
such general disturbance, and in his Discours sur les conventions
of August 8, 1791, he wrote that " a ratification just now would
be impossible, impolitic and dangerous. In fact, the people are
just emerging from a long period of slavery; they are emerging
from the tomb. Their eyes are barely open to the light. They
1 Patriote Frangais, December 24, 26, 1789, and June 15 and 17, 1790.
2 Ibid., March 23-26, 1791. 3 See p. 92.
4 Letter to Brissot of August 3, 1789, printed in the Patriote Frangais of
August 12: "Au nom de Dieul garde&vous Men de diclarer que VAssembUe
Nationale peut fixer irrivocablement la Constitution ; il faut, si elle en trace le
projet, qu'il soit ensuite invoyi dans toutes les provinces, pour itre adopti, modi-
fii, approvi par les Constituants.
"L'AssembUe n'est formie que de constituis, qui n'ont pas droit de fixer notre
sort, ce droit est au peuple, il ne peut ni le cider, ni le diUguer." Lettres de
Madame Roland, n, 55.
6 Batriote Francais, September 9, 1789.

136 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
need to learn how to use their organs before judging with
them." Closely connected with the constitution, though not an
actual part of it, was the new judicial system. The reform of
justice had been the subject perhaps dearest of all to Brissot's
heart, and he now watched the development of the new judicial
organization with the keenest interest, throwing his influence
always in favor of such organization as would provide for the
fuUest equality and the greatest power in the hands of the
people. Three general plans were proposed by Thouret, Duport,
and Sieyes respectively: Thouret's plan was rather a modifi
cation of the system existing under the old regime than a new
system and allowed the king considerable power in choosing the
judges. It provided, however, for a jury only in criminal cases.
Duport on the other hand suppressed aU vestige of the past, and
in building up a new system followed largely English example.
He provided for juries in civil, as well as in criminal cases, and
gave the nomination of the judges to the directories and theh
final choice to the people. Sieyes's plan also provided for a thor
oughgoing change, its most distinctive feature being the organ
ization of juries composed of members of the bar.1 In criticizing
these plans Brissot spoke with rather more caution than usual.
He objected to Thouret's scheme as savoring too much of the
old regime,2 approved of Sieyes's plan in the abstract, but de
clared with an apt quotation from Montaigne, that everything
that emanated from Sieyes would fit in a new world, but was
less suited to a world where custom was already fixed.3 Du-
port's scheme, therefore, as involving both thorough reform
and practicability seemed to him the best. Brissot admitted
that the English had had some difficulties with the jury system,
but thought that they had been exaggerated, and declared him
self in favor of the jury for civil as well as for criminal cases.
The whole matter seems to have been decided with less acri
monious discussion and with more unanimity than usual and
1 See Seligmann, Le justice rivolutionnaire.
2 Patriote Frangais, March 25, 1790. 3 Ibid., April 7 and 30, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 137
on the whole to have met Brissot's approval. There were other
features of the proposed judicial system, however, which gave
rise to considerable debate, namely, the question of tenure of
office and of circuit judges. To the proposition for life office,
Brissot objected as a flagrant violation of equality, and re
joiced when it was rejected. At the same time he would give
judges a longer term of office than ordinary administrators, and
make them reeligible, requiring, however, an interval before
they could be reelected. This constant reeligibility he declared
was the one fault in the American Congress and ought to be
avoided in France.1 He was consequently much disappointed
to find that the reeligibflity of the judges was voted with no
provision for an interval. He also regretted the decision in
favor of sedentary judges instead of judges on circuit, which,
in spite of some English opinion against it, seemed to him
decidedly preferable.2 But in the main the new system meant
equality and real justice, and Brissot was fairly content.
With the development of liberty in relation to the freedom of
the press, he was less content. As a pamphleteer and journalist
it had long been to him, and throughout his career in the Revo
lution it continued to be, not only a matter of principle but also
of vital personal interest. He was no mere onlooker, but from
the moment when he boldly announced his journal and, in the
face of ministerial opposition, appealed to the States-General,3
he was an active combatant in the forefront of the battle.
The decree of May 19, by which Maissemy, the general director
of the book trade, permitted newspapers to publish the pro
ceedings of the Assembly, was a virtual recognition of freedom
of the press, though he tried to save appearances by adding
that no reflections or commentary on the debates would be
allowed,4 and the events of July 14 made its de facto establish
ment complete. It was some weeks, however, before the action
of the Assembly provided for freedom of the press de jure.
1 Patriote Frangais, May 4, 1790.
2 Ibid., March 31, May 2, 4 and 26, 1790.
3 See p. 115. 4 See p. 116.

138 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
This delay Brissot found very trying and complained bitterly
that the Assembly was altogether too slow in recognizing
aheady existing facts. He was therefore delighted when, on
August 24, the Assembly voted article eleven of the declaration
of rights, "that the free communication of his thoughts and
opinions was one of the most precious rights of man and that
every citizen was at liberty to speak, write and print freely
whatever he pleased, being answerable only for the abuse of
that liberty in the cases determined by law." This was merely
a declaration; there remained the difficult and delicate task of
formulating the law which was to carry it out. 1 In January, 1 790,
Sieyes came forward with the proposition for a lav/ to the effect
that if a certain work should excite the people to use violent
means in order to obtain their demands, the persons responsible
could be declared guilty of sedition and punished; and further,
if an article printed within eight days before a seditious outbreak
should contain false aUegations which had excited the sedition,
the persons responsible should be pursued and punished as
themselves guilty of sedition.2 This law Brissot criticized se
verely, chiefly upon the ground that sedition itself had not yet
been defined.3 Moreover he did effective work in preventing
its passage, by publishing frequent articles agamst it.4 Just at
this juncture the quarrel between the Chatelet on the one hand
and Marat and Danton on the other came to a head and gave
special point to the discussion of freedom of speech. On ac
count of his violent attacks on the moderate party, particu
larly on Bailly, Mayor of Paris, the Chatelet had ordered the
arrest of Marat. It now turned upon Danton for having re
sisted that court as illegal and more especiaUy for having him
self, in the local assembly, threatened resistance to the authori
ties of Paris. Desmoulins in his paper took up the cause of
Danton and was ably seconded by Brissot. Freedom of thought
1 For a discussion of this subject see SSderhjehm, Le Rigime de la presse.
2 Moniteur, January 23, 1790. 3 Patriote Frangais, January 31, 1790.
4 See, for example, the quotation from an article by Kerolio in the Pa
triote Frangais of February 3, the address of Robert Pigott in that of February
10, and the letter from Chaveau de la Garde, February 15, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 139
would cease to exist, declared the latter, if speeches, whatever
their character, which were made in the course of a discussion
in a legislative body could be travestied into flagrant misde
meanors.1 And when, a few days later, apropos of an article
of Marat caUing the people to arms, and an article of Des
moulins comparing the fete of the federation with a triumph of
Paulus Emilius, the Assembly ordered an accusation of high
treason against the journals which had incited insurrection,
he cried out with horror that the Assembly should have dared
to pass such a decree against alleged libelists before it had even
decided in what a libel consisted. And even if they had laid
down definite principles, they were taking action without first
inquiring whether the persons accused were the authors of the
articles in question, and if so, whether the principles applied to
them. Though he was far, he added, from approving of the fury
of Marat, he could not help feeling that his case had done good
service in repressing the enemies of the Revolution, and in any
event so long as there existed no definite law against libels, nor
special tribunals to deal with them, any accusation of the kind
in question was a violation of the rights of man, of the rules of
common sense and of the constitution, and was liable to lead
to the most monstrous iniquity.2
Meanwhile Brissot had gotten into trouble himself. He had
published a letter in which a chapter of women at Remiremont
was accused of aristocratic tendencies, of hindering the pros
perity of the city, and of using its influence against the Revolu
tion. These allegations produced a tempest of excitement at
Remiremont and stirred up a veritable wasps' nest for Brissot.
Three citizens of Remhemont declared that they were in danger
of losing their lives under suspicion of having written the letter,
and begged him to reveal the name of the real author; and a
deputation of the municipality and of the national guard made
formal complaint against him before the National Assembly.3
1 Patriote Frangais, March 26, 1790. 2 Ibid., August 2, 1790.
3 Proces verbal de VAssembUe nationale, August 5, 1790. See also Lacroix,
Actes de la Commune, vn, 268, note.

140 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
M. Bexon, a Paris lawyer, took up this cause, haled Brissot be
fore the police, and had the number of the Patriote Frangais in
question placarded as a libel. In reply, Brissot declared that
the matter was outside of the jurisdiction of the pohce; that
M. Bexon was not qualified to plead; that the placard against
the letter was itself a libel but that the letter was not hbelous.
Libel, he declared, must involve a false accusation of an overt
act of which the law could take cognizance; to accuse a person
of pride, or lack of patriotism, or other fault of character not
within the purview of the law, could not possibly be construed
as libel.1
Meanwhile no definite law against libels was enacted by the
Assembly, but with the growing disturbances of the summer of
1791, the matter again came to the front. Brissot was more and
more inclined to believe in complete liberty. He published
extracts from Lanthenas's work on the subject, quoted Petion's
speeches, and declared that much as he abhorred any incitation
to murder or assassination, he did not believe it possible to
frame a law which would effectively prosecute libels and at the
same time not serve as a pretext for injustice. It was equally
impossible, he added, to frame one which could not be easily
evaded, and of which the benefit to the persons injured would
not be overbalanced by injury to the public welfare. In any
case, the law should take cognizance only of the calumnies
directed against citizens as private individuals.2 The law of
August 22, as passed, therefore seemed to him dangerous, and
he warmly commended Robespierre's objections to it. In pro
viding for action against those who purposely provoked dis
obedience to the laws and the degradation of constituted
authorities there was danger, he asserted, of checking free dis
cussion of public affairs, and especially legitimate criticism
directed against public men.3 His attack was met by the sup
porters of the law with the assurance that by constituted
authorities it was not intended to include the men who exer-
1 Precis pour M. Bexon. 2 Patriote Frangais, August 18, 1791.
3 Ibid., August 23, 1791.

A JOURNALIST HI
cised the authority, and that freedom was further guaranteed
by the provision that accusation against the press must be
tried by a jury.1 As the Revolution progressed, however, libel
came to be applied with great elasticity, both to opposition to
persons in power and to the policy they represented. As early
as January, 1792, Bertrand de Molevflle, the minister of marine,
attempted to get a decree of the council against Brissot for
"atrocious and calumnious imputations" against Louis XVI,
but it was too late, the royalist and the moderate party had lost
their power and the attempt failed.2 After the 10th of August
there was no longer freedom of speech for the royalist journals,
and when the Girondins in turn began to lose influence, their
journals were likewise denounced as libelous, and on March 10,
1793, on the pretext that a member of the Convention should
not at the same time conduct a journal, Brissot was obliged
to give up the editorship of the Patriote Frangais.3
The work of constitution-making and of passing fundamental
laws on the judicial organization and on freedom of speech was
not the only task of the National Assembly. Owing to its dis
trust of the king and his ministers, it gradually assumed a large
share of the administration of the government. With every
step in this dhection Brissot was delighted. The sovereignty
of the people might not be complete in that they did not choose
the executive, but he would have it as complete as possible in
controlling the actions of the executive. Holding such views,
he naturally resented the assertion of the Moniteur that the
ministers had the right to order the coining of money without
consulting the Assembly; declared that the ministers must be
held accountable for their conduct; 4 that the Assembly was too
ready to leave in office men attached to the old regime;6 and
that in the conduct of foreign affahs they must be particularly
1 Patriote Frangais, August 24, 1791. For the danger of resisting freedom
of speech in making laws against the refractory priests, see p. 140.
2 Bertrand de Moleville, Histoire de la Revolution de France, vu, 54.
3 Moniteur, March 11, 1793. See also p. 329.
4 Patriote Frangais, October 21, 22, 1790.
' IMd., November 4, 1790.

142 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
careful to choose men whom they could rely on as attached to
the principles of the Revolution.
As regards foreign affairs the Assembly was only too ready
to take the control into its own hands and to adopt most radical
measures. Here again, as on the constitution, Brissot was
diametrically opposed to Mirabeau, and again he used the influ
ence of his paper to press what he considered the example of
the United States and to uphold the power of the people as
against that of the king. Mirabeau, as chairman of the diplo
matic committee of the National Assembly, held a position of
influence which gave him great authority in foreign affahs.
With all the power of tongue and pen at his command he tried
to prevent the headstrong policy of the Assembly from ending
in war. In the case of Avignon there was special need of his
restraining hand, for France regarded with covetous eyes this
ancient possession of the Papacy. In Avignon itself a French
party had been created which demanded annexation to France,
and this policy was powerfully supported by a large number of
deputies in the Assembly. Mirabeau had succeeded in deferring
the decision for a time, but upon the outbreak of a revolution
in Avignon the Assembly dispatched troops there, and the
radical party made this circumstance an added argument for
annexation. This policy Brissot ardently supported. When the
request for annexation was referred to the king he was very anx
ious lest the king might refuse his consent, and found in the
danger of this situation an argument against giving to the ex
ecutive power the sole initiative in foreign affahs. That Avig
non belonged to the Pope, and that its annexation would in
volve a flagrant breach of international law, counted for little
in his estimation. To await the consent of the Pope he consid
ered a recognition of diplomatic usage which the United States
never would have sanctioned, and following what he supposed
to be the example of the United States, he declared that diplo
macy must be disregarded. Mirabeau's statement, that even if
Avignon were free to give herseU, France had no right to accept
the offer, he denounced as involving both a violation of the

A JOURNALIST 143
natural rights of man and a recognition of the power of the old
diplomacy.1 Another important international question was the affair of
Nootka Sound — and here Mirabeau and Brissot upheld the
same policy, though for different reasons. Spain had seized
property claimed by England in Nootka Sound, off Vancouver
Island, and, when England threatened war, Spain appealed to
France for aid. She based her appeal on the Facte de Famille,
the offensive and defensive alliance concluded between France
and Spain in 1761. In answer, the Assembly, led by Mirabeau,
while not refusing Spain's appeal for assistance, practically
nullified that assistance by taking steps to dissolve the Facte de
Famille on the ground that its further continuance would be
inexpedient and dangerous for France. The Assembly proposed
instead to substitute for it an ordinary treaty of alliance. With
this action Brissot was fully in sympathy, not on the ground of
expediency, but because the family compact was a reminiscence
of the old regime and as such should be destroyed.2 "The
court of Spain does not know," he wrote, "that since the revo
lution a king of the French is not under obligation to execute
the treaties of the king of France; that kings in a free govern
ment have no family; that France hereafter will have com
pacts only with the great family of the human race." 3
In this case Brissot and Mirabeau agreed, but agreement
between them was the exception. As in the formation of the
constitution, Mhabeau's object was to produce a constitution
which should be practicable, so in the management of foreign
and financial affahs he was guided by expediency. Brissot, on
the other hand, was predominantly influenced by theory and
considerations of abstract right, and failed both to appreciate
1 Patriote Frangais, November 18, 1790, where he supported Potion in his
contention that Avignon had the right to unite herself to France. See also
Patriote Frangais of November 22, 1790.
2 Ibid., June 21, 1790. See also Manning, The Nootka Sound Contro
versy, in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1904,
pp. 424, 428.
3 Patriote Frangaise, May 12, 1790.

144 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Mhabeau's regard for the practical necessities of the moment
and to recognize the real greatness of the man. Mirabeau's
death therefore did not seem to him an unmitigated calamity.
Mirabeau, he wrote, hated despotism more than he loved lib
erty. He did not love the people, he never really knew the
people, he only made use of the name of the people, in order to
secure his own purpose, which was to oust the ministers and
to slip into their place. His death was thus a good thing for
liberty.1 Besides foreign affairs, the Assembly assumed control of the
Church. On this subject Brissot was, in the main, in harmony
with the majority and represented moreover the radical opin
ions which might be expected from a deist. The first step of the
Assembly with regard to the Church was taken on the 4th of
August, when in its orgy of decrees it declared the tithes paid
to the Church abolished without compensation. This case was
an exception to Brissot's general agreement with the policy of
the Assembly on ecclesiastical matters, and when Sieyes, who
was the only member who apparently realized that the Assem
bly was merely making a present to the landholders, raised his
voice against the measure, Brissot was the sole journalist who
ventured to support him.2 With the pivotal policy of the As
sembly toward the Church, the assumption of the church lands,
Brissot was in full sympathy. The Assembly was in a difficult
position. It was warned not to imitate the monarchy in per
petual appeals to credit, and, at the same time, was urged to
diminish the public debt. It was not possible to borrow or to
increase the taxes.3 That the state needed the wealth of the
1 This expression of opinion was most pleasing to Madame Roland. In a
letter to Bancal she wrote: "Tous les journalists se sont emparis de sa mort
comme d'un morceau prideux, riche et pathitique dont chacun tire parti suivant
ses talents. Je ne connais que Brissot qui ait eu la sagesse d'iviter I'idoldtrie, avec
le prudence de ne pas offenser V opinion." Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 257.
2 "Elles [les dimes] sont supprimies sans indemniti chez V ecclisiastique ; un
seul membre s'est levi contre la ridaction de ce dernier article seutement, et il
desoit en lui-mime : lis veulent itro libres, Us ne savent pas etre jusies." Pa
triote Frangais, August 13, 1789.
3 Gomel, Histoire financiire, i, Introduction, xxiv.

A JOURNALIST 145
Church was thus evident; that she had a right to take it was
more doubtful. But to Brissot the right was as obvious as the
need. The clergy, he declared, quoting the speech of M. Chasse,
were not proprietors, only depositaries; they could with perfect
propriety be paid in some other way than by giving them the
use of the property.1 Furthermore, the church property had
been given to the clergy only on condition that they were useful
to society; if they ceased to perform useful functions they could
be despoiled of it.2 These arguments, reinforced by the very
practical one of financial necessity, prevailed, and the property
was taken, — "assumed" said the majority of the Assembly,
"confiscated" said the Church.
The Assembly had thus torn down. It had now to build up,
and in this process it had to deal with questions of religion and
religious tolerance, as well as with ecclesiastical organization.
A question of this kind first came up in connection with the
declaration of rights. Should the name of God be inserted and
God be declared the first cause of all those rights? Contrary to
what proved to be the opinion of the majority, Brissot argued
against it. "God is indeed the first cause of these rights, as He
is of everything," he wrote; "but the true first cause of the
rights of man is man's existence. He ought to be free because
he exists." 3
A more serious matter from the practical point of view was
that brought up by Dom Gerle's motion that the Catholic,
Apostolic, and Roman religion should always be that of the
nation. This was clearly a violation of tolerance and, after a
stormy debate, was rejected as such. According to Brissot even
to deliberate on such a proposition was a crime. "To say that
one believes in the Catholic religion is to make a profession of
faith; but to authorize only that religion, is to interfere with
other religions, to persecute them; it is to force people to be
lieve and to practice Catholicism alone; and such intolerance
is a crime against Christ himself, who allowed himseU to be
1 Patriote Frangais, October 24, 1789.
2 Ibid., September 11, 1789. 3 Ibid., August 20, 1789.

146 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
crucified and who crucified no one." l And consistently with
this sphit of tolerance he argued that civU rights be given to
Protestants, Jews, and actors. But though strongly against
the establishment of the Catholic religion to the exclusion of aU
others, he was heartily in favor of the Catholic Church as the
State Church, and supported the radical policy involved in the
election of the bishops and priests by the people, the regulation
of the salaries of the clergy by the government, and the demand
from every priest of an oath to support the civil constitution
of the clergy.2 The priest was a state functionary, he declared,
and quoted Voltahe to the effect that priests in the state were
very much like tutors in the home, agencies for teaching,
preaching, and furnishing a good example.3 He even went so far
as to say that there was reason in the idea of the Quakers in
abolishing the priesthood altogether. At the same time, he
admitted that ideal as that might be, France was not yet ready
for such a step. He added, however, that the example of the
Quakers should be imitated to the extent of proscribing aU use
less priests, in which number he included aU archbishops and J
bishops. He also advocated the radical policy of the marriage
of the clergy, but acknowledged that this idea must be pre
sented with caution, as the people were not yet educated up
to it.4 At aU events he would do away with monastic vows,
and was therefore greatly pleased at the decree suppressing
religious orders.5
Above aU, he preached tolerance, and like most of his con
temporaries did not seem to realize that in upholding the oath
of obedience to the new constitution which it was proposed to
require of the clergy, he himseU might be guilty of rank intoler
ance. To take this oath involving adhesion to the principle of
election of priests without any confirmation by the Pope, was
to many churchmen a violation of theh conscientious scruples.
The Pope certainly regarded it as such, for he threatened with
1 Patriote Frangais, April 13, 1790.
2 Ibid., August 12, 13, 1789; June 1, 1790. 8 Ibid., May 30, 1790.
4 Ibid., June 1, 1790; July 27, September 4, 1792. 6 Ibid., April 7, 1792.

A JOURNALIST 147
excommunication all ecclesiastics who took the oath. The
authority of the Pope Brissot had already assailed in L'Au-
torite legislative de Rome aneantie, published a few years be
fore.1 He now seized the occasion to bring out a new edition,
entitled Rome jugee et Vautorite legislative du pape aneantie, with
a new preface in which he stated that he proposed "to prove
that the popes are only usurpers, total strangers to French
Christians, and that for free Frenchmen a pope who excommu
nicated them was only an enemy who ought to be punished if he
had any power, but that as he was a mere phantom, he need
only be scorned. The timid fear that interdict; rogues exagger
ate the danger. The former must be enlightened, the latter un
masked." That this whole attitude on the part of the Pope and
the clergy might be a matter of conscience Brissot refused to
consider, and ridiculed as absurd the suggestion of Abbe Maury
that the civil constitution of the clergy ought to have the sanc
tion of a national council or of the Pope, and that the govern
ment "ought not to violate timorous consciences." 2 However
much matters of religion seemed to the clergy to be involved,
to the majority of the Assembly it was a matter of political im
port only. Their attitude toward the Church had been directed
in the first place, not by any burning zeal for religion, but by
the need of money, and the land of the Church had been taken
not with the idea of making the Church less secular, but as a
financial resource in dire distress. To oppose the new organiza
tion which had been devised in consequence seemed therefore
to Brissot, as to many other revolutionists, merely perverse
objection to the principles of the Revolution.
On the financial, as well as on the ecclesiastical policy of the
Assembly, Brissot was on the radical side. In his early writings
he had frequently discussed financial questions, and he now had
a chance to make his influence felt directly through his journal.
He accordingly devoted much space to the subject. He wished
1 See p. 36.
2 Patriote Frangais, November 29, 1790. See also issues of January 8, 19,
24, and February 18, 1791.

148 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
to get rid as fast and as far as possible of the influence of the
old regime, prevent any introduction of its methods into the
new regime, reduce the power of the king and ministers in finan
cial matters to its lowest terms, substitute for it the authority
of the Assembly, instead of temporary expedients for raising
money, adopt the most thoroughgoing measures, and finaUy
introduce a system of taxation which would be both just and
democratic. One of the first abuses of the old regime to which
the Assembly turned its attention was that of pensions. To
Brissot they seemed an unmitigated evil, and when it was sug
gested that a pension was an acquired property, and that to
abolish the pension without restriction might be a violation
of the declaration of rights, he expressed great astonishment.
There was practical agreement, however, that the pension list
should be revised, but when it was proposed that the revision
should be made by the executive power Brissot again uttered
protest. "It would be to put in charge of curing the evil," he
objected, "the very persons who were profiting by it." 2 This
objection seems to have had some influence, for when the law
against pensions was brought forward it provided that the revi
sion should be made not by the king, but by a committee of the
Assembly. With this decision Brissot was greatly pleased, as
also with the further clause that no pension or salary should be
paid to Frenchmen who had left the realm without the authori
zation of the government.3
Of the general financial policy of the ministry as represented
by Necker, he was a constant and severe critic. In his Observa
tions d'un rSpublicain he had declared that Necker was not a
defender of the people but an upholder of despotism, but in the
Plan de conduite he had in a measure retracted his earlier state
ments and appealed to the public to raUy to Necker's support.
He now apparently went back to his former opinion, and tfll
the retirement of Necker in September, 1790, there were few
numbers of the Patriote Frangais in which he did not assail him
1 Patriote Frangais, January 6, 1790. 2 Ibid.
3 Gomel, u, 16.

A JOURNALIST 149
for some sin, either of omission or commission. He criticized
him for his unwillingness to produce the livre rouge,1 "that
infernal cavern," 2 to use Brissot's own term; maintained that
in face of the decree of the Assembly, the expenses must be
reduced sixty millions (Necker had declared it possible to re
duce them only thhty millions) ; found fault with him for en
couraging the lottery,3 and objected strenuously to his plans
for transforming the caisse d'escompte into a national bank.4
To this institution Brissot was particularly opposed. The As
sembly must exercise greater control over it, he argued both
in his speech before the municipal council and in his journal; on
the other hand it must not accord it greater privileges. Brissot
was by no means alone in his hostility, and the general opposi
tion resulted in the defeat of Necker's plan, and in demands on
the caisse d'escompte on the part of the Assembly which weak
ened what credit it still had.5 In taking this step the Assembly
weakened a source of its own support, and as the patriotic con
tribution of one fourth of the revenue, from which much had
been expected, had not been productive,6 the government was
under more urgent necessity than ever for providing financial
resource. That resource, according to Brissot, and, as it proved,
according to the majority of the Assembly, was to be found in
assignats issued on the church lands. In the measures for the
sale of these lands Brissot seems to have been more prudent
than the majority of his fellow politicians and journalists,
and even at the risk of offending his constituency urged that
1 The book of secret expenses of the royal government under Louis XV and
Louis XVI. Patriote Frangais, April 22, 23; May 2, 1790.
2 Ibid., April 8, 1790.
3 "Comment peut-il croire d V existence des loteries sous le regne de I'ordre
public ? une loterie n'est-elle pas le jeu le plus immoral, le plus contradictoire avec
V esprit et Us mwurs d'une constitution libre et d'un peuple qu'on veut riginirer ?
Le profit de Vital sur les loteries n'est-il pas un vol infame, fait a la partie la plus
misirable du peuple qu'on abuse ? La misere a du faire la gabelle: la morale doit
faire abolir la loterie." Patriote Frangais, June 5, 1790.
4 See p. 103.
6 Patriote Frangais, September 23, October 3, December 19, 1789; also
Gomel, i, 516.
6 Ibid., March 14, 1790.

150 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the municipalities renounce a share of the rather large part of
the proceeds which had been offered them.1
He not only supported the assumption and sale of church
lands by the state, as a financial measure, but was also enthusi
astic over the opportunity it offered to him personally to fur
ther the interests of an association of which he was one of the
promoters and probably the originator. The plans for this
association were drawn up in Brissot's own hand and appar
ently just after the decree of November 18, 1789, which placed
on sale the property of the Church.2 The plan, which showed
the influence both of Rousseau and of Brissot's American expe
rience, provided for an association founded on ideas of democra
tic equality, something after the style of the Moravian Breth
ren.3 It was to be caUed the SociSti agricole ou d'amis and was to
have for its object the regeneration of society by means of rural
education. It was to purchase, in the first place, property of
sufficient size to provide for about twenty families, and in a
locality where further purchases could be made as the society
grew. In order to fulffll its educational purpose its members
were to engage in teaching a system of the purest morality, the
simplest religious opinions, and manual labor, and by a method
entirely different from that which was usuaUy followed. When
the society was well established it was to undertake such manu
factures as could be easily carried on in the country. It was also
to have a printing establishment, in the first place for its own
use and in the second place for extending its teachings through
out France. There was to be provided further a common li
brary and a common meeting place, though each family was to
have its own house, which must be simple and without unneces
sary luxury or ornamentation. New members were to be ad
mitted only after having passed through a novitiate and would
be required to subscribe in advance to the form of government
1 See p. 103.
2 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 77. See also Perroud, Un Projet de Brissot
pour une Association agricole, in La Revolution frangaise, March, 1902; xlii,
260-65. 3 See p. 89.

A JOURNALIST 151
established. Active members would be expected to subscribe
from twelve to fifteen thousand francs, though provision was
made for loaning money to those who had little or nothing, and
for receiving special gifts from those who were willing to give
more than the required amount.
The ideas set forth in this scheme Brissot communicated to
Lanthenas, who in turn explained them to the Rolands, and
they in turn together with Champagneux,1 Blot, and Bangal des
Issarts,2 joined in planning the association.3 Brissot meanwhile
approached his friend Robert Pigott, the English Quaker, from
whom he hoped financial backing for the enterprise. Of all his
friends Brissot found Lanthenas his most active supporter, and
during the faU of 1790 they had much correspondence as to
ways and means.4 It was proposed at first to buy property in
the vicinity of Lyons, but Brissot found the neighborhood was
too aristocratic and recommended purchase elsewhere. But
apparently before any purchase could be made the ardor of his
friends began to cool. Pigott, on whom he had staked his hopes,
withdrew; Bangal des Issarts departed for England, not im
probably with the motive of disengaging himseU from what he
had evidently come to regard as an impracticable scheme; and
even the enthusiastic Lanthenas ventured to express doubt
whether Brissot had adequately gauged the difficulties of the
enterprise.5 Thus another of Brissot's schemes for brotherhood
and social regeneration came to an end, this time before it was
even inaugurated.
Meanwhile, Brissot continued to fill the columns of the
Patriote Frangais with arguments in favor of the assignats.
The assignats were very different, he declared, from the paper
of the caisse d'escompte. There would be much more confidence
in this kind of paper, bearing interest, based on the goods of
the clergy and other property of the state, limited in purpose
1 L. A. Champagneux, the friend of the Rolands and editor of Madame
Roland's works.
2 Correspondance, 252-53.
3 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 743; Appendix O.
4 Correspondance, 255. 6 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 179.

152 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and in quantity, and payable at a fixed time, than there
would be if it were connected with the operations of a dis
credited caisse, whose condition was unknown and whose de
crees of suspension of payment proved its embarrassment.1
The proposed issue of four hundred millions he declared too
smaU, and urged that six hundred millions was not too much.
In spite of some protests, these demands prevaUed and the
assignats were voted, though the amount was at first limited to
four hundred millions. But as it did not bring the money ex
pected, another issue was soon caUed for. This issue also Bris
sot advocated as a necessary expedient and resented any sug
gestion of evil consequences. He reported with satisfaction
that the chambers of commerce of Nantes and of Bordeaux
had unanimously demanded it, and that similar bodies in other
parts of France were going to take like action; attacked coUec-
tively and by name opponents of the measure, including Necker,
TaUeyrand, and Bergasse; 2 retorted to the objection that the
assignats could not be used in foreign commerce, that no one
claimed they could, but that they would greatly facilitate it by
taking the place of coin which would be used for that purpose.
And when some one turning to Brissot's favorite example ven
tured to suggest the warning that might be drawn from the
experience with paper money in America, he declared that the
cases were not at all paraUel. The American money had no
foundation; was issued in the midst of war, and was thirty or
forty times greater than the coin in circulation; as for the as
sertion that the effect of paper money in America had been
to raise the price of provisions, he replied that that rise was
not the effect of paper, but of doubled consumption and less
ened production. "How can any one have the bad faith," he
asked, "to compare the certificates of America, founded upon
unsalable land lacking purchasers and cultivation, with assig
nats based on lands of great value for which there is a ready
1 Patriote Frangais, December 18, 1789, and Discours sur la raretS du nume
raire. 2 Patriote Frangais, March 12, May 17, June 23, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 153
sale?" 1 And, when coming nearer home, the example of Law's
paper money was cited, he again replied that the cases were not
parallel, and forgetting as he did on other occasions that a
change in the form of government did not change the laws,
either of political economy or human nature, added that the
paper of Law was manufactured by despotism, and was there
fore a very different thing from the assignats issued by a free
nation.2 In spite of the protests from Talleyrand and a few
others who foresaw the destruction to which such opening of
the dikes would lead, these and like arguments prevailed and a
new issue of assignats was voted.
With the issue of the assignats the control of the finances
passed more and more from the ministry to the Assembly. Of
this new administration Brissot was as critical as he had been of
the old. On January 21 he published an open letter to Camus,3
in which he censured him for reporting in favor of the claim of
the Duke of Orleans to a dot promised by Louis XV to the
daughter of the regent, a part of which had not been paid. It
would be like giving to a thief the little that remained in your
purse after he had robbed you, and would hark back to the
methods of the old regime. There was already too much, he
added, of that sphit in the operation of the treasury.4
It was now proposed to put the administration of the treas
ury into the hands of a committee chosen from the Assembly.
When a like proposition had been made by Necker a year be
fore, Brissot had vigorously opposed it on the ground that it
would mean the confounding of two distinct powers.5 Now, con
ditions having changed, he was in favor of it, and in the face of
his former argument declared that to give the choice of the
1 Patriate Frangais, April 10, September 26, 1790. 2 Ibid., April 16, 1790.
3 Armand Gaston Camus (born 1740, died 1804) was an enthusiastic sup
porter of the Revolution and a deputy of Paris to the States-General. He took a
prominent part in the debates on financial questions and was one of the chief
advocates of the civil constitution of the clergy. He was also a member of the
Convention, and of the committee of public safety, and under the Directory
was offered the place of minister of finance.
1 Lettre a M. Camus, January 21, 1791.
6 Patriote Frangais, March 17, 1790.

154 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
administrators to the legislative body instead of to the king
would not make the legislative body in any sense an executive
body.1 It was decreed, however, that the choice should be made
by the king. With the personnel of the committee, as well as
with the manner of choice, Brissot was ill satisfied, because it
included, he was convinced, either men who were opposed to
the assignats or who knew little about finance. On the latter
ground he ventured to criticize even Condorcet, whom in most
respects he greatly admired, and published a letter to him in
the Patriote Frangais in which he calmly told him of his short
comings for the position.2 Lavoisier, another member of the
committee chosen by the king, he criticized because of his offer
to serve without pay. The offer was actuated by the best mo
tives, he admitted, but its effect would be to humiliate those
who had to depend on theh pay for their livelihood. Moreover
it was not seemly under a free government.
In all economic matters Brissot was also greatly interested.
If in things political, equality was his watchword, here it was
liberty, and to questions where liberty was in any way involved
he gave especial attention, such as the price of grain, its free
circulation, the provisioning of Paris,3 the free cultivation of
tobacco, its free importation or at least low duties on it,4 and
the extension of foreign trade, especially with America.5
But the subject to which above all others he devoted the
columns of the Patriote Frangais was the cause of the negro.
He stood for his liberation from slavery, and for the extension
of a greater measure of equality to the mulattoes. To this end
he supported the Amis des Noirs. Indeed, as has been pointed
out, he made his paper the organ of that society, upheld its
policy, and as colonial problems occupied more and more atten
tion in the Assembly, devoted an increasing amount of space to
theh discussion. In fact, most of the controversies in which
1 Patriote Frangais, March 10, 1791. 2 IMd., April 10, 1791.
3 IMd., July 30, August 7, 10, 18, 27, September 12, 1789.
4 Ibid., November 17, 1790; January 30, 1791.
6 Ibid., February 14, 15, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 155
the Patriote Frangais became involved either with individuals
or with other journals grew out of his championship of the
negro, and of the Amis des Noirs. A discussion of Brissot's
attitude on this subject belongs, however, rather with the his
tory of that society than with his influence as a journalist.

CHAPTER VII
BRISSOT'S CAREER DURING THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
AS A JOURNALIST  LE PATRIOTE FRANCAIS
Part II
His Attitude toward Popular Movements and Public Opinion
The work of the Assembly, both in the formation of the
constitution and in the administration of the government, was
modified and profoundly influenced from time to time by popu
lar movements. Of the importance of such movements and
of their influence on the Assembly Brissot was keenly aware.
What was being done and said outside of the Assembly was, he
realized, of the greatest moment, and he gave much space in
the Patriote Frangais to its discussion. At first the Assembly had
paid little attention to external events and had gone calmly on
debating a declaration of rights, syllable by syllable, tiU it was
brought down from the clouds by Salomon's report. The result
was the sudden and enthusiastic vote against feudal privi
lege of every description known as the "orgy" of the 4th of
August. Although Brissot spoke with approval of the "gener
ous enthusiasm " of the privileged classes,1 he was not so enthu
siastic over this particular onslaught on depotism as might have
been expected; but his objection was not to the decrees them
selves, but to the headlong haste with which they were passed,
and may perhaps have been colored by his disappointment
that the articles voted did not include liberty of the press.2
In his opinion, there was crying need of another constructive
measure which ought to be taken without waiting till the
constitution was finished, — namely, the establishment of a
provisional national tribunal. "It is not with promises," he
warned the Assembly, "that the fury of the people can be
1 Patriote Francais, August 6, 1789. * Ibid., August 7, 1789.

A JOURNALIST 157
stopped. They clamor for deeds, they want to be satisfied im
mediately. Perhaps if such a tribunal is not estabhshed more
blood wiU be shed. One must be created which, in the midst
of chaos and anarchy, wfll execute prompt justice upon a few
agents of despotism, and thus force the others to abandon theh
posts." 1
As Brissot predicted, disorder continued and culminated in
Paris on the 5th and 6th of October, when a mob rushed out to
Versailles, insulted the dignity of the Assembly, broke into the
palace, murdered members of the king's guard, and forced the
king and queen to remove theh abode to Paris. Lafayette, who
as the commander of the national guard was responsible for
order, arrived late on the scene and eventuaUy quelled the dis
turbance, but it was felt by many people that if he had acted
with promptness and vigor the outbreak might have been
prevented altogether. In judging of this unfortunate affair
Brissot did not take a very decided or radical stand. While de
ploring the acts of violence and the shedding of blood, he was
not one of those who held Lafayette responsible, but on the
contrary commended his "prudence and courage." As a mem
ber of the ComitS des Recherches of the Commune he had to take
action against the alleged instigators of violence, but at the
same time he joined his fellow members of the committee in a
declaration that in taking such action they were only fulfilling
theh duty and that they had nothing to do with ulterior
causes — ¦ which was equivalent to saying that they were in
sympathy with the movement as a whole.2 Moreover, this
censure was rather offset by the fact that when Brissot wished
to show that the people were reaUy not "ferocious" he made
the singular choice of the events of October 5 and 6 as an
example with which to prove his point, and complacently re
marked that the mob did not do aU the harm it might have
1 According to Jaures (Histoire socialiste, I, 288) Brissot's criticism was from
the point of view of a doctrinaire and a pedant who wanted long discussion of
theories and not immediate action.
2 Lacroix, Les Actes de la Commune, v, 134.

158 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
done. With the incidental result, the transfer to Paris of the
National Assembly, he was greatly pleased. In his Plan de
conduite he had pressed upon the States-General the advisabil
ity of such a step, and now that it was taken he was in the fore
front in presenting congratulations and promises of support
on the part of the municipality of Paris.1
In the affair of Nancy, when many of his feUow citizens
hesitated, he was more decided and was one of those who ex
pressed open sympathy with the mutinous soldiers. The revolt
which culminated at Nancy grew out of the suspicion with
which the army was regarded. A large part of the Assembly
doubted its adherence to the Revolution and thought of it as a
possible means by which the king might reestablish his author
ity. Influenced by theh fear of its power and by theh own
ideas of fraternity and equality, they had passed various de
crees which were utterly destructive of discipline. The result
was disorganization everywhere, culminating on August 31,
1790, in an open mutiny at Nancy which was suppressed by the
Marquis de Bouflle. The Assembly was in an embarrassing
position: it did not wish to uphold what might be considered
a despotic exercise of power; at the same time it could not
encourage mutiny, even though that mutiny were the result of
its own action. The outcome was that the majority officially
approved of BouiUe's action; but a considerable minority,
joined by many outside of the Assembly, did not hesitate to
declare that the mutinous soldiers had right on theh side and
that Bouflle had been guilty of an act of tyranny. Believing
that soldiers were justified in protesting against orders of which
they did not approve,2 even this illustration of the result
of such doctrine did not open Brissot's eyes nor prevent
him from criticizing M. Bouflle severely. "The triumph of
M. Bouflle," he wrote, "the death of four hundred citizens,
has caused general indignation." The soldiers were rebels, he
admitted, but those rebels were their brothers, and the blood of
their brothers should be shed sparingly. Bouflle ought to have
1 See p. 91. 2 Patriote Frangais, April 26, 1791.

A JOURNALIST 159
reasoned with them as a father, and, like those entrusted with
putting down Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts, have avoided
the shedding of blood tiU the last extremity.1 A little later
he expressed himseU even more emphatically, laying blame
on the municipality of Nancy, the department, M. Bouille,
and the Swiss officers; in short, on every one but the soldiers.
"Should the soldiers be blamed?" he demanded. "Doubtless
they did make mistakes, but their excuse is in the revolution,
theh own patriotism, the aristocracy of their officers and the
loyalty with which they are inspired." 2 For the time being
Brissot was in advance of public opinion in his condemnation of
Bouflle and represented only the minority, but that minority
was strong enough to stop the persecution of Bouille's French
prisoners,3 and eventually Brissot's point of view prevailed, and
Bouille, instead of being honored as a military hero, came to be
popularly regarded as a cruel tyrant of the old regime.
Brissot's decidedly unmflitary idea of discipline was again
evident in the matter of the disobedience of the soldiers to
Lafayette when they prevented the king from going to Saint-
Cloud, on April 18, 1791. Passive obedience, he admitted,
might be necessary for discipline, but it was one thing to obey
blindly orders concerning discipline and tactics, and quite
another thing to obey commands which seemed to be unjust,
contrary to law and liberty.4
Brissot was indeed a thorough democrat in his sympathy
with the people. He naturaUy, therefore, upheld the right of
petition and resented any limitations upon it. He went fur
ther, and upheld popular movements not only in the spe
cific cases referred to, but in general. " The instinct of the people
is worth more than aU your dialectics," he cried; "it has saved
you ten times over and it wfll continue to save you." Popular
movements were to be expected and deshed among a people
1 Patriote Frangais, September 3, 4, 1790. 2 Ibid., December 9, 1790.
3 The Swiss soldiers, however, over whom the jurisdiction of the French law
did not extend were tried by court-martial created by their own officers.
4 Patriote Frangais, April 26, 1791.

160 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
whose constitution was not yet finished, as a means of fright
ening conspirators and false patriots, and especiaUy among a
people, a large part of whom were excluded from a share in
making the laws. To require a people to submit without ques
tion to all the laws, it would be necessary that aU people should
have a share through theh representatives in making the laws.
But owing to the distinction between active and passive citizens
haU of France was not represented, was in a state of subjection.
When that haU once reaUzed the uselessness of petitions as a
means of securing redress, insurrection would be its natural
weapon.1 But that the people might not become the prey of unscrupu
lous agitators they needed to be instructed. He therefore wel
comed the growth of popular societies. Such societies, the
distinctive feature of which was that, unlike the Jacobin Club,
they were open to passive as weU as to active citizens and to
women as well as to men, began to come into existence in the
autumn of 1790, and by the spring of 1791 they were numerous
and flourishing. With this movement Brissot was dehghted
and did all in his power to encourage and foster it; he published
articles by Lanthenas on the subject, declared that such organ
izations were the secret of peace and social order, and urged
their establishment everywhere.2
Of one of the societies — that at Lons-le-Saunier — he be
came the special champion. Another society of aristocratic
character had been formed at the same place, and both claimed
affiliation with the Jacobins at Paris, which, under the leader
ship of Theodore Lameth, decided in favor of the latter.
Whereupon Brissot took up the cudgels in behaU of the demo
cratic society, opened the columns of his newspaper to theh
complaints, and attacked Lameth in unsparing terms. The
cause of the democratic society, he declared, was the cause of
1 Patriate Frangais, May 12, 1791. See also Aulard, La Formation du parti
ripublicain, in La Revolution frangaise, xxxv, 318-22.
2 Patriote Frangais, February 14, 1791. Of the societies for women he
apparently did not approve unreservedly.

A JOURNALIST 161
patriotism and of justice. Whoever was indifferent to the com
plaints of their brave brethren of Mont-Jura was unworthy of
liberty; whoever would stifle these complaints was a traitor to
patriotism.1 While defending popular societies in general, he became a
member of one of the most prominent of such societies at
Paris — the Cercle social. This society, a little group of munici
pal politicians gathered around Fauchet, was in part made up
of the former representatives of the Commune. It was based
on a kind of free-masonry, and was somewhat socialistic as well
as democratic in character. With the idea of extending its
activities it proceeded to develop an organization known as the
Confederation des amis de la verite, whose purpose was to preach
the rights of man as an end, and as a means to this end to fur
ther universal brotherhood.2 In spite of some practical work
this confederation seems to have been too theoretical to have
altogether satisfied Brissot with his never quenched deshe for
active propaganda; and with the aim, apparently, of educating
public opinion more directly, he engaged in company with his
friends, Lanthenas, Bangal, and the Rolands, in trying to form
a federation of philosophers. Like his previous enterprises, this
was not to be primarily a money -making scheme, and was there
fore to be carried on by such persons as would be content to get
only a bare living out of it, and would concentrate all their
energies on making it useful to humanity.3 As in the Associa
tion agricole, he hoped to get help from the English Quakers,
and here again he found in Lanthenas his most active sup
porter.4 Lanthenas, however, feared Brissot's over-zealous
ardor, and apparently with good reason, for Brissot in his
1 Patriote Frangais, February 25, March 13, 1791.
2 Lacroix, Les Actes de la Commune de Paris, vn, 416, 452, 607.
3 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 253-59; April, 1791.
4 At the time that this project was on foot, Madame Roland was cor
responding with Bangal as to the possibility of ^his acting as agent for the
Confidiratimi des amis de la veriti at Paris, and forming a like society at Lon
don, but the plan seems to have fallen through. It is possible that Brissot's
plan was connected with this. Lettres, il, 248, 262.

162 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
anxiety to get money kept running after Lafayette, and failed
to see what to Lanthenas seemed self-evident, that Lafayette
was playing with him, and that he was being blinded to Lafay
ette's real political sentiments.1 This accusation is naturally
not susceptible of proof, but at aU events Lafayette appar
ently gave him no money, and as very few other people seem
to have either, the enterprise feU through.
In connection with Brissot's democracy two interesting ques
tions arise: did it extend to women, and was it socialistic in
character? 2 As to the first question, he certainly approved of
the admission of women to the popular societies, showed his
sympathy with a society of women known as the Amies de la
viritS, by sending them a letter of congratulation, and spoke
with satisfaction of the women's clubs formed at Bordeaux,
Allais, and Nantes.3 But it cannot truthfully be said that he
was very enthusiastic on the subject. The place of woman, he
declared apropos of TaUeyrand's outline of a plan for national
education, was in the home. She should, therefore, be given an
education which would suit her for private, not for public life.
His inmost feelings on the subject are best seen in his memoirs,
where he declared that a woman devoted to politics seemed to
him a monster, or at least a "pre'cieuse ridicule" of a new kind.4
As to the socialistic character of Brissot's democracy, the
answer is not so easy. No scheme for the suppression of private
property or for its wholesale redistribution apparently ever
crossed his mind, yet some of his ideas might be characterized
as socialistic in the broader sense of the term, his advocacy, for
instance, of the abolition of primogeniture. To permit this
inequahty in bequests of property, he wrote, was to accumulate
1 " Lanthenas icrivait deja d Bangal en avril, en lui exposant ses plans de pro-
pagande (Bib. not. 9534, fol. 200-01) : Brissot va ce matin, chez M. Lafayette
pour iprouver ses intentions. II a offert plusieurs fois V argent pour quelque entre-
prise qui tendit d garantir la Constitution contre les dangers qui de tous cdtSs la
menacent. Si nous pouvons le determiner pour ce projet des Societes populaires."
Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 273, note.
2 Lacroix, Les Actes de la Commune de Paris, vn, 622.
3 Ibid., and Patriote Frangais, April 1, 1791. * Mimoires, I, 272-73.

A JOURNALIST 163
property in the hands of a few privileged persons. The division
of property, on the other hand, was the most fruitful source of
public prosperity.1 Further, he was a constant champion of the
poor. For example, in connection with the subject of finance,
he argued for the small assignat, on the ground that it was
needed by the poor workmen; 2 and on the subject of taxation
he argued against the octroi because it weighed with especial
heaviness on the poor.3 Nor did he hesitate to publish an ar
ticle Sur le peuple in which the vices of the rich and the virtues
of the poor were frankly contrasted,4 and in the Patriote Fran
gais of July 18, 1791, he declared that the amount of money
paid in taxes by the poor was not as smaU as it seemed; that,
on the contrary, U the value of theh work was considered, they
really paid more than the rich.
Though he preached no immediate change in fundamental
social relations, he would do away at once with undemocratic
social forms. It was not only an undemocratic reminiscence of
past distinctions, he maintained, but quite useless as well to
address your letters to your neighbor "Monsieur" or "Ma
dame" and to sign yourseU "his most humble and obedient
servant." It would even be better, provided one could change
aU his habits at once, to substitute for the formal second person
of the plural the tu forms of the singular.5 People should cer
tainly drop the aristocratic de from their names, though in
order to avoid confusion the patronymic would better be kept.6
Not even the king should be excepted in this abandonment of
aristocratic titles. The king was no longer the sovereign, he
declared; he should therefore not be given the name,7 while to
call him "Louis by the grace of God" was positively obnoxious,
as absolutely out of harmony with the acknowledged fact that
1 Patriote Frangais, March 14, 1791; also August 14, and December 6, 1790.
2 Ibid., May 6, 1790. 3 Ibid., February 13, 1791.
4 Ibid., February 5, 1791. 6 Ibid., June 23, 1791; also July 4, 1790.
6 Ibid., July 1, 1790. Note the way in which he followed his own advice.
In the Patriate Frangais of October 7, 1790, he gives a list of the works of
"J. P. Brissot," then below in smaller type is printed "ci-devant de Warville."
7 IMd., September 24, 1790.

164 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Louis was king solely by the will of the people.1 Indeed, Brissot
felt so strongly on the matter that when at the theater people
shouted, " Vive le red," he found his pleasure completely spoUed.
One comparatively trivial evidence of aristocratic exclusiveness
on the part of the king irritated him extremely, namely, that
during the presence of the king at the TuUeries the garden was
kept shut tiU one o'clock, and when it was open, workmen and
people shabbily dressed, or carrying packages, were not allowed
to enter. The garden, as well as the Champs Elysees, he main
tained, should be freely open to the public irrespective of occu
pation or attire.2
Also in more serious matters Brissot wished to do away with
the privileges accorded to the king and to reduce him to a plane
of democratic equality with other citizens. He rejoiced, for
example, when the right of pardon was taken from him,3 ob
jected to his control of so many domains 4 and so large a pension
fund, his inviolability as a private citizen5 and his private
guard.6 In fact, in every possible way and in the strongest
terms Brissot showed his desire to lessen the power of the king.
But did he wish to do away with the king altogether? He
was a thorough democrat, but was he also a republican? To
compare his utterances on this subject at various times, as his
opponents were not slow to do, would make him out to be both
changeable and inconsistent, but a closer examination shows
that while he was invariable in his adherence to republicanism
as the best government in theory, he only varied in his opinion
as to its immediate practicability. Hence he is found at one
moment proclaiming the advantages of a republic — especially
one like the United States — and the next supporting mon
archy. For instance, his pamphlet on systems of provincial
administration proposed by Necker and Turgot, he boldly en
titled Observations d'un rSpublicain, and in it did not hesitate
to declare that thoroughgoing reform was impossible under a
1 Patriate Frangais, October 10, 1789. 2 Ibid., August 29, 1790.
3 Ibid., June 5, 1791. * Ibid., August 20, 1790.
6 IMd., December 23, 1790; March 30, 1791. 6 IMd., November 12, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 165
monarchy. But when once the monarch gave serious evidence
of a willingness to further reform by calling the States-General,
Brissot, with other theoretical republicans, seems to have real
ized that the "haU might be better than the whole," and
stopped talking about republicanism. If the king were really
in earnest, he held that it might be weU to give him a chance,
and both in the prospectus to his journal and in his Plan de
conduite he spoke of the king as the "friend of the people," and
of the States-General as the "support of monarchy." It is to
be borne in mind, however, that in writing these pamphlets he
was anxious, on the one hand, not to offend the government,
whose sanction he needed for his newspaper; nor, on the other
hand, the people, whose votes he wanted for his election.
As the Revolution progressed he not only continued his criti
cism of the prerogatives of royalty but became more open in
again stating his admiration for the republican form of govern
ment, as such. " I hate royalty," he wrote in the Patriote Fran
gais of September 24, 1790, "and I have hated it from the mo
ment I began to reflect. Nothing seems to me more degrading
to man. I adore the republican government, but," he added,
"I do not believe the French are worthy yet of this holy re
gime." He would not for a moment admit, however, that they
could not become ready for it, and when Clermont-Tonnere up
held monarchy as in itself the best form of government, Brissot
attacked him almost with rage. Since France had now a repre
sentative legislative body and elective judges, it was republican,
Brissot declared, in two thirds of its elements, and could not,
therefore, any longer be considered a monarchy at all, in the
sense meant by the monarchists. He then took up, one after the
other, the statements of Clermont-Tonnere, and denied in the
first place that a monarchy was necessary to the prosperity of
France; in the second place, that the extent of its territory pre
cluded the establishment of a republic; and in the third place,
that the national character was unsuitedtoarepublic. Hemain-
tained, on the contrary, that France was in slavery under the old
regime; that she was now only haU free, and that she would

166 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
never be wholly free as long as she had a king; that this doc
trine, far from being abominable, was the only one in conformity
with reason, religion, and a sane policy; and that it was the doc
trines of Clermont-Tonnere, on the contrary, which were cruel
and degrading to the human race and which deserved to be
called abominable. But even while upholding repubUcanism
with almost unseemly ardor, Brissot did not advocate the im
mediate establishment of a republic. A little later, in defend
ing Robert's x famous pamphlet Le RSpublicanisme adopts a la
France, he expressed himseU with more calmness. "That the
republican government is preferable to monarchy," he wrote,
"is a statement that is doubted only by people who have
no initiative, by the weak, the unthinking and corrupt; but
whether the republican government can be adapted alike to aU
countries, to all peoples, is a problem very difficult to solve.
There is, in France, too much ignorance, too much corruption,
too many cities and manufactures, too many men and too little
land. ... I scarcely believe that republicanism could maintain
itself side by side with these causes of degradation." But, while
admitting that personally he did not consider France ready for
a republic, he declared that whenever the people themselves
were convinced that it was time to abolish the monarchy and
set up a republic they had a perfect right to do so, and that
consequently Robert, or any one else, was free to preach repub
licanism. Moreover, to deny that right, he asserted, was to
make the declaration of rights a dead letter.2
In spite of this explanation, Brissot was soon accused by
Choderlos de Laclos in the Amis de la constitution of being
guilty jointly with Robert of preaching republicanism. "Our
constitution," declared Choderlos, "has two kinds of enemies
1 Pierre Frangois Joseph Robert (born in 1763, died in 1826) was an active
member of the Club of the Cordeliers, secretary to Danton during his ministry,
and afterward a member of the Convention.? He was accused by the Girondins
of buying up a quantity of rum contrary to the law, and eight casks found in
his cellar were confiscated. In consequence of this affair he was dubbed with
the name of "Robert Rhum."
2 Patriate Frangais, December 19, 1790.

A JOURNALIST 167
in France: the one wish a democracy and no king, the others a
king and no democracy. Messrs. Robert, Brissot, etc., write for
the first." l In answer, Brissot did not deny that he believed
royalty was a curse, "but," he maintained, "to hold that opin
ion as a matter of political philosophy and in practice to reject
the king adopted by the constitution were two entirely different
things." 2
Such an attitude might well give opportunity to those who
were looking for ground for criticism. Brissot, they could de
clare with some point, was trying to be on both sides of the
fence at once, only waiting the course of events to take his
stand openly with the winning side. His attitude toward the
whole affair of April 18 was a case in point. The king on
that day had essayed to go out to mass at Saint-Cloud, but
had been prevented by the national guards who had refused to
obey Lafayette's command to aUow the king to proceed. La
fayette had, thereupon, handed in his resignation, but on
pressure had withdrawn it. In commenting on this event, Bris
sot asserted that the soldiers were right in disobeying Lafay
ette but that Lafayette was at fault in resigning. His resig
nation, he added, was a real calamity.3 These opinions fell
under the sharp eyes of Desmoulins, who criticized them
severely, adding significantly that Brissot was not alone in
asserting that the resignation of Lafayette was a calamity, as
that was just what the aristocratic journals were saying.4
In reahty, however, Brissot, in spite of his leaning toward
Lafayette, was on the side of the people against the king, but
during the next few weeks he seems to have made up his mind
1 No. 19, given in Buchez et Roux, as quoted by Brissot, rx, 433-41.
2 Patriote Frangais, April 9, 12, 1791. 3 Ibid., April 22, 1791.
4 Revolutions de France et de Brabant, no. 74. Desmoulins quotes Brissot as
saying that the soldiers were right in disobeying, that a general who was dis
obeyed ought to resign, and that Lafayette was wrong in resigning. Such a
statement, as Desmoulins pointed out, involved a flat contradiction. What
Brissot actually said was: "M. Lafayette a donni sa Mmission de commandant-
giniral. II a iU disobii par ses troupes, et un giniral disobii doit quitter : vottd
son motif; nous eroyons qu'on a eu raison de disobiir d M. Lafayette ;nous eroyons
qu'U a eu tort de donner sa dimission." Patriote Frangais, April 22, 1791.

168 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
more firmly to support the monarchial constitution, and, on
June 9, 1791, he expressed himseU emphatically on the subject.
After stating, as he had done before, his belief in a republic as
the ideal form of government, he added: "As for the present
state of things, I regard as criminal every man who does not
submit to the constitution decreed and who thinks of changing
any part of it whatever by other than constitutional means."
The flight to Varennes considerably modified these views.
Suspicion, which had been grave since the 18th of April, was
now transformed into certainty. There could no longer be any
doubt that the king was opposed to the Revolution. Some de
cisive action must be taken at once in regard both to the king
and to the constitution. As to what that action was to be there
was wide difference of opinion. The Assembly was divided.
Some wished to try the king; others proposed to follow the
principle of the Enghsh law, which was embodied in the nearly
finished constitution, that the king can do no wrong, and try
only his subordinates. Some members of the Assembly felt that
the king was in a measure justified in his refusal to submit to a
constitution which had reduced his power to so extremely nar
row limits, and that the real remedy was to be found in so
altering the constitution that it would give him real power. To
others this seemed virtual suicide to the Revolution. The king,
they argued, had proved that he could not be trusted and he
must be deposed, U only to prevent further mischief. And not
only this, but the form of the government must be changed.
There, for the first time, a republic was suggested as an imme
diate practical solution.
In this crisis, which promised the fulfillment of his long-cher
ished republican ideas, what was Brissot's attitude? On the
news of the king's flight he hurried off to the home of his friend
Petion where he met Desmoulins, Robespierre, and Madame
Roland, all gathered in great excitement. Robespierre, accord
ing to Madame Roland, was sure that the royal family had not
fled without the help of a formidable party in Paris and that
they, the patriots, might all expect to be murdered in a second

A JOURNALIST 169
St. Bartholomew. Petion and Brissot, on the other hand, were
delighted; they were sure the king had effectually destroyed
any remnant of authority he might still possess, and had made
it evident beyond a doubt that he was opposed to the consti
tution. Here, therefore, was their opportunity to make a bet
ter one and to prepare people for a republic.1 Some one appar
ently suggested that Lafayette might have to be reckoned with,
but Brissot, still unheedful, in spite of Desmoulins's warnings, of
the attitude of Lafayette toward the king on the 18th of April,
declared that U Lafayette had favored the flight of the king,
it was with the express purpose of giving France a republic.2
Meanwhile, the capture of the king put another face on the
situation. Robespierre was greatly relieved, but to the others
it meant the return of the main source of trouble, with resulting
complication and intrigue.
Brissot, who was regarded as one of the leaders of the repub
lican party, was one of the first to be accused of republican
consphacy. In company with Claviere he was charged with
having sent out messengers on the 25 th of June to all the eighty-
three departments bearing dispatches calculated to stir up the
people in favor of republicanism. This accusation Madame
Roland indignantly denied. At the same time she was not
satisfied with Brissot's attitude in the Patriote Frangais, evi
dently because it was not republican enough.3 To be sure, he
had seized the occasion of the king's flight to attack the moder
ate party in the most severe terms. He did not use the word
republican, but his implication was evident enough. " Will they
stfll come to us," he asked in the Patriote Frangais, of June 22,
"with theh enthusiastic boasts of the good faith of kings?
1 Mimoires de Madame Roland, I, 205, note.
2 Desmoulins in no. 82 of Les Revolutions de France et de Brabant says,
apropos of the arrival of the courier from Varennes : " La scene change. Brissot,
qui trois heures auparavant me disait chez Petion, soyez sur que si Lafayette a
favorisi Vivasion du roi, c'est pour nous donner la ripublique, Brissot ne peut
plus nous endormir de ce conte bleu, puisque BouilU son cher cousin, son complice
ne conspiroit pas sans doute pour la democratic"
3 Lettres, n, 311-12.

170 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Will they vaunt the patriotism of our king, his attachment to
the constitution? Citizens, you were aU there, you heard the
speeches made by the king to the National Assembly and the
democratic Manflesto which he sent to aU the courts of Europe.
People put confidence in these fine protests; it was a crime even
to doubt the word of a king. Ah, well! that patriotic king has
fled! Louis XVI has himseU broken his crown. . . . We must
not merely haU profit by the lesson." The next day Brissot
wrote again : "A king after such perjury is not compatible with
our constitution." Even in speaking of the flight he would have
no terms used which might suggest a palliation of the offense,
such as the proposed statement that the "king had been car
ried off." He approved, instead, the more equivocal phrase
which was substituted, "that he had deserted the realm." *
But Madame Roland wanted not merely comment on facts,
but definite expression as to a constructive policy. This criti
cism evidently had weight with Brissot, for the next day he
spoke with greater frankness and won the approving comment
from Madame Roland that he was doing better.2 "It is evi
dent," he wrote, "that the king cannot possibly be the king of
the new constitution. Even U he wanted to be now, even U he
appeared to repent, to regret his perjury, to acknowledge his
crime, would it do to aUow him to keep the crown? 3 Would
there not be danger stfll, that some day when he had sufficient
force under his control, he might declare that his repentance
was forced, and retract it? " Brissot regretted, he went on to
say, that republicanism had not as many friends as might be
expected. He wondered too, he added, why people were un-
wUling to give its real name to a condition which practically
existed. Besides preaching republicanism in his own journal, Brissot
was actively interested in trying to establish a new journal
which was to have the defense of republicanism as its sole
1 Patriote Frangais, June 24, 1791.
2 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 314; June 25, 1791.
3 Patriote Frangais, June 25, 1791.

A JOURNALIST 171
purpose. The project grew out of discussions among the lit
tle republican group which was accustomed to gather at the
home of Petion to talk over the situation. It included, be
sides Brissot and Petion, Condorcet, Claviere, Buzot, Thomas
Paine, and Du ChasteUet.1 Of this group Du ChasteUet seems
to have been the most enthusiastic and the most ready to take
revolutionary action. As a result of his ardor the members
of the National Assembly were surprised one morning to find
posted up at the doors and in the corridors of their place of
meeting the foUowing prospectus drawn up by Thomas Paine,
but signed by Du ChasteUet:2 —
"The perfect tranquiUity, the mutual confidence which
reigned among us during the flight of the former king, the pro
found indifference with which we have seen him brought back,
are the unequivocal signs that the absence of a king is worth
more than his presence, and that he is not only a superfluity but
a very heavy burden which weighs upon the entire nation. . . .
"Animated by the ideas expressed above, a Society of Repub
licans has resolved to publish in detached sheets a work under
the title of Le RSpublicain. Its object is to give people informa
tion upon this republicanism, which is calumniated because
it is not understood; upon the uselessness, the vices and the
abuses of royalty which prejudice is obstinate in defending,
although they are understood."
According to Dumont, Du ChasteUet in posting this notice
was acting on his own responsibflity and did not have the
approval of the rest of the group; but as Dumont evidently
wished to minimize his own part he is perhaps not to be cred
ited.3 At aU events, the moderates in the Assembly regarded
it as a most audacious proceeding and threatened to bring
the authors before the courts.4 In spite of this threat, several
1 Achille Du ChasteUet (born 1759, died 1794), a distinguished officer
closely connected with Brissot and the Girondins.
2 Dumont, Souvenirs, 321-26; also Madame Roland, Mimoires, I, 204-05,
and notes.
3 Souvenirs, chap. xvi.
4 Mimoires de Madame Roland, I, 204-05, note.

172 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
numbers were published, but with the reestablishment of the
king the publication naturaUy came to an end.1 As long as it
lasted Brissot gave it his fuU support in the Patriote Frangais,
quoted in fuU the prospectus, derided the demand of Malouet
that its authors be haled before the courts, and printed the
letter of Du ChasteUet in reply to his critics.2
Meanwhile he was constantly publishing other material most
suggestively republican, such, for example, as an address of
Bangal at Clermont in which the latter declared that liberty
was incompatible with an hereditary monarchy; 3 an article on
the abolition of royalty at Athens, which pointed out that its
partial failure was owing to the fact that the first archon was
the eldest son of the king; 4 and the announcement of a prize
of three hundred livres for the person who could prove that a
republican and a free citizen were not two inseparable things.5
He continued also himself to write in defense of republicanism,
spoke in highest terms of Condorcet's speech on republicanism
before the Cercle social on July 9,6 and hotly resented the sug
gestion afterward the basis of most violent attacks on the
Girondins — that to make France a repubUc was to make it a
federation of eighty-three republics.7
However, he soon began to realize that pubhc opinion was
not ripe for so radical a change, and, whfle continuing to defend
republicanism with vigor, he graduaUy moderated his demands
as to the immediate action to be taken, and skillfully suggested
that U it were thought that France were not ready for a repub
lic in its complete form, the essentials of that kind of govern
ment might be gained in another form. "If you keep royalty,"
he wrote, "let the executive council be elective, chosen by the
departments and removable. We shaU gain aU U this point is
gained and liberty wfll no longer be in danger. . . . This is the
1 Souvenirs, chap. xvi. According to Dumont the republicans went so far
in their attack on monarchy that they changed an article he sent them from
London, with the view of making it more radical.
2 Patriote Frangais, July 2 and 4, 1791. 3 Ibid., July 3, 1791.
4 IMd., July 9, 1791. 6 IMd., July 4, 1791.
6 Ibid., July 17, 1791. ' Ibid., July 9, 1791.

A JOURNALIST 173
idea which seemed to win the support of the majority of the
Jacobins. It was proposed at first by M. Danton. The Jacobins
are willing to have a king only on this condition. At the same
time they are not wUling to be thought republicans. Let us not
dispute over terms. I ask for no better republic than such a
monarchy. The Jacobins are republicans without knowing it.
Like M. Jourdain they make prose without being aware of it.
No matter! The prose is excellent." x A day or two later Bris
sot repeated this suggestion in modified form. Let the king be
dethroned temporarily by the Assembly, which would then ap
peal to the primary assemblies on the question of his perma
nent dethronement. The crown would then pass to his son, a
minor, who should be given an elective council chosen by the
departments.2 Again, going back to the idea of retaining the king himseU,
he set forth his general idea in a series of articles entitled "La
profession de foi sur la monarchic et sur le ripublicanisme,"
which appeared first in the Patriote Frangais and was subse
quently republished in pamphlet form.3 It was an extremely
skiUful piece of work, well calculated to conciliate the opposi
tion and to present republicanism in its best light. The impor
tance of the profession as showing Brissot's views at this critical
time justifies quotation at length. He began by declaring that
the monarchists and the republicans were really in closer agree
ment than people thought. They wanted peace and good order,
and it only needed a frank discussion to show how much they
had in common. He then proceeded to define a republic as a
government in which all the powers were representative, that
is to say, delegated; aU the authorities temporary or removable
and elected by the people dhectly or indirectly. Taking this
definition as a basis he declared that five sixths of the authori
ties provided by the constitution were already representative,
elective, and removable, and that the last sixth (the king) was,
1 Patriote Frangais, June 29, 1791. 2 Ibid., July 1, 1791.
" It originally appeared in the Patriote Frangais of July 5 and 6, 1791, and
was republished in pamphlet form under date of July 17.

174 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
by a fiction of the law, also representative and elective. The
only question which divided the monarchists and the republi
cans was whether the last sixth should be made representative
in reality. The republicans said yes; the monarchists, no.
"The republicans believe," he continued, "that royalty can
be and ought to be abolished immediately. It can be abohshed,
they say, without violating the decree which preserves the
monarchy, because a monarchy can exist without an hereditary
king. Again, it can be done without violating that decree be
cause he who held the position of royalty, having protested
against the constitution, has by that very fact abdicated and
left us where we were before we declared the monarchy heredi
tary. It ought to be done because to preserve royalty would
only be to preserve a source of calamity and disorder. . . .
"The republicans maintain that royalty ought to be abol
ished," he went on to say, "because chance is as likely to call
to the throne an idiot or a rogue as a capable and good man;
because royalty involves a heavy weight of expense upon the
nation, and because a good executive power and an energetic
administration are possible without a king. But it may be
objected that the office of king is necessary in the present crisis.
In answer, let it be remembered that the office has practicaUy
been suspended for two years and legaUy for two weeks and
society has not gone to pieces." FinaUy, he concluded, repub
licanism was much less likely than monarchy to bring about
anarchy. For, U the people chose all theh departments of
government, they would have confidence in them. They would
obey them with pleasure.
But, whfle maintaining the superiority of a republic over a
monarchy in the abstract, Brissot admitted that these argu
ments might not be sufficient to lead to the establishment of a
republic immediately. As a practical substitute, he proposed a
king with an elective and removable council.1 In the Patriote
Frangais of July 1, he outlined a method for the formation of
this councfl. The electoral assembly of each department should
1 Again taken up in the speech of July 10.

A JOURNALIST 175
choose one citizen and these eighty-three citizens should
choose the council from theh own number.1 It was only as a
substitute, Brissot was careful to add: the real and lasting
remedy was to be a republic.2 In short, to quote M. Aulard,
he changed his tactics but not his principles.3
As to the concrete question involved: " Was the king to be
held responsible for his recent action? " Brissot kept firmly to
his former opinion. In numerous articles in the Patriote Fran
gais, he inveighed against that section of the Assembly led by
Barnave which upheld the inviolability of the king.4 And on
July 10 he made a notable speech on the subject at the Jacobin
Club.5 He began by defending the Jacobins against the accusa
tion of republicanism, and declared that, while they demanded
that the king be tried, they were at the same time defenders of
the constitution. Then, passing dhectly to the question of the
inviolability of the monarch, he asserted that such a claim was
enthely without foundation. The sovereignty of the nation, he
argued, recognized no one above itseU, hence U the people were
1 This method of choice by the departments suggests the federalist idea.
See chap. xi. It is interesting to note that in a letter to Bangal des Issarts,
dated July 1, 1791, Madame Roland speaks of an elective council and urges
Bangal to work for it. She says: " Vousferez une chose excellente si vous pouver
porter vos assembUes primaires d dilibirer que. Us circonstances requerant un
novel examen de la chose publique, elles ont voulu connailre quels changements il
convenait d'y apporter, el, d 'apres une sage discussion, ont arreti sur telles con
siderations que VAssembUe nationale serait priie de convoquer toutes celles du
royaume pour avoir leur vwu sur la formation d'un conseil ilectif et temporaire,
auquel serait confU le pouvmr exicutif." Lettres de Madame Roland, ii, 319.
2 According to De Lacroix (V Intrigue divaiUe), it was this production which
finally gained Brissot his election to the Legislative.
3 Histoire politique, 134.
4 The question was discussed either editorially or in the form of commu
nicated articles in almost every issue, from the time of the king's flight to
July 11.
B Discours sur la question de savoir si le roi peut etrejugi 10 juillet, 1791. Bris
sot had become a member of the Club some time between December 21, 1790,
and May 11, 1791, but the exact date of his admission does not appear. In the
list of members drawn up December 21, 1790, his name is not included (Au
lard, Les Jacobins, i, Int., xxxix) and the first mention of his participation in
the meetings of the Club was May 11, 1791, when he made a speech. Aulard,
Les JacoMns, ii, 412.

176 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
not inviolable, the king could not be inviolable; and, according
to the declaration of rights, all men were equal before the law.
Further, the inviolability of the king would only mean anarchy.
Again, to take example from foreign experiences, the responsi
bility of the President of the United States worked no harm,
but acted rather as a preventive; and in England, although the
people admitted the inviolability of the king theoretically, they
denied it practicaUy whenever they wished to overturn the
constitution. After having considered the question in the
abstract, Brissot turned to the concrete objection that to hold
the king accountable would bring down on France the venge
ance of foreign powers, and tried to show, by taking up in
detail the condition of each country, that there was no possi
bility of any of them making war upon France. But U they
did make war, he continued, with his unfailing optimism,
France, as a free country, would easily be victorious.
According to Madame Roland, Brissot fahly outdid himseU
in this speech. "He was no more a mere orator," she wrote in
one of her letters; "he was a free man, defending the cause of
the human race with the majesty, the nobility, and the supe
riority of the very genius of liberty. He convinced people's
minds, he electrified their souls. . . . Three times the Assembly
. . . rose in a body and threw theh hats into the ah in an irre
pressible enthusiasm." * And Desmoulins, who was not over-
ready to praise Brissot, declared that he had exhausted the
subject. Others had made speeches, but he had left nothing
more to be said. His speech ought to be given the widest pub
licity.2 The Jacobins were evidently of the same opinion, for
they decreed that the speech be printed and copies sent to the
National Assembly and to aU the departments.3
1 Lettres, n, 326. 2 Revolutions de France et de Brabant, no. 85.
3 Aulard, Les JacoMns, m, 628. The following is an English appreciation
of the speech (Diary of the Second Viscount Palmerston in France, July 6 to
August 31, 1791; describes meeting of Jacobin Club; about one thousand
present) : —
"Brissot read a speech very violent and inflammatory, to prove that the
king's person was inviolable only for those Acts of Government which are

A JOURNALIST 177
A few days later the Club petitioned for dethronement, and,
as an evident recognition of his influence, Brissot was appointed
a member of the committee which was entrusted with the draw
ing up of the petition.1 This petition closed with a request
that the National Assembly receive in the name of the nation
the abdication which Louis XVI had already made on June 21,
and that it use all constitutional means to provide for filling
the vacant places. This last clause was violently opposed by
the avowed republicans on the ground that it both upheld the
throne and implied a desire to put on it a member of the
Orleanist famfly. After a heated debate, the Jacobins finally
decided to retain the clause in question, and although such ac
tion did not necessarUy imply that they were Orleanists, it did
show that they were not willing to lead in the immediate estab
lishment of a republic. This petition had aheady been pre
sented for signatures on the Champ de Mars, when news came
that the Assembly had decided that the decree suspending the
king should remain in force tiU he should accept the constitu
tion. The Jacobins, accordingly, withdrew their petition and
appointed another committee, of which Brissot was a member,
to draw up an address to the affiliated societies, explaining and
defending their position.
According to Brissot's own account, his authorship of the
petition had been made known by Laclos.2 At all events, his
membership in these two committees was a public acknowledg-
transacted through his Ministers; that there was a case in which he was per
sonally answerable; that he ought to be tried for his conduct, and that there was
no danger to be apprehended from foreign powers on that account. His speech
was lively and full of declamation, well suited to the temper of his audience,
who received it with such continued bursts of applause as almost deafened me
for the rest of the evening. He was very deficient in point of argument and
totally passed over what are considered as the most material grounds by those
who hold the other opinion. . . . Monsr. Brissot's speech, however, was per
fectly satisfactory to his audience, and the shouts of applause given by so many
hundred people on such a subject, showed a kind of ferociousness of disposition
which was infinitely disgusting to a moderate mind. It was ordered to be
printed and distributed over the country, which I doubt not will be much
inflamed by it." July 10, Dispatches of Earl Gower, 287-88.
1 Aulard, Les Jacobins, m, 19. 2 Projet de difense, Mimoires, n, 282.

178 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
ment that he had retreated from the advanced republican posi
tion which for the last four weeks he had openly held, though
with some wavering. His enemies hastened to say that it was
also an acknowledgment that he was an Orleanist, a charge
which his friends, in turn, hastened to deny.1 From his state
ment, later, that when urged by Laclos to present the petition
he refused, on the ground of pressing business elsewhere, it
looks as U he did not wish to make his part in the event too
conspicuous.2 At the time of his trial this charge of being a
partisan of the house of Orleans was again brought up, and with
more serious import. The debated clause, "et a pouvoir a son
[the king's] remplacement par tous les moyens constitutionnels,"
was adduced as a strong link in the aUeged chain of proof that
he was a royalist and Orleanist, and that, while ostensibly sup
porting repubhcanism, he was and always had been, its enemy.
In his Projet de defense he admitted having yielded to the
persuasions of Laclos to draw up the petition, but declared
most emphatically that the last clause was afterward added by
Laclos and that he was himself in no way responsible for it.3
According to Madame Roland, who apparently derived her
information from Brissot, Laclos openly proposed to him the
addition of the clause, and on his strenuous objection agreed to
withdraw it, but covertly managed to slip it in afterward.4
Despite Brissot's apparent failure to explain himseU at the
time, his later defense is borne out by the fact that Laclos was
a known Orleanist and opposed to Brissot's republican ideas.5
1 Bonneville, a friend of Brissot and an enemy of Laclos, came to the rescue
of the former (Dard, La Giniral Choderlos de Laclos, 323), and in the Bouche
de Fer of July 17, wrote: "Sur le nom du ridacteur le patriote Brissot, nous dif-
f irons de rendre compte des vioUns soupgons qui se sont ilevis d la Ucture (ar-
rieres-pensies OrUanistes) nous ne Us partageons plus. Brissot est un patriote
intigre." Quoted in Bouchez et Roux, x, 447.
2 Mimoires, n, 282. * 8 Ibid., ii, 282-83.
4 " Ce mime Laclos proposait d'insirer un articU qu'il annongait d'un air sans
consiquence, mais qui eui Hi favorable d d'OrUans, que Brissot le rejeta avec
indignation, en mettant d la place celui qui invitait d la Ripublique pour laquelle
ce moment itait le viritable et cut Hi Men prideux." Mimoires de Madame
Roland, n, 285.
5 Dard, 158, 275.

A JOURNALIST 179
It receives further substantiation from Dard's x assertion that
the clause in question was in an unknown hand.2
The events which followed the withdrawal of the Jacobin
petition are well known: the preparation by the dissatisfied
radical societies of another petition, which said nothing about
constitutional means of filling the throne; the proclamation of
Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, and Lafayette, the commander of
the national guard, both of whom were adherents of monarchy,
forbidding any gathering in the Champ de Mars; the assem
bling of the crowds in spite of the proclamations and the firing
on them by Lafayette's troops. In the conservative reaction
which foUowed, an attempt was made to punish the instigators
of the republican movement. Brissot, with other republicans,
was accused of being in the pay of foreign powers, but for some
reason, he himseU was not arrested; a fact which was afterward
aUeged against him as another evidence that he was a royalist
and had a secret understanding with the reactionaries. His es
cape seemed to be accounted for, in part, by the fact that the
petition presented was not the one with the drawing tip of
which he was connected; and in part because, when it came to
the actual presentation of the latter petition for signatures, he
remained behind the scenes. At aU events, he stood his ground
fairly well, considering the dangerous position in which he was
placed, and he did not suspend his journal nor flee from Paris.
But while he admitted that he had held republican opinions
and preached them in his journal, he denied that he had had
any part in the active republican movement. Nor were the
people to blame, he declared with his usual readiness to defend
the democratic against the bourgeois element. They had
merely been deceived by a few seditious leaders.3 But even
1 The biographer of Laclos.
2 In the judicial investigation, which was held immediately after the affair
of the 17th of July, Brissot testified that he had had nothing to do with the print
ing, distributing, or signature of the petition. M. Mathiez, in commenting on
this testimony, calls attention to the fact that Brissot took good care not to say
anything as to the drawing up of the petition. Mathiez, Le Club des Cordeliers,
262, and note.
1 Patriote Frangais, July 20, 1791.

180 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Brissot, wrote Madame Roland, in terms which showed her
high opinion of his courage, did not dare to teU the entire truth
about the events of the last few days. To do so would only be
to bring down the kmfe which was suspended over the heads of
the repubhcans.1
He was certainly bold enough in denouncing Lafayette.
"The deed was done," he wrote, "by a man who has told me a
hundred times that he was a republican; who caUed himseU the
friend of the republican Condorcet; who told me that he cor-
diaUy detested the vile persons with whom he is to-day con
nected. . . . There is from now on nothing more in common
between him and me." 2 Brissot also denounced the Assembly
for its proposal to send his fellow republicans before a special
court. Such a court, he declared, was nothing short of a star
chamber, or the rule of the Thhty at Athens; the courageous
friends of liberty might as well prepare to drink hemlock.3
Meanwhile, as the conservative reaction had decided that the
proposed constitutional monarchy was not to give place to a
republic, the constitution was once more brought up for dis
cussion. And once more Brissot opposed with all his might the
tendency to strengthen the power of the executive, and urged
provision for periodic conventions as a means of amendment,
though he now opposed, in view of the disturbed conditions of
the country, the submittal of the present constitution to the
people.4 Of one important change that was made, the lowering
of the qualifications for the position of deputy, he thoroughly
disapproved, supporting Robespierre, Petion, and Buzot in
theh opposition, on the ground that it was only an ostensible
concession to democracy, since at the same time the qualifica
tions for electors were raised. As the electors would be apt to
choose deputies from among theh own number, democracy had
lost rather than gained by the change.6
1 " Toutes Us relations des f aits de dimanche sont fausses, & commencer par le
proces-verbal de la munidpaliU; personne n'ose faire Us viritabUs, mime B'st
[Brissot], car ce serait de plonger le couieau sous lequel on est tenu." Lettres, n, 341.
2 Patriote Frangais, July 18, 1791. 3 Ibid., July 23, 1791.
4 See p. 135. 6 Patriote Frangais, August 12, 1791.

A JOURNALIST 181
The constitution, as thus completed, satisfied neither the
conservatives who wanted the power of the king strengthened,
nor Brissot and his friends, who wanted it lessened; but both
agreed for the time in supporting the constitutional monarchy
as thus established. Brissot soon obtained a seat in the legisla
tive body under this new government and a chance to take a
more direct part in political life. His success was due largely to
the reputation he had gained as editor of the Patriote Frangais.
In this capacity his writings on the formation of the constitu
tion and on the events of the day had made him widely known,
and decidedly influential as a supporter of the extreme left and
an opponent, not only of the royalists, but also of the mod
erates, the advocates of constitutional monarchy such as Bar
nave and Lameth. In short, though he had in the end accepted
an undemocratic monarchy he had made a name for himseU as
an upholder of the practice, as weU as the principles, of democ
racy and sovereignty of the people.
After his election to the Legislative Assembly he stfll kept
the dhection of his journal,1 and thus commanded a double
portion of influence. Through the Patriote Frangais he con
tinued to stand for humanitarian principles, to uphold Ameri
can precedents, and to preach democratic republicanism as a
theory,2 — even though he wavered in regard to republicanism
in practice. At the same time that Brissot was coining to be
recognized as a leader of the Girondins, he made his paper more
and more the organ of that party in the Legislative Assembly
and later in the Convention; and as such it vehemently advo
cated the war, attacked Robespierre, denounced the Commune
for its opposition to the Girondins, and fell with the Ghondins
in their defeat. During this later period interest is focused on
Brissot as a legislator, rather than as an editor. The later his
tory of the Patriote Frangais may, therefore, best be studied in
connection with the Legislative Assembly and the Convention.
1 He did give it up for a brief time but soon resumed it. See p. 361.
2 A dispatch of Earl Gower of September 16, 1791, speaks of the Patriote
Frangais as the most republican journal published in Paris.

CHAPTER VIII
BRISSOT AS A HUMANITARIAN
La SocietS des Amis des Noirs
If any Frenchman in public hfe had been asked, up to the
close of the Constituent Assembly, for what Brissot was best
known, he would undoubtedly have answered without hesita
tion, for his work as the leader of the Amis des Noirs. Indeed,
to his connection with this society which had so large an influ
ence on the colonial question and which was so intensely hated
by the white planters, Brissot owed a large share of his reputa
tion for good or for ill. He was one of the most zealous humani
tarians of the eighteenth century. But of aU his many and
varied humanitarian interests the cause to which he was most
devotedly attached was that of the negro. In his ardent deshe
to extend to this oppressed and inferior race some measure of
the liberty and equality which Frenchmen were claiming for
themselves, and particularly to abolish the slave trade, he
established La Societe" des Amis des Noirs.
His immediate incentive to this undertaking was the ener
getic work of an English organization directed against the
slave trade. As early as 1727 the English Quakers had ex
pressed theh disapproval of that trade; and in 1761 they agreed
to exclude from their society all persons who should be found to
be concerned in it. In 1772 theh cause was furthered by the
famous judicial decision of Lord Mansfield, that as soon as a
slave set his foot on the shores of England he became free.1 In
1783 they formed an association "for the rehef and liberation
of the negro slaves in the West Indies and for the discourage-
1 " The air of England has long been too pure for a slave and every man is
free who breathes it. Every man who comes into England is entitled to the
protection of the Enghsh law." Somerset v. Stewart, Lofft's Reports, State
Trials, i, 201.

A HUMANITARIAN 183
ment of the slave trade on the coast of Africa." The interest
aroused by the Quakers led Dr. Pinkard, the Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Cambridge, to propose as the Latin prize
essay at Cambridge for the year 1785 the subject An liceat
invitos in servitutem dare. The prize was won by Thomas Clark-
son, who published his work in English in 1786 in an extended
form, under the title of "Essay on the Slavery and Commerce
of the Human Species." The publication of this essay marked
an epoch in the struggle against slavery. Clarkson was joined
by Wilberforce and Granville Sharp, and under the presidency
of the latter a committee was formed in 1787 for the suppres
sion of the slave trade.1
Just at this juncture Brissot arrived in England, whither
he fled to avoid the lettre de cachet threatened on account of
his pamphlet, Point de banqueroute, and through his previous
affiliations with the Quakers was brought into connection with
the work of the committee now just getting under way.2 He
was aheady greatly interested in the negro and had rushed to
his defense against the strictures made on him by the Marquis
de Chastellux.3 He now returned to France, thrilled with the
idea of participating in so noble a cause.4 He stirred up his
friends to interest in the subject, after his usual fashion laid
plans for disseminating knowledge by providing for the trans
lation of books and pamphlets, and appealed for help to Mira
beau. As it happened Mirabeau had just secured government
permission for the publication of his Analyse des papiers an.-
glais. Moved doubtless, in part, by the probable advantage to
himself, he not only agreed to convince the government of the
utihty of allowing him to include translations of works on the
slave question as a kind of supplement to his journal, but of
fered Brissot very advantageous business terms for the arrange-
1 Clarkson, History of the rise, progress and accomplishment of the abolition
of the African slave trade, I, 257.
2 See p. 39. 3 See p. 59.
4 "Ce qui est certain c'est que ce club itait une importation anglaise, qui ne
nous a pas iU moins funeste que Us autres marchandises arrivies de la Grande
Bretagne." Beaulieu, Essais historiques sur la Revolution frangaise, n, 489, note.

184 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
ment.1 This arrangement he seems to have faithfully carried
out, for as long as the Analyse lasted, it continued to be the
organ of the Amis des Noirs, fulfilling the function which was
afterward taken up by Brissot's own newspaper.
Meantime Brissot had written a letter to the English society
in which with a superb disregard of international barriers he
offered to act as theh agent in France and promote a subscrip
tion there. At this proposition the Enghsh society was some
what alarmed, and while thanking him warmly and electing
him and Claviere honorary members and correspondents,
made haste to decline his offer of raising funds, and suggested
that a better method would be to organize in France a separate
society.2 Whereupon Brissot through L' Analyse des papiers anglais
promptly announced the proposed formation of such a society
and begged for the cooperation of aU the friends of humanity.
As a result of his efforts, on February 19, 1788, a handful of
men gathered at No. 3 rue Frangaise to effect an organization.3
Brissot counted eleven besides himseU among the founders, but
according to the records of the society they numbered eight,
including, besides Claviere and Mhabeau, Valady and Carra,
afterward associated with Brissot and the Girondins. To this
little company Brissot made a stirring appeal, setting forth in
eloquent terms the work to be done in bringing about the aboli
tion of the slave trade and of slavery, and the urgent need of
organized effort. Although the task seemed beyond theh pow
ers, they might well be encouraged by what had aheady been
accomplished in America and in England. In order to. achieve
1 In the number of L' Analyse des papiers anglais of February 29 to March
6, 1788, Mirabeau announced the pubhcation of works on slavery — at a
reduced price to those who subscribed for them in connection with his paper.
See also Brissot, Mimoires, n, 79. See also the Extrait du registre referred to
below. 2 Proceedings of the committee for the abolition of the slave trade, 1781-
1819, 3 vols., British Museum, Mms. 21254-21256.
3 See Extrait du registre de la sociiU at the Institute, Paris, papers of Con
dorcet; also article by Cahen: La Sociiti des Amis des Noirs et Condorcet in La
Revolution frangaise, June, 1906.

A HUMANITARIAN 185
like results he recommended that they translate and publish
English works on the subject, make appeals through the news
papers, correspond with the English society and carry on re
searches on the condition of slavery in the French colonies.1
The eight accordingly proceeded to action, drew up the outline
of a constitution, and unanimously chose Claviere president.
Thus was formed La SociitS des Amis des Noirs.2
A part, at least, of the plan was immediately carried out,
for there began to appear in L' Analyse des papiers anglais of
Mirabeau works on slavery. Theh zeal seems to have startled
the EngUsh society, for, a few weeks later, the latter felt obliged
to issue a formal statement in reference to a wild rumor that
was abroad to the effect that it was trying to bring about the
immediate abolition of slavery in the English colonies. It had
no such intention, it declared, and in order to make perfectly
clear what its intentions actually were it wished to state pub
licly its purpose of keeping strictly to its main aim — the aboli
tion of the slave trade.3 It is not improbable that this declara
tion was provoked by Brissot's speech at the founding of the
Amis des Noirs which was printed under the title Discours sur
la nScessite d'etablir a, Paris une societS pour concourir avec celle
du Londres, a, V abolition de la traite et de I'esclavage des negres.
At all events, the English society issued the above protest, and
whether or not the French society really felt itseU to blame, it
decreed that the protest should be sent to all the journals of
France. If it issued a like declaration on its own behaU there
appears to be no record of it.
Meanwhile Brissot was zealously seeking to attach to the
society persons to whose humanitarian interests it would seem
to appeal, particularly those whose position and influence
might be of help to them. He tried to secure the adhesion of
1 Although Brissot's name does not appear in connection with this speech, it
was undoubtedly his, as he says in his memoirs (ii, 78) that the speech which
he made at the opening meeting was printed by Mirabeau, and this is the only
speech made on that occasion printed by him.
2 Extrait du registre. For a list of the members see Appendix B.
3 L' Analyse des papiers anglais, I, April 4, 1788.

186 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, and of Herault de Sechelles, a cele
brated lawyer in the service of the government,1 and even
ventured to write to Thomas Jefferson. But in these cases he
was not successful. The first declined on the ground of ill
health; Herault de SecheUes felt that on account of his official
position it would hardly be seemly for him to appear to be the
accomplice of a society preparing for revolution; and Jefferson
also, while professing the greatest interest in the work, ex
plained that as the official representative of the United States
he too was precluded from active cooperation.2 Others, Brissot
was more successful in persuading to join the society. Among
them were Lubersac,3 Bishop of Chartres; Brach, royal censor
and director general of exports; the Marquis of Beaupoil de
Saint- Aulahe,4 the Marquis of Pampeluna,5 Lanthenas,6
Crevecceur; ' and the Englishman, Pigott.8 Of the various peo
ple to whom he appealed, Lafayette seems to have been of the
greatest help. He had responded cordiaUy to Brissot's invi
tation to become a member of the society, and though he was
not present at the first meeting he was considered one of the
1 Marie Jean Herault de Sechelles (born 1759, died 1794) was a writer and
lawyer of considerable reputation on account of his oratorical powers. He was
elected to the Legislative Assembly, where he took his place on the extreme
left, and afterward to the Convention, of which he was twice president. The
constitution drawn up under the leadership of the Mountain in the summer of
1793 was chiefly his work. He followed the policy of Danton and perished with
him. 2 Brissot, Correspondance, 165-66.
3 Jean Baptiste Joseph, Baron de Lubersac (born 1740, died 1822), became
Bishop of Chartres in 1780 and was elected as deputy of the clergy of Chartres
to the States-General. At first he showed liberal tendencies, but refused to
accept the civil constitution of the clergy, emigrated and returned to France
only after the Concordat.
4 Martial Louis Beaupoil de Saint-Aulaire (born 1719), was a bishop of Poi
tiers and was elected by the clergy of Poitiers to the States-General, where he
sat among the royalists. He subsequently emigrated to England where he died.
6 Probably Jacques Joseph de Guyon de Geis, Baron de (born 1748, died
1789), diputi suppliant to the States-General.
6 See p. 121. 1 See p. 59.
8 Robert Pigott was one of the Enghsh Quakers who had so large an influence
on Brissot. Various articles by him were inserted by Brissot in the Patriote
Frangais.

A HUMANITARIAN 187
founders, and took it upon himseU to set forth the purpose of
the society in as favorable a light as possible before the minister
Brienne. If he could not convince him of its usefulness, he
would at least try to persuade him that it was innocuous.
Brienne did not seem to have been altogether persuaded, how
ever, for he warned Lafayette that it was a delicate question
which the Amis des Noirs were essaying to settle and that they
needed to handle it with great care. But at any rate he let the
society alone. This freedom from molestation under a despotic
government meant much to them, and Brissot, even after he
had come to regard Lafayette as a traitor to the Revolution,
never forgot what the Amis des Noirs owed to his protection
and assistance.1 It was also indebted to him for introducing
Condorcet, who was an especially valuable acquisition, as he
joined with Lafayette in bringing in other persons of note and
influence.2 Besides bringing in new members Condorcet did good service
to the society by drawing up a constitution. This document was
divided into eight chapters and sixty-four articles, of which the
most important were as foUows: Membership was unlimited
as to numbers and was open alike to men and women, French
men and foreigners; but as it was stated later that ladies would
be welcome to the social semi-annual meetings when reports
of the work of the society would be made, it was obvious that
they were not welcome at the ordinary meetings, nor expected
to take part in the public work of the society. No one would be
admitted to membership, however, except on presentation of a
member who would stand sponsor for him and who was sup
ported by four other members. The annual dues were two
louis, but the members might give more. Meetings were to be
held regularly on Tuesday, and besides the regular meeting a
special meeting was held at the end of each semester to hear
reports of papers. Members were to be notified in advance of
the meetings and of the subjects to be discussed. The officers
were to be a president, a secretary, a treasurer, and a general
1 Mimoires, n, 76-78. 2 IMd., II, 86.

188 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
committee, for the election of each of whom a different method
was provided. The president was to be elected from the general
assembly by a majority vote from members of the committee
present, to serve three months, and then be ree'ligible only after
an interval of three months. For the election of the secretary,
evidently the most important officer, the assembly in the ses
sion preceding the one in which the secretary was to be elected,
was to add five members to the committee. The body thus con
stituted was to choose at least four names to present to the
assembly, by whom the choice was to be made. The term of
office was to be two years, but the secretary might remain in
office another two years U he were supported by two thhds of
the members, and stfll another two years U supported by three
fourths. Even U he did not receive the requisite majority,
he nevertheless continued to be ree'ligible, but in competition
with others. His salary, which he might refuse, was to be eight
hundred francs, besides expenses of the office. He was also to
have a clerk with a salary of six hundred francs. The treasurer
was to be elected by the assembly at large, the term to be two
years, with continued reeligibility. The committee, consisting
of twenty-one members, including the president, secretary, and
treasurer, ex-officio, elected for three years, seven at a time, was
to have charge of the business of the society and particularly
of preparing translations. Numerous other rules providing for
the procedure in the meetmgs suggest that the society looked
forward to vigorous, not to say acrimonious, discussions.1
The most striking thing about the whole constitution is the
faith which it indicates on the part of the founders in the
growth of their organization and the seriousness of theh under
taking. Brissot's apparent failure to have part in it is explained
by the fact that it seems to have been drawn up during his
absence in America.2 The society was hardly organized when
1 The manuscript of the Riglements is found at the library of the Arsenal.
It is printed in a pamphlet at the Bibliotheque nationale and also by M. Cahen
in the article referred to above in La Revolution frangaise, June, 1906.
2 Article by M. Cahen, referred to above.

A HUMANITARIAN 189
he set out upon his travels. Indeed, one part of his purpose
in making this journey was to study the problem of slavery
in the new world. Before starting he wrote to the English
society of his intention, — whereupon they commended him to
like societies at Philadelphia and New York and asked them
to aid him in coUecting information.1
In spite of the formation of the constitution, the French
society, if Brissot's own account is to be believed, languished
and nearly perished during his absence.2 There certainly seems
to be no evidence of great activity on its part till the spring
of 1789, when, after Brissot's return from America, it became
extremely active. In the month of February a meeting was
held to listen to his report of the slavery problem as he had seen
it in America. This report included a statement of what had
been done with regard to the importation of slaves, with regard
to slavery, the steps taken for the education of the negroes and
an explanation of the compromises in the constitution of the
United States on the subject, and a firm expression of belief in
the capacity of the negro.3
The opportunity now offered to all classes of the French
people to draw up statements of their grievances was also the
opportunity of the Amis des Noirs, and they lost no time in
preparing an address to be sent to aU the bailliages of the king
dom. In this address the bailliages were begged to instruct their
deputies to try to induce the States-General to consider means
of abolishing the slave trade and to prepare the way for the
abolition of slavery itself.4 At the opening of the States-
General they appointed a committee, of which Condorcet and
Brissot were members, to keep track of legislation and to
1 British Museum, Proceedings of the committee, Mms. 21254-21256.
2 Mimoires, n, 74.
3 Mimoire sur Us noirs de VAmirique septentrionale, lue & Vassemblie de la
SociMi des Amis des Noirs, U 9 Janvier, 1789.
4 The minutes of the Enghsh committee for April 21, 1789, state that a
translation of the address of the society in France to the bailliages of that king
dom had been sent to some of the public papers and that it was resolved that
two thousand copies of the said address be printed.

190 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
defend the interests of the negro whenever they were in ques
tion. They further drew up a letter to M. Necker in criticism
of certain statements which he had made in a speech to the
States-General on the slave trade.1
A letter was also addressed "to the deputies of the three
orders to urge them to follow the example of the English and
choose a committee charged with examining the cause of the
negro." It was signed simply " Un ami des noirs," but may
possibly have been the work of Brissot. The slave trade, the
writer argued, should be abolished at once, and for six reasons:
(1) it was the only cause of most of the wars between negro
princes, and its abolition would save the life of a considerable
number of sailors and of infinite numbers of negroes; (2) the
continuance of the slave trade was ruinous to the nation; (3) the
colonies could get along without the slave trade, as experience
had demonstrated; (4) it was necessary to abolish the slave
trade U the colonies were to be preserved and numberless abuses„_
remedied; (5) the negroes were sadly maltreated, and the aboU
tion of the slave trade was the only means to ameliorate theh
condition; (6) it would be easy to manage the revolts which
the planters predicted would be the result.
In attempting to carry on its work the society was now
assisted by Clarkson, who was sent over to help them by the
English society. The latter, evidently mindful of Brissot's
quixotic schemes of cooperation at the time of the founding of
the Amis des Noirs, feared that his enthusiasm might not be
properly balanced with caution; and, when the proposition was
made that the two societies combine theh efforts to induce the
governments of their respective countries to take concerted
action against the slave trade, the English society perceived
that any such proposition coming from the English side would
be regarded by the French government with suspicion. Clark
son was accordingly warned to beware of involving the English
society in political complications.2 When he arrived at Paris
1 Lettre d M. Necker.
2 Life of Wilberforce (ed. by R. I. and S. Wilberforce), I, 231.

A HUMANITARIAN 191
in July, 1789, he found that the enthusiasm of many of the mem
bers of the Amis des Noirs had somewhat died down. l It would,
perhaps, be more correct to say that they were so actively en
gaged in actual revolution that they had no time left to think
of a reform which was not a matter of immediate and press
ing importance. Those members of the society who were also
members of the National Assembly were almost constantly
engaged at VersaiUes, those who were connected with the
municipal government were absorbed in their work at the
hotel de ville, while others were occupied in learning the use of
arms or in doing guard duty. Attendance at the meetings of
the society naturaUy feU off, and although Clarkson had been
introduced to the Duke of Rochefoucauld, Condorcet, Petion,
Claviere, Brissot, and Lafayette as active workers, when he
came to attend a meeting of the committee, he was surprised
to find that Brissot was the only one of those mentioned who
was present.
The zeal of those who were there was unabated. They de
cided to seek an audience with M. Necker, through Clarkson
who was to be accompanied by Condorcet, De Bourges, and
Brissot; also to write to the president of the National Assembly,
asking him to appoint a day to hear the cause of the negro.
They further proposed to recommend to the committee in Lon
don to draw up a petition to be signed' by as many as possible
of the friends of the cause in England, and addressed to the
National Assembly of France, praying for the abolition of the
slave trade by the French government. As delicately as he
could Clarkson insinuated the impropriety of the last motion,
but the committee would not listen to him for a moment. " The
National Assembly of France," they declared, "would glory in
going contrary to the example of other nations in a case of
generosity and justice." Finding his protests in vain, Clarkson
could only reply that he would communicate the measure to the
1 Clarkson, History of the rise, progress and accomplishment of the abolition
of the African slave trade, n, chap. n. What follows concerning the work of
the society and its friends till the end of 1789 is also from Clarkson.

192 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
committee in London, but that he could not answer for the
part that they would take in it. He was soon proved to be
right in his assumption as to the attitude of the English com
mittee, for they refused unequivocaUy to have anything to do
with such a petition. Neither did the other measures taken at
this meeting come to anything, for, though Necker did grant
the delegation a very brief interview, he had far too overwhelm
ing responsibUities of his own in trying to manage the finances,
to give any attention to the African slave trade; and tf the
president of the Assembly answered their letter, they never
received it.
At the next meeting they decided to write again to the presi
dent of the Assembly. A new president had come into office
and might be more friendly to their cause. Furthermore, it was
necessary, they declared, to bestir themselves in order to meet
the machinations of the merchants, planters, and others inter
ested in the slave trade, who were holding daily meetings to
watch and thwart the plans of the Amis des Noirs. As no answer
was received to this letter either, they made up their minds
that it had been intercepted. They seem to have had some
reason for theh suspicions, for, at the foUowing meeting,
Claviere produced anonymous letters which he had received
and in which it was stated that U the society did not dissolve
he and the rest of the members would be stabbed, and that
three hundred persons had banded together prepared to carry
out these threats. Clarkson had also received simflar letters,
which, on examination, proved to be written by the same hand
as those received by Claviere. Not content with threats, the
enemies of the Amis des Noirs attacked them through the press,
charging them with the intention of sending twelve thousand
muskets to Santo Domingo in order to promote an insurrection
in that island.1 These rumors were so industriously circulated
1 It was also charged that the society was run by foreigners. See Lettre aux
bailliages de France, December 1, 1789. "Les sieurs ClavUres [sic] et du Rovray
sont les chefs de cette Sects infdme, ce sont deux Ginevois qui ont iU chassis de Uur
Patrie pour sidition. Le nommi Clarkson, Anglois, est aussi d Paris depuis qud-
ques mois, s'il y ripand V argent de I'Angleterre, celle-ci n'y perd rien; c'est semer

A HUMANITARIAN 193
that soldiers were sent to search the committee rooms. When,
however, they found only two or three books and some waste
paper, they rethed in much disgust. Meanwhile, Clarkson
realized that his prominence in the movement put him in very
real danger. He therefore moved from his first lodgings to a
hotel near Lafayette, in order to be within reach of his protec
tion, and it was agreed that U any unusual gathering about the
hotel seemed to portend danger, Lafayette should be notified
at once, when he would send a detachment of his troops to the
rescue. The danger may have been exaggerated, but its evident
existence is a proof of the influence which the Amis des Noirs
were supposed to possess.
As to the extent of theh possible influence upon legislation
they themselves seem to have been somewhat doubtful;
and, when at one of their meetmgs the question was raised
whether a proposition for the abolition of the slave trade could
be made in the existing Assembly with any hope of success, or
whether it would be better to wait till the next one, there was
much difference of opinion. Of those who were for its presenta
tion in the present Assembly, Mirabeau was the most enthusias
tic and prepared with ardor to be the spokesman of the cause.1
He wrote a speech on the subject, begged Clarkson to furnish
him with facts and details, went about sounding opinion on the
matter, and assisted in the distribution of literature calculated
to arouse sympathy for the negro. This was furnished largely
pour recueillir, d ces Strangers s'est joint le sieur Brissot de Warville, fils d'un
Pdtissier de Chartres, chassi de chez ses parens d cause de son esprit bouillon et
siditieux. II a ajouti U nom de Warville au sien, pour mieux fraterniser avec les
Anglois nos ennemis. Le sieur Brissot de Warville regoii chaque jour le salaire
de son adoption. Lecteurs, observez que son role est absolument I'inverse de celui du
sieur Clarkson, Vun donne de V argent pour enricher sa Patrie, V autre en recmt
pour la miner."
1 Clarkson quotes Lafayette as saying: "Mirabeau is a host in himself and I
should not be surprised if by his own eloquence and popularity only he were to
carry it; and yet I regret that he has taken the lead in it. The cause is so lovely
that even ambition, abstractedly [sic] considered, is too impure to take it under
its protection, and not to sully it. It should be placed in the hands of the most
virtuous man in France. This man is the Duc de la Rochefoucauld." History,
II, 146.

194 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
by Clarkson and included a thousand copies of a slave ship —
that horror so well described by Mirabeau as a long coffin —
and five hundred engravings which were distributed by the
members of the society. It did arouse sympathy, but it also
aroused the colonial planters and traders whose interests were
at stake.1 The latter immediately began a counter agitation,
circulated literature in their own interest, offered money to
Mirabeau, and worked to so good an effect in stirring up public
opinion in theh favor, that, when Mirabeau came to canvass
the Assembly with a view to discovering how much support he
could count on for a measure to abolish the slave trade, he
found that a like canvass had already been made by the repre
sentatives of the planters and that the cause was for the time
being hopeless. Perceiving that further immediate action, at
least on this particular phase of the negro question, was not
probable, Clarkson soon returned to England.
The planters had aheady increased theh strength by organ
izing themselves into a club named the Club des Colons Blancs,
or as it soon came to be known from its place of meeting, the
Club de Massiac, formed for the express purpose of fighting the
Amis des Noirs. From the summer of 1789 there was constant
combat between the two organizations.2 The ranks of the lat
ter continued to be led by Brissot, who was untiring in his zeal
in behaU of the negro and mulatto. He wrote addresses in the
name of the society, presented the cause at the Jacobin Club,3
tried, though unsuccessf uUy, to work through municipal organi
zations,4 denounced the leaders of the opposition, and above aU
made the Patriote Frangais the champion of the negro. In fact,
his newspaper may be said to have been the official organ of the
Amis des Noirs. From almost the first issue he devoted a large
amount of space to the affahs of the society and to the objects
for which it was working. He dwelt on the horrors of the slave
1 The king, it seems, had some time before been approached and asked to
dissolve the society, but had refused. See report of a speech of Wilberforce in
the House of Commons, May 21, 1789. Courrier de I'Europe, May 22, 1789.
2 Challamel, Les Clubs contre-rivolutionnaires, 67-69.
1 8 Aulard, Les Jacobins, n, 412. « See p. 105.

A HUMANITARIAN 195
trade, published a list of books advocating abolition, gave
reports of meetings of the society, entered into sharp contro
versy with hostfle newspapers, and at epochs at which colonial
questions were under discussion filled his columns with reports
on this subject to the exclusion of almost everything else.
The opening of the States-General had raised new problems
regarding the situation in the French colonies. The Amis des
Noirs thus had to deal not only with the slave trade but also
with questions of more immediate policy. The situation was
this: The population of Santo Domingo — the largest and most
important of the French colonies — was divided into three dis
tinctly marked classes: the whites, including the planters and
the merchants of the cities, the mulattoes, and the slaves. The
whites were aristocratic in spirit, U not by bhth, and looked
down with scorn both upon the negroes and upon the mulat
toes. The latter were for the most part the free descendants of
white settlers and their negro slaves, in many cases they were
themselves slaveholders, but they were regarded as colored
men. All three classes alike were eager to seize upon the liberty
promised by the Revolution, but, as a recent writer has well
said, each class wanted to put upon that magic word its own
interpretation.1 To the whites it meant local government with
as little interference from France as possible; to the mulattoes
it meant participation in that local government; to the negroes
freedom. In order to secure theh own ends, the whites decided
to send to the States-General at Paris delegates who would
represent them alone; and in spite of the prohibition of the
governor of Santo Domingo, assemblies were formed to hold
the elections. But to gain admission for these representatives
they found a difficult matter. As the delegates from Santo
Domingo represented only a smaU section of the population —
a section which did not include even the mulattoes — the ques
tion was at once raised whether they could rightfully be con
sidered as representatives at all. This, in turn, involved the
fundamental question: were the principles of the declaration
1 Mills, Early Years of the French Revolution in San Domingo, 24.

196 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
of rights — hberty, equality, and popular sovereignty —
reaUy applicable to the colonies? In other words, how far had
the colonies a right to local government? should the slaves be
ultimately freed? and in the mean time should the mulattoes
be admitted to the rights of citizenship?
The immediate question was settled tentatively by the ad
mission to the States-General of six of the deputies from Santo
Domingo. Against this measure Brissot protested vigorously.
The colonies were too far away, he declared, theh interests too
different from those of the mother country, to permit them to
be governed by the same system. And, in this particular case,
the election of the deputies was neither free nor valid; and even
if it were, the number of deputies was too great; the same pro
portion should be foUowed as in France, which would give them
only one. Furthermore, the admission of too large a number of
such deputies from the colonies would prejudice the interests
of the negro and mulatto.1
The other fundamental questions involved were the admis
sion of the mulattoes to rights of citizenship and the measure
of self-government to be allowed the colonies. These two ques
tions were closely connected, for to give the colonies full leg
islative independence meant inevitably that they woidd act
against and not for the mulattoes. The most active support for
the latter came from the society of the Amis des Noirs and the
most bitter opposition from the Club des Colons Blancs. In
regard to the question of seU-government there were many
shades of opinion, both as to its extent and the way in which it
should be exercised. The extreme royalists held that the colony
should remain under the absolute and exclusive rule of the king;
the Club de Massiac thought that the king and a colonial assem
bly composed exclusively of whites should govern; the Amis des
Noirs demanded a local government in which the rights of the
mulattoes should be guaranteed; the delegates themselves
1 Reflexions sur Vadmission aux Etats-Gineraux des diputis de Saint-Do-
mingue. See also the Moniteur of July 4, 1789. Twenty was the number asked
for, twelve had been admitted previously. Moniteur, session of June 27, 1789.

A HUMANITARIAN 197
wanted to keep the power in their own hands as much as pos
sible and to govern with the aid of a committee appointed by
the National Assembly; while the greater part of the Assembly
was suspicious of aU these factions and desired to keep the
colony under its own immediate control.1
Meanwhile the mulattoes were clamoring for equal rights
with the whites. They had even sent deputies from theh num
ber to beg for admission to the National Assembly. One of
them, M. Joly, presented himseU to the Assembly of the repre
sentatives of the Commune, asking for their support. This
demand was enthusiastically backed by Brissot, who thus
brought upon himseU a sharp reprimand from the Revolutions
de Paris which inquired tartly why he was diverting the muni
cipal assembly from its proper business of drawing up a city
charter.2 At the same time that Brissot was defending the cause of the
mulattoes before the municipal assembly, he did not for a mo
ment relax his efforts against the slave trade,3 urged the Amis
des Noirs to renewed efforts,4 and carried on his propaganda
through the press. The 8th of January, for example, the Pa
triote Frangais wrote: "The Assembly, by its decree that we
men are born and remain free and equal, has it not declared
war on every kind of inequality, oppression and tyranny, has it
not declared that no man can ever be bought or sold or kept
in slavery? The hatred of the Assembly for all kinds of injus
tice, its zeal in destroymg all sorts of abuses, even those which
might be useful to it, the spirit of justice and humanity by
which it is dominated, are not these guaranties for the pro
scription of the slave trade?" B
In defense, the planters and theh friends declared that the
1 Mills, Early Years of the French Revolution in San Domingo.
2 Revolutions de Paris, February 13-20, 1790.
3 Patriote Frangais, January 27, 1790.
4 Address by Brissot to the SoeiMi des Amis des Noirs. The society passed a
vote of thanks to Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, for his defense of the negro in his
work Vosux d'un Solitaire. Patriote Frangais, January 19, 1790.
6 Patriote Frangais, January 8, 1790.

198 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Amis des Noirs were acting on enthely wrong premises. The
so-caUed phUanthropists talked about the horrors of the slave
trade and of slavery; they would do weU to consider how much
better off the negroes were as slaves in the French colonies than
at home in Africa, and indeed than many a French peasant.1
Instead of bettering conditions, the schemes of the Amis des
Noirs would only make them worse. Indeed, theh talk of abol
ishing the slave trade and slavery had already occasioned an
insurrection in Martinique which threatened to spread and do
incalculable harm.2 So persistent was this rumor that the Amis
des Noirs were working for the immediate abolition of slavery
as well as of the slave trade, that the society was moved to
make formal and official denial of any such intention. This
statement was drawn up by Brissot and presented to the
National Assembly, January 21, 1790. 3 No such idea, he
declared, had ever entered their minds. They were only too
well aware that the immediate freeing of the negroes would not
only be a fatal step for the colonies but also a fatal present for
the negroes themselves.
In issuing this clear and emphatic statement as to their
immediate purpose, the Amis des Noirs made it equaUy clear
that the abolition of slavery was stfll theh ultimate purpose,
nor did they retreat a step from their position on the abolition
of the slave trade. Indeed, the above protest was coupled with
a plea for such abolition. It had been asserted again and again
that to do away with the slave trade would be to ruin the
French colonies and seriously injure the French marine and
French manufacturers. This the Amis des Noirs strenuously
denied. Even U such claims were true, what weight, they
asked, are the mere gains of commerce, when compared with
1 Lettre de M  & Brissot de Warville, prisident de la sociHi des Amis des
Noirs. 2 See Journal de Paris, December 28, 1789, Lettre de M. Mosneron.
3 Archives parUmentaires, xi, 271-77. This probably is the address of which
Brissot presented two hundred copies to the municipal assembly January 5,
and eight hundred more copies February 13. Lacroix, Actes de la Commune, in,
366, 370; rv, 100.

A HUMANITARIAN 199
the blood of thousands of men shed every year? But they were
not true. The small number of vessels engaged in the slave
trade could be put to other uses, the lives of great numbers of
sailors would be spared, the bonus, now a heavy drain, would
be saved; and, as for the slaves, if their number could not be
augmented, they would be treated with more humanity and
so would increase faster, and the colonists would not have to
contract heavy debts in order to buy slaves. Furthermore,
French manufacturers would reap advantage, for some of the
money hitherto spent for slaves would be spent in buying
French products. What U a temporary disturbance did result?
France had not hesitated for that reason to make sweeping
reforms at home.
These arguments failed, however, to convince the Assembly,
for within a couple of weeks when the question of the rights of
the mulattoes and the powers of the local colonial assemblies
again came up it passed decrees which, while they did not men
tion the slave trade by name, were distinctly contrary to the
spirit of the above demands. The measure as finaUy passed
March 8, 1790, was pushed through largely by the efforts of
Barnave and represented a compromise between many con
flicting claims and interests. By its terms each colony was
allowed to make known to the National Assembly its wishes in
regard to a constitution and form of administration, and colo
nial assemblies were given the right to offer suggestions on
decrees passed by the National Assembly concerning munici
palities and administrative assemblies. Finally, the colonies
were assured that no radical changes in regard to commerce
were contemplated and that they and their property were
under the protection of the Assembly. These provisions, by
which the colonies were given at least some show of power, were
sufficiently ambiguous to satisfy both the Club de Massiac
and the representatives from Santo Domingo, as weU as the
majority of the Assembly. But to the hopes of the mulattoes
and to the Amis des Noirs this decree was a decisive blow. It
virtually put colonial affahs under the control of the whites in

200 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the islands, and the mulattoes did not need an interpreter to
tell them what that meant.
Brissot was almost broken-hearted. A few days before the
decree was passed he had declared that on account of the hatred
which the whites manUested for the mulattoes, it would be
extremely dangerous to give over to the former the task of
drawing up a colonial code. That code should be made in
France by a disinterested Assembly.1 He now bitterly up
braided Barnave and declared that he could not conceive how
Barnave could have consented to further such a measure. This
measure, Brissot maintained, was obviously unfair to the mu
lattoes; furthermore, by its provision for criminal proceedings
against any one who should work to bring about risings against
the planters, it opened the way for rank injustice to the Amis
des Noirs.2 He saw some hope, however, in the instructions
drawn up for the formation of local colonial assemblies, which
provided that aU persons twenty-five years of age, who were
proprietors, or who had lived two years in the parish and paid
a tax, should form the parochial assembly. The mulattoes
must be held to be included in this decree, he declared, though
they ought to have been specifically named; and from the fact
that they were not, he predicted trouble between the whites
and the mulattoes.3
Trouble soon arrived for the Amis des Noirs. As Brissot had
foreseen, the clause of the decree of March 8, which had de
clared criminal aU attempts to excite risings agamst the plant
ers, was invoked to stop the work of the society. The Amis des
Noirs accordingly drew up another address to the Assembly,
in which they protested against this interpretation and declared
theh confidence that such had not been the intention of the
Assembly.4 Meantime, they proceeded to show not only that
1 Patriate Frangais, March 1, 1790.
2 Ibid., March 9, 1790. 8 Ibid., March 29, 1790.
4 Seconde addresse d VAssembUe nationale par la socieU des Amis des Noirs,
9 avril, 1790. Presented to the National Assembly the 10th of April, accord
ing to the Archives parlementaires, xn, 627. The Assembly apparently took no
action on this address.

A HUMANITARIAN 201
"the decree of March 8 had not closed their mouths" but
that they were going to make themselves heard even more
plainly than before. To this end, they issued an outline of the
work they proposed to do, addressed this time not to the
Assembly, but to the "friends of humanity." 1 Considering
the circumstances under which it was written, it was nothing
short of a blast of defiance.
Despite the efforts of the Amis des Noirs they seemed to lose
rather than to gain ground, for on October 12, on the propo
sition of Barnave, a decree was passed which interpreted the
previous decree of the Assembly as a virtual promise to take no
action on the status of any of the inhabitants of the colonies ex
cept on the request of the colonial assemblies. In other words,
the status of the mulattoes was left to the whites in the colo
nies, which meant, of course, that they would certainly not be
given the rights of citizens. H Brissot had spoken of Barnave 's
attitude toward the March decrees with grieved surprise, he
now attacked him with venom and denounced his entire colo
nial policy as worthy of execration. The rights of man were
involved, Brissot declared, and the Assembly had no power to
pass any decree upon the rights of man, whether in France or
in the colonies; it could never make them the subject of a
constitutional article; they were fundamental and preceded all
constitutions. Moreover, "nothing that was unjust could be
good politicaUy," as was proved by recent events in the colo
nies. AU theh evils were due to the decrees of March and
October, and unless these decrees were changed the colonies
would become independent. Furthermore, Barnave had not
only furthered a bad policy but he had done it in bad faith.2
1 Journal de Paris, June 15, July 27, 1790. Patriote Frangais, July 1, 1790.
2 Lettre a M. Barnave. Brissot subsequently accused M. Tremondrie, the
president of one of the colonial assemblies, of having misquoted instructions
with regard to primary elections, so that they appeared to have discriminated
unjustly against the mulattoes. That he had done so M. Tremondrie denied
and declared that his assertion would be found to be true if his instructions,
which Brissot had cited only in part, had been cited in full. Journal de
Paris, December 1, 1790. Lettre a Barnave, 32, note 2. The Patriote Frangais
ridiculed M. Tremondrie's explanations.

202 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The assertion contained in the preamble, that the Assembly
did not intend to take action on the status of the inhabitants
of the colonies except at the instigation of the colonial assem
blies, Brissot declared to be "at the same time a lie and a base
abandonment of aU principles of humanity, liberty, justice and
prudence." Such an assertion not only was infamous, but the
way in which the decree was passed was an outrage, for there
was no discussion, and the Abb6 Gr6goire, Petion, and Mira
beau, who wanted to speak, were prevented. "Enemies of lib
erty and humanity," he cried, addressing Barnave and the
other partisans of the measure, "you shaU not triumph forever.
It is impossible that Heaven which has wished us to be free
should not deshe justice for aU men. . . . Thus the names of
those who have contributed to iniquity shaU be branded
forever in pubUc opinion; such is the lot which awaits
M. Barnave."
By passing this constitutional decree the Assembly evidently
regarded the matter as settled. But Brissot did not propose
to consider it settled. He wrote to his friend Lanthenas, beg
ging him to return to Paris to help him defend the cause of the
mulattoes,1 assailed their enemies in the columns of the Patriote
Frangais, and entered upon a vigorous campaign for the repeal
of the decrees of March and October. He even upheld the
mulatto insurrection which had broken out under the leader
ship of Oge; and, in an article, which considering the circum
stances was more eloquent than timely or politic, made a stir
ring appeal in their behaU. "I implore those planters resident
in the islands," he wrote, "who have a real interest in their
prosperity, to look upon the mulattoes as theh best support,
their friends, theh brothers; I implore those French capitalists
who have immense mortgages upon our islands to reflect that
the payment of those debts depends on the general prosperity;
that prosperity cannot exist under oppression because of the
1 See letter of Lanthenas to Bangal, November 30, 1790. "Brissot me presse
de retourner h Paris cet hiver, pour defendre les noirs." Lettres de Madame
Roland, n, 204.

A HUMANITARIAN 203
ever present danger of insurrection. ... I implore the French
merchants who supply the islands with provisions to reflect
that it is to theh interest to increase the number of well-to-do
consumers, to multiply the population." The obvious means to
this end, Brissot declared, was to render justice to the mulat
toes.1 As for Oge's attempt to wrest justice from the planters
by force, instead of condemning him for inciting an uprising,
Brissot praised his moderation and pointed out that he had
made no demands in regard to slavery. The deed for which
Oge was counted as a criminal, he declared, far from being a
crime "was an act of virtue, a duty, a sacred duty." "The
conquerors of the Bastille," he added, "are heroes, and for a
like act of heroism M. Oge is to be condemned." 2
Such doctrines on Brissot's part, backed, as it was felt they
were, by the Amis des Noirs, aroused the planters and their
friends to angry opposition. Gouy D'Arsy, a colonist of title
and importance, declared that the negro slaves were well off
and would themselves resent the efforts in theh behaU, and
that in espousing the cause of the mulattoes Brissot was seek
ing merely his own glory, and that he and the other Amis des
Noirs were actuated by motives of cupidity.3 Further, Arthur
DiUon, a deputy from Martinique, made a speech before the
Assembly, in which he accused the Amis des Noirs of deliber
ately provoking the disasters in the colonies by their publica
tions,4 and insinuated that they were in the pay of foreign
powers. A movement was set on foot at Bordeaux to petition
the Assembly to change the preamble of the decree of Octo
ber 12 into a constitutional article; 5 an address from Nantes
demanded not only that the decree of October 12 be main
tained, but that the most absolute silence be imposed on all
those pretended reformers, whether or not members of the
society of the Amis des Noirs, who were attempting to decide
1 Patriote Frangais, January 5, 1791. 2 Ibid.
3 Gouy D'Arsy, Premie're et derniere Uttre.
4 Patriote Frangais, March 4, 15, 1791.
5 Extrait des lettres de Bordeaux, February 22, 1791, in the Patriote Frangais,
March 2, 1791.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
matters in which they were in no degree experts; L while Moreau
de Saint-Mery,one of the most important colonists, in a lengthy
pamphlet, addressed to "the true friends of the peace and hap
piness of France on the occasion of the renewed agitation of the
so-caUed Amis des Noirs," denounced the society as responsible
for everything which had happened in the colonies, charged
that they had deshed, advised, and preached a revolt of the
slaves, and that Brissot at best was a delirious creature who
pretended to be a phUosopher.2
Under these accusations and attacks, which certainly showed
that the Amis des Noirs had made themselves a force to be
reckoned with and had thoroughly frightened the planters, the
former naturally did not remain silent, either as individuals or
as a society. Brissot was cut to the quick by Gouy's insinua
tions of personal motive, as is evident from the vituperative
terms of his answer. Gouy was a wretch, he declared, with his
lies and impertinence, a dangerous wretch without credit or
standing; while he (Brissot) was a Cato, or a Cicero denouncing
Catiline.3 As for the accusation of DiUon, the society of the Amis des
Noirs in its wrath laid formal complaint before the Assembly,
in which they demanded that the Assembly either censure M.
DiUon or that it allow the society to hale him before the courts
for libel. As was promptly pointed out, this came dangerously
near infringing the inviolability of members of the legislative
body. The society maintained, however, that such inviolability
concerned only matters of opinion and ought not to be used as
an excuse for calumniating private citizens. From the neces
sity of deciding this delicate point the Assembly was rescued
by an explanation made in behaU of M. Dillon by one of his
friends, to the effect that he did not intend to inculpate the
entire society — an explanation which the Assembly accepted
1 Perfidie du systime des Amis des Nmrs, Nantes, February 23, 1791.
2 Considerations prisenties aux vrais amis du repos et du bonheur de la France
a Voccasion des nouveaux mouvements de quelques soi-disant Amis des Noirs.
8 Riplique de J. P. Brissot.

A HUMANITARIAN 205
as sufficient, though it by no means satisfied the Amis des
Noirs.1 The society next proceeded to issue a general statement of
its principles — a kind of campaign platform — the immediate
occasion for which was a renewed demand on the part of the
planters that the decision of colonial affahs be left to the whites
alone. It was drawn up by Claviere and addressed to the
National Assembly, to all the commercial cities, to all manufac
turers, colonies, and societies and friends of the constitution.
It began by an attack on a lengthy pamphlet of Moreau de
Saint-Mery's, which it characterized as a diatribe of the worst
order, and its main allegation, that the Amis des Noirs were
responsible for the evils in the colonies, as a glaring falsehood.
This pamphlet, it declared further, had been announced as
coming from the national printing shop, in order to make it
appear to have the seal of the approval of the Assembly. The
address then attacked the demand of the whites to be assured
of the control of affairs. Such a demand should be refused, as
it was not fair or just to leave the fortunes of the colony to one
class, whose interests were opposed to the interests of all other
classes. Injustice had already been done in not observing
the terms of the decree of March 28, which based the suffrage
on a general property qualification and did not expressly ex
clude the mulattoes, whereas in administering the decree they
had been excluded. The address then went on to deny that the
mulattoes were unfitted to rule, or that to give them the suf
frage would result in a slave insurrection or in a falling off in
commerce; and closed with a reiteration of the general princi
ples of the Amis des Noirs; that though they were opposed to
slavery, root and branch, as contrary to the natural rights of
man, they did not advocate its immediate or sudden abolition;
that they believed that the constitution ought to be applied
in full to all the colonies as provinces of the realm; that
the slave trade should be abolished; and that there should
1 Patriote Frangais, March 4, 15, 1791. See also Le Courrier de Provence,
March 6, 8, 1791, and the Moniteur, March 7, 1791.

206 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
be the greatest possible freedom of trade aUowed to the
colonies.1 Meanwhile, Brissot continued his campaign in the Patriote
Frangais, printed an address of the Jacobin Society of Angers
to all the patriotic societies of the realm, in favor of the mulat
toes,2 also a petition of the mulattoes themselves to the Assem
bly,3 wrote at length on the fearful punishment of Oge,4 inter
ested his friend, Madame Roland, in the cause,5 and took steps
to consult with the English society as to ways and means of
providing funds for the campaign.
Notwithstanding the vigorous fight made by the representa
tives of the colonial interests, the Amis des Noirs finally suc
ceeded in inducing the Assembly to modify the decree of Oc
tober 12, and on May 14 and 15, 1791, the Assembly voted
that it would never take action regarding the state of mulat
toes who were born of free fathers and mothers, except on
demand of the colonies themselves; that the existing colonial
assemblies should be maintained; but that in the future, mulat
toes who were born of free fathers and mothers should be ad
mitted to the parochial and colonial assemblies if they had the
other qualifications necessary.6 Considering the large majority
with which the decree of October 12 passed and the strength
and influence of the opponents of the Amis des Noirs, this was
a considerable victory, though it was not by any means what
they hoped. They still feared, and with some reason, that it
might not be executed.7
But this decree, which was so great a source of satisfaction
to the Amis des Noirs, seemed to the planters, and indeed to
1 A second edition of the address contains also a justification of Oge, and
letters of different societes des amis de la constitution, claiming rights for the
mulattoes. 2 Patriote Frangais, March 25, 1791. Lettres des diverses sociitis des amis
de la constitution qui riclament les droits de citoyen actif enfaveur des hommes de
couleur des colonies. March 8, April 17, 1791.
3 Patriote Frangais, March 25, 1791. * Ibid., May 1, 1791.
3 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 276.
6 Moniteur, May 16, 1791.
7 Patriote Frangais, June 3, 1791.

A HUMANITARIAN 207
almost every one who had a first-hand knowledge of the colo
nies, the height of folly, and they went to work most energeti
cally to bring about its repeal. At the same time the friends of
the mulatto took up its defense and protested against the possi
bility of evil consequences arising from it. In a speech at the
Jacobins the 12th of September Brissot reiterated his former
arguments in favor of the civil rights of the mulatto, and in the
face of strong indications to the contrary, denied that the slaves
had revolted, that aU commercial cities were against the decree
of May 15, and that civil war had broken out. Even if it had,
he declared, it was due, not to the decree of May 15, but to
the failure to execute it.1 Rumors from the colonies, however,
offset these protests, and on September 24, on the very eve of
the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the measure of
May 15 was virtually repealed by a law which gave to each
colony the right to regulate its own internal affairs. Brissot
and his friends were naturally greatly depressed, but they had
no intention of considering this decree as final, and on the open
ing of the Legislative Assembly they took up the struggle with
renewed vehemence.
MeanwhUe, the election of Brissot — the heart and soul of
the Amis des Noirs — to this Assembly gave him a new oppor
tunity and shflted the center of the combat to that body. His
influence on colonial questions during this period is so closely
related to his previous work on the same subject that it may
best be considered here instead of in connection with his other
work as a legislator. As a deputy to the Assembly he now had
the chance of exercising dhectly upon legislation that influence
which, in the case of the former decrees, he had exercised only
indirectly through the Amis des Noirs and through the columns
of the Patriote Frangais. The part of the society in this new
phase of the struggle is not clear, but in the absence of records
to the contrary, it must be assumed that they left the struggle
largely to Brissot. And into the combat he threw himself with
1 Discours sur la nicessiti de maintenir le dicret rendu le 15 mai, 1791, en
faveur des hommes de couleur libres, prononci U 12 septembre, 1791.

208 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
all his accustomed ardor. According to Paganel J he sought
influence in the Assembly, solely that he might be in a better
position to defend the mulattoes, and for this reason allied
himseU with the party of Gensonn6 and Guadet.2 Hardly
had the new assembly assumed power before alarming reports
began to come in of a slave insurrection in Santo Domingo.
News was also brought that the mulattoes, when they had
learned of the rights given them by the decree of May 15, had,
on September 20, extorted from the whites a formal agree
ment by which the whites recognized and guaranteed these
rights.3 Whereupon, the colonial committee proposed, in case
the reports of the insurrection should be confirmed, to send out
an armed force. At this point Brissot expressed himseU vigor
ously upon what he considered the cause of the trouble, though
he protested that the extent of the insurrection had been much
exaggerated. The cause was to be found, he asserted, in the
law of September 24, which humiliated and debased the mulat
toes. This, Tarbe of the colonial committee replied, could not
be true, because the insurrection began before the September
law was passed. The real cause, in his opinion, was the original
decree of May 15, 1791. While accepting Tarb^'s correction as
to the date of the insurrection, Brissot denied absolutely that
the decree of May 15 was responsible for it. He maintained,
on the contrary, that the whole trouble was stirred up, not by
the decree of May 15, but by its non-enforcement, and further
he demanded a speedy consideration of the whole question.
The colonial committee was instructed to report, but the tardi
ness with which news arrived delayed its action for some weeks.
Delay was intolerable to a radical like Brissot, who undoubt-
1 Pierre Paganel (born 1745, died 1826) was a French politician, a deputy
from the department of the Lot et Garonne to the Legislative Assembly and
to the Convention, a deputy on mission in 1793 and afterward general secretary
of the ministry of foreign affairs.
2 Essai historique et critique sur la Revolution frangaise, n, 228: II servait le
parti des Gensonni, des Guadet, etc., dans Vespirance de fortifier de leur credit et de
leur influence la cause des noirs.
3 Garran de Coulon, Troubles de Saint-Dominique, n, 284-85.

A HUMANITARIAN 209
edly suspected the good faith of the committee and attributed
delay rather to design than to the cause alleged. He finally
lost all patience, and on November 20 declared to the Assembly
that if the committee did not make a report on the colonies, he
would.1 Already fuller information had come in. It was now
known that the situation was desperate. What the planters
had predicted had come to pass. A slave insurrection of un
speakable horror was in progress, and the island was being
devastated with fire and rapine.
Such was the condition of affairs in Santo Domingo when, on
December 1, Brissot made his promised speech, one of his long
est and most eloquent efforts. He argued that the real cause
of the trouble was the machinations of the disloyal whites, who
had refused to obey the decree of May 15, and had actually
disarmed the mulattoes. The accusation that the Amis des
Noirs had in any way been instrumental in causing the insur
rection he hotly denied. "Produce a single scrap of evidence
of correspondence between the society or its individual mem
bers and the colonies," was his challenge; "show me a single
emissary to the colonies, and we will march to the scaffold."
As for the remedy, he had no faith in the formal agreement of
September 20. It was forced from the whites almost at the
moment when the National Assembly was passing the law of
September 24 which gave to the whites power to decide on the
status of the mulattoes. If the whites had known this they
would never have consented to the agreement, and now that
they had despotic power legally in their hands, they would use
it despotically and disavow the agreement. The one reasonable
thing for the Assembly to do was to repeal the law of Septem
ber 24 and by its own action assure to the mulattoes their
rights. To this end he proposed a series of radical measures.
The most important were the arrest and trial before the high
national court of the members of the general assembly of Santo
Domingo, and of the governor, M. Blanchelande; the calling of
a new colonial assembly without distinction of color and the
1 Moniteur, November 21, 1791.

210 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
sending to the islands of civil commissioners and troops.1 The
Assembly evidently was not ready for such measures, but one
thing was clear even to Brissot's opponents: troops were imper
atively needed in the island and at once. The task of Brissot
and his friends was now to win the passage of a decree which
would insure that the troops should not be used against the
mulattoes. To this the colonists vehemently objected and the
debates became tempestuous. In the struggle Brissot had
the support of his Girondin friends in his main purpose, though
they differed as to the means by which it was to be attained.
Guadet and Vergniaud each had a different wording for the
definitive clause of the decree; Vergniaud's, providing that the
troops could be used only on the requisition of the civU com
missioners, was the more conciliatory; while Guadet's stated
that the king should use the troops for the provisional main
tenance of the agreement made by the whites. This latter
proposition aroused fierce debate; since, by dictating the action
of the colonial assemblies it took away the freedom granted
by the September law. The fundamental question of the status
of the law was thus raised. It had been passed as an acte con
stitutionnel sur les colonies and the question was: Did it fall
under that provision of the constitution which declared that
the next two legislatures could not propose the change of any
constitutional article? As a constitutional article had unfortu
nately not been defined, there was room for endless argument.
The colonial committee declared that the law under discussion
was to all intents and purposes a part of the constitution and
so could not be changed, while Brissot stoutly maintained that
it was not a part of the constitution and therefore could be
changed.2 In spite of intense opposition, Brissot won a victory
on the immediate question of the use of the troops which were
to be sent to Santo Domingo, it being provided that they could
be used only to put down the revolt of the negroes and not to
the prejudice of the rights of the mulattoes, as established by
the agreement entered into by the whites.
1 Moniteur, December 2 and 4, 1791. 2 IMd., December 8 and 9, 1791.

A HUMANITARIAN 211
But the definite settlement of the fundamental question of
the status of the mulattoes, and the relation of the colonial
assembly to it, was put off for some time. Finally, on March 21,
Brissot demanded that the discussion of the subject be begun
at once and be continued without interruption until it should
be settled. He then made a lengthy speech, in which he reiter
ated his former assertion that the difficulty was due not to the
decree of May 15, but to its non-enforcement; pictured in glow
ing colors the moderation and the patriotism of the mulattoes
in the face of wrong and oppression; accused the colonial
assembly of plotting for the independence of the colonies; and
declared that the only just and adequate solution of the prob
lem was the revocation of the decree of September 24. 1 These
arguments were answered by Tarb6, of the colonial committee,
who declared that the evidence on which Brissot based his
charges against the colonial committee was ill founded, drew
a lurid picture of the cruelty of the mulattoes, — a ghastly
contrast to Brissot's presentation, — and vehemently opposed
the revocation of the September decree.
The question of the constitutional character of this decree
was taken up by Gensonn6 and Guadet, both of whom argued
against its constitutionality on the ground that by giving so
much authority to the colonial assemblies it violated the indi
visible sovereignty of the people.2 The further argument was
adduced by Gensonne' that it could not be considered constitu
tional, because it was passed after the constitution had been
declared finished. After a stormy debate Girondin influence
finally prevailed, and on March 24 Brissot and his friends won
a decisive victory in the passage of a law which practically re-
enacted that of May 15, by giving civil rights to the mulattoes.
Brissot was fairly carried off his feet with delight at the suc
cess of this measure, and, in an editorial in the Patriote Frangais,
1 Moniteur, March 22, 1792.
2 Ibid., March 23 and 24. The Patriote Frangais of March 23 said of
Guadet's speech: "Sensibiliti, inergie, logique, et plaisanterie, il a su fondre
toutes Us couleurs avec l'art U plus dilicat."

212 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
gave vent to a perfect psean of joy — an editorial which showed
his absolute inability to understand that there were two sides
to the question or to credit his adversaries with honest convic
tion and sincerity of motive. There was nothing left for them,
he declared, but opprobrium, ineffaceable opprobrium. Their
souls were hardened, ossified; they were dead to liberty and
humanity. This decree which so moved Brissot was the last colonial
legislation of importance during his career, but the sphit of his
measures was foUowed out, two years later, by a decree abolish
ing slavery. The insurrection, meanwhUe, was not permanently
quelled, and under Toussaint l'Ouverture Santo Domingo prac
tically secured her independence. That the Amis des Noirs
had any part in this subsequent legislation is not proved by
any records known to the writer. The resume1 of the proceed
ings of the society, found at the Institute among the papers of
Condorcet, stops with the meeting of June 8, 1790, but the
existence of the society as late as July, 1792, is attested by the
records of the English society. It is not unlikely that, after the
victory of March, 1792, when other interests absorbed the time
and attention of its leader, it abandoned further immediate
efforts and became less and less active.
The responsibility for the initiative of this colonial policy
was universally laid at the door of the Amis des Noirs, and from
the time when they opposed the admission to the Assembly of
the deputies from Santo Domingo to the passing of the decree
of March 24, 1792, accusations were heaped up against them.
These accusations came from at least three sources: the com
mercial class, both in the colonies and in France, who declared
that they would be ruined if the slave trade were destroyed;
the planters, who, in addition to commercial ruin, feared the
horrors of a negro insurrection; and the more conservative ele
ment in the Assembly, who, while they were not personaUy
involved, foresaw the dangers which might result from too
radical action.1
1 See, for example, a cut which appeared in the Actes des Apotres, vol. xi, no.

A HUMANITARIAN 213
The charges brought against the Amis des Noirs by these
various enemies went all the way from a simple allegation that
they had been guilty of bad judgment in trying to bring about
the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery to the accusation
that they had deliberately stirred up revolt for treasonable
purposes. One of the most violent denounced the society as a
sect which carried with it the destruction of all religions, of all
forms of government. The majority of these attacks accused
the society, at most, of bad judgment, and were based on the
general argument that the colonies could not exist without the
slave trade and that the result of its suppression would be
weakness and poverty.1 "Such is the natural result," wrote
Saint-Cyran, "of the ideas with which a multitude of lazy peo
ple, who know very httle about our colonies and our commerce,
are trying to buy celebrity at any price. We ought, no doubt,
to consider these humanitarians as fanatics who are acting in
good faith, although appearances are to the contrary." 2
As might be expected, many of the attacks were directed
especially against Brissot. He had at least twice held the office
of president of the society of the Amis des Noirs, — in Febru
ary, 1789, and again in January, 1790; during a large part of
1790 and in 1791 he filled the more important post of secretary
and was known as the founder and most active member.3 He
was accused of being from first to last the author of the trouble
in the colonies and of having acted as the agent of the English
government with the deliberate purpose of bringing about their
ruin. Such charges, in various forms and in various degrees of
306, about January, 1792, representing in the background the city of Bordeaux
and in the foreground Vulcan chained, a broken anchor, and a wrecked ship
with this inscription: " Activiti constitutionnelle du commerce de Bordeaux, cette
estampe est dediie d la Sociiti des Amis des Noirs et recommandie particuliere-
ment a Mm. [sic] Condorcet et Brissot."
1 De Pons, writing to Barnave, Observations sur la situation politique de Saint-
Domingue, November 27, 1790.
2 Refutation du projet des Amis des Noirs sur la suppression de la traite des
negres et sur V abolition de I'esclavage dans nos colonies, par M. de Saint-Cyran,
1790. 3 See the signatures of the officers attached to various addresses of the
society.

214 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
intensity, were repeated again and again during the period
when colonial affahs were under discussion and were brought
up once more during the trial of the Girondins, both openly
and anonymously.1 One anonymous writer, for example, de
nounced Brissot to this effect: He fled from home some years
before and came to Paris, where he was shut up in a house of
correction on account of many scandalous Ubels, of which he
was recognized as the author. Forced to leave the kingdom, he
embarked for New England as a cabin boy. By means of a
certain amount of talent, especiaUy a talent for intrigue, and
his pleasing appearance and manners, he succeeded in making
the acquaintance of some Frenchmen in New York who pro
vided for his support. They were aU deceived. A blunderer
by nature and vicious besides, he stirred up trouble, in which
he compromised his friends. They made haste to get rid of
him. No one would have anything to do with him, and he was
forced to embark for England. In this wretched condition, to
which he was reduced by his wickedness, without refuge, with
out support, he applied to the Revolutionary Club at London.
They took him into their service in theh plan of vengeance
against France.2
These charges are manUestly so absurd as to need no refuta
tion. As for the charges against the society, it is to be remem
bered that in many cases they were made by persons interested;
at the same time it is to be observed that in several instances,
at least, they were made by men who had been in the colonies
and knew whereof they spoke — as the Amis des Noirs did not.
The accusation that they stirred up rebeUion for treasonable
purposes is certainly without real foundation, although in one
case circumstances seemed to connect them dhectly with dis
order in the colonies. Oge" was affiliated with the society.
1 See a paper found among the papers of the colonial committee [A.N. A. A.
54, 1509], unsigned and undated. It consists of a long list of accusations —
thirty-two counts in all — supported in almost every case by a citation from
the Patriote Frangais. See Appendix C.
2 Dicouverte d'une conspiration contre les intirSts de France, without date or
signature. Printed in SuppUment aux prods-verbal de VAssembUe nationale,
colonies, i, traite des negres, part n.

A HUMANITARIAN 215
After his stay in Paris he went directly back to Santo Domingo
and raised an insurrection. But even in this instance it can
hardly be asserted that the society deliberately instigated rebel
lion, although they certainly sympathized with its ends. They
also sympathized with all efforts for the ultimate abolition of
slavery; but the charge that they were trying to bring it about
immediately is without proof.
At all events, theh efforts to extend the principles of liberty
and equality to the colonies were attended with disastrous
results. The Amis des Noirs may not have been responsible for
the consequences, but their principles were embodied in the
decrees which had these deplorable results. The members of
the society, and Brissot in particular, thought that they under
stood the subject, but they had not lived in the colonies and
were really meddling in a matter that they knew nothing about.
Robert-Dubayet put the matter very well when he declared
th?l "the experiences of all time teach us that there are mo
ments when it is not desirable to pubhsh, much less to put into
practice, political maxims of eternal truth, especially when the
premature application of a principle means the ruin of many
thousands of individuals." 1 This is practically what the Amis
des Noirs had done under the leadership of Brissot. As a
French politician of the time declared: "Our colonies became
the prey of theh humanity." 2
1 Moniteur, March 24, 1792.
2 Paganel, Essai historique, n, 229. Paganel says: "Brissot se proposait de
venger la nature et de ritablir dans ses droits la moitii de Vespece humaine. Que
fit-il, en effet ? II assimila dans I'ordre politique et civil d tous Us Frangais des
hommes qui Uur Hoient absolument dissemblables par les habitudes, leurs mwurs,
et la privation de toute lumiire; U diversa tout-d-coup dans Vharmonie sociale
Vindipendance sans rigulateur et les passions sans frein. . . .
"La philosophic eut dans les premieres Ugislatures ses divots, et la UberU ses
fanatiques. II n'est pas plus permis, disait Brissot, de composer avec Us principes
qu'avec Us devmrs. Juges et parties, les blancs ne sauroient, sans crime et sans
honte, proroger la servitude des noirs.
"Ainsi Brissot et son parti opposoient la nature d V inter et particulier, la raison
d la violence, le droit au privilige, le perfectionnement de Vespece humaine a
Vorgueil de la couleur, enfin au systeme colonial, le systeme iternel d 'ordre et de
justice fondi par le pere commun des hommes. ..."

CHAPTER IX
BRISSOT AS A MEMBER OP THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Part I
His Election and his Relation to the War Question
A few days before it dissolved, the first National Assembly
had declared that the one object of the Revolution was to give
the French people a constitution, and that as the constitution
¦was completed, the Revolution was ended. To those who be
lieved this declaration, the period of the Legislative Assembly
furnished a complete disillusion. At its beginning France was a
bourgeois monarchy at peace with all its neighbors; before its
close she had entered upon a war which was to end only with the
faU of Napoleon; and she had become in aU but name a demo
cratic republic. In both these changes Brissot took an active
part. He was influential in bringing about the overthrow of the
monarchy, and for the war he, more than any other one man,
was responsible. The period of the Legislative Assembly was
indeed the most important epoch of his hfe and the time of his
greatest influence.
In spite of his avowed republicanism, he had no hesitation
about accepting the position of deputy under the constitutional
monarchy. On the contrary, he was eager for the opportunity
to sit in the Legislative Assembly, and it would have been a
keen disappointment to him if he had failed of election, as he
had two years before to the States-General. Quite aside from
his own personal interest, the approaching elections were to
him a matter of the deepest concern. It was of vital impor
tance, he felt, that the right sort of men should be chosen, and
in the Patriote Frangais of June 14 and 15 he gave his advice
at length on the subject. Exclude former princes and members
of the high nobility and the high clergy, he urged. Mistrust

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 217
those men who have been connected with great houses, exclude
not only those who have had pensions from the government,
but also those who are holding public and lucrative places, of
whatever nature, for it may be regarded as a sacred maxim that
no one can fill two offices at a time. Mistrust bankers; men who
have belonged to the old parliamentary magistracy; men of
letters, who have been the champions of the ministry; almost
aU academicians, men who have passed their lives in the midst
of the great; and finally, both the men who are always preach
ing moderation and those who defend the cause of the people
with frenzy. Barring out such men, the safest classes from which
to choose are first of all political writers, and then in order
doctors, lawyers, and business men. In making these recom
mendations, Brissot, while obviously sincere, was perhaps not
altogether disinterested.
His own chances were certainly better now than they had
been at the opening of the States-General, partly because the
seU-denying ordinance, by making ineligible to the Legislative
Assembly all members of the fhst Assembly, had removed from
the field of competition many prominent men, who might
otherwise have been his rivals; but chiefly because he had won
for himseU a considerable reputation as a municipal politician,
leader of the Amis des Noirs, and most of all as editor of the
Patriote Frangais. On the other hand, these very activities
which had proclaimed him a partisan of an equality which
extended even to the negro, and of a sovereignty of the people
which would overthrow the king, had made him many enemies
among the colonists, the aristocrats, and the royalists. It was
not a question of "accepting" the position of deputy, but of
fighting a long and arduous battle to gain it.
The attack against him was led by royalist journals, such as
the Actes des Apotres, the Journal de la cour et de la ville, the
Ami du Roi, the Argus Patriote, the Babillard, and the Chant du
Coq.1 Whfle these papers could not be compared to the revo-
1 " Le Chant du Coq semblait n' avoir Hi crii que pour mener une campagne
acharnie contre Brissot." Charavay, VAssembUe ilectorale de Paris, 1791-92,

218 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
lutionary journals for the weight and force of their arguments,
in wit and ability to make theh antagonist ridiculous they were
disconcertingly successful. Brissot's candidacy was no sooner
announced than they began theh fusfllades. Among these
attacks the most noted and the most effective was that of the
Journal de la cour et de la ville. In the midst of the election it
came out with this epigram: —
Mons Bris . . . ressembU aufripon
Qui, dans la crainte de la geole,
Va partout criant : Au larron !
Et pendant ce temps-la vous vole.1
The accusation of theft hinted at in these lines is said to have
first been made by Theveneau de Morande, the editor of the
Argus Patriote, who is held responsible for coining the word
brissoter as an equivalent for steal.2 It was immediately seized
upon by the royalist journals, who lost no time in putting it
into circulation, as an equivalent for escroquer, to steal, nor did
its use cease with Brissot's election. For example, the Journal
de la cour et de la ville of September 25 made this edUying state
ment: "When Mr. Burke learned that it was sufficient to know
how to brissoter neatly in order to be chosen as deputy to the
new legislature, he said: 'I hope that Mr. Pitt wfll not continue
to send the brissoteurs of London to Botany-Bay, since he can
now settle them so well with our neighbors; those clever pick
pockets wfll find themselves at home there.' " Again a few days
later the same journal, apropos of a theft, alluded to a brissote-
ment that had been perpetrated upon an Englishman in one of
Introduction, xxii. The editors of the BaMllard were cited by Brissot before
the courts. Their defense was that they had merely borrowed from Theveneau
de Morande. At all events, the suit came to nothing. Bouchez et Roux, xn,
15-17. 1 Charavay, VAssembUe electorate de Paris, Introduction, xxii-xxv.
2 No. 2, of September 17-18, p. 52. Claretie in his biography of Desmoulins
(p. 180) credits him with coining the word in his Jean Pierre Brissot dimasqui.
But this pamphlet did not appear till February, 1792, and the word brissoter
was used in the Journal de la cour etdela ville of September 10, 1791 (Charavay,
VAssembUe ilectorale de Paris, 1791-92, Introduction, xxvii, note). Accord
ing to Beaulieu, Essais historiques, 47, it was Theveneau de Morande in the
Argus who was responsible.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 219
the chief gambling-haUs of the Palais Royal.1 According to
BeauUeu, the use of the word became so common that even the
children in the streets took it up. Instead of saying, " You have
stolen my ball or my top," they would say, "You have brissote
my baU or my top." 2 The stigma involved clung to Brissot
to the end of his days.
TheVeneau de Morande, mentioned above as the originator
of this libel, was Brissot's most bitter and persistent enemy.
It wfll be remembered that they had come to serious disagree
ment during Brissot's residence in London in 1783, when they
both worked on the Courrier for Swinton,3 and that Morande
had subsequently accused him of swindling Desforges, Brissot's
partner, in the LycSe, in consequence of which Brissot had
brought a suit against him which was still pending.4 Morande
had now renewed his attacks. According to Madame Roland, he
was one of three or four scribblers paid by Montmorin to run
down Brissot, and had been called from London expressly for
this purpose. At all events, whether on his own account or in
the pay of others, he denounced Brissot unsparingly. Not con
tent with heaping up accusations in his journal, he now pub
lished them enlarged and embellished in pamphlet form, with
the object of reaching a larger audience, and thus inflicting all
possible damage. To these attacks Brissot replied by similar
pamphlets and tlirough the columns of the Patriote Frangais.
Though waged for political reasons, the combat was not on
questions of political policy but of personal conduct. Neither
party scrupled to drag in the details of the private life of the
other, and their mutual recriminations were far from edifying.5
1 Journal de la cour et de la ville, October 12, 1791 . The same paper made a
wretched pun declaring that the name was really Tressot. It also declared that
Brissot's schoolmates had sought the origin of his name in Greek roots and
found it to be the future of the verb britho, that is to say, "Je suis sur U voie
d'itre pendu." December 21, 1791.
2 "Cette michanceti fit fortune. Les enfants, dans leurs jeux, ne disaient plus:
' Tu m'a pris ou voli ma boule ou ma toupie,' mais ' Tu m'a brissoU ma toupie,
tu m'as brissoU ma boule. ' " Beaulieu, n, 47.
3 See p. 24. 4 See p. 28.
6 (a) Riplique de CharUs Thiveneau Morande d Jacques Pierre Brissot sur

220 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Morande's accusations were not so well founded as Brissot's,
but he was extremely skillful in making the worse appear the
better reason, and pertinacious in supporting his accusations
by plausible arguments and by suppositions which seemed to
the uninitiated additional proof. He raked up every unfortu
nate accident or unhappy circumstance of Brissot's past hfe
and adroitly interpreted them to Brissot's disadvantage, pre
senting even the most innocent facts in such dark and damning
colors that Brissot himseU might well have doubted his own
integrity.1 He dwelt at length on the fact that Brissot was of
insignificant bhth, the son of an eating-house keeper, and when
Brissot retorted that Demosthenes was the son of a blacksmith,
MassiUon of a shoemaker, and Diderot of a cutler,2 Morande
declared that he had almost died of laughter at the audacity
or rather the simplicity of the comparison. The addition of
de Warville, which Brissot had made to his name before leaving
Chartres, Morande aUeged as evidence of aristocratic tenden
cies,3 and Brissot's efforts in behaU of the negro as evidence
that he was in secret and treasonable coUusion with England
for the purpose of ruining French commerce and destroying the
French colonies.4 Morande declared further that Brissot had
"forgotten" for six months to restore to the treasury of the
Us erreurs, les oublis, les infidilitis et les calomnies de sa riponse. August 26,
1791. The title evidently makes allusion to the earlier phase of the contest
which had been carried on in the respective newspapers of Morande and
Brissot. (b) Lettre aux ilecteurs du department de Paris sur Jacques Pierre Brissot,
par Charles Theveneau Morande. September 3, 1791.
(c) SuppUment au No. 25 de V Argus Patriote. Riponse au dernier mot de
J. P. Brissot et a tous Us petits mots de ses camarades. September 6, 1791.
1 (o) Riponse de Jacques Pierre Brissot a tous Us libellistes, qui ont attaqui et
attaquent sa vie passie. August 10, 1791.
(b) Aux ilecteurs du dipartement de Paris. August 26, 1791.
(c) Riplique de J. P. Brissot d Charles Thiveneau Morande. August 80,
1791. 2 Riponse de Jacques Pierre Brissot, 3. A keener sense of humor would have
prevented Brissot from making such a comparison. It was very characteristic
that he did not realize how this would sound.
3 Riplique de Charles Thiveneau Morande, 47-48.
4 Lettre aux EUcteurs, 19-20.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 221
district of the Filles-Saint-Thomas five hundred and eighty
livres with which he had been entrusted as president of the
district,1 and finally, returning to his earlier charges, he dwelt
at length on the accusation that Brissot had had part in the
distribution of the Diable dans un bSnitier,2 and that he had
swindled his partner Desforges out of fifteen thousand livres.3
These charges were supported by insufficient evidence. It
is true that he habitually signed himseU Brissot de Warville, and
even became known as Monsieur de Warville,4 but that this
was an evidence of aristocratic tendencies Brissot emphatically
denied. He added the de Warville, he declared, in early life,
simply in order to distinguish himseU from his brothers, and
then having published works under that name, it seemed better
to keep it. It is to be remembered, moreover, that Brissot was
not the only revolutionist who bore a title without being of the
nobility or having the least desire to be.5 But although it
showed a little human weakness, and certainly gave a handle to
unfriendly criticism, it was reaUy no proof of opposition to the
democratic principles of the Revolution.6 As for the charge
that he was sold to England, an accusation of like venality was
made, at one time or another, against almost every public man
in France. The cry was raised that Mirabeau was sold to the
court, Condorcet to the king, Danton to the foreigner, but,
lacking unquestionable proof, such charges may be dismissed
as unworthy of consideration. The accusation that Brissot
kept back money belonging to his district falls to the ground,
since he was able to produce a receipt for the money.7 On the
last two charges, that of complicity in the authorship of the
Diable dans un benitier and of having swindled Desforges, Bris
sot, as has already been seen, was not able to clear himself so
1 See Brissot, Riplique, 26. 2 See p. 30. 3 See p. 28.
" He was known as De WarviUe in America. See letters addressed to him by
Americans, in Craigie Papers, American Antiquarian Society, and Scioto
Papers, in New York Historical Society.
5 Brissot, Riponse a tous Us libellistes, 5.
6 Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel; Charlotte Corday et les Girondins, n, 244.
7 Riplique de Brissot, 26.

222 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
completely; x but at least U evidence of his perfect innocence is
lacking, so is evidence of his guilt. It is a case of "not proved."
But if Morande's facts were doubtful, his skill in presenting
them was great. With a deft touch and a clever turn he had
brought out the weak points in Brissot's career. He showed
that Brissot, U not himself a writer of libels, had been closely
connected with people who did write them, pointed out Bris
sot's failures as a man of letters, and held up to ridicule his
impracticable schemes.2 The very bitterness of the attack was,
on the other hand, a tribute to Brissot's position, for had he
not been a man of prominence he would not have been so vigor
ously opposed.
Brissot's cause was meanwhile supported by his friends, his
section, and his native city. In answer to the allegations of the
Babillard, borrowed from Morande, that he had not accounted
for money belonging to his district, certain important members
of the section of the Bibliotheque posted two certificates which
showed that the money had been duly paid,3 and the citizens
of Chartres, Brissot's native place, sent to the electors of Paris
an address in which they asserted theh belief in his innocence
and denounced the accusations made against him as atrocious
calumnies.4 The district of Lyons also sent an ardent address
in his behaU.5 Brissot himseU, in addition to his defense
against specific charges, wrote an exhortation to the electors
which, while general in its terms, was really an appeal for per
sonal support. The fate of the constitution, he reminded them,
depended in large part on the future legislature. Its members
should, therefore, be chosen with the utmost care. Calumnies
against the candidates instead of being lightly accepted should
1 See pp. 28, 30. 2 Riplique de Brissot, 39, 51.
3 Bouchez el Roux, xn, 15-17. Whereupon the Babillard, in another issue,
questioned the worth of these certificates and added that Brissot had taken the
sum twice, but this seems hardly probable.
4 Charavay, VAssembUe ilectorale de Paris, 1791-92, pp. 202-03. The insti
gators of this letter were the members of the local Jacobin Club. Their support
of Brissot may, therefore, have been due more to his popularity with the
Jacobin Club at Paris than to the fact that he was a native of Chartres.
1 6 Archives Nationales, B1 11.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 223
be carefully sifted. Proved patriotism, courage, good judgment,
and uprightness were the indispensable requisites.1
Despite all the efforts in his behalf, it looked for some time
as though Brissot's opponents were going to be successful in
keeping him out of the Legislative Assembly. Proposed again
and again in the Electoral Assembly of Paris he was again and
again defeated, and it was only after repeated attempts that on
September 14 he was finally elected tweUth deputy from Paris
out of twenty -four.2 His election under such circumstances
was a decided victory for the advanced party, and was hailed
with great rejoicing by the citizens of Chartres, by the Jacobin
Club of Paris, by various local Jacobin clubs,3 by the radical
press,4 and by his personal friends. Madame Roland had been
among those who had foUowed the course of the elections with
the deepest interest. She was distressed at his defeats,6 but
greatly delighted at his ultimate success. Her hope for him was
that he might be able to do the good that he longed to do.6
The Assembly was composed, for the most part, of young
men, and, as a result of the self-denying ordinance passed by
the Constituent Assembly, of inexperienced men. It thus
offered an unusual opportunity to Brissot, one of the few
members who had already made a name for himself. To a man
whose most absorbing interest for years had been political
reform, now to have a share in actual legislation was both a
reward for past work and a stimulus to further effort. And he
threw himseU into his new task with all his heart and soul. He
1 Patriote Frangais, August 23, 1791.
2 Charavay, VAssembUe ilectorale de Paris, 1791-92, pp. 133-227. See
also Appendix D.
3 Lettres de filicitation des SociiUs des Amis de la Constitution de V Yonne
el de Saint-Denis, et de plusieurs ilecteurs du district de Lyon, pour le choix de
Brissot, 19, 20, 28 septembre, 1791. Originaux signis A. N. B1 11.
4 Charavay, uM sup.. Int., xxix.
* Madame Roland to Bangal, September 3: "Brissot est terriblement baloiti;
s'il ne passe pas aujourd'hui; je tremble pour lui." Lettres, n, 368.
8 Ibid., n, 384. "La nomination de Brissot fut ciUbrie par toute la presse pa
triote. C'Hait le premier candidal de la fraction la plus avancie de VAssembUe
qui riuuit la majorite." Charavay, ubi sup.. Int., xxix.

224 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
gave up for the time active participation in the editing of his
journal, "in order that he might devote himseU more fuUy to
the important functions to which the choice of his feUow citi
zens called him."
His candidacy had been weU supported by the radical press.
The only democratic journalist who expressed doubt as to his
political policy was Marat, who was unable to forget or to for
give Brissot's support of Lafayette-, and with his usual penetra
tion, he pointed out the weakness in Brissot's position. Brissot,
he declared, by trying to conciliate incompatible interests, had
displeased both parties; clear-sighted patriots lacked confidence
in him, whfle the enemies of the country distrusted him.1 Bris
sot's opposition to the constitution and outspoken admiration
for a republic, foUowed by his acceptance of the constitution,
certainly did give ground for suspicion, on the part both of the
conservatives and of the radicals. And when, on the opening
of the Legislative Assembly, he took the oath to the constitu
tion, the royalist journals indulged in sarcastic comment at his
expense. L'Ami du Roi, for example, in referring to the oath
taken by the deputies, declared that "among the orators of
that pious opera the one who made the greatest sensation was
M. Brissot, who was received with exaggerated and ironic
applause. People supposed that it would cost that famous
republican much effort to swear fidelity to the king; but it must
be admitted that M. Brissot carried it off with a very good
grace. The pleasure of seeing himseU . . . seated upon one
of the national thrones made him swaUow the piU of the oath
without a grimace." 2
The possible effect of this inconsistency Brissot had not failed
to appreciate, and in an address to the Electoral Assembly
just after his election, he had attempted to set himself right. " I
have been pictured to you as an enemy to the constitution,"
he declared. "Far from me that horrible character. To wish
to improve it while it was stiU unfinished, was that to be an
1 L'Ami du peuple, September 11, 1791.
2 L'Ami du Roi, October 6, 1791. Quoted in Bouchez et Roux, xn, 51.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 225
enemy of the constitution? Finished, entire, to-day it com
mands respect, and its worship is in my heart; it is in the heart
of all patriots." 1
But, in this same address, in speaking of the difficulties with
which the legislature would have to contend, he declared that
the executive power was without energy and without confi
dence, — a statement, which, while it might be taken to refer
to the ministry, might at the same time be suspected of imply
ing distrust of the king himseU, and of containing the germ of
opposition to the whole executive department as provided for
in the constitution. The royalist journals were fundamentally
right. The above declaration as to his devotion to the consti
tution, whUe not untrue, was not the whole truth. Brissot's
ardor was for the new constitution only so far as it represented
a victory over the old r6gime; for it, as a finished and unchange
able form of government, his ardor was much less; and in the
new legislature he took his seat, not with the right, which
wanted to maintain the constitution, the whole constitution,
and the constitution at any cost; but with the left, which,
whUe not openly opposing the constitution, by no means ac
cepted it as the chmax of the Revolution and which was not in
the least inclined to regard the Revolution as finished. It was
with the deputies from the Ghonde, Vergniaud, Gensonn6, and
Guadet, who formed the nucleus of that group afterward to be
known as the Girondins, with whom he especially allied himseU.
According to Paganel, his motive in connecting himself with
them was that he might have their support in his contest in
behaU of the mulattoes.2 At all events, his opinions soon ac
quired much weight with them, and he became so important
and influential a member of the Assembly that his political
adherents, both within the Assembly and without, were known
as Brissotins. As has been said, this was the period of his great
est influence. This influence was due in part to his numerous
speeches before the Assembly. He always spoke with clearness
1 Patriote Frangais, September 17, 179],
2 Paganel, Essai historique, II, 228.

226 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and some force, and occasionally with eloquence, but he was
not a great orator. His real strength lay in the tremendous
earnestness with which he worked, in his untiring perseverance,
and in his zeal in organizing and dhecting affahs outside as
well as in the Assembly itseU.1
The first business of the Assembly was to provide the neces
sary machinery for work, and it had hardly begun the task
when Brissot, with his usual readiness, came forward with a
plan for the organization of committees; but, although he made
every effort to be heard, he could not obtain the floor. Un
daunted by this failure, he gave the speech at the Jacobin Club
and had it printed. It was a clear and forcible argument in
favor of having as few committees as possible. Committees
were necessary, he admitted, but to create many committees
was to increase ministerial influence, to hinder freedom of
opinion, and to encourage the despotism of individuals. He
would even dispense, in time of peace, with a separate diplo
matic committee, but would unite it with the committees on
military and marine affahs, under the general name of the com
mittee of safety and defense.2 A diplomatic committee was
nevertheless formed on October 25, and Brissot's reputation
for an extended knowledge of foreign affairs secured his election
to it.3
As the body to which foreign affairs were referred, the diplo
matic committee was one of the most important, U not the most
important, of all the committees; and Brissot, by virtue of his
position as its best known member, with the possible excep
tion of Koch, the learned professor of international law at the
1 See p. 420.
2 Discours sur V organisation des comitis destini d ilre prononci d VAssembUe
nationale le 12 octobre 1791, prononci aus JacoMns le 14 octobre. See his prelim
inary note. Many of his later speeches, both at the Club and at the Assembly,
were printed for him by these respective bodies.
3 Proces-verbal de VAssembUe nationale, I, 232. See also Ibid., October 18,
1791. He was elected secretary on that date. There were six secretaries, re
newed by half every two weeks. The committee was in part renewed (by lot)
March 2, but Brissot remained in the committee. He withdrew on June 6,
and was reelected July 17.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 227
University of Strasbourg, was thus able to exercise a dominat
ing influence upon foreign affahs.1 In view of his previous
utterances the general policy which Brissot would follow was
not difficult to predict. In his opinion, diplomacy was an
adjunct of the old regime, and since the old regime was an evil,
diplomacy was an evil. He failed even to appreciate the possible
use of diplomacy as a means of avoiding war, and urged France
to follow the example of the United States with regard to the
diplomatic corps. He especiaUy urged that the number of per
sons employed be diminished and that the salaries of those who
were retained be reduced. Such measures, Brissot protested,
would only tend toward peace.2
The immediate diplomatic problems which confronted the
Assembly in its opening days involved the relation of France
both to the emigres and to the German princes along the Rhine,
to whom many of the SmigrSs had fled. The revolutionists were
incensed against these princes for the support they had given
to the anti-revolutionary party; and the German princes, many
of whom had property within French territory, were incensed
against the revolutionists on account of the recent abolition of
feudal rights. AUeging that they stiU held their feudal privi
leges from the emperor, they appealed to him to redress their
wrongs.3 At the same time they continued to aid the emigres,
who, in turn, were stirring them up against France. What was
to be the attitude of France toward these emigres and toward
the princes who were supporting them? This, in turn, involved
the question of the attitude of France toward the emigris in
general. To these questions Brissot had a ready answer, and
on October 20, in a speech before the Assembly, set forth his
views at length. Its most notable feature was its attempt to
carry out to the fuUest extent the hberty guaranteed by the
1 For an extended consideration of the subject of Brissot's influence on for
eign affairs see H. A. Goetz-Bernstein, La DipUmatie de la Gironde, Jacques
Pierre Brissot, Paris, 1912.
2 Patriate Frangais, November 16, 1789.
3 The feudal relation of "the immediates" in Alsace was "ambiguous,
obscure, and litigious." Sorel, V Europe et la Revolution frangaise, n, 78.

228 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
declaration of rights and at the same time protect France from
the dangers to which that liberty might give rise. The laws
against the Emigres, he maintained, had been confused with the
laws against revolt. The declaration of rights proclaimed free
dom to every one to go wherever it seemed good unto him;
from which it resulted that the citizens ought to be entirely
free to emigrate. Then, coming down to more practical con
siderations, he drew example from the emigration of the Pro
testants under Louis XIV, and argued that U that powerful
monarch, with his hordes of spies, priests, and soldiers, was not
able to prevent emigration, it would be quite useless for France,
under existing conditions, to attempt it. He therefore proposed
that aU emigre's should be exhorted to return to France, but
that in meting out punishment, a clear-cut distinction should
be made between princes and pubhc functionaries on the one
hand, and ordinary citizens on the other. As for the foreign
princes who were encouraging the SmigrSs, here it was no longer
a question of liberty, but one of seU-defense; France must act
with firmness and dispatch. Though these princes had univer
sally opposed the Revolution, they were not to be feared, even
though theh intentions were hostUe. But, he declared, they
ought to be asked what theh intentions really were, and if
they refused to stop protecting the imigrSs or U they insisted
on armed mediation, France must not wait for them, but must
be the first to make the attack.
This, Brissot's first speech of importance before the Legisla
tive Assembly, was a great success. He was vigorously ap
plauded and the applause continued as he made his way down
from the tribune till he reached his seat.1 Outside of the
Assembly it was received in quite different ways by different
factions of the press. According to the Journal de la cour et de
la ville, it was "a ridiculous harangue and consequently ob
tained the honor of being printed." " We will not speak further
of it," added the same journal, "except to say that the consti
tution had aheady deprived le sieur Brissot of his surname de
1 Moniteur, October 22, 1791.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 229
Varville [sic]. This speech ought surely to make him lose the
first three letters of the name which are left." J Les Revolutions
de France et de Brabant, on the other hand, spoke of it as a
superb speech and his draft of a decree as cutting the evil at
the root.2
After a discussion of several weeks, a decree was finally
passed, November 9, which, while modifying somewhat his
proposal, accepted the distinction between classes which he
laid down, severe penalties for flight being imposed only upon
princes and public functionaries, and upon those bearing arms
against France.3
While the king still had this decree under advisement, Bris
sot, on November 15, informed the Assembly that the commit
tee was ready to report upon the action to be taken with regard
to the foreign powers who had aided fugitives, and asked that
the matter be placed on the calendar for early discussion.4 The
subject did not, however, receive the prompt attention Brissot
wished, and when the report was presented it was by Brissot's
more conservative colleague, Koch.5 Although admitting that
the German princes of the empire were in the wrong in harboring
and protecting the Emigres, Koch showed his moderation by
suggesting that it was not improbable that firm and immediate
action might be successful in averting war. There was no need
to despair, he maintained, of making those German princes
understand that it was neither to their interest nor to their
glory to intrigue with a few fugitives. To bring these princes
to a realization of their duty to a neighboring nation and to the
empire was by no means impossible. Again, on November 29,
he spoke in the same tone, and while accepting the substance
of a motion of Daverhoult's to the effect that a committee of
twenty-four be appointed to request the king to communicate
with the German princes, asking them to state their intentions,
he objected to that part of the motion which limited to two
1 Number of October 22, 1791. 2 No. 98.
3 Moniteur, November 10, 1791.
4 Ibid., November 16, 1791. 6 IMd., November 23, 1791.

230 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
weeks the time within which the princes should be required to
dismiss the Emigres. Such a demand, he insisted, was unreason
able and it savored too much of an ultimatum. More time
should be given the princes.1
The conciliatory tone of Koch's speech was very different from
the warlike and immoderate tone of Isnard's reply. "Let us
say to Europe," he cried, "that if the French people draw the
sword they wiU cast the scabbard behind them, and that they
will sheathe the sword again only when they return crowned
with the laurels of victory; and that U, in spite of their might
and courage, they should be vanquished in the defense of lib
erty, their enemies wiU reign only over corpses. Let us say to
Europe U the cabinets of foreign courts excite a war of kings
against peoples we wfll excite a war of peoples against kings." 2
This language was not exactly calculated to calm the feelings
of the kings in question, and, as the Patriote Frangais remarked,
was indeed " the sword suspended over the head of Damocles." 3
It is to be observed, however, that it is the language of which
the Patriote Frangais approved, and of which it showed its
approval by noticing at some length the speech of Isnard, while
it had not a word to say of that of Koch. But in spite of the
eloquence of Isnard, Koch's arguments prevailed and Daver-
hoult's motion was amended so as to omit the fixed limit within
which the princes must reply. As passed, it simply provided
that the king be requested to make evident by all proper means
to the princes along the Rhine the absolute necessity of with
drawing all assistance from the French imigres.*
Meanwhfle, the king had vetoed the decree against the
Emigres, a step which Brissot did not hesitate to denounce in
severe terms. "The veto put by the king upon the decree
against the Smigrh," he declared, "is contrary to the spirit of
the constitution, because, in the first place, it was demanded
and sanctioned by public opinion and because the king has
tened to give his veto without awaiting the expiration of the
1 Moniteur, November 30, 1791. 2 Ibid., December 1, 1791.
3 Patriote Frangais, November 30, 1791. 4 Moniteur, December 1, 1791.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 231
time allowed him by the constitution in which to consult public
opinion." x
The general discussion of the subject of the Emigres now gave
place for a moment to the discussion of a special case. It was a
question of action against Cardinal de Rohan, who was charged
with complicity in the plot to deliver Strasbourg to the emigres.
Again the Patriote Frangais supported the radical side, repre
sented in this case by Ruhl, and declared that it was their right
and their duty to present a decree against the cardinal as a
French rebel.2 Koch in reply reminded the Assembly that since
Cardinal de Rohan, by abandoning his domicile in France, had
lost his status as a French citizen, they could not indict him
without exposing themselves uselessly to the danger of arousing
the empire. Koch thus succeeded in checking the zeal of the
Assembly. With such an appeal to the fear of war Brissot was not in
sympathy. For some time he had maintained that the possi
bility of war was no cause for alarm; U France were timorous
the example of America might well give her courage. "What
soldiers of despotism," he cried, "can for any length of time
withstand the soldiers of liberty! The soldiers of tyrants are
after pay, they have little fidelity, and desert on the first occa
sion. The soldier of liberty fears neither fatigue, danger, nor
hunger — he runs, he flies at the cry of liberty, while despotism
is scarcely taking a few tottering steps. . . . Oh, you who doubt
the prodigious and supernatural effects which the love of liberty
is able to inspire in men, think what the Americans did to gain
their independence ! Think, for example, how Dr. Warren, who
had never handled a musket, defended Bunker Hill with a
handful of Americans, badly armed and badly disciplined! . . .
Follow General Washington making head with three or four
thousand peasants against thirty thousand Englishmen! " 3
1 Patriate Frangais, December 12, 1791.
2 Ibid., December 17, 1791; and Moniteur, December 18, 1791.
3 Discours sur la question de savoir si le roi peut Hrejugi, July 10, 1791. See
Aulard, Les JacoMns, il, 619-20.

232 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
But Brissot not only maintained that war was not to be
feared, but that France should take the initiative.1 There were
many who argued with him that the equivocal attitude of the
German princes in regard to the emigrSs and their openly ex
pressed sympathy with the anti-revolutionary party in France
ought not to be tolerated. Yet a large section, both of the
Assembly and of the Jacobin Club, held that the trouble could
be settled by negotiation and diplomacy; that France was not
ready for war, and that to drag her into a war for which she
was not prepared was sheer folly. Between the war and the
anti-war factions, led respectively by Brissot and Robespierre,
a prolonged struggle now began.2 It was an uneven contest.
The traditional and long-continued enmity toward Austria,
which in the minds of many Frenchmen the treaty of 1756 had
formally but not reaUy ended, gave to Brissot a decided advan
tage.3 The personal contest with Robespierre was carried on at the
Jacobin Club, where Brissot was just at the height of his popu
larity.4 The combat began on December 16, when Brissot in
one of his longest and most eloquent speeches advocated imme
diate war. He began by declaring that, for a people who had
1 Moniteur, October 22, 1791.
2 Their previous relations had not been unfriendly. Brissot had been in
sympathy with Robespierre's democracy and especially with his opposition to
the repeal of the decree of May 15, but Robespierre had been much less inclined
toward republicanism than Brissot.
3 Glagau, Diefranzosische Legislative und der Ursprung der Revolutionskriege,
1791-92, p. 87.
4 His popularity seems to date from his speech on the dethronement of the
king (see pp. 175-176). The Club watched with keen interest his struggle for
election to the Assembly and received the news of his success with great de
light. Aulard, Les Jacobins, in, 128, 135. His first appearance at the Jacobin
Club after his election was greeted with enthusiastic applause, and in response
he made a brief but telling speech, in which he told the Jacobins that he knew
what they wanted was deeds not words, and assured them that they would
always find him at the tribune of the National Assembly under the flag of
liberty. A few days later he was elected president of the Club. See Aulard,
Les JacoMns, m, 195. The exact date of his election is not given, nor is the
date of his retirement. He is mentioned as president October 3, and his retire
ment could not have been later than October 19.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 233
just acquired their liberty after a dozen centuries of slavery,
war was necessary in order to establish that liberty on a firm
basis, in order to test it, to discover whether people were worthy
of it. It was necessary, moreover, in order to purge away the
vices of despotism and to get rid of men who might still be a
source of corruption. He then went on to argue that France
had already had sufficient provocation; that if she did not
make the attack, other nations would think her weak and
would perpetrate further outrages; that the war would not
injure commerce, and that it was the very best means of strik
ing at a single blow the very center of the revolutionary
movement, "the criminals at Coblenz." Finally, he declared
that there was not the slightest danger that the king could
make use of the army to recover his former crown. The day
had gone by when the soldiers would lend themselves to any
such dishonor. At every step in the argument Brissot cited
American example which he seemed to think conclusive.
America has passed safely through the crucible of war, he
argued, why should not France? 1
At the same time that Brissot was arguing at the Jacobin
Club for war, the Patriote Frangais was also clamoring for it.
"War! War! Such is the cry of all French patriots," it declared;
"such is the desire of all the friends of liberty scattered all over
Europe, who are only awaiting that happy diversion in order
to attack and overthrow their tyrants. It is that expiatory war
which is to renew the face of the world and plant the standard
of hberty upon the palaces of kings, upon the seraglios of sul
tans, upon the chateaux of petty feudal tyrants and upon the
temples of popes and muftis." 2
Meanwhile, the war question entered a new phase. The king
had called Narbonne to the ministry of war and the latter had
instigated a vigorous war policy. This was like stealing their
1 Discours sur la nicessiU de diclarer la guerre.
2 Patriote Frangais, December 17, 1791. The immediate direction of the
Patriote Frangais at this period, it will be remembered, had been abandoned by
Brissot in order that he might devote himself more entirely to the work of a
legislator, but there is no doubt that it continued to represent his sentiments.

234 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
powder and was decidedly disconcerting to Brissot and his
friends. Brissot had declared the center of the counter-revolu
tion to be the camp of the Smigrh at Coblenz, and, by his cen
sure of the king for leniency toward the emigres, had pretty
plainly insinuated his connection with the counter-revolution
and the anti-war faction. Now to find the king appearing as
the champion of war decidedly weakened his arguments. This
was a situation of which the opponents of war were not slow to
take advantage. On December 18, Robespierre made a speech
on the subject at the Jacobin Club, in which he pointed out
that as the ministry desired war, to bring it about would only
be playing into their hands. "War," he declared, "is always
the first desire of a powerful government which deshes to
increase its power. I need not say that it is during war that the
ministry succeeds in exhausting the people and wasting the
revenues; that it covers its depredations and its sins with an
impenetrable veil. I will not speak to you of what touches most
directly the heart of our interests. It is during war that the
executive power displays the most dangerous energy; that it
exercises a kind of dictatorship which only serves to frighten
liberty; it is during war that people neglect their civU and polit
ical rights, and occupy themselves only with foreign affairs; it is
during war that they turn their attention from their legislators
and magistrates and attach aU their interests and hopes to
their generals and ministers." *
The answer of the Patriote Frangais to this trenchant argu
ment was that the court only made a pretense of desiring war,
but in reality it did not desire it at all, as was evident from the
way in which it had allowed the counter-revolution to grow and
extend.2 The fact that it had not ceased to protect the enemies
of the Revolution within was good reason for suspecting that it
might have some understanding with the enemies without.3
Inspired by this idea the demands for war continued. Brissot
1 Discours de Maximilien Robespierre, December 18, 1791.
2 Reference to the vetoes of the decrees against the imigris and priests.
3 Patriote Francais, December 20, 1791.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 235
was well supported. On the same day on which Robespierre
made his second speech at the Jacobin Club, December 18,
Roederer had argued for war, especially on the ground of self-
defense, and in the Assembly the cause was now taken up by
Louvet and Gensonn6, who even exceeded Brissot himself in
the vehemence of their demands. "We shaU ask you for a
scourge, terrible but indispensable," cried Louvet. "We shall
ask for war. War ! And instantly let France rise in arms ! . . .
With the swiftness of lightning let thousands of our citizen
soldiers precipitate themselves upon the domains of feudalism.
Let them stop only where servitude ends; let the palace be sur
rounded by bayonets; let the declaration of rights be deposited
in the cottage. Let man everywhere, educated and delivered
from oppression, regain the feeling of his early dignity, let the
human race arise and breathe." 1 But in order that these some
what extensive aims might be realized, money was necessary,
and the Assembly was speedily brought down from the clouds
to consider this practical necessity by a request of Narbonne
for twenty millions. Of the announcement that Narbonne was
to be made minister of war, the Patriote Frangais had spoken
with anything but enthusiasm, and had remarked, when he
took the oath of fidelity to the king and the constitution, that
it was to be hoped that it was not an empty form.2 But now
that Narbonne was pursuing an active war policy, the Brisso
tins, although they were not altogether in sympathy with him,
came to a partial agreement at least as far as a common deter
mination to seek alliance with England and Prussia 3 and to
urge a vigorous war policy against Austria. To carry out this
purpose they now supported his demand for money.4 Accord
ingly, on December 26, Brissot explained the action of the
committees on the subject and Gensonn6 presented the report.
There was no longer a middle ground between liberty and slav
ery, Gensonne declared. And, in closing his speech, he pro
claimed with almost the ardor of Isnard: "The common enemy
1 Moniteur, December 27, 1791. 2 Patriote Frangais, November 8, 1791.
3 See p. 250. 4 Glagau, 78-85.

636 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
is at the gates, a general assault threatens us. Why do we dis
pute? Why do we fight each other? ... Let us run to the
breach to defend our ramparts or to be buried under the
ruins." 1 The appeal was effective, for the Assembly voted
the twenty mfllions unanimously.
This enthusiasm Brissot did not allow to cool, and a few days
later made another speech of most belUgerent temper. In spite
of the fact that the king was now favoring a warlike attitude,
Brissot did not hesitate to cast suspicion on the sincerity of his
intentions. "You passed a decree against the rebels," he re
minded the Assembly; "the king's veto made it of no effect. . . .
The enemies of the Revolution have continued theh threats
and theh gatherings; the executive power has continued its
indulgence." And even when the king did take active steps,
Brissot continued, he showed that he did not realize what was
fitting a constitutional king, by announcing to the Elector of
Treves that he would regard him as an enemy instead of saying
that the nation would regard him as an enemy. But, granted
that the motive of the king might be open to suspicion, that
was no reason for not declaring war. As for possible danger,
Brissot was most optimistic and maintained that, although
foreign nations were making warlike preparations, they were
not to be feared. The English people, he declared, if not the
English government, were in sympathy with the Revolution;
Austria was torn by internal dissensions, Germany was really
peaceable, Sweden was poor, Russia was too far away, Poland
was their friend. Moreover, war was necessary for honor's
sake, for external safety, for internal tranquillity; in order to
establish the finances and public credit of France; in order
to put an end to terror, treason, and anarchy. War was actuaUy
a national benefit, and the only calamity to be feared was not
to have war. He then spoke of the diplomatic transactions, and
presented the draft of a decree which included a notification
to foreign powers that any help given to French emigres would
be regarded as an act of hostility; a demand upon the emperor
1 Moniteur, December 28, 1791.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 237
that he not only use his good offices with the German princes,
but also that he send troops into Brabant to prevent all gather
ings of rebels; and the recall of the representatives of France
from the courts of Stockholm, St. Petersburg, and Rome.1 The
whole speech showed an utter disregard of diplomatic usage,
and its entire argument may be summed up in the phrase which
Brissot used with teUing effect: "The French Revolution has
overturned aU diplomacy." 2
Brissot was foUowed by H6rault de SecheUes and by Condor
cet, who presented drafts of an address, setting forth in unmis
takable terms the attitude of the war party toward the Rhenish
princes.3 In a burst of enthusiasm it was proposed to send this
address, not only to the departments, but also to foreign pow
ers. Cooler heads fortunately perceived the rashness of such
procedure and the clause concerning foreign powers was with
drawn; but the essential part of the motion — an indictment
of the French princes who were in arms against France — was
carried.4 While these decrees were being discussed, Brissot resumed
the conflict with Robespierre at the Jacobin Club and made
another attempt to convince the society that war would not
mean danger. As before, he drew his illustrations from America
and considered actual conditions from a most optimistic and
impractical point of view. There was no longer reason to fear
the ministry, he argued, neither was there reason to fear the
final outcome. If France was successful under despotism, what
might not be expected from France now that she was free? As
for the internal dangers of treason and loss of credit, treason
1 Moniteur, December 30 and 31, 1791.
2 In spite of his disdain for the diplomacy of the old regime, Brissot was not
always consistent. When, for example, the rights of certain French citizens
in Spain were involved, he was the first to make loud complaint that the
Pacte de Famille — that is to say, the defensive alliance which had taken the
place of the original compact — had been violated. But when, a few weeks
later, it was pointed out that France in turn owed something to foreign powers,
he was as swift to denounce that same Pacte de Famille as "impolitic, danger
ous, and unconstitutional." Moniteur, January 30, 1792.
3 Moniteur, December 31, 1791. 4 Ibid., January 2, 1792.

238 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
was reaUy to be deshed as a means of getting rid of poison,
and the prosperity of the finances depended on their putting
down the rebels. Moreover, they would receive a warm welcome
from the oppressed peoples against whose rulers they were con
tending. FinaUy, heroes would arise in France as in America,
and U America, which was far worse off than France, was victo
rious, why should France too not win victory? x
This argument was in turn answered by Robespierre, who,
in an admirable speech, very skflUully met the fallacies of
Brissot's reasoning. He began by admitting that sentiment
and emotion were on the side of war, and that to argue against
it was to support an unpopular cause. "But," he said, — and
this was the basis of his argument, — "reason is against it.
Brissot's idea is beautiful, theoreticaUy, but are we so sure of
success? It is admitted that war is desired by the Smigris, the
ministry, and the intriguers of the court, and aU these factions
constitute too dangerous and subtle a menace to be overlooked.
America's example, as an argument for our success, is worthless,
because the circumstances are different; and as for the state
ment that we wiU find a ready response among the peoples of
the countries against which we fight, it is weU to remember that
people do not change their customs easily and that no one loves
armed missionaries. The thing for us to do," he concluded, "is
to set our own affairs in order and to acquire hberty for our
selves before offering it to others." 2
A few days later, Louvet, supporting Brissot, replied to these
arguments,3 and on January 11 Robespierre spoke again.4 In
spite of Robespierre's efforts, Brissot won a signal, if temporary,
victory, for the society voted to send to the affiliated clubs a
circular letter prepared by the correspondence committee of the
1 Second discours de J. P. Brissot . . . sur la nicessiti de faire la guerre.
December 30, 1791. See also Aulard, Les Jacobins, in, 303.
2 Discours de Maximilien Robespierre sur la guerre. January 2, 1792. Aulard,
Les JacoMns, in, 309.
3 Discours de Jean-Baptiste Louvet sur la guerre, January 9, ] 792. Aulard,
Les JacoMns, m, 317.
4 Ibid., in, 318.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 239
Jacobins, in which the arguments in favor of war were set forth
and certain newspapers, including the Patriote Frangais, were
recommended as patriotic. This was certainly equivalent to an
approval of war, for the Patriote Frangais was belligerency
itseU, reporting at length speeches in favor of war and casting
contempt on all arguments against it.
Meanwhile, the discussion in the Assembly shUted from the
emigres and theh protectors, the princes, to the emperor, to
whom, as head of the empire, the princes appealed. On January
14, Gensonne\ in the name of the diplomatic committee, pre
sented a report on the conduct to be pursued toward the
emperor. The report declared that, inasmuch as Austria had
turned the treaty of 1756 to her own profit, and since the
emperor had sanctioned the encouragement of the emigres by
the Elector of Treves, and had himself been responsible for the
declaration of Pilnitz and the Padua circular, the ministers
should be required to demand an explanation from him before
February 10, and meanwhile begin preparations for war.1 This
report Brissot characterized as "remarkable for its wisdom and
firmness." But to the moderate Koch it seemed most unwise,
and while not censuring the war party directly, he stoutly main
tained that there was ground for believing that both the em
peror and the Elector of Treves were inclined toward peace,
and furthermore that they were disposed to concede all that
the French nation could in justice demand.2
Brissot, however, would have none of such conciliatory sug
gestions. Even the proposal of Gensonne, that the emperor be
asked for an immediate explanation of his conduct, seemed to
him too mfld. To ask for an explanation, he declared, puts us
at the mercy of the emperor. To demand satisfaction puts him
at ours. " I wfll not say to the emperor, with your committee,"
he continued, '"Will you execute the treaty of 1756?' But I
1 Moniteur, January 15, 1792.
2 Ibid., January 18, 1792. See also Goetz-Bernstein, 72. The concessions
of the emperor and of the Elector of Treves certainly gave ample ground
for Koch's claims.

240 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
will say to him, 'You have yourseU violated the treaty of 1756.
We, therefore, have the right to regard it as already broken.'
I will not say with your committee, 'Will you engage not to
attack France nor to assail its independence?' But I will say,
'You have formed a league against France. I, therefore, have a
right to fight you, and the attack is just and necessary.' Either
the emperor wants the war or he does not want it," Brissot con
tinued. " If he wants it, it would be senseless not to forestall
him; if he does not want it, he would be senseless not to fore
stall it by giving you, as soon as possible, the satisfaction which
you have the right to expect." Then, turning to France, he
demanded: " Can you fear this Austria whose people are already
your friends, even though its government does hate you? Can
you fear this cabinet of Vienna which Richelieu caused to
tremble — Richelieu, who governed only slaves; from which
Louis XIV took its most beautiful provinces; to which the
timid Fleury himself dictated the laws? Should France, free,
fear this cabinet? " 1
This stirring appeal to patriotic pride produced a strong
impression, but there were at least a few who were not to be
blinded to the dangers of war, and the next day Mathieu Dumas
counseled prudence. The burden of his plea was that if war
were indeed inevitable, it ought to be waged, but that it ought
not, by rash measures, to be made inevitable. What little
impression Dumas's warning may have produced was immedi
ately effaced by Vergniaud, who used all his eloquence to sup
port Brissot. "To arms! To arms!" he cried; "citizens, free
men, defend your liberty, assure liberty to mankind. It seems
to me," he declared, in closing his appeal, "as though the spirits
of past generations were filling the place, in order to adjure you
in the name of the evils which they suffered, to preserve future
generations whose destinies are in your hands. Answer that
prayer: be for the future a new providence; ally yourself with
the Eternal Justice which protects the French people. Then,
whfle deserving the title of benefactors of your country, you
1 Moniteur, January 19, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 241
will also deserve the title of benefactors of the human
race." '
These appeals to patriotism and promises of glory prevailed
over the warnings of caution; and after several days of further
discussion Brissot, supported by his friends,2 succeeded in get
ting the substance of his motion adopted.3 Although the time
aUowed the emperor for reply was extended to March 1, nothing
was said of an explanation, and the form of the communication
was unconciliatory enough to suit even Brissot's most radical
demands. It read: "The king shall be requested to declare to
the emperor that, unless he gives to the nation, before March 1,
full and entire satisfaction upon the points indicated above, his
silence, as well as any dilatory answer, will be regarded as a
declaration of war."
Meanwhile, at the Jacobin Club, too, as well as before the
Assembly, Brissot argued for war. The emperor, he asserted
again, was in a state of open hostility toward France, and it
was as much a matter of safety as of dignity to attack him, in
case he did not give them satisfaction. The discussion there
soon took the form of a personal quarrel between Robespierre
and Brissot. Robespierre accused Brissot of showing approval
of Lafayette, and Brissot denied that he had had anything to do
with Lafayette for months.4 After defending himself, he closed
his speech with an expression of regret that the differences of
opinion between patriots should injure the public welfare.5
Whereupon Dusaulx, seizing upon the last phrase, declared
that two such good patriots ought to love and esteem each
other, and proposed that they show their affection by embrac
ing each other. At this Brissot and Robespierre promptly flew
into each other's arms. This dramatic demonstration naturally
did not in the slightest degree change their respective opinions
1 Moniteur, January 20, 1792.
2 See speech of Isnard. Ibid., January 22, 1792.
3 IMd., January 26, 1792. See also Goetz-Bernstein, 84.
4 Aulard, Les JacoMns, ni, 331-34.
4 Troisieme discours de J. P. Brissot sur la nicessiii de la guerre, January 20,
1792. Ibid., m, 333.

242 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
in regard to the war, and within a week Robespierre made
another speech against it.1
The struggle likewise continued in the Assembly. The vic
tory which Brissot and the radical section of the diplomatic
committee had gained in the Assembly, their opponents did
not propose to regard as final. Koch, especially, persevered in
his efforts to bring the Assembly back to a moderate policy and
thus to avoid war. On February 1, apropos of a letter written
by the Emperor Leopold, he called attention to the fact that the
emperor in ordering an armament was only carrying out the
wiU of the Diet, and that that measure did not, or, at least,
need not necessarily imply the hostile intentions imputed to
it. "It is only just to the emperor to say," Koch declared,
"that, while the affair of the princes owning land in France was
discussed in the Diet, he played the role of a pacificator and
used aU his efforts to bring the matter to a peaceable settle
ment." France had, indeed, no need to fear its enemies, Koch
agreed, but it was wise not to seek to increase their number.2
The importance of Brissot's influence in these discussions is
evident from the bitterness of the attacks made upon him,
both from the counter-revolutionists and from the opponents
of the war. As an instance of the former may be cited a carica
ture announced by the Journal de la cour et de la ville, of Janu
ary 4, 1792, which represents a young man slipping up behind
an old gentleman who was walking in the Palais Royal and put
ting his hand into his pocket. The legend beneath read: "Bris
sot en mettant ses gands" [sic], a decided reflection on Brissot's
political, if not his personal, honesty. The most successful at
tack was that made by his fellow Jacobin, Camille Desmoulins,
in his Jean Pierre Brissot demasquk,3 which appeared in January,
1792. Indeed, this pamphlet is said to have made more stir
than any other one pamphlet published during the Revolu
tion.4 Its real cause was to be found in Brissot's growing popu-
1 Troisieme discours de Maximilien Robespierre sur la guerre January 26
1792. Ibid., in, 342.
2 Moniteur, February 2, 1792. 3 See p. 4, note.
4 QSuvres de Desmoulins, ed. by Claretie, i, 251.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 243
larity as a leader of the war party. Moreover, Desmoulins was
at this time on intimate terms with Robespierre and undoubt
edly wrote the pamphlet with the desire to support his friend
and possibly at his instigation.1 The occasion which called it
forth was a dispute concerning the laws against gambling.
Desmoulms, in the practice of his profession as a lawyer, had
been engaged to defend certain persons accused of keeping a
gambling-house. In spite of his efforts, his clients were con
victed and sent to prison. Whereupon he placarded Paris with
a complaint of the severity of the laws against gambling. Bris
sot was shocked at Desmoulins's apologies for gambling and
promptly denounced him through the columns of the Patriote
Frangais as an immoral person unworthy the name of patriot.2
To Brissot's denunciations Desmoulins replied by the pam
phlet, Jean Pierre Brissot demasque. Brissot had quite mis
understood his notice, Desmoulins declared. Its object was not
to attack the law itself, but only to warn the public against a
despotism of law as bad as a despotism of monarchy. After
thus briefly defending his own action, Desmoulins turned all
the force of his invective against his adversary. Indeed, his
real purpose was to assail, and, if possible, to destroy, Brissot's
reputation. His arraignment was an extremely clever piece of
work and showed great skiU in hitting upon Brissot's weakest
and most vulnerable points. Moreover, it was as cutting in
innuendo as in what it actuaUy said. There were many things,
Desmoulins began, in Brissot's past, which, in spite of his pre
tense of virtue, would not bear the light, and then he proceeded
to drag them out. He declared, for instance, on the authority
of Baron Grimm, that Brissot had been a police spy, under the
old regime, in the service of M. Lenoir at one hundred and fifty
francs a month.3 To acknowledge that Brissot was a rogue was,
1 Desmoulins's enmity toward Brissot dated from May, 1791, when he had
taken umbrage at the patronizing tone of an article in the Patriote Frangais.
For Desmoulins's reply see Claretie, Desmoulins, 178, note.
2 Patriote Frangais, January 12, 1792.
3 This pretended letter of Grimm to Volney is from Rivarol. It was pub
hshed first in the Actes des Apotres and was afterward reprinted by Barbier and

244 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
he declared, to give him too much credit for cleverness. " I wiU
not say that you are a Sinon who slipped in among the patriots
only to incite them to bad measures, who ranged himseU with
the Jacobins only to make a rear attack upon the strongest and
most clear-sighted defenders of hberty. I do not believe that
you are a traitor; that role is too odious, and you are not ca
pable of such crime." The harm which Brissot had done, Des
moulins continued, could be satisfactorily accounted for only
on the hypothesis of stupidity, and that was saying a good
deal, for notwithstanding the fine title of the Patriote Frangais,
Brissot alone had done more harm to the cause of patriotism
and the Revolution than had aU the aristocrats together. In
his excessive zeal, he had advocated reforms regardless of the
expediency of the moment, he had preached republicanism in
season and out of season, and finally, he had stirred up the
trouble which was devastating the colonies. The whole attack
did much to make Brissot ridiculous. It appears to have gone
practically unanswered.
The war question now entered a new phase, in which the
division in the diplomatic committee became more pronounced
and the debates more violent. On March 1, Delessart, the min
ister for foreign affairs, made a report to the Assembly of his
correspondence with the emperor's ministers.1 The moderate
tone of this report displeased the war party, whereupon they
demanded that the matter be referred for investigation to the
diplomatic committee. The failure of the committee to make
an immediate report aroused Brissot's indignation, and on
March 10 he registered a formal complaint before the Assem
bly, charging the diplomatic committee with being determined
by Malassis in Ecrits et pamphlets de Rivarol. V Intermidiare des chercheurs et
des curieux, January 25, 1891, xxiv, 61.
1 Moniteur, March 2, 1792. See also the Procis-verbaux of the diplomatic
committee (A. N. F7, 4395). On February 23 the minister for foreign affairs
had reported to the diplomatic committee that the attitude of foreign powers
toward France was one of hesitation; and on February 27 he reported that
the emperor had declared that it had never been his intention to sustain
the imigris.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 245
to let the Delessart affair drop. It was too dangerous a matter
to be passed over, he protested, and asked that time be reserved
for him that afternoon that he might himseU take up the accu
sation against Delessart. It does not appear to be without sig
nificance that this indignation of Brissot's found expression on
the very day after the king had dismissed Narbonne. Al
though, as has been pointed out, Brissot was in accord with
Narbonne in that they were both working for war,1 yet he seems
to have felt that Narbonne had stolen his powder, and in the
Patriote Frangais he criticized him severely and frequently. At
the same time he infinitely preferred Narbonne to the rest of
the ministry, who were under suspicion, and with good ground,
of being reactionary. The dismissal of Narbonne thus left the
Brissotins without support in the ministry. It was but natural,
therefore, that Brissot should seize the occasion of the dismissal
of one minister to help oust another, and so make way for an
enthely new ministry.
His frank avowal of difference of opinion within the diplo
matic committee on the Delessart affair provoked a heated dis
cussion. To the aspersions cast by Brissot on the committee
several members retorted that one of their number had already
been chosen to make the report; that the matter had been dis
cussed in at least four sessions of the committee; and further
more, that Brissot knew that to be the case.2 This assertion
Brissot met with violent protests, and after an excited debate
it was decreed that he be heard at two o'clock. His speech,
which was of great length, was devoted to a violent attack on
the emperor and a still more violent arraignment of Delessart.3
The foreign powers were hostile in interest if not in action, he
argued, and Delessart had concealed their real attitude from
the Assembly, and what was worse, he had carried on negotia
tions with them in a very different sphit from that intended by
1 Narbonne's policy was more moderate and his plans not so extensive.
See Sorel, n, 342. See also Glagau, 181. " Brissot und die Gironde wilnschten
den Krieg auf jeden Fall und sobaUl als thunlich; dagegen war Narbonne und
seine Freundschaft nicht so hitzig."
2 Moniteur, March 12, 1792. 3 Ibid.; also Prods-verbal, March 10, 1792.

246 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the Assembly. He could not plead ignorance, for U he had not
known how things stood, he had signaUy failed in his duty. On
the other hand, U he had known how things stood and failed to
report them, he was a traitor. The Assembly had thus wasted
valuable time when war ought long since to have been declared.
The emperor must be required to cease his machinations in
concert with the other powers against France, and Delessart
must be impeached.1 Brissot's object, then, was to establish a
charge of high treason against Delessart, based upon the minis
ter's aUeged betrayal of the interests of France, as revealed in
the dispatches between the Austrian minister for foreign affairs
and himseU. According to Von Sybel no speech was ever " more
malicious, violent, and devoid of argument," 2 for however much
Delessart, in his heart, may have been inclined to the Austrian
coalition, the notes in question contained what the National
Assembly had itseU decreed. On the other hand, although
Delessart may have stated to Austria the letter of the decrees
of the Assembly, there was evidence that he had misinterpreted,
whether consciously or unconsciously, their spirit. Ordinary
prudence, however, might well have suggested to Delessart the
wisdom of expressing the demands of the Assembly in terms of
more moderation. But whatever his motive, his action was
now branded by Brissot as a crime against the honor and safety
of the state.3
So great was the effect produced by Brissot's speech that a
motion was at once offered that Delessart be caUed immedi
ately to the bar to answer the accusations made against him.
To this extreme measure the more moderate deputies objected,
and a stormy discussion ensued between the war and the anti
war parties. Several members tried to speak at once, there was
1 It was not exactly impeachment in the usual sense of the term, for the
effect of the action of the Assembly was not to send the accused before an
upper house for trial, but to send him to the high national court at Orleans.
2 Von Sybel, French Revolution, I, 432.
' Glagau, 143-46. Goetz-Bernstein, 139, says: "C'est Brissot qui inaugura
avec suede la politique de violence, des procidis atroces et de ces dinonciations
calomnieuses dont il sera plus tard victime lui-mime."

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 247
a wild scramble for the tribune, and such an uproar that no one
could be heard. M. Becquet finaUy gained the attention of the
Assembly long enough to remind them that they had only
recently applauded some of the same communications of
M. Delessart which they now condemned, and that the diplo
matic committee had not felt and did not yet feel that it was
ready to report on the denunciation of M. Delessart.1 To this
Brissot retorted that all the members of the diplomatic commit
tee had declared their disapproval of Delessart. Hereupon
several of the members started up to protest, and one of them,
M. Jaucourt, succeeded in obtaining the floor. " The diplomatic
committee," he explained, "has often had reason to suspect
Delessart, but it had not been able to get proof. . . . Brissot,
who has constantly refused to communicate his accusation
to the committee — " He did not have a chance to complete
the sentence, for this last charge brought Brissot to his feet
with a prompt denial, and the lie was passed between them.
Guadet, Vergniaud, and Gensonne rushed to the support
of Brissot, while their antagonists pressed for adjournment.
The motion for adjournment failed; and, although the sug
gestion of calling Delessart to the bar immediately was
dropped, Brissot's motion for an impeachment was carried
by a large majority, and measures were ordered for putting
it in force.2
To read the arguments of Brissot, one would suppose that he
was influenced solely by motives of patriotism and disinterested
zeal; but, U Etienne Dumont is to be believed, Brissot, far from
being actuated by disinterested motives, had, for the purpose
of gaining control of the ministry, descended to an accusation
made in bad faith. "I heard this act," wrote Dumont, "con
taining seventeen or eighteen counts, read in the committee.
When alone with Brissot and Claviere I made some observa-
1 Moniteur, March 12, 1792.
2 The Patriote Frangais in its account of this debate is misleading. It even
makes the statement that in all the course of the discussion, lasting two hours,
not one word was said in favor of M. Delessart.

248 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
tions on the subject. I said the counts were many of them one
and the same thing; others so vague that it was impossible to
answer them; that they were generaUy artful, and calculated
to excite undue prejudice and violent animosity against the
accused; that some of them were contradictory; and that per
sonal invective ought to be carefully avoided in a criminal
accusation, etc. I have forgotten what else I said; but U, upon
the whole, I was displeased with this document, I was indig
nant at Brissot's reply. Laughing at my simplicity, he said in
a tone of disgusting levity: 'It is a necessary party maneuver.
Delessart must positively go to Orleans, otherwise the king,
who is attached to him, would replace 1 him in the administra
tion. We must steal a march upon the Jacobins, and this act
of impeachment gives us the merit of having done that which
they would themselves do. This is so much taken from them.
I know that the counts are multiplied without necessity, but
the object of this is to lengthen the proceedings. Garan de
Coulon, who is at the head of the high national court, is a nice
observer of legal forms; he will proceed methodicaUy in the
examination of each separate count, and six months wUl elapse
before Delessart will be able to get rid of the affair. I know that
he wfll be acquitted, because there is no evidence against him;
but we shaU have gained our object by preventing his return to
office.' 'Good God!' I exclaimed, confounded at such odious
principles, 'are you so deep in party Machiavelism? Are you
the man whom I once knew so decided an enemy to subterfuge?
Is it Brissot who now persecutes an innocent man !'...' But,'
he replied, disconcerted, 'you are not aware of our situation.
Delessart's administration would destroy us, and we must get
rid of him at any price. It is only a temporary measure. I know
Garan's integrity and Delessart will come to no harm. But we
must save the country, and we cannot overcome the Austrian
cabinet unless the minister for foreign affairs be a man on whom
we can depend. Nevertheless, I will attend to your observa-
1 Replace is evidently used here to mean that the king would retain Delessart
in his position.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 249
tions, and strike out the terms of invective to which you so
properly object.' " 1
In considering this charge against Brissot, it is to be taken
into account that Dumont wrote his Souvenirs in 1799, some
years after the incident in question. On the other hand, the
minuteness and the character of the details are presumptive
evidence of their truth. Moreover, the coincidence of the date
of the fall of the Narbonne ministry and the accusations against
Delessart suggests, as remarked above, an adequate motive for
intrigues on Brissot's part to get control of the ministry and
gives color to the charge of interested motives, if not of abso
lute bad faith.
Whatever his motive, Brissot succeeded in carrying his point,
and on March 14 his draft of articles of impeachment against
Delessart was accepted.2 He immediately followed it up by a
demand that Delessart be required to submit to the diplomatic
committee all his correspondence with the envoys of France at
foreign courts.3 Such a demand shocked the conservatives,
who pointed out the danger of making public negotiations
regarding delicate international questions which might still be
adjusted peaceably if only they were kept secret. Moreover, it
would be, they declared, a violation of the constitution. To
these warnings Brissot refused to listen; and, supported by
Mailhe, who amended the original motion so as to include the
foreign correspondence from May 1, 1789, he got his motion
passed. Whatever was the conscious motive of Brissot in assailing
Delessart, the decree against the latter was followed by an
entire change of ministry. The new ministry, in the appoint
ment of which Brissot had considerable influence';4 included
Dumouriez, Roland, and CJaviere, and was afterward known
as the first Girondin ministry. It might better be called the
Brissotin ministry. With Dumouriez in charge of foreign
1 Dumont, Souvenirs, 378-80, given as translated in Recollections of Mira
beau, 310-12.
2 Moniteur, March 15, 1792. 8 Ibid. 4 See p. 262.

250 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
affairs, Brissot and his friends had an active ally. Their com
mon policy was to make war upon Austria, U possible by an
aUiance with other powers, but at all events war upon Austria.
Their hopes were for an alliance with England and Prussia.
Indeed, they had already secured the appointment of a com
mission to negotiate with England.1 Talleyrand was so obvi
ously the most capable man for the place that the Girondins,
in spite of some prejudice against him, consented to his appoint
ment, while Chauvelin 2 was made nominal head of the com
mission and Duroveray,3 who was in special favor with the
Girondins, was added to the legation with the title of coun
sel.4 As the price of the aUiance, Tobago was to be suggested,
and U that were not sufficiently aUuring, the lie de France and
the lie de Bourbon. It was even hinted by the enemies of the
Girondins that they would not stop at the surrender of fortified
places, or even at the suggestion of a possible change of dynasty
in France.5 At the same time Segur and a subordinate agent,
Jarry, were dispatched to Berlin on a like errand.6 This pro
posed alliance Brissot not only furthered tlirough his influence
with the ministry, but also supported in his newspaper, noting
with approval Condorcet's argument that France and Prussia
had in common hatred of Austria; and France and England,
the liberty of the sea.7 Despite their efforts, however, these
attempts at alliance came to naught.
1 See p. 235.
2 Chauvelin, Frangois, Marquis de (born 1766, died 1812). Master of the
wardrobe under Louis XVI, aide-de-camp of Rochambeau in the war of the
American Revolution. He was imprisoned during the Terror and released after
Thermidor. 8 Duroveray, procureur-giniral at Geneva, was banished in 1782. Later he
was one of that group of men attached to Mirabeau, who helped him prepare
his speeches.
4 Dumont, Souvenirs, 419-20.
« Sorel, V Europe et la rholution frangaise, n, 336. Sorel quotes Morris,
Pellenc d Le Marck, Liouzon de Duc. See also Seconde annexe d la dipeche du
Comte de Mercy en date du 14 Janvier, 1792, probably from Pellenc, in Feuillet
de Conche, v, 124-26. Feuillet de Conche's work is, however, not to be imphc
itly rehed upon. See also Goetz-Bernstein, 106-07, and note
• Goetz-Bernstein, 113-15.
7 Patriote Frangais, January 22, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 251
Dumouriez, meanwhile, proceeded on the assumption that
war with Austria was inevitable, and in his negotiations and in
his instructions to the army did all in his power to make it so.
On April 18 and 19, he communicated to the Assembly the dis
patches of Noailles, the French minister at the court of
Vienna; 1 and on Aprfl 20 he induced the king himseU to come
down to the Assembly and ask for a declaration of war. In
spite of the efforts of Becquet, who made one last attempt to
open the eyes of the Assembly to the perils into which they
were so heedlessly rushing, Girondin influence prevailed and
the decree for war was carried with but seven dissenting
voices.2 In summing up this war pohcy of Brissot's two interesting
questions present themselves: First, how far was it a Girondin
policy? That is to say, was Brissot well supported? Were the
other members of the group as eager for war as he? Second,
what were theh motives in adopting this policy? Was it with
the idea of overthrowing the king and estabhshing a republic?
First, as to the policy itseU. Has the belligerency of the
Girondins as a whole been exaggerated? Some of their speeches
certainly sounded belUgerent enough — such, for instance, as
the oratorical outburst of Isnard, quoted above, when he de
clared that the French people, having once "cast the scabbard
behind them, would sheathe the sword again only when they
returned crowned with the laurels of victory," and that if, in
spite of their strength and courage they should be vanquished
in the defense of liberty, their enemies would reign only over
corpses; 3 or Louvet's proposition that their mission was to sur
round the castle with bayonets and place the declaration of
rights in the cottage.4 The point is to know whether, when it
came to tangible measures, they were as ready to take drastic
action. The evidence would seem to show that they were.
Isnard certainly was eager enough in his support of Brissot's
demand that the foreign princes be called to account for harbor-
1 Moniteur, April 20, 1792. 2 IMd., April 22, 1792.
3 See p. 230. 4 See p. 235.

252 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
ing the imigrSs. He would not only demand an explanation,
but would proceed to make war upon the emigre's, even though
they themselves had no intention of attacking France. That
their gathering on the border was a drain upon the treasury
and a menace to the peace of the country was enough to pro
voke hostilities.1 On the 5th of January he again argued vehe
mently for war, declaring that it was indispensable; 2 and on the
20th of January he approved Brissot's demand for an immedi
ate response from the emperor, but would go even further and
require the emperor to withdraw his troops and to reduce their
numbers in Belgium to that number agreed on in the treaty
arrangements.3 Louvet, too, was eager for rigorous measures
against the emigres, while Vergniaud, like Isnard, would go
even beyond Brissot. In the first place, he was for more severe
measures than Brissot in regard to the emigrSs in general, and
when it concerned the action to be taken with regard to the
emperor, he not only upheld Brissot's demand for an immediate
response in opposition to the milder requests of the committee,
but had the audacity to suggest that the emperor should
be requested to forbid the white cockade in his states, and
extradite such of the SmigrSs as were fugitives from jus
tice.4 Even Brissot, in his wildest moments, hardly went as
far as this.
Gensonne" and Guadet also constantly supported Brissot,
though they were more moderate than he. Guadet, for exam
ple, when in December it was a question of taking immediate
action against the emigres, suggested that the decree be put off,
since the former decree against the emigres gave them till Jan
uary 1 to cease theh hostUe manifestation; and Gensonnd,
while arguing that all haste be made in preparing for war, at
the same time urged as a motive that this was the best way to
secure peace.5 In view also of the speeches in favor of war by
1 Moniteur, December 1, 1791. 2 Ibid., January 6, 1792.
3 Ibid., January 22, 1792. 4 Ibid., January 20, 1792.
6 Ibid., December 28, 1791.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 253
Manuel,1 Roederer,2 Bangal,3 and Cloots,4 it cannot be asserted
that there was any lack of belligerency among the Girondins
and Girondin sympathizers, though it is perhaps safe to say
that — with the exception of Vergniaud, Louvet, Isnard, and
Brissot himseU — their emphasis was not so much on war alone,
as on war as a means of peace.
This matter of motive suggests the second question: Did the
Girondins hope by means of the war to overthrow the king and
to establish a republic? The question is somewhat difficult to
answer, for after the republic was once established, they were
naturaUy anxious, in the face of suspicion of royalism, to date
their republicanism as far back as they possibly could, and to
claim that the desire to overthrow the monarchy and to estab
lish a republic had long been the impeUing motive of their
policy. An assertion of Brissot's, for example, that without the
war France would not be a republic,5 appears at first sight to be
sigruficant, but this was made September 22, 1792, after the
war was declared and the republic established, and does not
necessarily imply that when he urged the war it was with the
direct intention of overthrowing the monarchy. What is of
importance is whether the arguments which he and the other
Girondins advanced before the war was declared, were at all of
this character.
' Manuel, Pierre Louis (born 1751). He was a member of the municipality,
an orator of the Jacobins, an administrator of pohce, procureur of the Commune,
and member of the Convention. He was guillotined in 1793.
2 Roederer, Le Comte Pierre Louis. He was a member of the Constituent
Assembly, and procureur syndic of the Department of the Seine. On the 20th
of June, 1792, he warned the Assembly of the approach of the mob, and on the
10th of August protected the royal family. After the 31st of May, 1793, he
retired, only to appear after Thermidor. He died in 1835.
3 See p. 121.
4 Cloots, Jean Baptiste du Val-de-Grace, called Anacharsis. He was born
in 1755 near Cleves, but made France his adopted country. Before 1789 he
journeyed about Europe proclaiming philanthropic principles and called him
self the "orator of the human race." Made a French citizen by the Legislative
Assembly, he was elected to the Convention, where he continued to preach his
propaganda of a universal republic. He was guillotined with the Hebartists in
1794. 6 Patriote Frangais, September 22, 1792.

254 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
They were certainly accused at this time of republicanism,
and considering the connection of Brissot, the leader of the war
party, with the republican movement of the summer before,
it is not to be wondered at. This accusation Brissot denied, and
in his speech before the Jacobins on December 16 declared that
republicanism was only a chimera brought out by the moder
ates to frighten worthy patriots, while the Patriote Frangais of
December 6 published an article by Condorcet, which asserted
that such calumnies were reiterated by newspapers in the pay
of the ministers. At the same time, Condorcet plainly showed
at least republican tendencies. "A true republican," he de
clared, "knew how to await under a constitutional monarchy
the slow and sure effects of reason." " Every one who reflects,"
asserted a third member of the war faction, "knows that it is
by no means to establish in all completeness the old regime nor
on the other hand to establish a republican government that
we are ready to fight." It is simply a question whether consti
tutional equality shaU or shall not be established in France.1
This, indeed, was the motive most frequently adduced for the
war — that France might preserve the liberty already won.2
What business, it was asked, had the emperor to interfere in
the internal affairs of France? 3 Such interference was not to be
tolerated. The country must rise in seU-defense.4 "It is neces
sary, then," declared Brissot on January 17, 1792, "to go
straight to the point and say to the emperor: 'It is our consti
tution which you regard with horror, it is this which you want
to destroy. Either give up the idea or prepare for war.'" 5 It
is to be observed, however, that it was the constitution as
embodying opposition to the old regime, rather than as a per
fect and final form of government, that Brissot was ready to
defend so valiantly. For, at the same time that he was working
with aU his might to stir up foreign war in defense of the con
stitution, he was vigorously criticizing the party within the
1 Moniteur, January 6, 1792. 2 Ibid., December 30, 1791.
3 Ibid., January 19, 1792. 4 Patriote Frangais, December 28, 1791.
6 Moniteur, January 19, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 255
country which stood for "the constitution, the whole constitu
tion, and nothing but the constitution." x He was not prepared,
however, to go further and actually assail it as a whole.
What the Girondins did do was to assail the working of the
constitution, as far as it concerned the executive power, and to
pursue with constancy and determination the king's ministers.
"The organization of the executive power," declared an article
in the Patriote Frangais of November 14, 1791, "is the cause
of all the disorders which affect the realm. The audacity of
the seditious priests, the inertia of the courts, the apathy of the
administrative corps, the insolent pretensions of the colonists,
the malevolence of foreign powers, the twitchings, the convul
sions, the agonies of the body politic, all these disasters are the
necessary result of the criminal struggle of the executive power
agamst the general wiU." 2 And on March 6, 1792, Isnard
declared that the powerlessness of the executive was simply the
result of its ill-wiU, and demanded an inquiry as to whether
the ministers had done all that they ought to have done, all
that they could have done, for the execution of the law.3
Nor did the Girondins stop with the king's ministers. Hav
ing attacked them, they proceeded with all their might to dis
credit the king himself. Brissot had declared, it will be remem
bered, apropos of Louis's note to the Elector of Treves, that
the king did not understand his constitutional position when he
wrote that he would regard him as an enemy, instead of saying
that the nation would so regard him.4 Brissot's severe denun
ciation of the king for having vetoed the decree against the
emigres wfll also be remembered.6 But not only had the king
opposed the formal decree against the emigres, declared the
Girondins, he was actually protecting them, he had not taken
prompt steps against their assembled hordes, and when he had
acted he had not been in earnest; moreover, the emigres knew
it and were proceeding on the assumption that they might go
to any length, assured that whatever steps the nation might
1 Patriote Frangais, December 28, 1791. 2 Ibid., November 14, 1791.
8 Ibid., March 7, 1792. 4 See p. 236. 6 See p. 230.

256 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
take against them would be nullified by the king.1 The center
of the counter-revolution was obviously among these emigre
gatherings on the frontier, and the way to strike down the
counter-revolution at a single blow was to make war on the
emigres.2 The king might say that he wanted war, but such
assertions were all pretense.3 But whether he wanted it or not
it should be declared. Whereat it was naturally retorted that
there was certainly great risk in making war under a king who
was really not in sympathy with it, and the danger was sug
gested that he might thus secure the opportunity of winning
the army to his cause. At this danger Brissot scouted. There
was not the slightest risk, he asserted, that a successful war
would see the king at the head of a powerful army seizing his
ancient crown. It is to be observed, however, that Brissot's
assurance that such a thing could not happen was based, not
on the virtue of the king, but on the incorruptibflity of the
soldiers. In fact, Brissot declared on one occasion that treason
was reaUy to be desired as a means of getting rid of the poison.4
The above remark was not made in immediate connection with
the king, but as Brissot had in previous utterances declared him
to be hand in glove with the Emigres, and the center of the
counter-revolution, he evidently beheved him capable of trea
son. And when war was finally declared, he asserted that it
alone would show who were the friends and who were the ene
mies of the Revolution, strengthen liberty, and unmask the
perfidy of the court.6
The above criticism does not prove a deliberate plan to over
throw monarchy and establish a repubhc; it does show, how
ever, that the Girondins did not hesitate before the possibility
of such a result; that they had no abiding devotion to the
constitution; and that U they were not ready to overthrow
the monarchy, they were at least willing to go to the farthest
1 Patriote Frangais, November 16 and 21, 1791; January 3, 1792; Moniteur,
December 30, 1791.
2 Patriote Frangais, December 20, 1791.
3 Speech of Brissot at the Jacobin Club, January 20, 1792.
4 Brissot's speech of December 30, 1791. 6 Dumas, Souvenirs, 412

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 257
extent in discreditmg it. But it is to be noted that after getting
control of the ministry, they had less to say about the inef
ficiency of the executive, though this may be accounted for in
part by the fact that they were not making so many speeches,
but devoting themselves more to active preparation for war.
That Brissot himseU did not take an active part in the final
debate does not alter the fact that the war was in a large meas
ure his work. He had written and argued and toiled in its be
haU, and he could justly look upon it as the fulfiUment of his
efforts as leader of the war party. It was to him "a war of the
human race against its oppressors . . . the most just, the most
glorious war that had ever been known." x He little dreamed
that he had precipitated a conflict that was to drench all Eu
rope with blood and leave France with narrowed boundaries
and exhausted in strength and resources. In one sense it was,
as he regarded it, the crowning point of his diplomatic career,
but in its advocacy he had shown himself, both as an editor
and as a legislator, impractical, extreme, and undiplomatic,
and had helped to bring about conditions which were later to
cause his own downfaU.
1 Patriote Frangais, April 21, 1792. Dumont, Souvenirs, 411, says: "Brissot
HaU si violent que je lui ai entendu proposer de diguiser quelques soldats en hou-
lans autrichiens, et de leur faire faire une attaque nocturne sur quelques villages
frangais; d cette nouvelle, on aurait fait une motion d VAssembUe Ugislative, et on
aurait emporti a un decret de guerre I'enthousiasme. Sije n'en avals pas Hi Umoin,
je ne le croirais pas."

CHAPTER X
BRISSOT AS A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Past II
His Interests and Influence
The period of the Legislative Assembly is notable in the
history of the French Revolution for two things : the beginning
of a momentous foreign war and for what was in a large part
the outcome of that war — the overthrow of the monarchy.
The work, however, which the Assembly was called into being
to do, was simply to legislate for France, not to change its gov
ernment. Indeed, any constitutional change whatever was
declared to be strictly outside its province. But despite the
formal agreement of all parties to accept the constitution, there
were many who, while throwing themselves heartily into the
legislative work of the Assembly, were not at all disposed to
regard the constitutional monarchy as final, and who came
to work more or less consistently for its overthrow, and for the
establishment of a democratic republic. Prominent among this
number was Brissot. A study, then, of his activities during the
Legislative Assembly, aside from his leadership of the war
party, involves a consideration of his participation in the con
stitutional legislation of the Assembly and also in the destruc
tion of the monarchy. The Assembly had no sooner met than
it was called upon to wrestle with knotty problems. Negroes
and mulattoes were in revolt, the finances were disordered, and
large numbers of priests were in a state of defiance and rebel
lion. The treatment of the negroes and mulattoes, together
with the heated controversy concerning the jurisdiction of the
Legislative Assembly over the colonies, has already been con
sidered in connection with Brissot's work as a humanitarian.
It remains to consider his attitude toward the other problems.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 259
The financial problem, unlike the colonial question, was
clearly within the province of the Assembly, and the existing
situation demanded that immediate attention be given to it.
The assignats already issued had depreciated in value, the
sale of church lands had not produced the amount confidently
expected, and the government was in dire straits for the where
withal to pay its debts and even to carry on the administration.
Another issue of assignats was therefore proposed. This pro
position Brissot did not support with his former zeal, and the
Patriote Frangais, whfle protesting belief in the principle in
volved, urged that it be not carried too far in practice. On
November 8, Brissot made a speech before the National As
sembly, of note on account both of its growing sphit of caution
and of its democratic tendency. It would be most imprudent,
he declared, for the government to plunge into further issues
before ascertaining, on the one hand, the amount of the existing
debt, and on the other, the value of the national property, on
the security of which the assignats were issued. The govern
ment, he continued, should take into consideration the needs of
different classes of its creditors, and give the preference to the
claims arising from the smaller and less important of the sup
pressed offices and privileges, such as would come in general
from the artisan class. As a further means of aiding the poor,
he asked that the new issue include assignats of small denom
inations.1 In the latter contention he was successful, as the
value of the small assignats to the rich as well as to the poor
was generaUy evident, but his plan for the temporary suspen
sion of aU payments over the sum of three thousand francs was
voted down.2
Whfle struggling with financial difficulties, the Assembly had
also to deal with the problem of the non-juring priests. This
refusal to take the oath to the civil constitution was regarded
1 Discours sur la necessiti de suspendre momentaniment U paiement des liqui
dations au-dessus de 3,000 I., avant d'imettre de nouveaux assignats et sur les
finances en giniral, prononci & VAssembUe nationale dans la siance du 24 no-
vembre, 1791.
2 See Gomel, Histoire financiere de la Legislative, I, 66-67.

260 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
as seditious, and a law was therefore proposed, the purpose of
which was to throw upon them the responsibihty for any dis
turbance arising from the discussion of religious questions. In
the debates on this law, Brissot took an active and able part.
The larger question of liberty of the press was involved, he
maintained, and there was grave danger that in trying to re
strain the seditious priests, they restrict freedom in general. To
denounce, for instance, a priest for having "disturbed the pub
lic order " was to check legitimate criticism and to open the way
to serious limitations of freedom. Only for having expressly
provoked disobedience to the laws could a man be justly held
accountable. Brissot also objected to the further provision,
that, U the actions, speeches, or writings of an ecclesiastic gave
rise to murder, fire, or pUlage, he could be prosecuted. Such
prosecution was justified, he contended, only U an immediate
connection could be traced. In taking this stand, Brissot ap
pears to have been moved only by a deshe for legal justice, not
by any sympathy for the non-juring priests, as such. The
Patriote Frangais was most rigorous in its attitude toward them,
and there is every reason to believe that Brissot's newspaper,
although for the time being not under his immediate dhection,
continued to represent his views.
Thus, on November 15, the Patriote Frangais commended
Isnard's argument for the banishment of the priests and on the
30th of November heartUy approved of the decree just passed,
compeUing the priests to take the oath immediately or run the
risk of expulsion from the department in which they were
resident. In taking this stand the paper was arguing on the
assumption that the one important thing was to secure peace
to the state and success to the Revolution, and that the reli
gious scruples of the non-juring priests were only a pretext un
worthy of consideration. "The troubles to which the seditious
priests made France a prey," the Patriote Frangais declared,
"are not religious troubles, they are civil dissensions. It is
not a question of quarreling over dogma or even theology. . . .
We have adopted unity of government; they (the non-juring

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 261
priests) admit the existence of two authorities, we detest that
division; we recognize the sovereignty of the people; they
prostrate themselves before a higher sovereign." x But what
ever the legislators and the press might say to the contrary,
it was a matter both of religion and theology, and the demand
of aUegiance to the civil constitution of the clergy was a blow
at the heart of the orthodox Catholic and a riding rough-shod
over the cherished behef s of centuries.
Besides his direct influence as a member of the Assembly,
Brissot soon had the opportunity to exercise an indirect, but
none the less important, influence on the progress of the Rev
olution through the Girondin ministry. As has been seen, he,
in company with the other Girondins, had disapproved most
cordially of Narbonne, not so much because of his war policy
as because he had stolen their powder; and, by theh constant
criticism of his ministry, in which the Patriote Frangais was
especially outspoken, had hastened his downfall. Brissot's
precipitate attack on Delessart had further cleared the way,
and, moreover, its success revealed the extent of the Girondin
influence. As Dumont says, they were considered all powerful,2
and the king, perhaps because he feared theh power and saw
no other way to help himseU, called them to office.3
Not only in bringing about the appointment of a new minis
try, but also in determining its personnel the leading Girondins
had considerable influence, for the king, havhig called De Graves
to Narbonne 's place as minister of war, invited him to complete
the ministry and De Graves turned to the party for advice.4
Advice was precisely what they were delighted to give, and
there was much running about and excited consultation. They
were accustomed to meet frequently at the apartments of
Vergniaud at political dinners, and it was there that the dis-
1 Patriote Frangais, December 28, 1791.
2 Dumont, Souvenirs, 381.
3 " About the time that the king began to negotiate with the leaders of the
Gironde an acute observer noticed that Brissot's Patriote Frangais adopted
a more kindly tone in speaking of the queen." Clapham, 181.
1 Dumont, Souvenirs, 381.

262 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
cussion centered. In aU of this discussion Brissot was especially
active. That his influence was regarded as important is evident
from the fact that his advice was sought directly by De Graves
and that to him was attributed Dumouriez's appointment.1 It
is to be noted, however, that this assertion was made a year
later at the height of the attack of the Mountain on the Giron
dins, when it was to the interest of the former to make the
Girondins responsible for Dumouriez's treason. Under such
chcumstances, it is not to be wondered at that Brissot denied
that he had had any part in making Dumouriez minister. The
fact remains, however, that they were closely in sympathy, on
account of theh common enthusiasm for war with Austria, and
that Brissot in the Patriote Frangais spoke with enthusiasm of
his appointment. A special obligation existed on Brissot's part
toward Dumouriez U it is true, as reported, that it was on in
formation furnished by Dumouriez that Brissot founded his
report against Delessart.2
Whatever may be Brissot's share of responsibflity for Du
mouriez, it is significant that two at least of the new ministers
were Brissot's close personal friends — Claviere and Roland.
His long-standing friendship with Claviere, their collaboration
with Mirabeau, their association in the production of works on
America, and in the editorship of the Chronique du Mois, had
given Brissot a high idea of the talents of Claviere and espe
cially of his ability as a financier, and there is no doubt that he
used aU his influence in his behaU.3 He had also been on terms
of intimacy with the Rolands and was one of the most frequent
visitors at Madame Roland's salon. It does not appear, how
ever, that the first mention of Roland for minister of the interior
was due to Brissot. It was suggested at one of the dinners at
Vergniaud's by some one else — Madame Roland herself says
1 Moniteur, April 6, 1793.
2 Masson, Le Dipartement des affaires Hrangires, 146.
3 On the 22d of March, 1792, before the list of ministers was announced,
Brissot took occasion in the Patriote Frangais to refer to Claviere as a person
already talked of for the position of minister of finance, and two days later
loudly praised his nomination.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 263
she does not know by whom. 1 But whoever made the first sugges
tion, it was Brissot who took up the matter with enthusiasm
and who, on the 21st of March, presented himself at the home
of the Rolands with a definite proposition. It is perhaps signi
ficant of the influence of Madame Roland that Brissot made his
proposition to her rather than to Monsieur Roland himself.
At all events Madame Roland replied, with becoming modesty,
that while Roland appreciated the difficulties and even the
dangers of the task, he felt that his zeal was equal to the re
sponsibility, and that at least they would consider the matter.
The next day Roland definitely accepted the position of min
ister of the interior.2 This position, according to Brissot, was
especiaUy delicate and difficult; it was, therefore, a source of
satisfaction to the friends of liberty to see it confided to firm
and pure hands.3 Brissot's confidence was not altogether
shared by the critics of the Girondins, especiaUy as Roland was
a comparatively unknown man and Brissot's influence over
him was evidently feared. Brissot himself, in announcing the
new ministry in the Patriote Frangais of the 20th of November,
had felt obliged to explain who Roland was.
Not content with having established their own adherents in
the ministry, the Girondins wanted to oust De Graves. Their
choice of a substitute, according to Dumont, who was con
sulted by Brissot on the subject, was Du ChasteUet. Such a
choice, as Dumont points out, showed a supreme lack of deli
cacy, as it involved placing among the king's responsible ad
visers a man who had signed the first proclamation in favor of
a republic.4 The unfitness of Du ChasteUet seems to have been
generally recognized and the plan feU through.
1 Madame Roland, Mimoires, I, 67, 243. See also Perroud in Lettres de
Madame Roland, n, 398.
2 Madame Roland, Mimoires, I, 67-68.
3 "Brissot observa que le department de I'interieur Hait U plus dilicat el le
plus chargi dans Us circonstances et que c'itait un repos d 'esprit pour les amis
de la.liberti que de le voir confii d des mains firmes et pures." Madame Roland,
Memoires, i, 23].
4 Dumont, Souvenirs, 385.

264 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Its failure did not deter Brissot, however, from attempting
to exercise control over the affahs of the new ministry. He
seems first to have undertaken to assist Dumouriez in reform
ing the foreign office, and to have egged him on to the dismis
sal of several of the heads of departments . One of the dismissed
men, Hennin, afterward wrote with great bitterness of Brissot's
influence in this matter, charging that it was due to him that
a commission was appointed to examine their papers with the
hope of finding something reprehensible; and that Brissot was
moved thereto, not by zeal for official purity, but by an unholy
desire to get vacant places at his disposal.1 He had a part,
moreover, as has been seen, in the appointment of the special
embassy, sent to secure English alliance — being responsible
especiaUy for getting Duroveray attached to the embassy.2 In
one instance, at least, his zeal outran his discretion, when he
tried to persuade Dumouriez to give a diplomatic appointment
to Robert. Robert, Brissot urged, was a true friend of the
Revolution, and an ardent patriot. To this Dumouriez re
plied that Robert was unsuited for the position, because of lack
of dignity in personal appearance. To use Dumouriez's own
language, he was as broad as he was high, and he (Dumouriez)
would not disgrace himself by sending anywhere such a little
runt. To this objection Brissot could only reiterate that
"Robert had an excellent honest heart," but when Dumouriez
told him that what Robert aimed at was the ambassadorship
to Constantinople, he owned that he had not realized the extent
of Robert's pretensions and admitted that Dumouriez was
right in his refusal. Through this incident Brissot learned some
thing of the trials of a man thought to possess influence, for he
had to face an attack from Robert, who charged him with bad
faith in failing to keep a promise of assistance.3
In another important instance Brissot and his friends at-
1 Masson, Le Dipartement des affaires Hrangires pendant la rivolution, 148,
where the complaint of Hennin to the ministry dated 6th Thermidor, year V,
is quoted. The length of time that elapsed may affect the validity of the
testimony. 2 See pp. 235, 250. 8 Madame Roland, Mimoires, n, 176-78.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 265
tempted to dictate to Dumouriez. This was in demanding the
dismissal of Bonne-Carrere, whom Dumouriez had established
as chief director in the department of foreign affairs. Reports
had been spread abroad concerning a large sum of money, of
which Bonne-Carrere was in possession, and which pointed to
corruption in his office. On the basis of this report Gensonne,
Roland, and Brissot tried to induce Dumouriez to dismiss
Bonne-Carrere, on the ground that the enthe ministry would
suffer in reputation. But Dumouriez was obstinate, and not
only refused, but also seemed to have taken lasting offense at
such interference.1
Over Roland the Girondin influence was greater and more
lasting. In the case of Brissot, indeed, it seems to have been
not mere influence but actual dictation. That he was recog
nized as a power behind the ministry as a whole, there is no
doubt. Peltier says Brissot reigned for three months,2 and ac
cording to Dumont he enjoyed so great an influence that it
turned his head; "he no longer spoke but in oracles, and could
not bear contradiction." 3
The responsibility which Brissot felt for the government,
especially after the war had begun, also affected his policy.
His attitude on the subject of discipline in the army, for ex
ample, was entirely changed. Not many months before, he had
declared that a thorough gradation in rank was unnecessary,
that much discipline was superfluous, and that under certain
conditions soldiers might even argue with their superiors.4 But
now, when the subject was discussed he spoke after an entirely
different fashion. "What," he asked, "is the first means by
which liberty can be made to triumph over the coalition of
slaves armed against it? It is discipline. What is the second
means? It is discipline. What is the third? It is discipline." 5
Again, when the subject of providing for war expenses was dis
cussed, he gave his cordial support to Vergniaud in favor of a
1 Madame Roland, Mimoires, I, 247-48.
2 Peltier, Histoire du 10 aout, i, 63. 3 Dumont, Souvenirs, 404.
4 Patriote Frangais, April 22, 1791. See p. 158. 6 Ibid., June 3, 1792.

266 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
grant of six millions to be used for the expenses of the depart
ment of foreign affahs, and denounced as unworthy the objec
tion that such a sum might be misused — an objection which,
had Brissot been in the opposition, he would surely have made
himseU.1 The commanding influence which he was felt to exert nat
urally made him the subject of attacks from aU sides. That
he was inconsistent for one thing did not escape his opponents.
They seized upon various evidences of it and made them the
basis of many an arraignment. Radical theories propounded
by him in his early youth, chance remarks showing possible
sympathy with the government of the old regime, his present
connection with a government which he had formerly assailed,
were aU seized upon as proofs that he was a man unworthy of
confidence and open to suspicion of treason to the cause of the
Revolution. One of the most bitter of these assaults was made through the
columns of the Journal de Paris. The writer, evidently taking
advantage of the fear that the attack on the status of the mulat
toes might lead to an attack on slavery itself, seized upon the
occasion to warn the public that it needed to be upon its guard
against those who would assail the sacred right of property,
notably against Brissot. That Brissot was especially dangerous
was evident, he declared, from his early writings, and in proof
of his assertions he proceeded to quote from Brissot's Recher
ches philosophiques sur la propriety et le vol.2 Moreover, any
man who talked as Brissot did about the "odious distinctions
between rich and poor" was to be regarded with suspicion.
To this attack Brissot responded promptly and with spirit.3
The rascality of the writer, he declared, was only too evident,
and showed itseU in four ways: (1) by applying to a civil state
what he had said of a state of nature; (2) by leaving out, or
changing, the meaning of citations which showed that far
from justUying theft, he condemned it; (3) by arguing from a
1 Patriate Frangais, March 16, 1792. 2 See p. 7.
3 Patriote Frangais, March 8, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 267
pamphlet printed in 1778,1 and little known, that in 1792 he
wished to overturn society; (4) by printing this article at a
moment when evil-intentioned persons were alarming the
French people about an aUeged attack on the rights of prop
erty. His real position, Brissot declared, was evident from
such a citation as this — a citation in which, by the way, he
frankly admitted that he did not consider property a natural
right. "Doubtless it is necessary that he who has worked en
joy the fruit of his work; without that reward for the cultivator,
no harvests, no wealth, no commerce. Let us then defend and
protect civil property, but let us not say it is founded in nat
ural rights: under the pretext that it is a sacred right let us
not outrage nature; let us not punish thieves so cruelly." In
concluding his defense, Brissot declared with some venom that
such articles as he was answering emanated from opponents
of the Revolution and were paid for by the agents of the
executive power.
This last shot naturaUy drew fire. His antagonist hotly
denied that he had received any money from the executive
power; reiterated his charge that Brissot did mean his observa
tions on property to apply to the civil state; pointed out that
Brissot contradicted himseU as to the date of the publication
of his pamphlet on theft, having said in one place that it ap
peared in 1778, and in another in 1780; declared that in any
case the pamphlet was not the work of Brissot's early youth,
as in 1778 to 1780 he must have been from thirty-four to
thirty-six years of age,2 and closed by answering Brissot's
complaint that the anonymous writer had chosen a time of
alarm for property rights to make his attack by the pertinent
query: "In the name of Heaven, M. Brissot, at what time,
then, would you invoke the respect due to property?" 3
Before this controversy was closed, Brissot was assailed on
1 Brissot in his address had given the date 1778. In this he was mistaken;
1780 was the correct date.
2 In this he was mistaken. Brissot was born in 1754.
3 Journal de Paris, March 16, 1792.

268 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the opposite side, on this occasion not for being too revolu
tionary, but for not being revolutionary enough. In the issue
of March 13 of the Journal de Paris a writer who signed him
seU "F. D. P." aUeged that Brissot in an essay crowned by
the Academy of Chalons, in 1780, had shown himseU to be the
toady of the ministry, the apologist of the police, the friend of
kings in general, and of Louis XVI in particular, and above
all, the enemy of revolution. These allegations Brissot promptly
and hotly denied, at the same time defying the writer to sign
his name and to furnish proof of his insinuations that he had
been in the service of the police.1 In response the writer, who
proved to be Pange,2 accepted the defiance, at least to the ex
tent of repeating his accusations over his signature; 3 and when
Brissot again demanded proofs that he had been in the service
of the pohce,4 he only answered by inquhing why Brissot was
so violent about mere insinuations, thereby himself insinuating
that Brissot must have a guilty conscience in seeing accusation
where none was actuaUy made.6 At all events, Pange seems to
have offered no proof, and the matter was apparently dropped.
The success of the Girondins in bringing on the war gave a
new turn to the accusations against Brissot. They ceased to
concern themselves with the utterances of his youth and turned
upon his present policy and purpose. It was charged that he
was sold to the court, and was working for war in order to sup
port royalty 6 and establish a protectorate. The latter charge
was made with great force at the Jacobin Club by Robespierre
and Merlin of ThionviUe, who seized the moment of the victory
of the war party for impugning theh motives. The Girondins,
they declared, were using their influence over the court and
the ministry as false patriots and had formed a conspiracy,
with the aid of Lafayette and Narbonne, to overturn the
1 Patriote Frangais, March 16, 1792.
2 Pange, Marie Frangois Denis Thomas de (born 1764; died 1796), be
longed to an old family connected with the administration of the finances. He
collaborated in the publication of various newspapers during the Revolution.
3 Journal de Paris, March 18, 1792. 4 Patriote Frangais, March 20, 1792.
6 Journal de Paris, March 25, 1792. 6 L'Ami du Peuple, April 24, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 269
monarchy and establish themselves in power. They were base
intriguers, indifferent to the cause of the people. The precise
object of their endeavors varied with circumstances, but the
public might rest assured of one thing, it was only for theh
own interest that they were working.1
These accusations Brissot answered as follows. It could not
be alleged against him, he began, that he had not been true to
the cause of the people because he had not attended the meet
ings of the Jacobin Club with regularity. His absence was due
to precisely the contrary reason, because he had been true to
the cause of the people and as theh representative had been
doing his duty at the Legislative Assembly, where night ses
sions prevented his attendance at the Jacobin Club. More
over, he had never ceased to defend the cause of the people and
to attack theh enemies in his newspaper. Then, turning to the
specific points of attack, he disavowed the great influence which
had been attributed to him in the formation and direction of
the ministry, but at the same time stoutly maintained that it
was a patriotic ministry, in whose guidance he would be proud
to have a part. At this point he was interrupted by Des
moulins who by calls of "Coquinl" "Coquin!" precipitated
a scene of great disorder. When the semblance of order was
finaUy restored, Brissot continued his defense. He denied that
he was striving to overturn royalty and to establish a pro
tectorate, repudiated any intimacy either with Lafayette or
Narbonne, declared that he had not even seen Lafayette
since the 23d of June, 1791, and that U they were looking for a
new CromweU, they would not select him in a man of so little
character as Lafayette. Such accusations should be signed
and backed up with proofs. Then, turning to the charge
against Condorcet, whose name had been especially coupled
with his, and who was absent on account of illness, he launched
into a panegyric of his friend,2 and then closed his speech with
1 Aulard, Les JacoMns, in, 518-19.
2 " Enfin il a fini par un panigyrique de M.U marquis de Condorcet, panigy-
rique qui a fait demander d plusieurs membres de la SocieU si M. de marquis de

270 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
a fierce attack on Robespierre. He would not imitate his ad
versaries in calumny, he declared; he would not dwell on the
report that they were paid for theh attacks or that they main
tained £ secret committee by which to influence the Jacobins,
but he would say that whether they wanted civil war or not
they were foUowing precisely the same line of action as those
who did. As for himseU he demanded no redress: having re
futed the denunciations made against him, he was content to
pay no further attention to them, and therefore moved that
the Club proceed to the next order of business.
Brissot's hot-headed friend, Guadet, was not content, how
ever, to let the aff ah drop. Brissot had scarcely finished before
he rushed to the tribune with a demand that the Club take
some definite action on these calumnies, at the same time pay
ing his compliments to Robespierre in terms which provoked a
scene of wild disorder, and a renewal of the accusations on both
sides, till the lateness of the hour made necessary an adjourn
ment and put a temporary end to theh incriminations.1 Far
from letting the matter rest, Brissot continued his attack on
Robespierre in the Patriote Frangais. "The public is divided,"
he wrote, "between three opinions concerning Robespierre.
Some believe him a madman, others attribute his conduct to
wounded vanity, others believe it can be explained only by a
reference to the civil list. " 2 Brissot and Guadet also printed
their speeches. This gave rise to further difficulty, for when the
subject was again taken up at the Jacobin Club, Robespierre
declared that Brissot and Guadet had not printed their speeches
as they had delivered them. He especially objected to the
remarks in the preface of Brissot's speech in which Brissot
Condorcet Halt mort, tant on Hail Hoigni de croire qu'on put parUr d'un homme
vivant avec des ilogues aussi exagiris." Delacroix, "V Intrigue divoilie ou
Robespierre vengi des outrages et des calomnies des amMtieux," Annates ri-
volutionnaires, i, 339. (April, 1908.)
1 Les Jacobins, in, 526-36. Note also the account given by the Revolutions
de Paris, April 21-28, 1792. This paper took a fairly judicial attitude toward
the affair, but in the main supported Brissot.
2 Patriote Frangais, April 28, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 271
referred to his (Robespierre's) adherents in the gallery. The
result was another extremely stormy session, in the course of
which Robespierre threatened to withdraw from the Club en
tirely, unless they would permit him to defend hhrlelf from
the libels directed against him. After a prolonged scene of dis
order, he finally won a slight victory, for although the Club
did not pass any decree of expulsion, he did succeed in obtain
ing a decree that the Club did not recognize these objectionable
allusions and that an address to that effect be sent to the af
filiated societies. Brissot and his adherents were, therefore,
at least partially discredited,1 and a step was taken in the dhec
tion of theh final defeat the following year.
They were still further discredited by theh failure to achieve
victories on the frontier. They had been so active in forcing a
declaration of war, and so ready in theh promise of quick and
easy success, that theh critics soon became loud in their de
mands for an explanation. Results, and immediate results,
were demanded, and the failure to produce them was sufficient,
it was urged, to give rise to the gravest suspicions. As Brissot
had been a leader of the war party, it was about him that these
suspicions naturally centered. "When we were discussing the
great question of the war, what did M. Brissot say? " asked the
Revolutions de Paris. "What answer did he make to his op
ponents? He saw only Coblenz, desired to destroy Coblenz,
and claimed that if Coblenz were destroyed the Revolution
would be accomplished. M. Brissot needed a campaign of only
fifteen days to pacify Europe and avenge France; everything
was ready, everything prepared for his vast undertaking. It
is now a month since the war was declared; we have not taken
a step, our armies have remained stationary." The writer
then went on to paint in somber colors the general situation:
" An army in frightful condition, in want of food and munitions,
the frontiers undefended, the enemies of the revolution pro-
1 Aulard, Les JacoMns, hi, 548. See also Journal des dibats de la sociiti des
amis de la constitution, siance du lundi, April 30, 1792. See the defense of
Robespierre by Marat in L'Ami du Peuple, May 3, 1792.

272 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
tected by the courts, the condition of the army not reported by
its generals." Was aU this, he asked, the result of chance or
consphacy? 1 In any case, the Revolutions de Paris continued,
they certainly owed the public an explanation of a policy that
was even more tortuous and mysterious than that of Duport,2
and Delessart, Narbonne, Duportail,3 and Montmorin.4
The reply of Brissot and the other Ghondins was vigorous
and effective. That they were traitors they indignantly denied,
but there did exist danger of treason and that danger was to be
found in the counselors by whom the king was surrounded. It
was these men who constituted a veritable "Austrian Com
mittee," sympathizing with Austria and working in its inter
ests. Even before the war had been declared, Brissot had
attacked several of the former members of the ministry under
this name, asserting that though they had been ejected from
office and the party which they represented deposed from
power, they still continued their machinations.5
The Ghondins now instituted a more specific and violent
attack, which, while directed nominally against the ex-min
isters, helped to discredit royalty itseU. On the 23d of May,
GensonnS opened the fusfllade by denouncing the "Commit
tee" before the Assembly. He was foUowed by Brissot, who,
in a scathing arraignment, declared that the "Austrian Com-
1 Revolutions de Paris, May 12-19, 1792.
2 Marguerite Louis Frangois Duport-Dutertre was born in Paris in 1754.
An advocate of parUment under the old regime, he was chosen a member of the
electoral assembly of Paris in 1789, and later became substitute for the pro-
cureur-ginhal of the Commune. From November, 1790, to March, 1792, he
was minister of justice. He was guillotined in November, 1793.
3 Duportail, minister of war under Louis XVI. He kept his post till 1792,
but was many times called to the bar of the Legislative Assembly to answer ac
cusations made against him; was finally obliged to resign and to hide in order
to escape imprisonment. He died in 1802.
4 Armand Marc, Comte de Montmorin, was born in Auvergne in 1745.
Under the old regime he was sent as ambassador to Madrid and in 1787 became
minister for foreign affairs, which office he continued to hold with some inter
ruptions till October, 1791. After his resignation he remained an adviser of
Louis XVI. He lost his life in the massacres of September.
5 Patriote Frangais, March 15, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 273
mittee" was characterized by "absolute devotion to what is
called royal prerogative; by absolute devotion to Austria, by
a policy of no alliance with Prussia or England, no matter how
advantageous such an alliance might be; by indulgence to the
real rebel emigres; and by opposition to the war against the
House of Austria after having provoked it." Among the active
members of the committee he named the former ministers, Du
port and Bertrand de Moleville.1 Duport, he declared, used
his official position to sacrifice the constitution to the executive
power, while Bertrand disorganized the navy and hindered
the pacification of the colonies with the purpose of keeping
them under the control of the king. But the heart and soul
of the "Austrian Committee" was Montmorin. As proof of
Montmorin 's loyalty to the king, rather than to the constitu
tion, Brissot produced a letter to Noaflles,2 dated August 3,
1791, in which he said that the best men of the Assembly were
acting in concert with the true servants of the king, in order to
sustain the monarchy and restore to His Majesty the powers
which are necessary U he were to govern. It was stated further
that in this same letter he had declared that "within fifteen
days there would be an end to the truly deplorable state of the
royal family." As a further proof of Bertrand's antagonism
to the Revolution, Brissot produced another letter, in this case
written by an agent of the government, in which he spoke of
1 Antoine Frangois Bertrand de Moleville was born at Toulouse in 1744. An
intendant of Brittany under the old regime, he became minister of marine in
1789, which office he held till March, 1792. He fled to England during the
Terror, returned to France at the Restoration, and died in 1818. He and Brissot
had already crossed swords, as is evident from the following: "Lettre de M.
Bertrand de Moleville, minister de la marine, d Louis XVI au sujet de voies et
moyens a employer pour diriger des poursuites contre U ridacteur et I'imprimeur
de Vexicrable feuille, le Patriote Frangais, pour sen article du dimanche pri-
cident." In Trmsieme recueil des pUces diposees a la Commission extraor
dinaire des douze, i, 58. Bertrand de Moleville's Histoire de la Revolution, vn,
54, gives the text of the letter and the answer of Louis XVI. Tuetey, iv, 128.
2 Emmanuel Marie Louis, Marquis de Noailles, was born at Paris in 1743,
and died in 1822. After a career in the army he turned to diplomacy and
in 1791 was sent as ambassador to Vienna. He was under suspicion by the
Assembly for his sympathy with the cause of the king.

274 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
being permitted by Bertrand to serve the Count d'Artois.
Bertrand, Brissot continued, was devoted not only to the king,
but to the House of Austria, and had shown his devotion by
concealing dispatches and by favoring the emigrSs, and finally,
with his retirement from the ministry he had not ceased his
machinations, but was still working in behalf of Austria. In
view of these facts, action, Brissot declared, should be taken.
He therefore concluded by demanding that Montmorin should
be impeached and that an investigation should be made im
mediately of the conduct of Duport and Bertrand. In spite of
his efforts Brissot was not successful, for although his speech
was ordered printed and copies sent to various committees, his
motion was not carried.1
Within a few days Bertrand and Montmorin presented able
memohs to the Assembly, setting forth their defense. In an
swer to the charge that he had hindered the pacification of the
colonies, Bertrand offered to produce his correspondence, and
reminded the Assembly that every communication which he
had received on the subject he had already submitted to them,
and declared that an examination of the dates of the measures
voted and of their execution would be a convincing argument
that he had used all possible haste. His alleged wiUful dis
organization of the navy he absolutely denied; the state of the
navy could be fully accounted for without resorting to allega
tions of treason.2
1 Discours sur la dinonciations contre le comiti autrichien H contre M. Mont
morin. Les Revolutions de Paris, May 19-26, in commenting upon this speech,
condemned Brissot bitterly for saying, "qu'on a reconnu Vinfluence du comiti
Autrichien dans Us ivinemens qui ont ricemment affligi la France, dans cette op
position d'un certain parti d la guerre offensive contre VAutriche, dans les lentcurs
des priparatifs de guerre, dans la communication du plan d 'attaque, dans Us
mifiances semies entre Us giniraux et les ministres." He could hardly have been
acting in good faith, Les Revolutions declared, when he wrote these lines. The
Venetian ambassador wrote as follows: "Li due discorsi non furono che due
lunghe e vaghe declamazioni si promisero delU prove, ma niuna se ne portb, e per-
fino li piu pervenuti trovarono una tale debolezza nelli assunti, e vanitd nei ragiona-
menti, che si formb anzi nei comune una prevenzione del contrario di quanta s'in-
lendeva confermare." Kovalevsky, Dispacci degli ambasciatori veneti, 449.
2 Observations adressies d VAssembUe nationale sur Us discours prononcis
par Mm. Gensonni et Brissot.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 275
Montmorin in making his defense contended that Brissot
had been guilty of unfair play in his attack, in that his charges
were based on extracts from letters which would present a dif
ferent view were the whole letter given, a contention which he
proceeded to support by giving the letters in full. The aUusion
to a concerted action between the servants of the king and the
best members of the Assembly referred to the conferences be
tween the ministers and the Assembly. As for the phrase,
"servants of the king," that was a mere form of words sanc
tioned even in England. The deplorable condition of the royal
family, soon to cease, had reference to the time of suspense
when the constitution was under revision. His desire, Mont
morin declared, was not to support the king against any con
stitution, but only against a constitution which left him with
insufficient power. The other letter, regarding the relations of
the agent of the French government with the Count d'Artois,
would, he admitted, be a damaging piece of evidence were it not
known that it concerned a permission given in 1789, and that
immediately after the receipt of the letter the writer was re
moved from his position. As for his relations with Austria,
Montmorin declared that far from trying to bring about war
with her he had done all he could to keep the peace, and, for
reasons of principle, because he believed in an Austrian alli
ance. But that he had concealed dispatches or favored the
Emigres, or that since his resignation in October, 1791, he had
had any part in public affairs, he emphatically denied.1
While the Girondins were attacking the former ministers of
1 Observations de M. de Montmorin adressies a V Assemblie nationale sur Us
discours prononcis par Mm. Gensonni et Brissot dans la siance du 23 mai,
1792. The following declaration made by one Petit in the Archives nationales, C
218, 160, 118, shows how influence might be brought to bear from the galleries:
"Que le jour oil M. Brissot, depute A VAssembUe nationale, a parli sur la comite
autrichien les d'Goulet et Benzelin, avoient amenis dans les tribunes de VAs
sembUe trente-cinq personnes, dont le premier douze, et le second vingt-trois, a
chacun desquelles ih avoient payi trois livres pour cabaler contre M. Brissot, ap-
plauder a tout ce qui serait dit en faveur du Rm et du pouvoir exicutif et dis-
aprouver tout ce qui sermt contre."

276 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the king, they were also striving with all their might, so their
enemies declared, to discredit the king and queen directly, and
thus to overthrow the monarchy, and to estabhsh a republic.
This had been Brissot's motive, it was aUeged, in urging for
eign war, and, according to persistent report, he had for a
month been seeking the same end by means of a conspiracy. A
part of the plan, U a letter credited to the Count de Fersen is
to be believed, was a denunciation of the queen. The plot was
concocted at a supper at Condorcet's and the conspirators in
cluded Lafayette, Petion, Brissot, the Abbe Sieyes, and Nar
bonne. Condorcet drew up the arraignment of the queen.
Nineteen points there were, of which the most damning was
that she had an understanding with the emperor and M. Deles
sart, with the purpose of stirring up foreign powers to attack
France. In view of such a condition of affahs, it was proposed
to get possession of her person, separate her from the king and
from her son; then to suspend the king from his functions as an
accomplice to the intriguers, on the ground that he could not
be trusted to direct the operations of the army against the
powers who were making war in his behalf; and, finally, to en
trust the education of the dauphin to proper hands.1 Rumors of
this plot having got abroad, they were obliged to abandon it,
temporarily, at least. Whfle Fersen may have been mistaken
in the definiteness of the schemes in question, he was not the
only one who was confident of the existence of a republican
conspiracy. Salomon speaks of a mysterious plot, whose
leaders, who included Sieyes, Brissot, Condorcet, and Cla
viere, were accustomed to meet, now at Madame Helvetius's
on the VersaiUes road, now at the home of a woman named
D'Odun.2 Early in March the Ami du Roi gave what claimed
to be authentic information of a secret committee, composed of
1 Le Comte Axel de Fersen au Roi de Suede Gustave, Bruxelles, le 24 mai
(1792). Feuillet de Conches, Louis XVI, v, 360. The authenticity of some of
Feuillet de Conches's material is very doubtful, but that contained in the latter
volumes (including the 5th) is more reliable than that in the earUer volumes,
See Lord Acton, Lectures, 364.
2 Salomon, Correspondance, 386, quoted in Cahn, Condorcet, 322.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 277
ardent republicans, inspired by Brissot and Condorcet, who
were scheming an atrocious war against the friends of the king
and of the monarchy. The Venetian ambassador, writing home
in February, declared that the dominant party was working
hard to bring about a public schism between the Assembly and
the king, with the expectation that the king would either lose
public confidence, or, that, frightened by the opposition, he
would take flight and leave the power to the Assembly.1 Du
mont likewise affirms that the Girondins were working for the
overthrow of monarchy,2 and Mallet du Pan, in April, 1792,
declares specifically that Condorcet, Brissot, and Sieyes had
determined to dethrone the king.3
Whatever may have been the temper of these secret meetings,
and however republican the real desires of the Girondins, they
were not ready to avow themselves openly, and on May 10,
Brissot, in a long editorial in the Patriote Frangais, categori
cally denied the existence of a republican faction. France or
rather the capital, he declared, was divided into three parties,
excluding the aristocrats and the counter-revolutionists. These
three parties were called the enrages, the patriots and the
moderates. None of them desired a republic, they were all
under the banner of the constitution, they all had sworn to
maintain the constitution, they all invoked the constitution,
they all talked of liberty and equality, they aU spoke the same
language. There were, however, radical differences among
them, and these he proceeded to state. The enrages recognized
only the declaration of rights, swore only by that, though ap
parently they sustained the constitution. They wished to bring
the constitution in all its parts into harmony with the declara
tion of rights; they were always talking of the sovereignty of
the people because by this means they hoped to secure a domi
nating influence; and, not being able to hope for anything
whfle order was maintained, they propagated every kind of
doctrine calculated to produce disorder.
1 Kovalevsky, Ambasciatori veneti, 399. 2 Dumont, Souvenirs, 391.
3 Mallet du Pan, Mimoires, I, 260.

278 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The moderates, on the other hand, put the constitution
above the declaration of rights. They wanted at all costs the
maintenance of property. They looked upon the people as
incapable of perfection and therefore to be kept enchained by
the law forever, because they were incapable of being guided
by reason. They never spoke of equality, but of the consti
tution. The patriots were to be distinguished both from the enragis
and from the moderates. They revered the declaration of rights,
but at the same time they also wanted the constitution revered
in every respect. They loved the people, but they did not flatter
them; they loved the people, but they wanted the people to
obey the law and to be punished when they did not obey it.
Like the moderates they wanted peace and the maintenance
of property; they wanted the reign of law, but they wanted
also and first of all the reign of reason. But unlike the enr age's
and the moderates, they were not instruments in the hands of
the executive power. In short, the three parties were to be
characterized thus: "Patriot, friend of the people, friend of the
constitution; Moderate, false friend of the constitution, enemy
of the people; Enrag&, false friend of the people, enemy of the
constitution." According to these characteristics, he con
cluded, it was easy to see which party reasonable men ought
to prefer.1
But whatever their ultimate purpose, the Ghondins were
determined, so long as the king remained on the throne, to
limit his power. They accordingly called for the dismissal of
the king's guard, on the ground that such action was demanded
for the "maintenance of the constitution, the security of the
realm, and even for the safety of the king himself." They also
demanded the establishment of a camp of fidires for the pro
tection of the Assembly, and a decree for the deportation of
the non-juring priests — aU of which they successfully carried
1 Patriote Frangais, May 10, 1792. It was apparently with the express
purpose of combating this point of view that Robespierre established the
Defenseur de la Constitution. Aulard, Histoire politique, 182.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 279
through, and all of which Brissot supported in his newspaper.1
These measures the Girondins considered essential to their own
authority, and since they had good reason to fear the king's
veto, they used all means at their command to prevent it.
Madame Roland seconded theh efforts and wrote an in
solent letter to the king, — in her husband's name, of course,
— in which she insisted that he give his consent to the two
decrees.2 What followed is well known: the indignation of the
king and queen; the dismissal of Servan, Claviere, and Roland,
on the advice of Dumouriez; the king's subsequent refusal,
despite Dumouriez's persuasions, to conciliate popular opinion
by signing the decrees, and the resignation of Dumouriez.
With the conduct of Dumouriez in turning against them the
Brissotins were naturaUy highly indignant. In their opinion
he was nothing less than a "vile intriguer." "It is a trying
thing," wrote Brissot in his journal, "for a man who has any
dehcacy, for a patriot who realizes how necessary union is for
the prosperity of our armies, to raise the mask which covered
the perfidy of a minister whom he esteemed . . . the only thing
with which I have to reproach myself is not to have done it
sooner. You can guess that I am speaking of the fellow,
Dumouriez, who, with his protestations of patriotism, good
behavior in the Vendee, and the reputation of some military
talent, succeeded in seducing the patriots and in getting himseU
caUed by the people to the ministry." 3
It was evident from his defense that Brissot was troubled
lest his own reputation might suffer because of his relations to
Dumouriez. He accordingly wrote an open letter to Dumouriez,
published in the Patriote Frangais, of June 16, the main purpose
of which was to justify himself. His only object, he declared,
was to be useful to his country and he had supported Dumouriez
merely as a means to that end; but his eyes ought to have been
1 Patriote Frangais, May 30, 31, June 5, 7, 12, 1792.
2 Mimoires de Madame Roland, I, 241. The king had accepted the decree
providing for the dismissal of his guard.
3 Patriote Frangais, June 14, 1792.

280 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
opened, if only by Dumouriez's persistence in choosing such
a man as Bonne-Carrere.1
For his disturbance of mind Brissot seems to have had good
reason, for ugly insinuations were being made against him.
Certain persons were accused, in the aristocratic newspapers
and in placards, of having received, without legitimate reason,
large sums of money. These accusations, Brissot declared in
his newspaper of June 17, whUe they mentioned no names, were
obviously directed against him and his friends, and were in
spired by Dumouriez, who knew they were false. Bonne-
Carrere 2 meanwhile did not propose to let Brissot's attack on ,
him go unanswered. According to his account, instead of hav
ing received money, Brissot was incensed because he had not,
his whole ground of resentment agamst Dumouriez being that
the latter had refused to share with him a large sum of money
voted for secret expenses. This rumor, set afloat by Bonne-
Carrere, is absolutely without foundation. It served, however,
to widen the breach between Dumouriez and Brissot.
Meanwhile, the breach with the king was rapidly approach
ing a crisis. His attitude toward the decrees against the priests
and the camp oifediris was no secret, although the formal an
nouncement of his veto was not made till June 19. The danger
was grave, as Brissot had already pointed out. "It is no
longer possible," he wrote in the Patriote Frangais of June 18,
"to conceal the dangers into which the intriguers of the court
precipitate the state; continued indifference would no longer
be weakness, it would be treason. And the National Assembly,
1 Premiere lettre de Brissot a Dumouriez, Patriote Frangais, June 16, 1792.
2 Bonne-Carrere already bore a grudge against Brissot, because the latter
had opposed his appointment as director general of foreign affairs. (See p. 265;
also Madame Roland, Mimoires, i, 246-48; also Patriote Frangais, June 16,
1792; April 20, 1793.) Bonne-Carrere, says Brissot, became his enemy because
he (Brissot) had exposed one of his proteges as a traitor. (Masson, Un Diplo
mat, 199.) At all events, on August 10, Brissot demanded that seals be placed
on Bonne-Carrere's papers, and declared that he was not a fit person to hold
the post to which he had been assigned, — that of ambassador to the United
States. Seals were accordingly placed on his papers, and his appointment was
revoked. (Moniteur, August 12, 1792.)

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 281
which can still save the country if it does act, will destroy it if
it hesitates." While the Assembly still hesitated the people
acted. The result was the events of June 20, when a huge
mob forced its way into the Assembly, presented a petition
protesting against the dismissal of the king's ministers and
demanding that some action be taken against him, and then
invaded the Tuileries and insulted the king and queen.
In the actual events of the day Brissot seems to have taken
no part. Precisely to what extent he and the other Girondins
were responsible for instigating the movement is a matter of
doubt. According to the police commissioner, Sergent-Mar-
ceau, the whole affair had been planned in the salon of Madame
Roland, and Brissot, Gensonne, and Guadet were impli
cated.1 Moreover, at the trial of the Girondins Chabot swore
that Brissot had declared that the 20th of June had produced
the effect intended.2 But this evidence in both cases is from
an unfriendly point of view and lacks corroboration. Brissot's
previous attitude, however, shows that he had not shrunk from
the possibility of a popular rising. As has been pointed out by
M. Aulard, it was he who helped to arm the people of Paris
with pikes.3 The Patriote Frangais of October 26, 1791, gave
the design of a pike, and on the 10th of February, 1792, it ex
plained that the use of the pike was to hold the court to its
duty. "While the enemies of the people were making prepara
tions against them," it declared, "the people also made their
preparations. Pikes began the revolution, pikes will finish it."
As to the actual events of the day, the Patriote Frangais ap
proved heartily of the original purpose of the demonstration,
and expressed no regret at the outcome, nor did it show any
sympathy with the king and queen in their distressing situa-
1 Notice historique sur les ivinements du 10 aout, 1792, et des 20 H 21 juin
precedents, par Sergent-Margeau. Revue ritrospective, seconde serie, m, 342.
Quoted in Bire, La Ligende des Girondins, 73. In his deposition made June 21,
Sergent does not mention Brissot. See The Uprising of June 20, 1792, by L. B.
Pfeiffer. 2 Moniteur, October 27, 1793, supplement, p. x.
3 Les Orateurs de la Ligislative, i, 236.

282 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
tion; and when Petion was suspended for his failure to prevent
the uprising, it upheld the Assembly in quashing the suspen
sion.1 On the whole, it was comparatively mild in its expres
sions of approval, and was inclined to treat the affair lightly,
comparing it to a shower which would serve to cool the air.
On July 6, Brissot commented on the events of June 20 at
some length. He expressed himseU with caution, however; in
deed, his main purpose seemed to be not to commit himseU
unreservedly to either side. He spoke, for instance, of the
people as desiring liberty, but also law; as recognizing their
duties as well as theh rights; at the same time as led into ex
cess by unworthy agitators. In the case of the national guard,
there was the sphit of the rank and file to be commended, but
quite another sphit among the officers was to be condemned.
As for the king, he wanted the constitution, but was not sin
cerely reconciled with the Revolution.2
In taking this haUway position, Brissot but represented the
general spirit of the Girondins. They had gained nothing from
the events of June 20; instead of increasing theh chances of a
return to power under the monarchy, they had only prepared
the way for the overthrow of the monarchy. They vacillated
in regard to decisive action, however, but at the same time con
tinued to attack the king. In these attacks Brissot both took
an active part himself and also sustained the onslaughts of his
friends. For example, he commended Vergniaud's speech of
July 3, in which that famous orator struck so heavily at the
king. "One passage was especially admired," Brissot wrote,3
"that in which he traced the course which an anti-revolution
ary king might follow who wanted to destroy the constitution
by means of the constitution itseU. Every member easUy made
the application, and the only thing with which M. Cambon re
proached the orator was that he put in hypothesis what exists
in reality."
Their attack on the king did not restrain the Ghondins from
1 Patriote Frangais, June 23, 1792; also July 14.
2 Ibid., July 6, 1792. 3 Ibid., July 4, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 283
taking part in the demonstration which occurred a few days
later, known as the "kiss of Lamourette," when, on the pro
posal of Lamourette that all who "loathed and hated the idea
of a republic should rise," the deputies of the right and the left
flew into one another's arms and embraced one another with
rapture. Whether or not Brissot joined in this demonstration
is not stated. Although the Patriote Frangais formally and
enthusiasticaUy approved of the occurrence, alluding to it as
"a happy, thrice happy reunion," x to Brissot himseU the
situation was most disconcerting. He was just on the point of
making a speech against the king which this denunciation
rendered most untimely. He had the good sense, however, to
see that it was a mere hysterical outbreak which would not
permanently influence real convictions, and that all he had to
do was to postpone his speech. He, therefore, with a skiUful
allusion to the fraternity thus delightfully restored, begged
that his intended speech might be put off till the next day, on
the ground that it contained some aUusions no longer fitting
now that peace was restored.2
The next day but one he made the promised speech, but al
though he may have modified it in detail, in its main lines it
supported the position which Vergniaud had taken a few days
before. Like Vergniaud, within the limits of a single speech he
attacked the monarch and upheld the monarchy. But he went
even further than Vergniaud, for what the latter had only
hinted and suggested, Brissot said openly. The country was
still in danger, he declared, in spite of the recent reconciliation
between the members of the Assembly. That reconciliation
was certainly a cause for rejoicing, but it would not prevent
the Prussians and the Austrians from marching against them,
or Flanders and the Rhine from being threatened with invasion.
"And why is the country still in danger?" he asked. "It is
not that we lack troops, not that our troops are wanting in
courage, that our frontiers are not better fortified, but because
1 Patriote Frangais, July 9, 1792. The article was signed G. D. (Girey-
Dupre). 2 Moniteur, July 8, 1792.

284 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
our strength is paralyzed. And who is to blame for this fatal
lethargy? A single man whom the nation made its chief, and
whom the courtiers have made its enemy. . . . Bring together
all these facts: The aversion of the cabinet of the Tuileries for
hostile measures; its sflence upon the coalition; its tardiness in
entering Brabant; its indulgence for the rebels and the elec
tors; the dismissal of the patriot ministers who had brought
about the invasion; theh replacement by creatures of the in
triguers who opposed the war; the inaction of that General
Lafayette who was responsible for them, for those who be
trayed us; the paralyzing of the forces of Luckner; the refusal
of the camp of two thousand men; the silence regarding the
march of the Prussians. Consider these things and then say
that there does not exist a plan of conspiracy against France,
in favor of the House of Austria, against liberty in favor of the
court. Say that the center of it is not to be found in that court,
in the executive power, in its agents." In view of these dan
gers, how was the country to be saved? What measures must
be taken? The country must be saved, Brissot declared, not by
violent measures, but by means of the constitution. And since
the constitution provided that a king who had retracted his
oath should be considered to have abdicated, he demanded
that a committee be appointed to investigate the king's con
duct. He also proposed that the Assembly should declare
enemies of the nation aU those who had given or should give
the king pernicious advice, and that their conduct should be
investigated; that the existing ministry no longer possessed
the confidence of the nation. And, finally, what is of special
importance as showing Brissot's attitude toward the kind of
authority afterward put in force by the Terror, he asked for the
establishment of a committee of general security to examine all
accusations of crimes against the general safety and against
the constitution. A few days later he put the attack in more
concrete form by assailing Chambonas,1 the minister for foreign
1 Discours sur Us causes des dangers de la Patrie, et sur les mesures d prendre,
prononci le 9 juillet, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 285
affahs. Chambonas,1 he declared, had announced to the diplo
matic committee that the Piedmontese and Sardinian troops
arrayed against France numbered only 1200, whereas, accord
ing to Montesquieu,2 there were 56,000. He therefore demanded
that Chambonas be called on for an explanation.
Within the next few days Brissot showed a decided change
of front, which gave rise to grave accusations from his enemies
and much explanation then and afterwards on his own part.
He first showed his change of position in his speech of July 25,
in which, apropos of Gensonne's proposed action against con
spirators, he again discussed measures for the safety of the
state, but this time with a very different emphasis from that
of his speech of July 9.3 He now laid the emphasis not on the
evil deeds of the king, but on the necessity of maintaining the
constitution and the folly of establishing a republic. "There is
no better means," he declared, "than regicide for making
royalty eternal. No; it is not by the revolting murder of one
individual that royalty will ever be destroyed. The resurrec
tion of royalty in England was due to the punishment of
Charles I; it disgusted the people and brought them to the
feet of his son. 11, then, these republican regicides exist, it
must be confessed that they were very stupid republicans —
the kind of persons whom kings might well pay for the service
they render in making republicanism forever execrable. How
ever that may be, if that party of regicides exists, if there exist
1 Victor-Scipion Louis Joseph de la Garde, marquis de Chambonas, was
born about 1750. He was the mayor of Sens at the beginning of the Revolu
tion, and became an officer in the army. The 16th of June, 1792, he was made
minister for foreign affairs in place of Dumouriez, but in consequence of denun
ciations presented by the Assembly he soon resigned and after the 10th of
August emigrated to London. He returned to France at the Restoration, and
died in 1829.
2 Anne-Pierre, marquis de Montesquieu, was born in 1739. He was a deputy
from the nobility of Paris to the Constituent Assembly and an officer in the army.
In view of accusations brought against him, he had to leave France in 1792.
See Moniteur, July 24, 1792.
3 Gensonne's proposal was to give to the municipalities the right of arresting
and examining citizens who should be accused of plots against the general
safety of the state and against the constitution. Moniteur, July 27, 1792.

286 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
men who want to establish the republic immediately, upon the
debris of the constitution, the knife of the law ought to faU
upon them." 1
The next day, July 26, he spoke again, this time apropos of
a proposed letter of criticism to the king presented by Guadet.
Whfle he supported the strictures on the king's conduct con
tained in Guadet's letter and denounced the king as opposed
to the Revolution, he counseled delay in bringing about his
dethronement. "I know, gentlemen," he declared, "that if
it were well proved that the king was in agreement with
enemies without, not to try him, not to condemn him would
be a crime of high treason against the people. But I know also
that what an anti-revolutionary king would desire for the full
est possible success would be a hasty step on the part of the
Assembly, a violent measure which would not have the general
support of the nation. And why? Because U the king were con
demned in the heat of anger, carelessly or with too great haste,
the majority of the nation which deshes justice for aU, which
desires that the enactment of justice be preceded by a severe
examination, the majority, I say, might blame you, and
though it might not entirely acquit the king, yet it might fail
to support you in your further measures." 2
The impression conveyed by this speech was that Brissot
was opposed to dethronement. In view of his recent and vehe
ment attacks on the king, Brissot's present position suggested
that he had either changed his mind with surprising sudden
ness, or that he was insincere. His audience thought the latter,
for there were cries of "Down with the double-faced rogue!"
while one energetic spectator in the gallery, with unfortu
nately good aim, threw two plums at him.3
Various explanations of his action have been given. Ac-
1 Opinion de J. P. Brissot sur les mesures de police ginirale proposies par M.
Gensonni. 2 Opinion sur la marche & suivre en examinant la question de la dichiance H Us
autres mesures, prononci U 26 juillet, 1792.
3 See Aulard, Oraleurs de la Ligislative, i, 204, note. "II fut frappi de deux
prunes [dit un journal] qu'une main vigoureuse lui avoit lancies du haul des
tribunes."

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 287
cording to Soulavie,1 he (Soulavie) had been asked — so he
says in his memoirs — by Chambonas to try to induce Brissot
by means of a bribe to moderate his efforts for dethronement,
but feeling sure that this method would fail, he advised
Chambonas, instead of trying to bribe Brissot, to endeavor to
persuade him to give up his efforts for the dethronement, on
the ground that it would injure his party. Chambonas took
his advice, Soulavie adds, and succeeded.2
If the testimony given at the trial of Brissot is to be be
Ueved, he not only abandoned his efforts at dethronement by
constitutional means, but tried to hinder the efforts of others,
and when active measures were proposed attempted to put a
stop to them.3 According to Bertrand de Molleville, he de
manded twelve million livres as his price for preventing the
insurrectionary movement.4 This charge, however, is abso
lutely uncorroborated and is a sheer absurdity.5
1 Jean Louis Girard Soulavie was bom in 1752. At the time of the French
Revolution he was vicar-general of the diocese of Chalons. He became an
ardent revolutionist, was one of the first priests to marry, was connected with
the revolution in Geneva, and narrowly escaped the scaffold as an alleged
agent of Robespierre. The latter part of his life he devoted to literary work.
His best-known publication is Mimoires historiques et politiques du regne de
Louis XVI.
2 "Je vous promets le secret, et vous assure que si vous prenez Brissot par la
crainte de ce qui peut arriver a son parti, si la nation n' adhere pas a son opinion
sur la dichiance, vous en obtiendrez par la peur ce que vous voudrez, plutot que
par des esperances . . . Je pense que si on dit d Brissot qu'il est entre deux feux,
entre Us JacoMns inergiques et les royalistes, et qu'il peut en manquant sa d£-
chiance, se trouver dans le position, par example, des riviseurs de 1791, vous
pourrez vous le gagner. Faites valoir surtout la puissance de la constitution, la
minorili de ses ennemis dans le Ligislature, le changement tous les six mois des
opinions et de V esprit public en France, et I'incertitude de risister, en cos de
' dichiance, au parti d'Orlians, s'il n'en est pas V agent ; et s'il Vest I'incertitude
de risister aux royalistes de 1788, riunis aux constitutionnels attachis a Louis
XVI, ayant d'ailleurs Lafayette d, leur tete." Soulavie, Memoires, vi, 430-31.
Chambonas's success, as far as he personally was concerned, was only par
tial, for, on August 4, Brissot again attacked him with the charge that he had
misused the secret funds of the department of foreign affairs. Moniteur,
August 5, 1792.
3 Moniteur, October 27, 1793.
4 See Soulavie's testimony to Brissot's incorruptibility mentioned above.
5 Mimoires, n, 139.

288 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Even at the time, his speech of July 26 created such a furor
that when it was printed he tried to conciliate opinion by add
ing an explanatory note in which he declared that he had been
misunderstood; that he was really not opposed to dethrone
ment, but only to too great haste in bringing it about. He took
this stand, he subsequently explained, because he had been
brought to realize that public opinion, especially in the prov
inces, was not ripe for dethronement, and whfle striving to
check too precipitate action he was using every means in his
power, and especially his newspaper, to educate opinion so that
it might be prepared for dethronement. This explanation of
Brissot's is borne out by a dispatch of Earl Gower, who, on
July 27, wrote as follows: "The Committee of Twenty-one,
before whom that general [Montesquieu] was examined, had
agreed to report a Project of a decree to declare that the Crown
was forfeited, but upon his answering them that not only every
officer but every soldier would oppose them, they desisted.
This sufficiently accounts for the speech made by M. Brissot
yesterday in the Assembly. It does not, however, follow that
from the abortion of this scheme, his most Christian majesty
is to be considered in a less dangerous situation than for
merly." 1
Deference to public opinion was, nevertheless, not the all-
sufficient explanation of the action of Brissot and his Ghondin
friends in the eyes of their enemies, the Jacobins. The real
reason, the latter asserted, was that the Ghondins wanted to
get themselves back into office, and, just so long as they saw
any chance of doing it, they were willing to support the mon
archy. Formal accusation of such intent was made against
them and especially against Brissot at the Jacobin Club on
August 1, by M. Anthoine.2 The Girondins did, indeed, make
a bid for position and power in the famous memoir of July 20
which Vergniaud, Gensonne, and Guadet sent to the king.
After exhorting him to strengthen his own position, which they
1 This dispatch was dated July 27, 1792. Dispatches of Earl Gower, 203.
2 Aulard, Les Jacobins, iv, 169.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 289
had themselves so successfully undermined but a few weeks
before, they skillfully insinuated that the best way to do it
would be to dismiss inefficient ministers and to recaU to the
ministry "weU-known patriots." 1
Brissot's wavering attitude not only gave occasion for at
tack to his enemies, but caused distress to at least one of his
friends — Madame Roland. On July 31 she wrote to him com
plaining of his sUence at the Assembly, and tried in vain to stir
him to take the lead in decisive action. To her, it was a great
opportunity for a great man and she ardently desired that
Brissot might see and seize his chance.2
In the case of Lafayette, Brissot did seize his chance, and
when Lafayette, in his letter read before the Assembly on the
18th of June, opposed the dismissal of the Girondin ministry
and denounced the Jacobin Club, Brissot backed up his previ
ous assertions that he was no friend of Lafayette's by a prompt
and spirited attack. In spite of his own quarrels with the
Jacobins, he resented Lafayette's arraignment of that body
as a violation of freedom of speech and objected still more
vehemently to his evident sympathy with the king.3 After
the events of June 20, this sympathy became more evident
and took the form of active measures. Lafayette presumed
to leave his army without permission, came to Paris, and
1 See the account by Guadet, Moniteur, January 5, 1793. Brissot did not
sign this memoir, but note his approval (see above) of Guadet's proposed letter
to the king which contained much the same ideas.
2 Lettres, ii, 429. Whether stirred by Madame Roland's appeal or assured
by the king's refusal to listen to Girondin advice that there was nothing to be
gained in longer propping up the throne, Brissot spoke with open contempt
on August 5 of those residents of the district of the Filles-Saint-Thomas who
were opposed to dethronement. Patriote Frangais, August 5, 1792.
3 " C'est le coup le plus violent qu'on ait encore porti a liberti, coup d'autant
plus dangereux, qu'il est parte par un giniral qui se vante d'avoir une armee d,
lui, de ne faire qu'un avec son armie ; d'autant plus dangereux, encore, que cH
homme a su, par sa feinte moderation et par ses artifices, se conserver un parti,
mime parmi les hommes qui aiment vivement la liberti ; sa lettre U dimasque. . . .
"Oui, tous les hommes qui idol&trent la liberti ont dit etre revoUis de cette lettre.
Conserver encore quelque estime pour M. Lafayette apris Vavoir entendue c'est
en Hre indigne soirmeme ? " Patriote Frangais, June 19, 1792.

290 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
after having offered his services to the royal family, ap
peared before the Assembly on June 28 and demanded the
punishment of the instigators of the plot of June 20. x Where
upon the Assembly tried to pass a vote of censure against
him. Again Brissot saw his opportunity and the same day he
attacked Lafayette at the Jacobin Club, solemnly engaging
to prove at the bar of the Assembly that Lafayette was guilty
of high treason.2 On July 29, he, with Guadet, Gensonne, and
several other members of the Assembly, put on record a signed
declaration containing evidence, based on statements of Mar
shal Luckner, that Lafayette intended to march on Paris.3 The
4th of August Brissot tried to hasten matters by demanding a
report from the committee to which the conduct of Lafayette
had been referred,4 and on August 8 he made his promised at
tack, and denounced Lafayette in unsparing terms. He began
by saying that while he did not assert that Lafayette was
actually in concert with the Austrians, he did assert that U
Lafayette had been in concert with them, his actions would
not have been different from what they actually were. He
further declared that Lafayette had no legal right to present a
petition; that he compromised the safety of the state in leaving
his army; that if the Austrians were not present in large num
bers he ought to have attacked them; that U they were there
in large numbers it was treason to leave the army in danger;
that his demand for the suppression of popular societies was an
attempt on the constitution; that he had sought to intimidate
and degrade the legislature and to make a Cromwell of him
seU; and that in view of these facts a decree of censure should
be passed against him. In spite of these accusations the decree
failed of enactment.5
1 Moniteur, June 29, 1792.
2 Journal des dibals de la Societe des Amis de la Constitution, siance dufeudi,
juin 28, 1792.
3 Bibliotheque de la Chambre des diputis; collection des affaires du Temps,
t. 158, n. 30 bis, quoted in Archives parlementaires, xlvii, 268.
4 Moniteur, August 5, 1792.
6 See the Patriote Frangais of August 10, for scathing allusions to the weak
ness, the corruption, and the imbecility of those who voted against the decree.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 291
Meanwhile, in regard to the king's proposed dethronement,
while the Girondins were holding back, the Jacobins acted.
The latter overthrew the regular municipal authorities, set up
an insurrectionary commune of their own, and by its aid
brought on the insurrection which culminated in the sack of
the Tuileries. The insurrection once accomplished, the Giron
dins were not slow in pointing out that they had made it in
evitable and in claiming the credit for it. To this the Jacobins
retorted that though the Girondins might have had some share
in preparing the way for it, when it came to decisive action it
was they themselves who deserved the credit. The Girondins
were, however, still in a majority in the Assembly, and since
it was the Assembly which took the legal steps made necessary
by the insurrection, — the suspension of the king, the over
throw of the ministry, the appointment of a new ministry, and
the calling of a convention, — they might well claim that their
part in the crisis was an important one.
In the hurried discussion of these pivotal measures Brissot's
voice was heard several times. In order that the papers of the
department of foreign affahs might be secured, he asked that
seals be placed on the house of Bonne-Carrere where they were
kept, and in making the motion he took occasion to allude
to Bonne-Carrere as a person of detestable reputation and to
remind the Assembly that he had managed to get himself
appointed ambassador to the United States- — an allusion
which led to the passing of a further decree for the revocation
of Bonne-Carrere's appointment.1 More important than the
matter of an individual ambassador was the reorganization of
the ministry. Vergniaud had made a motion for such reor
ganization, to which Brissot objected that it should be pre
ceded by a vote of lack of confidence in the existing ministry.2
With the new ministry itseU Brissot was greatly pleased. He
evidently saw a chance for a renewal of his former influence,
1 Moniteur, August 12, 1792. For Brissot's previous relations with Bonne-
Carrere see p. 280.
2 Moniteur, August 12, 1792.

292 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
an expectation which is significantly expressed in a note to
Madame Roland, probably of about August 10: "I send for
her husband and for Lanthenas," it read, "a list of patriots
to whom places are to be given. For he ought always to have
such a list before him." J Brissot had managed Roland before,
and it was therefore natural that he should rejoice on his re
turn to office. To the placing of Danton in the ministry it
would not have been surprising if he had made some objection,
but, when asked by Fabre d'Eglantine whether he was opposed
to Danton, he replied that on the contrary he approved of him
and that his appointment was the seal of their reconciliation.2
It was far, however, from being the seal of reconciliation
between the Assembly and the Commune. The practical ques
tion was who was to control the power which had been taken
from the king; in other words, who was to rule France tfll the
Convention should meet. The Assembly asserted that this
task was its business and its business exclusively, while the
insurrectionary Commune maintained quite as vigorously .
that it also had a right to take part in the direction of affahs.
There thus resulted a furious struggle between the Assembly on
the one hand and the insurrectionary Commune on the other.
The leadership in the Assembly, both in its constructive work
and in its struggle with the Commune, was largely dhected by
the Committee of Twenty-one. This committee had grown
out of a special committee organized on March 6 and 9, 1792,
and known as the Committee of Twelve. On the 18th of June
its members were increased to twenty-one.3 It now became
the most important committee of the Assembly and, as has been
1 Quoted by Perroud (Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 734, and note, app.)
from a report of Brival, text corrected according to Lanthenas. See also Cor
respondance, 293. Goetz-Bernstein differs from M. Perroud in that he as
signs this note to the time of Roland's first ministry. For his reasons for so
doing see his La Diplomatic de la Gironde, 173, note.
2 Aulard, Histoire politique, 219. Quoted from testimony at the trial of the
Girondins. See Moniteur, October 27, 1793, supplement.
3 Aulard, Recueil des actes du Comiti du Salut public. It was also known as
the Commission extraordinaire. Procis^verbaux de la Ligislative, August 12,
1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 293
pointed out, it played a role analogous to that of the great
Committee of Public Safety under the Convention. Its work
was of wide scope and included measures on foreign affairs, the
provinces, the army, property, the Church, and the family.
On August 12, Brissot was added to this most important com
mittee,1 in which he took an active part and was at one time
its president.2 He indorsed its action in his journal, contended
in its behaU against his old enemies, Marat and Robespierre,
presented its reports, and even when he did not appear promi
nently to represent it, did much to direct its course.
Among the first tasks of the Assembly was to provide against
reaction in favor of royalty. What they most feared, and with
good reason, was that Lafayette might march upon Paris. In
spite of the failure of the Assembly on August 8 to bring a de
cree against him, feehng had been growing. The news that he
had arrested the commissioners sent to the army brought mat
ters to a crisis, and on August 19, urged on by the Commune,
the Committee of Twenty-one presented and secured the pas
sage of a decree declaring Lafayette guilty of high treason.3
In commenting on this Brissot summed up his opinion of La
fayette with unsparing severity. "See," he wrote, "to what
a man has been brought by ambition badly directed and
sustained by little ability, an incurable spirit of intrigue, the
popularity of a courtier, ill-directed schemes, rascality without
cleverness, a policy, which, so to speak, Uved from hand to
mouth, a man whom fortune persisted in making play the part
of a great personage." 4
Another source of danger, the Assembly felt, was in the ad
visers of the king; and having dealt with Lafayette they next
1 Procis-verbaux de la Ligislative, August 12, 1792.
2 Bire, La Ligende des Girondins, 97. Vatel, Vergniaud, n, 127. Neither
writer cites his authority; considering the importance of the position, this is a
matter of note, but it is perhaps to be accounted for by the fact that the min
utes of the committee after August 10 have disappeared. See Aulard, Recueil
des actes du Comiti du Salut public, i, Introduction, p. Iiii.
, 3 Moniteur, August 21, 1792.
4 Patriote Frangais, August 20, 1792.

294 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
turned theh attention to Montmorin. The preceding May
accusations had been brought against Montmorin by Brissot
of being devoted, not merely to the king, but to the Austrian
government and the emigris.1 After the 10th of August he had
hidden in order to escape arrest, but he was now discovered,
and on the proposal of the Committee of Twenty-one haled
before the Assembly, where Brissot reiterated his former
charges against him. He charged him particularly with having
entered into a treasonable correspondence with the Count
d'Artois and with having failed to communicate important
correspondence to the Assembly. This time the Assembly took
definite action and decreed that Montmorin be sent to prison.2
The Assembly next proceeded to deal with the Swiss troops,
a matter which demanded immediate attention because of the
part which the Swiss had taken in defending the Tuileries
against the mob on the 10th of August. The report of the com
mittee was presented by Brissot, who argued that free men
ought to take the responsibility of theh own defense; that the
agreement for the service of the Swiss in France had been made
by despotic kings, less with the purpose of defending the nation
against foreign powers than of defending themselves against
the French people; and finally, that the action of the Swiss
troops on the 10th of August made theh further continuance in
the service of France impossible. A decree was accordingly
passed for theh dismissal.3
While dealing with the participants in the 10th of August,
the Assembly had also to justUy the events of that day to for
eign powers. On the suspension of the king, the representatives
of almost all foreign powers had left Paris, and the temporary
government thus found itseU in a most embarrassing situa
tion with respect to the governments of Europe. With a view
to conciliating foreign opinion, the Assembly decreed that a
1 See p. 273. 2 Moniteur, August 23 and 24, 1792.
3 Ibid., August 22, 1792. Also Rapport fait au nom de la Commission ex
traordinaire des Comitis diplomatique et militaire le 20 aodt, 1792, sur U
licenciement des rigiments misses au service de la France.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 295
defense of the events of August 10 be drawn up and sent to
the powers which had declared their intention of preserving
neutrality. This address, which was prepared and presented
by Brissot, was an able piece of work. The bloodshed of the
10th of August, he admitted, was to be regretted, but the court
alone, by ordering the soldiers to fire on the people, was to
blame for it. It but precipitated the suspension of the king,
which was aheady under consideration. That suspension was
due to a long series of acts on his part, particularly in connec
tion with foreign powers, which had made it evident beyond
doubt that he was opposed to the Revolution. But although
the king was suspended and a convention summoned, no an
archy existed, and the government was still being carried on
in accordance with the constitution. Foreign powers, there
fore, had no reason to withdraw their ambassadors from
France or to break off friendly relations with her. Then turn
ing to England he made a particularly skillful appeal. "If
France has not the right to suspend the head of her executive
power, we must conclude that the English are rebels and that
the House of Hanover is a usurping dynasty. Surely there is
no Englishman, no inteUigent man, who could sustain such a
doctrine. The French nation, therefore, is far from fearing a
hostile attitude on the part of England; she believes in the as
surances of its government, she believes in the loyalty and
love of the English people, she believes that when the court of
St. James shall have brought its conduct more into line with
right principles it will be convinced that the French nation
alone has the right, through its representatives, of passing
judgment upon the fate of its first public functionary, upon
the fate of its government, that no power on earth has the
right of interfering in its decisions." 1
At the same time that the Assembly was protesting against
interference from without she was taking further measures
to check opposition to the Revolution from within by a decree
against the non-juring clergy. This decree, which was more
1 Projet de diclaraiion de VAssembUe nationale, 5,

296 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
rigorous than anything yet attempted, provided that all non-
juring priests must leave France within fifteen days under
penalty of deportation to French-Guiana. While Brissot does
not appear to have actively opposed this measure, he spoke
of it with some reservation and suggested that there was danger
that the innocent might be punished instead of the guilty
and that the priest to whom the taking of the oath was a vio
lation of his conscience would suffer instead of the violent and
dangerous anti-revolutionist.1
In regard to another question, concerning the Church,
Brissot was more radical, namely, the decree facilitating di
vorce. His paper at least spoke of it in terms of unmeasured
approval, as "the work of superstition overturned, the pre
judices of many centuries destroyed, nature triumphant over
the Church of Rome, the heavy chains of Hymen changed for
garlands of flowers, morals regenerated, and conjugal fidelity
established on the foundations of equality and the reciprocity
of duties as well as of rights." 2
Radical and rapid as was the work of the Assembly, it was
not sufficiently so to suit the Commune, especially in its atti
tude toward the reactionaries. The Commune therefore pro
ceeded to dictate to the Assembly, an interference which the
Assembly naturally resented, and which led to bitter conflict.
The first clash came about over the establishment of a special
court, which the Commune kept demanding and which the
Assembly fought step by step. As a member of the Commit
tee of Twenty-one, Brissot was in the forefront of the fight.
On the 11th of August the Assembly had taken steps toward the
formation of a court-martial to try the Swiss for their part in
the bloodshed of the preceding day.3 This, however, did not
satisfy the Commune, as the jurisdiction of such a court would
presumably be limited to those immediately concerned with the
actual violence, and did not extend to conspirators behind
the scenes. On the 14th of August, therefore, the Commune
1 Patriote Frangais, August 25, 1792. 2 Ibid., September 1, 1792.
3 Moniteur, August 13, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 297
sent a deputation which demanded to know what action the
Assembly intended to take and added that if it did not take
immediate action, they (the deputation) would wait until it
did.1 The Assembly naturally protested against such a demand,
as insulting to its dignity, but at the same time it was intimi
dated into some concession in decreeing that each of the sec
tions of Paris might choose two juris d 'accusation and two
juris de jugement. This haUway measure did not satisfy the
Commune, and the next day the Commune again sent a deputa
tion headed by Robespierre, which demanded in no measured
terms the establishment of a special court in which the ac
cused should be judged directly by commissioners chosen by
the sections and from whose decision there should be no appeal.
Brissot now came to the front and in an eloquent speech, in
which he represented the Committee of Twenty-one, declared
that such a court would be nothing more or less than a court-
martial and as such would involve a violation of the principles
of the constitution; and that, in preserving the constitutional
forms of trial and at the same time in adding new jurors to be
chosen directly by the sections, due provision had been made
for rendering justice more impartial and more rapid. "Doubt
less forms still more rapid niight have been used," he ad
mitted, "but they belong only to despotism; despotism alone
can employ them, because it does not fear to dishonor itself
by cruelty; but a free people deshes to be and must be just
even in its vengeance." 2
One further point the committee was willing to concede,
namely, that the right of appeal be done away with. The As
sembly, therefore, voted in accordance with Brissot's report
that the demand of the Commune for a special court be re
fused, but that the right of appeal be abolished. The Assembly
could thus flatter itself that it had withstood the Commune.
It had, however, made a vital concession, and when the Com
mune again reiterated its demands, it gave way and ordered the
establishment of a special tribunal.3
1 Moniteur, August 17, 1792. 2 Ibid., August 17, 1792.
3 Ibid., August 19, 1792.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Brissot again came into conflict with the Commune on its
action in declaring that the signers of the two petitions of the
eight thousand and the twenty thousand should be declared
incapable of holding any civil office or of bearing arms.1 These
petitions had been drawn up by the national guard of Paris
early in the summer of 1792, in protest against the camp of
fidSrSs, and represented the hostility of the bourgeois element
to a democratic army. The decree of the Commune was there
fore a retaliation upon the bourgeois. It was, moreover, in
the eyes of the Assembly, a usurpation of power, and when the
subject came up Brissot not only supported the motion that
the petitions be burned, but demanded that the citizens who
possessed copies of them should be asked to destroy them and
that any one who should attempt to make use of them for
purposes of proscription should be declared an unworthy
citizen.2 Brissot was further aroused against the Commune by its
treatment of his colleague in the management of the Patriote
Frangais, Girey-Dupre. The Patriote Frangais had been most
vehement in assailing the Commune, and on the 30th of August,
Girey-Dupre was summoned before the Commune to answer
for its strictures. Hereupon the Assembly, very angry at the
assumption of such power by the Commune, not only quashed
the summons, and called to its own bar the authorities of the
Commune and censured them, but ordered a new municipal
election and the dissolution of the Commune. The Commune,
however, refused to dissolve, and continued to send out its de
crees all over France and to dictate terms to the Assembly and
to the Committee of Twenty-one. Brissot was highly indignant
at such conduct, which he considered a base usurpation of
power. "As long as the temporary commissioners," he de
clared, "devoted themselves to directing the revolution of the
10th of August, to pursuing the conspirators and to watching
those who might be accused of being conspirators, the patriots
1 See von Sybel, French Revolution, n, 63.
2 Moniteur, September 10, 1792.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 299
saw, without being disturbed, the exercise of power, which,
having sprung into being with the insurrection, ought to perish
with it and be lost in the sovereignty of the people. But when
we saw those commissioners prolong their dictatorial authority,
usurp the rights of the Commune, dissolve and create again
authorities which the Commune alone had the right to create
and dissolve, suspend magistrates chosen and loved by the
people — in short, when we realized that they were doing
things which even extraordinary conditions could not justify,
then, at last, good citizens opened their eyes, and perceived
that they had not twice conquered liberty in order to hand it
over to intriguers, and that they ought not to raise upon the
ruins of royal and patrician despotism a despotism more op
pressive and more hateful." x
The Commune, on the other hand, was supported by Marat.
In a placard of August 28 he denounced " the infamous efforts
of such men as Brissot, Condorcet, Vergniaud, and Guadet."
They had written to all the provinces, he declared, that the
National Assembly was under the knife of the Commune of
Paris, and theh object in so doing was to have the Convention
removed from Paris to some city "gangrened by aristocracy,"
where, they flattered themselves, they could direct its opera
tions to theh taste.2
Further and more serious accusations were now brought
against Brissot and the other Girondins; namely, that they
were plotting to preserve the monarchy while overthrowing
the monarch, and to put upon the throne either the Duke of
York, second son of the king of England, or the Duke of Brunf
wick. The charges went aU the way from an assertion that
1 Patriate Frangais, August 30, 1792.
2 "Dans un placard du 28 aout 1792 [Chivremont, Jean Paul Marat, n, 96],
Marat disait que ces infdmes [Brissot, Condorcet, Vergniaud, Guadet, etc.] ont
parte la sciUratesse jusqu'd icrire, dans tous les dipartements, que VAssembUe
nationaU est sous le couteau de la Commune de Paris dirigie par une trentaine de
faclieux, afin de faire choix de quelque ville gangrenie d' aristocratic, pour siege de
la Convention nationale qu'ils se fiattent de mener d, Uur gri. Aulard, Histoire
politique, 237, note.

300 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the Girondins had considered these men as possible candidates
for the throne of France to a direct charge of venality.1 Of the
latter there is absolutely no proof. The accusation took defi
nite and formal shape when, on the evening of September 2,
Billaud-Varennes and Robespierre denounced before the Com
mune a plot in favor of the Duke of Brunswick.2 According
to his own account, Brissot was charged not only with having
plotted to deliver France to the Duke of Brunswick, but of
having received several millions for that purpose. A search
was accordingly made of his papers, but as no proof was found
he was allowed to go unmolested.3 The significance of this
action lies not in the charge itself, but in the fact that it was
made at the time of the massacres of September, when all sus
pected royalists were in imminent danger of losing theh lives.
That the members of the Commune should have made such
a charge at this moment is an evidence that they regarded
1 Potion, in his Discours sur V accusation intentie contre Robespierre, denies
in reply to the reported accusation of Robespierre, that Brissot favored the
Duke of Brunswick. Aulard, in his Histoire politique (p. 209, note), says:
"Carra, soit dans Us Annates palriotiques soit d la tribune des JacoMns, avait,
a mots couverts, disigni le duc d' York et duc de Brunswick, comme des candidates
possibles (et acceptables) au trone de France." See Acte d' accusation ridigi par
Amar contre les Girondins, 15-17. See also Paganel, who represents a moderate
point of view. "A une ipoque ou V existence politique de la France couroit Us
plus grands dangers, lorsqu'il s'agissoit de renverser le trone ou de remettre U
sceptre constitutionnel dans une main puissante et protectrice, Brissot proposa
aux hommes influens d'un comiU qui rigloit les dilibirations de VAssembUe
legislative, un fils de George et la constitution anglaise, sous la garantie du rm et
du parUment. Ce fait est certain ; cependant il n'existe aucune preuve directe du
crime de trahison." Paganel, Essai historique, n, 232. Goetz-Bernstein, p. 276,
note, quotes from Gollz to Frederick William, March 26, 1792 (Prussian
archives): "La populace devient de plus en plus insoUnte. . . . Cela accridite
une opinion, que pourtant je ne partage pas encore, que I'Angleterre, par Brissot
et autres, paye la tribune pour maintenir la confusion en France."
2 According to M. Aulard (Histoire politique, 253-55), the Proces-verbaux de
la commune (ed. Tourneux, 81) does not give the names of the alleged in
stigators of the plot, but according to Brissot's account in the Patriote Frangais
of September 4 he was one of those designated.
3 See his own account of the matter in a letter addressed to his fellow citizens
and published in the Patriote Frangais, September 4, and in the Moniteur
of September 7, 1792. See also Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 434; and Brissot,
Mimoires, n, 247.

MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 301
Brissot with violent animosity, and that they were ready to
resort to accusations which, though they may have believed,
they were unable to prove.
As to Brissot's attitude toward the massacres, accounts
differ. The Girondins subsequently charged the Commune
and its Jacobin leaders with the responsibility and at the same
time endeavored to clear themselves of all part in that respon
sibility. If his own statement in his Reponse au rapport de
Saint-Just is to be relied on, Brissot used all his influence to
induce Danton to put a stop to the massacres.1 This assertion
receives some support from Peltier, who was by no means an
admher of Brissot. According to his account, Brissot be
sought Danton to know U there were not some means of pre
venting the innocent from being confounded with the guilty.2
On the other hand, according to the evidence at his trial, he was
present at the house of Petion when two of the assassins came
in and drank with Petion.3 Desmoulins in his Histoire des
Brissotins makes the startling insinuation that Brissot on the
3d of September had in the presence of Danton frankly ex
pressed regret that his bitter enemy Morande had been for
gotten. Such an occurrence is, however, hardly credible and
lacks all corroboration. What is certain is that the Committee
of Twenty-one, of which Brissot was president and in which
he had great influence, took no effective action. Whether it was
in a position to take such action is, however, a question.
A couple of weeks later the Legislative Assembly came to an
end. Brissot's interest in the Revolution during this period,
both in regard to economic and social matters and in the
struggle for democracy and a repubUc, is perhaps best expressed
in the Patriote Frangais of September 22, 1792, summing up
the work of the Assembly: "When posterity shall pass in re
view the acts of this second assembly it will see, not without
gratitude, that it has overthrown a constitutional Church built
1 Mimmres, n, 247.
2 Peltier, Histoire de la Revolution du 10 aout, 1792, n, 489.
3 Moniteur, October 27, 1793; supplement.

302 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
upon the ruins of a national religion; that it has established
divorce; that it has destroyed the odious distinction which
obtained between the white man and his black or mulatto fel
low citizen; that it has ordered the sale of the property of the
imigris in small portions and the equal division of communal
property; that it has torn down the aristocratic barrier raised
between Frenchman and Frenchman by the title of active
citizen; that it has sworn to hate and to fight kings and royalty;
that it has declared with courage and sustained with firmness
the war against the house of Austria, cruel enemy of the liberty
of Europe and the curse of the human race; finally, pressed be
tween despotism which was seeking to raise its head again and
anarchy which was seeking to take its place, it has handed on
intact and considerably increased, the treasure confided to it
of national liberty." x
In much of this achievement Brissot had been an active
participant. The part which he himseU played had greatly in
creased his reputation; it had also increased the number of his
enemies. He was both better known and better hated at the
close of the Legislative Assembly than he was at the begin
ning. "Brissotin" had come to be a word of significant mean
ing. His advocacy of a war which was threatening to become
disastrous, his quarrel with Robespierre, his radical measures
in regard to the colonies, the attack which he had suffered at
the hands of Desmoulins, and finally his conflict with the Com
mune, had aroused enmity against him; yet the prestige which
he had won and in large measure still retained, as a leader in
matters of foreign affairs, his influence on constitutional legis
lation, his influence as editor of the Patriote Frangais, and his
official position as president of the Committee of Twenty-one
gave him a place of great prominence and secured his election
to the Convention.
1 Quoted in Jaures, Histoire socialiste, n, 1315. That Jaures in such a work
chooses Brissot's words in which to sum up the work of the Revolution during
the Legislative Assembly is in itself a tribute to the social character of Brissot's
interests.

CHAPTER XI
BRISSOT AND THE CONVENTION
At the opening of the Convention, Brissot had reached the
climax of his career. His leadership was recognized both at
home and abroad. French newspapers of the time, for ex
ample, refer to "Brissot and Company," "Brissot and his
coterie," 1 while the English Monthly Review for 1794 speaks
of him as the leading man in France during the first months of
the Convention.2 Within a year, however, power and influence
had slipped from his hands, and by the expulsion of his party
from the Convention he was branded with failure. The reason
for his failure is not far to seek. If he had achieved a reputation
as an exponent of the war policy and as a democratic republi
can, he had also aroused enmity on account of his opposition
to the Commune of Paris. This enmity now told increasingly
against him. Moreover, he failed to perceive — and this was
the main cause of his failure — that with the extension of the
war there was imperative necessity of putting aside party dU-
ferences and of maintaining greater centralization in govern
ment. This was the fatal mistake of Brissot and the Girondins;
for their failure to see the necessity for union and centralization
led to charges of federalism and royalty, and ultimately brought
the party to its fall.
Brissot was elected to the Convention from three depart
ments,3 a decided contrast to his election to the Legislative
1 Revolutions de Paris, October 27, November 3, 1792.
2 Vol. xm, p. 228.
3 Of nine deputies elected from the Department of the Eure-et-Loir, Brissot
was chosen the second on the 5th of September. Proces-verbal de Vassemblie
MectoraU du dipartement de V Eure-et-Loir ; Archives Nationales, C 178 (27).
Of nine deputies elected from the Department of the Loire, Brissot was
chosen the ninth on the 6th of September. Proces-verbal de Vassemblie electo
rate du dipartement du Loire ; Archives Nationales, C 179 (43) .
Of eleven deputies elected from the Department of the Eure, Brissot was

304 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Assembly, when he had to maintain a long conflict to secure
election from one.1 The department which he actually repre
sented — he could represent only one — was Eure-et-Loir,
presumably because his election there occurred first. Not only
in the elections, but in the opening days of the Convention he
occupied a position of prominence, being chosen on Septem
ber 21 as one of the first secretaries,2 and on October 11 as a
member of the Committee on the Constitution, and on the
Diplomatic Committee.3
The first step taken by the Convention was the abolition of
royalty. Although Brissot regretted that the motion had not
been accompanied by discussion, of the action itseU he en
thusiastically approved. It was very difficult, he declared,
for a man who for so long a time had professed republicanism
to refrain from pouring out his soul on so happy an occasion.
He not only rejoiced, he continued, because royalty was abol
ished and the yoke of the tyrants cast off, but also because it
had been done by that class of citizens known as the "people."
If he were asked why most partisans of republicanism were
to be found among the people, he would answer it was because
the people were more trustworthy, had more good sense, fewer
prejudices, less calculating interest than other classes. It was
the people who realized that since an hereditary king might be
tyrannical, ignorant, or imbecile, hereditary royalty was un
necessary, in fact an absurdity. "What the people thought,"
he concluded, "the Convention did; the French are finally
men, free men — Francs."4
Since Frenchmen were now free, the Patriote Frangais
argued, in another article published the same day, it was only
chosen the seventh on the 6th day of September. Proces-verbal de VassembUe
iUctorale du dipartement de VEure; Archives Nationales, C 178 (26).
1 That he was not chosen as a deputy from Paris is an evidence of the
strength of the opposition to him on the part of the Commune. See Bourne,
The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 183.
2 Proces-verbaux de la Convention, September 21, 1792.
3 Ibid., October 11, 1792.
4 Patriote Frangais, September 22, 1792. It would hardly be suspected from
this effusion that Brissot himself had counseled delay in establishing a republic.

THE CONVENTION 305
fitting that the aristocracy of feudal titles should be abolished.
Monsieur, le sieur implied gradations which no longer existed.
Even citoyen suggested some distinction; it was, moreover, a
sacred word, and while it might be fittingly applied to Petion
or Condorcet, to refer to Marat as citoyen was to prostitute the
term to a base use. Republicans, the article concluded, might
weU imitate the Romans, and say simply Petion, Condorcet,
Paine, as at Rome people talked of Cato, Cicero, and Brutus.
It was aU very well for Brissot to utter pagans in praise of
republicanism, but his enemies had not forgotten that his ad
vocacy of a republic had by no means been unflagging and that
in the critical months of July and August just passed, he had
advised caution and even delay.
The quarrel that had developed at that epoch between the
Ghondins and the Jacobin supporters of the Commune now
received a new and powerful impetus, since neither party
needed to exercise caution for fear of giving an advantage to
the monarchists. But scarcely had the decree for the abolition
of monarchy been passed when the Girondins rushed to the
assault. Their opponents, they cried, were forever stained
withfthe blood of the loathsome massacres of September. It
was time to set up scaffolds for the assassins and for those who
provoked assassination.1 Nor was this all. The guilty wretches
had built upon their crime to make themselves masters of Paris
and of all France. Masters they were and masters they strove
to remain by creating a dictatorship whereby Paris could over
awe the Convention and control the nation.
To meet this danger the Girondins proposed to establish a
departmental guard about Paris, consisting of delegates from
the eighty-three departments.2 The Mountain accepted the
challenge and stubbornly contested every inch of the ground.
They denied with indignation that they had connived at the
massacres; they repudiated the charge of seeking to establish
a dictatorship; but above all they violently opposed the pro
ject of a departmental guard. On this question the advantage
1 Moniteur, September 25, 1792. 2 Ibid., September 26, 1792.

306 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
was distinctly on their side, for, by proclaiming themselves the
champions of the liberty of Paris, they discredited the Giron
dins with the people of that all-important city. Moreover, by
retorting with the counter-charge that the real object of the
Girondins was to destroy the unity of the nation by splitting
France into a score of federal republics, they rendered them
objects of undying suspicion and endless hate. 1 In this quarrel,
which raged with increasing bitterness for several weeks, Bris
sot spoke but seldom,2 but in his journal he upheld his own
party with a loyalty and attacked the Mountain with a vin-
dictiveness which would have done credit to the ante-election
editorials of a modern newspaper. Whatever the Girondins
advocated was per se good, the views of the Mountain per se
bad. The quarrel began over the question whether a man might
hold his position as minister and at the same time be a member
of the legislative body. The individual involved was Roland.
While Brissot argued against this as a principle, he did want
Roland to hold both places provisionaUy, and was furious with
Danton for having dragged Madame Roland into the discus
sion by his remark to the effect that U Roland were asked to
continue his functions as minister, the same invitation would
have to be extended to Madame Roland. Such an allusion was
both ungallant and ungracious, Brissot declared, and Danton
ought to be ashamed of himself.3
Meanwhile the matter of the departmental guard was again
1 Moniteur, September 26, 1792. Although the plan for a general depart
mental guard was defeated, the Girondins succeeded in inducing a consider
able number of fideris from Marseilles to come up to Paris. This guard ap
peared at the bar of the Convention and proclaimed its intention of defending
Paris against the dictators. See Moniteur, October 22, 1792.
2 The leadership in this quarrel passed to Buzot.
3 "Danton n'a pas rougi de dire que, si Vonfaisait une invitation 6, Roland, U
falloit aussi en faire une a la femme de ce ministre, puisqu'elU aide de ses con
sents. Ce reproche itoit inf&me : c' itoit faire un crime a un ministre du bonheur de
possider un amis, un consettler iclairi dans sa femme. . . . Heureux, mille fois
heureux, Us ministres, les fonctionnaires qui ont des ipouses aussi iclairies et
aussi vertueuses : ceux-la ne risquent pas de faire de plates adresses, ou de protiger
des sciUrats." Patriote Frangais, September 30, 1792.

THE CONVENTION 307
taken up by Buzot, who urgently demanded such an organiza
tion. This demand Brissot commended with enthusiasm. He
again warmly approved of Buzot, when some three weeks later
the latter argued that this measure did not imply hostility to
Paris, but on the contrary furthered that unity which was for
the best interest of Paris.1 And in describing the culminating
incident of this preliminary struggle between the Girondins and
the Jacobins — the attack of Louvet on Robespierre — he
praised the former in extravagant terms and poured his bitter
est scorn upon the latter. "Louvet," he declared, "made a
speech, of which it is impossible to give an extract, because it
was all equally strong, equally fine. . . . The eloquence of the
orator was as great as his courage — and never did Cicero
show more courage when, in the Roman Senate, he challenged
the anarchist Catiline and the ambitious Antony." 2 Robes
pierre's speech, on the contrary, was beneath contempt.
"Robespierre spoke, — in one word we have analyzed his
speech — he spoke. He ought to have justified himseU and did
not do it. When accused of having aspired to the dictatorship,
he answered that in order to aspire to it one must be a fool,
which does not prove that he did not aspire to it." 3 As for
Marat, Brissot could hardly contain himself. He begged pardon
of his readers for being obliged even to mention his name and
alluded to him as that man "whose every word was a horror,
whose every thought was a crime, every gesture a contortion,
every action an argument against Providence." 4
The combatants in this mortal strife seized upon every coign
of vantage and delivered their blows in the political clubs as
well as in the Convention or through the newspapers. At the
Jacobin Club, it will be recalled, charges of anti-republican
ism had already been made against Brissot and decisive action
had long been pending.5 The charges were now renewed and
added to. On the 23d of September, he was accused of having
1 Patriote Frangais, October 9, 1792. 2 Ibid., October 31, 1792.
3 Ibid., November 6, 1792. 4 Ibid., October 5, 1792.
5 See p. 268.

308 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
referred to Robespierre and Danton as leaders in the Conven
tion of a party of disorganizers and was summoned to appear
before the Club to explain himself. The next day he answered
by letter that he would come as soon as he had an evening
when he was not occupied at the Convention.1 The Jacobin
Club, however, did not wait for his explanation, but on Octo
ber 10 they took the final step and expelled him.2 The formal
accusation contained but one general charge, that of opposition
to the Commune of Paris, but the circular which the Club sent
out to all the affiliated societies notifying them of its action was
very specific. In it they accused Brissot not only of calum
niating Paris, but of having been the friend of Lafayette, of
temporizing with the king, of injuring the country by bringing
on a foreign war and of being at best a haU-hearted republican.3
Brissot in reply appealed to his constituents, and in a lengthy
pamphlet entitled "A tous les rSpublicans de France sur la
SocietS des Jacobins de Paris," set forth his side of the case. He
began by defending his attacks on the leaders of the Paris Com
mune, who were now represented by the party of the Mountain.
They were nothing less, he declared, than a party of disorgan
izers; he had preached against them and would continue to
preach against them. Three revolutions were necessary, he
went on, to save France: the first to overthrow despotism; the
second, to destroy royalty; the third ought to overcome an
archy, and it is to that last revolution that, since the 10th of
August, he had consecrated his pen and all his efforts. This was
his crime in the eyes of the agitators. "These agitators or dis
organizers are those," he continued, "who, while preaching
theoretically an equality of departments, in fact elevate Paris
above all of them; who thus elevate it only that they may
elevate themselves, who wish the unity of the republic only
that they may consolidate the entire republic about their little
1 Aulard, Les JacoMns, iv, 327-30.
2 The same day Petion was replaced by Danton as president, and on No
vember 26 Louvet, Lanthenas, Roland, and Girey-Dupr6 were expelled. IMd.,
iv, 376 and 519.
3 Ibid., iv, 377-78.

THE CONVENTION 309
center of intrigue and from that center dominate all the depart
ments." Then, turning to the accusation of having brought
about the war, he declared that the war had justified itself by
having overthrown royalty. As for the civil war in the colo
nies, that was due not to him, but to Barnave; as far as La
fayette was concerned, he had been his friend, but had been
deceived by him; and finally, as for the assertion that he,
together with his friends Vergniaud, Gensonne, and Guadet,
formed a "Brissotin" faction — that was a mere figment of
the imagination gotten up to frighten the people. This defense
naturaUy had little effect on the Jacobin Club; but though
stripped of his power there, he continued to be recognized
as the chief enemy of the club, at least till November. But
when during the winter of 1792-93 Buzot became more prom
inent, they turned theh main attacks upon him.
While political strife was thus raging within, important
questions of foreign affairs were demanding settlement. The
situation was critical; war was being waged against Austria
and Prussia, but there was still a chance that by wise diplomacy
further complications might be avoided. In the discussion of
these questions Brissot was keenly interested and, as a member
of the Diplomatic Committee, took an active part.
Even in the conduct of the war the influence of the internal
strUe made itself felt. Marat, for example, denounced Du
mouriez for his attitude toward the Prussians and hastened to
point out that a man who had been lenient to one foe might be
lenient to another, even to the point of treason. Whereupon
Brissot, in spite of the bitterness which he had felt toward Du
mouriez on account of his part in the fall of the Girondin min
istry, promptly took up the cudgels in his behaU, supporting
Dumouriez's policy and defending his motives.1 And a little
later, when Dumouriez and Pache fell into disagreement, Bris
sot tried to pour oil on the troubled waters. On December 2,
1792, he wrote to Dumouriez that Pache really believed in his
(Dumouriez's) talents and recognized his success. At the same
1 Patriote Frangais, October 4, December 3, 1792, and March 1, 1793.

310 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
time he exhorted Dumouriez to pay no heed to the calumnies
directed against him, but to pursue his course in the conviction
that he would be righteously judged by posterity.1
Despite the disputes in the management of the war, which
led Pache to give only a half-hearted support to the com
manders, Dumouriez and the other generals won a series of
victories which made France successful from the Scheldt to the
Pyrenees. The question was then raised : What attitude should
be taken toward the conquered territory? In the excitement
of victory the members of the Convention lost their heads, and,
whfle they gave one answer theoretically, practicaUy they gave
quite another. On November 19 they set forth in eloquent terms
the revolutionary propaganda, asserting that France was ready
to carry aid wherever men were seeking to recover their liberty,2
and yet in almost the same breath they decreed the annexa
tion of Savoy 3 and Nice 4 and the opening of the Scheldt.5
What was Brissot's attitude toward this revolutionary
propaganda ? To spread ideas of liberty had been the object
of much of his pre-revolutionary writing and the motive of his
numerous schemes for international organizations. He might,
therefore, naturally be expected to be in the forefront in press
ing a real and immediate liberty upon Europe. Indeed, it has
been asserted that he surpassed all his friends in his enthusi
asm.6 This statement, however, does not seem to be borne out,
1 Correspondance, 317-18; see also letter of December 9. Ibid., p. 319.
2 The action was taken on November 19, 1792. See the Moniteur, November
20, 1792.
3 Moniteur, November 28, 1792.
4 Ibid., February 1, 1793. The union had been discussed as early as No
vember 4, 1792.
5 Ibid., November 22, 1792. It is true that in some instances the inhabitants
themselves of the conquered territory petitioned for annexation. It is also
true that the Assembly did much to encourage such petitions. Contrary to the
accepted idea that the Girondins were the leaders in the movement for an
nexation, Anacharsis Cloots in his Ni Marat ni Roland asserted that they were
opposed to it. This assertion, however, is not borne out by their public utter
ances. See the Moniteur, November 20, 1792; also Sorel, VEurope et la Revo
lution frangaise, in, 169.
6 Cahen, Condorcet, 439.

THE CONVENTION 311
at least in his relation to the decree of November 19. When this
decree was brought before the Convention, he tried to have it
referred to the Diplomatic Committee,1 and in his newspaper
he expressed himself strongly against the general terms in which
it was couched and declared that this was a fault which might
have been avoided U it had been referred to a committee for
greater precision of statement.2 Later, in his address A ses
Commettans,3 and in his Projet de defense when criticized for his
supposed approval of the decree, he reiterated his former objec
tions to it.4 His objection at the time the decree was passed
was certainly sufficient to warrant his later assertions that he
had opposed it, but that opposition seems to have been to its
wording rather than to its fundamental principle. At all events,
with regard to the decree of December 15, he took the stand
which might have been expected of him and expressed himseU
with enthusiasm. This decree declared that the revolutionary
institutions should be carried into all countries occupied by
the French Republic and that the sovereignty of the people
and the suppression of all existing authorities should be pro
claimed. According to Brissot this decree, which was to carry
"war to the castle and peace to the cottage," was founded
upon great principles. At the same time he tried to reconcile
these principles with annexation, by pointing out — what was
true only in a limited sense — that it was the desire of neigh
boring peoples to be united with France.5
1 Moniteur, November 20, 1792.
2 "VAssembUe rend enfin un dicret dont il eut Hi sans doute plus sage de
confier U redaction a un comiti : car il offre une generaliti qui serait ridicule, si
V esprit du dicret ne le restreignoit pas ; mais il fallait priciser cette restriction :
c'est une de ces fautes dans lesquelles Us assembUes tomberont toutes les fois
qu'elles voudront improviser des deliberations sur des matieres importantes et
dilicates." Patriote Frangais, November 20, 1792.
3 In his address A ses Commettans he speaks of "V absurds H impolitique
dicret du 19 novembre, que a justement exiti Us inquiHudes des cabinets itrangeres."
In a note in the same address he says: "En vain plusieurs membres en deman-
daient au moins U renvoi au comiti diplomatique, pour ridiger de maniere d ne
pas blesser les puissances avec lesquelles on Hait en paix" (p. 68).
4 Mimoires, n, 307.
5 "Au nom des ComiUs diplomatique, de la guerre et des finances, Cambon

312 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The existence of opposition among the neighboring peoples
to annexation offered to Brissot, however, no legitimate reason
why France should refrain from annexation. "We ought not,"
he declared in regard to the proposed annexation of Savoy,
"to pass over in silence a question which has been raised, viz.,
whether a people whom we have delivered from despotism has
the right to submit itseU again to its yoke. We believe not.
It is with people in society as a whole as with individuals in
smaller groups; they are allowed to injure themselves, but .not
in such a way as to injure others. Now despotism is an evil,
not only for the people who submit to it but also for others.
People ought no more to be allowed to give themselves despots
than individuals to keep serpents; since their neighbors ought
not to suffer because of theh foolish performances." : Nothing
could more clearly express the system of liberty which France
was to force on her neighbors whether they deshed it or not.
That, in some cases, their neighbors did not want this liberty,
was only too evident, but as M. Sorel remarks, it was to be a
choice between "destruction and fraternity." 2
That the existing benighted authorities had any rights does
not seem to have occurred to Brissot. The existing authorities
represented despotism, and that was sufficient to deprive them
of any claim to consideration. These opinions he developed
in a series of reports on the subject of the relations of France
to the Swiss cantons and to Geneva. The Swiss had been much
irritated by the action of the Assembly in regard to the Swiss
troops on account of their part in the events of the 10th of
August.3 They had refused to recognize the provisional gov-
fait un rapport sur la conduite que doivent tenir nos giniraux d I'igard des peupUs
dont U territoire est occupi par les armies de la ripublique, et il propose ensuite un
projet de dicrH qu'on peut regarder V organization du pouvoir revolutionnaire
universel. Les grands principles de liberti et de politique, dheloppis par le
rapporteur, ont fait d'autant plus d'impression qu'il les u exposis avec cette
entrainante ndiveU, cette simpliciti inergique qui caractirisent I'orateur de la na
ture lorsqu'il n'est pas corrompu et qu'il ne cherche pas d corrompre." Patriote
Frangais, December 17, 1792.
1 Patriote Frangais, September 30, 1792.
2 Sorel, V Europe et la Revolution frangaise, hi, 106. 8 Ibid., in, 121-22.

THE CONVENTION 313
ernment, and when French troops occupied the valley of Poren-
truy and stirred up the inhabitants against their sovereign,
the bishop of Bale, the cantons of Berne and Uri made open
protest and demanded the removal of the French troops. This,
Brissot argued, should not be done, as the presence of French
troops there was a measure of self-defense made necessary by
the war with the emperor, and had been provided for by pre
vious treaties; and further, that the bishop of Bale deserved
little consideration, as he had flagrantly violated treaties made
with France.1 Brissot's arguments prevailed and the troops
remained. Trouble of a like nature soon arose with Geneva.
Geneva, which was a free imperial city, had in 1558 and 1584
made a perpetual alliance with the cantons of Berne and Zu
rich. At the time of the democratic revolution in Geneva in
1782, France, Sardinia, and the cantons of Switzerland had
intervened, established an aristocratic constitution, and pro
vided that in case of war Geneva was to be declared neutral.
In September, 1792, the Genevese, frightened at the pro
jects of France, called in support from Berne and Zurich. They
held that they had a right to do this on the ground that the
treaty of 1584 was not set aside by that of 1782. Brissot, in a
report on the subject, October 16, asserted that the treaty of
1584 was abrogated and that the Genevese had no right to call
in the troops. But while declaring that the part of the treaty
of 1782 which guaranteed the neutrality of Geneva must be
preserved, he asserted at the same time that the other part of
that treaty, that which guaranteed the aristocratic constitu
tion, must be abandoned as unworthy of the recognition of the
French nation.2
Meanwhile, Montesquieu was carrying on negotiations with
Geneva, and on October 22 signed a treaty, by which Geneva
engaged to have the Swiss troops removed by the 1st of the
1 Moniteur, October 4, 1792. He made this report in the name of the Com
mission extraordinaire.
2 Moniteur, October 17, 1792. See also Sorel, VEurope et la Revolution
frangaise, in, 122-26.

314 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
succeeding January, on condition that the French troops with
draw immediately after the ratification of the treaty. The
agreement, however, had nothing to say of a proscription of the
aristocrats nor of the abrogation of the guaranty of the con
stitution of 1782. The 2d of November Montesquieu made an
other report, which, while it included some modifications in the
interests of France, still maintained the constitution of 1782.
For this failure the Convention censured Montesquieu, and on
the motion of the Diplomatic Committee, presented by Brissot
November 21, criticized the terms of the treaties, but at the
same time made the best of the situation by setting forward
the date of the evacuation of Genevese territory, not only by
the French but by the Swiss troops.1
While thus contending openly against aristocratic govern
ments in Switzerland, Brissot was privately considering the
situation with regard to Spain. On November 26 he wrote in
most incendiary terms to Servan that it was necessary to de
clare war on Spain; that there would not be peaceful liberty for
France so long as there was a Bourbon on the throne;2 and that
in order to assure the triumph of the Revolution and the defeat
of its enemies, Europe must be set on fire. Meantime Spanish
America must be aroused.3 To accomplish this purpose Bris
sot set actively to work. He first entered into negotiations
with a young Spaniard, Marchena by name, with the idea of
stirring up revolutionary propaganda in Spain.4 He next
turned his attention to the Spanish possessions in the new
world. The outcome of the latter undertaking was the pro
posed expedition of Genet to drive the Spaniards from the
Mississippi. Ever since his American travels, Brissot had been
1 Moniteur, November 22, 1792.
* Note particularly the same expression in his letter to Dumouriez of No
vember 28, 1792. Correspondance, 314.
3 Letter to Servan, November 26, 1792. Collection Charavay; printed by
Perroud in the Correspondance, 312. Mallet du Pan, in his Considerations sur la
nature de la Revolution de France, 37, quotes from this letter. See also Brissot's
letters to Dumouriez of November 28, December 2, and 9, 1792; Correspon
dance, 314-20.
4 See pp. 360-61; also Goetz-Bernstein, 323.

THE CONVENTION 315
keenly interested in the western development of the United
States; he had written of it at length in his Nouveau Voyage,
had tried to advance various schemes for the sale of lands, and
had been ready to risk financial investments.1 He was now
consulted as an authority on the subject, and on January 25,
1792, he was asked by the Committee of General Defense to
report on the possibility of an expedition against the Spanish
dependencies.2 That there was abundant prospect of success
in such an expedition he was thoroughly convinced, especially
in view of the hostile attitude of the western settlers toward
Spain. As to the best means of procedure, he consulted with
the members of his party, as well as with Thomas Paine and
the Americans whom he often met at Paine's house. His own
plan seems to have been to make use of Miranda and thirty
thousand troops from Santo Domingo to aid in securing the
independence of Louisiana.3 In his letter to Servan, referred
to above, he spoke of Miranda's courage and genius and ex
pressed the belief that it would be an easy matter for him to
free the inhabitants of the western lands from the chains forged
for them by Pizarro and Cortez.4 It was finally decided to send
Genet, an appointment for which Brissot himself was respon
sible.5 Hitherto Genet's chief mission has been considered to
be his efforts to fit out privateers for France and to enlist en
thusiasm for his cause through popular societies; but its real
importance lay in the plans by which he proposed, through
the help of American frontiersmen, to wrest Louisiana from the
1 See chap. iv.
2 Aulard, Recueil des actes de la Comiti de Salut public, n, 10, and in, 82.
3 Lettre d Dumouriez, December 2, 1792; Correspondance, 317. See also arti
cle by Turner cited below.
4 Lettre d Servan, November 26, 1792; again in Correspondance, 312-13.
See also Brissot's own letter to Miranda dated November 11, 1792; Corre
spondance, 303-04.
5 Otto, a former secretary in the foreign office, declared in 1797 that it was
Brissot who proposed Genet as minister to the United States. (Turner, Ameri
can Historical Review, in, 654.) See also the statement of Brissot at his trial,
the Interrogatoire. Madame Roland makes the same assertion in Mimoires, I,
265-66.

316 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
hands of their common enemy and thus benefit France.1 The
persistent neutrality of the United States, however, and the fall
of the Girondins at home led to Genet's recall and to the failure
of an expedition which was important in its inception and
origin, U not in its results.
The Genet affair had been managed by the Committee of
General Defense. This committee came into existence early in
1793, on account of the growing complexity of foreign affairs,
and soon began to perform the functions formerly exercised by
the Diplomatic Committee. It was composed of members from
several different committees and included Brissot as a repre
sentative of the Diplomatic Committee. Under its direction
was carried out some of the most important work undertaken
by the Convention; the army and ministry of war were re
organized, many places on the frontier were annexed and ex
traordinary powers were granted to the deputies on mission.2
With the conquest of Belgium had come the opening of the
Scheldt.3 England and Holland had been especially exasperated
1 Frederick J. Turner, "The Origin of Genet's Projected Attack on Loui
siana and the Floridas," in the American Historical Review, July, 1898, in,
650-71. Also "Documents on the Relations of France to Louisiana," 1792-
1795, American Historical Review, April, 1898, m, 490-516. See also Instruc
tions to Genet, December, 1792; in Correspondence of French Ministers, 1791-
1798, ed. by Frederick J. Turner; Annual Report of the American Historical
Association, 1903, n, 201-07.
2 This Committee of General Defense was organized in accordance with a
decree passed by the Assembly, January 1, 1793. It met for the first time
January 4. The three sessions a week which it had arranged to hold proving
insufficient for the amount of work to be transacted, daily sessions — some
times even two sessions a day — became necessary. From January 4 to March
26, when it was reorganized, twenty-four sessions were recorded. To the re- ^
organized committee Brissot was not elected. His work in relation to foreign
affairs belongs, therefore, to the early months of the Convention. It is to be
noted in passing that the Committee of General Defense was the forerun- /
ner of the great Committee of Public Safety, and the powers granted to it
distinctly foreshadowed the powers afterwards granted to that committee.
In this connection it is interesting to realize that Brissot, the man of all others
who is often thought to have been opposed to the whole order and policy of the
Committee of Public Safety, was one of the most important members of its
predecessor. Aulard, Recueil des actes de Comite de Salut public, i, 389, 401.
3 Proclaimed by the French ministers, November 16, 1792. See Moniteur, •
November 22, 1792.

THE CONVENTION 317
by this action, and with reason. For this river had been closed
to seagoing vessels by the treaty of Munster and also by sub
sequent treaties, with the object of diverting trade from Ant
werp to Amsterdam, and thus benefiting the Dutch, and it had
remained closed ever since 1648. If it were now made a free
river, both London and Amsterdam would suffer loss of trade
which would instead go to enrich Antwerp and with Antwerp
all Belgium. In his plan of defense before the revolutionary
tribunal, Brissot disclaimed having had anything to do with
this decree. It was ordered, he declared, by the executive
councfl without informing the Diplomatic Committee. At the
time, however, the Patriote Frangais spoke of the action with
enthusiasm, alluding to the noble destiny of France "to undo
everywhere the errors of the people and the crimes of des
pots." 1
In whatever light it may have appeared to French enthu
siasts, this "undoing of the crimes of despots" seemed to Eu
rope an unwarrantable interference on the part of France in
the affahs of her neighbors. It was deeply resented by England
especially and was one of the causes of the war between Eng
land and France. In bringing on this war Brissot, it was al
leged, had a large share - — a charge which he vehemently de
nied. In his Projet de defense before the revolutionary tribunal,
he declared that both as a representative of the people and as
a citizen he had on the contrary done everything in his power
to prevent that war.2 There is much truth in his claim, at
least as far as his attitude up to the king's trial is concerned,
but at the same time that he was talking about peace and an
alliance, he was furthering those very measures — such as the
annexations and the opening of the Scheldt — which were mak
ing war inevitable. Ever since the spring of 1792, when war
was declared against Prussia and Austria, he had been closely
connected, both through his relation to the Girondin ministry
and his membership in the Diplomatic Committee, with efforts
to secure, first, the alliance, and when that seemed no longer
1 Patriote Frangais, November 22, 1792. 2 Mimoires, ii, 308.

318 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
possible, the neutrality, of England. It was he, moreover, who
together with Condorcet recommended the young Juhen, who
was sent to England early in the autumn of 1792 to disseminate
correct information as to the situation in France, in order that
war might be prevented.1
To prevent foreign war was, indeed, the chief ground of his
argument for an appeal to the people at the time of the king's
trial. The opinion that Europe was coming to take of the
French Revolution, he declared, in a speech before the Con
vention on January 1, was not sufficiently heeded. Foreign
governments would only welcome the condemnation of the
king by the Convention, because it would give them the
chance, which they would eagerly seize, to stir up popular feel
ing against the government of France. Again, there was danger
that U the Convention itself made the decision, it might be
accused of corruption U it were lenient to the king; of cruelty,
U it were severe. The judgment of the people, on the other
hand, would be sure to be just, impartial, and free from all
foreign influence. Also it would show to foreign powers that
the Convention was not influenced by sudden emotion, but by
lofty and just principles, and, moreover, that back of the Con
vention was a united nation. If, therefore, the judgment of
death should be pronounced, there would be less probability
of war U the nation made the decision than U the Convention
made it alone.2
Within two weeks Brissot spoke again on the war question,
this time in behaU of the Committee of General Defense and
in a somewhat different tone. It was a lengthy and eloquent
argument that the complaints of the British government
against France were not well founded, and that, on the con
trary, France had just complaints to make against Great Brit
ain and ought to take vigorous measures to repel her aggres-
1 See letters of Brissot, September 15, 1792, and letter of Julien, September
19, 1792. Affaires itrangeres, AngUterre, p. 582, f. 143; Sorel, VEurope et la
Resolution frangaise, in, 141, and Correspondance, 299..
2 Moniteur, January 3, 1793.

THE CONVENTION 319
sion. England withdrew her ambassador after August 10, he
complained. She ought to have reinstated her ambassador after
the meeting of the Convention, for the action of the Conven
tion was the sanction by all France of the deeds of the Legis
lative Assembly. England, moreover, had taken measures
against the grain trade of France and against her assignats, and
at the same time, she was not allowing Frenchmen free entry
into England, and was protecting French rebels and increasing
her armament. As for the complaints of England against
France, the invasion of Savoy was made necessary by the
hostile preparations of the king, and the annexation of Savoy
was the desire of its people; and in the same way the invasion
of the Low Countries was justified. If France interfered in
aiding the Belgians to secure their rights, the English held
Holland under the yoke of the Stadtholder. The opening of
the Scheldt, he admitted, was a violation of the Peace of
Utrecht and of other treaties, but it was not a violation of the
principles of eternal justice. The English people did not really
want war and ought to be made to understand that France did
not either, but that she was being forced into it by the attitude
of the English government. And finally, if worse came to
worst England was not ready for war. Since the war with
America she had been obliged to increase her taxes enormously
and was in no position to add to them further by another war.
This speech Brissot closed by presenting the decrees drawn
up by the Committee. The first of these, by its declaration of
the desire to preserve harmony and fraternity with the English
nation, and of intention to respect the independence of England
and of her allies as long as they did not attack France, seemed
to tend toward peace and to give point to Brissot's contention
in his plan of defense that he did not want war and was en
deavoring to prevent it.1 The remaining propositions of the
decree were, however, of a decidedly belligerent tone. The
executive council was charged to ask of the English govern
ment the execution of article IV of the treaty of 1786; in
1 Mimoires, n, 308. •

320 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
other words, to allow French citizens to reside and travel in
England without the humiliating restrictions to which they
had been subjected. The executive council was also to ask that
Frenchmen, like other foreigners, be allowed to export grain
freely from England (in accordance with the provisions of the
treaty of 1786); and finally to demand a categorical answer
from England as to the object of its recent armament; it being
understood that U this armament were directed against France,
and if the English government did not give satisfaction on all
the points specified, the French government would immedi
ately take the measures which the interest and security of the
Republic demanded — in other words — declare war.1
Although Brissot subsequently protested that he was speak
ing here not for himself but for the Committee, the very fact
that he gave the report and in no way protested against it lays
upon him the responsibility for it. There exists, moreover, a
good reason for greater belligerency on his part just at this
juncture. This evidence is a letter addressed to Brissot by G.
Martin, dated December 31, 1792, and apparently sent from
London. The writer appears to be an agent working in the
interest of France. At all events, he sends off a message post
haste to Brissot that he has just learned through a trustworthy
source that there has been dispatched from London to the
three courts of Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg a most im
portant note. In this note, the writer asserts, they are urged
to instruct their ambassadors and agents at London to con
cert together immediately on plans for military operations;
they are assured that there wiU be no trouble about subsidies,
and Russia is exhorted to furnish sixty thousand troops. They
are further informed that public opinion is becoming favorable
to the war, and further that the approaching "catastrophe"
of Louis XVI, which may be regarded as certain, will be all
that is necessary to arouse public opinion to energetic action.2
1 Moniteur, January 15, 1793.
2 Affaires itrangeres, Angleterre, 29 Supplement, 340. See Appendix A. It
is true that just at this time Lord Grenville began to negotiate with foreign

THE CONVENTION 321
This letter, which Brissot could hardly have received before
January 1, and which in the natural course of events he would
have received before January 12, the date of his speech, is most
significant, and is in itseU enough to account for his change
of view. That war was now inevitable, he was convinced. He
was, therefore, ready to take measures to bring about its open
declaration. The question of war was complicated by the trial of Louis
XVI. That the king should be tried, and tried by the Conven
tion, both parties agreed, and contrary to the once accepted
opinion, the Ghondins took an active part in urging on the
proceedings. On November 6, Valaze made a report setting
forth the crimes of the king, and the next day Mailhe in the
name of the Committee on Legislation presented a report,
arguing that the king could and should be tried by the Conven
tion. Brissot thoroughly approved of this report and gave a
lengthy resume" of it in the Patriote Frangais.1 That he should
approve was only to be expected, considering his own denun
ciations of the king at various times, and especially his speech
of July, 1791, on the responsibility of the king, in which he
argued along much the same line as Mailhe. The decree pro
posed by Mailhe was enacted and the trial began. After long
debate the questions involved were finally narrowed down to
three: Was Louis guilty of conspiring against the nation?
Should the judgment be subject to the sanction of the people?
What should be the penalty?
On the first question, Brissot, with the great majority of the
deputies, simply voted "yes." 2 On the second question he had
already expressed his views in his long and forcible speech of
powers as to the conditions under which a common war might be waged against
France. (See Lord Grenville to Lord Whitworth, Herrmann, Diplomatische
Korrespondenzen, pp. 346-48; also Lord Grenville to M. le Comte de Woron
zow, December 28, 1792, British Museum, additional mss. 36814.) There is,
however, no evidence of such definite propositions as those alleged. But
whether the writer was correctly informed is not so important to the point at
issue as that he communicated such a statement to Brissot.
1 Patriote Frangais, November 8 and 9, 1792.
2 Proces-verbal de la Convention, volume for January, 1793, p. 212.

322 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
January 1, in which he had argued for the appeal to the people,
chiefly on account of the effect it would have on the powers of
Europe in making foreign war less probable. On this occasion
he did not reiterate his former argument, but, as on the previ
ous question, simply voted "yes." 1
In spite of the efforts of Brissot and others of the same mind,
424 members out of 767 voted against the appeal to the people.
Brissot deeply regretted this decision, and on the third ques
tion — What should be the penalty? — he voted for death, but
made an effort to secure postponement. Now that it had ac
tually come to the question of the execution of the king, he saw
with renewed vividness the consequences. A few days before he
had been ready to force the issue by demanding a categorical
answer from England as to her intentions, and by so doing to
throw the onus for commencing the war upon her. Now the
execution of the king would, on the contrary, give ground to
foreign nations for action and would throw the onus of war on
France. This he was determined to prevent. "I see in the sen
tence of death," he declared, "the signal for a terrible war, a
war which will cost my country a prodigious amount of blood
and treasure." He therefore sought some other form of pun
ishment, a punishment which would unite as completely as
possible justice and the interest of the public welfare, which
would make the Convention respected by all parties, which
would conciliate foreign nations, which would frighten tyrants,
and would at the same time thwart the calculations of their
cabinets, all of whom desired the death of Louis because they
wanted to popularize the war. This punishment he found in
the sentence of death, but with the suspension of execution tiU
after the ratification of the constitution by the people.2 On
this vote, Brissot was again in a minority, the majority having
voted for death.
One more attempt, however, was made to secure delay, and
in this Brissot used all his efforts. That such an attempt might
1 Prods-verbal de la Convention, volume for January, 1793, f. 212. See also
Moniteur, January 19, 1793. 2 Moniteur, January 20, 1793.

THE CONVENTION 323
easily give rise to suspicion of royalty, he was evidently aware,
for he began his speech by protesting that he was actuated not
by any desire to save the king from the just consequences of his
deeds, but to further the best political interests of France. The
immediate execution of the king, he declared, would not further
those interests, but would, on the contrary, eliminate a number
of the friends of France, and increase the number of her
enemies. In fact, there would be danger of a universal war.
"I say more," he continued, speaking with a frankness and
a realization of the danger which he had not shown before,
"you have not a moment to lose in preventing it. If Louis is
executed, it will be necessary to declare war to-morrow against
England, Holland, and Spain, against all the tyrants of Europe;
because it is inevitable on their part, not so much because they
will be irritated by the death of Louis, but because all these
tyrants, resolved as they are to crush our liberty, and with our
liberty that of all Europe, will believe that they have found in
that death a pretext in the eyes of their people. Now are you
ready for this universal war? . . . Although there is every
where great disorder in our armies, although by reason of a
conspiracy of which we must soon know the source, you have
not even a few thousand soldiers on the Pyrenees, where at this
moment there ought to be more than forty thousand French
men protecting the tri-colored flag; yet let our liberty be com
promised and you will see springing up everywhere, as out of
the ground, armies, treasures, and soldiers. But to make war
for a single individual! Ought we to risk the entire exhaustion
of our finances, the loss of our colonies, the enervation of our
commerce? Ought we to waste so much treasure and blood
for a most contemptible man?" 1
In spite of all pleas for delay, the king was condemned and
executed. Brissot made no further efforts to avoid war, but
1 Moniteur, January 24, 1792. During the trial the reports of the meetings
of the Convention were signed by Girey-Dupre, who wrote in explanation:
" Brissot est son juge, comme reprisentant du peuple; il ne faut pas qu'il soit
soupgonni de U juger comme journaliste,"

324 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
instead renewed his demands for hostilities with England, de
claring that war was now inevitable, but laying on England
the blame for it. And on February 1, 1793, on the motion of
the Committee of General Security, presented by Brissot, the
Convention declared war on England and Holland.1 For a re
turn to his previous position, Brissot was in a measure justi
fied. War had indeed become inevitable, but it was not only
the execution of the king but the whole aggressive policy of
France that had made it so, and it was Brissot who, as a Giron
din, had largely directed that policy.2 — ¦
This propaganda of political equality, which was resulting
in war, had, as M. Jaures points out in his Histoire socialiste,
turned thought more and more to questions of social equality.
"As political equality," says M. Jaures, "became a more
certam fact, it was social inequality which gave most offense.
The Revolution, by the death of the king, by the universal
war, assumed growing responsibilities for humanity. How
could it meet these responsibilities U it did not demonstrate to
aU men that it truly desired the good of all, and that without
leveling conditions it wished at least to assure the independence
and the well-being of the entire people." 3 In this question,
Brissot was keenly interested. He had realized the suspicion to
which the advocates of equality would be exposed — that of
being hostile to the right of property. Indeed, he had already
been attacked on that ground and had vigorously defended
himseU. But while upholding the right of property, he was
intensely democratic in his sympathies, both politically and
1 Moniteur, February 2, 1793. For an account of the English point of view
see Rose, William Pitt and the Great War.
2 The Girondins meanwhile had been engaged in drawing up a constitution.
Curiously enough, considering his interest in constitution-making, Brissot
seems to have had very little to do with the preparation of this one. He was
appointed a member of the committee entrusted with the work, but his place
was soon taken by Barbaroux. Aulard, Histoire politique, 280. M. Aulard
does not state his authority. While a member of this committee Brissot man
aged to have his friend, David Williams (see p. 25), invited to come over to
France to aid in drawing up the constitution. Brissot, Correspondance, 305-06.
3 Jaures, Histoire socialiste, v, 1012-15.

THE CONVENTION 325
socially. His democratic point of view is well summed up in
an article in the Patriote Frangais of December 28, 1792, en
titled L'EgalitS de fait. In every democracy, he argued, the
laws ought to destroy and prevent too great de facto inequality
between citizens. At the same time institutions favorable to
equality ought to be introduced without commotion, without
violence, and with all due respect for the first of the social rights,
property. "The division of land proposed by the anarchists,"
he continued, "or the Coblenziens, would be a fatal measure;
it would be unjust, useless, and murderous: unjust, in that it
would despoil the legitimate owners ; useless, because the next
day after the division, the indolence, the luxury of the majority
would bring about again, by means of sales, the inequality of
possession; murderous, in that before the division was fin
ished, citizens would cut each others' throats; in that, again,
all industry would be extinguished and that within a little
while millions of citizens would perish of famine and misery."
There were other measures, he went on, which were less
dangerous and at the same time more conducive to real equality.
Aside from equality of inheritance between children, which he
assumed was beyond question, he would propose the abolition
of all inheritance in the collateral line. Property bequeathed in
this way should revert to the state and should be distributed
every year, in each district, to virtuous and industrious young
people. There would be no injustice in this measure, he argued.
To allow a man, during his lfletime, to use his property as he
pleased was just, but to permit him to control it after his death
was most unjust. The rights and duties of man derived their
origin from the needs of the human race; a man after his death,
having no more needs, could have no'more rights. That a logi
cal application of this principle would lead to the abolition of
all inheritance, Brissot admitted. It was true that children
were allowed to inherit the property of their fathers only by a
concession of society, but since the relation between father and
child was peculiarly intimate, it was a concession which society
might legitimately make. The abolition of inheritance in the

326 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
collateral line need therefore arouse no fear, in the minds of
the cautious, of an aboUtion of all inheritance.
As a second step toward equality, Brissot proposed to ex
empt from all taxation what was necessary for the physical
lUe of every citizen. Humanity and equity, he declared, cried
aloud for such a law. Taxes should be borne by the rich; should
touch only factitious needs; they should not be laid on physical
necessities. The result of such a reform would be less unhap
piness, less inequality.1
But while thus engaged in trying to further social readjust
ment in the interests of democracy, Brissot saw its dangers,
especially when it came to practical application. In the hands
of real patriots, among whom he included himself, he was con
vinced that democracy would not be in any respect harmful, but
under the influence of interested and unscrupulous leaders, the
people might easily be flattered into an undue sense of theh
own importance and led into excess. In fact, this had aheady
occurred, he declared, and in an article entitled "De la marche
des agitateurs," published in the Chronique du Mois of Janu
ary, 1793, he tried to throw the responsibility for popular dis
content upon his opponents. There was a division among the
patriots, he asserted; they had fought together against royalty,
but they had not the same principles. The one party "sees in
the new revolution the overturning of royalty, the establish
ment of the republic, and in the republic the perfection of
human reason, the restitution of the worthy poor to a hfe
of comfort; they see in it a perfect equality of rights, but an
equality based upon law, upon respect for property and secu
rity, upon submission to constituted authority. That is not the
idea of men who, despite the fact that they possess neither
talent nor virtue, dare to aspire to high position and are filled
with ambition."
A striking instance of the apphcation of theories of equahty
had occurred in the case of the workmen who were engaged on
1 Patriote Frangais, December 29, 1792, quoted in Jaures, Histoire socialiste,
iv, 1010-15.

THE CONVENTION 327
the camp for the federis at Paris. It was also a striking instance,
according to Brissot, of the pernicious influence of the agitators.
Under what was the virtual dictation of unscrupulous persons,
these unfortunate workmen had presented a petition in which
they had compared the smaflness of their pay with the enor
mous compensation accorded to the deputies of the Convention,
and had demanded that, as they both were working for the na
tion, their salaries should be adjusted more equitably.1 But,
although Brissot decidedly disapproved of these specific de
mands, he was in favor, as is evident from his proposals cited
above, of greater equalization of classes.
But at the same time he was for equalization only in so far
as it could be brought about without injuring the rights of any
one class. For instance, apropos of a special war tax which it
was proposed to lay on the rich, the Patriote Frangais 2 re
marked with regret that there would be no more equality, since
the taxes would no longer be the same for aU in proportion to
their abUity to pay,3 and a few days later the editor proposed,
as a substitute, the principle of progressive taxation. Again,
the Patriote Frangais approved the opposition of Barbaroux
and Buzot to the forced loan of two hundred million francs
from the rich,4 and denounced the law of the maximum as in
volving an attack on the rights of property.5
It may be objected that this hostfle attitude on the part of
the Girondins was actuated, not so much by the nature of the
measures proposed as by the fact that they were proposed
by their enemies — the Mountain. This does not seem to have
been true, however, in their attitude at first — whatever it may
have been a few weeks later — toward the establishment of the
1 Patriate Frangais, October 6, 1792.
2 Brissot had by this time been forced to abandon the editorship of the
Patriote Frangais, but there is no doubt that it continued to represent his pol
icy. 3 Patriote Frangais, March 11, 1792.
4 Ibid., May 22, 1793. See also Gomel, Histoire financiire de la Convention,
i, 485-88. 5 Patriote Frangais, April 29, May 1, 1793.

328 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
agencies of the Terror. The Patriote Frangais, though it ob
jected to the publicity of the votes of the jurors and the sever
ity of the rules regulating it, offered no persistent opposition
to the establishment of the revolutionary tribunal,1 and of the
establishment of the Committee of Public Safety it spoke with
indifference.2 The agencies by which the government was to
be carried on seemed less important to the contending parties
than did the agents, and neither party in the eyes of the other
was fit to be trusted with the reins of government, — the
Mountain because they were demagogues and anarchists, the
Girondins because they were federalists and royalists. And
now that the war problem was becoming more critical, the
struggle, which had been going on since the opening of the Con
vention but which had been less bitter during the discussion on
foreign relations and the king's trial, was renewed with violence
and became a combat to the death, with no quarter.
In this combat, Brissot was one of the most active fighters.
Early in February, a special attack was made on him based on
a letter in the possession of the Committee of General Secu
rity, said to be signed "Brissot de Warville" and containing
distinctly royalist sentiments. Brissot defended himself in his
paper, declaring that he had not signed himself "Brissot de
Warville" since June 19, 1791,3 and on February 15, he reiter
ated his defense before the Convention. The letter, he as
serted, was found among the papers of one of the committees
of the Commune, was originally signed " Watteville," and some
malicious person had changed "Watteville" to "Warville" and
had prefixed "Brissot de." How it had come into the hands of
the Committee of General Security he did not know. To this
defense Bazire replied that the letter did not come from the
Commune, but that it was discovered among the papers of La- '
porte; that the original signature was "Brissot de WarviUe";
that the whole signature was evidently written by the same
hand and at the same time and with the same ink, and that an
1 Patriote Frangais, March 12, 13, 1793. 2 Ibid., March 28, 1793.
8 Ibid., February 11, 1793.

THE CONVENTION 329
effort had been made to erase it. After a violent dispute Bris
sot won a temporary victory, by securing the passage of a de
cree which instead of deciding the matter at once referred it to
a committee for investigation.1
A few weeks later, the Mountain made a general onslaught
on the Girondin newspapers. Jeanbon Saint-Andre led the
attack by his speech on March 8. "On the pretext of an ap
parent impartiality," he declared, "like the iron bed of the old
tyrant, they stretch out or mutilate to suit their taste the
opinions which are set forth at the tribune. They cut the ideas
of the members who displease them in order to favor one side
and to present the other under the most unfavorable light.
They mislead public opinion, they cruelly abuse the liberty
which we accord to the press." 2 Asa result of this speech it
was decreed the foUowing day "that members of the Conven
tion who conduct newspapers must choose between the profes
sion of journalist and that of representative of the people." 3
Brissot chose the second alternative, and from this time the
Patriote Frangais was conducted under the direction of Girey-
Dupre. But, although Brissot's nominal connection with the
paper ceased, it continued to represent his views and to be an
organ of the Girondin party.4
Meanwhile the failure of Dumouriez's campaign in Belgium
had aroused the mob of Paris, and on March 9 they led a popu
lar movement against the Girondins, which was the prelude of
the events of May 31 and June 1. Brissot, on hearing the news,
rushed off to warn the ministers of what was going on.5 He
had reason to be alarmed; for the mob, not content with the
decree of the Convention against the Girondin newspapers,
took the matter into their own hands and began to break the
1 Moniteur, February 17, 1793. See also Proces-verbal de la Convention, vol
ume for February, p. 246.
2 Moniteur, March 10, 1793. 8 Ibid., March 11, 1793.
4 According to the testimony of Girey-Dupre' at the trial of Marat, Brissot
carefully observed the law and never furnished him with any material to be
inserted in the Patriote Frangais. Bulletin du tribunal rivolutionnaire, no. 17.
6 Louvet, Mimoires, ed. by Aulard, i, 77.

330 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
presses. It might naturaUy be supposed that the Patriote
Frangais would be one of the first attacked, but for some rea
son, never clearly explained, it escaped and the whole move
ment failed.1 But the attacks on the Girondins did not cease.
Under the incentive of the Cordeliers, several of the sections
of Paris denounced the Girondins to the Convention. "The
evacuation of Belgium," their address declared, "is the work
of an impious faction which paralyzes the Convention. The
success of the enemies of France is due to the traitor Dumou
riez and to the odious intrigues of the Rolands, the Brissotins,
and their friends, — they ought to be gotten rid of at any
price. l
Danton was the one man who tried with any zeal to check
denunciations and substitute conciliation. He first tried to
bring about greater unity of action by introducing a proposi
tion in the Assembly on March 11, that the ministers should
be chosen from that body. This to the Girondins seemed
merely a move toward a dictatorship. "They [the Mountain]
believed," wrote the Patriote Frangais, "that it only remained
to ascend the throne, they are already dividing up among them
the various branches of the executive power — Danton
mounted the tribune, sure of his success; he asked that the Con
vention reserve to itself the right of choosing the ministers
from among its own members. No one doubted that Danton
wished to be first of those ministers; they doubted it stiU less
when they heard him swear by his country that he would never
accept a place in the ministry. Danton swearing by the coun
try! The country of an ambitious man ! It seems to me like an
atheist swearing by the Supreme Being." 3
At the same time Danton tried to come to some agreement
with the Girondins. In the case of Garat, the minister of jus
tice, who, though not of the inner circle, had been aUied with
1 Brissot in A ses Commettans assailed Garat, the minister of justice and a
former ally of the Girondins, for not having taken steps against the conspira
tors. 2 Mortimer Ternaux, Histoire de la Terreur, vi. 194.
3 Patriote Frangais, March 18, 1793.

THE CONVENTION 331
them, he seems to have met with some response. "I was al
ways saying to the members of the two sides," writes Garat
in his memoirs, "drown your hatred and your quarrels, and
then you can manage everything and all will be done accord
ing to law." 1 According to Marat, Guadet also wanted con
ciliation and tried to flatter Danton, but all other authorities
agree that it was Guadet who refused to make peace. The
Patriote Frangais, now under the direction of Girey-Dupre,
denied with heat the assertion that Guadet had tried to flatter
Danton and declared, on the contrary, that Guadet had at
tacked Danton as a plotter and intriguer.2 Brissot was also
approached and, according to his testimony at his trial, he was
quite willing to discuss the matter. "Several times there was
a question of reunion among the patriots," he testified. "To
that end I had two meetings with Danton. Robespierre had
been invited to join us, but he did not come. We entered into
an explanation of our principles. Danton said to me: 'We fear
only one thing so far as you are concerned, that you are in favor
of federalism.' I had no difficulty at all in proving to him that
that fear had little ground, and we separated each satisfied with
the other." 3 Brissot's attitude as reflected in these remarks
appears to be rather favorable to conciliation, but it is to be
observed that here he was chiefly concerned in disproving the
charge of federalism. In his address to his constituents, he
took a decidedly different tone and apropos of Garat's willing
ness to join in conciliation, spoke with vehemence of the im
possibihty of "establishing a permanent alliance between vir
tue and crime."
At all events, Danton's attempt came to naught, and when
to the failure of the campaign in Belgium was added the actual
treason and flight of Dumouriez, conciliation was no longer
possible. Instead, the battle between the Girondms and the
Mountain was waged with redoubled fury. The Mountain,
1 Garat, Mimoires sur la Rivolution, 94.
2 Patriote Frangais, March 24, 1793.
3 Moniteur, October 27, 1793, Supplement.

332 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
wild with rage, declared that Dumouriez and the Girondins
had formed a vast conspiracy to restore monarchy in France
and to annihilate the republicans with the Republic. On the
3d of April, Robespierre specifically charged Brissot with being
implicated in the diabolical plot. " Brissot," argued the " Incor
ruptible," "was and is theintimate friend of Dumouriez; Brissot
has never lost an occasion for defending Dumouriez; Brissot
and Dumouriez together first proposed the war with Austria;
Brissot and his partisans made Dumouriez commander-in-
chief; Brissot holds in his hands all the threads of this wicked
conspiracy. The first measure of public safety to be taken is
to indict all those who are accused of complicity with Dumou
riez and notably Brissot." To this attack Brissot replied on
the spot, but his defense lacked cogency and ingenuousness.
He denied in toto that he had assisted in any way in procuring
Dumouriez's appointment to the ministry, and he threw the
blame for the war upon the Legislative Assembly, ignoring his
own part both in that body and in the Convention as an ad
vocate of war. In his reply to the accusation of wishing to re
establish the monarchy, he omitted to mention his attitude at
the crisis of the Revolution, but based his defense upon a part
of his career which in no way affected existing events. "Can
a man be accused of loving kings," he asked, "who was de
voted to republicanism a long time before his accuser; a man
who in 1782 was shut up in the Bastille for having put forth
principles then frowned upon; a man who in 1788 quitted his
country to go to the United States to breathe the air of liberty,
and especiaUy to prevent his children from being contami
nated by the presence of a tyrant? "
The charge of treasonable complicity with Dumouriez had
no real ground, but the Girondins and Brissot in particular had
been in friendly relations with Dumouriez, and his desertion
furnished the Mountain with exactly what they needed for a
telling accusation. Only a few days before his desertion, the
Patriote Frangais had praised him to the skies, and at the same
time cast aspersions on the motives of the Jacobins for speak-

THE CONVENTION 333
ing of him with high praise. "That faction thinks," declared
the Patriote Frangais, "that by unworthy flatteries it can win
over to its side a man whom it fears. It flatters him because
the heroes of the 2d of September do not dare to measure
themselves up against the hero of the 20th of September. But
this is an idle hope. Dumouriez is not going to mingle his lau
rels with their cypress. Dumouriez loves glory, he would not
be willing to share their infamy. Dumouriez loves his country,
he will save it in company with the republicans, he will not
destroy it in company with the anarchists. " 1 After such an
outburst on the part of the Patriote Frangais, the desertion of
Dumouriez was a staggering blow to the Girondins.
The opportunity was too good to be lost, and was seized by
the Mountain and their adherents in the Commune. On April 8
the section of Bonconseil sent a delegation to the Convention,
demanding that Brissot and his adherents be brought to trial.
A few; days later, Robespierre furiously attacked the Girondins,
while Vergniaud, Guadet, and Petion repelled the assault and
hurled back the accusation of bad faith and treasonable in
tent.2 Henceforth the struggle between the parties became
more violent. The Girondins assailed Marat as the most vul
nerable of their enemies and concentrated their attacks upon
him. Considering the nature of his assaults on members of
their party, they had good reason for indignation. For instance,
such an attack as appeared in the Ami du Peuple of February
12, 1793, would naturally arouse their wrath: "Persons who
are well informed state that Brissot is enormously rich, in spite
of the airs of poverty which he affects. He is said to have in
vested eight hundred thousand livres in the Bank of London,
and it is stated as an established fact that his wife has just ac
quired three fine houses in the best quarter of London." 3
1 Patriote Frangais, March 12, 1793. 2 Moniteur, April 12, 1793.
3 "Les personnes instruites assurenl que Brissot est inormement riche, malgri
les airs de pauvrdi qu'il affiche. II passe pour avoir placi 800,000 livres sur la
banque de Londres, et on donne pour unfait constant que sa femme vient de faire
I'acquisition de trois belles maisons dans le plus beau quartier de Londres." L 'Ami
du Peuple, February 12, 1793.

334 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The Girondins stiU possessed a majority in the Convention,
and on April 13, by almost superhuman efforts, they carried a
vote sending Marat before the revolutionary tribunal for trial.1
Marat immediately retaliated, and in a letter to the Conven
tion denounced "Dumouriez and his accomplices" in the Con
vention itself, — namely, Salle, Barbaroux, Gensonne, La-
rousse, Brissot, Guadet, Buzot, and Vergniaud, — for having
demanded a decree of accusation against him. He declared,
further, that he would regard the decree rendered against him
as legitimate only when a like decree should be rendered against
those whom he accused, and that only then would he obey the
decree which put him under arrest.2 Brissot, on his part, ap
parently could not let Marat alone. One of the witnesses at
the trial of Marat had testified that a notice had appeared
in the Patriote Frangais of April 16 to the effect that a young
Englishman, who had lately come to France in order that he
might enjoy the liberty there established, had committed sui
cide when he found that Marat had destroyed that liberty.
Girey-Dupre, the editor of the Patriote Frangais, was then
questioned and admitted that he had received the note from
Brissot, but that the responsibility for its insertion in the Pa
triate Frangais was his own.3 An attempt was then made to
bring Brissot before the tribunal, but, although a note was sent
to the president of the Convention, demanding that Brissot be
summoned to give testimony, the Convention paid no atten
tion to it and Brissot did not testify. The Girondins, mean
while, waited with supreme confidence Marat's conviction.
Their disappointment and dejection were correspondingly great
when the tribunal acquitted Marat and the rabble bore him
back in triumph to the Convention.
This was a decisive blow to the Girondins. At the same time
they received another blow — an address from the sections of
Paris demanding the dismissal of twenty-two Girondin mem
bers of the Convention, Brissot's name heading the list of the
1 Moniteur, April 16, 1793. 2 Archives parlementaires, lxii, 23-24.
8 Bulletin du tribunal rivolutionnaire, nos. 16, 17.

THE CONVENTION 335
proscribed. This address, as well as the denunciations which
Robespierre had made in his speech a few days before, Brissot
hastened to answer. At the head of his pamphlet of defense,
he placed a quotation from Rousseau as summarizing his own
position : " I am growing old in the midst of my furious enemies,
without losing either courage or patience. My only defense
is to present to heaven a heart free from guile and from all
evil." He then launched into a general defense, which in its
efforts to throw the blame on others was hardly in keeping with
the lofty tone of his text. Whatever the accusation, it was not
he himseU who was guilty. It was not he who had chosen
Dumouriez for the ministry, it was Petion who had recom
mended Miranda, it was the Convention which was respon
sible for the war. It was true, he admitted, that he had sus
tained Dumouriez as long as he had shown good principles,
but since May, 1792, he had written to him only twice.1 As
for complicity with Orleans, he had advised him through Sil
lery to banish himseU voluntarily, and had voted for his ex
pulsion. The charge, moreover, that he had been suborned
by Pitt, either to maintain the king upon the throne or to save
his life, was absolutely without foundation. It was not the
king but France he was trying to save. And finally, the charge
of leadership on his part was, he declared, not only false but
ridiculous.2 However true his assertions may be in the main, this last
statement hardly seems consistent with his well-known activ
ities and shows a not altogether courageous desire to sink
into the background.
The acquittal of Marat and the denunciations of the sec
tions to which the above was an answer mark the beginning of
the end. Paris was now all but unanimous against the Giron
dins. The situation was one which demanded desperate reme-
' ' M. Perroud, in his Correspondance de Brissot, 314-20, gives three letters
written by Brissot to Dumouriez within this time.
2 J. P. Brissot, depute a la Convention, sur la dinonciation de Robespierre
el sur I 'adresse priUe aux quarante-huit sections de Paris.

336 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
dies. The Girondins decided to stake aU upon a single throw,
and on May 18 Guadet presented a motion that the Commune
be dissolved and that the substitute delegates to the Conven
tion be summoned to meet at Bourges. But, at the critical
moment, the Girondins lost heart and abandoned their own
motion for a substitute motion offered by Barere, ordering the
appointment of a committee of twelve which should report on
the safety of the Convention. In the composition of this com
mittee, they won a temporary success, for all its members were
Girondins, but it was not a permanent victory.
This demand for an appeal to the provinces and for the
election of a new Convention gave strength to the accusation
of federalism which had already been hurled at the Girondins
and which from this time on was made the chief charge of their
indictment. It was now skillfuUy used by CamiUe Desmoulins,
who, in a pamphlet entitled Fragment de I'histoire secrete de
la revolution, or as it was afterward called Histoire des Brissotins,
struck quite as effective a blow as he had given a year before
in his Jean Pierre Brissot demasqui. The attack was well timed,
the facts and the illustrations were cleverly introduced, and
the insinuations made with great skill. As the title implied,
it was not only an attack on Brissot personally, but on the
whole policy with which he was connected. At the establish
ment of the Republic, Desmoulins declared, all was favorable
for France, despotism had been swept away, liberty had been
enthroned, the arms of France were victorious, the Conven
tion had a glorious career before it. What had prevented it
from fulfilling this career? A conspiracy. That conspiracy was
to be found in the Convention and Brissot was the heart and
soul of it. He and the other Girondins had brought about for
eign war at a time when France was ill-prepared for it. As for
Brissot himself, "that Jeremiah of the 2d of September," he
had showed that he was only too ready to seek personal profit
from the massacres by his . complaint the very next day to
the Executive Council, in the presence of Danton, that "they
had forgotten Morande." Brissot asserted that he had Uttle

THE CONVENTION 837
influence in obtaining places for his friends, but, sneered Des
moulins, behold this proof to the contrary, and he gleefully
commented on the letter written to Roland, in which he in
closed a list of those to whom he would like to have places
given.1 Brissot, moreover, was the accomplice of Dumouriez
in bringing defeat to France and in trying to save the king,
with the object of destroying the Republic. His real purpose
was to divide France into twenty or thirty republics, or rather,
if he could, to overturn the republican government altogether,
and to set up the Duke of Orleans as monarch. The Mountain,
declared Desmoulins, opposes Philippe Egalite and has op
posed him at every step, but what is Brissot's position? He
was a secretary in the house of Orleans, he was the author of the
petition of the Champ de Mars, a petition which he obviously
concerted in conjunction with Lafayette. Plainly he is an Orlean
ist and has been one from the beginning. And, worse than all,
Brissot is in the pay of Pitt, and so guilty of the crime of treason.
The whole pamphlet showed the utmost ingenuity and, like
Desmoulins's previous attack, it served to blast the credit of
Brissot and of his party. Desmoulins himself is said to have
spoken of it as both the precursor and the manifesto of the
revolution of the 31st of May.2
Brissot, meanwhUe, proceeded to assail the Mountain. Al
though his name appeared at the head of the lists of accused
persons, he took httle part in the final struggle in the Conven
tion, but, like Desmoulins, waged a violent combat with his
pen. Deprived of the Patriote Frangais as a means of utter
ance, he prepared an address in pamphlet form to his con
stituents. It did not, however, directly answer Desmoulins's
attack. Indeed, from the date of publication of Desmoulins's
pamphlet, it is extremely doubtful if Brissot had seen it at the
time he launched his own address.3 While lacking the wit and
1 See p. 292.
2 See Desmoulins H Roch-Marcandier, ed. by Fleury, I, 333.
3 The Avis aux lecteurs at the beginning of Brissot's pamphlet is dated May
22. The SociHe des JacoMns, at the meeting of May 19, 1793, ordered the print
ing and distribution of Desmoulins's address.

338 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
brilliancy of Desmoulins's Histoire, it possesses clearness and
force. Its significance is twofold. Unlike many of Brissot's
political pamphlets, it dealt not with his personal career, but
with his party. It showed, however, that his own point of
view had undergone some decided changes. His purpose, he
declared, was to prove that there existed a party of disorgan
izers and anarchists — by which, of course, he meant the Moun
tain, though he did not use that word — who dominated the
Convention and the Executive Council; that that party was the
only cause of aU the evils which afflicted the country, both
within and without, and that the Republic could be saved only
by the most drastic measures. Beginning with the defensive,
he asserted that the majority of the Convention — by which
he meant the Girondins, although here again he did not use
the party name — had sought to respect the law and to uphold
constituted authorities. To this end they had asked for a de
partmental guard, denounced Robespierre and Marat, banished
all the Bourbons, censured the massacres of September, asked
for an appeal to the people at the trial of Louis XVI, and de
manded the convocation of the primary assemblies. They had
oftentimes been frustrated, however, by that party of anar
chists which terrorized the Convention. These anarchists,
Brissot declared, had protected the Pire Duchene and Marat;
favored the law of the maximum; raised the sans-culottes
against the bourgeois; used the Jacobin Club as an engine of
despotism; reduced to a state of inertia the ministers, notably
Garat,1 Pache,2 and Monge; 3 made the revolutionary tribunal
1 See p. 330.
2 Jean Nicholas Pache (born 1746, died 1825) became minister of war under
the Girondins in 1792, but as he did not agree with them, was replaced in Feb
ruary, 1793. He alhed himself with the Mountain, became mayor of Paris, was
one of the leaders in the insurrection of May 31, and for a time was allied with
Hebert, but escaped prosecution. He was subsequently arrested, but profited
by the amnesty of 1793 and retired to private life.
3 Gaspard Monge, the celebrated French geometrician, was born in 1746.
At the instigation of Condorcet he was named minister of marine after August
10, which position he held till 1793. He was denounced as an ally of the Giron
dins, but escaped prosecution.

THE CONVENTION 339
an instrument of injustice, and favored its despotism; and by
asking for the expulsion of members of the Convention, had
attempted the iniquity of a second Pride's Purge. As the re
sult of their machinations, he called to witness the increase of
crime, the attacks on property and security, the high price of
bread, the deficit in the taxes, and the local disorders. A special
and far-reaching cause for these disasters, he added, was the
financial policy, and, forgetful of his own enthusiasm for the
assignats, he went on to denounce their frequent and contin
ued issue.1 Then, turning to foreign affairs, he upheld the war
with Austria, and denounced the war with England, Holland,
and Spain, as due to the decree of November 19, and also to
the revolutionary propaganda in general, the massacres of
September, and the death of Louis. As for the allegation that
he had been in large part responsible for that war, he declared
that, on the contrary, he had exhausted all his efforts in trying
to prevent it. But once begun, he continued, it should have
been undertaken on a larger scale. Spain should have been in
vaded; she was defended only by the Pyrenees, which were easy
to cross, and by men who were brutalized by ignorance and
by slavery. Her colony across the sea, Louisiana, might have
been liberated; England might have been easily and success
fully attacked in the East or West Indies, or in India, or again
through raising a revolt in Ireland; and the commerce of their
enemies ought to have been attacked in the Mediterranean.
Where the war was carried on it was a failure. This was due,
he declared, not only to the mismanagement of Pache, but to
the ideas of equality which had permeated the army and re
sulted in lack of discipline, and also in the attempt to force
hberty on an unwilling people.2
But since these mistakes had been made, and France was
1 See p. 151. It is true that he upheld a more conservative policy in regard
to the later issues.
2 On his attitude toward the decree of November 19, see p. 311; on his re
lation to the massacres of September, p. 301; on his speeches at the trial of
the king, pp. 318-324; on his part in bringing on war, chap, ix; on discipline,
p. 265.

340 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
now defeated abroad, and a prey to civil disorder within, what,
Brissot asked, was the remedy? It was to be found, he de
clared, in putting an end to the revolutionary government.
The power of the Committee of Public Safety must be checked,
and a constitution established. France would be respected
abroad and have peace within only when the authority of an
irresponsible committee should give place to a well-ordered
government based on a constitution. But, to draw up a con
stitution, the Convention must be free from the control of
the anarchists. Various means of gaining this freedom had been
suggested which Brissot took up and considered in turn. The
Convention might be transferred to VersaiUes, but that would
not do away with the passions and divisions within; the sup
pUants might be convoked in another city, but they were not
very numerous and the opinion of the people could not be ob
tained by that means; the Convention might be increased in
numbers, — that would only increase disorder; a draft of a new
constitution might be presented at once to the primary assem
blies, but that could hardly be done in the existing turmoil.
The most feasible thing, he concluded, after stating these vari
ous objections, would be to call a new Convention, and, follow
ing the example of the American Congress in providing for fed
eral control of the capital city, insure its perfect independence
from any local interference. At all events, the immediate
necessity was to provide by some means or other for the draw
ing up of a constitution by a free body.1
1 The pamphlet was translated into English under the title: "The Anarchy
and Horrors of France displayed by a Member of the Convention." The pre
face, by an ardent admirer of Brissot, says: "I thought I could not at this
crisis do my country a more acceptable service than in laying before it the fol
lowing faithful extracts from Mons. Brissot's address to his constituents. They
are not the conjectures of the speculatist, nor the forebodings of the hypochon
driac, they are neither the reveries of the fancy nor the effusions of malice;
but a plain detail of facts, by one of the principal actors in them, a true pic
ture of France drawn by an able artist, by one of the most capable hands in
the whole Convention."
Edmund Burke took a totally different point of view. He also published an
English translation of the address with a preface in which he declared that if
Brissot, himself a Jacobin, could draw such a picture, the case agamst Jacobin-

THE CONVENTION 341
Just here was the weak point of the Girondins. They pro
posed to bring about order by overthrowing the revolutionary
government and establishing a constitution, and this in the
face of actual and widespread civil war at home and a foreign
war which was menacing their frontiers from the North Sea
to the Pyrenees. And even granted that they were right, they
were hopelessly divided as to the means to be used. But this
was no time to talk about a constitution. If order were to be
estabhshed within and foreign foes repulsed, not a constitu
tion, but immediate action by a centralized authority was
imperative. This the Mountain perceived. They perceived,
too, that in the revolutionary committee they had that cen-
trahzed authority, which must be backed up by force, U neces
sary, and force they had at their command in the Commune.
Its use was precipitated by Isnard's ill-timed challenge that
U any outrage should be attempted against the Convention,
wanderers would soon be searching on the banks of the Seine
for the ruins of Paris. The Commune responded by seizing
the weU-tried weapon of popular insurrection, and after an
unsuccessful attempt on May 31, forced the Convention on
June 2 to decree the arrest of the members of the Committee
of Twelve, two ministers and twenty-two Girondins.1
The career of Brissot in the Convention was at an end. But
ism was forever proved. Brissot's testimony, Burke declared, was that "of a
witness beyond all exception. ... It is Brissot, the republican, the Jacobin, and
the philosopher, who is brought to give an account of Jacobinism, and of re
publicanism, and of philosophy. It is worthy of observation that this, his ac
count of the genesis of Jacobinism, and its effects, is not confined to the period
in which the faction came to be divided within itself. In several and these very
important particulars, Brissot's observations apply to the whole of the preced
ing period, before the great schism, and whilst the Jacobins acted as one body;
— insomuch that the far greater part of the proceedings of the ruling powers —
since the commencement of the Revolution in France, so strongly and so justly
reprobated by Brissot — were the acts of Brissot himself and his associates.
... A question will naturally be asked: What could induce Brissot to draw
such a picture? He must have been sensible it was his own. The answer is —
the inducement was the same with that which led him to partake in perpetra
tion of all crimes, the calamitous effects of which he describes with the pen of
a master, — ambition." Burke's Works (Boston, 1884), v, 68.
1 Proces-verbal de la Convention, volume for June, 1793, p. 29.

342 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
he was only reaping what he had sown. As the chief member
of the Diplomatic Committee, he had incurred much of the
responsibility for involving France in a general European war;
and now, since he and his party proved themselves incapable
of waging a successful war, powerless to meet the danger they
had invoked, because they had no settled policy, no united
plan of action, they were rejected by the people, and cast out
by the Convention. Such incapacity was criminal, and it in
volved more than their own ruin, for out of this war which they
created and failed to direct sprang the Reign of Terror; and
they, as the creators of the war, must bear in part the dread
responsibility of having begotten the Terror.
BRISSOT AND FEDERALISM
One of the principal charges brought against the Girondins,
and particularly against the Buzot wing of the party, was that
of federalism. From the opening of the Convention in Sep
tember, 1792, throughout the remaining months of that year,
at the trial of the king, during the spring of 1793, and finally
at their trial, the Girondins were accused again and again of
being federalists. The term "federalism," as used in these ac
cusations against the Girondins, meant an attempt to destroy
the unity of France. In its wider significance, however, it was
employed to designate the general hostility of the provinces
against Paris. With federalism in this latter sense there is no
doubt that the Girondins were in fuU sympathy. The ques
tion is, were they federalists in the guilty sense meant by their
accusers? Did they plot to make France into a confederation
instead of a republic, "one and indivisible"?
As early as 1789 the possibility of a confederation was sug
gested. Witness an editorial which appeared in the Patriote
Frangais of November, 1789: "The stand which the National
Assembly has taken in decreeing the division of France into
a number of departments, between seventy-five and eighty,
ought to remove the reproach which has been made against the
partisans of the cause of the people, of wishing to divide France

THE CONVENTION 343
into a certain number of confederated republics. A confedera
tion of eighty-five states would be a political monstrosity. A
long-continued harmony between so many members of a con
federacy would be a miracle."
Accusations of intention to form a confederated instead of a
unified republic were again made in the republican crisis of
the summer of 1791, and again Brissot came forward promptly
to repudiate the charge. "What madman," he demanded,
"has ever dreamed of making France into eighty-three repub
lics? The republicans, those at least that I know, desire only
a republic or a representative government of which the eighty-
three departments are eighty-three fractions, coordinated one
with the other, and all meeting in a common point — the Na
tional Assembly." x And in his speech of July 10 against the
king, he reiterated the same sentiments.
A year later the struggle between the Legislative Assembly
under the control of the Girondins and the Jacobin Commune
of Paris again brought up the subject of the relation between
Paris and the provinces, and this time it became a distinct
party issue, charges being made specifically against the Giron
dins, of sthring up the provinces against Paris, and of striving
to prevent the establishment of a unified republic.2 And when,
on the meeting of the Convention, a republic, one and indi
visible, was established, the Mountain immediately raised the
cry that the Girondins did not accept its unity and indivisi
bility, and were plotting for its destruction. This now became
one of the main points of conflict between the parties. It was
brought to the front again and again, and was one of the
causes of the final downfall of the Girondins.
One proof of the charge, the Mountain alleged, was the
effort of the Girondins to establish a departmental guard. An
other proof was found in their aUeged attitude toward annexa-
1 Patriote Frangais, July 8, 1791, quoted by Brissot in his Projet de defense,
Mimoires, n, 338-39.
8 " lis veulent, dit-on, arriver d un Hat fidiratif; or [sic] la guerre civile peut
y mener." Pellenc to Lamarck, June 29, 1790. Glagau, 343.

344 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
tions. This was presented with great vigor by Anacharsis
Cloots, in a pamphlet entitled Ni Marat ni Roland. After
setting forth in no complimentary terms his opinion of these
two men, Cloots proceeded to report in detail sundry conver
sations with certain Ghondins. Rebecqui, he declared, did not
want Nice added to France, Buzot thought a republic could
not weU be larger than his own village, and Brissot considered
France already too large and protested against the addition of
Savoy. All of which showed, according to Cloots, opposition
to the unity of the Republic on the one hand, and plans for
federalism on the other.
A third alleged evidence of federalism was the attempt of
the Girondins to procure a vote in favor of an appeal to the
primary assemblies on the question of the punishment of the
king. Such a proposition was extremely offensive to the Moun
tain, who believed that measures against Louis were justified
on the ground of political necessity. They forthwith accused
the Girondins of advocating the appeal to the people with the
express purpose of stirring up division and civil war.1 Amar
repeated this same accusation at the time of the trial of the
Girondins, declaring that the motive of the appeal to the peo
ple was the wish to destroy the Republic.2
The hostility of the Girondins to the city government of
Paris constituted further proof of federalism in the eyes of their
enemies. II this alone were conclusive, they would have to be
pronounced guilty; for, from August 10, 1792, when the strug
gle between the Girondin Committee of Twenty-one began,
down to the very last day of their political existence in the Con
vention, they were constantly at war with the authorities of
Paris. Specific instances of this hostility were the accusations
which they made against the Commune as responsible for the
massacres of September; their attack on Robespierre for his
alleged efforts to establish the dictatorship; the attack made
by Buzot, January 13, 1793, on account of the action of the
1 Speech of Marat, January 15, 1793. Moniteur, January 19, 1793.
2 Acte d' accusation, October 3, 1793. Moniteur, October 25, 1793.

THE CONVENTION 345
Commune in closing the theaters; the speech of Buzot, March
27, in which he declared that the representatives were only
ambassadors 1 from each part of the Republic; the inoppor
tune threat of Isnard, when he declared that if anything
happened to the Convention, people would soon be search
ing along the Seine to find where Paris had once stood; and
finally, the numerous attempts to appeal to the provinces,
either by the convocation of the primary assembUes or by the
removal of the Convention from Paris.
The Girondins, it was further alleged, did not confine them
selves to words, but were stirring up the provinces to actual
revolt. Point was given this accusation by the protests and
addresses against Paris which began to come in as early as
October, 1792. On the 20th of this month, the administrators
of the Department of Calvados sent an address to the Conven
tion in which they called down maledictions upon whatever
part of the Republic should try to rule the whole.2 On Janu
ary 2, 1793, this department made another address to the Con
vention. "You are represented as exposed to the axe of the
executioner," they wrote. "Paris, the cradle of liberty, is filled
with proud and bloody agitators. . . . The citizens of Calvados
in their impatience rise up, they hasten to inscribe their names
in the civic registers, they want to set out to avenge your men
aced liberty. . . . They propose to sustain the work of their
representatives or die." 3 Within a day or two the administra
tive Department of the Haute-Loire issued an appeal in terms
quite as emphatic. "Citizens," they cried, "the agitators of
Paris and the enemies of the Revolution are constantly con
spiring against it by flattering the people into believing that
Paris is practically the exclusive sovereign of the republic of
which it is only the eighty-fourth part. It permits itself to dic
tate decrees to the Convention at its pleasure, and thus pre
vents it from giving us a good constitution. The only means
of remedying these abuses is to organize a departmental force
1 This was in his speech of March 28, 1793. Moniteur, March 30, 1793.
2 Moniteur, October 21, 1792. 3 Patriote Frangais, January 8, 1793.

346 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
which shall be able to protect our legislators and make the law
effective." 1 These appeals the Mountain regarded as attacks
on the indivisibility of the Republic and a direct evidence of
federalism, and when the appeals were backed by open insur
rection the Mountain saw again the hand of the Ghondins and
triumphantly asserted that there was undisputed proof of fed-
eralistic design.
In the course of this struggle the Girondin party had become
more and more divided, but it was the Buzotins, not the Bris
sotins, who led the movement of the provinces against Paris.
Brissot, however, had been, and still was, too prominent a fig
ure to escape popular wrath and official condemnation. Accu
sations were brought against him personally, as weU as against
his wing of the party. These were reiterated at the time of his
expulsion from the Jacobin Club in October, 1792, and in his
address "A tous les ripublicains de France" he defended him
seU again, referring to his protests in the summer of 1791
against the suspicion of supporting a federated republic. He
had convinced Danton, he declared, that he did not hold fed
eralist principles, but, in spite of his protests, Robespierre con
tinued to accuse him. As for the alleged evidence against him
that he had praised the FidSralist, it fell to the ground because
that work was not in favor of a confederate government, but
distinctly against it.
In regard to the accusation made later, by Anacharsis Cloots,
that Brissot, apropos of proposed annexations, had said that
France was already too large to be governed as a unit,2 Brissot
replied that he had been quite misunderstood, and that the
only basis for the statement which he was alleged to have made
was his opposition to Cloots's scheme for a universal republic,
concerning which he had said that in case France were to be
extended beyond the limits prescribed for her by nature, the
ideal was not a universal republic, but a girdle of federated
republics. Was it not unfair, he asked, to judge him by a single
remark like this, taken out of its context?
1 Moniteur, January 8, 1793. 2 Cloots, Ni Roland ni Marat.

THE CONVENTION 347
In spite of Brissot's attempted repudiation of these charges,
they continued to be made against him, and when twenty-one
of the Girondins were finally brought to trial, the indictment
was against "Brissot and his accomplices." It was charged
that he had advocated a departmental guard, at any rate, till
the last, when he argued for an appeal to the primary assem
bUes in preference; that he had objected to annexation; that
he led the demand for an appeal to the people during the trial
of the king; and that he lent the influence of his newspaper to
the attacks against Paris. In his Pro jet de defense he therefore
devoted considerable space to a reply to these accusations. It
was but a reiteration of his former protest on this subject. He
declared that, far from being a federalist, he had attacked fed
eralism even before the existence of a republic, and in support
of his assertions, pointed to his attitude in 1791. When at that
time a republic was proposed, and when the cry was raised that
France was too large for a unified republic, and that a federated
republic meant danger from internal anarchy and from foreign
foes, he was one of the first to recognize the danger and to pro
test that no one had any intention of so dividing France. In
answer to the charge that he had favored a departmental
guard, he laid stress on the fact that, as soon as he realized that
the project for such a guard was provoking serious discord,
he promptly opposed it. The accusation of having calumniated
Paris he repudiated with indignation.
The Girondins, as a party, were quite as emphatic in their
defense. That their efforts to raise a departmental guard were
an evidence of federalism, they flatly denied. They had no
intention whatever, they declared, of using the proposed de
partmental guard to destroy the unity of the Republic; on the
contrary, they had demanded it for the very purpose of secur
ing that unity.1 It was the same motive, they protested, which
influenced them to advocate an appeal to the provinces at the
time of the king's trial, and later an appeal to the primary
assemblies to elect another Convention, and which finally led.
1 Speech of Buzot, September 25; Moniteur, September 26.

348 "BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
them to raise the provinces in armed insurrection against
Paris. This defense is borne out by the fact that no department
raised troops for the defense of its own territory; no depart
ment declared itseU independent: they were only acting to
gether and for the common interest. According to M. Dauban,
the movement, instead of being federalistic, was but the equiv
alent of the departmental movement of 1848, when the na
tional guards from aU over France came to fight the insurgents
of Paris.
The origin, however, of the charge of federalism is clear
enough. In the first place, many of the Girondins were feder
alists in theory; in the second place, their attitude toward the
provinces gave abundant color to the accusation of hostflity
to Paris. Buzot, for example, in his memoirs, frankly acknowl
edged such belief and appealed in support of it to the theories
of sundry eighteenth-century philosophers and to the example
of the United States.
Further, Buzot declared, in the course of an argument with
Cloots, that since a man's patriotism consists not so much in
love of the land on which he lives as in the love of the citizens
with whom he lives, there could be httle common enthusiasm
for the country between men separated by hundreds of leagues.
Smaller divisions were, therefore, necessary.1 But while re
pudiating federal ideas, Buzot used the phraseology of federal
ism and in the same breath spoke of the deputies as ambassa
dors from the different parts of the Republic. Gorsas, another
Girondin, in his newspaper, the Courrier des DSpartements,
demanded with surprise and indignation why federalism should
be regarded as a crime, and referred his readers to the Esprit
of Helvetius.2 And Brissot, while not advocating federalism
for France, was always holding up the United States as having
an ideal form of government.
But to assert that the Girondins believed in federalism is
one thing; to explain what they meant by it is quite another.
1 Mimoires de Madame Roland, I, 107-08.
* Courrier des Dipartements, October, 1792, quoted by Birl, 350-51.

THE CONVENTION 349
It may be said that as the federal system of the United States
was their inspiration and the model which they would have
liked to see followed in France, one has only to study that sys
tem in order to understand their position. But it is extremely
doubtful if they themselves understood the federal government
across the water. To them it was undoubtedly much more like
a confederation than a federation, and if they had attempted
to copy it in France, they would probably have developed a
highly decentralized organization.
In addition to their theories, there was the further suspicious
fact that their attitude toward the provinces was, to put it
mildly, not out of harmony with their theoretical beliefs. That
attitude may be explained without reference to federalism. It
was a natural outcome of the situation in the summer of 1792.
In fact, at that time, when the overthrow of the king was under
consideration, they went so far as to suggest the advantages
of federahsm and began to sound public opinion on the sub
ject, but they did little more than suggest it. While they
were still hesitating and temporizing, the Jacobins, together
with the Commune of Paris, carried through the insurrec
tion of August 10. The events which followed, though they
may be explained quite apart from any connection with fed
eralism, gave color to the accusation that they were still work
ing for that particular form of government. Irritated at what
they considered too great an extension of the power of Paris,
the Girondins naturally looked to the provinces, which, as a
matter of course, were inclined to be jealous of Paris. This led
to the renewal of the struggle under the Convention; the Giron
dins, on the one hand, seizing the opportunity afforded by the
events of the first weeks of September to accuse the Mountain
of responsibility for the massacres; and the Mountain, on the
other, seizing upon the alliance between the Girondins and the
provinces to accuse the latter of wishing to divide the Republic
and to establish a federal system of government. Although
the Girondins stoutly maintained that when once the Republic
was established they abandoned any federative plans they

350 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
might have had, it was natural that the Mountain should
doubt their assertion. Thus, the origin of the charge of feder
alism is evident enough, but the alleged proof brought forward
by the Mountain in support of it is absolutely insufficient. As
is generally recognized, the Mountain, although they succeeded
in expelling the Girondins from the Convention and in securing
their conviction, really failed to prove the case against them.
What is clear, however, is that despite their abandonment
of federalism as a form of government, the policy of Brissot
and the other Girondins was decentralizing in tendency. Wit
ness Brissot's attitude in the summer of 1789. "It is time,"
he wrote, "that the Parisians renounce the idea that the prov
inces ought to be sacrificed to them. That despotism which
aU the realm used to see in Paris ... is no more. The bond
which is to unite Paris to the provinces can no more be a bond
of slavery, but of fraternity." x Later, he disapproved of the
plan of Maluet for the dependence of local authorities on
the monarch.2 And again, his proposition for a council com
posed of representatives of the departmental guard and for an
appeal to the provinces at the time of the king's trial and later
in an effort to renew the Convention, were evidences of a pol
icy of decentralization. In short, the Girondins represented as a
whole the system of strong local government established by the
constitution of 1791 rather than the centralization which had
culminated in Louis XVI. But not only was the whole trend
of French history against them, but France was now at war,
and in time of war to adopt and follow a policy of decentraliza
tion, which would with difficulty have had a permanent suc
cess only in time of peace, did not show far-sighted and wise
statesmanship. It was because of this lack of practical ability
and of their ill-considered efforts at decentralization at a period
when centralization was needed, and not because of any attack
on the unity of the Republic, that they so signally failed.
1 Patriote Frangais, August 7, 1789.
2 IMd., February 23, 1790. This may have been, however, largely objec
tion to the power of the king, as such, rather than to centralized government.

CHAPTER XII
ARREST, TRIAL, AND DEATH
The events of the last weeks of May showed the fatal weak
ness of the Girondins. The latter, it is true, realized the grow
ing strength of the Mountain, but, although they foresaw the
issue, they were unable to do anything to avert it. As Brissot
pathetically put it, they discussed much, but they could come
to no conclusion.
It was no longer a question primarily of political principles,
but of personal safety, and the danger was daily becoming
more imminent. As early as the 19th of May, Brissot wrote to
a friend that they were suffering torturing anxiety; that people
were saying that enough cooks and cab drivers had been de
capitated; that it was the heads of the deputies which ought
to come off now; and that such threats had so terrified the
deputies that haU of them were afraid to sleep at home, lest
they might be arrested during the night.1 Some of them took
refuge at the home of Median, possibly because it was situated
in a quarter of the city where there was more Girondin sym
pathy.2 Brissot fled there on the 31st of May, and Vergniaud,
Gensonne, Guadet, and others soon joined him. In momen
tary fear of arrest, they dared not go to bed on the night of
June 1, but passed the night in their chairs, getting what sleep
they could. The next morning they gathered together as many
of their friends as they could reach and tried to agree on a plan
of action. Some were for going to the Assembly; others thought
that too hazardous and proposed that they draw up a declara-
1 Letter of Brissot, May 19, 1793. Correspondance, 338.
2 "Plusieurs des proscrits s'itaient rifugiis chez moi. Je logeais dans un hotel
taste et presque inhaMU d portie de h. Convention et dans un quartier oil les bons
citoyens conservaient encore de I' influence. . . . Pition, Brissot, Guadet, SalUs,
Gensonni, et quelques autres ciderent enfin d nos instances et consentirent d atten
dre dans cet asile le resultat de la siance," Meillan, 52.

352 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
tion of principles; but despite the gravity of the crisis they
could come to no decision. Instead of doing anything definite,
they spent the time discussing the relative dignity of suicide
or death on the scaffold; but even here they could not agree.
While they were in the midst of this discussion, the brother of
Rabaut Saint-Etienne rushed in, wildly excited, crying out
that the Convention was no more and caUing on the deputies
to save themselves. The instinct of seU-preservation at once
asserted itseU, and without waiting to decide either on a com
mon form of death or a common line of action, the deputies,
with few exceptions, sought safety in precipitate flight.1
The futile efforts and misdirected energies of the Girondins
in opposing needed centralization may arouse contempt, but
their sufferings in flight and imprisonment cannot fail to
awaken sympathy. The politician sinks into the background;
one sees rather the human being in a crisis which involves his
personal safety and his very life. This is emphatically true of
Brissot. He fled with the rest from the home of Meillan, and
his thoughts turned at once toward Chartres, his native city,
as a place of refuge, but he was unable to leave Paris at once,
because of the lack of ready money.2 Where he hid in Paris is
not known, but by June 4 he had managed to get away, and
by the 5th he had reached Versailles. Here, at the home of one
Beau, he met a friend and admirer named Souque,3 who cour
ageously determined to accompany him in his flight.4 They
1 Brissot, Mimoires, n, 216.
2 LHlre de Barbaroux aux Marseillais, cited by A. Duchatellier, Histoire de
la Revolution en Bretagne, I, 407. Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 734, note.
8 Examination of Souque before the council general of the Department of
the Allier. Correspondance, 341-46. Souque had known Brissot at the Jaco
bin Club. He escaped the guillotine, but was left in prison till the 9th Thermi
dor. He afterward served in various affairs under the Directory, and in 1819
was elected a member of the Corps Ligislatif. He was also known as a dra
matic author of some repute. See Vatel, Charlotte Corday et les Girondins, II,
249, note.
4 According to the examination before the council general of the Depart
ment of the Allier, business interests were in part responsible for Souque's
determination to accompany Brissot, as he had been connected with the army
in the Department of the Eure-et-Loir.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 353
accordingly set off together toward Chartres. Here Brissot
was destined to be bitterly disappointed.1 "I hoped," he wrote
in his memoirs, "that my reputation and the services which
I had rendered to liberty would make me welcome. The first
man I saw was a friend of twenty years' standing: he trembled
and was embarrassed; he urged me to flee immediately, prom
ised to come back to see me again, but did not appear. Those
whom I met afterward, while they showed more courage, gave
me the same advice. I could certainly apply to myself that
passage: 'In patriam venit et sui eum non receperunt.' "2
Saddened by what seemed to him the basest ingratitude,
he departed from Chartres in despondency, feeling that if his
own city refused to receive him, there was no refuge left. But
to wander about aimlessly for any length of time was not pos^
sible, and learning that some of the deputies had gone toward
Orleans, he and Souque turned their steps in that direction.3
Under such circumstances, it is small wonder that the forests
through which Brissot passed seemed very alluring, and that
he longed, as in the days of his youth, to return to a life of
nature. "How I regretted," he wrote in describing his feelings,
" that I could not bury myseU and hide forever from those men
for whom I had sacrificed all, and who had not hesitated to
sacrifice me. The more wild, sad, and lonely Nature appeared,
the more she pleased my soul."
The state of opinion in Orleans was not reassuring, and find
ing that "Maratism" was in the ascendant, he and Souque
decided speedily that no safety was to be found there. They
therefore continued theh weary journey in the direction of Gien,
Nevers, and Moulins. To their dismay, they found that when
ever they passed through a village, they had to stop, show their
passports, and answer embarrassing questions. Souque seems
1 The support which Brissot had received from Chartres came largely from
the Jacobin Club there, and his expulsion from the Jacobin Club at Paris would
naturally influence the local Jacobin Club against him.
2 Brissot, Mimoires, n, 216.
3 Examination of Souque before the council-general of the Department of
the Allier. Correspondance, 341-46.

354 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
to have been more astute and to have shown more practical
sense than Brissot. At all events, he tried to arrange their
journey so that they might reach Moulins at an early hour and
thus run less risk of being detained. But Brissot, who was
overcome with fatigue, insisted on stopping at a little inn a
couple of leagues from Nevers for a good night's rest. This
upset Souque's calculations, and, in consequence, they did not
arrive at Moulins till noon. Instead of the single sleepy guard
whom Souque counted on hoodwinking, the local authorities
were numerous and wide awake.1 Disaster followed for both
Souque and Brissot.
According to theh custom, Souque went alone to the police
with their passports.2 This was a wise precaution, since Bris
sot, widely known as he was, might be recognized, and his pass
port, which represented him as a Swiss merchant, Ramus by
name, of Neuchatel, Switzerland, be challenged.3 But fate,
which had treated him kindly so far, failed him on this occa
sion. The suspicion of the police officer whose business it was
to vise" the passports was aroused, and Brissot was obliged to
present himseU in person before him. He was then shown an
order from the minister of the interior, forbidding the accept
ance of any Swiss certificates, except such as were signed by
Barthelemy, ambassador of France in Switzerland. Brissot's
objection, that this order could not possibly apply to him,
since his passport antedated it by two months, was not favor
ably received, and the officer continued to press him with
questions, which he did his best to answer satisfactorily.
But the officer refused to be satisfied, and would do nothing
without consulting the mayor, who wished to consult the dis
trict, and the district in turn carried the matter to the de
partment. Brissot was accordingly caUed before the depart
mental council. He was naturaUy much disturbed lest he be
1 Brissot, Mimoires, n, 221-22.
2 See note of M. Perroud, Correspondance, 339.
8 Ramus was the son of a Swiss pastor of Neuchatel, Switzerland, and was
in the employ of Beau at whose house Brissot stopped at Versailles.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 355
recognized, but he put a brave face on it and stoutly maintained
that he was a Swiss merchant. But to support his assertion he
soon found was not so easy. Where were his papers? he was
asked. He had none. Where were his trunks? He was travel
ing without any. Who were his correspondents? Without hesi
tation he named several important houses, and trying to brazen
it out, he offered to stay at Moulins tiU the authorities should
assure themselves of his identity. Whereupon one obstinate
member of the council proposed that in the meantime he be
kept in prison, a proposition to which Brissot vehemently ob
jected, and demanded instead that he be aUowed to remain
under guard at the inn. After much discussion, it was finally
decided that he be placed provisionaUy in a state of arrest, and
that the conveyance in which he and Souque had arrived be
examined. Meanwhile, the prospect of imprisonment brought
Brissot to his senses. He realized how impossible it would
be to conceal his identity for any length of time, and, that by
reveaUng it, showing himseU, as he put it, "invested with the
sacred character of representative of the nation," he might
escape actual imprisonment. Accordingly, when he was brought
before the comite de surete generate,1 he confessed who he was.2
In defense of his action, he declared that had he felt that the
decree against him represented the real desire of the legislators,
his respect for the law and for the Convention would have pre
vented his flight, but his conviction that the decree against the
deputies had been passed under duress, and that the Conven
tion had no force at its command wherewith to prevent the
massacre of the victims, persuaded him that he was justified
in fleeing and in taking every possible measure for his safety,
even to the deceit of traveling under a false passport. In con
clusion, he asked that his case be referred to the Convention.3
When the committee of public safety thus reported the result
1 M. Perroud, in a footnote, explains that this committee was more properly
called the comiti de surveillance, and that in its proces-verbal it calls itself the
comiti de salut public. Mimoires de Brissot, n, 222.
2 Proch-verbal du comite de salut public. Correspondance, 346-49.
3 See Correspondance, 346-49.

356 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
of their examination to the council of the department, the lat
ter declared that Brissot was under the safeguard of the law
and the loyalty of the citizens of MouUns, and that he should
be treated with the respect due to a representative of the
nation. It also decreed that Brissot and Souque should be
kept under guard by the municipality at the inn.
Souque was also examined. From the stress laid on questions
as to the motives which actuated Brissot and himself to go to
this or that department, the examiners were evidently suspi
cious that Brissot and Souque were engaged in fomenting a
conspiracy against the Convention.1 They were unsuccessful,
however, in forcing from Souque any incriminating admis
sions. Neither had the committee of public safety found any
incriminating papers among the effects of Souque and Brissot
and nothing worse than two English pistols.2
The suspicious attitude of the administrators apparently
represented popular opinion, for a mob gathered under the
windows of the inn and hooted at Souque and Brissot as trai
tors. This mob Souque had to brave, in going to appear before
the departmental council, and on his return he found it still
waiting for him with insults and threats of the guillotine. Ac
cording to Brissot, it was a critical and dangerous situation.
With great difficulty Souque managed to get through the mob
and up to the room where Brissot was waiting for him. Pale
and speechless, he threw himseU upon Brissot's neck, crying
that their last moment had come. Whereupon the mayor de
clared that he could not answer for what might happen, and
that the only way to appease the mob was for Brissot and
Souque to be put in prison. At which Brissot promptly ap
pealed to the decree of the Convention which placed the depu
ties under arrest in their own homes, and declared that he
would go to prison only under force. The procureur of the
commune, who was present, sympathized with Brissot and
1 Interrogatoire prHi pardevant nous administrateurs composant le conseil
giniral du dipartement de V Allier, juin 10, 1793. Correspondance, 341-46.
2 Process-verbal du comiti. Correspondance, 346-49.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 357
harangued the mob so successfully that they were persuaded
to disperse.1
It is to be noted that it was only Souque who was examined
directly by the council pf the department. This body, after
having learned through their committee of public safety who
Brissot really was, respected his position as representative of the
people and confined their investigation to Souque.2 They took
heed, moreover, to Brissot's request and decreed that the de
partment send to the Convention all the papers involved and
await its instructions. Brissot also sent a letter to the Conven
tion, in which he set forth the reasons why he considered him
self justified in his flight. He had hesitated at first, as flight
seemed to him unworthy of a representative of the people; but
as the Convention was no longer free, it had ceased to repre
sent the people. The most potent cause of his flight, however,
was fear of arrest, and here he was justified on the ground of
seU-preservation. After thus defending himself, he went on
to demand in the name of justice that he be not condemned
without being heard in his own defense, and above all that his
companion, Souque, be released.3
The Convention did not look with favor upon Brissot's ap
peal. In their estimation, he had added to the crime of con
spiracy the guilt of using a false passport and thus forfeited all
claim to consideration, and should be committed to prison like
1 Brissot, Mimoires, n, 223-24.
2 Extrait du prods-verbal de la session extraordinaire du conseil du diparte
ment de I' Allier. Given in the Correspondance, 350-51.
3 The letter is quoted in full in Vatel, Charhtte Corday et des Girondins, n,
248. The Moniteur gives it only in part. Marat published it with the following
comment: " Tout le monde sait que Brissot, Vancien espion de police, I'ame dam-
nie de Lafayette, de Narbonne, de Bailli, V agent de Louis Capet, le complice de
Dumouriez, et I'&me damnie de la faction des hommes d'Hat qui ne cessent pas
de machiner pour le retablissement de la royauti, enfeignant de vouloir la Ripub
lique, est I'un des 35 meneurs mis en Hat d'arrestation. Tout le monde sail qu'il
a pris la fuite il y a cinq jours, pour alter machiner en Suisse, au moyen d'un
faux passeporl dont il s' itait pourvu d'avance. Tout le monde sait qu'il a iU
arrHi par la municipaliti patriote de Moulins; mais tout le monde ne connoit pas
la lettre qu'il vient d'icrire d la Convention, la void mot pour mot, on y verra que
ce vile intrigant est aussi plat que perfide." L'Ami du Peuple, 14 juin.

358 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
any other criminal. One member declared that there did not
exist a dungeon sufficiently black to shut up such a conspira
tor. The matter was finaUy settled by a decree, passed on the
recommendation of the Committee of Public Safety, that Bris
sot and Souque should be brought to Paris.1
Meanwhile Brissot was becoming a cause of civil dissension
in the Department of the Allier, and the administrators were
only too glad to get rid of him.2 Two events, in particular,
accelerated their zeal. In the first place, the district of Gannat
drew up an address in behaU of Brissot, which it sent to the
department. This was read to the departmental councfl in its
session of June 17, and provoked a sharp reprimand. The de
partment, it was stated, thoroughly disapproved of the address
because it opposed the decree of the Convention, placing the
twenty-two members under arrest; because it was opposed
to the arrest of Brissot; and finally because the example set
by the district of Gannat was likely to disturb the peace and
unity of the department.3 The department decreed, more
over, that the action of Gannat be communicated to the
Committee of Public Safety.
That Brissot should be held responsible for stirring up the
district of Gannat was but natural. If his own account is to be
accepted, he was an "accessory after the fact," and knew noth
ing of the action of the district till after it had been taken.4
But he certainly was indiscreet. The address, it seems, was
brought to him by an officer of the department, one Des-
combes.6 Brissot, evidently pleased by this sympathy, was
1 Aulard, Recueil des actes du comiti de salut public, rv, 578.
2 The temper of Brissot's captors is well shown by the account of his arrest
and examination given in a personal letter by one of the members of the tri
bunal, Royer by name. While agreeing with the official account as to fact,
it is distinctly hostile to Brissot. A. N., ad. xvmc, vol. 241.
3 Proces-verbal des siances de Vassemblie administrative du dipartement d' Al
lier. Siance du 17 juin, 1793. See also for the whole subject Louis Biernawski,
Un dipartement sous U, Rivolution frangaise. L' Allier de 1789 d Van II.
4 This defense of Brissot's is given in his Riponse au rapport de Saint-Just,
Mimoires, n, 263-65.
6 Brissot gives the name as Lescombes, but it appeared in the procis-verbal
as Descombes.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 359
imprudent enough to write an answer, in which he defended his
position and thanked the district of Gannat for its action.1 He
was soon made aware of his indiscretion by the mayor of Mou
lins, who hastened to warn him that the action of the district
of Gannat had stirred up great indignation. Whereupon Bris
sot offered to make what reparation he could by writing on the
spot to Descombes, begging him to suppress the letter. This
last letter, instead of being sent, as Brissot trusted it would be,
was promptly turned over by the mayor to the committee of
general security. The result was an examination of Brissot's
papers.2 Popular opinion against Brissot now expressed itseU
by a demand by the Societe populaire, addressed to the coun
cil of the department, that in view of the disturbances to which
his presence was giving rise, he be sent away as soon as possible.
The department accordingly decreed that rapid measures be
taken to "direct Brissot toward Paris."3
As for the district of Gannat, it soon had reason to regret
its enthusiasm in Brissot's behalf, for the Convention called
to its bar the officers of Gannat and ordered that the seat of
the district administration be transferred from Gannat to
Saint-Pourcain. This decision naturally provoked consterna
tion at Gannat and frantic appeals for pardon. The 25th of
June the citizens of Gannat sent an address to the Convention,
protesting that they were guilty of no counter-revolutionary
design, that their village had been calumniated, and that they
had no intention of marching against Moulins.4 The 26th of
June, the procureur-syndic of the district of Gannat appeared
before the council of the department to explain the action of
the district.5 The 27th the council general of Gannat appointed
a special committee to make further explanations.6 The 3d of
July the administrators appeared before the bar of the Con
vention, and by making humble apology and retracting their
1 See Correspondance, 358-60. 2 Reponse, Mimoires, n, 263-65.
3 Procis-verbal des siances de Vassemblie administrative du dipartment de
V Allier, June 18, 1793.
4 District du Gannat, Correspondance, June 25, 1793,
6 Prods-verbal, referred to above. e Gannat, Conseil-giniral, 263-64.

360 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
action, were able to secure their personal reinstatement and
the ree'stablishment of Gannat as the head of the district.1
The very next day after the popular society of Moulins,
stirred by the Gannat incident, had urged Brissot's departure,
another evidence of sympathy in his behalf came to light, and
made more desirable still his speedy departure from Moulins.
This was the arrival in Moulins of a young Spaniard, named
Marchena, who declared that he had made the journey ex
pressly to see Brissot. Being brought before the officers of the
municipality, he gave a straightforward account of himself —
an account which agrees very closely with Brissot's subsequent
explanation of their relations.2 It seems that Marchena, having
been banished from Spain on account of his revolutionary
views, had been obhged to flee from his country. He had set
tled at Bayonne, where he had connected himseU with the
Jacobin society. A speech which he had dehvered in August,
1792, against royalty and on the organization of the Republic,
brought him to Brissot's attention. The latter saw in him a
person likely to be useful in preparing the revolution in Spain,
and accordingly invited him to come to Paris and presented
him to Lebrun. The decline of the Girondin party apparently
put an end to Marchena's activities in this matter, but not to
his devotion to Brissot, and he now voluntarily came to Mou
lins prepared to share Brissot's imprisonment and misfortunes.
In addition to his sympathy with Brissot, the municipal au
thorities found him guilty of the more tangible charge of trav
eling under a false passport. The council general accordingly
decreed his imprisonment till he could be brought before the
committee of public safety of the department.
This arrest, following so closely on the heels of the Gannat
1 Biernawski, n, 363-64. The incident was made much of as showing that
Brissot was a dangerous conspirator. Billaud- Varennes, in a speech delivered
the 15th of July, said: "Pendant un risidence de quelques jours a Moulins, Bris
sot a presque riussi d y rialiser to guerre civile." Discours sur les dipuUs de la
Convention, mis en Hat d'arrestation, par son dicret du deuxieme juin prononci
dans la siance du quinziime juUUt, 1793, p. 24.
2 Brissot, Mimoires, n, 226, 265-66; also Extrait des minutes diposies au
secrHariat de la municipaliU de Moulins, printed in Correspondance, 361-68.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 361
affair, now brought matters to a crisis. The department, with
out waiting for directions from Paris, passed a decree which
provided that Brissot should start the next day, the 20th; that
he should be accompanied by a civil commissioner appointed
for the purpose, and by two national guards; that he should
make the journey in a four-seated carriage; that another civil
commissioner should go ahead in the conveyance in which Bris
sot had arrived in Moulins; that Souque and Marchena should
be sent to Paris accompanied by two national gendarmes, but
that they should be separated from Brissot by a distance of
several hours; that the execution of these measures should be
entrusted to the municipality of Moulins, and that for this
purpose the necessary funds should be advanced by the de
partment.1 These decrees were, however, unnecessary, as the
municipality, having in the mean time received notice from
Paris of the decree of the Convention ordering the transfer of
Brissot, had proceeded to immediate action.
There were many details to be arranged : what route should
be followed; how many horses would be needed to start with;
where, and how, fresh horses could be obtained along the route;
where conveyances could be found; who should be chosen to
accompany the prisoners; what the expense would be, etc.
An interesting complication arose concerning a conveyance. It
was reported that a certain citizen, Faucompre by name, whose
father was an emigre, possessed a carriage suitable for the pur
pose. The question of ownership thus became important, for,
if the carriage were the property of an emigre, it could be taken
for the service of the Republic, otherwise not. The munici
pality in perplexity appealed to the department, which de
cided that, as the father and son lived together, the carriage
might be considered as belonging to the father, and so sub
ject to confiscation. The department also, on request of the
commune, advanced three thousand francs for necessary ex
penses.2 1 Assemblie administrative du dipartement de V Allier, June 19, 1793.
2 Registre des dilibirations prises par le conseil giniral de la commune de

362 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
All these measures seem to have been taken with great
haste, for, on the evening of the 19th, the very day on which
the decree of the Convention reached Moulins, the authori
ties started their prisoners. It was a cavalcade of some impor
tance, one rider going in advance to provide for the change of
horses, then three carriages, one each for Brissot, Souque, and
Marchena, accompanied by civil commissioners and gen
darmes.1 The moment of departure was a trying one for Bris
sot. It had been announced for seven o'clock in the evening,
and by three o'clock the square was full, while the windows
and roofs of adjacent buddings were covered with spectators.
Although no actual violence seems to have been offered, there
were shouts, "To the guillotine." But Brissot appears to have
been prepared for insults and to have received them with at
least outward calm. As far as Montargis, he met with evi
dences of curiosity rather than of antagonism, but there he had
a most unpleasant experience. Hostile crowds gathered round
and drew hideous and suggestive caricatures on the sides of his
carriage. "Nothing," he declared, "could be more like a dance
of cannibals around their victim attached to the fatal stake
than the sight of those monsters announcing to me with a
jubilant air the approaching gufllotine."2 His fears were nat
urally aroused as to the reception he might meet at Paris, but
his arrival there seems to have occasioned no outbreak.
He reached Paris on the 22nd of June, and on the decree of
the Committee of Public Safety, he was taken temporarily to
the mairie, where it was decreed that he should remain pend
ing the action of the Convention.3 He seems to have confi
dently expected that he would soon be transferred to his own
home,4 but the next day, in accordance with a decree of
the Convention placing him under arrest, he was taken to
Moulins, 19-20 juin, 1793. Also Proces-verbal des siances de VassembUe ad
ministrative du dipartement de V Allier, 20 juin, 1793.
1 Registre des deliberations prises par le conseil giniral de la commune de
Moulins, juin 19, 1793.
2 Memoires, n, 228.
8 Recueil des actes du comiti de salut public, v, 44. 4 Mimoires, n, 228.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 363
the Abbaye,1 where he remained till the 6th of October, when
he was transferred to the Conciergerie.2
Meanwhile a deputation of his escort presented themselves
to the Convention. They seemed to feel that Moulins de
served some reward for making so notable a capture and
asked the Convention for an advance of 150,000 francs for the
provisioning of their city, but beyond the reference of their
request to a committee they received httle encouragement.3
The Convention now turned its attention to the expelled
Girondins, and on July 8, Saint-Just, in the name of the Com
mittee of Public Safety, presented a report upon the deputies
who, by the decree of June 2, had been placed under arrest.
While assading the faction as a whole, the arraignment was
directed against Brissot especially. "There exists," he de
clared, "a conspiracy to establish tyranny and the old consti
tution. The conspirators did their best to preserve the mon
archy in the summer of 1792, even to the extent of proposing
the Duke of York or the Duke of Orleans as rulers if they could
not keep Louis XVI himseU upon the throne; and when they
failed, they calumniated Paris and have ever since been try
ing to divide the Republic. In this conspiracy, Brissot has
played the part of a Monk — and has intrigued both in internal
and in foreign affairs, first to save the king, and then to reestab
lish royalty and to divide the Republic. Witness his actions
and his words: he showed great attachment to the monarchy,
he even declared, if there exist men who intend to establish a
republic upon the ruins of the constitution of 1789, the knife
of the law ought to fall upon them like the partisans of Co
blenz. When, in spite of such threats, the king was suspended,
Brissot demanded that he be well treated. He attacked those
who defended the 10th of August and brought it about; he made
a fine protest of indignation against the massacres of Sep
tember, but at the time he was glad enough to profit by the
1 Prochs-verbal, June 23, 1793.
2 Brissot, Mimmres, n, 272; note, by M. Perroud.
3 Registre des dilibirations prises par le conseil giniral de la commune de
Moulins, 1 juillH, 1793 and Moniteur, June 25, 1793.

364 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
shedding of blood, and inquired eagerly whether one of his per
sonal enemies had been assassinated; he used his influence
against peace in October, 1792, and, besides, threatened the
Convention with the arms of England and Spain; and to gain
influence in America, had his brother-in-law appointed vice-
consul-general at Philadelphia. At the time of the king's trial
he endeavored to save him from execution, and then, when it
was too late to save him personally, he conspired with Dumou
riez in favor of royalty; and finaUy he tried to raise civil war
against Paris and to get the aid of Dillon in proclaiming the
son of Louis XVI king and his mother regent. The consphacy
was directed from Saint-Cloud, where Madame Brissot re
ceived the conspirators in the former royal palace, where they
planned the destruction of the Repubhc." :
In his prison cell, Brissot prepared an answer to these charges
— an answer which was both able and eloquent.2 He now
learned for the first time, he declared, the nature of the charges
made against him and his friends; but although they now knew
of what they were accused, Saint-Just had failed to produce
the written evidence which he promised. Moreover, many
of the accusations concerned matters of opinion, and it was
contrary to law to judge a deputy for his opinions. The general
charges of royalty and federalism, he asserted, were manifestly
absurd, as they mutually contradicted each other, and, as for
the latter, the departmental movement burst forth after and
not before the 2d of June, and, as shown by the oath taken by
the rebels against the Convention, was not for the purpose
of destroying but of preserving the unity and indivisibility of
the Republic. Having thus dealt with the charges against the
Girondins as a whole, Brissot then turned to the points in which
1 Moniteur, July 18, 19, 1793.
2 M. Perroud sees no reason to doubt the genuineness of this defense. One
internal evidence of great weight in its favor, he points out, is the curious mis
takes in proper names in the Montrol edition — mistakes which can most
reasonably be accounted for on the supposition that the matter was printed
from a manuscript of Brissot's which the editor had difficulty in deciphering.
See Mimoires, ii, 232; note by M. Perroud.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 365
he himself was especially assailed, and took up his own personal
defense. He had been compared to Monk, but his character
and that of Monk, he declared, far from offering points of re
semblance, presented only antitheses. "Monk was a courtier,
and I have always hated courts from the bottom of my heart;
Monk commanded armies, and I am a stranger to the art of
war; Monk was powerful, and I am powerless; Monk was am
bitious, and I have no ambition, not even for glory; Monk
changed his party, and I have invariably kept to that of the
RepubUc; Monk was made a duke as the price of his treason,
and I should always have the fear of the scaffold before me U
I should be base and stupid enough to commit treason; for, in
the eyes of kings, I have committed a crime that they never
pardon: I have condemned a king to death; I have dared to
say that a king deserves death as I dared to advance the idea
that it would be impolitic to make him suffer it." His enemies,
Brissot continued, asserted that he had defended monarchy;
let them cite a single passage from his works before as well as
after 1789, where he had upheld it. As for the special phrase
cited, in which he called down the knife upon any one daring
to propose a republic, it was taken from its context, and was,
as a matter of fact, included in that speech of July 26 which
was approved by the Assembly, as was evidenced by the fact
that they ordered it printed. "In short," Brissot declared
with indignation, "it is with a phrase uttered in 1792 under the
old constitution that they try to prove that under the Republic
in 1793, I wanted to reestablish royalty." 1
The reason why the Girondins were in favor of suspension
instead of dethronement, Brissot went on to say, was not be
cause they were seeking to preserve royalty, but because sus
pension was the way to avoid a regency and to bring about a
total change in the form as well as in the personnel of govern
ment. It was alleged against him, as though it were a crime,
that he asked after the 10th of August that the king be treated
1 This does not seem quite accurate, as it was to show that Brissot was
attached to the monarchy in the summer of 1792 that these words were cited.

366 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
with humanity; he did not remember making such a request,
but granted that he did, would cruelty be a republican virtue?
In any case, he showed his opposition to royalty by his proposi
tion for the dismissal of the Swiss troops and by the address
to foreign powers, which was his own work. He could not
be accused of calumniating Paris, for he never attacked the
disorder and anarchy which there prevailed without carefully
explaining that he was not attacking Paris as a whole, but
only the evil forces therein. The Morande incident he emphati
caUy denied. On the contrary he tried, he asserted, to induce
Danton to put a stop to the massacres and used aU the means
in his power to have those responsible punished. He never
heard of the propositions for peace referred to; in fact, no dip
lomatic committee existed at the date in question. The war
was due, in the first place, to the action of the emigres and the
electors; the appeal to the people was not for the purpose of
saving the king, but to avoid civil dissension and to take
from foreign powers aU pretext for interference by making
them see that the judgment of the king was the wish of the
nation. He himseU was in no way responsible for the war with Eng
land. On the contrary, he did aU he could to prevent it. The
real cause was England's own conduct. That he had any under
standing with England or America, he emphaticaUy denied,
and to adduce the appointment of his brother-in-law to a post
in Philadelphia as a proof of the latter connection, was a sheer
absurdity. The charges of complicity with Dumouriez and
Dillon were likewise without foundation. In the case of Dillon,
the date of the aUeged plot precluded any possibility of guilt
on his part, as he was already under arrest at Moulins. He had
fled, moreover, not to conspire, but because he beheved that
the Convention was not free.
But absurd as these charges were, the height of absurdity
was reached, Brissot declared, in the accusation that the con
spiracy was directed in the salon of Madame Brissot in a once
royal palace. AU that the tale of the royal palace amounted to

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 367
was that Madame Brissot had for a time rented two rooms in
the apartment of the concierge of the palace. As for the polit
ical salon, Madame Brissot lived in absolute seclusion, de
voted to the education of her children and caring for her house
hold, without even the aid of a servant. To penetrate into his
one refuge from political life and to drag his private and per
sonal relations into publicity was nothing short of an outrage.
If they insisted on a scrutiny of his private life, they would find
the most democratic simplicity, if not actual poverty — in
itseU an answer to the calumny that he profited by the Revo
lution to enrich his family.1
The writing of this eloquent defense occupied much of his
time during the month of July. Counting the forty-five days
of his imprisonment, referred to above, from the 10th of June,
he must have finished it about the 8th of August.2 It was writ
ten at the Abbaye, where he had been imprisoned since the 23d
of June.3 Madame Roland was one of the prisoners there at
the time of Brissot's arrival. The next day she was removed,4
she herseU thought, on account of the fear of the authorities
of communication between them, but according to Sophie
Grandchamp, the friend of Madame Roland, it was because
Madame Roland occupied the one cell which was considered
a proper place of confinement for Brissot.5 In spite of the re
moval, they managed to establish communication through
Mentelle,6 Bosc,7 and Champagneux,8 and it appears to be in
part, at least, due to Madame Roland that Brissot was insti
gated to write his memoirs.9 This production he turned over
a few weeks before his condemnation to his friend Mentelle,10
who, knowing how keenly Madame Roland would be interested,
offered to let her see the manuscript. She, however, realized
1 Riponse au rapport de Saintrjust, Mimoires, n, 230-71.
2 MimMres de Brissot, n, 271; note by M. Perroud.
3 See p. 363. 4 Mimoires de Madame Roland, n, 351, and note.
5 Ibid., n, 485. 8 See p. 17. 7 See p. 121.
8 The former assistant of Roland in the ministry of the interior.
9 Mimoires de Brissot, i, ix. See also Lettres de Madame Roland, u, 734.
10 Edition de Montrol, preface, xix, et seq.

368 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the danger of loss or confiscation, and wrote back to MenteUe
that unless a copy existed, she was unwilling to run the risk.1
During this time, too, he also wrote what he called a "legacy
to his children."
While engaged in writing these memoirs and last messages
to his family, he was also making appeals to the Committee
of Public Safety and to the Convention. The day after his
incarceration at the Abbaye, he wrote to the Committee, en
closing a letter which he asked to have read to the Convention,
and begging at the same time to be allowed to see his wife.
Such permission was granted, he wrote, when he was impris
oned in the Bastille under the old regime, and the regime of lib
erty surely would not be more severe. On the 24th2 and again
on the 27th of June, he wrote asking to be given a hearing.
Marat was not condemned unheard, he argued; would they do
less for him? He also begged again for permission to see his
wife, his mother-in-law, and his sister-in-law. And on June
30 he once more begged the Convention for permission to see
his sister-in-law on necessary business.3 These demands were
apparently answered only in part, for, although the Committee
of Public Safety, on July 3, granted him permission to com
municate with his mother-in-law and his sister-in-law, nothing
was said about his wUe.4 Thus separated from those who were
dearest to him and tortured with crushing anxiety as to their
future and his, Brissot dragged out the weary weeks of his
imprisonment. According to his enemies, he was still engaged in fomenting
conspiracy against the Convention — a charge which he ve
hemently and indignantly denied.5 "The people ask you for
1 "Je ne veux point vmr les cahiers de B. que lorsque vous en auriez un double,
il y a toujours du danger dans les transports, et il ne faut pas risquer une perte
irriparable." Lettres de Madame Roland, II, 527.
2 See Bib. nat., fr. nouv. acq. 307.
3 Correspondance, 369-72.
4 Receuil des actes du comiti de salut public, v, 153. The 9th of August,
Madame Brissot herself was put under surveillance. Notice sur la vie de Brissot,
in Correspondance, lxvi.
6 This seems to be apropos of a report, made by Barere to the Convention

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 369
bread," he wrote to Barere the 7th of September, "you have
promised them my blood. Thus you order my death even
before I am brought to trial. . . . Ah! if my blood could bring
abundance and put an end to all divisions, I would shed it
myself immediately. In order to excuse that sanguinary phrase,
you imagine that I am conspiring in my prison, you imagine
that I have said, 'Before my head falls, heads will fall in the Con
vention ! ' . . . Yes, I conspire with my triple locks and my
triple bars! I conspire alone or with the philosophers of an
tiquity who teach me to bear the wrongs which I suffer for the
cause of liberty, that cause of which I shall always be the
apostle." 1
Meanwhile the Convention was preparing to bring Brissot
and the other accused Girondins to trial. After several at
tempts had been made to hasten the procedure,2 the general
indictment against them was finally presented, on October 3,
by Amar. This, the decisive act which brought the Girondins
before the revolutionary tribunal, consisted of forty-five dis
tinct counts. It repeated many of the charges of Saint-Just's
report, but was longer, more detailed, and more sweeping. It
presented Brissot as the head and front of the Girondins and
the most culpable member of that faction. There existed a
conspiracy, Amar declared, against the liberty and safety of
the French people, and Brissot was one of its leaders. This
Brissot, who was an agent of the police and a base intriguer
the 5th of September, on the danger of a rising in Paris. It was followed by
a demand that Brissot and several others be brought at once before the revo
lutionary tribunal. Moniteur, September 6, 1793.
1 The letter given is in Vatel, Charlotte Corrday et les Girondins, n, 250-51;
also in Correspondance, 376-78.
2 The 26th of July the Convention decreed that the Committees of General
Security and Legislation be required to present, with as little delay as possible,
the act of accusation against Brissot. The 19th of August the public prose
cutor asked for the papers and acts of accusation against Brissot. Whereupon
the Convention sent a request to the Committee of General Security to make
its report in three days. August 25, the public prosecutor complained that he
had not yet received the papers, and on October 1 the Committee of Gen
eral Security was again asked to report immediately. See the proces-verbal
of the Convention on these different days.

370 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
under the old regime, began his career in the Revolution as a
member of the Comite de Recherches of the Commune of Paris,
in which he acted as the agent of Lafayette. Even when La
fayette, in April, 1791, showed his sympathy for the king and
made pretense of resigning the command of the Parisian guard,
Brissot continued to support him and declared in the Patriote
Frangais that the retirement of Lafayette would be a public
calamity. Brissot, moreover, was always an enemy of popular
societies and showed himseU at the Jacobins only at times of
crisis. The first occasion was in the month of April, 1790, when,
under the pretense of philanthropy, he inaugurated a plan
which was to end in the ruin of the colonies; the second occa
sion was in March, 1791, when, in criminal collusion with La
fayette, he prepared the way for the day of the Champ de Mars,
in order to give Lafayette a chance to assassinate the patriots.
The third occasion was in January, 1792, when he came to
preach war with the purpose of hindering the Revolution and
destroying liberty.1
On his election to the Legislative Assembly, Brissot allied
himself openly with the deputies of the Gironde and tried, to
gether with them, to usurp a useful popularity, by defending
the cause of the people on occasions of slight importance, al
though they abandoned it often enough in times of crisis. They
were the agents of the court in trying to bring about war at a
time when France was in no way prepared for it. With traitor
ous intent they supported Narbonne, lauding him to the skies,
and getting him sent to the army, contrary to all law, before
he had rendered his accounts as minister. Brissot and Con
dorcet came forward in their newspapers as the defenders of
Dietrich, who was convicted of complicity with Lafayette and
of having worked to deliver up Strasbourg. Brissot and the
mob tried to prevent the 10th of August and treated with
the king. Brissot gave the king advice pernicious to liberty,
as is proved by a letter in his hand addressed to Louis XVI, in
possession of the Comite de Surveillance, in which his signature
1 Moniteur, October 20, 27, 1793.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 371
is scratched out. Moreover, he showed not only in his secret
correspondence, but also in public speech, his attachment to
monarchy, when he declared, on June 26, that the knife of the
law ought to fall on those who desired a republic. At the same
time he was responsible for the newspaper entitled the RSpub-
licain, published in March, 1791 (sic), and for the petition
which led to the butchery of the Champ de Mars. But in
July of 1792, when people wanted a republic, he tried to save
royalty, and after the 10th of August he tried to mitigate the
king's imprisonment by having him placed at the Luxem
bourg. He was one of those who attacked the leaders who had
brought about the 10th of August; he and other agents of
the English faction had a part in planning the Belgian cam
paign, in which Dumouriez let the Prussians retire. They
wanted to receive the Duke of Brunswick at Paris; they
planned to flee with the king and the Legislative Assembly
beyond the Lohe. Brissot appealed to the people to save Louis
XVI; he then proposed a declaration of war with England
after having tried to prevent it; he conspired with Dumouriez,
proposed a national guard around Paris as a base of federalism,
stirred up rebellion against Paris; when arrested at Moulins
he was probably on his way to Lyons to foment further rebel
lion; and finally, U he were not in actual alliance with Pitt, it
was curious that he and Pitt were working for precisely the
same things — the overthrow of the Republic, the destruction
of Paris, the ruin of the French colonies, and the arming of aU
Europe against France.
In his cell in the Conciergerie, Brissot thus learned from this
report what charges were to be made against him when he
should be brought before the bar for trial. He accordingly be
gan at once a Projet de defense devant le tribunal revolutionnaire
en reponse au rapport d'Amar.1 It was an able and lengthy
1 Mimoires, n, 272-306. In the first paragraph he speaks of his rigorous
captivity of four months. M. Perroud notes: "Varrestation de Brissot est du
dixieme juin. C'est done vers le dixieme octobre, d la Conciergerie, oil il avait Hi
transferi le sixieme, qu'il dut commencer ce projet de difense." IMd., n, 272,
note.

372 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
defense which he drew up,1 a final and supreme effort to clear
himseU from the charge of treason and to prove that he was a
sincere patriot, and, above all, a true lover of hberty.
"France and Europe have resounded for some time," he
declared, "with the aUeged conspiracy of thirty-two deputies
against the Republic." They accused him of being at the head
of it. But, he continued, he had long waited with impatience
for them to give definite details of these crimes. And, in the
meantime, calumniators were profiting by their silence to stir
up public opinion against them. Unless, then, they spoke out in
their defense, there was danger that people think them power
less to defend themselves. "I am therefore going to refute,"
he declared, "all the facts alleged against me in the reports of
Saint-Just and Amar. I shall prove that there is not one of
them which is not absolutely false. In order to prop up their
absurd accusation, they have ransacked aU my past Ufe; I
thank my adversaries, for my entire hfe has been devoted to
hberty and wfll bear witness to my love for it." Of this love,
aU his early works bore witness, he maintained. His ThSorie
des lois criminelles, his Bibliotheque philosophique, denounced
the crimes of kings and ministers; his Correspondance politique
and his Tableau des sciences et des arts en Angleterre were writ
ten to inoculate France with the principles of the English and
American constitutions; l'Histoire philosophique d'Angleterre
to show to the French people the course which they ought to
pursue to break theh fetters; his Lettres a Joseph II exhorted
a tyrannized people to reconquer their rights. In short, there
was not a single one of his works which did not have for its
object "to avenge humanity, liberty, and reason from the out
rages of despotism." His journey to America was undertaken
in order that he might learn how to bring about a like revolu
tion in France, and to find a place of abode for his family in a
new country, in case it should be necessary to abandon hope of
1 It was nearly twice as long as his answer to Saint-Just. He naturally re
peated some of his arguments, as this defense was not only an answer to Amar,
but to all the denunciations made against himself.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 373
such a revolution at home; and on his return to France, he em
barked on the dangerous career of a journalist, in order that he
might daily combat the prejudices, the abuses of despotism
and aristocracy.1
"I, accused of royalism in 1793!" he continued; "I, who
offered myself on eleven successive ballots for the place of
deputy to the Legislative Assembly, to be overwhelmed with
thousands of libels only because of my known republicanism.
"I, who wishing to combat every kind of aristocracy, that
of color as well as that of nobility, published so many works
in order to raise to the level of the white colonists that valuable
class of mulattoes who form the bulwark of our colonies and
who will save them from the hand of our enemies.
"I, who in 1789 dared to be the first and only one to main
tain that the Constituent Assembly had not the right to make
a constitution without the approval of the people — a truth
which was recognized only after the establishment of the Re
public in 1792.
"I, who at the time of the flight of the king and when the
most ardent patriots trembled at the mere name of a republic,
tried on several occasions, and especially in my speech of July
10, 1791, to reconcile them to the republican regime and to
induce them at least to establish an executive council named
by the people and independent of the king.
"I, who during the Legislative Assembly, worked, talked,
published with the one purpose of diminishing the royal pre
rogative, of preventing its fatal effects, of unmasking the trea
son of the ministers, and, since the king would not maintain
liberty, of bringing about the Republic by a second revolution."
After thus defending his general principles, Brissot took up,
one by one, the specific charges against him. He denied that
he had ever been a spy or had had any nefarious connections
with England. He was not married to an English woman, as
was alleged, and his stay in England in 1783-84 for the pur-
1 Note that he puts forward his democratic principles as an evidence of
republicanism.

374 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
pose of studying English institutions was a flimsy basis for the
charge of conspiracy in 1793. As for his aUeged compUcity
with Lafayette, what connection, he asked, had his relations
with him in 1790 with a conspiracy in 1793? He had been de
ceived in Lafayette, he admitted, but surely Lafayette's part
in the American Revolution and Washington's admiration
for him were good reasons for believing that Lafayette was a
sincere friend of liberty and republicanism. He himseU, how
ever, had never sought his favor,1 his election to the first muni
cipality of Paris was not due to Lafayette's protection; more
over, as a member of that municipality, he had worked against
the royalists, had tried to prevent action against the instigators
of the riots of October 5 and 6, and had opposed the plans of
Lafayette, and after the 17th of July he had openly denounced
him. He was not responsible for the petition which led to the
massacre, and as soon as Lafayette showed his true colors by
firing on the pubUc, he (Brissot) attacked him in his news
paper. That in spite of these attacks, he went about openly
in the streets of Paris, whfle the other enemies of Lafayette
were hiding, was not an evidence, as was alleged, that he had
a secret understanding with Lafayette, but was, on the con
trary, a proof of his own bravery and fearlessness. Moreover,
since that time, he had never ceased to denounce him.
Another charge laid at his door was responsibility for the war
with Austria. But war was a matter of honor, and was inevi
table, and U he did wage war, he had the support of the enthe
nation. Moreover, war was declared on April 20, and his last
speech on the subject was delivered the 9th of January; it was
plain that other influences must have been at work. He was
also charged with being aUied with the court. But he had had
no personal relations with the royal family; he had always been
their enemy; and while they had tried to put off the war, he
had been for it.
He was likewise charged with responsibihty for the disasters
1 But see page 162 for his efforts to get money out of Lafayette for the cause
of popular societies.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 375
in the colonies. Such an accusation must concern itself, he de
clared, only with his opinions, for he had never had any part
in the administration of the colonies, and had never had any
correspondence with any one there. As for his opinions, they
were both patriotic and republican. They were not only not the
cause of the disasters of Santo Domingo, but those disasters
could be attributed only to violation of the principles which he
defended; in fact, his opinions could not be criticized without
condemning with him all those who had sustained the same
principles and the three national assemblies which had sanc
tioned them. The real cause of the civil war was the perfidy
of the agents of the government, the aristocracy of the whites,
the vacillation and inconsistency of the Constituent Assembly,
whfle the revolt of the blacks was due to the counter-revolu
tionists in alliance with the counter-revolutionists of Spain and
England. His approval of the commissioners, Santhonax and
Polverel, now under decrees of accusation, was charged against
him. To be consistent, like accusation would have to be
brought against all the Jacobins, and, in any case, waiving the
question of their guilt, he had never had any correspondence
with them.1 That he had been paid a sou for his opinions by
Pitt or by any one else, he indignantly denied.
Another accusation laid upon him was that he was respon
sible for the war with England. On the contrary, he had, he
declared, done all that he could to prevent war with England.
Witness his opposition in July, 1792, to the proposition for a
Batavian legion which would have alarmed England and Hol
land; his efforts as member of the Diplomatic Committee to en
gage Delessart to enter into negotiations with the court of St.
James, his furtherance of the embassy of Chauvelin and Talley
rand. The real responsibility for the war with England rested
on the authors of the decrees of November 19 and December 15
and of the annexation of Belgium and other conquered coun
tries, also on the enemies of the appeal to the people. And for
1 M. Perroud points out that there exists a letter written by Santhonax to
Brissot. See Correspondance, 331-34.

376 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
these measures he was in no way, he declared, responsible;
he had no part in opening the Scheldt, which was ordered
by the executive council without informing the Diplomatic
Committee; he opposed the decree of November 19, protector
of insurrections, since he strongly urged that it be sent back
to the Diplomatic Committee to be drawn up in such a fashion
as not to alarm neutral powers; he repeatedly warned the par
tisans of annexation, and especiaUy of the annexation of Bel
gium, that they would draw upon France the arms of England;
in his different expressions of opinion on the trial of the king,
he gave constant warning that U he were condemned without
having the judgment ratified by the people, France would be ex
posed to a rupture with England. For aU these reasons he dis
claimed aU responsibility. Then, taking up his speech of Janu
ary 12, — and here he was on firmer ground than in some of his
preceding assertions,1 — he reiterated his arguments on that
occasion against war; and finally coming to the speech after the
execution of the king, in which he proposed the formal declara
tion of war, he pointed out that there he was speaking not per
sonally, but in the name of the Committee, and that in any case
the action of the English government had by that time made
war inevitable.
This eloquent plea stops abruptly, and it is evident that he was
called to trial before he had had time to finish it. The prospect
of the trial gave further opportunity to Brissot's opponents,
and while he was thus defending himseU, renewed accusations
continued to pour in against him. On the 29th of September
a deputation of the French colonies denounced the writings and
speeches of Brissot as the cause of the disasters of the colonies
and asked that prompt measures be taken to bring him to jus
tice.2 RueUe, charge" d'affaires in the Netherlands, accused him
of having removed from the papers of the Diplomatic Com
mittee the complaint which he (RueUe) had made against the
1 There was some truth in Brissot's assertion, in so far as he stood for less
precipitation, but his claims here are not in accord with his exuberant rejoic
ing at some of these measures.
2 Prods-verbal de la Convention, September 29, 1793.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 377
minister Lebrun.1 A letter addressed to the public accuser,
signed Guisat, suggested that Charles Theveneau Morande,
being an enemy of Brissot and at the same time au courant
with the intrigues of the British government, might be able to
give valuable testimony. Another citizen wrote that a former
general of the Army of the North had certain information
to give against Brissot in regard to his correspondence with
Dumouriez and his intrigues in HoUand.2 Unsigned communi
cations entitled "A ajouter a I' affaire de Brissot" and "Notice
sur Brissot," 3 professed to give proof of his alleged conspiracy
with England to ruin the colonies. AU these are further evi
dence of the animosity against him.4
On the 15th of October he was brought before the revolu
tionary tribunal for a preliminary examination. The ques
tions put to him involved the accusations already made either
in the formal decrees or in the recent personal denunciations,
and his answers were reiterations of his innocence and an em
phatic denial of aU the charges from first to last. At the be
ginning of the examination he was asked to name a lawyer for
his defense and chose Chaveau Delagarde.5
This preliminary examination was followed by the trial which
began on October 24. As in Amar's accusation, so in the trial,
Brissot occupied the chief place, and, as the most promi
nent of the accused, had a special chair.6 Fourteen witnesses
were caUed, the testimony of ten of whom concerned Brissot.7
1 A. N., W 292, dossier 204, 2' partie, piece 73, 74. See also Prods-verbal de
la Convention, July 30, 1793.
2 A. N., W 292, dossier 204, Se partie, pieces 6 et 10.
3 A. N., F7, 4443, no. 18.
4 A. N., AA**, 1509, no. 46. Appendix C.
6 Interrogatoire de Jacques Pierre Brissot, Archives nationales, W 292, dossier
204, 5" partie. Printed in the Correspondance, 378-85. "Chaveau Delagarde
dut au dibut de la Revolution avoir des liaisons avec Brissot (voir deux lettres de
lui au Patriote Frangais des 15 fev. 1790 H 25 sept. 1791)." Lettres de Madame
Roland, n, 532, note.
6 Aulard, Histoire politique, 404.
7 The records of the trial are preserved at the National Archives at Paris,
W 292, dossier 204, Affaire des Girondins. The account given there is, however,
very brief. See also the Moniteur of October 27, 1793, Supplement; the BulU-
tin du tribunal rivolutionnaire and the Revolutions de Paris.

378 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The ten were Pache,1 Chaumette,2 DestourneUes,3 Hebert,4
Chabot,5 Montaut,6 Fabre d'Eglantine,7 Bourdon,8 Desfaix,9
and Duhem10 — all of the party of the Mountain. Their
charges, on the one hand, and Brissot's defense, on the other,
are for the most part reiterations of the accusations and an
swers already made. Indeed, practically every charge which
had been brought forward was repeated, but the so-caUed tes
timony in support of these charges consisted more of mere
assertions than of definite proof, and was often either vague
or trivial. In addition to what had previously been adduced,
1 Jean Nicolas Pache (born 1746, died 1823) was made minister of war
under Girondin influence in 1792, but went over to the side of the Mountain
and was put out of the ministry. He became mayor of Paris and was one of
the instigators of the insurrection of May 31.
2 Pierre Gaspard Chaumette (bom 1763, died 1794) was closely connected
with the Commune of Paris, was the author of some of the most revolutionary
measures and was the friend and supporter of Hebert, with whom he was exe
cuted. 3 Louis Deschamps DestourneUes (bom 1746, died 1794) was elected minis.
ter of pubhc contributions by the Convention in 1793 and was a member of the
Commune of Paris.
4 Jacques Rene Hubert (born 1755, died 1794) was a famous demagogue,
the editor of the Pire Duchesne, and a member of the insurrectionary Commune
of Paris of August 10. He was guillotined in 1794.
5 Frangois Chabot (born 1759, died 1794) was a deputy to the Legislative
and to the Convention, and was one of the most advanced revolutionists. He
was condemned to death and executed with Danton and Desmoulins in the
spring of 1794.
6 Louis de Maribonde Montaut (born 1754, died 1842) was a deputy to the
Legislative and to the Convention and was a most bitter enemy of royalty.
He defended the massacres of September and stirred up prosecutions against
the royalists and contributed to the fall of the Girondins.
7 Philippe Frangois Nazaire Fabre d'Eglantine (bom 1755, died 1794) was a
deputy from Paris to the Convention and a friend and ally of Desmoulins and
Danton. He had a certain reputation as a poet and man of letters. He was
condemned to death with the Dantonists.
8 Leonard Bourdon (bom 1758, died 1815) was a member of the Convention
and one of the most advanced of the party of the Mountain.
9 Frangois Desfaix (bom 1755, died 1794) was a famous orator at the Ja
cobins, took the initiative in a number of prosecutions, and was executed
with the Hebertists.
10 Pierre Joseph Duhem (born 1760, died 1807) was a deputy to the Legis
lative and to the Convention. He was a most implacable enemy of printers and
journalists and was one of the instigators of the insurrection of May 31.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 379
the testimony and the defense may be summarized as fol
lows: As a member of the Comite des Recherches of the Com
mune, Brissot had tried to impede the revolution, and, to this
end, had protected Bailly and Lafayette; he had tried to form
a secret club in order to neutralize the influence of the Jaco
bins; he was in part responsible for the disasters of the colonies,
as was evident from the fact that he had given Santhonax a
secret mission; he had praised and upheld Narbonne, and when
Delessart, seeing through the plans of Narbonne, helped to
bring about his dismissal, Brissot attacked Delessart; in his
attack on the Austrian committee, he was both vacillating and
equivocal; he had great influence over the Girondin ministry
and named the agents of the diplomatic service, as was evident
from Robert's complaint against Brissot for failing to name him
to the post at Constantinople; under the Legislative Assembly,
he allied himseU with Marat and they together introduced
measures against the king, and then withdrew them the next
day, in order to sell themselves more dearly. He did not want
monarchy overthrown, and therefore he was pleased with the
action of June 21; and when told by Chabot that it had put
off liberty by three centuries, retorted that it would produce
what they had expected, namely, the return of the ministry.
On the 8th of August, at an assembly in the rue d ' Argenteuil,
Brissot had rushed in and announced with breathless dismay
what he called most incendiary proposals at the Jacobins.
After the 10th of August, he had been much concerned for the
safety of Capet and had tried to have him kept at the hotel
de justice. The Committee of Twenty-One, after the 10th of
August, had rejected the eighty-four stars in the new seal, sig
nifying unity, which proved that they had ideas of federalism.
On the 11th, Brissot, at the home of Petion, had practically
made threats against the representatives of the Commune.
He had used his influence to control the elections to the Con
vention, and in particular he had written a letter to the elec
toral body of Beaugency to induce them to choose Louvet.
At the epoch of the massacres, he had calumniated Paris in

380 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the interest of Pitt, in order to arouse English sentiment
against France. These massacres he had spoken of in the
newspaper of Gorsas as "just and terrible," and worse than
that, he was at Petion's when the assassins came in, their hands
covered with blood, and when Petion drank with them. He
had insulted Montaut when, at the king's trial, the latter had
voted for death and accused Brissot of humanity toward the
tyrant; he had proposed sending troops against Spain when
war had not yet broken out with that nation, his real purpose
being to use them for a sectional war. And, finally, he was
engaged in the conspiracy against Paris; and as evidence of his
interest and influence in this conspiracy, it was alleged that he
had not told what he knew about the revolt in the Vendee and
that a letter of his (apparently the address to his constituents)
had had much weight in stirring up feeling at Bordeaux.
In answer to these charges, Brissot made the foUowing de
fense. He denied that as a member of the Comiti des Recherches
he had tried to hinder the Revolution, or that he had protected
Bailly and Lafayette, and in support of his contention, offered
to produce a certificate of approval from the municipal govern
ment. The secret and suspicious club to which Chabot re
ferred was a perfectly innocent meeting, whose nucleus was
the deputation from the Gironde drawn toward Brissot by
their common interest in the colonies. As for Santhonax, al
though he had spoken weU of him, he had never given him any
secret mission to the colonies. In his attack on the Austrian
committee, he had perhaps gone too far and had made charges
which he was unable to substantiate, but that was because
Chabot himseU had withheld certain papers which were
needed to complete the proof. As to his influence on the min
istry, Robert was mistaken in thinking that he (Brissot) had
any great weight; he did interest himseU in behalf of Genet,
but when he gave advice it was because it was asked for. He
was not a monarchist; on the contrary, he did all he could to
discredit the supporters of monarchy, Montmorin and Deles
sart; he was opposed to dethronement only so long as public

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 381
opinion was not ripe for it; the specific instance of the meeting
in the rue d'Argenteuil he did not remember; his interest in
the place of abode for the king after the 10th of August was
only that he might be near the Assembly, and he did not
threaten the representatives of the Commune. He did, he ad
mitted, write a letter to the president of the electoral club
recommending Louvet, but he did not intend it to be read to
the Assembly. The reference to a comment in the journal of
Gorsas on the days of September he did not remember, and
while he did not deny being at Petion 's, he did deny that any
one came in while he was there with his hands covered with
blood. He did not remember having insulted Montaut, but
was quite sure that he (Brissot) had never voted against a de
cree in favor of humanity. The troops which he was charged
with wishing to use against Paris were really intended for use
either against Spain directly or for a naval attack on Mexico.
He had not withheld information on the Vendee; even U he
had information, it was the business of the ministry to an
nounce it. His address of May 26 he did indeed sell openly
at the door of the Convention, but he had not sent it to Bor
deaux. That he was a monarchist, a federalist, or a traitor to
the Revolution or to his country, in the pay of Pitt or of any
one else, he vehemently and indignantly denied.
In considering the value of his defense and the charges to
which it was a reply, it must be remembered in the first place
that the records of the trial are untrustworthy. The meager
proces-verbal preserved at the Archives does not give the testi
mony, and the details furnished by the Moniteur and the Bulle
tin du tribunal revolutionnaire were presented by the enemies of
the Ghondins and in the most hostile spirit. For example,
in the account in the Moniteur and the Bulletin, the evidence
of the witnesses is given in full, while the replies of the accused
are frequently summarized. But even taking the records at
their face value, many of the charges were manifestly absurd
or, as was stated above, based on unworthy evidence. Further,
the witnesses were not only prejudiced and interested persons,

382 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
but avowed and special enemies, and several of them had had
a part in the expulsion of the Girondins — witnesses whose
testimony in any court which made the slightest pretense of
justice would be heavily discounted. Moreover, no effort was
made to secure an impartial jury; on the contrary, it was made
up by the committees of the Assembly, and was composed of
the most violent members of the Mountain. Consequently,
Brissot and the other Girondins were virtually condemned
before they were tried.
It does not appear that Brissot had an opportunity to make
use of the defense he had prepared. According to the notes of
Chaveau Delagarde, he was condemned unheard, without a
chance to make a final defense either personaUy or through
his advocate.1 According to Miss Helena Williams, who, how
ever, is by no means rehable, he defended himseU with such
eloquence that not only his coUeagues, but even the chairmen
of the hostile committees were almost overcome by it.2 But
taking the account in its worst possible light, the only rea
sonable or important charges from which Brissot did not
clear himseU are his opposition to the 10th of August and
his passive attitude toward the massacres of September. But
granting that he did not want the insurrection and that he
made no objection to the massacres, that does not prove that
he was an anti-revolutionist.
1 "Jefus chargi de difendre dans cette affaire notamment Vergniaud et Bris
sot, H par une singulariti qui n'appartient qu'd elle seule H que personne peut-
Hre n'a pas encore jusqu'd prisent observie, ces infortunis ont Hi condamnis sans
avoir Hi difendus ni par eux-memes ni par Uurs defenseurs." Quoted in Vatel,
Vergniaud, n, 426.
2 She may refer to his reply to each witness in turn, while Delagarde seems
to refer to the absence of a final summing up. "Brissot, comme on sait, se di-
fendit avec tant d 'eloquence devant U tribunal revolutionnaire, que je fus f rappee
de V effet surprenant que son discours produisit sur son collegue Lasource, comme
lui accusi, et qui venait passer Us soiries dans la chambre de la prison du Luxem
bourg, oil nous Hions alors tous enfermis. II m'assura que Vauditoire, composi
cependant de JacoMns, fut emu jusqu'aux larmes, et que U chef du jury rholu-
tionnaire, AntonelU, itait agiti de convuUions nerveuses, qui le secouaient sur
son siige. J 'en avals presque pitii, me dit Lasource, U vaut Men mieux mourir."
Williams, Souvenirs de la Revolution Frangaise, 23.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 383
The jurors, however, thought differently. The trial had
commenced October 24. By October 29 the Convention be
came impatient. It had already decreed that there should be
no general defense;1 it now passed a decree to the effect that
when the jurors of the revolutionary tribunal felt that they
were " sufficiently informed," they might ask to have the trial
closed.2 This suggestive measure seems to have had the desired
effect, for on the next day, October 30, the jurors declared
themselves sufficiently informed, retired to deliberate, and the
same day returned a verdict of guilty.3 It was a solemn scene
when the jurors came in with their verdict. If Villate 4 is to be
believed, Camille Desmoulins, who was present, was almost
overcome. According to Villate he was seated quite near the
jurors' bench, and when the jury filed in, he rushed forward to
speak to the foreman, M. Antonelle. Something in Antonelle's
face stopped him and he exclaimed: "My God! I am sorry for
you! This is a horrible day!" And when he heard the declara
tion of the jury, he lost aU control of himself, crying aloud : " My
God, my God, it is I who kill them, it is my Brissot dSvoili."
As the accused filed in to hear the verdict, every one turned
toward them. There was absolute silence. When the prosecut
ing attorney reached the fatal words, "punishment of death,"
Desmoulins all but fainted, and, although he wanted to get
away from the terrible scene, was powerless to move. Brissot
also was nearly overcome, Villate continued; "his arms dropped
limply at his side, and his head fell forward on his breast.
Gensonne, pale and trembling, asked to be allowed to speak on
the application of the law. Boileau, in astonishment, threw
up his hat, crying, 'I am innocent'; and turning passionately
toward the people, invoked their aid. The accused sprang to
their feet. 'We are innocent; people, you are deceived,' they
cry. The people remain motionless. The gendarmes force the
1 Prods-verbal de la Convention, September 26, 1793.
2 Moniteur, October 30, 1793.
3 Ibid., October 27, 1793, Supplement.
4 Villate (or Vilate; bom 1768, died 1795) was a juror of the revolution
ary tribunal. He is not altogether reliable.

384 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
people to sit down. Valaze draws from his breast a dagger
which he thrusts into his heart; he faUs over backward and ex
pires. Sillery lets fall his two crutches, his face fuU of joy, and,
rubbing his hands, cries out, 'It is the happiest day of my life!'
The late hour, the lighted torches, the judges, and the public,
worn out with the long session, — for it is midnight, — aU give
to that scene a sombre, imposing, terrible character. " 1
The statement that the condemned Girondins, in the forlorn
hope of bringing about a rescue, threw assignats to the crowd
in the courtroom, rests on good authority, but the incident is
almost incredible. The proces-verbal says nothing of such an
incident, nor does Villate, just quoted. On the other hand, it
is given both in the Bulletin and in the Moniteur.2
Of that last night there remain few authentic details. The
famous last banquet does not rest on contemporary evidence and
has been shown to be a matter of legend rather than of fact.3
Riouffe says that they kept up their courage well and spent the
night in singing.4 They were allowed confessors. Brissot, how
ever, did not avail himseU of the opportunity, though, when
some of his friends expressed surprise, he hastened to assure
them that he believed in eternal Ifle in another world.5 He
' Villate, Mysteres de la mere de Dieu divoilis, chap. xm.
2 See also Les Resolutions de Paris, no. 213, and an accompanying illustra
tion. " Le Moniteur H U Bulletin du tribunal rivolutionnaire pritendent que Us
Girondins, pour exciter Us assistants d se soulever en Uur faveur, leur jeUrent des
assignats, en criant: 'A nous, mes amis,' H que Vaudiloire, indigni, ne ripondit
que par Us cris de 'Vive la Ripublique!' Cette assertion est fausse. Vilate, qui
assistait aux debate, n'en parle pas, et le prods-verbal de V audience, conservi aux
Archives de V Empire, W. 292, dossier 204, est igaUment muet sur cH incident,
qu'il eut assuriment noli, s'il s'Hait passi." Campardon, Le Tribunal rivolu
tionnaire de Paris, i, 158, note.
3 See Granier de Cassagnac, Histoire des Girondins, et des massacres de Sep
tember, I, 47; and Bir6, La Ligende des Girondins, 416-20. It is, of course, pos
sible that they had a last meal together, but that it assumed the character
which the legend has imputed to it is hardly possible. Lasource and Sillery,
two of the alleged participants, were not at the Conciergerie at all.
4 Riouffe, Memoires d'un detenu, 65. Riouffe was a writer of some reputa
tion. At first carried away by the principles of the Revolution, he turned
against the Terrorists and was imprisoned.
6 See the account of the AbbS Lothringer in the Ripublicain frangais of 6
fructidor an V (August 23, 1797); also Bire, 420, and Vatel, Vergniaud, n, 330.

ARREST, TRIAL AND DEATH 385
could not help feeling keen anguish at the thought of parting
from his family and anxiety for their future support, as is evi
dent from the pathetic and yet brave letters which he wrote to
his wife, mother-in-law, brothers, and sisters;1 but at the same
time he was strengthened by the firm conviction that he was
dying for his country, and that some time he would be vindi
cated. He had already written to his family that death seen
near at hand and looked at in a philosophical spirit lost all its
horrors.2 And he seems to have kept up his philosophic spirit
to the last. On the testimony of a fellow prisoner, "he was
grave and thoughtful, he had the air of a sage struggling with
misfortune, and U he showed more concern than the others, it
was only for his country. "3
By the afternoon of the 30th he realized that the end was
indeed near, and in anguish of spirit wrote his last farewell to
his wife. "I see, my dear Felicite," he cried, "that my last
hour has come. Unless I am greatly mistaken, they are going
to give the verdict to-day. Perhaps I shall have the misfortune
of not being able to see you again; yet I would give everything
to be able to. If this happiness is refused, bear the blow with
courage. You owe it to our children; watch over them; look
out for them. Keep some of my notes to show to them some
day. They will say: 'This is the writing of a father who loved
us, and better than us loved the public good, for he sacrificed
himseU and has been sacrificed for it. ... '
"Adieu, my loved ones, wipe away your tears. Mine are
wetting this paper. But our separation wfll not be eternal."4
The next day the condemned were taken in carts to the place
of execution. As they left the Conciergerie, they joined in sing
ing the Marseillaise.6 Even the hostile court admitted that
they preserved their self-control to the last. The Executive
Council, well aware of the importance of the occasion and of
1 Correspondance, 388-93.
2 Mimoires, I, 9. For the position of his family during these terrible days,
see pp. 403-05, and Ldtres de Madame Roland, ii, 683.
8 Riouffe, 60. 4 Correspondance, 394. B Bulletin, 64.

386 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the danger of disorder, had taken due precautions.1 Such meas
ures were indeed required, for in spite of the bad weather2 a
larger crowd than had gathered on such occasions for years
lined the streets and fiUed the windows aU along the line of
march.3 Through this crowd, amid hostile cries of "Vive la
Ripublique," "A bas les traitres," the sad procession made its
way from the Conciergerie to the Place de la Revolution. Here
Brissot and the other condemned Girondins went bravely to
their death.4
1 Recueil des actes du comiti de salut public, Vin, 119-20.
2 Revolutions de Paris, no. 213, p. 148.
3 BulUtin.
4 They were buried at the cemetery of the Madeleine, as is attested by the
undertaker's bill. See Vatel, Vergniaud, n, 337.

CHAPTER XIII
brissot's family lies
In one of his essays, Robert Louis Stevenson says that wher
ever there is a phdosopher, there is a suffering relative in the
background. This was certainly true of Brissot, and the suffer
ing member of his family was his wUe. Although she held no
salon and played no part on the political stage, she was an active
force behind the scenes, a presence indispensable to Brissot and
the silent victim of his political misfortunes. A brief study of
this personal aspect of Brissot's lUe renders vivid the heavy
price in poverty, suffering, and sorrow paid by the family of a
revolutionist, and at the same time it furnishes a picture of one
of the most interesting women of the Revolution.
It was in 1778 at Boulogne, where he was engaged in work
for Swinton, that Brissot first made the acquaintance of the
young woman who was. later to become his wife. In spite of a
wide chcle of friends and the entrie to the homes of some of the
best famihes of the town, including relatives of Sainte-Beuve,
he was lonely and unhappy. "My heart had been longing for
some time for a special attachment," he wrote afterward in
looking back on this period of his lUe. "It seemed to me that
I was wandering about in space, and when I would come back
at night to my solitary abode, I was always discontented with
my lot. I needed another seU and I did not find it. "1 While
in this mood he met the woman who was to become his "other
seU" — Felicite Dupont. She was the daughter of a Madame
Dupont, the widow of a merchant.2 He seems to have been
strongly drawn to her from the first, but as she was aheady
1 Mimoires, I, 166.
2 Phillips, an English writer of the time and a friend of Brissot, says that
the mother of Mademoiselle Dupont kept a lodging-house at Boulogne, fre
quented chiefly by English people. Biographical Anecdotes of the Founders of
the French Republic, n, 6.

388 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
engaged, he concealed and repressed his emotions and sought
distraction in a whhl of social hfe and in passing attachments
which left him only vain regrets.1
This distracting and unsatisfactory life at Boulogne soon
came to an end. Swinton, Brissot's employer, became inter
ested in other literary projects and found him no longer neces
sary. He was therefore obliged to throw »himseU once more
into the whirlpool of Paris. He found lUe lonesome, and in his
solitary walks in the Luxembourg, his thoughts turned back to
the pleasant hours he had passed with Swinton's family at
Boulogne, and the idea occurred to him that a marriage with
Swinton's eldest daughter would be rather attractive. He
therefore wrote to Swinton, but was promptly rejected as a
most undesirable parti — a rebuff which injured his pride rather
than his heart. He had frankly admitted that the girl in ques
tion had her faults. Indeed, it is quite evident that the charms
of the daughter were much less seductive than the possibili
ties of a business alliance with her father.2
But he soon found consolation in his trials and disappoint
ments through the geographer Mentelle. This connection,
among many other things, he owed to Madame Dupont. She
was a friend of Mentelle and had commended Brissot to him.
The latter responded with promptness and cordiality. He went
to caU on Brissot soon after Brissot's arrival in Paris, invited
him to his house and introduced him to his friends. A keen
memory of his own early struggles made him most sympathetic
with the young journalist, and Brissot found in him not
merely a profitable means of extending his acquaintance among
literary men, but a lifelong friend.3
Best of all, at the house of MenteUe, he found Felicite Du
pont, who had come up to Paris to finish her education. The
freedom with which he was received there gave him abundant
opportunity for pursuing her acquaintance, and as she had
broken her engagement, there was now no further obstacle to
his suit. To his great joy she responded to his affection and
1 Mimoires, i, 167. 2 Ibid., I, 177-78. ¦ 3 Ibid., i, 185-86.

FAMILY LIFE 389
they soon became engaged. The two years of their engagement
were the happiest of his life. Felicite shared his intellectual in
terests, which at this time were largely along the line of scien
tific pursuits. They read and studied and went to Fourcroy's
lectures on chemistry together, and then spent their evenings
in going over the lessons of the day. Felicite was especially in
terested in medicine and devoted herseU to such studies in nat
ural philosophy as would prepare her to be a good mother to
her children.1 At the same time she used her influence to get
Brissot to study anatomy. The dream of his life, he felt, was
realized; he had found at the same time a good wife and a good
comrade. Moreover, she sympathized not only with his intel
lectual interests, but with his weaknesses, and when he con
fessed to her an old liaison and the existence of a child, she
forgave the past and even thought of receiving the child into
their home and bringing it up as their own.2
Although he was hardly in a position financially to marry,
his confident expectations of success in the Lycie de Londres led
him to take the step; and on September 17, 1782, he and Fe
licite were quietly married at Paris.3 At that time Felicite was
employed as a kind of governess under the direction of Madame
Genlis for one of the daughters of the Duke of Chartres.4 As it
seemed imprudent for Brissot to take his wUe over to England
till he had managed to lay at least the foundation for his Lycie,
it was decided that he should go alone and that she should con
tinue her work. Moreover, while their financial resources were
so precarious, it would be well for her not to abandon her means
of livelihood. It was for this reason, apparently, that the mar
riage was kept secret.5
The parting was hard, but buoyed up by his never-failing
hope of success, Brissot started off for London, while Felicite
went back to her work. Her position was not altogether pleas
ant. She was subjected to certain conditions which did not
1 Memoires, i, 185-86. 2 Correspondance, 35-39.
8 Archives du dipartement de la Seine. See also A. N. Fla, 570.
4 Afterward the Duke of Orleans. 6 Mimoires, i, 300.

390 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
seem suitable, but when she complained to Madame Genlis the
matter was speedily adjusted. But in spite of Madame Genlis's
kindness, or perhaps because of it, she could not gather up
sufficient courage to tell her of her marriage. It therefore feU
to Brissot to communicate the news. He did not hesitate to
combine business with personal matters and utilized the oppor
tunity, while writing to Madame Genlis of his marriage, to
send her a copy of one of his works, and a prospectus of the
Lycie de Londres, and incidentaUy to solicit for the Lycie her
influence with Vergennes. Madame de Genlis responded kindly,
though she was obviously displeased by the marriage, and could
not help showing her displeasure to Felicite.
Meanwhile Brissot was clamoring for his wife in London, and
as she was no longer well nor happy in her work, it seemed best
fromeverypointof viewfor her to give up her position. Although
Madame de Genlis was displeased at the time, she showed her
good will toward Felicite and wrote to her on several occasions
in a most friendly spirit. But with the severance of their pro
fessional relations, all close personal connection came to an end.
In spite of this fact, this early relation was of some lasting im
portance, as it was afterward made the basis of the charge that
Brissot was intimately connected with the House of Orleans.1
'$ Thus, after nearly a year of separation since theh marriage,
Felicite went to London in July, 1783, to join her husband and
to begin her real married hfe.2 It lasted only ten years, but
those ten years were destined to be fuU of hardship and suffer
ing. The promise of a Ufe of comradeship forecasted by the
period of their engagement was not f ulfiUed, though not through
the fault of Felicite, but because of Brissot's growing absorp
tion, first in his literary and philanthropic schemes, and then in
the Revolution. As the wUe of a penniless man of letters and a
pohtical leader, she had much to endure both before and dur
ing the Revolution, in poverty, privation, and loneliness.
1 Memoires, n, 12-14.
2 See article by M. Perroud, "La Famille de Madame Brissot," in La Revolu
tion frangaise for September, 1910.

FAMILY LIFE 391
It seems that Brissot was not able even to go to meet her at
Dover, though whether this was because he could not afford
the expense or the time does not appear.1 He apparently took
her at first to the place where he had been living on Brompton
Road,2 but on the establishment of his Lycie, he moved his
personal residence to the house which he had rented for the
society, 26 Newman Street. But they were scarcely installed
in their new abode, when troubles began to come thick and
fast. Desforges, who had put up the money for the Lycie, came
to stay with the Brissot family and proved to be a most un
desirable addition. Violent, quick-tempered, vindictive, and
avaricious, were some of the epithets applied to him by Brissot,
while he on his side tried to persuade Brissot that Felicite was
suspicious, imperious, and entirely lacking in charm, a quality
much needed in attracting strangers to such an establishment
as they were trying to found. Brissot was naturally indignant.
The reason for such an outburst, he declared, was simply that
Desforges expected and demanded to be taken into the very
bosom of the family and was piqued to find himseU treated
merely as a business associate.3 This was but the beginning of
difficulties. Permission to send his publication into France was
temporarily suspended; and he foolishly added to his burdens
by starting another publication, Le Tableau des Indes. Neither
the Tableau de I'Angleterre nor the Lycie prospered,4 he had
used up all the funds advanced by Desforges, who refused to
give him any more; he could not therefore avail himself of a
favorable opportunity of securing a place of meeting for the
Lycie, and in order to save what he had already put in, he de
termined to start out for France to secure more funds.
In the midst of aU these difficulties, Felicite's fhst child was
born, April 25, 1784,5 and when the baby was only a few days
old and Felicite was still very ill, Brissot was seized for debt
1 See letter of Brissot to Bentham, July 8, 1783. Bentham Papers, m, Brit
ish Museum; additional manuscripts, ff. 324; printed in the Correspondance, 64.
2 See letter addressed to him at that place by his brother. Correspondance, 51.
3 Mimoires, i, 345. * Ibid., I, 389-92.
0 See Recompense nationale, A. N., Fla 670.

392 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and hurried off to prison.1 Fearing the effect on her U she knew
the real state of the case, he allowed himseU to be taken away
without letting her know what had happened, leaving strict
injunctions with his sister-in-law to make excuses for his ab
sence. After a short imprisonment he was able to satisfy his
creditors temporarily, and to get back to his family, but the
growing embarrassment of his finances made him feel that a
journey to France in quest of funds was imperative. This sep
aration caused Felicite keen suffering. In his desire to spare
her Brissot tried to conceal his most crushing anxieties, and
only succeeded in hurting Felicite, who, probably not realizing
theh desperate financial condition, felt that for her husband
to go off on business, leaving her unprotected and iU, showed a
most woeful lack of sympathy and tenderness.2 According to
Brissot's own admission, she certainly needed protection, for
Desforges, who remained behind, took occasion to harass and
annoy her. Physical weakness, combined with torturing mental
anxieties, soon reduced her to such a state that she was
scarcely able to care for the little Felix. But this was not all.
Brissot had not been long in Paris when he was arrested and
thrown into the Bastille. Torn with anxiety as to what was
befalling his wffe at home, and fearing that the sudden news of
his calamity might be fatal to her and their little son, he almost
reached the point of desperation.3 It was in this crisis that his
mother-in-law came to the rescue; 4 and without waiting for the
ordinary boat, ventured to cross the Channel in a little skiff
with only a single sailor, in order to get to her daughter before
she should receive the news by post. In spite of aU the precau
tions taken by Madame Dupont in breaking the news to her
daughter, Madame Brissot was for the time being completely
crushed by it.5 She rallied speedily, however, and set to work
in her husband's behaU. She came over to Paris, and "to her
active measures," as Brissot says in his memohs, "as much as
to his own innocence," he owed his release.6
1 Mimoires, i, 392. 2 Ibid., I, 395. 8 Ibid., n, 5-7.
4 See p. 44. 6 Mimoires, n, 6-7. » IMd., n, 14-23.

FAMILY LIFE 393
In ordinary times, as weU as at epochs of crisis, Madame
Brissot was a true helpmate to her husband, not only in the
practical affahs of lUe, but also in his literary undertakings.
As is evident from her studies during the period of her engage
ment, she was by no means ignorant or petty in her interests.
She had a fair education, which included some knowledge of
English. She even engaged in translation, and the year before
her marriage, published a translation into French of a work by
Robert Dodsley, entitled Manuel de tous les dges, oil Sconomie
de la vie humaine. The original of this work purported to be an
ancient Indian manuscript found among the papers of the Grand
Lama, and was somewhat after the style of the Book of Prov
erbs. The following year she got out a translation of another
work, caUed Nouveau pricis de I'histoire d'Angleterre depuis les
commencements de cette monarchie jusqu'au 1783. This was a
tiny volume, a kind of compendium of history designed espe
cially for children, containing much geographical information
and arranged by reigns. After her marriage she assisted her
husband in the translation of a history of England, which
appeared under the title of Lettres philosophiques et politiques
sur I 'histoire de I 'Angleterre depuis son origine jusqu 'a nos jours,
traduites de V anglais.1
Now, however, she had no time or strength for anything but
her family and her domestic duties. Besides Felix, two other
children were born, Edme Augustine Sylvain, March 13, 1786,2
and Jacques Jerome Anacharsis, March 31, 1791. 3 With three
children to care for, and very little money to do it on, life was
hard indeed for Madame Brissot. Her husband's enterprises
absorbed instead of producing money, and, from the beginning
of the Revolution, pohtics completely engrossed his attention.
1 A second edition was published in London in 1790, in which Brissot appears
as the translator. In the preface he does not mention his wife's help, but the
catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationale cites it as her work.
2 Ville de Paris, Paroisse de la Madeleine, ville I'Evique. Extrait du registre
des actes de naissance de Van 1786. Bib. Nat., Papiers de Roland, vol. in, fr.
nouv. acq. 9534, f. 322.
8 Bib. Nat., Papiers de Roland, fr. nouv. acq. 9534, f. 392, and A. N., Fla 570.

394 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
They grew more and more apart, and the difficult task of mak
ing both ends meet fell upon her shoulders. In her humble
apartment in the rue de Gretry, she struggled on, doing much
of the housework herseU, helping to entertain her husband's
friends, and going without real necessities. To add to her trou
bles, their house became a kind of entrepdt for persons about
to emigrate to the New World,1 and they were not always
the most agreeable guests. Apropos of one of these guests, a
certain Marquis de Wahody,2 who was always making up his
mind to go to America and yet never starting, she wrote: "Such
people may be classed with those philosophers who, I believe,
are disciples of whomsoever can help them, with no idea that
there are any limits, who are always pursuing chimeras, seeking
happiness and never finding it, looking for repose in indolence,
always on the watch for a chance to play a leading part. Such
is our Pythagorean, always proclaiming that he is ready to
give up comforts, yet always making himseU comfortable; never
wishing to bother anyone, yet often asking for things which are
not in the house, milk, for instance, and expressing astonish
ment that you cannot procure it in Paris whenever you happen
to want it. " 3
As a refuge from aU this weariness and as a means of getting
her husband out of the turmoil and dangers of political hfe,
Madame Brissot often thought of emigration to America. The
19th of January, 1790, she wrote to her brother that she was
preparing to join him in America, and asked him for a list of
things which she ought to bring with her from Europe. "I re
joice," she added, "that the Revolution is over, but every day
I have reason for distress because of anxiety for my husband." 4
But unfortunately for Madame Brissot, the Revolution was
not over, and as Brissot became more and more absorbed in it,
hfe grew stiU harder for her. Her health became so fragile that
she could not care for the three chfldren alone, and she was
1 Correspondance, 242-45.
2 Valady is probably intended. See Correspondance, 244; note of M. Per
roud. 3 Correspondance, 242-45. « Ibid., 248.

FAMILY LIFE 395
often worn out with fatigue and worry.1 "Up to this moment,"
she wrote to her brother in America, "I have had to exercise
such economy that I fear my health will be permanently af
fected by it. I feel the necessity of living differently, of having
good service, of being weU housed, of getting good air, especially
of having country ah in the summer. This last has become in
dispensable, and even this enjoyment costs money. ... I do
not yet know where to go in the country this summer. While
waiting, I go every day to M. Petion's, the mayor of Paris, who
has a charming garden out on the boulevard near us."
The disposition of her children and the means of providing
them with a proper education was another source of anxiety.
She was evidently sorely troubled by the traits of character
which they showed. "Felix," she confessed sadly to her sister,
"is not any too obedient, very lazy, and does not know much.
. . . They are children about whom there is nothing extraor
dinary, except their very bad disposition, yet I hope they are
going to be sensible and good." Their inexplicable disposition,
she admitted with humiliation, might be due in part to the
fact that she had done too much for them. But U she were
in part responsible, her husband, she declared, was also to
blame. He was so wrapped up in political affairs that he paid
no heed to the education of the children, and did not assist her
at aU in bringing them up. He could not or would not give any
time to teaching, and private tutors were expensive. The result
was both sad neglect for the children and her own growing
alienation from her husband, a sad realization, as she put it, of
a closer attachment to her children than to him.2
But though shut away by her family cares from much con
tact with people, Madame Brissot was a keen judge of charac
ter. She estimated Desforges at his true worth, much to his
discomfort,3 saw through the pretensions to virtue and seU-
sacrifice of the Marquis de Valady,4 and weighed with dis
crimination the value of the would-be emigrants who stopped
1 Correspondance, 283-84. 2 IMd., 328.
8 Memoires, i, 345. Also see p. 391. * See p. 394.

396 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
at her home on their way to the New World.1 To Brissot, en
thusiasm for emigration seems to have been a sufficient pass
port, but to Madame Brissot's more discerning mind mere
enthusiasm did not seem sufficient guarantee of a good pioneer.
As an instance of her shrewd judgment, note a letter to her
brother in America in which she sets forth the character of
certain newcomers he is hkely to receive. The Messrs. Vallots
had just bought some land of the Scioto Land Company, she
writes, and her brother would better be informed of what
manner of men they were. One was a jeweler out of work; the
other had been employed by the Patriote Frangais, but he could
not get on with Madame Dupont,2 was brusque, possessed of
no great intelligence, and liked to take it easy. Since these
brothers had no way of establishing themselves in France, it
had occurred to another brother of thehs and to Brissot that
it would be a good thing to send them to America. The older
was rather narrow-minded, and not at aU good-looking, but
he was not likely to do any harm, except through stupidity.
The younger was better-looking, but very egotistical, and more
over, likely to disagree with his brother.
Having thus described the character of these prospective
emigrants, Madame Brissot went on to give her brother some
shrewd practical advice. In case the younger brother did faU
into difficulties, the elder brother, she argued, would be very
likely to attempt to get rid of him by proffering his services to
Monsieur Dupont. Let the latter by no means accept. The
case of the young Mentelle was different, she continued. He
had disappeared from home, and as nothing had been heard
from him in three months, it was not improbable that he might
turn up in America, and U so, she counseled her brother to re
ceive him. Although the youth in question had not showed him
seU particularly industrious, she felt that his faults were those
which kindly counsel and good surroundings might remedy.8
1 Correspondance, 242-45.
2 Brissot's mother-in-law, who had charge of the office. See p. 123.
8 Correspondance, 242-45.

FAMILY LIFE 397
Such was the discerning character of Madame Brissot's ad
vice. It bears out Madame Roland's statement that she had
much tact and judgment.1 That Madame Brissot always
looked at matters with sound practical sense is evident from
this correspondence with her brother and sister in America.
When, for instance, her brother showed a growing attachment
for some one who seemed to her unsuitable as his wife, she
gave her sister shrewd advice how to check the matter; and
when her sister Nancy's marriage was under consideration, she
did not forget the practical problem involved, and reminded
her that U her marriage took her away from her brother, there
would be an added difficulty for both of them in the way of
domestic service.2
On this occasion of her sister's proposed marriage, Madame
Brissot offered her advice which showed an understanding sym
pathy and at the same time revealed a wisdom which seems to
have been born not only of knowledge of the world, but also of
sad experience on her own part. Nancy had evidently written
telling her of her growing affection for a certain man and of her
determination to put him to a year's proof. Madame Brissot
rephes that whfle she commends her sister's resolve to remain
indifferent, she cannot help but doubt her firmness. In fact,
she suspects that she is aheady too much taken with the
stranger's good qualities to listen to any counsel. Yet she needs
to remember that man is fickle; that U she looks for unaltering
happiness, she is sure to be disillusioned; her husband will have
his own interests in which she will not share, and she will un
doubtedly feel herseU neglected. Above all, there will surely
be discord and unhappiness if the husband neglects his children,
or if husband and wUe are not in harmony on the education
of the children. "May my example," Madame Brissot wrote
in sadness and weariness, "put you on your guard against the
rocks which you are surely going to encounter." 3
1 Correspondance, pp. 268-69. Also Mimoires de Madame Roland, i, 198.
Madame Roland speaks of her with infinite esteem and respect.
2 Ibid., 326-28. 3 IMd., 329.

398 ; BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
In her shrewd judgment of character in general she clearly
discerned the weakness of her husband. In a single word,
which at the same time betrayed her own suffering, she
summed it up. "I confess," she wrote, "that I have not
the strength to consent to sacrifice my husband for — I
wfll not say my country — but for a race of men who wfll be
stronger than he. " x That Madame Brissot herseU was stronger
than her husband in many ways, one cannot but suspect. In
sane and penetrating judgment she certainly showed herseU
his superior. Brissot's fatal optimism was constantly leading
him into difficulty, while Madame Brissot's ability to realize
that there was a possibility of failure as well as of success gave
her better balance and made her a safer guide. Brissot seems
to have had some appreciation of this. "Oh, my Felicite," he
wrote, "your whole soul is as pure, as strong as that of those
celebrated women like Cornelia and Portia, who were weU edu
cated and on an equaUty with theh husbands. Like them, you
know how to scorn the grandeur, the pleasures, the fatal
vanities of the world; like them, you know how to place your
happiness in that of your husband; like them, you know how
to inspire him to virtue by your example; with him you seek
the truth; sometimes your eye, more fortunate than his, dis
covers it; it is often from you that he draws that noble courage
which characterizes his writings; your severe criticism purifies
them and makes them more useful."2
TTis wife's family also was devoted to Brissot. From the
time of his marriage he seems to have been the center of theh
interest, and with his fortunes the enthe family prospered or
suffered. He used his influence in theh behalf, and they in turn
aided and encouraged him. With his brother-in-law, Frangois
Dupont, he was on terms of special intimacy. The residence
of the latter at Boulogne put him in a position where he could
be very useful to Brissot in his enterprise in connection with
the Lycie. From a lively correspondence carried on between
them at the epoch of Brissot's London residence, it would
1 Correspondance, 248. 2 Dela Verite, 241.

FAMILY LIFE 399
appear that Brissot looked upon Dupont for aid in getting his
publications conveyed into France, and also in securing infor
mation as to the condition of commerce in various parts of
Europe. And on the other hand, Brissot helped Dupont by
looking after the payment of his obligations and by furthering
his ambition towards a place in the diplomatic service.1 They
evidently regarded America as affording a good opening. In
May, 1783, Dupont wrote to Brissot: "I told him [Swinton]
that I had put off my journey to America till next year, and
that I ought not to set out without having the position of con
sul or secretary interpreter of the embassy; that it is not too
soon to set about it now, and that he might perhaps aid me
through Monsieur de Beaumarchais. I will write to Monsieur
to get him to present a memoir in my behaU to Monsieur de
Vergennes. ... If you present one for me, do not forget to
mention the languages. "2 Meanwhile, Dupont having become
engaged in business which took him to Germany and eastern
Europe, an American consulship began to look less attractive
and the possibihty of a position in the Levant suggested itseU
instead.3 Such plans came to nothing, and by the beginning of
1789 he was established in America near Philadelphia, not as
consul but as an American farmer.4 Brissot gave him letters of
introduction to his personal and business friends, who received
him with much cordiality, gave him helpful advice, and invited
him to their homes.5 But it was three years before Brissot
could do anything for him in the way of political preferment.
Finally, after the 10th of August, 1792, he succeeded in having
him made vice-consul of France at Philadelphia.
For making this appointment Brissot seems to have been
much criticized. It was an evidence of nepotism, his opponents
declared; the position was very important and gave oppor
tunity for working much good or ill to France, and it showed
1 Correspondance, 45, 50-53. 2 IMd., 53. 8 Ibid., 87-90.
4 Lettres de Madame Roland, n, 217, note.
6 Letters were sent to him in care of Brissot's friend, Miers Fisher. See the
Craigie Papers in the collections of the American Antiquarian Society and
the Scioto Papers in the collections of the American Historical Society.

400 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
that he was in close connection with the government of the
United States.1 In meeting these criticisms, Brissot caUed at
tention to the insignificance of the position and the impossibil
ity of his deriving from it any influence upon American affairs;
and while admitting that he did secure the appointment for
his brother-in-law, he declared that this was the one and only
case where he used his position to seek advancement for any
member of his family. Moreover, no one need charge him, even
in this single instance, with giving an appointment regardless
of merit, for Dupont was eminently suited for the position. His
brother-in-law, he declared, was a republican in principle; in
deed his chief motive for emigrating to the United States was
his hatred of the monarchical form of government; moreover,
he had a wide commercial experience and an extended ac
quaintance, spoke several languages, including English, and
what was of great importance, he possessed public esteem and
confidence.2 Besides a brother-in-law, Brissot's marriage gave him three
sisters-in-law to whom he was deeply attached.3 Of the eldest,
Marie Therese, little seems to be known; the second, Julie
Henriette, was with Brissot and his wife in London in 1783
for a time. Later she assisted Brissot in the office of the Patriote
Frangais. Of the third sister, Marie Anne, commonly called
Nancy, Brissot seems to have been especially fond. He evi
dently saw a good deal of her in her girlhood, during the period
of his engagement with Felicite, and while conversing on the
sciences with the latter, delighted in trying to influence and
develop her young sister. "Already," he wrote later in speak
ing of this period of her youth, "she showed that strength of
character which she has since developed." After his marriage
1 In a note to Brissot's Mimoires, n, 257, M. Perroud quotes from Des
moulins's Histoire des Brissotins to show how the facts were twisted. "Com
ment ne serions-nous pas aff amis f " asked Desmoulins, — perhaps with the
irony of intentional exaggeration, — "comment nous viendrait-il des grains
d'Amiriqui f qui est-ce qui est consut-gineral ie France f C'est le beau-frere de
Brissot." 2 Memoires, ii, 256-57. a Ufa., i, 301.

FAMILY LIFE 401
she went over to London to live with her sister Felicite and
Brissot,1 and then later went to join her brother Frangois in
America. She was evidently very attractive, and the question
of her marriage was a source of much anxiety to her family at
home. In the eyes of her family no one seemed quite good
enough for her,2 and her brother was much relieved when what
he feared was a possible engagement came to nothing. Later
she married a M. Aublay and went to London to live.
But if Brissot was attached to his brother-in-law and to his
sisters-in-law, it was with his mother-in-law with whom the
bond was closest, and on whom he constantly relied. She
seems to have been a woman of energy and ability, to whom all
her children turned for advice and help in all the affairs of lUe,
both business as well as personal. It was to her, in the first
place, that he owed the introduction to Mentelle, which in
turn meant the entrie to the best literary and scientific circles
of Paris and the opportunity for a closer acquaintance with
Felicite. It was she who, at the time of his marriage, advanced
the ready money necessary for establishing his Lycie, took him
back to Boulogne with her and started him on his English ven
tures with encouragement and sound advice. It was she again
who received his business partner, Desforges, on his way
through Boulogne, and when the enterprise failed, helped Bris
sot out of dire straits by a substantial present. It was she who,
on the news of Brissot's imprisonment in the Bastille, risked
great danger in crossing the Channel in order that she might
break the news to her daughter.3 When the Patriote Frangais
was founded, it was she who took charge of the office.4 It was
her advice which was looked to in difficulty, and when Felicite
was disturbed and perplexed by Brissot's neglect of their chil
dren and at the division which had developed between herself
and her husband on the subject, it was she to whom the wife
turned for help, sure that she would understand the situation
and would be able to heal the breach and bring Brissot to a
1 See article by M. Perroud referred to above. 2 Correspondance, 307-08.
r 3 Mimoires, i, 300-01, 343, 393; ii, 56. 4 Correspondance, 242.

402 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
more reasonable attitude of mind.1 And finally, during Bris
sot's imprisonment, it was she to whom he wrote his last
letters and who took care of the family after his death.2
It was only when death was imminent that, at last, Brissot
fully realized — what he had only had glimmerings of before —
that he had neglected his family, and in the last few weeks of
his lUe, he poured out his soul in what he caUed " Un Legs a, mes
enfants." After setting forth the object and aims which had
actuated his own lUe and begging his children to profit by his
mistakes, he gave utterance to a last cry of vain regret — he
could not quite bring himself to say for his pohtical career, but
for the trouble and grief it had brought to his family, whom,
though he had neglected, he loved. "It is painful, indeed,"
he wrote, "for a man of tender feelings, for a good husband, a
good father, to separate himseU from those he loves, and, I
confess it, my children, this is the thought which has often
overcome me, which had made me shed burning tears. To
leave you so soon! You whom I have scarcely seen, you whom
my occupations have prevented my taking care of, bringing up
myseU! To leave you at the moment when, breaking my po
litical bonds, I was going to devote myseU to your education,
and to deserve your tenderness by showing myseU your father!
Above aU, to leave my wife, who, since our marriage, has
known, in her aUiance with me, only the sorrows of persecution
or the privations of solitude. ... To leave her at the moment
when I was planning to adopt a line of conduct which would
secure for us a sweet domestic life! Yes, these thoughts are
heartrending. . . . But calling to my aid the counsels of phi
losophy, I console myseU by the thought that my children will
find in theh mother a teacher capable of guiding them in the
paths of austerity, in good character; that my Felicite wfll find
1 Correspondance, 284. Madame Dupont, like Felicitfi, seems to have been
well aware of Brissot's weak points. Just as he was starting for America she
wrote him: " Tenez votre jugement en suspens, mon cher, tant que vous ayez vu
H entendu par vous-mlme. Qui vous connattra ce faibU en abusera et vous
rendra souvent injuste." — Correspondance, 191.
2 Article by M. Perroud referred to above.

FAMILY LIFE 403
in her own soul, nourished from her youth in the principles of
reason, strength sufficient to support this frightful blow; that
all her family, that her generous mother, that her loving sisters
and her worthy brother wfll form but one family, one soul,
where will be graven the image of a man whose most ardent
desire was to make them happy." Then, with a note of hope,
he adds, "I still believe that aU public spirit is not lost, that
gratitude dwells in some hearts and that generous friendship
will pay a public debt, will come to the rescue of a family whose
interests I have perpetually sacrificed to the public good." 1
As has been said, the family at the moment of Brissot's
death was under the care of his mother-in-law. The situation
was harrowing, for it was not only the imprisonment and exe
cution of her son-in-law which she had to endure, but also
heartrending anxiety for her daughter, Madame Brissot, who
had been imprisoned. She seems to have borne the burden
manfully; at all events, she appears to have been able to keep
from Brissot the news of Madame Brissot's whereabouts, so
that he was able to die in ignorance of the fate impending over
his wUe.2
After the arrest of her husband, Madame Brissot had been
threatened by angry crowds which gathered about her abode
at Saint-Cloud and had been obliged to seek other refuge for
herseU and her children, but she was soon discovered and
placed under arrest by the committee of general security of the
municipality of Saint-Cloud.3 Her case was then taken up by
the National Committee of General Security, who put her under
arrest at the H6tel de Necker, rue de Richelieu, under the care
of the citizen Courtois, discharged the commissioners from
Saint-Cloud and decreed that, since her journeys and absences
made her an object of suspicion, she be brought before the
Committee for examination.4 Her examination took place on
1 Un Legs d mes enfants, Mimoires, i, 10-11.
2 See article by M. Perroud referred to above. 3 A. N., 4443, no. 18.
4 Extrait du registre des arritis giniraux du comiti de sllreti ginirale. A. N.,
AF" 286. Tuetey, vm, 32, 65-66.

404 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
August 11, when she was closely questioned as to Brissot's
political relations and her own connection with them.1 She was
asked why she had left Paris to retire to Saint-Cloud? who were
the persons whom she was accustomed to see at Saint-Cloud?
did she know that the concierge at whose lodging she lived was
a relative of Gensonne? had she not received proscribed depu
ties? what had become of her husband's books and papers?
when had she last visited England? where had she gone on her
last absence from Paris? how much money had she sent over
to England? where had she invested it? what correspondence
did Brissot maintain with Englishmen or other foreigners?
what was the nature of the correspondence which Brissot had
with Roland and with Madame Roland? what was the nature
of the correspondence of Brissot with Petion and the other
proscribed deputies? had she ever seen any agent of England,
or of any other enemy, come to speak with Brissot? did she not
know that Brissot was on intimate terms with Dumouriez? In
answer to these searching inquiries, Madame Brissot replied
that she had gone to Saint-Cloud because it was her custom to
spend a part of every year in the country on account of her
health; that she did not know that the concierge was related
to Gensonne; that her last journey was to Chartres and that
she fled there to escape the hostile invectives which she heard
under her windows after her husband's arrest; that it was nine
years since she had been in England; that she had never sent
any funds there or invested any anywhere else. Of her hus
band's political relations or of his correspondence she knew
nothing whatever; she had never heard of any alliance with
Dumouriez; Guadet was the only one of the proscribed depu
ties whom she had seen, and she certainly had never received
any of them at her house.
This general denial was apparently not satisfactory to the
Committee, for she was stiU kept under surveillance. However,
either because the Committee became less rigorous, or on
account of the kindness of heart of the officer to whom she was
1 Correspondance, 373-76.

FAMILY LIFE 405
entrusted, she was allowed to go about and to talk with friends
whom she met, while the officer kept at a distance. But even
this smaU measure of liberty allowed her provoked the dis
content of the people, and complaint was made by certain
women that undue favoritism was being shown and that the
wUe of a poor man would not have been so treated — a signi
ficant evidence of the popular feeling toward the Girondins.1
Whether this hounding of poor Madame Brissot resulted at
once in curtailing her liberty does not appear, but at all events,
on the 30th of October, on the order of the Committee of
General Security, she, with her child (probably the youngest),
was put in prison at La Force.2 Here she remained till the 19th
of the following February, when she was released by order of
the same Committee.3
Though the record of these weeks is a blank, the loneliness
and torturing anxiety which she suffered can readily be con
ceived. On her release she had to face the problem of providing
for her family. It was a weary struggle, and had she not been
able to take advantage of the turning tide of public opinion in
favor of the Girondins, she must have succumbed. Embold
ened by this changing attitude, she made request in May, 1795,
for the restoration of her husband's papers,4 — a request which
after some delay was finaUy granted.5 A few months later she
ventured to put in a claim for herseU and for her children for
the losses she had sustained because of the persecution of which
she and her husband had been the victims. Immediately after
the fatal 31st of May, she wrote, her husband and she had been
obliged to separate and to abandon their home, which was
closed by the government. She had been obliged to wander
1 Rapport de V observation. La Tour-La-Montagne, A. N., F7 36883.
2 Extrait du registre des mandats d'amener du comiti de sureU ginirale, A. N.,
AF" 289; Tuetey, vm, 3367.
3 Lettre par le concierge adjoint de la maison de la Petite Force, Paris, ler ven-
tose, an II (February 19, 1794). See Correspondance, 397.
4 Requite de la veuve de Brissot, A. N., W 292, M 204 (2° partie); Tuetey,
vm, 566.
6 Correspondance, 401.

406 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
about for several months, seeking a refuge for herseU and her
children, tiU she herseU was imprisoned. The journeys which
she had made, the apartments which she had been obliged to
rent in different places, caused her unusual expenses, which she
was able to meet only with the generous aid of relatives and
friends. And when, finaUy, she was able to reclaim her furni
ture and her husband's library, she received only a part of it
and that part was in bad condition. She perceived with grief
that a large part had been stolen, spoiled or lost. She had had
made, she added, an appraisal by a competent authority. Be
sides this loss there were the expenses which she had been
obliged to undergo, which brought the whole amount to 80,510
francs.1 This sum she begged the government to reimburse.
To this request the government acceded in part, by ordering
the payment of 50,000 francs "for the property which had
been taken from her during the imprisonment of her husband."
The other expenses it was evidently unwilling to make good.2
This was in September, 1795. The next month the general
trend of opinion in favor of the Ghondins was evidenced by the
action of the Convention. Those proscribed deputies who had
succeeded in escaping were re-admitted to the Convention, and
those to whom it was too late to make reparation received the
recompense of being honored as "martyrs of liberty." On the
3d of October, 1795, a special celebration was held in their
memory. Every member of the Convention wore crape on his
arm; a funeral urn was set up in the haU bearing the inscrip
tion: "To the magnanimous defenders of liberty, who died in
prison or upon the scaffold during the tyranny"; and the
President made an eloquent address in which he recalled the
services rendered to liberty by the martyred representatives
of the people, "their constant courage and their tragic end."3
1 Note the amount; it was evidently reckoned in the depreciated paper cur
rency. For example, three tablecloths were estimated at 2500 francs. The
list included underclothing, dresses, table-linen, ornaments, household furni
ture, wine, and books. Correspondance, 402-07.
2 Correspondance, 408.
3 Prods-verbal de la Convention, October 3, 1795.

FAMILY LIFE 407
The next year more tangible reparation was made by the
government of the Directory. The 26th of April, 1796, the
Council of Five Hundred decreed that, "considering that Va
laze, Petion, Carra, Buzot, Gorsas, Brissot, members of the
National Convention, are of those representatives of the peo
ple, who, after having cooperated to establish liberty and to
found the Republic, sealed it with their blood, and died victims
of their devotion to the country and of their respect for the
rights of the nation," the widow of each of them should have a
pension of two thousand francs a year for herseU, and a pension
of two thousand francs a year for each of her children till he
should have reached the age of fifteen years.1 In accordance
with this decree, Madame Brissot was given a pension. Thus,
support of his family, which in his dying moments he had felt
confident would in some manner be provided for, was in part,
at least, undertaken by the government.2 But even with this
help it was with much difficulty that Madame Brissot man
aged to get along. She was thoroughly weary of the struggle,
but somehow or other a means of support must be found,
and in 1799, with her mother and sisters, she attempted to
establish a school at Versailles. An announcement under the
heading, "Education de famille sous la direction de citoyenne
Cliry, veuve Dupont, a, Versailles, rue du Peuple frangais, no. k"
in which they set forth in the most alluring terms at their com
mand the advantages of their estabhshment, appeared in the
Dicade philosophique. Theh experience of the world, the suc
cess of Madame Dupont with her own children, the good loca
tion, the fine air, and beautUul gardens are all pictured as
making their school especially desirable. A note, apparently
by the editor of the Dicade, adds that it may interest the public
to know that the citizens Dupont and Clery are the mother-in-
law, widow, and sisters-in-law of Brissot.3
1 Resolution du conseil des Cinq-Cents, 7 fibrial, an IV, quoted in Vatel,
Charhtte Corday et Us Girondins, n, 27.
2 Recompense nationale, 9 florial, an IV, A. N., Fla 570.
8 Article by M. Perroud referred to above. See also Correspondance, 418-19.

408 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
The project does not seem to have succeeded, and Madame
Brissot was obliged to ask help from the government. She
seems to have considered the possibihty of obtaining a sub
sidy for a school (probably the one referred to above); but
when this fell through she tried to get a place as directress
in one of the hospitals, a position which she sought rather be
cause it was the only thing available than because she felt any
special fitness for the work. Indeed, she frankly confessed in
a private letter that she much preferred educational work, and
that after her long struggle with misfortune she felt as though
she were recovering from an illness and doubted her adequacy
to the task.1
She finally appears to have found a means of livelihood in
a reading-room or bookshop which she maintained at no. 7 rue
du Commerce, Paris, while she and her mother lived around
the corner on the rue de Furstenburg.2
While seeking government employment for herself, she had
also applied to the government for aid in the education of her
children. On one occasion she asked for a place for her young
est son in the College des Colonies. Two of her sons had been
placed at Saint-Cyr, but as one of them preferred the marine
service, she asked that a scholarship given to the first be trans
ferred to the second. She was evidently disturbed as to the
condition of one of them, at least, for she added that she would
prefer to have the amount of the scholarship in money, "be
cause if there are characters whom public education improves,
there are others whom it develops too rapidly before their
judgment has been cultivated. " 3
The second son, Silvain, seems to have had something of his
father's restlessness and independence, and his manUestations
of the latter were not always well judged. While a pupil at
the Ecole poly technique, it is reported that he refused to take
1 Correspondance, 422-24.
2 Bib. Nat., Papiers de Roland, in, fr. nouv. acq. 9534, f . 392.
8 Letters of Madame Brissot to various ministers, noted in the catalogue
of the Collection Charavay. See also Correspondance, 418, 421, 424-25.

FAMILY LIFE 409
the oath to the emperor — a refusal which, considering that he
was a pensionnaire of the government, was decidedly ill-advised
and which naturally led to his prompt retirement from the
school. "AU the pupils were solemnly convoked to take an
oath of fidelity to the emperor," wrote Miss Helena Williams,
who declares that she relates this episode on the authority of
the boy's grandmother from whom she heard it the next day.
"The president called the boys one by one. When the turn of
the young Brissot came: ' You swear,' said the president, 'fidel
ity to the emperor?' The young man answered with a firm
voice, 'No.' The president, as you may well imagine, was
absolutely taken back by this brusque declaration, and the
whole company was stupefied with astonishment. Finally they
ventured to ask Brissot what was the reason for his refusal.
'I am too young,' he answered, 'to pass judgment on political
matters ; what I know is that my father died on the scaffold for
the Republic, and I am a republican.' " 1
Whether on account of this episode, or for other reasons, is
not clear, but in 1816, Silvain went to America.2 Here he seems
to have met failure at every turn. From the tone of his letters
one cannot help but suspect that it was, in part at least, his own
fault. Frangois Dupont had been struck by the liberty, the
democracy, of the new country. What especially impressed
Silvain were the crude manners, the lack of ceremony, the
paucity of means of amusement. His constant lament is his
lack of funds; he needs two hundred francs a month, he has
only one hundred twenty; he has borrowed money, he hopes
his mother will pay it; can she not send him more soon? He is
giving French lessons as a means of livelihood, he ought to be
studying English, but time is lacking for it; there are too many
French people in New York, he ought to get away in order
to have better opportunities for acquiring English, but, as he
already owes money at his boarding-house, he cannot leave.
* Helena Williams, Souvenirs, 23-24. She is not always reliable.
2 He was for a time at Guadaloupe. Letters to his mother and his grand
mother. Correspondance, 434-40.

410 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
These are some of his laments and must have been trying
news for his mother at home.
He did finaUy manage to get down to New Orleans, where he
fell in with relatives of his mother's family, who secured for him
a place on a Louisiana plantation. His stay here, however, was
short. He complained that he was shut off from aU that made
life worth while; he wrote unfortunate articles for the New
Orleans newspapers which stirred up trouble; and finally he
quarreled with his employer. He then returned to New York,
whence he wrote to his mother with bitter upbraidings for not
sending him money. His sad straits, though he himseU may
have been responsible for them, cannot fail to arouse sym
pathy. He was practically penniless and friendless. He finaUy
secured a position at Albany as a teacher of mathematics and
French in a school there, but the school was a poor affair, his
room was cold and cheerless, and he could not coUect his salary.
In this desperate situation he fell ill and died on March 16,
1819. 1 The eldest son, who had sought a career in the marine,
died in Santo Domingo; while the youngest son, Anacharsis,
the only one who was anything of a success, became a farmer
in the Department of the Yonne.2
No one of her three children was apparently of any help to
Madame Brissot. They aU were, on the other hand, a source
of care and anxiety. Silvain especially, with his only too evi
dent failures and his constant and petulant demands for money,
occasioned his family much distress. Finally, worn out with
1 Letters of Silvain Brissot, Correspondance, 434-44. The notice of his
death was sent to Madame Aublay (Nancy Dupont) by Miers Fisher. Ibid.,
444. 2 Nauroy, Curieux, no. 29, May, 1886. "Le iroisibnefils de Brissot, Jacques
Jerome Anacharsis, naquit d Paris le 31 mars, 1791; il parait avoir aimi les
voyages, je le trouve officier de hussards sous V empire, propriHaire au hameau du
Val Saint-Etienne, commune de Veron (Yonne) en 1818, marchand de vins en
gros A Paris, chaussie de Minilmontant, no. 57, en 1827, contrbleur general de la
navigation de la Seine avant 1854, demeurant d Corbeil (Seine-et-Oise) en 1854;
tout cela ne Va pas empiehi d'icrire les ouvrages citis dans V Intermediaire,
xvni, p. 436. (For another record of his activities, see Correspondance, 431-
OO-J

FAMILY LIFE 411
her anxieties and disappointments, she died on January 4,
1818, one year before Silvain, and was buried at Pere Lachaise,
at the expense of her sister Nancy, now Madame Aublay.1 She
died as much a victim of the Revolution as though she had
met death on the scaffold, and her hfe was one of its unseen
and unnoticed tragedies.
1 See article by M. Perroud referred to above.

CHAPTER XIV
brissot's general policy and character
In summing up Brissot's part in the French Revolution, the
questions naturally arise: What were his general principles?
What was his relation to the Ghondins as a party? How far
was he a typical Girondin?
The long-accepted view of the policy of the Girondins has,
within the last few years, been shown to be mere tradition and
legend. They were reputed to be federalists, royalists, aristo
crats, but opponents of bloodshed and advocates of mercy.
Recent investigation has made evident on the contrary that
they were republican in policy, democratic in spirit, and quite
as sanguinary as the Mountain; and if it has not been proved
that they were not federalists in any sense of the word, proof
is lacking that they were federalists in the sense meant by the
Mountain.1 This change, which has taken place regarding the
conception of the party as a whole, applies likewise to Brissot.
The same ideas were imputed to him as an individual, and
they are likewise disproved.
He was the friend of the Duke of Orleans, it was asserted, and
in July, 1791, he was working in favor of the House of Orleans
and not at aU for a republic; and when the real republicans
were forced to flee, he walked the streets of Paris unmolested.
Further, he was a warm personal friend of Lafayette and con
tinued to be even after Lafayette began to show his royalist
sympathies. He delayed the establishment of the Republic for
the sake of keeping his friends in office, tried to stop the in
surrection of August 10 and attempted to betray France to
the Duke of Brunswick. When once the Republic was pro
claimed, he worked as hard to overthrow it as he had to pre
vent its establishment. He deliberately brought on foreign war
1 Aulard, Histoire politique, 395, 402.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 413
when he knew the country was not ready for it; tried to save
the king by an appeal to the people; and was hand and glove
with the traitor Dumouriez. Finally, from the very beginning
of the Revolution he used his influence in colonial affahs with
the one purpose of stirring up the colonies to revolt.
These were the charges. As to their justification: in regard
to several charges it must be admitted that Brissot's defense
was rather weak; for instance, his freedom from arrest in the
reaction which immediately followed the flight to Varennes is
not explained, and he certainly showed his approval of La
fayette, up to the very eve of the massacre of July 17. But
concerning the real substance of the charge that he was an
Orleanist, or that he did not want a republic at all, there is no
proof. On his own admission he did delay the establishment of
a republic in the summer of 1791, but only because he did not
think the time ripe for it, and even in July, 1792, he feared
that the revolt might be premature. The claim that his hesita
tion was due only to expediency is borne out by his writings.
Ever since his journey to the United States he had not ceased
to laud the glories of a republic. And in the face of his repeated
assertion that a republic was an ideal form of government, to
assert that he was opposed to a republic, per se, is in itseU an
absurdity. He certainly did everything in his power, by his
attack on royalty and on the ministry, to render the position
of the monarch untenable, and to bring monarchy to its down
fall. AU claim that he tried to overthrow the Republic after it
was once established is equally without ground. On one point,
indeed, he failed to clear himself, for, in spite of his efforts to
disprove all connection with Dumouriez, Brissot's correspond
ence and the support which he gave Dumouriez in his paper
seemed to indicate cordial relations up to the last. But of any
traitorous designs of his own toward the Republic there is not
a shred of reliable evidence.
A second misapprehension concerning the Girondins is that
they regarded with horror the shedding of blood. Their ene
mies, however, did not hold any such views regarding them,

414 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
and at the trial of the Girondins, they attempted to fasten upon
Brissot in particular approval of the massacres of September.
It must be admitted that in this case they succeeded fairly
weU. In answer to the accusations Brissot declared that he had
never ceased to denounce the massacres. But the point was,
when did he begin? He asserted, it is true, that he had begged
and prayed and implored Danton to put a stop to the massa
cres, but apparently he did not mention this appeal tiU the
summer of 1793. At aU events, his references at the time to
the massacres show no particular horror. Far from denouncing
them, he echoed Roland's mild remark: "Yesterday [Roland
is speaking of September 3] was a day over the events of which
it is perhaps necessary to draw a veil." x It is to be remembered
however, that the Girondins were then in danger themselves,
and it would have required extreme courage to make any pro
test. Brissot's general attitude at this period, however, U it
may be judged by the action of the Committee of Twenty-one,
of which he was president, and in which it must be supposed
he had some influence, was not one of clemency. For under the
direction of that committee drafts of laws were presented sup
pressing the right of appeal, ordering arrests, and extending
the punishment of death. Further, although Brissot with the
other Girondins was a bitter enemy of the men who afterward
directed the government of the Terror with aU its horrors of
bloodshed, it must be remembered that he did not shrink from
that foreign war which in large part made the Terror necessary;
but that, on the contrary, it was he who was largely responsi
ble for it.
As for Brissot's connection with federalism, it has already
been shown that, although he was strongly inclined to federal
ism in theory, proof is lacking that he tried to put federalism
into practice or to break up the unity and indivisibility of the
Republic. FinaUy, it was charged that the Girondins were undemo
cratic; that they held themselves apart from the multitude;
1 Patriote Frangais, September 5, 1792.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 415
that they were the aristocrats of the Revolution; or, as ex
pressed by some modern socialists, that they were the very
personification of the bourgeois element in bitter hostility to
the proletariat.1 A special charge was brought against Brissot
in this connection, that he was an enemy of popular societies.
On one occasion, it is true, he had written that people needed
to be on their guard, that clubs, like old tools, became blunt
and rusty. But this remark was inspired by the fact that he
was just then assailing the monarchical club, not because it
was a club, but because it was monarchical. Indeed, he was
careful to add that clubs should be checked only when they
were bad; when they were good they should be fostered, for
they performed a most useful function in helping to create
public opinion and in keeping watch over public functionaries.
It was precisely from public officials who objected to this in
convenient censorship, he declared, that much of the criticism
of the clubs emanated.
The accusation of opposition in general to democracy is like
wise without foundation. Indeed, in summing up Brissot's part
in the French Revolution, the one word which best character
izes his policy is democratic. From his earliest days he was the
antagonist of arbitrary and despotic government in all its
forms, and the upholder of the rights of man. A declaration of
these rights, he maintained, when that subject was discussed,
was as necessary to a constitution as was a foundation to a
house. It was in no sense, he added, with emphasis, a granting
of rights, — no power on earth could do that, — but merely
a statement of what inevitably existed. In the interpretation
of these rights he stood for the most thoroughgoing equality.
No titles of nobility; participation by every one in municipal
government; no distinction between active and passive citi
zens ; population the sole basis of representation ; a direct
method of election for members of the legislative body; no
lUe tenures for judges; admission of women and of passive as
weU as active citizens to popular societies; the abolition of
1 Kropotkin, La Grande Rivolution, 457.

416 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
primogeniture, no social forms to indicate distinctions between
classes; and finally, the immediate extension of the principles
of the Revolution to the colonies, at least to the extent of rec
ognizing the civil rights of the mulattoes, and the ultimate
abolition of slavery: these were some of the measures which,
as has been seen, he regarded as imperative if there were to be
anything like real equality.
But Brissot was the champion not only of "the people," as a
whole, but of the poor especially. While he held certain ab
stract theories of socialistic tendency, in practical politics he
was certainly not a socialist in the present use of the term. He
was emphatically opposed to state control in economic matters
and vehemently protested against the suspicion of cherishing
a desire to attack property.1 Yet at the same time he was in
favor of various measures which might be said to be socialistic
in character, tending to the advantage of the poor and to
minimizing the differences of opportunity between rich and
poor, as, for instance, the issuing of small assignats, the aboli
tion of the octrois, the prohibition of bequests in the collat
eral line, and the exemption from taxation of the necessities
for physical Ifle.
Liberty, too, as well as democracy, was to be extended as
rapidly and as thoroughly as possible. In economic questions
he stood for liberty by upholding freedom of trade. Liberty of
the press he not only claimed as an abstract right, but also
took the lead in seizing it for himseU by establishing the Pa
triote Frangais in defiance of a rigorous censorship. He was also
the ardent champion of those hitherto despised classes whose
liberty had been so greatly restricted, — Jews, Protestants,
and actors.
In order that these rights might be preserved he maintained
further the necessity of the fullest extension of the sovereignty
1 It is largely because of his support of the right of property that he is as
sailed by such writers as Kropotkin. See La Grande Revolution, 457. "II faut
lire Brissot pour comprendre tout ce que priparaient Us bourgeois alors pour la
France, et ce que les Brissotins du vingtieme siecle priparent encore partout oil une
rivolution va iclater."

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 417
of the people. It was for this end that he stood for the limita
tion of the king's power by a suspensive instead of an abso
lute veto, by checking his authority in declarations of peace and
war, by prohibiting his choice of a ministry from the legisla
tive body, and then by making the ministry which he did choose
responsible to that body. Further, in order that the will of the
people might be carried out more promptly, he would have but
one chamber instead of two; he would give the suffrage to all;
and he would not put a new constitution into effect till it
should have been submitted to the people. He was in fact but
too ready to regard the voice of the people as the voice of God,
even when it was raised in violation of constituted authority
and international agreements, as in the case of the annexation
of Avignon. Even the risings of the mob — "popular move
ments" in his euphemistic phrase, "were to be expected and
deshed among a people who are not yet freed, especially
among a people a large share of whom are excluded from
making of the laws."
The rights which he was working to secure in these various
ways he would not limit to France, but would extend to all
mankind. His patriotism was not French, it was cosmopolitan.
To spread the principles of the French Revolution among the
oppressed everywhere was a good reason, it seemed to him, for
making war on despotic governments. As M. Aulard says:
"He was not an exclusive patriot; the Revolution, in his view,
ought to be made for the profit of aU oppressed nations, of all
humanity whatever its race; for the profit of the negro as well
as of the white man.1 " In short, in spite of his advocacy of war,
it may fairly be assumed that were he alive to-day, he would
find his most congenial place among the supporters of universal
brotherhood. So far, then, Brissot's policy, except that he was rather more
cosmopolitan than the rest, seems to be typically Girondin, and
therefore, as M. Aulard has shown of the party in general, very
like the policy of the Mountain to which it has been thought
1 Aulard, Orateurs de la Rivolution, i, 233.

418 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
to be diametrically opposed. The only real difference between
the Girondins and the Mountain, M. Aulard maintains, was
that the Mountain wanted Paris to have the supremacy over
the departments during the war, and that the Girondins were
opposed to such supremacy. If this distinction be true, Brissot
was again a typical Girondin, for, from July, 1792, until the
time of his trial, he never ceased to attack what seemed to him
a rank usurpation of power by the capital city.
But this distinction given by M. Aulard is based only on the
policy of the respective parties. M. Faguet, in his criticism of
M. Aulard, goes one step further and points out a tempera
mental difference.1 According to M. Faguet, the real difference
between the Girondins and the Mountain lay not so much in
a clear-cut divergence of opinion on the political questions
of the time as in a fundamental difference of character: the
Girondins were "men of principle," and the Jacobins "oppor
tunists." In the case of Brissot this is evidently true, at least as
far as his colonial and foreign policies were concerned. His guid
ing principle in regard to the colonies was that the slave trade
should be abolished and rights of citizenship given to the
mulattoes. To these principles he persistently clung, in spite
of all warnings of the disasters to which too precipitate action
must inevitably lead. Even when the prophesies of the plant
ers were fulfilled and frightful insurrection broke out, he would
not believe that it was due in any degree to the extreme meas
ures which he himseU had been instrumental in instituting.
The question of the war was a still more marked instance of
adherence, on the part of Brissot and of the other Girondins
as well, to a fixed principle, in utter disregard of circumstances.
Despotism was an evil, he argued; therefore despotism must be
attacked; diplomacy was an agency of despotism; therefore all *
diplomacy must be disregarded. And when the opponents of
these radical ideas suggested that before beginning the attack
on despotism it might be well to consider the resources for such
an attack, and that in the question of diplomacy it was worth
1 Revue de Deux Mondes, August 15, 1901, 5th period, rv, 631-59.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 419
while, simply as a matter of policy, not to offend diplomatic
etiquette, he went so far as to declare that such ideas savored
not only of cowardice but of actual anti-revolutionary tend
ency. The suggestion that the circumstances of the case were
to be considered, he scorned as a positively traitorous idea.
The hypothesis that Brissot and the Girondins were "men
of principle " does not, however, adequately account for their
attitude in respect to the other subjects of accusation. What
principles can be discovered in their uncertain attitude toward
the dethronement of the king and the establishment of the
Repubhc, or in their passive acquiesence in the massacres of
September, or in their divided opinion on the trial of the king,
or even in theh persistent opposition to Paris? The full an
tithesis to "men of circumstances," as applied to the Moun
tain, is not "men of principle." Something more is needed to
cover the whole case. It is true that the Girondins were "men
of principle" in so far as they were idealists, but they did not
always have ideals, and where they failed to have ideals they
did not substitute a feasible policy. Like the Mountain, they
were sometimes guided by circumstances, but unlike the Moun
tain, they were not well guided. In other words, they were
unpractical. In this respect again Brissot was a typical Girondin. There
is no doubt that he was a thorough republican in theory; but
when it came to the crisis he failed to take a decisive stand,
and during the critical fifty days from June 20 to August 10,
when the overthrow of the monarchy became an urgent ques
tion, he did not seem to know what course to take. While
claiming to support the monarchy, he attacked the king with
such violence as to make the continuance of the monarchy
impossible. Moreover, at the trial of the king his idea appar
ently was to get rid of responsibility by appealing to the people,
and in the so-called federalist movement, while he was constant
in his hatred of Paris, he was unable to unite his party in any
feasible scheme for joining the provinces against it.
In so far he was a typical Girondin. How far was he really

420 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
the head of the group? He certainly was a leader of the Giron
dins in the sense that he was one of the most prominent of their
number, a person of definite influence and position within the
party. This opinion was universally held at the time;1 the
conviction was expressed by his enemies when they fastened
the term "Brissotin" to one wing of the party; the fact is ad
mitted in all the writings of his friends; it comes out in the trial;
it was recognized by the Buzot faction; and it is apparent in
the ranks of impartial spectators like Dumont.
Just who were included among the Brissotins it is somewhat
difficult to state, especially as the term was variously used and
amid shUting political affiliations : sometimes meaning the spe
cial adherents of Brissot in his war policy; sometimes the
supporters of the Girondin ministry; sometimes the leaders in
the opposition to the Commune of Paris in August, 1792; and
finaUy, after the opening of the Convention, that faction of the
Gironde which was less actively engaged in the federalist con
troversy, in contrast with the Buzotins who led the struggle.
Gensonne, Guadet, Claviere, and Valaze, and for a time Ro
land, Condorcet, and Vergniaud, might perhaps be most
properly classed as Brissotins.
That the Brissotins kept together as well as they did was due
partly to the fact that they were accustomed to meet fre
quently, in informal gatherings or clubs, to talk over their ideas
and to lay out a plan of action in the Assembly — according
to their enemies, to intrigue, to hatch plots. Their first gather
ings were held four times a week at Madame Roland's, where
it was Brissot who introduced the other deputies.2 Number 5
Place Vendome, the apartment of a woman named Odun,3 the
homes of the banker, Biderman,4 of Valaze 5 and Buzot,6 were
1 Note, for instance, Les Revolutions de Paris, November 5, 1792: "Brissot
n 'est pas sans talents, sans merite, mais jamais conception hardie ne sortira de
son cerveau. . . . Apris lui, les plus dangereux de son parti sont GuadH, Ver
gniaud, Gensonni. . . . Quels sont les autres? Buzot, Barbaroux, Kersaint, etc.
Voild ce qu 'on appelle, d bon droit, Brissot et sa coterie."
2 Mimoires de Madame Roland, I, 63.
8 Dumont, Souvenirs, 374. 4 Ibid., 266. B Moniteur, May 24, 1793.
6 Thermomitre du jour, n. 526, June 9, 1793. That meetings were held at
Buzot's was denied by Madame Roland. See her Mimoires, n, 57.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 421
places of frequent meeting. Brissot, it was asserted, was most
assiduous in his attendance, and was the heart and soul of
these gatherings. While admitting that such gatherings took
place, Brissot denied that they were devoted to intrigue or that
he was a frequent attendant. That he was the chief of the
party he also denied. " I, chief of a party ! " he exclaimed. "I, a
solitary man, knowing scarcely forty members of the Assem
bly, appearing rarely at the tribune, frequenting neither clubs,
nor sections, nor committees!"1 Nor was he generally ac
knowledged as a leader by the Girondins most closely asso
ciated with him. As one writer puts it, "Brissot's authority
was neither avowed by himseU nor recognized even by those
who, nevertheless, did nothing without consulting him." It
remains true, however, that from the autumn of 1791 to the
publication of Desmoulins's Histoire des Brissotins, the term
"Brissotm" was freely and frequently used, with the obvious
implication of leadership and authority.
Such a position he could not have obtained had he not been
a person of strong character. But what his character was is a
question on which most divergent views are held. He has been
judged to be everything, from a rogue and a scoundrel to a
saint and a martyr. The former opinion is that of his most
violent opponents among the members of the Mountain. In
their denunciations he appears as a man of great subtlety, a
pohtical intriguer, constantly scheming for his own benefit, and
utterly careless of the means by which he obtained his end.2
A more impartial view is that of Dumont, but even he agrees
with the Mountain in considering Brissot an intriguer. Du-
mont's judgment is all the more valuable because he had orig
inaUy a high opinion of Brissot, an opinion which he main
tained tiU the Delessart episode. "From that time," he writes,
"Brissot fell in my estimation. I did not come to a rupture
with him, but my friendship weakened with my esteem. I had
1 Patriote Francais, April 20, 1793.
2 For a consideration of Brissot's character see Aulard, Histoire politique,
405.

422 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
formerly known him candid and generous; he was now insidi
ous and persecuting. If he had any qualms of conscience — for
Brissot was both a moral and a religious man — they were al
layed by the pretended necessity of saving the state. It is in
times of political faction that we see fllustrations of the correct
ness of the ideas of Helvetius upon what constitutes virtue.
Brissot was faithful to his party, but a traitor to integrity."1
"Brissot was one of those men," Dumont says on another oc
casion, "in whom party spirit prevaded over right and justice;
or rather, he confined right and justice to his own party. He
had more of the zeal of the monk than any man I ever knew.
Had he been a Capuchin he would have doted upon his staff
and his vermin — a Dominican, he would have burned heretics
— a Roman, he would have proved not unworthy of Cato and
Regulus. But he was a French republican, who had deter
mined to overthrow the monarchy; and to accomplish this
object he hesitated not to calumniate, to persecute, and to per
ish himseU upon the scaffold." 2
M. Aulard, on the other hand, calls attention to an opinion
held even by some men of the Mountain — to the effect that
Brissot was lacking in partisanship. Cloots, for example, in his
pamphlet, Ni Marat ni Roland, said that as for Brissot he never
knew a man less brissotin than he. And when Danton wanted
to annoy Brissot he would say: "Brissot, you are a brissotin." 3
Buzot bears like testimony. "He was," says Buzot, "so little
adapted by nature to intrigue that the mere suggestion of dis
simulation or anything underhand was a punishment to him.
We used to make fun sometimes of his simplicity, of his good
nature, and we would say in fun: 'Of all possible Brissotins he
is the least brissotin. ' " 4 According to Girey-Dupre, he hved
like Aristides and died like Sidney.5 Clarkson says of him:
"Brissot was a man of plain and modest appearance. His
1 Dumont, Souvenirs, 380. The translation is that of the Recollections, 312.
2 Ibid., 357; Recollections, 295.
8 Aulard, Histoire politique, 405. 4 Buzot, Mimoires, 16.
6 Brissot, Mimoires, ed. by Montrol; Preface, iii.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 423
habits, contrary to those of his countrymen in general, were
domestic. In his family he set an amiable example, both as a
husband and as a father. On all occasions he was a faithful
friend. He was particularly watchful over his private conduct.
From the simplicity of his appearance and the severity of his
morals, he was called 'The Quaker'; at least in the circles which
he frequented. He was a man of deep feehng. He was chari
table to the poor, as far as his slender income permitted him.
But his benevolence went beyond the usual bounds. He was
no patriot in the ordinary acceptation of the word; for he took
the habitable globe as his country and wished to consider every
foreigner as his brother." l Madame Roland testifies to the
same effect. "Brissot's simple manner," she says, "his frank
ness, his natural ease seemed to me in perfect harmony with
the austerity of his principles. ... He is the best of men, a good
husband, a tender father, a faithful friend, a virtuous citizen."2
Madame Roland might have added that he did not suffer
from too lowly an appreciation of his own virtues. But if his
writings betray a decided tendency to self-glorification, they
have at the same time every mark of simplicity and earnest
ness, and tend to bear out the opinion of Brissot's friends rather
than that of his enemies. His actions, however, are not quite so
consistent with disingenuousness and perfect uprightness. For
instance, he was ready to use in the cause of the Revolution
the same despotic means which he had attacked as among the
greatest evils of the old regime, and his conduct toward De
lessart is not above question. But that he ever betrayed the
colonies or sold his vote or his influence, either to the court or to
any foreign power, though repeatedly alleged, is absolutely with
out proof. It is tolerably certain that on one occasion, at least,
money was offered him. "There are many persons now living,"
wrote an English contemporary of Brissot in 1798, "who know
that during the spirited animadversions of Brissot on the
cabals at court which he denominated Austrian Committees, a
1 Clarkson, History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, n, 165-66.
2 Mimoires, I, 197.

424 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
hundred thousand livres were tendered as the price of either
his silence or his friendship; and that, living in a garret into
which he ascended by four flights of stairs, and having a wife
and three children depending on his stipend as deputy and the
trifling produce of his newspaper, he declined the offer without
noise or ostentation." 1 A more striking evidence of Brissot's
incorruptibility was the Soulavie episode. Shortly after the
20th of June, 1792, it wiU be remembered,2 Soulavie was offered
eight hundred thousand francs by Chambonas, the minister of
finance, with which to win over Brissot to the side of the court,
but declined to undertake the commission, as he was sure that
it would be utterly useless. Brissot would repulse him, he de
clared, at the mere suggestion.3 This is all the more convincing
because Soulavie was opposed to Brissot politically and dis
liked him personaUy.
Far from amassing a fortune, he lived and died poor. He may
not have been a saint, but he certainly was not a rogue. The
truth lies between these extremes. He was an enthusiast — an
erring and seU-deceived one sometimes, but he was not a hypo
crite. As Lescure says of him: "There was in his lUe more than
one error, more than one fault, but there was nothing crimi
nal." 4
The testimony of Brissot's friends, however, is more con
vincing evidence of his moral character than of his fitness for
leadership. According to Madame Roland, he was "confident
even to imprudence, happy, naive, ingenuous as a boy of fifteen;
1 Phillips, Biographical Anecdotes, 13. 2 See p. 287.
' Chambonas: " Vous voyez done que cet homme (Brissot) est intiressi. II faut
done que vous vous chargiez de le gagner. On ne demande pas qu 'il quitte ses opi
nions, mais simpUment qu'il suspende son plan de dichiance. Nous avons d votre
disposition cent mUU livres. Si cette somme ne suffit pas, offrez quatre cent miUe
livres, puis cinq cents. Allez jusqu 'd huit cents; mais ne pasez pas, c 'est la limite
de nos pouvoirs; mais il faut qu'il adopte notre projet d'ajournement de la di
chiance  " Soulavie: "Sij'avais quelque lueur, quelque espirance de riussir,
je me divouerais d votre commission; mais je dois vous dire qu'une telle ouverture
sufilra pour que Brissot me repousse." Soulavie, Mimoires historiques. vi.
429-30. 4 Brissot, Mimoires, ed. by Lescure; Preface, ii.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 425
he was made to be companion of wise men and the dupe of
rogues." He was a good judge of men, she adds, but he did
not know men at all.1 Brissot's mother-in-law evidently held
the same opinion, for, just as he was starting for America, she
wrote warning him that he would be likely to meet men more
subtle than he, and exhorting him to be on his guard.2
Petion says of him that he was the embodiment of disinter
estedness; that he allowed people to use his ideas without giv
ing him any acknowledgment; that his only thought was to be
useful.3 "I have known Brissot from his infancy," Petion de
clared on another occasion; "I have seen him in those moments
when the very soul shows itself, when a man abandons himself
without reserve to friendship, to confidence; I have known his
disinterestedness, I have known his principles; I protest to you
that they are pure. Those who make of him the head of a party
have not the slightest idea of his character; he is a man of
inteUigence and learning; but he has neither reserve nor the
faculty of dissimulation, neither the attractive personality nor
the spirit de suite which make a party leader, and what will
surprise you is that far from leading others, he is very easily
imposed upon." 4
PhilUps, the Englishman referred to above, who evidently
wrote from a friendly point of view, describes Brissot as "a
votary of true Philosophy whenever he heard her voice or
clearly understood her principles; but those principles were not
famuiar to his mind; they were not always of his own acquisi
tion; and the simplicity and integrity of his heart induced him
to confide in others with blind credulity." 5 In summing up
1 Mimoires, I, 197. Meilhan in his memoirs (p. 99), confirms this: "Qui-
conque a connu Brissot doit savoir que personne n 'Halt moins propre d former un
parti. C'Hait un homme de caMnet, studieux, sidentaire, d'une sociiti douce et
paisible, mais dipourvu de Vaudace sans laquelle on n'est jamais chef en aucun
genre. II avait meme une faciliti de caractire qui le plagait d to suite des autres
plutot qu'a leur tete."
2 Correspondance, 191. 3 Notice sur Brissot, in Vatel. Vergniaud, n, 240.
4 Discours de Jirome PHion sur V accusation intentie contre Robespierre, non
prononci mais imprimi en novembre, 1792. Quoted by Vatel, Charlotte Corday
et Us Girondins, n, 219, note.
6 Phillips, Biographical Anecdotes, n, 15.

426 BRISSOT DE WARVILLE
Brissot's career, Phillips says again: "As a politician, his heart
was better dhected than his head — he wanted knowledge of
mankind. His reason was therefore misled by his imagination;
and his credulity and reliance on the pretensions of others ren
dered him totaUy unfit for any important share in the adminis
tration of national business." : In short, as Baflleul 2 says, he
was not a man of the world.3
Brissot also lacked an imposing physical presence. He was
short in stature, slight in frame, and stooped a little in the
shoulders. Nor was he blessed with ease of manner. He says
himseU that he was very timid, very awkward, especially when
he appeared for the first time among strangers.4 This stiffness,
moreover, was not merely a question of manner; it was indica
tive of one of Brissot's most dominant characteristics. He did
not know how to adapt himseU to people, and as a consequence
was always getting into quarrels and disputes.5 He adopted
fixed standards of morality, and with a narrow puritanism went
about applying them without tolerance and without sympathy.
The single word which perhaps best describes his character is
rigidity. But U Brissot was not altogether fitted for leadership, he was
perhaps more so than the other Girondins. His prominence
may in fact partially be accounted for by a process of elimina
tion. Condorcet was not emotional enough, could make no
popular appeal; Vergniaud was too indolent, too much of a
dreamer; Buzot was too headstrong; Gensonn6, too aloof;
Guadet lived too much in the present. Brissot, on the other
hand, whatever his limitations, did possess certain qualities
which made for success and leadership. For one thing he had
1 Phillips, Biographical Anecdotes, n, 20.
2 Jacques Charles Baflleul (bom 1762, died 1843) was a French politician,
member of the Convention, and an opponent of Robespierre and Danton.
As a signer of the protest against the arrest of the Girondins, he was himself
arrested and thrown into prison, but escaped execution.
3 Examen critique de V ouvrage posthume de Madame de Stall.
4 Memoires, I, 272.
6 Note his quarrels with his father, Swinton, Linguet, the father of Fanny
Burney, Desforges, Morande, etc.

GENERAL POLICY AND CHARACTER 427
not only abounding faith in every cause to which he was de
voted, but also indefatigable industry in working for it him
seU, and in making others work. While his executive ability
may not have been of the highest order, he certainly was
possessed of considerable skill. In short, the qualities which
he showed in his early writings continued to be his striking
characteristics and explain in large measure both his success
and his limitations. His boundless ambition, his tremendous
earnestness, and his never-failing optimism enabled him, in
spite of his ingenuousness and rigidity, to inspire confidence.
At the same time, the defects of his qualities account for his
failure. His tremendous earnestness was accompanied by no
saving sense of humor, his ambition led him into large plans of
which he did not count the cost, and his optimism did not take
account of insurmountable obstacles. But though he failed be
cause he lacked the power to adapt himseU to circumstances,
to realize that it was "not a theory but a condition" by which
France was confronted, to perceive at the supreme crisis that
the war, which he himseU had so large a part in bringing on,
demanded immediate centralization in government; yet he
stands out among his contemporaries for his high ideals and for
a passion for liberty, which, as Garat says, was with him noth
ing short of a religion. "His eyes," to quote a modern writer,
"were fixed on the map of Europe, while others saw only their
club or their section." ' In a word, while he embodies the
sphit of the Revolution in his insistence on the liberty of the in
dividual and on the rights of man, he also foreshadows the new
sphit of the nineteenth century — as interpreted by Mazzini
in his stirring essay on Faith and the Future — in his belief in a
larger brotherhood and in his faith in liberty, not for the indi
vidual alone, but for humanity.
1 Aulard, Orateurs de la Rivolution, I, 224.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
LETTERS BY AND TO BRISSOT
Letter of Brissot to Jefferson
(Jefferson Papers, 1st series, vol. 2, Library of Congress. Copy.)
Chancellekie d'Orleans
ce 3 Janvier, 1787.
Monsieur J'ai 1'honneur de vous adresser ci-joint les questions sur les fonds
publics des Etats-Unis, dont je vous ai parle. Vous m'avez fait esperer
ainsi que M. de Crevecceur, que vous pourriez en vous adressant au
treasury board du Congres, nous procurer une reponse complete &
exacte sur tous les points.
Cette reponse est singulierement importante pour fonder le credit
des Etats-Unis & je ne doute point que mon digne ami Claviere avec
son ami d 'Amsterdam ne parviennent a leur etablir un grand credit
quand une fois ils auront des lumieres sufSsantes sur leur situation.
Vous voudrez done bien, Monsieur, mettre ces questions au nombre
de vos depeches prochaines & me faire parvenir ou a M. Claviere la
reponse aussitot qu'elle sera dans vos mains.
(Signed) Brissot de Warville.
Questions sur les fonds publics des Etats-Unis.
On suppose que le Congres des Etats-Unis d'Amerique met quel-
qu' importance a leur etablir un bon credit en Europe. Ils ne peuvent
y trouver que de grands avantages. La grande affaire des Americains
est sans contredit es defrichements & ces defrichements demandent
toujours plus de numeraire parcequ'ils le repandent sur une plus
grande etendue de pays. II sera done avantageux aux Americains de
donner a leur papiers un tel credit qu 'il puisse se placer dans les Etats
de I'Europe ou 1' argent est tres abondant & dans ceux ou le com
merce peut les admettre; ear ces papiers pourroient venir chercher
l'argent Europeen de plusieurs manieres, soit, directement & par
voye d'emprunt, soit indirectement & en retour de foumitures
Europeennes lorsque les productions Americaines ne suffiroient pas
au moment meme pour les payer. La constitution republicaine est de

432 APPENDIX
toutes celle qui favorise le mieux un credit public; & sous ce point
de vue les Etats-Unis ont droit au credit le plus etendu puisqu'il
s'appuie sur un sol immense, fertilise par la liberte;.
Mais dans ce moment soit par la malice de leurs ennemis, soit par
les difficultes qui s 'eleven t entre eux sur leurs dettes et leurs regu
lations interieures on ne peut pas encore faire naitre en Europe, en
faveur des Americains une confiance generate; une infinite de faits,
vrais ou faux ou mal representes, donnent des ombrages perpetuels;
& font croire a beaucoup de gens que les Americains eux-memes ne
sont pas encore persuades de 1 'importance de leux credit au dehors,
on ne connoissent pas toute l'etendue des egards dus au maximes qui
fondent & maintiennent le credit public.
H seroit done tres necessaire d'avoir tant de la part du Congres
que de la Chambre de la tresorie, toutes les instructions necessaires
pour se former des idees justes sur l'etat present des dettes Ameri-
caines interieures et exterieures; sur la maniere dont elles sont con-
siderees en general & en particulier, par la reunion des Etats & par
chacun d'eux individuellement & pour juger s'il y a des dettes dont
le remboursement soit eonsidere sous des degres differens de certitude.
Les fonds [stocks] Americains se devisent en effets continentaux &
efiets particuliers a chaque etat. On desire sur les premiers d'avoir
leur liste, leur origine, la capitale, la forme, le terme de rembourse
ment s'il y en a — par qu'il est paye — quand, comment, ou quels
sont ceux qui ont cours dans le commerce? s'il y a qui soient recus
aux payements des taxes ou qui servent a ce payement? Est-il du
des arr6rages & en quelle quantite? sur quel objet chaque emprunt ou
fond continental est-il hypotheque?
Les m&mes questions sont a repondre sur les fonds particuliers a
chaque etat & s 'il y en a de ceux-ci qui soient recus dans tous les etats,
on desire d'en avoir la liste; comme aussi de connoitre ceux qui n'y
sont pas regus & quelle en est la raison? On desireroit aussi d'avoir la
liste des prix aux quels tous les dinerents effets Americains se negc-cient
actuellement & la distinction de ceux dont le rembours prochain est
le plus probable.
Enfin cette question regarde plus particulieremerit le Congres.
On demande quel interet le Congres accorderoit a des particuliers
qui lui pr£teroient de l'argent a la condition de ne'n pouvoir etre
rembourse qu'en fonds de terres appartenantes au Congres & dans le
cours d'un certain nombre d'annees, que le Congres designeroit & qui
ne devroit pas etre trop court.
Si de pareils emprunts pouvoient avoir lieu ils exigeroient la deter
mination d'une certaine etendue de terres avantageusement situees
pour le commerce & la culture, lesquelles seroient reserv6es pour

APPENDIX 433
aequitter ces emprunts, en determinant d'avance la maniere dont
les porteurs de ces effets pourroient en prendre possession.
Si une telle idee peut s'appliquer a un plan quelconque, d'une exe
cution sure, et facile & qu'il soit possible de lui donner une forme
seduisante pour ceux qui cherchent a varier d'emploie de leur argent,
il ne seroit pas impossible que cette maniere d'emprunter ne reussit
en Europe surtout si le produit de tels emprunts servoient a aequitter
des parties de dettes etrangeres, parce qu'alors ils donneroient lieu a
des traites entre des particuliers & les etats memes a qui le Congres a
des avances a rembourser.
Mais il faudroit que les plans de tels emprunts arrivassent en Eu
rope avec des pleins pouvoirs aux ambassadeurs du Congres de traiter
& meme de pouvoir admettre certaines modifications & y engager le
Congres s 'ils s 'en presentment de convenables aux preteurs sans etre
nuisibles aux interets des Etats-Unis.
Daniel Parker to Andrew Craigie
(Craigie Papers, m, 111. American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass.)
Havre de Grace, June 2, 1788.
My dear Sir:
I have much pleasure in the present opportunity of introducing
to your acquaintance Monsr Brissot de Warville, a French gentleman
of the most respectable character and connections, his views in going
to America are principally to obtain a perfect knowledge of the funds
and the land in the western Territory. The representations that he
will make to his friends in Europe will determine them respecting
the purchase of the Funds, — as he is a literary man and his pursuits
having been confined to that line, he will pass unsuspected in America
of having any design to buy the Funds. He will communicate with
you freely on the subject, if he should recommend them to his con
nections they will make large purchases, all of which he proposes to
confine entirely to you and Col. Duer. He is a gentleman that merits
all confidence that you will give him all the information in your
power [sic]. I shall leave it with you to settle with him such terms as
you may think, proper, my great object has been to prevent a com
petition in the purchases. I have no doubt but I shall soon form an
arrangement with M. de Warville's friend here for a large purchase of
those funds in which you will be interested so that we shall be all
united in one general interest. You will find M. de Warville to possess
true republican sentiments and great knowledge in the affairs in
Europe, of France in particular.

434 APPENDIX
I must pray you to give him all the attention and assistance in your
power and to make acquainted [sic] with all your friends in congress.
I am most faithfully your friend and ser't,
(Signed) Dan. Parker.
Andrew Craigie to Daniel Parker
(Craigie Papers, i, 27. American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass. Copy.)
New York, Dec. 3, 1788.
My dear friend:
This will be handed to you by our friend M. de Warville who will
make it his first business to see you on his arrival to communicate the
arrangements that have been made with him. Since my acquaintance
with this Gentleman I have had such proofs of his amiable disposition
and candor that I feel the most perfect confidence in his character.
He has formed the best connections in this country, and is highly
respected by our first Characters, and as he has acquired great
knowledge of affairs here you will receive from him much useful
information. I hope and believe you will receive full satisfaction from the ex
planations M. de Warville will give and with the power from Col. D.
and myself you will be able to settle the arrangement to your mind.
I am yours, (Signed) A. Craigie.
Brissot de Warville to Colonel William Duer
(Scioto Papers. New York Historical Society, New York City. Written in
English.) Faoiouth, Jan. IS, 1789.
Dear Colonel:
We are arrived here after a long, tedious, and stormy passage of 41
days. I thought I could fly immediately to London, but the road is ob
structed by the vast quantity of snow so I am obliged to stay one day
more here. Arriving here we have been told very strange news which
shall certainly have a great influence over this world and bring some
revolution. The insanity of the king of Great Brit., the death of
Spain's, the declining authority of his cousin's of France, I believe
that all these circumstances will pave the way to the prosperity of my
good friend the American. Clouds are gathering here: they are or
they shall be, at least, if you are wise, quickly over in your continent.
Nothing is yet determined about the restrictions annexed to the
regency. However, it is certain the Prince of Wales will be regent and

APPENDIX 435
of course it is very likely there will be a great change in the ministry.
Pitt has reassumed a great popularity in defending the right of the
people. Considering the effect of the revolution respecting America,
I am inclined to believe that you '11 be more favorably treated by the
future ministry who shall be consisting of men whose liberality of
ideas and affection toward America are unquestionable.
What I have picked up here respecting France is that the king has
fixed the way of convocating and of organising the States-General —
they must be very numerous. So much the better. The French comp
troller seems in distress. So much better too. We shall have a better
competition for the debt.
Adieu my dear friend. Rely upon it, I shall play the devil to
despatch all our business as fast as possible and to send you intelli
gence. Tell Dr I thank him for his letter of credit, but I 've not had
any occasion for it. My best compliments to him. Remember me to
your ladies and depend on my everlasting friendship.
(Signed) De Warville.
Please to send the inclose [sic] to my brother-in-law, M. Dupont,
wherever he may be. I '11 be obliged to Dr. Craigie to mention my
arrival with my compliments to Mr. Barett.

Andrew Craigie to Brissot
(Scioto Papers. New York Historical Society, New York City.)
New York, 24 Jan. 1789.
My dear Friend:
It was a month or five weeks after your departure before you were
suspected of having left America and it has caused considerable
speculation among those whom you would suspect to be most curious
on this occasion. I hope long before this you are happy with your
friends in France and begin to think of returning to America. I am
this day informed by a letter from my friend Porter at Alexandria
that your brother is arrived at Norfolk in Virginia. I hope in a few
days to have the pleasure of seeing him in N. Y.
I now forward to you a power of attorney and copy of this deed of
this land which I am interested in and wish you to have sold. This
tract is about 140 miles from the city of New York and about the
same distance from the city of Philadelphia within a quarter of a mile
of the River Susquehannah [sic] where it is navigable for boats of 20 to
30 and (sometimes) 50 barrels. The produce of the country sells nearly
as high as in the city and the soil is good. A French crown or six livres

436 APPENDIX
per acre is the lowest price which the proprietors can receive. I
suppose a much higher price may be procured for it, as I am informed
that land in the vicinity of it has lately been sold for three and some
for five dollars per acre. The proprietors will allow you one half of all
you can get above the six livres, but in case it sells for only six livres
per acre they will allow you a handsome compensation for your
trouble. ...
Securities have risen since you left here. Notes bearing interest
from the first Jan. 1788 have been sold for 5/3.
Wishing you and your plans all possible happiness and that some
time we may have the pleasure to see you again in this country,
I remain, my dear Sir, Your affectionate friend,
(Signed) Andrew Craigie.
Our friend the Colonel is well and has lately written to you.

Brissot to Colonel WiUiam Duer
(Scioto Papers. New York Historical Society, New York City. Written in
Enghsh.) Paris, 31 January, 1789.
I've written to you, my excellent friend, from Falmouth. I hope
you have received my letter. The roads were very bad so I was de
tained much longer I expected. Mr. Parker was not in London. I
overreached him at Dover, we crossed the British Channel and went
together to Paris; I availed myself from the length of the way and
the leisure we had, to sound his disposition respecting our specula
tions and projects. I communicated to him the general plan of asso
ciation. His lecture seemed not to me operate forcibly on his mind.
He told me he saw many difficulties in forming such an association, in
dividing the shares; moreover he had entered into many engagements
he ought to fulfill. However he promised me to make an attempt. I
reminded him that you had furnished him with information, that you
had assisted him and of course you were entitled to some benefit. He
answered me it was his interest to give you a share in the profits either
of his own bargain or of the general association, were it conveyed into
execution. We have since seen Mr. Van Staphorst in Paris. He seems not
averse to an association and a partner to Mr. Stadninski I have met
just now assured me the latter was in the same disposition. That
association cannot be settled but in Amsterdam, where I hope to be

APPENDIX 437
with Mr. Parker in a fortnight. As to my friend Claviere, he is always
satisfied with the solidity of the speculation and he'll come into.
However there are many modifications to make in the plan. Rely on
the equity of Mr. Claviere and on my zeal for your concern and this
of Dr. Craigie.
Respecting the transfer of the foreign debt, Mr. Parker confessed
to me that some while ago he with Mr. Laurent de Couteux had given
a plan to Mr. Necker to get that transfer and he hoped to succeed.
He did not give to me any details about it. I told him that there was
another plan for redeeming that debt, formed by Mr. Claviere, ap
proved by you, from which immense advantages might derive to the
Society which should carry it into execution, that we were determined
to apply to the French court, but that we might suspend our own
application, on the condition that, if Mr. Parker obtained the transfer
from the ministry, he should enter into a general association with us
and on equal footing, that he should bind himself in writing. He
agreed, but as the consent of Mr. Laurent de Couteux is required, we
are to settle with him that point. The minister, probably on account
of his various and pressing affairs, has not given any answer. How
ever the circumstances seem favorable to get the transfer.
As to the loan Mr. P. told me that it would not proceed but in Hol
land, that he did not see any difficulty to succeed if, chiefly, the new
congress looked determined to appropriate to the payment of the
interest a part of the impost he is to raise.
We have not yet conferred about the Illinois lands, the other mat
ters being much more important, so any information about the prog
ress is postponed till the next letter.
I come now to the purchase of the $109350 certificates. Very likely
you are already acquainted by Mr. Seton and Dr. Craigie that the
bills have not been accepted, with the motives of the refusal, and the
bond of the payment. I tried everything in my power to have them
accepted from my friend who was first inclined to accept them. But
after considering the matter he told me: Suppose I pay those bills,
suppose you empower to transfer in my name that debt, the power
going to America may be lost, the certificate coming back may be
lost; Mr. Seton may die. Many difficulties may arise about the trans
fer in my name. In those circumstances my property shall be uncer
tain and not at my disposal for a long while and meanwhile I shall be
deprived from 6000 Stirling at a time when the money is so scarce
and so valuable. Moreover I cannot sell those funds without having
the certificate in my name, without being able to transfer it imme
diately to the purchaser. It therefore seems necessary that I get it
previous to accepting. I shall bind myself to pay at his reception.

438 APPENDIX
So your friends in America cannot have any doubts about the pay
ment since you have paid them in cash at least 5% of the purchase.
I could not make any reply to those forcible arguments and so I
acceded to the plan proposed by Mr. Claviere stated in the letter I 'ye
sent to Messrs. Seton and Craigie. I was chiefly inclined to adopt it,
considering that Mr. Seton was not entitled to require any damage,
having not advanced any money, the bills not being protested, and
the payment being ascertained. So my dear friend send as fast as
possible the transfer in the name of Mr. Claviere and the bills shall
be paid immediately. . . . (The next paragraph is illegible on ac
count of a tear in the paper.)
Don't miss any occasion to write to me. The money is scarce here,
high paid, credit stagnant, tho' the writs for the General states are
despatching. Believe me for life your good friend.
(Signed) Brissot de Warville.
Chez M. Claviere. H6tel la
Compagnie d 'assurance. Hue
de Richelieu.
P.S. Please to present your ladies with my humble respects, my
compliments to Dr. Craigie and you'll oblige me to forward that
letter to Mr. Dupont whose I don't know the direction.

Brissot to Colonel William Duer
(Scioto Papers. New York Historical Society, New York City. Written in
English.) Paris, April 28, 1789.
Dear Friend: —
I am quite amazed not to have received any line from you since I
have left America. Have you forgotten one of your best friends. I am
waiting with impatience for your answer about the transfer of the
certificates. I see very often here Parker and Haskell. No confidence can be
put in Parker. What is certain is this, that he looks for monopolizing
the sale of American funds in Europe; and he looks very cool about
sharing the profits with his friends in America. He has played so
many tricks here that he has created a diffidence about the American
funds. There is very little chance for Haskell to sell now his certifi
cates here, but probably he'll find a market in Holland. That requires
only some time. I have not any doubt that when the disturbances
shall be settled here, the debt funded and the national credit restored,
it will be possible to bring some moneyed people in a speculation upon

APPENDIX 439
your funds and lands. But now it is quite impracticable. We must
then have patience for putting in execution the schemes we have
planned. On this very circumstance I '11 spend the whole year here.
I suppose now that Claviere's transfer is coming here. We'll do the
best for disposing of it. The elections are going very briskly. I've
failed to be elected in my own country and they talk of me for being a
representative for Paris. Shall I succeed, God knows, but I don't
care very much. Though I believe there will be a good constitution,
it shall be by far inferior to yours. I do beseech you my friend write
me some time about the progress of your new government and believe
me forever your everlasting friend,
(Signed) Brissot de Warville.
No. 1 Gretry. G. Martin a Monsieur Brissot
(Affaires Etrangeres. 31 Decembre, 1792. Angleterre — 29 — Supplement f°.
340. Original^^
Affaires secretes.
COMPATRIOTE : 
Je m'empresse de vous faire part d'un avis que j 'ai recu il y a quel
ques heureset surlequel vous pouves [sic] compter, l'ayant eu d'une
personne en qui j'ai la plus grande confiance, qui la merite par des
preuves ineontestables que j 'en ai eue [sic] et qui a luimSme chiffre la
piece dont je vais vous parler. Notre ami commun le connoit et saura
qui je veux dire. Cette piece n'est rien moins qu'une declaration et
requisition envoyee d'ici aux trois Cours de Berlin, Vienne et Peters-
bourg, — par lesquelles apres leur avoir temoigne l'accord le plus com-
plet sur leurs idees, leurs vues et leurs projets au sujet de la France,
dont il est de la derniere importance d'arreterles progres d'une ma
niere effective, les sollicite respectivement d'envoyer les instructions et
les pouvoirs les plus amples a leurs ambassadeurs ou envoyes ici,
et en outre de faire passer a Londres sans perdre de terns un Militaire
Entendu afin de concerter en commun les operations convenables en
les assurant qu'aussit6t qu'on aura pris les mesures definitives et
frappe les premiers coups, il n 'y aura aucune difficulty sur les subsides,
puisqu'on est determine a agir de la maniere la plus vigoureuse, et
qu 'on en sent 1 'absolue necessite. En attendant toutes les Puissances
doivent ne negliger aucun moyen de donner a leurs forces toute
1 'extension possible, en recrutements, augmentation, approvisionne-
ments, etc., et la Russie doit agir de maniere a pouvoir fournir un
corps de soixante mille hommes s'il est juge necessaire, en le rappro-
chant autant qu 'il lui sera possible, et que sa situation en Pologne lui

440 APPENDIX
facilitera pour une partie, et 1'autre s'avancant au dehors de la Bal-
tique, pour etre transportee par mer et escortee par une flotte angloise,
qui ne trouvera aucune opposition dans les mers du Nord. Cette note
repond aux soUicitations de ces Puissances et a la connoissance
qu 'elles avoient donne de I'etat de leurs finances qu 'elles representent
comme un peu epuisees, dans un moment ou la prudence les empeche
d'ajouter ouvertement de nouvelles taxes. Toute mesure ulterieure
est renvoyee a des moments plus favorables, la seule chose dont on
doive et puisse s'occuper c'est d'ecraser l'ennemi commun, qui n'a
d 'autre ressource que de porter le trouble et le desordre partout, sans
s'embarrasser des consequences, puisque leur banqueroute est in
evitable et des efforts bien concertes l'ameneront immediatement, et
mettront leurs ennemis interieurs en etat de se declarer sans crainte,
et avec succes, puisqu 'on a raison de croire par une infinite de com
munications sures qu 'ils sont beaucoup plus nombreux qu 'on ne pense
en general. H y a ensuite une infinite d 'autres details et de pieces
auxquelles on renvoye et on finit en demandant les mesures les plus
promptes, et en observant qu'il ne con vient pas de vouloir paroitre
se meler des affaires interieures, du moins en commencant, que cela
convient surtout a ce pays, ou il importe de menager 1 'opinion pub
lique, dont on est assure et qu'il ne faut pas aliener — que tout a con-
tribue dernierement a la rendre favorable, et que la Catastrophe de
Louis XVI a laquelle on s 'attend et qu'on regarde meme comme
assuree achevera d 'exalter les esprits et de les porter aux mesures les
plus energiques, que L 'Angleterre en attendant fera les preparatifs
les plus etendus, et tout ce qui dependra d'elle pour assurer le succes
d'une entreprise, que l'interet de l'humanite rend indispensable.
On a fait partir deux paquebots avec les memes depeehes 1 'un pour
la Hollande et 1 'autre pour Hambourg, et on a envoye en m6me terns
des depSches aux Cours de Lisbonne, de Madrid et de Turin.
L'importance de cette Communication me fait courir tous les
risques pour vous la faire parvenir, faites en 1 'usage que vous croires
Ie plus convenable en evitant de me compromettre. Je desire beau
coup qu'on use de clemence envers le Roi, quand la Justice et
l'humanite ne l'exigeroit pas, la politique la plus saine devroit y
determiner, et la Convention doit se prononcer, et ne pas craindre les
Maratistes et leurs semblables. Je suis persuade quelle sera soutenue
par les departements — il seroit grand (temps?) de lui bannir et de
Ie faire transporter en Angleterre, en gardant son fils pour 6tage,
qu 'auroit on a craindre, il est nul par luimeme, et n 'aura jamais la confi-
ance des Emigrants et de ceux qui les soutiennent. Apres cette mesure
qui auroit 1 'effet le plus grand sur cette nation il en est une autre sur
laquelle je ne hesiterois pas, et qui seroit de se rendre maitre de la

APPENDIX 441
Hollande. Comme je pense qu'il ne seroit pas difficile, en fesant [sic]
naitre de ces occasions qui ne manquent jamais, et en etant prepare^
a profiter des premieres hostilites pour s'avancer. Cette mesure est
hardie, mais elle est necessaire, et si on ne s'y decide pas, je crains
bien qu'on ne s'en repente quelque jour, la saison pourra meme
favoriser un pareil dessein, car on doit s 'attendre a, de fortes gelees
cette annee, qui est la cinquieme depuis que nous n'en avons pas eu
de considerables. U y va du salut de 1 'Empire, du bonheur du monde,
et dans de grands dangers, il faut de grandes mesures. S 'il est quelque
chose en quoi je puisse etre utile, comptes toujours sur moi. Bien
des choses a notre ami commun, j 'enverrai le manteau et la chaine de
montre dans deux ou trois jours. Montres [sic] lui cette lettre, il vous
en dira son avis. Tout a vous. G. Martin.
31 Decembre.
Noel part aujourd'hui pour la Haye. U faut trouver quelqu 'autre
moyen de me faire parvenir surement vos lettres, ce qui me paroit
difficile, mais vous pourries [sic] les adresser a quelqu 'un pour moi et
me le faire scavoir par la poste a qui.

442 APPENDIX

APPENDIX B
LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETE DES AMIS
DES NOIRS
The following list of members of the Societi des Amis des Noirs is
found at the Archives Nationales, AD. xviii, C 115, at Paris. The
paper has neither date nor signature, but from the epithet applied to
Lameth1 it must have been as late as 1790, and from the epithets
applied to Mirabeau and Robespierre, the author was probably an
anti-revolutionist. Tableau des Membres de la Sociiti des Amis des Noirs
1. Brissot de Warville,
rue d'Amboise, no. 10.
2. E. Claviere, administrates- de la Compagnie royale d 'Assurance
sur la vie,
rue d'Amboise, no. 10.
3. Le Marquis de Beaupoil Saint-Aulaire au Temple.
4. Brack, Directeur general des Traites,
rue de Grammont, no. 2.
5. A. S. Cerisier,
en Bourbonais.
6. Duchesnay, Censeur royal,
rue des Bernardins, no. 37.
7. Le Marquis de Valady, c'est lui qui a fait revolter le regiment
des gardes francoises, a Londres.
8. Dufossey de Breban, Directeur de la Regie generate
rue de Grammont, no. 19.
9. De Bourge,
rue des Filles du Calvaire, no. 16.
10. Madame la Marquise de Baussans,
Place Royale.
11. J. J. Claviere, Negociant (rue Coq-heron) au Parlement d'An
gleterre.
12. Roman, Negociant rue Coq-heron au Parlement d'Angleterre.
13. De Montcloux, fils, Fermier G6neral,
rue S. Honore1, no. 341.
1 Supplement aux proces-verbal Colonies, tome i, Traite1 des negres, parti n.

APPENDIX 443
14. De Montcloux de la Villeneuve, Conseiller a la Cour des Aides,
rue S. Honor6, no. 341.
15. Madame Poivre,
rue Feydeau, no. 22.
16. De Trudaine, Conseiller au Parlement,
rue des Francs Bourgeois, no. 39.
17. De Trudaine de la Sabliere, Conseiller au Parlement,
rue des Francs Bourgeois, no. 39.
18. Malartic de Fonda, Maitre de Requetes,
passage des Petits-Peres, no. 7.
19. Le Roi de Petitval, Regisseur general,
passage des Petits-Peres, no. 7.
20. L'Abbe Colin,
au Presbytere de S. Eustache.
21. Du Rovray,
en Irlande.
22. Short, Secretaire de I'Ambassade des Etats-Unis d'Amerique,
pres la grille de Chaillot.
23. De Pilles, ancien Procureur des Comptes,
rue de Grammont, no. 19.
24. Le Marquis de Condorcet, Secretaire perpetuel de 1' Academie
des Sciences. Membre de l'Academie Frangoise,
hotel de la Monnoie.
25. Charton de la Terriere,
en Amerique.
26. Kornman, rue Cargme.
27. Blot, Controleur de la marque d'or,
a Lyon.
28. Esmangard, fils, Conseiller au Parlement,
rue des Capucins, no. 22.
29. Dieres, Conseiller a la Cour des Aides,
rue Jacob.
30. Des Faucherets,
rue de Paradis.
81. Gramagnac, Docteur en Medicine,
hdtel de Lussan, rue Croix des Petits-Champs.
32. Lanthenas, Docteur en Medicine,
rue Thevenot, no. 31.
33. Du Vaucel, Fermier General,
rue neuve des Mathurins, no. 1.
34. Gallois, Avocat au Parlement,
rue des Petits Augustins, no. 24.

444 APPENDIX
35. Le Marquis de Mons,
rue neuve des Petits-Champs, no. 26.
36. L'Abbe Guyot, Prevot de S. Martin de Tours,
rue Traversiere, no. 35.
37. Pigot, a Geneve.
38. Le Baron de Dietrick,
rue Poissoniere.
39. Lavoisier, Fermier General,
a 1 'Arsenal.
40. Bergerot, Directeur des Fermes,
hotel des Fermes.
41. Biderman, Negociant,
a Bruxelles.
42. De Pastoret, Maftre des Requites,
rue des Capucines, no. 74.
43. Cottin, fils, Banquier,
Chausse d 'Antin, no. 8.
44. D 'Audignac, Directeur de la Regie generale,
rue de Choiseul.
45. Le Comte de la Cepede,
au Jardin du Roi.
46. Munier de Montengis,
a 1 'h6tel Royal des Invalides.
47. Madame Claviere,
rue d'Amboise, no. 10.
48. Le Chevalier de Boufflers,
hdtel de Rohan, rue de Varenne.
49. Gougenot, Receveur general de la Regie generale,
rue de Choiseul.
50. Petry, Directeur des Fermes,
h6tel de Longueville, rue S. Nicaise.
51. De Saint-Alphonse, Fermier General,
rue S. Honore no. 423.
52. Fortin, rue de Choiseul.
53. Henry, Avocat au Parlement,
rue Saint-Jean-de-Beauvais.
54. Le Prince Emmanuel de Salm,
rue de Grenelle, faubourg S. Germain, no. 231.
55. Duport, Conseiller au Parlement,
rue du Grand-Chantier, h6tel du Port-frais, no. 2.
56. Segretier.

APPENDIX 445
57. Soufflot, Inspecteur des Batimens de Sainte-Genevieve,
a Sainte-Genevieve.
58. Agasse de Cresne,
rue Pavee Saint-Andre-des-Arts, no. 12.
59. Servat, Agent de la ville de Bourdeaux,
boulevart Montmorency, vis-a-vis le Pavilion.
60. Crohare, rue de la comedie francoise, au coin de la rue des Cordeliers.
61. Le Comte de Valence,
rue Chausee d 'Antin, no. 170.
61.1 Hocquart de Tremilly, Avocat General de la Cour des Aides,
rue neuve des Petits-Champs, no. 71.
62. Le Comte Charles de Lameth, dit le General des Annonciades,2
et de la mflice bourgeoise de Pointoise,
cul-de-sac-Notre-Dame-des-Champs.
63. Le Chevalier Alexandre de Lameth,
meme demeure.
64. Le Chevalier Theodore de Lameth,
meme demeure.
65. Le Marquis du Chatelet,
hotel de Brissac, quai des Theatins.
66. Le Comte de Rochechouart,
rue de Grenelle, faubourg S. Germain, no. 99.
67. Molliens, premier Commis des Finances,
rue de la Michaudiere.
68. Bergon, premier Commis des Finances,
rue de la Michaudiere.
69. De Sannois, Fermier General,
h6tel des Fermes.
70. Le Vicomte de Ricey,
rue de  .
71. Benoit de Lamothe, Sous-chef de la comptabilite de la Regie
generale, rue neuve Saint-Eustache, no. 21.
72. Leroy de Camilly, Payeur des Rentes,
rue S. Marc, no. 23.
1 The mistake here is in the original numbering. There are two 61's.
2 Lameth, as member of the Comiti des Recherches to which he was elected
in 1720, was obliged to make a visit by night to the convent of the Annonciades
to arrest M. de Barentin, an accused minister who had taken refuge there.
This visit was made the subject of ridicule by the royalists and furnished the
occasion for a comic poem beginning, —
" Je chante ce biros de milice bourgemse,
Orateur d Paris, giniral d Pontoise."

446 APPENDIX
73. Dupleix de Mezy, Conseiller au Parlement,
rue des petites Ecuries du Roi.
74. Vallou de Villeneuve, Sous-chef de la Regie g6nerale,
rue S. Joseph.
75. Le Marquis de la Feuillade,
rue des Marais.
76. De Moulan, Receveur general des Finances,
rue de Clichy.
77. Le Marquis de S. Lambert.
78. De Vayne.
79. De l'Etang.
80. Savalette de Lange.
81. Le Marquis de Pampelune.
82. Desissarts.
83. L'Abbe Sieyes, le Depute.
84. L'Abbe Lageare.
85. Doizan, fils du Fermier general.
86. De Boullongne.
87. Le Sage.
88. Le Roy.
89. L'Abbe Coulon.
90. Gougenot de Croissy.
91. De Missy.
92. Bertrand des Brus.
93. Lescallier.
94. Marquise de Condorcet.
95. My-lord Daer.
96. L'Abb6 Noel.
97. Le Baron de Buest.
98. Messent.
99. L'Abbe Louis.
Associis Etrangers
1. L'Abbe Piatoli,
boulevard de Richelieu, chez Madame la Princesse Lubor-
miska.
2. Clarkson, negociant,
a Dublin.
3. Siodier, negociant,
a Geneve.
4. Dumont, a, Londres.
5. Mazzey.

APPENDIX 447
AssodSs correspondans regnicoles.
1. De Souligne, Directeur des Fermes,
a Lyon.
2. De Suilly, Gentilhomme,
a, Orleans.
3. Petion de Ville neuve, Avocat,
a Chartes.
4. D'Autroche (Cher),
a Orleans.
5. Le Marquis de Gronchy,
a Meulan.
6. M. le Duc d'Aiguillon.
7. M. le Comte de Mirabeau, dit le Flambeau de la Provence,
comme Robespierre la Chandelle d 'Arras.1
8. M. Cottin, Depute de Nantes.
1 According to the Dictionnaire Larousse the nickname Chandelle d' Arras
was applied to Robespierre by the Actes des Apdtres, a royalist journal which
ridiculed him as a provincial lawyer lost among distinguished orators. The
Flambeau de la Province probably came from the same source.

448 APPENDIX

r APPENDIX C
ACCUSATION AGAINST BRISSOT IN CONNECTION
WITH THE COLONIES
(Archives Nationales. AA 54, 1509. 2, no. 46.)
Notices sur Brissot
Brissot a ete 1 'agent de l'engleterre [sic] pour ruiner les Colonies
Frangaises. Brissot connoissoit le genie des hommes de couleur et 1 'esprit public
des colonies, il [sic] sgavoit que pour agiter les Colonies, il suffisoit de
metre [sic] en mouvement les passions de ces deux classes d 'hommes
quel'encien [sic] regime avoit places a de grandes distances. C'est
pour cela que le 15 fevrier 1790. No. CXCI il applaudit a Joly de
Fleury qui demanda a la Commune de Paris qu'elle sollicitoit aupres
de l'assemblee Constituante L 'admission des hommes de Couleur
dans son sein. Brissot appuya cette petition a la Commune dont il
etoit membre.
Brissot dit dans son No. 233, 29, Mars., 1790, que ne pas admetre
les deputes des hommes de couleur au sein de l'assemblee Constitu
ante: C'est preparer la ruine de la Colonic
Dans son No. 594, 25 Mars 1791. Brissot dit que l'assemblee na
tionale ne doit pas balancer de prefferer [sic] aux blancs les hommes
de Couleur dont les vertus fairont [sic] un jour la regeneration et la
prosperity des Colonies.
Dans son No. 664, 3, Juin 1791, il se pleint [sic] de ce que le Comite
Colonial n'a pas provoque de l'assemblee nationale le decret d 'ad
mission des deputes des hommes de couleur.
Dans son No. 816, Novembre 4, 1791, sachant que les Commercans
du Havre preparaient des secours pour S[ain]t Domingue; il les
accuse de n 'y porter des secours que pour aider les blancs a opprimer
les hommes de couleur.
Dans son No. 820. Novembre 8, 1791, il dit que les details donnes
sur l'assemblee Coloniale de S[ain]t Domingue de la revolte des es-
claves ne sont que mensonge. il dit que cette revolte n'est qu'un
pretexte pour appeller les Anglois au Cap.
Dans son No. 834, 22, Novembre 1791, il dit que les desordres de
Saint Domingue sont une manoeuvre de cette Colonie pour se rendre
independante. II les attribue encore a la cruaute des blancs envers
leurs esclaves.

APPENDIX 449
Dans son No. 850. 8. Decembre 1791 — il dit que les blancs ont
revolte leurs negres pour se rendre independante et ne pas payer leurs
dettes. Dans son No. 208 — Mars 4, 1791 — il accuse l'assemblee provin
cial du Nord de S[ain]t Domingue de vouloir se rendre independante.
Dans son No. 557, 16 — Fevrier 1791 — il dit si les colons enten-
dent bien leurs interests ils se soumetront quoique certainement on
ait comis une injustice a n 'entendre pas leurs representans: mais s 'ils
sont bons frangais, ils oublieront cette injustice.
Dans son No. 935 — Mars. 2, — 1791, il dit que les mulatres n'ont
lasse les municipalites que parcequ 'elles etoient le repaire de l'aris-
tocratie. Dans son No. 955, Mars 22, 1792, il attenne le tableau des des-
ordres de St. Domingue, il en accuse 1 'orgueil des blancs, leur obstina-
tion a ne pas accorder 1 'activite politique aux hommes de couleur, il
en accuse enfin l'assemblee Coloniale.
Dans son No. 961, 28. Mars 1792, il dit que la Province du Nord
de S[ain]t Domingue est perdue par 1'obstination de l'assemblee
Coloniale a restituer aux hommes de couleur 1 'activite politique.
Dans son No. 967, 1 Avril 1792, il dit on remplit les papiers publics
de funestes nouvelles sur la situation de S[ain]t Dominque. Nous ne
devons cesser de metre [sic] le public en garde contre les mensonges
dont la france est imbue. On scait que nos princes les Colons ont
toujours dans leur poche quelques lettres de commende, [sic] juste-
ment arrivant du Cap et bonnes on meauvais [sic] suivant le besoin.
Dans son No. 979, 15 Avril 1792, il dit que le decret du 15 May
n'est pas la cause des malheurs de S[ain]t Domingue mais bien
Porgueil des blancs.
Dans son No. 1022, 26 May, 1792, il fait l'apologie de Blanchelande
et autres chefs des Conspirateurs et une diatribe attroce [sic] contre
l'ass[emblee] Coloniale.
Dans son No. 1022, 28 Mars 1792, il applaudit a une lettre de
S[ain]t Domingue qui annonce la coalition de 15000 hommes tant
blancs que mulatres qui marchent contre le Ville du Port au Prince,
il applaudit encor [sic] a l'incendie de 1 'habitation du patriote
borel. [sic]
Dans son No. 1075, 20, Juillet, 1792 — il rapporte une lettre qu'il
dit venir de S[ain]t Domingue qui fait 1 'apologie de Blanchelande et
autres contre revolutionaires pendant qu'elle distille le venim sur les
patriotes. Dans son No. 1096, 10. Aout, 1792, il fait 1 'eloge de la loi du 4
Avril 1792 — qui suivant lui pouroit seule rammener [sic] I'ordre a
S[ain]t Domingue.

450 APPENDIX
Dans son No. 1112 — 26, Aout 1792, il fait 1 'eloge de Blanchelande
et des autres chefs de la contre revolution.
Dans son No. 1187, 9, Novembre 1792, il fait l'apologie de Blanche
lande. Dans son No. 1273, 5 Fevrier 1790, il accuse les petits blancs d 'avoir
egorge et pille les maisons du Cap.
Dans son No. 233, 29, May 1790, il insere son discours sur la
necessite d 'etablir a Paris une societe pour 1'abolition de la Traite.
Dans son No. 327, Juillet, 10, 1790, il pretent [sic] qu'on peut ecrire
sur les negres sans aucun danger parce-qu 'il[s] ne savent n 'ont [sic]
pas le terns de lire.
Dans son No. 1026, 1" Juin 1792, il dit que les malheurs de S[ain]t
Domingue f rappent 1 'Angleterre bien plus que la france.
Dans son No. 1263, 26, Janvier 1793, il dit que les Colons blancs se
reff ugient dans la nouvelle engleterre [sic] dont ils ne peuvent manquer
de corrompre les moeurs en y emmenant leurs fantaisies et leurs
esclaves. Dans son No. 1263, 26, Janvier 1793, il nie que l'assemblee Co
loniale ait le droit que lui ont attribue l'assemblee Constituante et
celle [sic] legislative celui de prononcer sur le sort des esclaves.
Dans son No. 1270, fevrier 2, 1793, il insere un pamphlet qu'il dit
6tre de Villete. Ce pamphlet adresse k la Convention] Nationale dit
donnes a vos n&gres la liberte: vous couvrires [sic] la terre de com-
batans, qui sgauront la deffendre [sic] il ne vous en coutera qu'un
decret. Le 27. Octobre 1792, Brissot dit que — Talien a tort de proposer
1 'envoy de secours a S[ain]t Domingue il dit que Talien ignore que
les Espagnols n'ont dans cette contree que 3000. hommes pendant
que la patrie frangaise est deffendue par dix mille hommes de troupes
reglees et vingt mille mulatres.
Dans son No. 1004, 10. May — 1792, il dit qu'il n'existe aucune
faction republicaine; que c'est un phantome [sic] que les moderes ont
cree pour aigrir les patriotes. [The following sentence is illegible.]
Dans son No. 1209, 27. Novembre 1792, il dit que la Convention
doit sevir contre la rebellion de 1 'ass[emblee] Colo[niale] qui a en
voys en france trois Commiss[aires] pour presenter a la sanction un
decret sur 1 'esclavage.
Affaire de sa lettre a la Constitua[nte]
1 'affaire de Geng*. D.

APPENDIX

451

APPENDIX D
BRISSOT'S ELECTION TO THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY
The following table explains Brissot's struggle for election as a
deputy from the department of the Seine to the Legislative Assembly.
It shows his successive defeats, the names of those who defeated him,
and his final victory. It will be noted that the election had to be by
the absolute majority of the electors. For the details of the struggle
see Chavaray, AssembUe Electorate de Paris, 1791-92, pp. 137-227.

Deputy.

Date.

Ballot.

Total.

Brissot.

Candidate Chosen.

First

1 Sept.

First

802

10

1

tt

Second

821

2

Garran de Coulon

Second

2

tt

First

687

130

Lacepede

Third

3

tt

First

739

163

3
tt
Second
814
179
Pastoret
Fourth
4
tt
First
709
153
4
tt
Second
725
138
Cerutti
Fifth
5
tt
First
698
100
5
tt
Second
799
82
Beauvais de Preau
Sixth
5
t<
First
733
112
6
tt
Second
609
32
Bigot de Preameneu
Seventh
6
tt
First
756
33
6
tt
Second
773
18
6
tt
Third
694
0
¦Gouvion
Eighth
7
tt
First
722
15
7
tt
Second
759
9
Broussonet
Ninth
7
tt
First
663
142
9
tt
Second
662
198
9
tt
Third
752
805
Crette de Palud
Tenth
9
tt
First
719
180
9
tt
Second
644
168
10
tt
Third
769
263
Gorguereau
Eleventh
10
tt
First
697
96
*
12
tt
*Second
652
137
13
tt
Second
653
256
13
tt
Third
757
352
Thorillon
Twelfth
13
tt
First
725
254
14
tt
Second
692
302
14
tt
Third
641
409
Brissot
' Annulled.
452 APPENDIX

APPENDIX E
LETTER RELATING TO CONNECTION OF BRISSOT
WITH WAR WITH ENGLAND
(Affaires Etrangeres. Le 19. Septembre l'an ler. de 1'egalitS. Angleterre— 582.
f°. 182. Original. Paris.)
lire division. Jullienfils au Ministre des Affaires Etranghres
Paris — ce 19. 7bK l'an 1CT de 1 'egalite.
Monsieur, Je regois dans ce moment une lettre d'Angleterre qui me prouve
que la mesure que je vous ai proposee et qu'ont appuyee M[essieu]rs
Brissot et Condorcet est plus que jamais urgente et necessaire. On
intercepte presque tous les paquets venant de france, c'est a dire
qu'on veut epaissir le bandeau jette sur les yeux du peuple Anglais et
le conduire ensuite plus aizement a cette guerre qu'il ne pourroit
jamais consentir s'il etait eclaire. Sur Pinvitation de M[onsieur]
Brissot et d 'un de mes amis Mfonsieur] Eury a qui vous aviez paru
temoigner le desir de me voir pour que j 'achevasse de vous donner
les renseignements que j 'avois pu prendre, je me suis presents plusieurs
fois chez vous, — sans jamais pouvoir vous parler, les occupations
multipliees de votre place me font assez sentir 1 'impossibilitS ou vous
etes de recevoir tous ceux qui s 'adressent a vous. Cependant le motif
qui m'a conduit me parait ainsi qu'a tous ceux a qui je l'ai com
munique d'une grande importance. Quel a ete mon Stonnement d 'en
tendre dire a l'un de vos secretaires a qui vous comptiez differer
jusqu 'apres les premieres operations de la convention nationale la
mesure proposee. Ce seroit perdre absolument l'effet qu'on peut en
attendre. Je suis, Monsieur, dans le langage de la libertS et de
1 'egalite qui ne sauroit etre Stranger au ministre de Citoyens Sgaux
et libres. Votre Concitoyen, frere et ami, JtrLLIEN^*.
Et au Verso: Au Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, a Paris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. MANUSCRIPT MATERIAL
The papers of Brissot, after the death of Madame Brissot, re
mained in the hands of their son Anacharsis. After some years he
confided them to the publisher Ladvocat, who, in turn, passed them
on to M. Montrol, who used them as the basis for his publication of
the memoirs of Brissot. The "portfolio," as this collection of papers
is called, must certainly have contained correspondence and other
material not utilized in the memoirs, but what has become of these
manuscripts is a matter of uncertainty. It seems that they were in
1865 in the possession of the son of M. Montrol, who was unwilling
to relinquish them.
Apart from this portfolio Anacharsis probably kept a portion of the
correspondence for himself. At all events, his widow appears to have
given some of the letters to M. Faugere, copies of which are to be
found among the Roland papers at the Bibliotheque Nationale, at
Paris; the widow of Brissot's grandson also possesses a part of the
family correspondence, and there exist numerous other letters in
different places. All of this scattered correspondence, which includes
letters written by various members of his own and his wife's family,
together with a number of documents pertaining to the arrest and trial
of Brissot, has been collected and published by M. Perroud in his recent
edition of the Correspondance et Papiers de Brissot, but the "portfolio "
is still undiscovered. The Brissot manuscripts, then, are for the most
part either included in the Correspondance or are not accessible.
There is one exception, however. Since the publication of the
Correspondance there has been discovered among the Craigie Papers
in the collection of the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester,
Massachusetts, and among the Scioto Papers in the collection of the
New York Historical Society, a considerable collection of letters to
and from Brissot and concerning him, dealing chiefly with his relations
with American speculators. Possibly these letters may have some
connection with the sixty-five letters to Brissot by Americans an
nounced in the Charavay Catalogue of 1858. A list of the letters in
this recently discovered material and a list of other manuscript
sources not contained in M. Perroud's collection are given below.1
1 See the Etude critique by M. Perroud, prefixed to his edition of Brissot's
memoirs, xiv; also the Correspondance, avertissement, 450-57.

456 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Archives Nationales (Paris)
1. In carton " Tribunaux rivolutionnaires —
affaire des Girondins." (W 292, dossier 204)
Lettre des commissaires et des colons de Saint Domingue au ComitS
de suretS generale, 26 septembre, 1793. Original signe. A. N., W 292,
no. 204 (2e partie), piece 68; Tuetey, vm, 3335.
A denunciation of Brissot as responsible for the troubles in Santo Do
mingo and also of Milcent, one of his alleged agents.
Lettre de citoyen Ruelle, ci-devant chargS des affaires de France
aux Pays-Bas, au Comite de silrete genSrale, 24 juillet, 1793. Original
signS, A. N., W 292, no. 204 (2e partie), piece 74; Tuetey, vm, 3210.
An accusation that Brissot had removed an important document from
the papers of the Diplomatic Committee, namely, a complamt agamst the
ex-minister Lebrun.
Lettre du citoyen Ruelle, ancien chargS des affaires de France, aux
Pays-Bas, a I'accusateur public pres le Tribunal revolutionnaire, 8
octobre, 1793. Original signe, A. N., W 292, no. 204 (2e partie), piece
73; Tuetey, vm, 3360.
A renewed statement of the same accusation.
Lettre du sieur Tresset, fils, rue de CISry, hotel de France, a I'ac
cusateur public du Tribunal revolutionnaire, 7 brumaire, an n (28
octobre, 1793). Original signS, A. N., W 292, no. 204 (3e partie),
piece 6; Tuetey, vm, 3415.
Calls attention to the desirability of summoning Morande as a wit
ness against Brissot, especially in regard to his relations with the British
government.
DSclaration faite par devant Frangois Joseph Denizot, juge au Tri
bunal revolutionnaire par Pierre Frangois Page, 28e jour du ler mois
de l'an TL (19 octobre, 1793). Original signe, A. N., W 292, no. 204
( 5e partie), piece 6; Tuetey, vm, 3383.
An accusation that Brissot was acting as the agent of England in his
colonial policy.
Avis de M. Collombel, dSputS de la Meurthe, au ComitS de Salut
public, 7 brumaire, an II (28 octobre, 1793). Original signS, A. N., W
292, no. 204 (3e partie), piece 10; Tuetey, vm, 3413.
A charge that Brissot was guilty of complicity with Dumouriez.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 457
Lettre de Varlet, electeur de la section de Droits, apotre de la
liberte, au citoyen Fouquier Tinville, accusateur public du Tribunal
revolutionnaire, 8 brumaire, an II (29 octobre, 1793). Original signS,
A. N., W 292, no. 204 (3e partie), piece 5; Tuetey, vm, 3419.
A request to be called as a witness in the trial of Brissot.
2. Other Material at the Archives Nationales
Lettre de M. Brissot de Warville a M. Buisson en date du 10 avril,
1789. Copie, A. N., V,1 551.
An explanation by Brissot of his use of Buisson's name as a person to
whom he might send subscriptions for the Patriote Frangais.
Lettre de M. Maissemy k M. Buisson, 13 avril, 1789. Copie. A.N.,
V1, 551. Commends Buisson for having disclaimed responsibility for the dis
tribution of the prospectus of Brissot's journal.
Lettre de M. de Maissemy, heutenant general de la libraire, pro-
posant l'interdiction de la feuille periodique, intitulee le Patriote
Frangais, ou journal libre, impartial, et national, par une sociStS des
citoyens qu'annonce sans permission aucune Brissot de Warville,
arrive au dernier degrS de l'audace enhardie par impunite; avec lettre
circulaire aux inspecteurs de la presse des provinces. Tuetey, i, 2862.
Annulation de la societe projetee entre M. Brissot de Warville et
le libraire, Buisson, pour la publication du Patriote Frangais, 17 sep
tembre, 12 novembre, 1789. Minutes, A. N., V1, 553; Tuetey, n, 2902.
Lettres de fSlicitation des SociStSs des Amis de la Constitution de
l'Yonne et de Saint-Denis et de plusieurs Slecteurs du district de Lyon
pour la choix de Brissot, 19, 20, 28 septembre, 1791. Originaux signes,
A. N., B,1 11; Tuetey, I, 3033.
The occasion was his election to the Legislative Assembly.
ComitS diplomatique (assemblSe ISgislative), Proces-verbaux, rap
ports, adresses, avis, etc. A. N., F7, 4395.
Brief summary.
Rapport de police au sujet des menSes de la cabale des Narbonne,
Brissot et Fauchet, des conciliabules chez M. de Sillery, et de la dis
cussion orageuse chez le maire de Paris entre Robespierre, Brissot,
Legendre, Guadet et Claviere. 3 avril, 1792. Original, A. N.,F7, 4386.
"D 'apres Bertrand de Moleville, Histoire de la Rivolution de France,
vm, 229. Brissot, 1 'abbe Fauchet, Isnard, Vergniaud, et Guadet figurent
parmi les deputes dont on avait voulu, en novembre 1791, acheter la
voix et 1 'influence moyennant un subside mensuel de 6,000 livres pour
chacun d'eux." Tuetey, Ripertoire, iv, 163.

458 BIBLIOGRAPHY
DSclaration du sieur Joseph Petit, practicien, regue par Ie sieur Jean
Pierre Civet, commissaire de police de la section du Faubourg-St.-
Denis, portant . . . qu'il a StS dSnoncS par les sieurs Goulet et Beu-
zelin, paySs comme lui, pour cabaler contre Brissot le jour ou celui-ci
devait parler sur Ie ComitS autrichien, 5 juin, 1792. Copie conforme,
A. N., C 218, no. 160, 118; Tuetey, iv, 439.
Proces-verbal des sSances de 1'assemblSe electorate du dSparte-
ment d'Eure-et-Loir a Dreux, 2-9 septembre, 1792. A. N.,C 178.
Proces-verbal de 1'assemblSe electorale du dSpartement du Loiret
a Beaugency, a partir du 2 septembre, 1792. A. N., C 179.
Proces-verbal de 1'assemblSe electorale du dSpartement de l'Eure
a Bernay a partir du 6 septembre, 1792. A. N., C 178.
This and the two preceding titles deal with Brissot's election to the
Convention.
Proposition faite par 1'un des membres du ComitS rSvolutionnaire
des 48 sections sSant a. la Commune sur les objets suivant . . . que
Ton arrSte le nomme Raimond, mulatre confident de Brissot et de
PStion qui doit avoir la correspondance secrete de Brissot, relative aux
colonies et avec I'Angleterre, ainsi que celle de PStion, rien n'empS-
chant d'ailleurs de s'emparer des papiers de ces deux faux manda-
taires chex eux, si on les y trouve, 31 mai, 1793. Minute non-signe,
A. N., BB3 80; Tuetey, vm, 2683.
Extrait des rapports et dSclara tions regus au Bureau de surveillance
de la Police, signalant les faits suivants: . . . Ie bruit s'Stait rSpandu
e'n mSme temps que, le 30 mars, Brissot s'Stait prSsente aux barriSres
et qu'on l'avait empeche de sortir, mais que le Maire avait donnS des
ordres pour que ce dSpute eut le passage libre, ce qui mScontente le
public. 31 mars, ler avril, 1793. Extrait et original signe (2 pieces),
A. N., AFIT, 1470; Tuetey, ix, 497.
Extrait des rapports et dSclarations regus au Bureau de surveillance
de la Police, signalent les faits suivants : ... II existe, dit-on, les lettres,
Scrites par Dumouriez a Brissot, recommandant de tacher d'envoyer,
en qualitS de commissaires dans la Belgique, Robespierre et Marat
parceque c'est le seul moyen de s'en dSfaire. 6 avril, 1793. Extrait et
original signS (2 pieces). A. N., AFIT, 1470.
Extrait des rapports et dSclarations regus au Bureau de surveillance
de la Police, signalant les faits suivants: . . . D'apres certains rap
ports Brissot aurait envoyS des millions a Philadelphie, cette asser
tion se trouve confirmSe par trois tSmoins qui, le 30 avril, ont dSposS
contre Brissot et Guadet au Tribunel rSvolutionnaire. ler mai, 1793.
Copie, A. N., AFIT, 1470; Tuetey, ix, 545.
DSclaration du sieur Gillet, secretaire du ComitS rSvolutionnaire
de la section de I'UnitS, signalant l'hotel de Patriote Hollandais, rue

BIBLIOGRAPHY 459
des Moulins comme logeant nombre de dSputSs, entre autres, PStion,
Brissot, Guadet, qui ont quittS leur domicile habituel et sont venus y
chercher un refuge. Sans date (2 juin, 1793). Original signS, A. N
BB3, 80 (dos. 3); Tuetey, vm, 2834.
DSnonciation contre le nomme BouquSt, frere de Guadet, que Ro
land a nommS rSgisseur du chateau de Saint Cloud, chez lequel reunis-
saient 3 fois par semaine Brissot, Vergniaud, GensonnS, PStion,
Buzot, etc., et contre la femme de Brissot qui a logS assez longtemps
dans le chateau qui demeure rue des Ursulines, a Saint Cloud, et chez
laquelle doivent trouver des papiers importants, 3 juin, 1793. Origi
nal signS, A. N., BB3, 72; Tuetey, vm, 3027.
Lettre Scrite a Brissot par son frere datSe du 5 aout, 1793. A. N.,
F7, 4443, no. 18.
Contains a message from Genet.
Arrets du ComitS de sure S gSnSrale, applaudissant aux mesures
de surSte prises par le comite de surveillance et de salut public, a
l'egard de la femme de Jacques Pierre Brissot, 9 aout, 1793. Extrait
du registre des arretSs gSnSraux du ComitS de sdretS gSnSrale. A. N.,
AF", *286; Tuetey, vm, 3265.
Provides for bringing Madame Brissot before the Committee of General
Security.
ArretS du ComitS de suretS gSnSrale, dScidant que la citoyenne
Dupont, femme de Jacques Pierre Brissot, restera en Stat d'arresta-
tion a l'hotel de Necker, rue de Richelieu, 9 aout, 1793. Extrait du
registre des arrStSs generaux du ComitS de suretS genSrale. A. N.,
AF", *286; Tuetey, vm, 3266.
Notices sur Brissot, A. N., AA54, 1509.
Found among the papers pertaining to the Colonial Committee; with
out date or signature. It consists of a long series of accusations against
Brissot — in almost every case followed by a citation from the Patriote
Frangais — denouncing him as responsible for the troubles in the colonies.
See appendix C.
A ajouter a 1'affaire Brissot. A. N., F7, 4443, no. 18.
Unsigned and undated. It consists of a number of charges, including
complicity with Lafayette, opposition to the insurrection of August 10
and support of the civil war in the colonies.
Petition de la SociStS des Amis de la LibertS et de 1'Egalite de Ver
sailles a la Convention nationale, rSclamant le prompt jugement de
Brissot, et de ses infames complices, retards par on ne sait quelle
politique timide ou lenteur funeste, le peuple entier demandant par
leurs voix le chatiment de ce traitre 7 septembre, 1793. Originaux

460 BIBLIOGRAPHY
signSs de MM. Charbonnier, president et Bocquet secretaire (2
pieces). A. N., F7, 4443; Tuetey; vm, 3311.
Rapport de l'observateur La Tour-La-Montagne, annoncant que
. . . Un ouvrage nouveau de Brissot est sous presse et va paraitre au
premier jour; c'est, dit-on le testament politique de cet homme dan
gereux; le libraire Marat, au Palais Royal, cour des Fontaines, s'est
chargS de l'impression et de la distribution de cet ouvrage, dont on
attend sans doute un grand effet. 13 septembre, 1793. Original signS,
A. N., F7, 36883; Tuetey, ix, 1296.
Rapports de l'observateur La Tour-La-Montagne, signalant les
faits suivants: La citoyenne Brissot avec son fils se promene dans
Paris, accompagnSe d'un gendarme, s'arrete fort souvent, parle a beau
coup de monde, et le gendarme reste a distance. Des femmes, ont dit,
en murmurant: 'en ferait-on autant pour une pauvre marchande.'
27 septembre, 1793. Originaux (2 pieces), A. N., F7, 36883; Tuetey,
ix, 1433.
Lettre de M. Fouquier-Tinville, accusateur public du Tribunal
rSvolutionnaire, au president de la Convention nationale, annoncant
1'Scrou a la Conciergerie des dSputes Brissot, etc. 7 octobre, 1793.
Original signS, A. N., C 273, no. 692; Tuetey, vm, 1729.
ArrStS du ComitS de suretS gSnSrale, portant que le concierge de la
petite maison de la Force recevra la nominee Dupont, femme Brissot
et son enfant. 22e jour du ler mois de l'an n (13 octobre 1793). Ex
trait du registre des mandats d'amener du ComitS de suretS gSnSrale.
A. N., AFn, *289; Tuetey vm, 3367.
RScompense nationale, 9 florSal, an IV. A.N., Fu, 570.
The record of the pension providing for Brissot's wife and children.
Inventaire de toutes les pieces trouvSes sur la table de Brissot lors-
que le decret qui le met en etat d'arrestation lui a StS signifie a la
maire. A. N., F7, 4443, no. 18.
B. Affaires Etrangeres (Paris)
Lenoir au Comte de Vergennes. Le 4 mai, 1783, Paris. Aff. Stran-
geres, Angleterre, 542, f. 183. Original.
Note faite a la hate. Le 21 avril, 1783, a Londres. Aff. Strangeres,
Angleterre, 542, f. 79. Minute.
Compte rendu a son Excellence Monsieur le comte D'Hadmer . . .
par le Sr. Receveur. Le 22 mai, 1783, a Londres. Aff. etrangeres,
Angleterre, 542 f. 278. Minute.
This and the three preceding titles concern the efforts made to appre
hend the authors of certain libels, with which Brissot was suspected of
having some connection.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 461
Despatch of Chauvelin, minister plenipotentiary of France, to
Lebrun, minister of foreign affairs, London. 29 September, 1792. Aff.
etrangeres. Correspondance politique, vol. 582, p. 255.
A commendation of the note drawn up by Brissot and sent by the
Legislative Assembly to foreign powers shortly after the 10th of August.
Jullien fils, au Ministre des affaires Strangeres. Paris le 19 fevrier,
l'an ler de 1'SgalitS. Aff. Strangeres, Angleterre, 582, f . 182. Original.
A report from a young man whom Brissot had recommended as a suit
able person to help cultivate in England a public opinion favorable to
France.
G. Martin a Monsieur Brissot. 31 dec. 1792. Aff. etrangeres, An
gleterre, 29, supplSment, f. 340. Original. Affaires secretes.
A letter giving secret information as to the supposed intentions of Ger
many, Austria and Russia toward France. Of considerable importance in
connection with Brissot's attitude toward foreign war. The writer was
probably not altogether correctly informed. See note, p. 320.
C. District and Municipal Archives
at Moulins and Gannat
Registre des dSlibSrations prises par Ie conseil gSneral de la com
mune de Moulins. 19 juin, 1 juillet, 1793.
Deliberations du conseil municipal de Gannat, 27 juin, 5 juillet,
1793. Proces-vexbal du conseil gSnSral du district de Gannat, juin 27,
1793. This and the two preceding titles deal with events at Moulins and
Gannat in connection with Brissot's arrest and imprisonment.
D. Manuscript Department of the Library of
Congress at Washington, D.C.
Letter of Brissot to Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 3, 1787. In Jefferson
papers, letters from T. Jefferson, 1st series, vol. 2, 1786-87.
A letter of inquiry on the pubhc funds of the United States. See Ap
pendix A.
Letter of Brissot to Washington. New York, Aug. 10, 1788. In
Washington papers.
A letter written to enclose the letter of introduction to Washington
given by Lafayette to Brissot. At the bottom of the sheet a translation
of Brissot's letter has been made in another hand.

462 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Letter of Washington to Brissot. Mount Vernon, Aug. 28, 1788.
In Washington papers.
An acknowledgment of the above.
Letter of William Short to Brissot. Amsterdam, Nov. 29, 1790.
Letter of WiUiam Short to Brissot. Dec. 26, 1790.
This and the above concern information which Brissot has furnished
Short on the action of the Assembly, with regard to the duty on American
tobacco. Short also speaks of the trade in oil. The two letters, particularly
the latter, are almost illegible.
Letter of William Thornton to Brissot. Philadelphia, Nov. 29,
1788. In the Thornton Papers.
A long account of Thornton's plans for the transportation of American
negroes to a settlement in Africa, at Sierra Leona.
Letter of Brissot to Thornton. Paris, June 17, 1789. In the Thorn
ton Papers. An acknowledgment of the above.
Letter of Claviere, honorary President of the SocieHi des Amis des
Noirs, to Dr. Thornton, June 16, 1789. In the Thornton Papers.
Claviere writes that while the Amis des Noirs approve of Dr. Thorn
ton's scheme in the abstract, they feel that public opinion is not yet ripe
for action. E. American Antiquarian Society, Worcester,
Massachusetts
Daniel Parker to Andrew Craigie, Havre de Grace, June 2, 1788.
Craigie Papers, in, 111.
Introducing Brissot and commending him as likely to be useful in their
plans for speculation.
Andrew Craigie to D. Parker, July 27, 1788. C. P., i, 4.
Announcing the arrival of the Cato with Brissot, and stating his in
tention of interesting him in American speculations.
Andrew Craigie to D. Parker (copy), New York, Oct. 29, 1788.
C. P., i, 22.
This and following all deal with the schemes for speculation in the
American debt and in Western lands.
William Duer to D. Parker, Nov. 5, 1788. C. P., n, 52.
Andrew Craigie to D. Parker (copy), New York, Dec. 3, 1788.
C. P., i, 28.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 463
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont (copy), Feb. 2, 1789. C. P.,
1,25. Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, Feb. 9, 1789.
C. P., n, 1.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Feb. 9, 1789. C. P., n, 2.
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont (copy), Feb. 17, 1789. C. P.,
1,32. Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, Feb. 20, 1789.
C. P., n, 4.
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont, New York, Feb. 26, 1789.
C. P., I, 33.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, March 15, 1789. C. P., n, 5.
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont (copy), New York, May 4,
1789. C. P., I, 34.
C. Gore to Andrew Craigie, Boston, May 5, 1789. C. P., n, 89.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, May 14, 1789.
C. P., n, 7.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, July 15, 1789.
C. P., u, 10.
Thomas Porter to Andrew Craigie, Alexandria, Va., May 5, 1790.
C. P., II, 143.
Andrew Craigie to Joel Barlow (copy), New York, May 24, 1790.
C. P., i, 60.
Andrew Craigie to Joel Barlow (copy), New York, June 16, 1790.
C. P., I, 64.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, June 20, 1790.
C. P., n, 2.
Frangois Dupont to Andrew Craigie, Philadelphia, July 4, 1790.
C. P., n, 9.
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont (copy), New York, July 21,
1790. C. P., i, 71.
Andrew Craigie to Frangois Dupont (copy), New York, Sept. 29,
1790. C. P., i, 89.
F. New York Historical Society: Scioto Papers
1. Letters written by Brissot
Brissot to Wm. Duer, Falmouth, Jan. 15, 1789.
This and the following have to do with the speculation in which he was
engaged with Craigie and Duer.
Brissot to Wm. Duer, Paris, Jan. 31, 1789.
Brissot to Wm. Duer, April 28, 1789.

464 BIBLIOGRAPHY
2. Letters to or concerning Brissot
Frangois Dupont to Brissot, Berlin, July 26, 1783.
Deals with the business affairs of the Dupont family.
Account of Brissot with Andrew Craigie, dated Dec. 3, 1788,
In connection with the speculation.
Frangois Dupont to Brissot, Paris, Sept. 15, 1788.
Announces that he was just on the point of starting for America.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, Nov. 25, 1788.
This letter and the next concern Brissot's departure for France.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1788.
Miers Fisher to Frangois Dupont, (undated).
This letter and the next deal with personal matters and announce the
arrival of a Frenchman recommended by Brissot.
Miers Fisher to Frangois Dupont, Philadelphia, Oct. 21, 1789.
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, New York, Jan. 24, 1789.
This and the following deal with the speculation in the American debt.
David Maitland to Brissot, London, Feb. 10, 1789.
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, June 13, 1789.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, Nov. 12, 1789.
Personal matters.
Joshua Gilpin to Brissot, Philadelphia, April 28, 1790.
This and the next two letters concern paper moulds which Brissot was
to procure for Gilpin in France.
Joshua Gilpin to Brissot, Philadelphia, May 3, 1790.
Joshua Gilpin to Brissot, Philadelphia, Oct. 7, 1790.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, May 1, 1790.
This and the followmg concern a possibility of Brissot's return to
America.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, July, 5, 1790.
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, May 24, 1791.
This and the following deal with the land speculation in which Brissot
was engaged.
Thomas Porter to Brissot, Alexandria, July 12, 1790. .
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, Aug. 31, 1790.
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, New York, Sept. 12, 1790.
Andrew Craigie to Brissot, New York, Oct. 6, 1790.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 465
F. de Bayard to Brissot, Philadelphia, Nov. 2, 1790.
An expression of gratitude for kindness shown him by Miers Fisher, to
whom he had been recommended by Brissot.
Miers Fisher to Brissot, Philadelphia, Nov. 2, 1790.
Introduces Wm. Temple Franklin, a grandson of Benjamin Franklin,
who is to execute a commission for Robert Morris, to sell land in New
York State.
Thomas Porter to Brissot, New York, May 1, 1791.
On financial matters.
Jacob Shoemaker to Brissot, April 22, 1791.
Comments on the French political situation and denounces slavery.
Jacob Shoemaker to Brissot (undated).
Same subject as above.
Jacob Shoemaker to Brissot, Sept. 9, 1791.
On the state of public credit.
Joshua Gilpin to Brissot, Philadelphia, March 15, 1791.
On business connected with the sending of paper moulds.
Jacob Shoemaker to Brissot, Nov. 20, 1791.
Criticizes Brissot's Nouveau Voyage.
Letter to Brissot (unsigned), Bensalem, Nov. 20, 1791.
It begins " Cher Frere et Chere Sceur," and is evidently from Frangois
and Nancy Dupont. On family matters.
Letter to Brissot (unsigned), Philadelphia, Nov. 28, 1791.
It begins in the same manner as the above and is evidently from the
same persons. Informs Brissot of the criticism which his Nouveau Voyage
has aroused in America.
De Nancrede to Brissot, Boston, May 1, 1791.
A note of introduction.
Miers Fisher to Frangois and Annette Dupont, Dec. 11, 1791.
On family matters.
Jacob Shoemaker to Brissot, Philadelphia, May 16, 1792
Hopes that Brissot has not taken offense at the criticism on his book.
Letter to Brissot (unsigned), Sept. 5, 1792.
Expresses desire of seeing him in America.

466 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Miers Fisher to Anne Dupont, Nov. 11, 1793.
Expresses regret that he can render him no assistance on account of the
epidemic.
Letter to Brissot (unsigned), Jan. 20, 1793.
Comments on French political affairs.
Miers Fisher to Anne Dupont, Veuve Aublay, Philadelphia, May
28, 1797. Congratulates her on being at home again.
Letter addressed to Madame Aublay (unsigned and undated).
Apparently from Madame Brissot, urging her to return to France.
Miers Fisher to Anne Dupont, Bensalem, Sept. 18 (year ?) .
Condolences on the death of her brother-in-law.
G. Miscellaneous
Proceedings of the Committee for the abolition of the slave trade.
1787-1819. 3 vols. British Museum, manuscripts, 21254-56.
Contains information as to the relations between Brissot and the Amis
des Noirs with the London society.
Lettre de M. de Comte de Mirabeau a M. le Contlle G"1: Paris, 30
mai, 1785. Concerns the payment of the work on the Banque de St. Charles. The
letter is the property of the late M. Paul Arbaud, of Aix in Provence. For
a copy of it the writer is indebted to Professor F. M. Fling, of the Uni
versity of Nebraska.
Brissot, notes inSdites sur FAmerique.
These notes are in Brissot's own hand, unsigned and undated. They
are the property of M. Charles Vellay of Paris.
Letter of Brissot to the Convention from the Abbaye. July 24, 1793.
Bib. Nat., Fr. nouv. acq., vol. 307.
Asking for a hearing.
Letter of Lord Grenville to M. Ie Comte de Woronzow, Dec. 20,
1792. In correspondence of Lord Grenville. British Museum, ad
ditional Mss. 36814.
Concerning a possible alliance of England with Austria, Prussia, and
Russia against France.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 467
II. PRINTED MATTER
A. Brissot's Own Works
Le Pot-pourri, Strennes aux gens de lettres (par Brissot de Warville
et N. F. Gaillard). London, 1777.
A collection of satires on the bar, the press, the theatre, contemporary
customs, etc.; but directed chiefly against individual men of letters, who
are attacked openly by name.
Testament politique de I'Angleterre. Philadelphia [Amsterdam],
1780. Published anonymously. It purports to be an original production
"found among the papers of the late Lord Littleton," but from the
account of the publication given in Brissot's memoirs (i, 137), it was
evidently his own work. A satire on the policy of England, especially with
regard to her colonies.
Politick Testament van England. Amsterdam. 1781.
A Dutch translation of the preceding.
Lettre de Brissot (ler fevrier, 1780) a M. Doyen sur son Histoire de
la Ville de Chartres.
Extract from the Journal Encyclopidique, April, 1780. Noted by M.
Perroud in his edition of Brissot's memoirs.
Recherches philosophiques sur le droit de propriStS et sur le vol
consideres dans la nature et dans la societe. Chartres, 1780.
Reprinted in vol. vi of the Bibliotheque Philosophique. An argument
that in a state of nature there is no such thing as exclusive property. It
was made the basis of a bitter attack on Brissot in 1792.
Theorie des loix criminelles. 2 vols. Berlin, 1781.
First submitted to the Economic Society of Berne in competition for
a prize on the best means of reforming the penal code, but published
without waiting the result of the competition. Meanwhile it was sub
mitted in modified form for a prize offered by the Academy of Chalons-
sur-Marne. The first volume treats of the means of lessening crime; and
of the reformation of the criminal law with a view to making the punish
ment fit the crime and lessening the severity of the punishment. The
second volume deals with the reform of the procedure in criminal trials.
ThSorie des lois criminelles, . . . nouvelle edition prScSdSe d'une
lettre sur I'ouvrage par le President Dupaty et suivie du Sang inno
cent vengS ou Discours sur les reparations dues aux accusSs innocents.
2 vols. Paris, 1836.
The editor frankly acknowledges making notes and changes.

468 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Les Moyens d'adoucir le rigueur des loix penales en France, sans
nuire a la suretS publique, ou Discours couronnSs par 1'AcadSmie de
Chalons-sur-Mame, en 1780, suivis de celui qui a obtenu 1'accessit
(par J. E. D. Bemardi) et des extraits de quelques autres mSmoires
prSsentSs a la meme Academie. Chalons-sur-Mame, 1781.
A slightly modified form of the first part of the Thiorie des lois crimi
nelles. Another edition with considerable additions was pubhshed in the
Bibliotheque philosophique, vol. vi.
Le Sang innocent vengS, ou Discours sur les reparations dues aux
accusSes innocents. CouronnS par FacadSmie des sciences et belles-
lettres de Chalons-sur-Marne, le 25 aout, 1781. Berlin et Paris, 1781.
Reprinted with explanatory notice and reply to the attack in the Mer
cure of August 3, 1782, in the Bibliotheque philosophique, vol. vi. Again
reprinted in the second edition of the Thiorie des lois criminelles, 1836,
vol. II.
De la Suppression de la peine de mort. Ouvrage couronnS par Faca
dSmie de Chalons-sur-Marne, en 1780, reimprimS par A. Brissot.
Lille, 1849. Consists of brief extracts from the preceding work, from that part deal
ing with the suppression of the death penalty.
Un Independant a I'ordre des avocats, sur la dScadence du bar-
reau en France. Berlin, 1781.
At first published anonymously. When attributed to Brissot, he did
not deny the authorship. Republished with Reflexions Priliminaires,.
in the Bibliotheque Philosophique, vol. vi.
(IndSpendance des Anglo-AmSricains demontrSe utile a la Grande-
Bretagne. Lettres extrait du Journal d' Agriculture, avril et mai, 1782.
In pohtical pamphlets.)
Pubhshed anonymously. It is attributed by the catalogue of the Li
brary of Congress to Brissot; but as it contains criticism on Rousseau not
in harmony with Brissot's other writings, it seems hardly possible that it
can be his.
De la VSritS ou MSditations sur les moyens de parvenir a la vSrite
dans toutes les connoissances humaines. Neuchatel, 1782.
A consideration of the different kinds of reasoning by which one may
arrive at the truth, and of the kind of government and climate best suited
to the search.
Bibliotheque philosophique du lSgislateur, du politique, du juris-
consulte, 10 vols. Berlin et Paris, 1782-85.
Consists of reprints of several of Brissot's earlier works (Moyens de
preoenir les crimes en France; Le Sang innocent vengi; Recherches philoso-

BIBLIOGRAPHY 469
phiques sur le droit de propriiti et sur le vol, and De la Dicadence bu barreau
frangois), speeches, essays, memoirs, codes and constitutions from all
parts of Europe and from the United States. In some cases they are given
entire and sometimes in extracts or risumis.
Lettres philosophiques sur St. Paul, sur sa doctrine politique,
morale, et religieuse et sur plusieurs points de la religion chretienne
considSrSs pohtiquement. Traduit de Fanglais par le philosophe de
Ferney, et trouvees dans Ie porte-feuille de M. V., son ancien secre
taire. Neuchatel, 1783.
An argument agamst the writings of St. Paul on the ground that they
contain contradictions, improbable stories and vicious doctrines, and that
they show a spirit of marked intolerance. Among these vicious doctrines
Brissot places foremost that of predestination and the resurrection of the
body.
[The same.] Chartres, 1774. (?)
[The same.] Hamburg, 1782.
LePhiladelphien a Geneve ou Lettres d'un Americain sur la derniere
revolution de Geneve, sa constitution nouvelle, FSmigration en Irlande,
etc., pouvant servir de tableau politique de Geneve, jusqu'au 1784.
Dublin, 1783.
A defense of the democratic party in Geneva.
Correspondance universelle sur ce qui interesse le bonheur de
l'homme et de la sociStS. Vol. i, Neuchatel, 1783. Vol. ii, Londres,
1783. An effort to bring about reform under color of a correspondence be
tween savants. It was a part of his plan to include translations of German
works. A large part is obviously Brissot's own work.
Lettres sur la liberte politique, adressSes a un membre de la Cham
bre des Communes d'Angleterre, sur son election au nombre des mem-
bres d'une association de comtS; traduites de Fanglais en francais par
Ie R. P. de Rose-Croix, ex-Cordelier. Avec des notes de FabbS Pacot,
auteur de l'histoire des Pays-Bas, theologien, conseiller aulique etc.
Seconde edition. Liege, 1783.
Attributed to Brissot. It is in fact a translation of the work of David
Williams, a criticism of the English government under George the Third.
The notes, which contain many sarcastic comments on the French govern
ment, are probably from Brissot's own pen.
Journal du Licee (sic) de Londres, ou Tableau de l'Stat prSsent des
sciences et des arts en Angleterre. 2 tomes en 1. Paris, 1784.
The Journal was planned to include: (1) discoveries in physics, chemis
try, and anatomy; (2) discoveries in the arts; (3) book reviews; (4) cata-

470 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Iogue of novelties; (5) plays; (6) reports of judicial decisions and all that
concerns the political and civil constitution of England; (7) notices of
meetings of different societies.
Tableau de la situation actuefle des Anglais dans les Indes orientales,
et de l'Stat de Finde en gSnSral. Paris, 1784.
An effort to present an impartial picture of India, and to create a public
sentiment which should demand just government and more freedom of
trade. A most opportune subject, as England, having just lost her Ameri
can colonies, was giving more attention to her possessions in the East.
L'AutoritS lSgislative de Rome anSantie ou Examen rapide de Fhis-
toire et des sources du droit canonique. Chartres, 1784.
An argument to show that the legislative authority of Rome rested on a
slight foundation, since the Holy Scriptures contained almost nothing on
dogma or discipline, the decrees of the councils were not infallible and
many decrees of the Popes false, and the authority of the Fathers often
doubtful. Published anonymously.
[The same.] 1785.
Rome jugee ou FautoritS lSgislative du pape anSantie, pour servir
de reponse aux buUes passSes, nouvelles and futures, du pape, etc.
Paris, 1791.
A new edition of the preceding, published at the time of the formation
of the civil constitution of the clergy and directed especially against the
Pope. Brissot's name appears in this edition.
Un DSfenseur du peuple a, I'Empereur Joseph II, sur son reglement
concernant Immigration, ses diverses rSformes, etc. Dublin, 1785.
An argument in favor of emigration. Published anonymously.
Seconde lettre d'un dSfenseur du peuple a I'Empereur Joseph H,
sur son reglement concernant I'emigration, et principalement sur la
rSvolte des Valaques, ou Fon discute a fond le droit de rSvolte du
peuple. Dublin, 1785.
Mackintosh, W. Voyages en Europe, en Asie, et en Afrique . . .
commencees en 1777 et finis en 1781 . . . suivis des Voyages du Colonel
Capper dans les Indes ... en 1779. (Traduits par Brissot.) 2 vols.
Londres et Paris, 1786.
Brissot's name does not appear on the title-page. In the preface he gives
his idea of the f unctions of a translator as follows: "II y avait des repe
titions, je les ai elaguees; des longueurs, j 'ai abregS; des idees peu claires,
j'ai eclarci; des faussetes, j 'ai les ai refutes dans les notes; en un mot j'ai
tache de conserver dans cet ouvrage tout ce qui pouvait etre instructif,
interessant, amusant, pour le3 Frangais."
[The same.] 1792.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 471
Examen critique des voyages dans FAmSrique septentrionale, de
M. le Marquis de Chastellux; ou lettre a, M. le Marquis de Chastellux,
dans laquelle on rSfute principalement ses opinions sur les Quakers,
sur les negres, sur le peuple et sur Fhomme. Londres, 1786.
A defense of the morality and religious and political dogmas of the
Quakers and of the ability and rights of the negroes.
A translation of the same. Philadelphia, 1788.
Mon mot aux acadSmiciens. 1786.
In his Bibliographie de Brissot (Memoires i, xxxii) M. Perroud says:
"Je n'ai pu retoumer cette brochure en faveur du magnetisme animal et
du somnambulisme; mais elle a surement existe, car les Memoires secrets
du 18 juillet 1786 1'annoncent, sous cetitre: Un mot a l'oreille des acade-
miciens et disent que c'est un ecrit ' vigoureux.' "
Denonciation au public d'un nouveau projet d'agiotage ou Lettre
a. M. le Comte de S  sur un nouveau projet de Compagnie d'as-
surances contre les incendies a Paris, sur ses inconvSniens, et en
general sur les inconvSniens des compagnies par actions. Londres,
1786. Brissot's name does not appear on the title-page. His argument is
based on the following grounds: (1) Fires are less frequent at Paris than
at London, whose example in the matter of insurance it is proposed to
follow; (2) the premiums at which the company proposes to insure would
not make it worth while; (3) it would be difficult for the owner of a house
to apportion the expense among his tenants; (4) the city government will
feel less responsibility in preventing fires; (5) claims for damages will give
rise to disputes; (6) and in the case of this particular company the pro
moters hope to make a monopoly of it and by connecting it with a water
company in which they are already interested, they hope to raise the
price of the stock of both companies.
Seconde lettre contre la Compagnie d'assurance, pour les incendies
a Paris et contre d'agiotage en general, adressSe a MM. Perrier et
Compagnie. Londres, 1786.
The title-page bears this quotation from Rousseau: "On commence par
mettre le feu a la maison pour faire jouer les pompes.'- Chiefly an attack
on M. Perrier, the author of the prospectus of the proposed company, and
a reply to his argument for connecting the fire insurance company with
the water company.
Lettres philosophiques et politiques sur l'histoire de I'Angleterre
depuis son origine jusqu'a nos jours traduits de Fanglais. (Brissot
translator.) 2 vols. London, 1786.
In the Biographic Universelle of Michaud it is stated that these are the
famous letters attributed to Lord Lyttleton. This is a mistake. They are

472 BIBLIOGRAPHY
instead a translation of A History of England in a Series of Letters from a
Nobleman to his Son, by Oliver Goldsmith, published anonymously in
1774. The notes are by Brissot. According to the preface he allowed him
self considerable liberty in making the translation. The translation has
been attributed to Madame Brissot, but Brissot says nothing to indicate
that it was not his own work.
De la France et des Etats-Unis, ou de Fimportance de la revolution
de FAmSrique pour le bonheur de la France, des rapports de ce roy-
aume et des Etats-Unis, des avantages rSciproques qu'ils peuvent re-
tirer de leurs liaisons de commerce, et enfin la situation actuelle de
Etats-Unis, par Etienne Claviere et J. P. Brissot de Warville. Londres,
1787. An argument against the mercantile theory and for greater freedom
of trade, especially for closer commercial relations between France and
the United States; on the ground that the United States needed the
manufacturers of France, and France the natural products of the United
States. The work is dedicated to the American Congress and to the
friends of the United States in both hemispheres.
[The same.] Reprinted in 1791 as vol. m of the Nouveau Voyage
dans les Etats-Unis.
Considerations on the relative situation of France and the United
States of America, translated from the French. London, 1788.
A translation of the above.
Commerce of America with Europe. London, 1794.
Another translation of the above. Published as the second volume of
the translation of the Nouveau Voyage.
[The same.] A Dutch translation of the above. Amsterdam,
1794. Published as the second volume of a Dutch translation of the Nouveau
Voyage.
Lettre a 1'auteur du Mercure politique par les auteurs du traite
intitule De la France et les Etats-Unis. Bouillon, 1787.
A defense in answer to certain charges that had been made in the Mer
cure Politique of June 30, 1787, regarding statements contained in De la
France H des Etats-Unis, relative to Warren Hastings. Brissot evidently
believed in his guilt.
Point de banqueroute ou Lettre a un crSancier de 1'Etat, sur Fim-
possibilitS de la banqueroute nationale et sur les moyens de ramener
le credit et la paix. Londres, 1787.
Published anonymously. An argument against a declaration of bank
ruptcy on the following grounds: (1) That it would degrade not only the

BIBLIOGRAPHY 473
sovereign and the ministers, but also the entire nation before the world;
(2) England was worse off than France, but did not declare bankruptcy;
(3) there would be no confidence in the treaties of peace and of commerce
made by France; it would injure both foreigners and Frenchman who had
lent to the state; (5) there would be a general upset to financial conditions;
and (6) a bad moral effect would result.
[The same.] London, 1787.
Point de banqueroute ou Lettres a un crSancier de 1'Etat, sur les
consequences de la rSvocation des deux impots, relativement a la
dette nationale. Seconde partie. Paris, 1787.
A defense of Parlement for its refusal to register certain proposed taxes,
and a defense of France for taking the side of the republican party in
Holland.
Point de banqueroute ou Lettres a un crSancier de FEtat, sur l'im-
possibilitS de la banqueroute nationale, et sur les moyens de ramener
le credit et la paix. Nouvelle edition, augmentee de trois autres lettres
sur la dette nationale consideree relativement a la rSvocation des deux
impots, a la guerre de Holland et a celle de Turquie. Londres, Oct.
1787. A republication in a single work of the two preceding pamphlets.
[The same.] London, 1788.
Observations d'un republicain sur les diffSrens systemes de Fad-
ministrations provinciales, particulierement sur ceux de MM. Turgot
et Necker, et sur le bien qu'on peut en espSrer dans les gouvernemens
monarchiques. Lausanne, 1788.
A severe criticism of the plans both of Necker and of Turgot, on the
ground that they did not go to the root of the matter, and a frank state
ment of disbelief in the efficacy of reform under a monarchy.
[The same.] Paris, 1789.
Lettre a I'Empereur sur Fatrocite des supplices qu'il a substituSs
comme adoucissement a la peine de mort. Bruxelles, 1787.
Brissot's name does not appear on the title-page. He praises the em
peror for having abolished the death penalty, but censures him for having
substituted that of branding.
Reponse a une critique des lettres d'un cultivateur americain, des
Quakers, etc., faite par Fauteur anonyme des Recherches sur les
Etats-Unis. April, 1788.
The critic whom Brissot attacks was M. Mazzei, an Italian who had
lately visited the United States. A defense of Crevecceur, particularly of
his attitude toward the negroes and the Quakers.

474 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Discours sur la nScessitS d'Stablir a Paris une sociStS pour concourir
avec celle de Londres, a Fabolition de la traite et de Fesclavage des
negres; prononcee le 19 fevrier, 1788, dans une sociStS de quelques
amis rassemblSs a Paris, a la priere du comitS de Londres.
This address, though not signed, is undoubtedly by Brissot.
A translation of the same. In Clarkson, Thomas, An essay on the
impolicy of the African slave trade. Philadelphia, 1788.
Le Moniteur. [Par Condorcet, J. P. Brissot de Warville et Claviere.]
1788. Pubhshed anonymously. The catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationale at
Paris, and the article on Brissot in the Biographie Universelle, by Michaud,
attribute it to Brissot, Claviere, and Condorcet. Its point of view does
not, however, seem in harmony with the general attitude of these men.
See Perroud, Mimoires de Brissot, i, xlvi.
Le Patriote Frangais, ou Journal libre impartial et national, par
une societe de citoyens. 16 mars, 1789.
The prospectus of the Journal.
Plan de conduite pour les dSputSs du peuple aux Etats GSnSraux,
1789. [Paris, 1789.]
A discussion, in much detail, of the rights and duties of the States-
General. Its most significant features are its support of monarchy and its
argument that the business of the States-General does not include the
making of a constitution.
Discours prononcS par M. Brissot de Warville, a FSlection du dis
trict de la rue des Filles-Saint-Thomas, le 21 avril, 1789. [Paris, 1789.]
An argument that the electors should be instructed on the following
points in order that they in turn might instruct the representatives:
that they make a declaration of rights; that they consider the means of
establishing a free constitution; that they provide provisionally for the
urgent needs of the state.
Trois mots aux Parisiens sur la nScessitS de publir les noms des
candidats. M. Perroud, in his Bibliographie de Brissot (MHmoirs de Brissot, i, xxxiii),
notes: "Petite brochure qui parut en mai 1789, quelques jours avant
1 'election de Paris."
PrScis adressS a l'assemblee gSnSrale des electeurs de Paris, pour
servir a la rSdaction du cahier des doleances de cette ville. [Paris,
1789.] An appeal to the electors of Paris to adopt some system in drawing up
their statement of grievances, to confine themselves to essentials and not
to wander into useless details.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 475
Observations sur la nScessitS d'etablir dans les diffSrents districts
et dans l'assemblee gSnSrale des electeurs de Paris, des comites de cor
respondance avec les deputes de Paris aux Etats-GSneraux, suivies
d'un recit de quelques faits arrives dans Felection du District-des-
Filles-Saint-Thomas. 1789.
Brissot's argument was to the effect that by keeping in existence
some machinery for concerted action the people of Paris would be better
able to exert influence upon the States-General.
Le Patriote Frangais. [No. 1. Paris, 6 mai, 1789.]
An account of the opening of the States-General and a discussion of the
cahier of the third estate at Paris.
Lettre de M. Brissot de Warville aux souscripteurs de journal in
titule "Le Patriote Frangais." [12 mai, 1789.]
An explanation of the delay in the appearance of the Patriote Frangais.
Scrutin de Felection de Paris ou Lettre de M. B. de W. a un electeur,
mai, 1789. Noted by M. Perroud in his Bibliographic de Brissot.
MSmoire aux Etats-GSneraux sur la nScessitS de rendre des ce mo
ment la presse libre, et surtout pour les journaux politiques. 1789.
A plea for freedom of the press on the ground that it was a natural right.
No. ler L'Ombre de J. P. Brissot aux ISgislateurs frangais, sur la
liberte de la presse ou Extrait fidele d'un imprimS ayant pour titre
"MSmoire aux Etats-GSneraux sur la nScessitS de rendre dds ce moment
la presse libre," par J. P. Brissot de Warville. Pubhe avec quelques
notes par T. Dethier de FOurthe. Paris, an vn.
An effort to turn to practical use the earlier writings of the Revolution.
Reflexions sur Fadmission aux Etats-GSneraux des dSputSs de Saint
Domingue. [Paris, 1789.]
An argument against the admission of the deputies on the ground that
the number was too large, that their election was neither free nor valid,
and that their admission would injure the cause of the mulattoes.
Projet d'une dSclaration des droits de la Commune pour servir au
plan de municipalitS de la ville de Paris.
Noted by Perroud in his Bibliographic de Brissot.
Discours prononcS au district des Filles-Saint-Thomas, le 21 juillet,
1789, sur la constitution municipale a former dans la ville de Paris.
Given in part in Lacroix, Actes de la Commune de Paris.

476 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Le Patriote Frangais, journal libre, impartial et national par une
sociStS de citoyens, et dirige par J. P. Brissot de Warville. 8 vols.,
28 juillet, 1789-2 juin, 1793.
See chapter iv.
Motifs des commissaires pour adopter Ie plan de municipalite qu'ils
ont presents a l'assemblee gSnSrale des representants de la Commune,
lus a 1'assemblSe gSnSrale . . . suivis du projet du plan de la munici-
palitS. Paris, aoilt, 1789.
An explanation of the plan for a city government.
Adresse de l'assemblee gSnSrale des representants de la commune de
Paris prSsentSe a 1'assemblSe nationale. 10 oct., 1789.
This address, which was drawn up by Brissot, was occasioned by the
transfer of the National Assembly to Paris after the events of October 5
and 6.
Observations sur le plan de la municipalite de Paris suiviSs du plan
original et d'une dSclaration des droits des municipalitSs. Paris, [15
nov., 1789]. A defense against the accusation of giving the municipality too much
power.
Opinion de J. P. Brissot de Warville sur le question de savoir si
Paris sera le centre d'un dSpartement de dix-huit lieues de diametre
ou s'il formera seul un dSpartement en lui joignant une banlieue de
deux ou trois lieues. Paris, Dec., 1789.
An argument in favor of the latter alternative on account of the unique
character of the city.
MSmoire sur les noirs de FAmSrique septentrionale lu a la SociStS
des Amis des Noirs le 3 Janvier, 1790. Paris, 1790.
An account of his observations during his recent journey to America,
dealing with what had been done (1) against slavery; (2) agamst the im
portation of slaves; (3) for freedom; (4) for the education of the negro.
Adresse a FAssemblSe Nationale pour Fabolition de la traite des
Noirs, par la SociStS des Amis des Noirs. 5 fevrier, 1790.
The address appears to have been the work of Brissot, at that time
president of the society.
Discours sur la raretS du numeraire et sur les moyens d'y remedier,
prononcS a 1'assemblSe gSnerale des reprSsantants de la Commune de
Paris, le 10 fSvrier, 1790. Paris, 1790.
An attack on the methods of the Caisse d'escompte and an argument for
its more rigid control by the government.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 477
Motion sur la nScessitS de circonserire la vente des biens ecclesias-
tiques aux municipalites dans leur territoire etc.; presentee a l'as
semblee genSrale des reprSsentants de la Commune de Paris. 22 mai
1790. Paris, 1790.
An argument to show that the municipahties were to get an unduly
large benefit from the unrestricted sale to them of church lands.
Rapport sur la lettre de M. de Bourges au Comite de Constitution,
concernant Faflaire des juifs, fait par M. Brissot de Warville a l'as
semblee generale des reprSsentants de la Commune de Paris, le 29 mai
1790. [Paris, 1790.]
An argument in favor of giving the rights of active citizens to the Jews.
Discours sur la vente des biens ecclSsiastiques et sur les necessite
de I'attribuer, pour Paris, au seul bureau de ville, a I'exclusion des
sections etc.; prononce a l'assemblee gSnerale des representants de la
Commune de Paris, le 14 juin, 1790. [Paris, 1790.]
A plea for centralization in city government.
Rapport dans Faffaire de MM. D'Hosier et Petit-Jean, lu aux
ComitSs de recherches de FAsemblSe nationale et de la municipalite
de Paris, le 29 juillet, 1790. Paris, 1790.
A defense of the alleged despotic action of the committee.
Another edition with a covering title containing the words, "Pro
jet de contre-rSvolution par les somnambulistes ou rapport," etc.
A Stanislas Clermont . . . sur le diatribe de ce dernier contre les
Comites de recherches et sur son apologie de Madame Jumilhac et des
illuminSs. Paris, 1790.
This and the followmg, a defense of the committee apropos of the same
subject as the above.
Replique de . . . a Stanislas Clermont, concernant ses nouvelles
observations sur les Comite de recherches, sur les causes des troubles,
les folliculaires, le long Parhament d'Angleterre, M. Necker, etc.
Paris, 1790.
Lettres a M. le Chevalier de Pange sur sa brochure intitulee "Re
flexions sur la dSlation et sur le ComitS de recherches." Paris, 1790.
A defense of the Comiti de recherches.
Discours prononcSe a la section de la Bibliotheque dans son assem
ble generale du 24 octobre, 1790, sur la question du renvoi des mi-
nistres. [Paris, 1790.]
An appeal to the people to demand the dismissal of the ministry.

478 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lettre de J. P. Brissot a M. Barnave, sur ses rapports concernant
les colonies, les dScrets qui les ont suivis, leurs consSquences fatales;
sur sa conduite dans le cours de la Revolution; sur le caractere des
vrais dSmocrates; sur les bases de la Constitution, les obstacles qui
s'opposent a son achevement, la necessite de la terminer promptement.
Paris, 1790.
An attack on Barnave's colonial policy and an argument to the effect
that the troubles of the colonies were due to the laws of March and Octo
ber, 1790, and that unless these laws were changed the colonies would be
come independent, or would pass under the government of some foreign
nation.
RSflexions sur le nouveau decret rendu pour le Martinique et les
colonies le 29 novembre, 1790, pour servir de suite a la lettre a M.
Barnave. [Paris, 1790.]
A criticism of the decree which provided for sending out to the colonies
commissioners and troops.
RSflexions sur l'Stat de la SociStS des Slecteurs patriotes, sur ses
travaux, sur les formes propres a faire de bonnes Slections . . . lues a
1'assemblSe de cette sociStS dans la sSance du 21 dScembre, 1790.
Paris, 1790.
A discussion of the best methods of voting.
LibertS de la presse, prScis pour J. P. Brissot contre M. Bexon,
se disant reprSsentant de la municipalite de Remiremont. Paris, 1790.
A defense of the freedom of the press apropos of the accusations of
libel brought against Brissot by the municipality of Remiremont.
J. P. Brissot au libelliste, Louis-Marthe-Gouy.
A denial of the allegations of Gouy and a promise to answer them.
RSplique de J. P. Brissot a la "Premiere et derniere Lettre de Louis-
Marthe-Gouy," dSfenseur de la traite des noirs et de Fesclavase.
Paris, 1791.
A defense of his own pohcy with regard to the slave trade and a most
vituperative attack on Gouy.
Affaire de Tobago. RSponse de J. P. Brissot aux lettres insSrSes
dans le Journal de Paris, par MM. DiUon . . . et Henrion [de
Flozelles] ... sur les reclamations des planteurs de Tobago. [Paris,
Concerns the decision of a court by virtue of which certain planters,
whom these writers defended, escaped paying their debts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 479
Nouveau Voyage dans les Etats-Unis de FAmSrique septentrionale
[fait en 1788]. 3 vols. Paris, 1791.
Volume in consists of the work previously published by Claviere and
Brissot: "De la France et des Etats-Unis."
New travels in the United States of America performed in 1788.
Translated from the French. Dublin, 1792.
A translation of the above.
[The same.] 2 vols. London, 1792.
[The same.] 2 vols. London, 1794.
This edition contains a sketch of the life of Brissot, said to be by Joel
Barlow, who translated the Voyage from the French. It includes a por
trait of Brissot and an appendix. M. Perroud, in his Bibliographic de
Brissot (Mimoires, i, xxxviii, notes: "Cette vie, traduite separement en
anglais, a et6 publiee en 1798. Note de Villenave dans l'article de Biog.
univ. de BeauUeu."
[The same.] Boston, 1797.
Nieuwe Reize in de Vereenigde Staaten van Noord-Amerika. . . .
Uit het Fransch vertaald en met eenige ophelderingen en bijvoegselen
vermeerderd. 3 deel. Amsterdam. [1794.]
Reise durch die vereinigten Staaten von Nord Amerika im Jahre
1788 aus dem Franzosischen mit der kurtzen Lebensgeschichte des
Verfassers und mit einigen Erlauterungen und Zusatzen vermehrt
vou Theophil Frederik Ehrmann. Durkheim an der Haard, 1792.
Nya resa genom Nord-Americanska fristaterna ar 1788. Fran
franska originalet sammendregen . . . af Johan R. Forster. Ofwersatt
Iran tyskan. Stockholm, 1799.
Discours sur la question de savoir si le roi peut Stre jugS, prononcS a
1'assemblSe des Amis de la Constitution, dans la seance du 10 juillet,
1791. Paris. [1791.]
An argument in favor of holding the king responsible for his misdeeds.
Made at the time of the republican crisis after the flight to Varennes.
One of Brissot's most noted speeches.
A Discourse upon the question whether the king shall be tried.
Translated by P. G. de Nancrede. First Aanerican edition, Boston,
1791. A translation of the above.
Discours prononcS par M. Brissot a l'assemblee des Amis de la Con
stitution le 10 juillet, 1791, ou Tableau frappant de la situation actuelle
des puissances de I'Europe. [Paris, 1791.]
An extract from the above address.

480 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Recueil de quelques Scrits principalement extraits du "Patriote
Frangais," relatif a la discussion du parti a prendre pour le roi, et de
la question sur le rSpublicanisme et la monarchic Paris, 1791.
A collection of several important articles which had previously ap
peared in the Patriote Frangais.
RSponse de J. P. Brissot au second Chant du Coq. [Paris, 1791.]
A denunciation as libelous of a poster in which he had been assailed.
Discours sur les conventions, prononcS a la societe des Amis de la
Constitution, sSante aux Jacobins, le 8 aout, 1791. [Paris, 1791.]
A plea for fixed, periodic conventions which should be independent of
the executive and legislative branches of the government.
RSponse de Jaques Pierre Brissot a tous les libellistes qui ont
attaquS et attaquent sa vie passSe. Paris, 1791.
An account of his early life and a defense of the charges made against
him in connection with his candidacy for election to the Legislative As
sembly.
The life of J. P. Brissot, deputy from Eure and Loire to the na
tional convention, written by himself and translated from the French.
London, 1794.
A translation of the above.
Aux filecteurs du dSpartement de Paris.
Noted by M. Perroud in his Bibliographie de Brissot in connection with
the elections to the States-General. But it appears rather to be the
pamphlet published in connection with the Theveneau de Morande con
troversy. Aug. 26, 1791.
RSplique a Charles Theveneau Morande. Paris, 1791.
A reply to further attacks. See the preceding work.
Dernier Mot de J. P. Brissot sur un nouveau libelle de Morande
et sur les autres libelles, adressS aux Slecteurs de Paris. [Paris, 1791.]
Discours sur la nScessitS de maintenir le dScret rendu le 15 mai, 1791,
en faveur des hommes de couleur libres, prononcS le 12 septembre, 1791,
a la sSance de la sociStS des Amis de la Constitution. [Paris, 1791.]
A protest against any reconsideration of the decrees in favor of the
mulattoes.
Discours sur Futilite des sociStes patriotiques et populaires, sur la
nScessite de les maintenir et de les multiplier par-tout, prononcS
le 28 septembre, 1791, a la seance de la sociStS des Amis de la Consti
tution. [Paris, 1791.]
Emphasizes the need of such societies to keep watch over the admin
istration and to discuss and prepare the way for good laws.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 481
Discours sur Forganisation des comites, destinS a etre prononcS a.
I'Assemblee nationale le 12 octobre, 1791, prononcS aux Jacobins le
14 octobre. Paris, 1791.
An argument in favor of having as few committees as possible.
Discours sur les Smigrations et sur la situation de la France rela
tivement aux puissances Strangeres, prononcS le 20 octobre, 1791, a
I'AssemblSe nationale. Paris, 1791.
An argument that in meting out punishment to the emigris a distinc
tion should be made between the princes and the public functionaries on
the one hand, and private citizens on the other.
Discours sur un projet de dScret relatif a, la revolte des Noirs, pro-
nonce a I'AssemblSe nationale, le 30 octobre, 1791. Paris, 1791.
An expression of doubt as to the reported revolt and a plea for the re
arming of the mulattoes.
Discours sur la nScessitS de suspendre momentanSment le paiement
des liquidations au-dessus le 3,000 1. avant d'emettre de nouveaux as
signats, et sur les finances en gSnSral, prononcS a I'AssemblSe nationale
dans la seance du 24 novembre, 1791, [Paris, 1791].
A criticism of the loose management of the finances and a plea for the
issue of assignats of small denominations.
Discours sur les causes des troubles de Saint-Domingue, prononcS
a la sSance du ler dScembre, 1791. Paris, [1791].
An argument that the revolt was caused by the mulattoes and negroes
being deprived of their rights.
Projet de dScret, relatif a Femploi des troupes destinSes pour Saint-
Domingue. Paris, 7 dec, 1791. [Paris, 1792.]
A plea for sending to the colonies commissioners and troops who were
to be subject only to the orders of these commissioners, that is to say that
they could not be used by the whites against the negroes and mulattoes.
Societe des Amis de la Constitution sSante aux Jacobins a Paris.
Discours sur la nScessite de dSclarer la guerre aux princes allemands
qui protegent les SmigrSs, prononcS le 16 dScembre a la Societe. [Paris,
1791.] One of Brissot's speeches in the controversy with Robespierre on the
war question.
Discours de J. P. Brissot, dSpute, sur les dispositions des puissances
etrangeres relativement a la France, et sur les prSparatifs de guerre
ordonnSs par le Roi, prononcS a I'AssemblSe nationale, le 29 dScembre,
1791. [Paris, 1791.]
An argument in favor of war.

482 BIBLIOGRAPHY
SociStS des Amis de la Constitution, sSante aux Jacobins a Paris.
Second discours de J. P. Brissot, dSputS, sur la nScessite de faire la
guerre aux princes allemands, prononcS a la sociStS dans le sSance du
vendredi 30 dScembre, 1791. [Paris, 1791.]
Another of his speeches in the controversy with Robespierre.
Lettre de J. P. Brissot a M. Camus, dSputS a I'AssemblSe nationale,
sur diflerents abus de Fadministration actuelle des finances, suivie
d'une denonciation concernant la meme administration. Paris,
1792. Brissot attacks especially a claim supported by Camus of the Duke of
Orleans to a dot promised by Louis XV to the daughter of the regent.
Discours de J. P. Brissot, depute de Paris, sur la nScessite d'exiger
une satisfaction de I'Empereur et de rompre le traite du premier mai,
1756, du 17 Janvier, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
A vehement argument in favor of war.
SociStS des Amis de la Constitution seante aux Jacobins a Paris.
Troisieme discours de J. P. Brissot . . . sur la nScessite de la guerre,
prononcS a la Societe du 20 Janvier, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
Discours sur la nScessite politique de rSvoquer le dScret du 24 sep
tembre, 1791, pour mettre fin aux troubles de Saint-Domingue; pro-
nonce a I'Assemblee nationale, le 2 mars, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
An argument that the decree of September, 1791, taking away the civil
rights of the mulattoes, and not the decree of May, 1791, which gave them
these rights, was the cause of the revolt.
Discours sur FofEce de F Empereur du 17 fSvrier, 1792, et dSnon-
ciation contre M. Delessart, ministre des Affaires Strangeres, pro
noncS a I'AssemblSe nationale, le 10 mars, 1792. (Paris, 1792.]
A denunciation of the Emperor as well as of M. Delessart.
Discours de MM. Brissot et Guadet, dSputSs a I'AssemblSe nationale,
prononcSs a la sSance de la SociStS des Amis de la Constitution, le
25 avril, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
Chiefly an attack on Robespierre.
Discours sur la denonciation contre le ComitS autrichien, et contre
M. Montmorin ci-devant ministre des Affaires Strangeres prononcS a
I'Assemblee nationale, a, la sSance du 23 mai, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
An attack on the government with regard to its policy in foreign affairs
on the ground that it was under the influence of persons really devoted to
Austrian and anti-revolutionary interests.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 483
Lettres de J. P. Brissot a, M. Dumouriez, ministre de la guerre
[16, 17 juin, 1792]. [Paris, 1792.]
A bitter denunciation of Dumouriez apropos of his part in causing the
fall of the Girondin ministry.
Discours de J. P. Brissot, . . . sur les causes des dangers de la
patrie et sur les mesures a prendre; prononcS le 9 juillet, 1792. [Paris,
1792.] An argument in favor of pronouncing the country in danger, decreeing
the responsibihty of the ministers, punishing the generals who try to con
trol the assembly, and selling the property of the emigris.
Opinion de J. P. Brissot, . . . sur les mesures de police generale
proposees par M. GensonnS, prononcS le 25 juillet, 1792. [Paris,
1792.] An argument in support of the measures proposed by GensonnS but less
hostile to the king than some of Brissot's previous speeches.
Opinion de J. P. Brissot, . . . sur le marche a suivre en examinant
la question de la dechSance et les autres mesures, prononcee le 26
juillet, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
This speech, like the preceding, rather more moderate than that of
July 9.
Discours de J. P. Brissot . . . sur les dSnonciations relatives au
general Lafayette, prononcS le 10 aout, 1792. [Paris, 1792.]
The date was really August 8. Brissot fully supports the attack on
Lafayette.
Projet de dSclaration de I'AssemblSe nationale aux puissances
etrangeres redige par J. P. Brissot. [Paris, 1792.]
A protest against breaking off all relations with France on the part of
neutral governments on account of the suspension of the king.
Rapport fait au nom de la Commission extraordinaire, des ComitSs
diplomatique et militaire, le 20 aout 1792, sur le licenciement des
regiments suisses, au service de la France, par J. P. Brissot. [Paris,
1792.] An argument based chiefly on the events of August 10 in favor of dis
banding the Swiss regiments.
Rapport fait a la Convention nationale au nom de la Commission
extraordinaire et du Comite diplomatique sur les reclamations des
cantons de Berne et d'Uri, relativement a FSvacuation des dSfilSs de
Porentruy le 3 octobre, 1792. Paris, [1792].
An argument that the French had a right to occupy these passes.

484 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rapport et projet de dScret concernant Introduction, dans la ville
de Geneve, de 1600 Suisses des troupes de Beme et de Zurich, prSsentSs
au nom de Comite diplomatique le 16 octobre, 1792. Paris, [1792].
An argument that such introduction of troops was a violation of existing
treaties.
A tous les RSpublicains de France, sur la SociStS des Jacobins de
Paris. Paris, 1792.
Written at the time of his explusion from the Jacobin Club; a defense
of his policy and an attack upon the majority of the Jacobins as a party of
disorganizers.
[The same.] Reprinted by the Patriote Frangais, 29 octobre, 1792.
[The same] Reprinted with pamphlets of Kersaint and Lan
thenas. (November, 1792.)
Rapport fait a la Convention nationale, au nom du ComitS diplo
matique, sur la nSgotiation entre Geneve et la RSpublique de France,
et sur la transaction du 2 novembre, 1792, le 21 novembre. Paris,
1792. An argument to show that Geneva had violated the guaranteed neu
trality.
Discours du citoyen Brissot a la Convention nationale concernant la
RSpublique de Geneve, extrait du Moniteur du 22 novembre, 1792.
[Paris, 1792.]
An extract from the above report.
Dernier mot sur Clootz. In RSponses au Pmssian Clootz, par Ro
land, Kersaint, Guadet et Brissot. [Paris, 1792.]
A defense against accusations of federalism.
Discours sur le proces de Louis, prononcS a la Convention nationale,
le ler Janvier, 1793. [Paris, 1793.]
An argument for an appeal to the primary assembly.
Rapport fait au nom du Comite de dSfense gSnSrale, sur les disposi
tions du gouvernement britannique envers de France, et sur les mesures
a prendre, prononcS a la Convention nationale, dans sa sSance du 12
Janvier, 1793. Paris, [1793].
A denunciation of England's treatment of France and an argument in
favor of war.
Report of the Committee of General Defense on the dispositions of
the British government towards France, and on the measures to be
taken. Addressed to the National Convention of France. . . . Also

BIBLIOGRAPHY 485
the second report on a declaration of a war with England. ... To
which is added the Protests entered upon the journals of the Lords
and House of Parliament against a war with France, etc. London,
1793. Includes a translation of the preceding report.
Rapport sur les hostilitSs du roi d'Angleterre et du Stathouder des
Provinces-Unis, et sur la nScessite de dSclarer que la Republic frangaise
est en guerre avec eux, au nom du ComitS de dSfense gSnSrale. [Paris,
1793.] An argument that war was now inevitable, and that it was the desire,
not of the English people, but of the English ministry.
Expose de la conduite de la nation frangaise envers le peuple anglais
et des motifs qui ont amenS la rupture entre la RSpublique frangaise et
le roi d'Angleterre, prScedS du rapport prononcS par Brissot au nom
de ComitS diplomatique et du discours de Ducos, 12 Janvier, fevrier,
1793. [Paris,] 1793.
Includes the Rapport fait au nom de Comiti de defense ginirale and the
Rapport sur Us hostililis du Roi d'Angleterre.
J. P. Brissot, sur la dSnonciation de Robespierre, et sur Fadresse
prStSe aux 48 sections de Paris. [Paris, 1793.]
A defense against the change of being allied with Dumouriez and
Morande and of being suborned by Pitt.
A ses commettans sur la situation de la Convention nationale, sur
rinfluence des anarchistes et les maux qu'elle a causSe, sur la nScessite
d'anSantir cette influence pour sauver la RSpublique. Paris, [1793].
An attack on the Mountain and a defense of his own position.
The Anarchy and horrors of France displayed. By a member of the
Convention. Extracts from J. P. Brissot's address to his constituents,
with a preface. [London, 1793.]
A translation of part of the above.
J. P. Brissot to his constituents on the situation of the national con
vention. London, 1794.
Another translation of the above. A portion of the speech is also trans
lated in an appendix to Burke's preface to the address.
MSmoires de Brissot . . . sur ses contemporains, et la RSvolution
frangaise, publies par son fils [A. Brissot] avec des notes et des eclair-
cissements historiques, par M. F. de Montrol. 4 vols; vols, i-n, Paris,
1830; vols, m-iv, Paris, 1832.
See below.

486 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[The same] Notes by M. de Lescure. Paris, 1877.
Scarcely more than a reprint of the preceding.
[The same.] Memoires publiSs avec Etude critique et notes par
M. Perroud. 2 vols. Paris, [1910].
When M. Perroud undertook his new edition, the Montrol edition had
long since been regarded with suspicion, some critics even holding that it
was entirely apocryphal. But M. Perroud, in his Etude Critique, proves
beyond doubt that Brissot did leave memoirs, but that the edition of M.
Montrol consists largely of interpolations. As M. Montrol seems to have
agreed with the publishers beforehand to produce four volumes, it was not
strange that he had to resort to padding. Of the 1300 pages of the edition
of 1830 M. Perroud finds that 600 pages were taken from other works,
though for the most part from those of Brissot himself; that another 100
pages are suspicious, and that still another 100 consist of letters, written
or received by Brissot. What remains forms the basis of this new edition.
It consists of two parts: the first covering the period of his childhood and
youth; the second consisting of his account of his arrest and two projets
de difense. Even though the gap includes the most important period of
his life and the time of his greatest political activity, the memoirs as they
stand, thus critically edited, furnish one of the most valuable sources for
a study of his career.
Correspondance et papiers prScedSs d'un avertissement et d'un
notice sur sa vie par M. Perroud. Paris, 1912.
See above, preliminary note under manuscript material.

B. Controversial Matter
As indicated by the heading a large portion of the following material
is intensely partisan, and was written in the heat of the conflict. For
the most part it concerns either Brissot's character or some phase of
his policy and involves both his uprightness as a man and his wisdom
as a politician. 1. Pamphlets, Addresses, Contemporary Criticisms
Baillie. L Anti-Brissot; par un petit blanc de Saint-Domingue.
[Paris.] An attack on Brissot's colonial policy.
Basire, Claude. A. J. P. Brissot. [1792.]
Accounts for the whereabouts of a certain letter for which Brissot had
charged him with being responsible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 487
Bergasse, Nicholas. DSclaration .... au sujet d'un article inserS dans
le journal Patriote de M. Brissot de Warville. [Paris, 1790.]
Concerns an alleged plot to convey the king to Rouen. Bergasse denied
that he had any part in such a plot, even if it existed.
Bertrand de Moleville, Antoine Frangois. Histoire de la RSvolu-
tion de France. 14 vols. Paris, 1801-1803.
Contains material on the relations between the author and Brissot, who
were political enemies. Written from the point of view of an aristocrat.
Intensely partisan.
 Observations, adressSes a I'Assemblee nationale. . . sur les dis
cours prononces par MM. Gensonne et Brissot dans la sSance du 23
mai. [Paris, 1792.]
Reply to accusations made against the Austrian committee.
Bonne-Carrere, Guillaume. ExposS de la conduite de Brissot
depuis le commencement de la Revolution, jusqu' a ce jour [5 septem
bre, ami]. [Paris, 1794.]
A defense of the part he had played in the Revolution. He was a bitter
enemy of Brissot.
Burke, Edmund. Preface to the address of M. Brissot to his con
stituents, translated by the late William Burke, Esq., 1794; vol. iv. In
Burke's works, 9 vols. Boston, 1839.
Burke asserts that the address of Brissot is simply a condemnation of
the Revolution out of the mouths of the revolutionists themselves.
Camus, Armand Gaston. Lettre de . . . a M. Brissot, 26 mars, 1791.
Paris, 1791.
A protest to the effect that Brissot, without sufficient proof, had made
accusations in regard to the management of the finances.
Chabot, Frangois. A. J. P. Brissot. [Paris, 1792.]
An accusation that Brissot tried to hinder the Revolution of August 10,
and on the other hand did nothing to hinder the massacres of September.
Champagneux, L. A., ed. GSuvres de MM. J. Ph. Roland, . . . prS-
cedees d'un discours prSliminaire. 3 vols. Paris, year vm.
The preface gives some details about Brissot's manuscripts, but as they
are based on hearsay evidence, they are to be taken with caution.
Chastellux, Marquis Frangois Jean de. Voyage . . . dans FAmSrique
septentrionale, dans les annSes 1780, 1781, et 1782. 2 vols. Paris,
1786. A work which, on account of its criticism of the Quakers and negroes,
was sharply criticized by Brissot.

488 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Claviere, Etienne. Adresse de la Societe des Amis des Noirs, a
I'AssemblSe nationale, . . . dans laquelle on approfondit des relations
politiques et commerciales entre la mStropole et les colonies, etc.
Paris, 1791.
A statement of the principles of the Amis des Noirs and a plea for the
extension of civil rights to the mulattoes.
Clermont-Tonnerre, Cte Stanislas, Marie Adelaide de. Reflexions
sur I'ouvrage intitulS "Projet de contre-rSvolution par les somnam-
bulistes, ou rapport dans I'affaire de MM. Dhosier et Petit-Jean, lu
aux comites de recherches de I'AssemblSe nationale et de la municipalite
de Paris, le 29 juillet, 1790, par J. P. Brissot." Paris, 1790.
An attack on the Comiti des Recherches of the Commune of Paris, on the
ground that its methods savored too much of the old regime.
 Nouvelles observations sur les comites des recherches. Paris.

[1790.] A reply to Brissot's answer to the above.
 Sur le derniere rSplique de J. P. Brissot, . . . de 14 octobre,
1790. Paris, 1790.
A continuation of the same controversy as the above.
Courtois, Edme Bonaventure. Lettre a Fauteur du Patriote Fran
gais [signe: Courtois, commandant de la garde nationale d'Arcis-sur-
Aube, 20 aout, 1791]. [Paris, 1791.]
A letter approving the attitude of Brissot in the crisis of July, 1791.
Desmoulms, Camille. Jean Pierre Brissot dSmasquS [1 fevrier,
1792]. [Paris, 1792.]
An arraignment of Brissot's whole life, up to 1792, with special emphasis
on his war policy.
 SociSte des amis de la liberte et de l'Sgalite sSante aux ci-devant
Jacobins, Saint HonorS, a Paris. Fragment de Fhistoire secrete de la
Revolution. [Paris, 19 mai, 1793.]
An attack on Brissot and his pohtical adherents, on the ground that
they were advocates of royalty and federalism.
 Histoire des Brissotins ou Fragment de Fhistoire secrete de la
Revolution et des six premiers mois de la RSpublique. [Paris,]
1793. The same work as the preceding, printed by order of the Jacobin so
ciety.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 489
Desmoulins, Camille. The History of the Brissotins, or part of the
history of the Revolution, and of the first six months of the Repub
lic, in answer to Brissot's address to his constituents. Printed at Paris
by order of the Jacobin Club, and dispersed by their corresponding
clubs. London, 1794.
A translation of the preceding.
 QSuvres recueillies et publiSes d'apres les textes originaux et
precedSes d'une Stude biographique et littSraire, par J. Claretie.
2 vols. Paris, 1874.
Duluc, Perisse. Lettre de . . . a M. Brissot, auteur du Patriote
Frangais, sur les assignats. Paris, 1790.
An answer to Brissot's objection that his (Duluc's) former opposition to
the assignats prevented his being an efficient member of the committee
charged with their emission.
Dumouriez, C. F. P., GSnSral. Sur les troubles des colonies en rS-
futation des deux discours de M. Brissot . . . 1" et 3me dScembre,
1791. Paris, 1791.
Dutr6ne La Couture, Jacques Frangois. Adresse aux Frangois,
contre la SociStS des Amis des Noirs.
Garran de Coulon, J. P. Rapport sur les troubles de Saint-Domingue.
4 vols. [Paris, 1797-99.]
Favorable to the cause of the negro.
Genlis, Madame de. Precis de la conduite de . . . depuis la RSvo-
lution, suivi d'une lettre a M. de Chartres et de reflexions sur la
critique. Hambourg, 1796.
Contains an account of Madame de Genlis's relation to Brissot and to
his wife, which does not agree with Brissot's own account. Madame de
Genlis is, however, not to be trusted.
Gouy d'Arcy, Jean Louis Marthe de. Premiere et derniere lettre
de . . . a Jean Pierre Brissot, auteur d'un journal intitulS Patriote
Frangais. Paris, le 10 Janvier, 1791. [Paris, 1791.]
A somewhat coarse invective against Brissot, on account of his advo
cacy of the negro and the mulatto. Gouy d'Arcy was one of the leading
deputies who represented Santo Domingo.
[The same] Another edition. Paris, 1791.
 Fragment d'une lettre de L. M. de Gouy, . . . adresse a
ses commettans ou Seconde fustigation de J. P. Brissot. [Paris,
1791.] On the same subject as the above.

490 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kovalevsky, Massimo. I Dispacci degli ambasciatori veneti alia
corte de Francia durante la rivoluzione. Turino, 1895.
Valuable observations as to state of public opinion, as seen by ambas
sadors in httle sympathy with it.
Louvet de Couvray, Jean Baptiste. SociStS des Amis de la Consti
tution. Discours sur la guerre, prononcSe a la Societe, le 9 Janvier,
1792. [Paris.]
A speech in ardent support of Brissot's war policy.
Malassis, A. P. ed. Ecrits et pamphlets de Rivarol, recueilhs pour
le premiere fois, et annotes par A. P. Malassis. Paris, 1877.
Contains what purports to be a Riponse de M. le Baron de Grim, chargi
des affaires de S. M. I'lmperateur de Russw d Paris, a la lettre de M. Chasse-
bauf de Volney, in which occurs the accusation that Brissot was a police
spy in the pay of M. Lenoir. Not reliable.
Mallet du Pan, J. ConsidSrations sur la nature de la RSvolution de
la France, et sur les causes qui en prolongent la durSe. Londres et
Bruxelles. [1793.]
Contains criticisms of Brissot and the Girondins from a hostile point of
view.
Manuel, L. P. La Police de Paris dSvoilSe. 2 vols. Paris, Fan second
de la liberte. [1791.]
Marivaux, J. C. Martin de. Lettre de . . . a Fauteur de la diatribe
intitulee "Lettre de J. P. Brissot a M. Barnave, sur ses rapports con
cernant les colonies, 31 dScembre, 1790." [Paris, 1790.]
An attack on Brissot, not merely on account of his colonial policy, but
also for alleged monarchical sentiments.
Mirabeau, Comte de. De la Caisse d'escompte. [Paris?] 1785.
 L' Analyse des papiers anglais. 102 nos. 4 vols. 1787-88.
Served as an organ for the Amis des Noirs. " Le titre de cette feuille,"
dit Brissot, qui eut fait un des ridacteurs, "Halt un marque d la faveur
duquel Mirabeau ripandait des veritis hardies."
Montmorin, Saint HSreme C. A. M. de. Observations de M. de
Montmorin adressSes a F AssemblSe nationale, sur les discours pro-
noncSs par M. Gensonne et Brissot, dans la sSance du 23 mai, 1792.
[Paris.] A denial of the accusation brought against him and a defense of his
policy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 491
Moreau de Saint-MSry, M. L. E. ConsidSrations presentees aux
viais amis du repos et du bonheur de la France a Foccasion des nouveax
mouvemens de quelques soi-disant Amis des Noirs. Paris, 1791.
No title-page. Another copy has title-page with above and "Paris.
1791," and one extra page at the end, with a brief justification of Moreau de
Saint-Mery's personal conduct.
M . . . J. Avis d'un depute a ses collegues; sur le discours de M.
Brissot, lu a la seance du 30 octobre, 1791, concernant une revolte
de negres a Saint-Domingue, signed J. M. . . . F. Paris, 1791.
A criticism of Brissot's colonial policy.
Paganel, Pierre. Essa historique et critique sur la RSvolution
frangaise. 3 vols. Paris, 1815.
Written from the point of view of a member of the Plain. On the whole,
friendly to the Girondins, though opposed to Brissot's colonial policy.
(La lere edition fut enlevee entiere par I'ordre de I'ancien gouvernment en
1810, et detruite en totaliti en 1813.)
Pange, M. le chevalier de. Reflexions sur la dSlation et sur le comite
des recherches. Paris, 1790.
A severe attack on the methods of the Committee; with special refer
ence to their pursuit of M. Besenval.
Peltier, Jean Gabriel. Histoire de la Revolution du 10 aout, des
causes qui Font produite; des SvSnements qui Font precedee, et des
crimes qui Font suivie. 2 vols. Londres, 1795.
Includes the events leading up to the Revolution of August 10 and the
results, as well as the events of the day itself. From the point of view of
a royalist and reactionary.
Phillips, Richard. Biographical anecdotes of the founders of the
French Republic. 2 vols. London, 1788.
Contams an interesting and sympathetic sketch of Brissot, evidently
based on first-hand information. Published anonymously, attributed to
Phillips.
Pons, F. R. J. de. Observations sur la situation politique de Saint
Domingue, 27 novembre, 1790. [Paris, 1790.]
A defense of the slave trade on the ground that it was necessary for the
existence of the French colonies.
Robert, Frangois. A ses freres de la SociStS des Amis de la Constitu
tion, de la SociStS fraternelle et du club des Cordeliers. [Paris.]
An explanation of why he did not receive an appointment as ambassador
to Constantinople. Throws light on Brissot's influence with the Girondin
ministry.

492 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Robespierre, Maximilien. SociStS des Amis de la Constitution. Dis
cours de . . . sur le parti que I'AssemblSe nationale doit prendre re
lativement a la proposition de guerre annoncee par le pouvoir executif,
prononcS a la societe le 18 dScembre, 1791. [Paris, 1791.]
A speech against Brissot's war policy.
SociStS des Amis de la Constitution. Discours de ... sur la

guerre prononcS a la sociStS des Amis de la Constitution, le 2 Janvier,
1792. Paris, 1792.
Another speech in opposition to war.
¦ SociStS des Amis de la Constitution. Troisieme discours de . .

sur la guerre, prononcS . . . dans la sSance du 26 Janvier, 1792, l'an
quatrieme de la libertS. Paris, 1792.
Third speech in opposition to war.
¦ RSponse aux discours de MM. Brissot et Guadet, du 25 avril,

1792, prononcS a la Societe des Amis de la Constitution. Paris, 1792.
A continuation of the attack begun by Robespierre, April 4.
Roland, de la Platiere, J. M. Lettre a Brissot de Warville. Lyon,
V mars, 1790. [1790.]
A friendly protest that Brissot had written of conditions in Lyons in
such a way as to make Roland responsible for views which he did not hold.
Throws hght on relations between the two men.
Rousseau, Le Comte, de. Discours de . . . prononcS le 12 fevrier a
1'assemblSe de la Commune, sur les opinions de MM. Kormann et
Brissot de Warville, relatives a la caisse d'escompte. Paris, 1790.
A defense in opposition to Brissot's attack of the caisse d'escompte in its
relations with the national treasury.
Rouyer. Historique de l'arrestation de Brissot. Le citoyen Rouyer,
commissaire national du tribunal du district de Moulins et membre
de la SociStS populaire au citoyen Vidalin, depute a la Convention
nationale par le dSpartement de l'Allier. [Moulins le 11 juin, 1793.]
In Convention nationale. RScits de la RSvolution A. N. a.d. xviii0
241. An account drawn up by an eye-witness and in a hostile spirit.
Saint-Cyran, M. J. RSfutation du projet des Amis des Noirs sur la
suppression de la traite des negres et sur Fabolition d' esclavage dans
nos colonies. [Paris] 1790.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 493
De Salm, La Princess Constance. Notice sur la vie, les ouvrages de
Mentelle. Paris, 1839.
The most valuable part of this work is a series of extracts from a man
uscript of M. Mentelle in which is included an appreciation of Brissot.
Sergent-Marceau, A. F. Notice historique sur les SvSnements du
10 aout et des 20 et 21 juin prScSdants. In the Revue retrospective, sec
ond series, in, 328-46.
From the point of view of a participant, and of a Montagnard.
TarbS, C. RSplique a J. P. Brissot sur les troubles de Saint-Do
mingue; prononcSe a I'AssemblSe nationale le 22 novembre, 1792.
Paris, 1792.
A defense of the policy of the colonial committee and an attack in turn
on Brissot's colonial policy.
Theveneau de Morande, Charles. RSplique de . . . a, Jacques Pierre
Brissot sur les erreurs, les oublis, les infldSlites et les calomniSs de sa
reponse. Paris, 1791.
Part of the attack made upon Brissot at the time of his candidacy for
the Legislative Assembly.
 Lettre aux Slecteurs du dSpartement de Paris sur Jaques
Pierre Brissot. Paris [3 septembre], 1791.
See preceding title and note.
 Supplement au No. 25 de L' Argus Patriote. Paris, 6 septem
bre, 1791. See above.
Vemay. Lettre a. M. Brissot de Warville sur ses RSflexions im-
portantes relatives aux Slections futures des municipahtSs contenues
dans le supplement du no. clxiv de son journal intitulS Le Patriote
Francais. Lyon, 1790.
An attack on Brissot for having inserted in the Patriote Frangais an
article advising against the election to municipal office of all persons con
nected with the old regime.
Vilate, Joachim. Les Mysteres de la Mere de Dieu dSvoilSs. Paris,
Fan III. Contains some details with regard to the trial and last hours of the
Girondins. Not altogether reliable.
Avis d'un dSputS a ses collegues, sur le discours de M. Brissot, hi
a la sSance du 30 octobre, 1791, concernant une revolte de negres a
Saint-Domingue. A severe criticism of Brissot's position.

494 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adresse a 1'assemblSe nationale.
Sets forth the dangers to French commerce of the abohtion of the slave
trade. The signers include the names of deputies from Marseilles, Bayonne,
Bordeaux, Nantes, Rochelle, Saint-Malo, Havre, Dieppe, Dunkirk and
Lille.
Amis des Noirs, SociStS de. Adresse a I'AssemblSe nationale pour
I'abolition de la traite des noirs, par la SociStS des Amis des Noirs de
Paris. 20 fSvrier, 1790.
Signed Brissot, president, Le Page, secretary. While pleading for the
abolition of the slave trade the society protested against the assumption
that they were working for the immediate abolition of slavery. Throws
light on the purposes and aims of the society.
Seconde adresse a I'AssemblSe nationale, par la Societe des Amis
des Noirs. 9 avril, 1790.
Adresse aux amis de l'humanite par la SociStS des Amis des Noirs
sur le plan de ses traveaux. 4 juin, 1790.
An outline of the methods and work of the Society, signed by Petion as
president and Brissot as secretary.
Adresse de la SociStS des Amis des Noirs a I'AssemblSe nationale,
a toutes les villes de commerce, a toutes les manufactures, aux colonies,
a toutes les societes des amis de la constitution; adresse dans laquelle
on approfondit les relations politiques et commerciales, entre la me-
tropole, et les colonies, rSdigSe par Claviere.
A special plea for the extension of civil rights to the mulattoes and a
general statement of the principles of the society.
Tableau des membres de la SociStS des Amis des Noirs.
Without date or signature. In Suppliment aux proces-verbal de VAs
sembUe nationale, colonies, tome i; traite des negres, partie ii. A. N., ADXTm,
C. 115. Of considerable value, as showing the growth and personnel of the
Amis des Noirs.
Lettre aux Bailliages de France. [1 dec, 1789.]
An attack on the Amis des Noirs on the ground that it was an anti-
patriotic society.
RSglements de la SociStS des Amis des Noirs.
Drawn up by Condorcet. Printed in article by Leon Cahen, "La Soeieti
des Amis des Noirs H Condorcet," in La Rivolution Frangaise, June, 1906.
Circulaire de la SociStS de la liberte et de FSqualitS, sSante aux ci-
devant Jacobins de Paris, rue Saint-HonorS. Paris, 1792.
An explanation, sent to the affiliated societies, of the reasons for the ex
pulsion of Brissot.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 495
ConsidSrations presentees aux vrais amis du repos et du bonheur de
la France a Foccasion des nouveaux mouvements de quelques soi-
disant Amis des Noirs. [1790.]
DSnonciation de la secte des Amis des Noirs, par les habitants des
colonies frangaises [signS: Les Colons assemblSes en 1'hotel de Mas-
siac] DScouverte d'une conspiration contre les interets de la France.
Without date or signature. A violent attack on the Amis des Noirs. In
the same series as the above. They both throw light on the importance of
the Society.
Le Diable dans un benitier et la MStamorphose du gazetier
cuirasse. An attack on the police methods of the old regime. For his alleged col
laboration with Pelleport in the authorship of his pamphlet, Brissot was
imprisoned in the Bastille in 1784. It has never been finally settled as to
who was really the author.
An inquiry into the cause of the insurrection of the negroes in the
island of Santo Domingo. London, 1792.
An English attack on Brissot's colonial policy.
Flower of the Jacobins, containing biographical sketches of the
characters at present at the head of affairs in France, dedicated to
Louis XVT, king of France and Navarre. Third edition. London,
1793. Attacks on Monsieur figalite, Petion, Merlin, Dumouriez, Chabot,
Carra, Gorsas, Danton, Marat, Condorcet, Robespierre, and Brissot.
Lettre a MM. les deputes des trois ordres, pour les engager a faire
nommer par Les Etats GSneraux, a l'example des anglais, une com
mission chargee d'examiner la cause des noirs [signe: Un ami des
Noirs]. [Mai, 1789.]
An argument against the slave trade.
Lettre de M. . . . a. M. Brissot de Warville, president de la SociStS
des Amis des Noirs. [Paris.]
"Par Us diputis extraordinaires des manufacturiers et du commerce, en
faveur du mainlien de la traite."
Lettres de la SociStS des Amis des Noirs a M. Necker avec la re
ponse de ce ministre. Juillet, 1789.
A protest against certain statements regarding the slave trade, made by
Necker in his address at the opening of the States-General.

496 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lettres des diverses SociStSs des Amis de la Constitution, qui rS-
clament les droits de citoyen actif en faveur des hommes de couleur
des colonies [8 mars, 17 avril, 1791]. [Paris.]
For the most part letters addressed to the SociHi des Amis de la Con
stitution, at Angers, in response to the circular sent out by that society,
announcing its plan to present a petition to the National Assembly in
favor of the mulattoes.
Liste des ouvrages sur la traite et Fesclavage. [Paris.]
The same list which was published in the Patriote Frangais of May 7,
1790.
Un Mot sur les Noirs, a leurs Amis.
An argument in favor of slavery, and an attack on the Amis des Nmrs,
on the ground that they were unpatriotic and that they were working
against the real interests of France.
Observations du Mercredi, 15 dScembre, 1790.
Opinion de M. Brissot sur quelques idSes de M. A. Lameth. 1790.
A criticism of Brissot's objections to certain remarks of Lameth on the
relation of the ministry to the legislative body.
Observations sur un ouvrage de M. Brissot de Warville, 7 dScembre,
1790. A quotation from a letter by Brissot with warm commendation of his
patriotic principles.
Observations sur un article du journal de M. Brissot de Warville,
concernant une protestation contre les assignats.
Unsigned and undated. Evidently by Bergasse, whose name is written
in the margin. On a previous occasion Bergasse had expressed surprise
that Claviere should uphold forced assignats. The present pamphlet is an
answer to Brissot and a further criticism of the dangers of the proposed

Observations pour servir de rSponse aux objections de M. Brissot
contre la convocation actuelle des assemblSes primaires dans son
opinion du juillet 26. [Paris, 1792.]
A protest against the suspicion expressed by Brissot, that the partisans
of the king were favoring the convocation of the primary assemblies, in the
hope that once called they could be intimidated into taking action favor
able to the king.
Perfidie du systSme des Amis des Noirs. [Nantes, ce 23 fSvrier,
1791.] The address closes thus: "Ils sont les vceux unanimes et universelles
de tous les citoyens et individus de la ville de Nantes et tels ne peuvent
qu'etre ceux de tous les bons et senses Frangais."

BIBLIOGRAPHY 497
RSflexions sur la despotisme qu'exercent a Saint-Domingue les
commissaires nationaux civiles, Polverel and Santhonax. DSnoncia-
tion de ces memes commissaires par Ie citoyen sans-rSproche, homme
de couleur, affranchi du citoyen Page, homme blanc et commissaire de
Saint-Domingue. Allegations against Brissot and the Girondins to the effect that they
had upheld the policy of Polverel and Santhonax.
Reponse des deputes de Saint-Domingue aux inculpations de M.
Brissot, adressS le 5 dScembre a M. le prSsident de 1'assemblSe na
tionale. RSpresentations a MM. Brissot, FabbS Audrin, Chabot et les autres
deputes dStracteurs du pouvoir executif. [Paris, 1792.]
Unsigned and undated. A protest against attacks on the king's min
isters. The way to restore dignity to the existing government, the writer
argued, was not to insult its first agents.
Sur les troubles des colonies et Funique moyen d'assurer la tran-
quillite, le prospSrite et la fidelitS de ces dSpendances de I'empire, en
refutation des deux discours de M. Brissot du ler et 3me dScembre
1791. An argument that the troubles of the colonies were due to the agitation
of the slavery question.
Vie privSe et politique de Brissot. Paris, Fan H.
A violent attack on Brissot, written, apparently, after his arrest at
Moulins, June 10, 1793, and just before his trial. It compares him with
Tartuffe. The pamphlet contains a picture of Brissot.
Vie secrette et politique de Brissot. Paris, Fan VI.
A duplicate of the preceding, but with a different title-page.
2. Memoirs and Letters
Bailleul, Jacques Charles. Examen critique de I'ouvrage posthume
de Mme. la Baronne de Stael ayant pour titre, "Considerations sur
les principaux SvSnements de la RSvolution frangaise." 2 vols. Paris,
1818. Contams an appreciation of Brissot and the Girondins from the point of
view of a man who had occupied the position of a moderate in the Con
vention. It also gives an account of the origin of the term "Brissotin."
Barbaroux, Charles Jean Marie. MSmoires inedites de Petion et
MSmoires de Buzot et de Barbaroux. Dauban, C. A., ed. Paris, 1866.
Dauban is thoroughly in sympathy with the Girondins.

498 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bertrand de Moleville, Antoine Frangois. MSmoires particulieres
pour servir a, Fhistoire de la fin du regne de Louis XVII. 2 vols. 1816.
Throws light on the attitude of supporters of the king towards Brissot.
Crevecceur, Saint John de. Letters from an American Farmer.
London, 1782.
A work of great interest, because of its influence upon Brissot.
Delacroix, J. LTntrigue devoilSe ou Robespierre vengS des ou
trages et des calomnies des ambitieux. [Paris,] 1792.
Contains an attack on Brissot as an adherent of Lafayette. The par
tisanship of the writer is evident from the title.
Dumont, Etienne. Souvenirs sur Mirabeau et sur les deux pre
mieres assemblSes ISgislatives, ouvrage posthume publiS par J. L.
Duval. Paris, 1832.
Contains interesting comments on the attitude of Brissot on various
occasions, which are, however, to be taken with some caution.
 Recollections of Mirabeau and of the two Legislative Assem

blies of France. London, 1832.
A translation of the above.
Garat, Le Comte, D. J. MSmoires sur la RSvolution, ou exposS de
ma conduite dans les affaires et dans les fonctions publiques. Paris,
l'an m.
Garat was a friend and at the same time a critic of the Girondins.
Genlis, Madame la comtesse de. MSmoires. In Barriere, Biblio
theque des MSmoires, xv. 1846.
Unreliable.
Louvet de Couvrai, Jean Baptiste. Memoires sur la RSvolution
Frangaise. F. A. Aulard, ed. 2 vols. Paris, 1889.
Edited from a more unbiased point of view than the previously pub
lished memoirs of other Girondins.
Mallet du Pan, Jacques. MSmoires et correspondance de . . . pour
servir a Fhistoire de la RSvolution Frangaise, recueillis et mis en ordre
par A. Sayous. 2 vols. Paris, 1851.
Hostile to Brissot.
Meillan. MSmoires. Paris, 1823.
Favorable to the Girondins.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 499
Riouffe, H. MSmoires d'un detenu pour servir a Fhistoire de la
tyrannie de Robespierre. Paris, l'an III.
Gives information as to Brissot's last days in prison.
Roland, Madame Marie Jeanne Phlipon. Lettres publiees par
Claude Perroud. In Collection de documents inSdits sur Fhistoire de
France. 2 vols. Paris, 1900-02.
In "CoUection de documents inidits sur I'histoire de France, publiis par
les soins du ministre de V instruction publique." A work of most thorough
scholarship; contains much material upon Brissot and his relation with the
Roland group.
 Memoires. PubliSs par Claude Perroud. 2 vols. Paris, 1905.
A work of the same character as the above; also contains much informa
tion as to Brissot.
Soulavie, J. L. G. MSmoires historique et politiques sur le regne de
Louis XVI. 6 vols. Paris, 1801.
Not in sympathy with Brissot.
Williams, Helene Marie. Souvenirs de la RSvolution frangaise.
Traduit de Fanglais [par C. C.]. Paris, 1827.
Miss Williams was in sympathy with the Girondin policy and a per
sonal friend of many of them. She gives various details as to the family of
Brissot, but her accounts are not to be relied upon.
 Lettres sur les SvSnements qui se sont passes en France dS-
puis le 31 mai, 1793, jusqu'au 10 thermidor. Traduites de Fanglais.
Paris. See above. 3. Newspapers
Only those are cited which especially concern Brissot.
Les Actes des Apotres. November, 1789, to October, 1791. (311
nos., 11 vols.) L'an de la liberte 0.
L'Ami du peuple. Ed. par Marat. Sept. 12, 1789, to July 14,
1793. This and the preceding extremely hostile to Brissot.
L'Ami du Roi. Parts 1-4. Paris, 1790-92.
Motto: Pro Deo, Rege et P atria.

500 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annales politiques, civiles et littSraires, du dix-huitieme siecle
ouvrage periodique, par M. Linguet. 19 vols. Londres et Paris, 1777-
91. Decidedly polemic in character, twice suppressed. Brissot was for a
brief time connected with this journal.
L'Aniti-Brissotin. Journal du soir. Du 117 nos. 1" brumaire, an
H, a 27 pluvi6se, an IH.
Upholds the system of the Terror.
Le Babillard. Journal du Palais-Royal et des Tufleries. 116 nos.
[June 5, to Oct. 7, 1791. Paris, 1791.]
This journal and its successor, Le Chant du Coq, bitterly hostile to
Brissot.
Le Babillard et Ie Chant du Coq. Nos. 117-38. Oct. 8, to Oct. 30,
1791. Paris, 1791.
" Le Chant du Coq semblait n 'avoir Hi crii que pour mener un campagne
acharnie contre Brissot."
La Chronique du mois ou les cahiers patriotiques de E. Claviere, C.
Condorcet, L. Mercier, A. Auger, J. Oswald, N. Bonneville, J. Bider-
mann, A. Broussonet, A. Guy-Kersaint, J. P. Brissot, J. Ph. Garran
de Coulon, J. Dussaulx, F. LanthSnas, et Collot d'Herbois. 5 vols.
Nov. 1791, to July, 1793.
La Chronique de Paris. 8 vols. Aug. 24, 1789, to Aug. 25, 1793.
Moderate, inchned to the side of the Girondins.
Le Courrier des dSpartements. 47 vols., ed by Gorsas. July 5, 1789,
to May 31, 1793.
It appeared under the successive titles of Le Courrier de Versailles a
Paris, Le Courrier de Paris dans Us Provinces, Le Courrier de Paris dans
les 83 dipartements, Le Courrier des 1XXX1I1 dSpartements, Le Courrier
des dipartements.
Courrier de I'Europe, gazette anglo-frangais, par Serre de Latour,
Morande. Brissot, le comte de Montlosier; 32 vols. Londres et Bou
logne, 1776-92.
" Un des recueils Us plus importants d consulter, non seuUment pour Vhis-
toire politique, mais encore pour Vhistoire morale et littiraire du siHcU dernier.
Interessant surtout pour Vhistoire des colonies anglais." Hatin, Biblio-
hie, 74.

Gazette nationale ou le Moniteur Universal, du 24 novembre, 1789.
One of the most valuable sources for the debates in the successive
Assemblies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 501
Le journal gSnSral de la cour et de la ville. 15 vols. Sent. 15 17RQ
to Aug. 10, 1792. ' '
Hostile to Brissot.
Journal de Paris. 87 vols. Jan. 1, 1777, to Sept. 30, 1811.
Inchned to be hostile.
Le Mercure, 1672-1853.
During the Revolution, and since, called the Mercure de France. From
1789 to 1792 of the party of constitutional monarchy.
The Monthly Review, or Literary Journal, enlarged. 108 vols Lon
don, 1790-1825. Contains criticisms of certain of Brissot's works; more or less friendly.
Le RSpublicain, ou le DSfenseur du gouvernement reprSsentatif par
une societe des rSpublicains [par Condorcet, Thomas Paine et Achille
Duchatelet]. [Paris, 1791.]
The newspaper which represented the sudden and short-lived republican
movement of the summer of 1791.
Les Revolutions de France et de Brabant. 86 nos. Nov. 28, 1789,
to July, 1791.
Critical, rather than hostile. On several occasions, however, Desmou
lins expressed hearty approval of Brissot's conduct.
Les Revolutions de Paris. 18 vols. July 12, 1789, to Feb. 28, 1794.
At first rather in sympathy with Brissot, but it did not hesitate to assail
him particularly for his part in municipal affairs, and as the Revolution
progressed criticized him more and more severely.
Le Thermometre du jour. 7 vols. Aug. 11, 1791, to Aug. 25, 1793.
"An implacable enemy of nobles, priests, and kings.''
C. Collections of Documents
Aulard, Frangois Alphonse. La Societe des Jacobins. Recueil de
documents pour Fhistoire du club des Jacobins de Paris. 6 vols. Paris,
1889-97. In Collection de documents relatifs a Fhistoire de Paris
pendant la Revolution frangaise, publiSe sous le patronage de Conseil
municipal.  ed. Recueil des actes du Comite de salut public avec la
correspondance officielle des reprSsentants in mission. 20 vols. 1889-
1910.

502 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Challamel, Augustin. Les Clubs contre-rSvolutionaires, circles,
comites, sociStes, salons, rSunions, cafSs, restaurants et librairies.
Paris, 1895.
Charavay, Etienne. AssemblSe Slectorale de Paris. 18 novembre,
1790, a 15 juin, 1791. Paris, 1890.
 AssemblSe Slectorale de Paris. 26 aout 1791, a 12 aout, 1792.
Paris, 1890.
Chassin, Ch. L. Les Elections et les cahiers de Paris en 1789. 4 vols.
Paris, 1888-89.
Funck-Brentano, Frantz. Les Lettres de cachet a Paris. Etude
suivie d'une liste des prisonniers de la Bastille. [1659-1789.] Paris,
1903. Hatin, Eugene. Bibliographic historique et critique de la presse
pSriodique frangaise. Paris, 1866.
Lacroix, Sigismund. Actes de la commune de Paris pendant la
RSvolution, publiSs et annotes par Sigismund Lacroix. 7 vols. 1"
sSrie. 25 juillet, 1789, a 8 octobre, 1790. Paris, 1894-1898.
Mavidal, J., et Laurent, E. Archives parlementaires de 1787 a 1860.
Recueil complet des dSbats lSgislatifs et politiques des chambres
frangaises. Premiere sSrie [1787 a 1799]. Paris, 1879-
The editing of this work is not of the highest order. It supplements the
information found in the Moniteur, but it is to be used with some caution.
Robiquet, Paul. Le Personnel municipal de Paris pendant la RS
volution, pSriode constitutionelle. Paris, 1890.
Bulletin du tribunal criminel Stabli par la loi du 10 mars, 1793, pour
juger sans appel les conspirateurs. 8 vols. Paris, 1793.
Contains reports of the trial, drawn up naturally in a spirit hostile to the
Girondins.
Proces-verbal de I'AssemblSe nationale [lSgislative]. 16 vols. Paris,
1791-92. Proces-verbal de la convention nationale. 74 vols. Paris, 1792.
An IV.
Supplement aux proces-verbal de 1'assemblSe nationale. Colonies.
Tome i. Traites des nSgres. Part n.
Browning, Oscar, ed. The dispatches of Earl Gower, English am
bassador at Paris from June, 1790, to August, 1792, to which are
added the dispatches of Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Monro, and the diary
of Viscount Palmerston in France during July and August, 1791.
Cambridge, Eng., 1885.
Contains comments on several of Brissot's speeches.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 503

D. General Works
Aulard, F. A. Histoire politique de la RSvolution frangaise. Paris
1901. Very suggestive as to the Girondin policy in general.
 L'Eloquence parlementaire pendant la RSvolution frangaise.
Les Orateurs de la LSgislative et de la Convention. 2 vols. Paris,
1885-86. Contains an interesting and suggestive sketch of Brissot.
Avenel, H. Histoire de la presse frangaise depuis 1789 jusqu'a nos
jours. Paris, 1900.
Beaulieu, Claude Frangois. Essais historiques sur les causes et les
effets de la Revolution de France. 6 vols. Paris, 1801-03.
From the royalist point of view.
Belote, T. T. The Scioto Speculation and the French Settlement at
Gallipolis. In University studies, published by the University of
Cincinnati; series n; vol. n, 103. Cincinnati, 1907.
BirS, Edmond. La Legende des Girondins. Paris, 1881.
Extremely hostile to the Girondins and to the Revolution.
Biernawski, Louis. Un DSpartement sous la RSvolution frangaise,
L'Allier de 1789 a l'an m. Moulins, 1909.
Contains material on arrest of Brissot.
Buchez, P. J. B., et Roux, P. C. Histoire parlementaire de la RS
volution frangaise ou Journal des assemblSes nationales dSpuis 1789
jusqu'en 1815. 40 vols. Paris, 1834-38.
Especially valuable for the clues which it gave to the contemporary
journalistic opinion.
Bourne, H. E. The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1789-1815.
New York, 1904.
A brief but scholarly treatment of the whole period.
Cahen, LSon. Condorcet et la RSvolution frangaise. Paris,
1904. Valuable information on relations between Condorcet and Brissot.
Well documented.

504 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Campardon, Emile. Le Tribunal rSvolutionaire de Paris. Ouvrage
composS d'apres les documents originaux conservSs aux Archives de
FEmpire, suivi de la liste complete des personnes qui ont comparu
devant le tribunal. 2 vols. Paris, 1866.
Gives an account of the trial of the Girondins. Hostile to the tribunal
and in sympathy with the accused.
Charpentier, ( ). La Bastille dSvoilee ou Recueil de pieces au-
thentiques pour servir a son histoire. 3 vols. Paris, 1789-90.
Par Charpentier, d'apres Barbier. Par Louis Pierre Manuel, d'apris M.
Girraud. [Note in catalogue of Bibliotheque Nationale.] Contains a state
ment that Brissot received the keys of the Bastille.
Claretie, ArsSne Jules. Desmoulins, Lucile Desmoulins, etude sur les
Dantonistes, d'apres des documents nouveaux, et inSdite. Paris, 1875.
Contains information as to the relations of Brissot and Desmoulins.
Clarkson, Thomas. The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accom
plishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, by the British
Parliament. 2 vols. London, 1808.
One of the most valuable sources for the history of the Amis des Nmrs.
Comillon, J. Le Bourbonnais sous la RSvolution frangaise. 3 vols.
Moulins, 1889-91.
Contains information on conditions at Moulin at time of Brissot's
arrest.
Crevecceur, Robert de. Saint John de Crevecceur, sa vie et ses
ouvrages [1735-1813]. Paris, 1883.
Gives interesting information as to the relations of Brissot with Creve
cceur.
Dard, Emile. Un Acteur cachS du drame rSvolutionaire, le gSnSral
Choderlos de Laclos, acteur des "Liaisons dangereuses," 1741-1803,
d'aprSs des documents inSdits. Paris, 1905.
Contains information as to the part played by Brissot in the republican
crisis of July, 1791.
Duchatellier, A. R. Histoire de la RSvolution dans les departements
de Fancienne Bretagne. 6 vols. Paris, 1836.
Feuillet de Conches, F. Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette et Madame
Elizabeth. Lettres et documents inSdits. 6 vols. Paris, 1864-73.
Much of the material contained in the first two volumes is of doubtful
authenticity. The last four volumes are less open to question.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 505
Fleury, Ed. Camille Desmoulins et Roch Marcandier. 2 vols.
Paris, 1851.
Made up largely of quotations, not very critical, favorable to Des
moulins.
Gallois, LSonard. Histoire des journaux et des journalistes de la
Revolution frangaise, 1789-96. 2 vols. Paris, 1845-46.
Contains a suggestive sketch of the Patriote Frangais.
Glagau, Hans. Die franzosische Legislative und der Ursprung der
Revolutionskriege, 1791-92. Berlin, 1896. In Historische Studien.
Based in part on the Austrian archives.
Goetz-Bernstein, H. A. La Diplomatic de la Gironde. Jacques
Pierre Brissot. Paris, 1912.
A thorough and well-documented study.
Gomel, Charles. Histoire financiere de I'AssemblSe constituante.
2 vols. 1896-97.
 Histoire financiere de la LSgislative et de la Convention.
2 vols. 1902-05.
Goupil, Paul. La ProprietS selon Brissot de Warville. These pour
le doctorat. Paris, 1904.
Emphasizes Brissot's inconsistency and his debt to Rousseau.
Granier de Casagnac, A. Histoire des Girondins et des massacres
de Septembre d'apres les documents officials et inSdits. 2 vols. Paris,
1860. One of the first studies of the Girondins from a comparatively unbiased
point of view.
Guadet, Joseph. Les Girondins, leur vie privSe, leur vie publique,
leur proscription et leur mort. 2 vols. Paris, 1861.
As the title suggests, — a eulogy.
Hatin, Eugene. Histoire du journal en France. Paris, 1846.
Includes information on the beginnings of the Patriote Frangais.
HSrissay, Jacques. Un Girondin, Frangois Buzot. Paris, 1907.
A successful attempt to make vivid the personality of Buzot.
Herrmann, Dr. Emst. Diplomatische Correspondenzen aus der
Revolutionszeit, 1791-97. Gotha, 1867.
Abstracts and translation of dispatches dealing largely with the out
break of war.

506 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jaures, J. La Constituante, 1901. La LSgislative, 1902. La Conven
tion; 2 vols.; 1903. In Histoire Socialiste, 1789-1900, sous la direction
de Jean Jaures et collaborateurs.
Contains material indicating Brissot's interest in economic matters.
From the point of view of a socialist.
Kropotkin, Pierre. La Grande RSvolution, 1789-93. Paris, 1909.
Attacks the Girondins on the ground that they represent the bourgeois
point of view in hostility to the proletariat.
Lomenie, Louis Leonard, et Charles de. Les Mirabeaux, nouvelles
Studies sur la sociStS frangaise au 18me siecle. 5 vols. Paris, 1885-91.
Throws light on the early relations between Brissot and Mirabeau.
Masson, FrSdSric Le DSpartement des affaires Strangeres pendant
la rSvolution, 1787-1804. Paris, 1877.
Based on documents.
Mathiez, A. Le Club de Cordeliers. Paris, 1910.
Mills, Herbert Elmer. The Early Years of the French Revolution
in Santo Domingo. Poughkeepsie, 1892.
Monin. L'Etat de Paris en 1789. Paris, 1881.
Morellet, L'AbbS Andre. Melanges de litterature et de philosophie
du 18me siecle. 4 vols. Paris, 1818.
Contains a criticism of some of Brissot's literary work.
Pallain, G., ed. La Mission de Talleyrand a Londres, en 1792.
Paris, 1889.
Information on Brissot's attitude toward foreign affairs.
Pfeiffer, L. B. The Uprising of June 20, 1792.
A scholarly study.
Robiquet, Paul. ThSveneau de Morande. Paris, 1882.
Throws light on one of Brissot's most bitter adversaries, and on the
libelists of the old regime, with whom Brissot came in contact during his
stay in London in 1784.
Rose, J. H. William Pitt and the Great War. London, 1911.
Sagnac, Ph. La Legislation civile de la RSvolution frangaise. Paris,
1890. Seligman, E. La Justice en France pendant la RSvolution frangaise.
Paris, 1901.
Sorel, Albert. L'Europe et la RSvolution frangaise. 8 vols. Paris,
1885-1904.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 507
Sybel, H. von. The French Revolution. 4 vols. London, 1867-69.
Ternaux, Mortimer. Histoire de la Terreur, 1792-94, d'apres des
documents authentiques et inSdits. 7 vols. Paris, 1862-69.
Contains documents bearing on Brissot.
Vatel, Charles. Charlotte de Corday, et les Girondins, piSces clas-
sees et annotSes. 2 vols. Paris, 1864-72.
Contains a Notice sur Brissot, by Petion, of special value on many points
of his early life. Petion apparently derived much of his information di
rectly from Brissot himself.
 Vergniaud, Manuscrits, lettres et papiers, pieces pour la plu-
part inSdites. 2 vols. Paris, 1873.
Contains several important documents bearing on Brissot, not accessi
ble elsewhere.
Vaultier, F. Souvenirs de Finsurrection normande dite du fedS-
ralisme en 1793, publiees pour la premiere fois, avec notes et pieces
justificative, par M. Georges Mangel. Caen, 1858.
Wallon, Henri Alexandre. Histoire de Tribunal rSvolutionaire de
Paris, avec le journal de ses actes. 6 vols. Paris, 1880-82.
Favorable to the Girondins.
 La RSvolution de 31 mai et le fSdSralisme en 1793, ou la
France vaincue, par la commune de Paris. 2 vols. Paris, 1886.
Washington, George. Writings, ed. by Ford. 14 vols. New York,
1889-93. Wilberforce, R. I. and S., editors. Life of William Wilberforce, by
his sons. London, 1838. E. Magazine Articles
Aulard, Frangois Alphonse. Formation du parti republicain. In
La Revolution Frangaise, for 1898, xxxv, 296-347.
Bourne, Henry E. American Constitutional Precedents in the
French National Assembly. In the American Historical Review, April,
1903, vm, 466-86.
Cahen, LSon. La Societe des Amis des Noirs et Condorcet. In La
RSvolution Frangaise, June, 1906, pp. 481-511.
Chamberland, ( ). A propos de Brissot [le conventionnel nS a
Chartres en 1754]. In Proces-Verbaux de la SociStS archSologique
d'Eure-et-Loire. [Chartres.] 1901, x, 121-23.
Denos, G. Etude sur la maison dite de Brissot a Chartres. In Pro-
ces-verbaux de la SociStS archSologique d'Eure-et-Loire. [Chartres,]
1901, x, 163-69.

508 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faguet, Emile. Une histoire de la RSvolution frangaise. In La
Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 aout, 1901, fifth period, iv, 631-59.
Manning, W. R. The Nootka Sound Controversy. In the Annual
Report of the American Historical Association, 1904.
Perroud, A. Brissot de les Rolands. In La RSvolution Frangaise,
mai, 1898, xxxiv, 403-22.
 La Famille de Madame Brissot in La RSvolution Frangaise,
ltx, 270-74, Sept. 14, 1910.
 Sur FauthenticitS des MSmoires de Brissot. In La RSvolu
tion Frangaise, aout, 1904, xlvii, 121-34.
 Un Projet de Brissot pour une association agricole. In La
RSvolution Frangaise, mars, 1902, xiii, 260-65.
Sorel, Albert. Un GSnSral diplomate. In La Revue des Deux Mon
des, juin 15, aout 1, aout 15, 1884, third period, lxiv, 302-32, 575-606,
789-829. Turner, Frederick J. The origin of Genet's Projected Attack on
Louisiana and the Floridas. In the American Historical Review, July,
1898, in, 650-71.
 Documents on the Relations of France to Louisiana, 1792-95.
In the American Historical Review, April, 1898, in, 490-516.
L'lntermSdiaire des Chercheurs et des Curieux. Article signed
G. D., Oct. 10, 1891, xxiv, 777.
Gives information as to the descendants of Brissot.
L'Intermediaire des Chercheurs et des Curieux, xxm; 707; xxrv,
62. Inquiry signed L. C. Answer signed Maurice Tourneux.
Inquiry and answer covering an alleged letter of the Baron Grim, as
serting that Brissot had been a police spy.
The Monthly Review, xxxvi, 593, and vi (enlarged series), 531-43.
Book reviews of De la France and Le Nouveau Voyage.

INDEX

INDEX

Abbaye (prison), 363, 367-368.
Actes des Apotres, 107, 120, 212 n., 217,
243 n., 447 n.
Adams, John, 25, 69, 74.
Adams, Samuel, 75.
Adelaide, Madame, 21 n.
Albany, 410.
Alembert (d'), 13, 19 n., 21.
Alexandria, 435.
Allais, 162.
Allier, Department of the, 352-353
notes, 356-357 notes, 358-359 notes,
361-362 notes.
Alsace, 227 n.
Amar, 369, 371, 372, 377.
America. See United States.
Ami du Peuple, 119-120, 224 n.,
271 u., 333, 357 n.
Ami du Roi, 217, 234 and n., 276.
Amis des Noirs, Brissot's part in
founding, 1-2, 40, 67, 96; connec
tion with like societies in America,
78; addresses of, sent to municipal
assembly, 105-106; mentioned, 121;
incentive to organization of, 182-
184; assistance given to, by Mira
beau, 183-185 and n., 193-194 and
notes; first meeting of, 184-185;
first president of, 185; efforts of
Brissot to secure members for, 186;
assistance given to, by Lafayette,
186-187; connection of, with Con
dorcet, 187; constitution of, 187-
188; condition of, during Brissot's
absence in America, 189; address
of, on opening of the States-Gen
eral, 189 and n. ; relation of, to aboli
tion of slave trade, 189-190, 197-
199; letter of, to deputies, 190; as
sistance of Clarkson to, 190-194 and
notes; plans of, 191-192; opposition
to, of Club de Massiac, 194, 196; re
lation of, to States-General, 195-
201 and notes; relation of, to ad
mission of deputies from Santo-
Domingo to States-General, 195-196
and notes; relation of, to admission

of mulattoes to rights of citizenship,
196-197, 200-201, 208-212; rela
tion of, to self-government of colo
nies, 196, 199-201; efforts of Brissot
to interest the municipal govern
ment of Paris in work of, 197, 198 n. ;
attitude of, toward immediate aboli
tion of slavery, 198; address of, to
National Assembly, 198 and n., 200,
and n.; attitude of, toward decrees
of March 8 and October 12, 1790,
199-203; opposition to, 203-205,
212-215; attitude of, toward decree
of May 15, 1791, 206-212; accusa
tions against Brissot as leader of,
212-215; Brissot's reputation as
leader of, 217; hst of members of,
442-447.
Amsterdam, 317, 436.
Andover, 69 n.
Angers, Jacobin Society of, 206.
Anthoine, 288.
Antiquarian Society Papers, quoted,
66, 71, 72, 73, 85, 221, 399 n., 433-
434.
Antonelle, 382 n., 383.
Antwerp, 317.
Arbaud, M. Paul, 34 n.
Argental (d')( 21 and n.
Argenteuil, rue d', 379, 381.
Argus Patriote, 217-218.
Artois, Count d', 274-275, 294.
Assembly, National (first), mentioned,
98, 102-104, 109-110, 118-119,
121 n., 123-124, 132, 139-145, 147-
149, 153-154, 156, 158, 168, 170-
171, 180, 191, 197-210, 212, 217.
Avignon, 142, 143 n., 417.
Aublay, M., 401.
Aublay (Madame). See Dupont,
Nancy.
Auger, 120 n.
August 10, work of Assembly after,
293-302.
Aulard, F. A., quoted, 56 and n., 78 n.,
125 n., 161, 175, 194 n., 232 n., 281,
300 n., 324 n., 417-418, 422, 427 n.

512

INDEX

Austria, 236, 239-240, 250-251, 272,
275, 284, 302, 317, 339, 374.
"Austrian Committee," 272-275 and
notes, 379-380, 423.
Auvergne, 272 n.
Babillard, Le, 217, 218 re., 222 and n.
Baillard, 426 and re.
Bailly, 96, 104, 138, 179, 357 n., 379-
380.
Bale, 313.
Bangal des Issarts, 121 and re., 144 n.,
151, 161, 172, 175 re., 202 re., 253.
Barbaroux, 324 re., 327, 334.
Barbier, 243 re.
Barentin, 445 re.
Barere, 336, 368 n., 869.
Barett, 435.
Barlow, Joel, 86.
Barnave, 42 re., 135, 181, 200, 201 and
re., 202, 213 re., 309.
Barthelemy, 354.
Bastille, imprisonment of Brissot in,
24, 27, 29, 32-33, 368, 392; men
tioned, 97 and re., 98, 203, 332, 368.
Bayonne, 360.
Bazire, 328.
Beau, 352, 354 re.
Beaugency, 379.
Beaulieu, 219 and n.
Beaumarchais, 30 re., 53, 399.
Beaupoil Saint-Aulaire, 186 and n.
Beauvais de Preau, 451.
Beccaria, 45, 56.
Becquet, 247, 251.
Belgium, 252, 316-317, 329-331, 375.
Bentham, Jeremy, 25 and re., 391 re.
Benzelin, 275 re.
Bergasse, Nicholas, 37 and re., 38 and
n., 152.
Berlin, 54, 250, 320, 439.
Bernardin, de Saint Pierre, 186, 197 re.
Berne, 22, 313.
Berne, Economic Society of, 14.
Bertrand de Moleville, 141 and re.,
273-274 and notes, 287.
Besancon, Academy of, 19 re., 20 re.
Beverly, 69 re.
Bexon, 140.
Bibliotheque, Section of. See Muni
cipality.
Biderman, 120 re., 420.
Bigot de Preameneu, 451.
Billaud-Varennes, 300, 360.

Blanchelande, 209, 449-450.
Blot, 7 and ra., 8, 39, 121, 151.
Boileau, 383.
Bonconseil, Section of, 333.
Bonne-Carrere, 265, 280 and re., 291 n.
Bonneville, 120 re., 121 re.
Bordeaux, 152, 162, 203 and re., 213,
380-381.
Bosc, 121 and re., 122, 367.
Boston, 69 and re., 71-72, 74-75.
Bouille, Marquis de, 158-159, 169 n.
Boulogne, 14-16, 387 and re., 388, 398,
401.
Bourbon, 314.
Bourbon, He de, 250.
Bourdon, 378 and n.
Bourges, 336.
Brabant, 237, 284.
Brach, 186 and re.
Breteuil, 30 re., 32.
Brienne, 51, 187.
Brissot, Jacques Pierre, reasons for
writing the life of, 1-3; reputation
at the beginning of the Revolution,
1; reasons why biography has not
been written, 1-3; early writings
permeated with revolutionary doc
trines, 2; parentage, 4; birth, 4 and
re.; name, 4 and re.; baptism, 4; love
of study and reading, 4-6, 7; inter
est of mother of, in his studies, 4-6;
opposition of father of, to education
of children, 4-5, 6; brothers and sis
ters of, 4 and re., 5; schooling, 5-6;
choice of legal profession, 6; trea
tise of, on canon law, 7; Rome di-
masqui, 7; essay on theft and prop
erty, 7 ; study of languages, 7 ;
thoughts of marriage, 7-8, 16; re
ligious experience, 8-10; reading of
Rousseau, Voltaire, and Diderot,
8-9; conversion to deism, 9; Lettres
philosophiques sur la vie et Us icrits
de Saint Paul, 9 and re., 25, 41-42,
120 re.; opposition to family on
matters of religion, 9-10; aspira
tion for a career in Paris gratified,
10-11; addition of "de Warville"
to name, 10 and re., 11; arrival in
Paris, 11 and re.; life in Paris, 11-14;
plans for presentation of plays in
foreign languages, 11; devotion to
a literary career in company with

INDEX

513

Guillard, 11-12; difficulty in gain
ing livelihood, 12; Le Pot pourri, 12;
threat of lettre de cachet, 12; illness,
12; plans for reform of laws and legal
institutions, 13-14, 19-21; Theorie
des lois criminelles, 13-14, 18-19;
45-47 and notes, 52, 54 re., 55, 372;
Testament politique de V Angleterre,
13; Pyrrhonisme universelle, 13; writ
ings on laws and political institu
tions, 13, 18-20, 25, 36-37, 49-55;
employment by Swinton on the
Courrier, 13-15; dismissal by Swin
ton, 15; Reponse a tous Us libellistes,
quoted, 14, 30, 32-33, 49, 53-54, 68,
220-221 notes; unsuccessful appli
cation to father for aid, 15-16; re
turn to Paris, 16; work for Linguet,
16; death of father, 17; legacy from
father, 17; insanity of mother, 17;
scientific study, 17; interest in Ma
rat, 17; resumption of study for the
bar and final abandonment of a legal
career, 18; winning of prizes on sub
ject of legal reform, 19-20; S'il itait
dudesindemnites, 19; Quelles pourroi
ent Hre en France les lois penales, 19;
Des funestes effets de Vigoisme, 19 re.;
Un Indipendant a I'ordre des avocats,
19, 47 n., 52, 55 and re., Biblotheque
philosophique, 19 re., 20, 36, 44-46
and notes, 49-50 notes, 52, 55 and n.,
57, 133 and re., 372; De la ViriU, 19-
20, 52; Histoire universelle de la legis
lation criminelle, 20; establishment
and failure of the Lycie, 20-21, 25-
30, 33 and re., 219; journey to Swit
zerland, 21; engagement, 18, 389;
marriage, 22-23, 389; Le Philadel
phia a Geneve, 22, 25, 50 re., 52;
connection in London with libel
writers, 23-24; acquaintance in
London with men and women of
note, 24-26; joined in London by
wife, 25, 390-391; trouble with
Desforges, 25, 30, 391; La Corre
spondance, 26, 29, 52, 53 re., 54, 113,
372; Tableau exact des sciences et
des arts en Angleterre, 26, 54, 372,
391; Tableau des Indes, 26, 52-53;
birth of a son, 26, 391-392; arrest
for debt and release, 27, 391-392;
departure for France, 27, 392; arrest
and imprisonment in the Bastille,

27, 392; Lettre aux ilecturs, 28 «.,
220 n.; Journal de Lycie, 29; Ripli
que de Brissot, 29, 220, 221, 222
notes; accusations against of impli
cation in libels, 30-33; release from
Bastille through efforts of friends,
32, 392; accusation of responsibil
ity for Le Diable dans un binitier,
30-32, 321; help received from Cla
viere and from mother-in-law, 33;
birth of second child, 33 and re., 395;
financial difficulties, 34; collabora
tion with Claviere in work for Mira
beau, 34; work for Mirabeau, 34-36;
collaboration in Caisse d'escompte,
34; collaboration in the Banque de
Saint Charles, 34; trouble with
Mirabeau over manuscript, 35 and
re., L'Autoriti ligislative de Rome
aniantie, 36, 41, 147; translation of
Travels in Europe, in Asia, and in
Africa, 36 and re.; Un Difenseur du
Peuple a I'Empereur Joseph II, 36
and re., 53 re., 55; Leltred I'Empereur
sur VAtrocite des supplices, 36 and
n., 55, 372; L' Examen critique des
voyages dans I'Amirique septention-
ale de M. le Marquis de Chatellux,
36 and re., 52, 55 and «., 59-60; in
terest in scientific studies, 37 and
re. ; plans for the Societi Gallo-Amiri-
caine, 37; Dinonciation au public
d'un nouveau projet d'agiotage, 37
and re.; Seconde lettre contre la com
pagnie d' assurance, 37 and re., con
nection with Bergasse in political
reform, 38; work for the Duke of
Orleans, 38-39; Pmnt de banque
route, 37 and re., 50 re., 51, 53 re., 183;
LHtres philosophiques et politiques sur
Vhistoire de L' Anglderre, 37 and re.,
372, 383; Un mot aux academiciens,
37; De la France et des Etats-Unis,
37, 48 and re., 52, 55 and re., 63-66
and notes, 69, 90, 121; attitude
toward republicanism and dethrone
ment, 38, 128, 165, 253-255, 269,
181, 276-292, 363-366, 371-374,
379-380, 412-413, 419; threat of
lettre de cachet, 39; visit to England
and Holland, 39 and re.; Recherches
philosophiques sur la propriiti et le
vol, 43-44, 46 re., 266-267; work
against the slave trade, 40, 59-60;

514

INDEX

influences seen in early writings, 41 ;
subjects of early writings, 41-48;
Moyens d'adoucir en France la
rigueur des lois pinoles, 45-47 and
notes, 49; Le Sang innocent vengi,
45-47 and notes, 55; writings on
the United States, 48-50; Observa
tions d'un ripublicain, 50, 148, 164;
ideal for universal brotherhood, 52-
53, 419, 427; trouble with the cen
sorship, 53—416; opinion concerning
rights of Jews, 53, 146, 416; anony
mous publications, 54; style of
writing, 56; significance of early
writings in connection with later
career, 57-58; criticism of writings
of by Monthly Review, 66 re.; jour
ney to America, 66-90; Ripublique
d Stanislas Chermont, 68 re., 84 re.;
Nouveau Voyage, 69 re., 70-84 notes,
90 re.; reasons for publication of
Nouveau Voyage, 88, 90, 315; rela
tion to federalism, 90, 172, 342-
356, 379-380, 412, 414, 419; return
to France, 91; at opening of the
States-General, 91-96; failure of
election to the States-General, 95-
96; work as a municipal politician,
91-112; Plan de conduite, 92-94,
124, 135, 148, 165; Observations sur
la nioessiU d'itablir . . . des comiUs
de correspondance, 93 and re., 127 re.;
Discours prononci au district des
Filles-Saint-Thomas, 94 re., 100 re.;
Pricis adressi d Vassemblie ginirale
des ilecteurs de Paris pour servir d
la ridaction des doUances de cette
ville, 94 n., 95; Motifs des commis
saires pour adopter le plan de muni-
cipaliti, 99 : Observations sur le plan de
municipalite de Paris, 99 re. ; Opinion
. . . sur la question de savoir si Paris
sera le centre d'un dipartement, 101
re.; opinion on questions of finance,
102-104, 147-149, 151-154,265-266,
359 and n.; opinion on ecclesiastical
questions, 102-103, 111-112; 144-
147, 259-261; 296; Motion sur la
necessiti de circonscire la vente des
Mens eccUsiastiques aux municipali-
tis, 103, 111 n.; Discours sur la
rareti du numeraire et sur Us moyens
d'y remidier, 104 re., 152 re.; interest
in development of local govern

ment, 105; Discours prononci a la
section de la Bibliotheque dans son
assembUe ginirale . . . sur la ques
tion du renvoi des ministres, 104 re.;
Reflexions sur VHat de la Sociiti
des ilecteurs patriotes sur ses travaux,
sur Us formes propres d faire de
bonnes elections, 105 re.; Rapport
dans I'affaire de MM. Dhosier et
PHit-Jean, 108 re.; A Stanislas
Clermont, 108 re., 109 re.; Riplique d
Stanislas Clermont, 109 re.; Lettre a
M. le Chevalier de Pange, 109 n.\
work as editor of the Patriote Fran
gais, 113-181; Discours sur Vor-
ganisation de comitis, 119 re.; A tous
les ripublicains de France, 121 n.,
346; Discours sur les conventions,
133 re.; opinion on foreign affairs,
142-143, 295; attitude toward de
mocracy, 159-165, 180-181, 259,
324, 325-327, 414-417; attitude
toward women, 162; attitude toward
socialistic ideas, 162-163, 416; La
profession de foi sur la monarchic et
sur la ripublicainisme, 173-175;
Discours sur la question de savmr si
le rm peut itre jugi, 175-177 and
notes, 231 and re.; attitude toward
Lafayette, 180, 193 and re., 224, 241,
268-269, 276, 289, 296, 308-309,
337, 357 7i., 370 and re., 378-380;
relation to the SociiU des Amis des
Noirs, 182-215; Discours sur la
nicessiti d'itablir a Paris une so
ciiti pour concourir avec celle du
Londres, a I'abolition de to traite et
de Vesclavage des negres, 185; Mi-
moire sur Us noirs de VAmirique
septentrionale, 189 and re.; Reflexions
sur Vadmission aux Etats-Giniraux
des deputes de Saint-Domingue, 196
and re.; Discours sur la nicessiti de
maintenir le decret rendu le 15 mai
1791 en faveur des hommes de couleur
libres, 207 and re.; election to the
Legislative Assembly, 216-224, 451;
accusations against at time of can
didacy, 217-223; comments made on
election of Brissot, 224; address on
receiving the election, 224-225; posi
tion of in the Legislative Assembly,
225-226, 258; Discours sur V organi
sation des comitis, 226 and re. ; elected

INDEX

515

one of secretaries of the Legislative
Assembly, 226; membership in Dip
lomatic Committee of Legislative
Assembly, 226-227, 229, 375; advo
cacy of foreign war, 230-257; rela
tion to Jacobin Club, 232-234, 236;
Discours sur la nicessiti de declarer
la guerre, 233 and n.; Second discours
sur la nccissiti de faire la guerre,
238 re.; Troisiime discourse sur la
nicessiU de la guerre, 241 re.; attacks
on, because of his advocacy of war,
242-244 and notes, 271-272; attack
on Delessart, 243-249 and notes,
261-262, 375, 379-381; efforts to ob
tain foreign alliance, 256, 317-318;
Riplique a la premiere et derniire
lettre de Louis Marthe Gouy, 254 and
n.; Discours sur la nicessiti de sus-
pendre momentaniment U paiement
des liquidations au-dessus de 3000 /.,
259 re. ; opinion on ecclesiastical ques
tions, 259-261; opinion on financial
questions, 259 and re.; leader of
. Girondms, 261-266 and notes, 281-
291, 419-421; attitude on discipline,
265-266; attacks on, 266-272, 280
and re.; attack on "Austrian Com
mittee," 272-275 and notes, 379-
380; Premiere Uttre d Dumouriez,
280; wavering attitude toward mon
archy, 280-291, 412-413, 419; atti
tude toward events of June 20, 281-
282 and notes; Discours sur Us causes
des dangers de la patrie H sur les
misures d prendre, 284 re.; Opinion
sur les misures de police ginirale
proposies par M. Gensonni, 286 re.;
Opinion sur la marche d suivre en
examinant la question de la dichiance
et les autres misures. 286 re., attitude
toward events of August 10, 291-
292, 294-295, 363, 379-381, 412-
483; attitude toward second Giron
din ministry, 292 and re.; work as
member of the Committee of Twen
ty-one of the Legislative Assembly,
292-294 and notes, 296, 298, 301-
302, 414; attitude toward Swiss
troops, 294 and re. ; address to foreign
powers, 295; Projet de declaration de
V AssembUe nationale, 295 re.; atti
tude toward the Commune of Pa
ris, 296-303 and notes; accusation

against, of plotting to put upon the
throne the Duke of York or the
Duke of Brunswick, 300 and re., 363,
412; accusation of, for connection
with the massacres of September,
301, 380-381, 413-414; election to
Convention, 303-304; member of
the Committee on the Constitution,
304, 324 re.; member of the Diplo
matic Committee, 304, 316-317, 342,
376; attitude toward the abolition of
royalty, 304, 305, 332, 363, 379-380,
412-413; opposition to centraliza
tion, 306-307, 350; support given
to Buzot against Jacobins, 307; A
Tous les ripublicains de France, 308;
support given to Dumouriez, 310,
413; attitude toward revolutionary
propanganda and annexations, 310-
312 and notes; A ses Commettans,
311 and re.; attitude toward Swiss
cantons and Geneva, 312-314; atti
tude toward Spain, 314; attitude
toward Spanish America and fur
therance of Genet's expedition, 814-
316 and notes; member of the Com
mittee of General Defense, 316 and
re., 318-320; attitude toward Com
mittee of Public Safety, 316 re., 328;
attitude toward opening of the
Scheldt, 316-319, 376; attitude
toward war with England, 317-324,
439-441, 452; attitude on king's
trial and death, 317-318, 321-324,
419; attack on, as alleged royalist,
328; attacks on, as leader of the
Girondins, 328-332; attempt of
Danton to conciliate, 331; attack
on, for alleged conspiracy with
Dumouriez, 332-333; accusation of
having accumulated wealth, 333 and
re.; attack on Marat, 334; defense
against attacks of sections of Paris
and of Robespierre, 335; Sur la di
nonciation de Robespierre et sur Vad-
dresse pritie aux quarante-huit sec
tions de Paris, 335 re.; .attack on
Mountain in pamphlet, A ses Com
mettans, 337-341 and notes; accusa
tion of being an Orleanist, 337, 412-
413; expulsion from the Conven
tion, 341-342, 350-352; refuge at
house of Meillan, 351-352; flight
from Paris to Versailles, 352; flight

516

INDEX

in company with Souque to Chartres,
352; cold reception at Chartres,
353; flight toward Orleans, 353; ar
rest and examination at Moulins,
354-855; confession of identity, 355;
appeal to the Convention, 356-358;
connection with district of Gannat,
358-359; help offered to by Mar
chena, 360; hostile demonstration
against at Moulins, 356-357; trans
portation back to Paris, 361-362;
imprisonment at Paris, 362-363; ar
raignment with other Girondins by
Saint Just, 362-364; answer to ar
raignment of Saint Just, 364-367;
responsibility of Brissot for war, 366,
370-371, 374-376; appeals while in
prison to the Convention, 368-369;
indictment of, by Amar, 369-371;
relation to colonial policy, 371-875,
379-380, 413-418, 448-450; Projet
de defense, 371-376; accusations
against, 376-377, 448-450; promi
nence in trial as leader of the Giron
dins, 377; preliminary examination,
377; choice of lawyer, 377; witness
against, 378; testimony against at
trial, 379-380; defense at trial, 380-
381; value of defense, 881; verdict
against, 383-384; last hours and
execution 384-386 and notes; family
life, 387-403; proposal for hand of
Swinton's daughter, 388; relation
with wife's family, 398-402; in gen
eral principles a typical Girondin,
41 2-4 1 9 ; difference from other Giron
dins in wider outlook and greater
cosmopolitanism, 417, 427; in re
gard to the other Girondms how far
a leader, 419-421; divergent views
as to fitness for leadership, and
character, 421; appearance, 426.
See also Amis des Noirs, Municipal
ity, Patriote Frangais, and United
States.
Brissot, Edme, Augustine, Sylvain,
393, 408-410.
Brissot, Felix, 393, 399, 410.
Brissot, Jacques, Jer6me, Anacharsis.
393, 410 and re.
Brissot, Madame. See Felicite.
Brissotins, 225, 235, 249, 301-303,
309, 330; Histoire de, 336-337, 420-
422.

Bristol, 69 n.
Britain, 318.
Brookfield, 69 re.
Brother-in-law, Brissot's. See Du
pont, Frangois.
Broussonet, 120 re., 451.
Brunswick, Duke of, 299, 300 and n.,
371, 412.
Buisson, 114 and re., 115.
BulUtin du tribunal rholutionnaire,
381, 384.
Bunker Hill, 231.
Burke, 218, 840-341 notes.
Burney, Fanny, 24, 426 re.
Buzot, 126, 171, 186, 306 re., 307, 327,
334, 342, 344-345, 348, 420, 422,
426.
Buzotins, 346, 420.
Cahen, 188 n.
Caisse d'escompte. See Brissot.
Calas case, 21 re.
Calonne, 34 re., 35 and re., 61 and n.
Calvados, Department of, 345.
Cambon, 282, 311 re.
Cambridge, 69 n., 74.
Cambridge, University of, 183.
Camus, 153 and ra.
Capet. See Louis XVI.
Carolina, North, 84.
Carra, 184.
Cazenove, 66 re., 67 and n.
Cercle social, 161, 172.
Cerutti, 451.
Chabot, 281, 878-380.
Chalons-sur-Marne, Academy of, 19,
287 re.
Chambon, 17.
Chambonas, 284-285, 287 and re.,
424.
Champagneux, 151 and re., 367.
Champ de Mars, petition of, 177-179,
337, 370-371.
Champs Elysees, 164.
Channel, the English, 27, 401, 436.
Chant du Coq, 217 and ra., 218 n.
Charavay, 68 n., 217 n., 218 re.
Charles I, 285.
Chartres, mentioned, 4-7, 10, 39, 94,
186 re., 220, 222 and re., 223, 352-
353.
Chartres, Duke of, 21 and re., 82-33,
389.
Chass6, 145.

INDEX

517

Chastellux, Marquis de, 36 and re., 52,
55, 59-61, 67, 77, 79, 183.
Chaumette, 378 and re.
Chaveau de la Garde, 138 re., 377 and
n., 382 and re.
Chauvelin, 250 and re., 375.
Chester, 69 re.
Chatelet, 96, 138.
Choderlos de Laclos, 166, 177-178
and re.
Chronique de Paris, 120.
Chronique du Mois, 120 and re., 262,
326.
Clarkson, Thomas, 185 and re., 190-
194, 422.
Claretie, 218 re.
Claviere, Etienne, relation to Brissot,
22 and re. ; financial assistance given
to Brissot, 34; collaboration with
Brissot in work for Mirabeau, 34
and re., 35 and re.; collaboration with
Brissot in De to France el des Etats-
Unis, 48, 55 re., 63-66 and notes, 90;
connection with Sociiti Gallo-Amirv-
caine, 61-63; connection with Bris
sot in American speculation, 66-67,
72-73, 89, 431, 437-439; connection
with Brissot at opening of States-
General, 91; connection with Chro
nique du Mois, 120 re.; connection
with Patriote Frangais, 121; con
nection with republicanism, 169,
171, 276; connection with the Amis
des Nmrs, 184-185, 191-192, 205-
206, 442; in the ministry, 249, 262
and re., 279; mentioned, 247, 420.
Clermont, 172.
Clermont-Tonnerre, Stanislas, 68 re.,
108 and re., 109 re., 165-166.
Cleves, 253 re.
Clive, 72 re.
Cloots, 253 and re., 310 re., 344, 346,
348, 422.
Coblenz, 233-234, 271, 363.
Collot d'Herbois, 120 re.
Colons Blancs, Club de. See Massiac,
Club de.
Comiti de Recherches. See Municipal
ity; also Paris.
Committee of Public Safety, 293, 340.
Committee of Twenty-one. See Legis
lative Assembly.
Commune, struggle of, with Legisla
tive Assembly, 292, 296-302 and

notes; struggle of Brissot against,
296-302 and notes, 308, 328, 333.
Conciergerie, 363, 371 and re., 384 re.,
386.
Condorcet, connection with Amis des
Noirs, 184 re., 187-188, 191, 212,
443; attitude toward republicanism,
251, 276-277; mentioned, 19 re„ 32,
120 re., 154, 171-172, 180, 213 re.,
221, 237, 250, 269, and re., 270 re.,
299 and re., 305, 318, 338, re., 420,
426, 452.
Confideration des Amis de la ViriU,
161.
Constantinople, 264, 379.
Constituent Assembly, 19 re., 113, 124,
182, 207, 223, 253 re., 285 re., 373,
375.
Conti, Prince de, 32 and re.
Convention, election of Brissot to,
303-304; general position of Brissot
in, 303; membership of Brissot in
Diplomatic Committee of, 304, 342;
membership of Brissot in Committee
on the Constitution, 304; abolition
of royalty by, 304-305; struggle in,
between Girondins and Mountain
(Jacobins), 305-308; attitude of,
toward revolutionary propaganda,
310-312 and notes; attitude of,
toward Swiss cantons and Geneva,
312-314; attitude of, toward Spanish
America and Genet's expedition,
314-316 and notes; Committee of
General Defense of, 315, 316 and
re., 318-320; Committee of Public
Safety of, 293, 315 re., 358, 362-363,
368; attitude of, toward opening of
the Scheldt, 316-319; attitude of,
on king's trial, 318, 321-324; dis
cussion of war question by, 318-324;
Committee of General Security of,
324, 328, 369 re., 403, 405; final
struggle in, between Girondins and
Mountain supported by Commune
of Paris, 351; Committee of Legisla
tion of, 369 re., mentioned, 20 re., 25
re., 117, 123, 125 re., 141, 153 re., 181,
186 re., 238 re., 253 re., 293, 299, 302,
305, 306 and re., 307-308, 310-311,
314, 316 and re., 318, 319, 321-324,
329, 332-339, 345, 347, 349-351;
355, 356-359, 361-364, 366, 368,
370, 377,378 re., 383,426 re., 440,450.

518

INDEX

Copenhagen, 34.
Cordeliers, 166 re., 179 re., 330.
Corps Ligistotif, 352 re.
Courrier des Dipartements, 120, 348 re.
Courrier de I'Europe, 13-15, 24, 27, 219.
Courtois, 403.
Craigie, Andrew, 66 and re., 71-73 and
notes, 85 and re., 89-90 notes, 433-
438.
Crette, de Paluel, 451.
Crevecceur, Saint John de, 59-61, 63,
67, 70 ra., 186, 431.
Danton, connection with Brissot, 138,
166 ra., 173, 186 re., 221, 292, 301, 306
and re., mentioned, 2, 104, 308 n.,
330-331, 366, 378 ra., 414, 422, 426 ra.
Dard, 179 and re.
Dauban, 348.
Daverhoult, 230-231.
De Bourges, 191.
De Graves, 261-263.
Delacroix, 97 re.
Delaunay, 32.
Delaware, 82.
Delessart, attack of Brissot on, 244-
249 and notes, 261-262, 272, 379-
380, 420.
De Moustier, 69, 70 re.
De Pons, 213 re.
De Saint-Etienne, 125 and re.
Descombes, 358 and n., 359.
Desfaix, 378 and ra.
Desforges, 25-30, 219-221, 391-892,
401, 426 ra.
Desmoulins, Camille, Jean Pierre Bris
sot dimasqui, 4 re., 124, 218 re., 242-
244; Histoire des Brissotins, 336-
337 and re., 338, 421; connection
with Brissot, 139, 167-168, 269, 301-
302, 383, 400 n.; Revolutions de
France d de Brabant, 119, 138, 167
and n.,169 and re., 176 and re., 384 re.;
mentioned, 378 re.
DestourneUes, 328 and re.
Dhosier, 108 and n.
Diderot, 8, 56.
Dietrich, 371.
Dillon, Arthur, 203-204, 364, 366.
Directory, 352 re., 407.
Dodsley, 393.
Dover, 391, 436.
Droz, 20 re.
Du Barry, Madame, 13, 30 re.

Du ChasteUet, 171 and re., 172, 263.
Du Crest, Marquis, 38-39.
Duer, William, 66, 69, 72-73 and notes,
85 and re., 433-436, 438.
Duheim, 378 and re.
Dumont, Etienne, 91 and ra., 95 n.,
171 and n., 172 ra., 247-249, 261,
263, 265, 277, 420-422.
Dumas, Mathieu, 240.
Dumouriez, 249, 251, 262, 264-265,
279-280, re., 285 re., 309-310, 314 re.,
329, 332, 335, 337, 357 ra., 864, 366,
371, 377, 404, 413.
Dupont, Felicite. See FelicitS.
Dupont, Francis, 79 re., 84, 85 and n.,
89 re., 398-401, 409, 485, 438.
Dupont, Julie Henriette, 400.
Dupont, Madame, kindness to Brissot,
16, 387-388, 401; loan of money to
him, 23, 33; assistance to Brissot
in gaming release from the Bastille,
27; bearer of news to Felicite, 27,
392, 401; help in the office of the
Patriote Frangais, 123, 396; relied
on by Felicite, 401-402; care of
family after Brissot's imprisonment,
403; project of, for a school, 407;
opinion of, concerning Brissot, 402
re., 425.
Dupont, Mademoiselle. See Felicity.
Dupont, Marie Therese, 400.
Dupont, Nancy (Madame Aublay),
397, 398, 400-401, 411.
Dupont de Nemours, LomSmie, 85 n.
Duport, 136, 272 and re., 273-274.
Duportail, 272 and ra.
Duroveray, 22 and ra., 250 and re.,
264.
Dussaulx, 120 n., 241.
Electoral Assembly, 223-244 and n.
EUe de Beaumont, 21 and re.
tlmigris, attitude of Brissot toward
question of, 227-232, 236, 252, 255-
256.
England, 15, 20, 23, 36, 37 re., 89, 40 re.,
49, 54, 61, 73, 117, 143, 151, 176,
182 and re., 184, 186 n., 191, 214,
220, 221, 235, 250, 273 and re., 275,
285, 295, 299, 316, 318-320, 323-
324, 339, 864, 366, 373-376, 389,
404.
Eure, Department of the, 303 re.,
304 re.

INDEX

519

Eure-et-Loir, Department of the, 803
«., 304 re, 352 re.
Europe, 271, 294, 302, 310, 314, 317,
318, 322, 323, 371, 372, 399, 427,
433.
Eury, 452.
Fabre d'Eglantine, 292, 378 and re.
Faguet, M., 418.
Fairfield, 69 re.
Falmouth, 85, 436.
Faucompre, 361.
Federalism. See Brissot; also Giron
dins.
Felicite, acquaintance of, made by
Brissot, 15-16, 387; engagement to
Brissot, 18, 387-389; marriage to
Brissot, 22-23, 389; relation to Ma
dame de Genlis, 23, 388-389; life in
London, 26, 391-392; birth of first
child, 26; news broken to, of Bris
sot's imprisonment in the Bastille,
27, 392; necessity of frugal life for,
34; literary work, 37, 393 and re.;
interest in the United States as pos
sible place of abode, 81-82, 89, 394,
396; opinion of, concerning the Pa
triote Frangais, 123 re.; arrest of,
368 re.; accusations against, in con
nection with Brissot's arrest and
trial, 364, 366-368; letters of Brissot
to, 385; part in Brissot's career, 387;
efforts to secure release of Brissot
from Bastille, 392; birth of second
and third children, 393; difficulties
and privations, 394-396; character
of, 395-398; alienation from hus
band, 395; troubles of, with children,
395, 408, 411; pension given to, and
to children of, 407; opinion of, con
cerning Brissot, 398; appreciation of,
by Brissot, 398, 402-403; flight of,
after arrest of Brissot, 403; arrest
and examination of, 403-404; im
prisonment of, 405; efforts of, to
obtain from government reimburse
ment of losses, 406; attempt to es
tablish a school, 407; application of,
to government for aid, 408; mainte
nance of reading-room by, 408 ;death
and burial of, 410-411.
Perri, 61 re.
Fersen, Count de, 276 and re.
Feuillet de Conche, 250 re., 276.

Filangieri, 48, 56.
Filles-Saint-Thomas, 289 re. See also
Municipality.
Fisher, Miers, 69, 88, 89 n„ 399 re.
Flanders, 283.
Foreign war. See War.
Foucroy, 398.
France, 235, 237, 240, 242, 246, 249-
250, 253 re., 254, 257, 273, re., 274 re.,
285 and re., 292, 294-296, 305, 310,
311-314, 316-324, 335-337, 340,
341 re., 370-372, 376, 380, 391-392,
412, 417, 427, 433-435.
France, Isle de, 250.
Franklin, Benjamin, 57, 69, 78, 184.
Franklin, Temple, 69.
French Scioto Company. See Scioto
Company, French.
Gallo-Amiricaine Societe, 37, 61-63
and notes, 70 re.
Gannat, 358-360.
Garat, 19 and re., 330-331, 338, 427.
Garran de Coulon, 120 re., 208 re., 248.
Gebelin, 7.
Genet, 90, 314-316, 380.
Geneva, 22 and re., 25,53, 250re., 287 re.,
312-314.
Genlis, Madame de, 21 and re., 32, 33
and re., 389-390.
Genlis-Sillery, Madame de. See Gen
lis, Madame de.
Gensonne, 208 and re., 211, 220, 235,
239, 247, 252, 265, 272, 274 re.,
275 re., 281, 285 and re., 286 re., 288,
290, 309, 334, 351 and re., 383, 404,
420 and re., 426.
Gerle, 145.
Germany, 236, 899.
Gibbon, 24.
Gien, 353.
Girey-Dupre, 123 and re., 283 re., 298,
308 re., 323 ra., 329 and re., 331, 334,
404, 422.
Girondin ministry, 22 re., 261-266 and
notes; Brissot's influence on, 289,
309, 317, 379.
Girondins, Brissot's connection with,
1-3, 181, 225, 261, 268, 272-278,
282-291, 324, 412-423; belliger
ency of, 251-257, 418-419; attitude
of, toward republicanism and de
thronement, 253-255, 276-291,
412-419; attack of, on "Austrian

520

INDEX

Committee," 272-276 and notes; re
sponsibility of, for events of June
20, 281 and re., 419; accusation
against, of plotting to overthrow
the republic, 299, 305 and re., 412;
struggle of, with Commune, 301-
302, 305, 333; opposition of, to
centralization, 303; efforts of, for
a departmental guard, 305-306
and notes; struggle with party of
the Mountain (Jacobins) during
the Convention, 305-309, 327, 333,
342, 351; attitude of, toward revo
lutionary propaganda, 310; attitude
of, toward death and trial of the king,
321; attitude of, toward war with
England, 324; constitution drawn
up by, 324 re.; newspapers of, at
tacked, 329; Patriote Frangais, organ
of, 329; attempt of Danton to re
concile with Mountain, 330-331;
attack on, on March 9, 329-330;
accusations against, on account of
Dumouriez's failure and desertion,
329, 333; accusations against, of
federalism, 336-337, 342, 350, 412;
attitude toward centralization, 350;
expulsion of, from Convention, 342,
350, 352; report of Saint-Just on,
363-364; defense of, by Brissot, 364-
365; report against, by Amar, 369-
871; trial of, 377-382; verdict
against, 383-384; last hours and
execution, 384-386 and notes; reac
tion in favor of, 405-407; summary
of general policy of, 411—417; com
parison of, with party of the Moun
tain, 418-419; question of leader
ship of, by Brissot, 419; mentioned,
1-3, 117, 120, 121 re., 123, 166 ra.,
171-172, 184, 210-211, 214, 249,
251, 253, 261, 263, 265, 281 and re.,
282, 288, 289, 291, 292 re., 299, 307,
309, 317, 318 re., 382, 405.
Goetz-Bernstein, 292 re.
Gorguereau, 451.
Gorsas, 348, 381.
Goulet, 275 n.
Gouvion, 451.
Gouy D'Arsy, 203 and re., 204 re.
Gower, Earl, 181 re., 288.
Grandchamp, Sophie, 367.
Gregoire, 121, 202.
Grenville, Lord, 320 re.

Gr&ry, rue de, 393.
Griffin, 69.
Grimm, 342 and re.
Guadaloupe, 409 re.
Guadet, 208 and re., 210-211, 225, 247,
252, 270, 281, 286, 288, 289 re„ 290,
299 and re., 309, 331, 333-334, 336,
351 and re., 404, 420 and ra., 426.
Guiana, French, 296.
Guillard, 8, 11-12.
Guy-Kirsaint, 120 re.
Hambourg, 440.
Hamilton, Alexander, 69, 84.
Hancock, General, 69, 75.
Hanover, House of, 295.
Hartford, 69 re.
Harvard, 74.
Haskell, 438.
Hastings, Warren, 36.
Haute-Loire, Department of the, 345.
Havre, 71, 83.
Heath, General, 69, 75.
Hebert, 338 re., 378 and re.
Hebertists, 253 re.
Helvetius, 120 re., 348, 422.
Helvetius, Madame, 276.
Hennin, 264.
Herault de Sechelles, 186 and re.,
237.
Holland, 39, 40 and ra., 50, 53, 85, 316,
319, 323-324, 337, 375, 377, 438,
440-441.
Horeau, 6-7.
Hudson River, 81.
Hungary, 53.
Illinois Company, 82 re., 89.
India, 61, 339.
Indians, 65, 80.
Indies, East, 36, 81, 339.
Indies, West, 182, 389.
Intermidiare (V) des chercheurs et des
curieux, 244 re.
Ireland, 339.
Isnard, 230, 235, 241 re., 251-252, 255,
260, 341, 345.
Ivernais (d'), Sir Francis, 22 and re.
Jacobin Club, attacks on Brissot at,
268-271, 288, 289; attack on Lafay
ette at, 290; expulsion of Brissot
by, 307-809; mentioned, 121 re., 160,
173, 175-176 and notes, 177-179,

INDEX

521

194, 222 re., 223, 226 and n., 231 re.,
232 and re., 233-239, 241, 289, 307,
309, 338 re., 352 re., 353 re., 379.
Jacobin Party, accusation of guilt of
massacres of September, 305; strug
gle with Girondins during the Con
vention, 305-309, 334-350, 362 re.
Janvier, M., 10.
Jarry, 250.
Jaucourt, 247.
Jaures, 302 re., 324.
Jay, John, 84.
Jeanbon, Saint-Andre, 329.
Jefferson, Thomas, 66 re., 186, 431.
Jesuits, 60.
Jews, 53, 102, 134, 146, 416.
Joly, 197, 448.
Joseph II, 36 and re., 53 re., 55.
Journal de Paris, 55 re., 61 re., 120, 266-
268 and notes.
Journal giniral de la cour et de la ville,
104 and re., 120, 217-218, 219 re.,
228, 242.
Julien, 318 and re., 452.
Jumilhac, 108-109.
June 20, attitude of Brissot toward
events of, 281-282.
Kentucky, 118.
Kerolio, 138 re.
Kersaint, 420 re.
King, Rufus, 84.
Kirwan, 24, 33.
Koch, 226, 229-231, 239 re., 242.
Korman, 37 re., 38 re.
Kropotkin, 416 re.
La Blancherie, 20 and re.
Lacepede, 451.
Laclos. See Choderlos de Laclos.
Lacretelle, Pierre Louis, 19 and re.
Lafayette, connection of Brissot with,
179-180, 186, 191, 193 and re., 224,
241, 268-269, 276, 289 re., 290, 293,
308-309, 337, 357 re., 370, 374 and
re., 379-380, 412-413; mentioned,
63 re., 65 re., 68 re., 80 re., 97 and re.,
125, 157, 159, 162, 167 and re., 169
and re., 287 re.
La Force, 405.
La Harpe, 21 and re.
Lameth, Theodore, 160, 181, 445.
Lamourette, 283.
Lanthenas, 120 re., 121 and re., 122, 140,

151, 160-162, 186, 202 and n., 292
and re., 308 re., 443.
Laporte, 328.
Lasource, 382, re., 384 re.
Laurent de Couteux, 437.
Lavoisier, 154.
Law, 153.
Lebrun, 360, 376.
Legislative Assembly, Committee of
Twenty-one of, 292, 296-302 and
notes, 344, 379; struggle of, with
Commune, 292, 296-302 and notes,
379-381; action of, against Lafay
ette, 293, 379-380; action of, toward
Swiss troops, 294 and re.; action of,
toward foreign powers after August
10, 294; attitude of, toward non-
juring clergy, 296; opinion of Brissot
of work of, 301-302; mentioned, 25
n., 28, 117-118, 123-124, 175 re., 181,
186 re., 207, 208 re., 216-217, 223-
229, 231, 239, 241-242, 244-247,
251, 253 re., 258-259, 261, 269, 272 re.,
273-280, 282, 285 re., 286 re., 288-
299 and notes, 301-303 and notes,
317, 332, 370, 373, 378 re., 379.
Lenoir, 31-32.
Leopold, 342.
Le Page, 122, 123 re.
Levant, The, 399.
Linguet, 11, 113, 426 re.
Lisbon, 440.
Loire, 303 re.
London, first visit of Brissot to, 15;
location of Lycie, 20; Brissot's life
in, 24-33; mentioned, 30 re., 161 re.,
172 re., 214 re., 218-219, 285 «., 317,
320, 333, 389-390, 400-401, 434, 436.
Lons-le-Saunier, 160.
Louis XIV, 228, 240.
Louis XV, 30 re., 103 re., 153.
Louis XVI, 30, 141, 149, 177, 250 re.,
255-268, 272 re., 267 re., 273, 320-
324, 338-339, 344, 350, 357 re., 363-
364, 370-371, 380-381, 440.
Louisiana, 315, 316 re., 339.
Louvet, 235, 238 and n., 251-253, 307,
308 re., 381.
Loyseau, 32.
Lubersac, 186 and re.
Luxembourg, 382 re., 388.
Luckner, Marshal, 290.
Lycie. See Brissot.
Lyons, 39, 151, 222, 223 re., 371.

522

INDEX

Macaulay, Mrs., 26.
Mackintosh, 36.
Madeleine, cemetery, 386 re.
Madison, James, 69, 84.
Madrid, 52, 272, 440.
Mailhe, 249, 326.
Maissemy, 114 re., 116 re., 137.
Malassisin, 244 re.
Mallet du Pan, Jacques, 22 and re., 36,
277, 314 re.
Malouet, 131, 172.
Maluet, 350.
Mansfield, 24, 33, 182.
Manuel, 116, 253.
Marat, 2, 17, 104, 138-139, 224, 261 re.,
293, 299 and re., 305, 309, 329 re.,
331, 333-335, 338, 344, 357 re., 368,
379.
Marchena, 314, 360-361.
Marie Antoinette, 30-31.
Marseilles, 306 re.
Martin, 320, 439, 441.
Martinique, 198.
Massachusetts, 69, 75.
Massacres of September. See Septem
ber massacres.
Massiac, Club de, 194, 196, 199.
Mathiez, 179 re.
Maty, 24.
Maury, L'Abb6, 147.
Mayenne, 20 re.
Mazzei, Philippe, 61 re.
Mediterranean, 339.
Meillan, 351 and re., 352, 425.
Mentelle, 16-18, 25, 32, 367, 368.
Mercier, 120 re.
Mexico, 381.
Mercure, Le, 19 and re., 21 re.
Merlin of Thionville, 268.
Middleton, 69 re.
Mifflin, Warren, 69.
Mirabeau, Gabriel Riqueti, Count de,
relation to Claviere, 22 re.; relation of
Brissot and Claviere to, 34 and re.,
35 and re. ; trouble with Brissot over
manuscript, 35 and re.; work by
Brissot for, 36; connection of Brissot
with, in municipal affairs, 101; es
tablishment of newspaper by, 113 re.;
difference of opinion between Bris
sot and, on constitution, 126, 128-
133, 143-144; opinion of, on foreign
affairs, 142-143; opinion of Brissot
on death of, 144; assistance given to

Amis des Noirs by, 183-185 and
notes, 193-194 and notes, 202; men
tioned, 221, 250 re., 442.
Miranda, 316 re., 335.
Mississippi River, 81, 314.
Mohawk River, 81-82.
Monge, 338 and re.
Monin, 96.
Moniteur, Le, mentioned or quoted,
97 n., 101 re., 117, 123 re., 130 re., 188
re., 141 and re., 196, 206 re., 209-211
notes, 215 re., 228-233 notes, 235-
237 notes, 239-242 notes, 244-245
notes, 247 re„ 249 re., 251-252 notes,
254-256 notes, 280-281 notes, 283
n., 285 re., 287 re., 290-291 notes, 293-
294 notes, 296-298 notes, 301 re.,
305-306 notes, 310-311 notes, 813-
314 notes, 316 re., 318 re., 320 re., 322-
324 notes, 329 re., 333-334 notes,
344-347 notes, 357 re., 364 re., 369-
370 notes, 383-384 notes, 420 re.
Monk, 363, 365.
Montaigne, 136.
Montargis, 362.
Montaut, 328 and re., 380-381.
Montesquieu, 41, 45, 49-50, 56, 285 re.,
288.
Montesquieu (General), 313-314.
Monthly Review, 303.
Mont Jura, 161.
Montmorin, 219, 272 and re., 275 and
re., 294, 380.
Montrol, 10 re.
Morande, Theveneau de, 24, 28-32,
and notes, 218-219 and notes, 301,
336, 366, 377, 426re.
Moravian Brethren, 150.
Moreau de Saint-Mery, 204-205.
Morris, Robert, 73 re.
Mosneron, 198 re.
Mother-in-law, of Brissot. See Du
pont, Madame.
Moulins, 353-366, 359, 360-363 and
notes, 371.
Mountain, Party of the, hostility be
tween, and Girondins, 305-306, 827-
333; attack of, on Girondins be
cause of Dumouriez's failure and
treason, 329-333; attack, of, on
Girondin newspapers, 329 and re.,
334; attempt of Danton to reconcile
with Girondms, 330-331; final
struggle with Girondins, 334-342;

INDEX

523

mentioned, 2-3, 117, 186 re., 262,
308, 378 and re., 382; comparison of,
with Girondins, 417-419.
Municipality of Paris, Brissot's connec
tion with district of the Filles-Saint-
Thomas of, 93, 94-95 notes, 100 re.,
221; plan of Brissot for committees
of correspondence of, 93 and re., 97-
98; Brissot, president of the Filles-
Saint-Thomas of, 97-98; Brissot's
part in building up permanent organ
ization for, 98-101; Brissot's ideas
on relation of, to central govern
ment, 99-101; Brissot's ideas on re
lation of, to departments, 101; Bris
sot's part in administration of, 102;
relation of, to events of October 5
and 6, 102, 106-107; Brissot's
opinion on sale of church lands to,
102-103, 111; Brissot's opinion on
relation of, to the caisse d'escompte,
103, 111; relation of Brissot to the
section of the Bibliotheque of, 104 and
n., 222; appeal in Brissot's section
of, for dismissal of ministry, 104 and
n. ; attempt of Brissot to interest, in
cause of negro, 105, 106, 111; sup
port of Brissot of democratic fac
tion of, 104; relation of Brissot to
Comiti des Recherches of, 106-110,
112, 118, 157, 370, 380; opinion of
Brissot on balance of power be
tween central council and districts
of, 110-111; end of Brissot's active
part in, 111-112.
Munster, Treaty of, 317.
Nancy, 158-159.
Nantes, 152, 162, 203, 204 re.
Napoleon, 1, 22 re., 216.
Narbonne, 233, 235, 245, 261, 268-
269, 272, 276, 357 re., 376, 379.
National Assembly. See Assembly,
National.
Necker, 50-51, 115, 148-149, 164, 190
and re., 191-192, 437.
Negro, support of, by Brissot against
strictures of Chastellux, 59-67; in
terest of Brissot in condition of, in
the United States, 78-80. See also
Amis des Noirs, and United States.
Netherlands, 376.
Neuchatel, 22, 54, 354 and re.
Nevers, 353.

Newark, 69 re.
Newburyport, 69 re.
New Hampshire, 84.
New Haven, 69 re.
New Jersey, 82.
New Orleans, 410.
New Rochelle, 69 re.
New York, 67-68, 69 re., 72 re., 75, 77,
214, 409-410, 435.
New York Historical Society Papers,
quoted, 79 re., 221, 434-439.
Nice, 310, 344.
Noailles, 251, 273 and re.
Nolleau, 10.
Nootka Sound, 143 and ra.
Norfolk, 435.
North Sea, 341.
Nouveau Voyage, 61 re. See also United
States.
Odun (d'), Madame, 276, 420.
Oge, 202-203, 206 re., 214.
Ohio, 88.
Ohio Company, 85.
Orleans, 246 re., 248, 335, 353.
Orleans, Duke of, 23 and re., 33 and re.,
38-39, 95, 153, 287 re., 363, 389 re.,
390, 412-413.
Oswald, 120 re.
Pache, 309-310, 338 and re., 339, 378
and re.
Pacte de Famille, 143, 237 re.
Padua Circular, 239.
Paganel, 208 and re., 215 re., 225
and re.
Paine, Thomas, 63 re., 121, 171, 305,
315.
Palais-Royal, 219, 242.
Pampeluna, 186 and re.
Pange, Chevalier de, 109 and re., 268
and re.
Paris, attack of, on Girondins, 334-
335, 341-350; mentioned, 10-11,
14-17, 52, 54, 67, 72, 214-215, 220 re.,
222 and re., 223, 243, 272-273 notes,
283 re., 297, 299, 304 re., 306 and re.,
307-308, 338 re., 343-350, 352, 353 re.,
358, 362, 366, 368 re., 370-371, 374,
378 re., 381, 388 re., 392, 394-395,
401, 404, 408, 412, 418-420, 436.
See also Municipality.
Parker, Daniel, 66 and re., 71-72 notes,
73, 83, 433-434, 436-438.

524

INDEX

Parlement of Paris, 18, 51.
Pastoret, 451.
Patriote Frangais, establishment of, by
Brissot, 2, 96, 113, 416; quoted, 87-
88, 101 and re., 102, 104-105 notes,
113-149 and notes, 152-154, 156,
158-177 and notes, 179-181 notes,
186 re., 197 re., 200-201 notes, 211 re.,
214 re., 216-217, 219, 223 re., 225 re.,
227 re., 230-235, and notes, 250 re.,
253-259 notes, 260-263 and notes,
265-266 notes, 268 re., 270 re., 272-
273 notes, 274 re., 278-282 notes, 283
and re., 289 and re., 290 re., 293 and
re., 296 and re., 300 re., 304 and re.,
306-307 notes, 309, 311 and ra., 312
re., 317, 321 re., 326-331 notes, 333
and re., 343 re., 345 re., 350 re., 412 re.;
struggle of, with censorship, 113-
116, 137-138; comparison of, with
other journals, 113; first and second
prospectus, 114; interest of, in muni
cipal affairs, 118; organ of the Amis
des Noirs, 118, 194-195, 197 and re.,
201 re., 202-207 and notes; interest
of, in the United States, 118-119,
125, 130-133,137,142,152, 164, 176;
style, 119-120; relation of, to other
journals, 120; assistance of collabo
rators in, 121-122; assistance of
family in, 123, 196, 400-401; finan
cial support of Le Page in, 122; part
nership of Girey-Dupre' in, 123; re
sponsibility of Brissot for, 123-124;
opinion of, on the declaration of
rights and on the constitution, 124-
136; opinion on question of one
chamber or two, 126-127; opinion
on the veto, 127-130; opinion on
right of declaring war and making
peace, 130-131; opinion on choice
of the ministry, 130-132; opinion on
methods of amendment, 132-133;
opinion on extent of suffrage, 133-
134; opinion on basis of suffrage,
134-135; support of, of rights of
Jews, Protestants, and actors, 134,
146; opinion on submittal of con
stitution to the people, 135-136,
180; opinion on judicial system, 136-
137, 156-157; opinion of freedom
of the press, 137-138; opinion on
freedom of speech, 138-140; accusa
tion of, for libel, 140; forced aban

donment of, by Brissot, 141, 329
and re. ; opinion on administration of
National Assembly, 141-142; opin
ion on Avignon, 142; opinion on ec
clesiastical questions, 142-147, 260-
261 and notes; opinion of, on Nootka
Sound, 143; opinion of, on financial
questions, 147-153, 359 and re.; in
terest of, in economic matters, 54;
opinion of, on events of October 5
and 6, 157-158; opinion of, on affairs
of Nancy, 158-159; opinion of, on
military discipline, 159; interest of,
in democracy, 159-165; attitude of,
toward popular societies, 160, 162;
opinion of, on republicanism, 165-
177; opinion of, on flight to Va
rennes, 168-169; opinion of, on quali
fications for electors, 180 re.; repu
tation of Brissot as editor of, 181,
217; advocacy by, of foreign war,
233-235 and notes, 256-257; recom
mended as patriotic by Jacobin Club,
239; attack of, on Desmoulins, 243
and re.; criticism by, of Narbonne,
245; attitude of, toward republican
ism, 254-255, 277-278; attack of,
on Robespierre, 270 and re.; attitude
of, toward Dumouriez, 279-280 and
notes ; attack of , on court, 280 ; design
of pikes given by, 281; approval by,
of "kiss of Lamourette," 283; atti
tude of, toward Lafayette, 293; sup
port by, of Legislative Assembly
against the Commune, 296-302;
summary by, of work of Legislative
Assembly, 301-302; attitude of, on
abohtion of royalty, 304 and re., 305;
support by, of Girondins against
Mountain, 306 and re.; support by,
of Buzot against Jacobins, 307;
attitude of, toward the revolution
ary propaganda and annexations,
311 and re. ; attitude of, toward open
ing of the Scheldt, 317; alleged sup
port of Lafayette by, 320; attitude
of, toward trial and death of Louis
XVI, 321 ; attitude of, toward social
democracy, 325-327; attack on, as
Girondin newspaper, 329 and n.;
under direction of Girey-Dupre, 331 ;
attitude of, toward treason of Du
mouriez, 332-833; organ of Giron
dins, 329; attacked in connection

INDEX

525

with trial of Marat, 324; attitude
toward federalism, 342.
Pelleport, 23-24, 27, 31-32.
Peltier, 265, 301.
Pennsylvania, 49, 77-78, 82-84.
Pere Duchene, Le, 119, 338, 378 re.
Perroud, M. Claude, quoted, 4-5 notes,
10 re., 15 re., 24 re., 33 re., 87 re., 121,
122-123 notes, 150 re., 292 re., 314 re.,
335 n., 354-355 notes, 363-364
notes, 367 re., 371 re., 375 re., 400-403
notes, 407 re.
Petion, source of information on Bris
sot's childhood, 6, 7 and re.; assist
ance given by, to Brissot in founding
a Maison phUanthropique, 39; ef
forts of, to secure election of Brissot
to States-General, 94; assistance
given to Brissot in the Patriote
Frangais, 121; agreement with Bris
sot on the constitution, 131, 134-
135 ; mentioned or quoted, 6-7 notes,
11 re., 14 re., 24 re., 28 re., 30 re., 34 re.,
39, 56 re., 66-67 notes, 84 re., 121 re.,
140, 143, 168, 169 and re., 176, 180,
191, 202, 221, 276, 282, 301, 305,
308 re., 333, 335, 351 re., 379-381,
395, 404, 425.
Petit, 275 re.
Petit-Jean, 108 and re.
Philadelphia, 69 re., 75, 78, 119, 364,
366, 379, 435.
Philippe Egalite, 337.
Philips, James, 62 and re.
Phillips, Richard, 425-426.
Pigott, 138 re., 151, 186 and re.
Pilnitz, Declaration of, 239.
Pinkard, Dr., 183.
Pitt, William, 218, 335, 337, 371, 375,
380-381, 435.
Poitiers, 186 re.
Poland, 236.
Polverel, 375.
Pope, the, 142-147.
Porentruy, 313.
Porter, 435.
Portsmouth, 69 re.
Price, 24.
Priestly, 24, 33.
Protestants, 53, 416.
Providence, 69 re.
Prudhomme, 119.
Prussia, 235, 250, 273, 309, 317.
Pyrenees, 310, 339, 341.

Quakers, 59-61, 67, 77-80, 146, 151,
161, 182-183, 186 re.
Ramus, 354 and re.
Rebecqui, 344.
Receveur, 24, 31-32.
Recherches, Comiti de. See Munici
pality.
Remiremont, 139.
Ripublicain, Le, 371.
Restoration, the, 273 re., 285 re.
Revolutions de France et de Brabant,
119-120, 229.
Revolutions de Paris, 106 re., 107, 108
and re., 119-120, 197 and re., 270
re., 271, 272 and re., 274 re., 303 re.,
420 re.
Rhine, 227, 283.
Rhode Island, 82-83.
Richelieu, 240.
Riouffe, 384 and re.
Riverol, 243-244 notes.
Robert, 166 and re., 177, 264, 379, 388.
Robespierre, antagonism between and
Brissot, 232 andre., 234-235/237-239
and notes, 241-242 and notes, 243,
268-271 and notes, 278 re., 293, 297,
302 re., 303, 307-308, 335, 338, 344;
mentioned, 2, 140, 168-169, 180-
181, 287 re., 331, 426 re„ 442, 447 re.
Robert, Dubayet, 215.
Rochambeau, 250 re.
Rochefoucauld, Duke of, 191, 193 ra.
Roederer, 253.
Rohan, Cardinal de, 231.
Rolands, assistance in attempting to
found a maison phUanthropique, 39;
assistance in attempting to found
the Sociiti agricole, 89, 151; connec
tion with Patriote Frangais, 121-122
and notes, 262; mentioned, 7 re.,
33 re., 330. See also Roland,
Madame; Roland, M.
Roland, Madame, assistance of, on
the Patriote Frangais, 121-122 and
notes, 134-135 and notes; connec
tion with Brissot, 161-162 notes,
168-170 and notes, 178 and re., 180
and re., 262-265 and notes, 367-368
and notes, 404, 420 and re., 422;
opinion of, concerning Brissot, 424-
425 ; opinion of, concerning Madame
Brissot, 397; opinion quoted, 144 re.,
150 re., 151, 168-170 and notes,

526

INDEX

175 ra., 176 and ra., 180 n., 202 re.,
206 and re., 219, 223 and re., 262-265
and notes, 279, 280 re., 281, 289 and
re., 292 re., 300 re., 306, 315 re., 352 re.,
367 and re., 368 re., 399 re., 420 re.,
423 and re.
Roland, M., connection with Brissot,
121, 161-162, 249, 262-263, 265,
279, 292 and re., 306, 337, 404, 414,
420.
Rome, 237.
Rousseau, 8, 41-44, 56, 75, 150.
Royer, 358 re.
Ruelle, 376.
Ruhl, 231.
Russia, 84, 236, 320, 439.
Rye, 69 re.
Saint-Cloud, 108, 159, 167, 364, 404-
405.
Saint-Cyr, 408.
Saint-Cyran, 213 and re.
Saint-Denis, 223 re.
Saint-Just, 301, 363-364, 371 re., 372.
Saint Paul, 9 and re., 25, 41-42.
Saint-Pierre, Bernardin de, 32-33.
Saint Petersburg, 237, 820, 489.
Saint-Pourcain, 359.
Sainte-Beuve, 387.
Salem, 69 re.
Salle, 334, 351 re.
Saloman, 156, 276.
Santhonax, 375 and re., 379-380.
Santo Domingo, 192, 195-196, 199,
208-210, 212-215 and notes, 315,
375, 410, 448-450.
Savoy, 22, 310, 312, 319, 344.
Scheldt, 310, 316-317, 819, 375.
Schuyler, 84.
Scioto Company, 70re., 73 and re., 79n.,
85-89 and notes, 221, 396.
Scioto Company, French, 87-89.
Segur, 250.
Seine River, 345.
Seine, Department of the, 101, 253 re.
Seinie, Countess de, 94.
Sens, 285 re.
September, massacres of, 300-302; con
nection of Brissot with, 300-302,
362-364; responsibility for, 305, 366,
414.
Sergent Margeau, 281 and re.
Servan, 279, 314 and re.
Seton, 437-438.

Sharpe, Granville, 183.
Shays' Rebellion, 159.
Sieyes, 136, 138, 144, 276-277.
Sillery, Marquis de, 21 ra., 384 and n.
Slavery and the Slave Trade, opposi
tion to, 78-80, 84; recognition of, by
Constitution of United States, 84.
See also Amis des Noirs.
Sociiti agricole, 89, 150-151, 161.
Sorel, 250 re., 312.
Soulavie, 287 and re., 424 and re.
Souque, 352 and ra., 353-358, 361-362.
Spain, 81, 143, 237 a., 313-315, 323,
339, 360, 364, 375, 380-381.
Spencer, 69 ra.
Springfield, 69 re.
Stadinski, 66 re., 67 and re., 426.
Stadtholder, 319.
States-General, principles of Brissot
in regard to, 93; connection of Bris
sot with elections to, 93-96; draft
of a cahier for, 93-96; failure of Bris
sot to secure election to, 95 and re.;
mentioned, 52, 74, 85, 115-117, 125,
137, 153 and re., 158, 165, 186 n.,
188, 196 and re., 216-217, 435.
Stockholm, 237.
Strasbourg, 227, 320.
Swinton, 13-16, 24, 27, 113, 219, 387,
399, 426 re.
Sweden, 236.
Switzerland, 21, 314, 354, and re., 357 re.
Sybel, von, 246.
Talien, 450.
Talleyrand, 152-153, 162, 250, 375.
Tarbe, 208, 211.
Terror, the, 2-3, 250 ra., 273 re., 284,
328, 414.
Thermidor, 250 re., 253 re., 264 re.,
352 re.
Thomassin, 108.
Thorillon, 451.
Thouret, 136.
Tobago, 250.
Toulouse, 20 re., 273 re.
Toussaint l'Ouverture, 212.
Tremondrie, 201 re.
Trenton, 69 re.
Treves, Elector of, 236, 239 and re.,
255.
Tuileries, 164, 284, 291, 294.
Turgot, 35 and re., 50-51, 103, 164.
Turin, 440.

INDEX

527

United States, reasons for Brissot's
journey to, 40, 61 ; interest of Brissot
in, 48-50, 59-90, 372; influence of,
on Brissot, 49; admiration of Brissot
for, 49-50; efforts of Brissot to ob
tain means for a journey to, 61;
argument of Brissot for close rela
tions with, 63-66; opportunity for
journey to, 66; employment of Bris
sot by speculators in American debts
and lands, 66-67, 72-73, 85-89;
contract of Brissot for journey to,
67, 72-73; purposes of journey, 67-
68; questions of Brissot concerning,
68; fitness of Brissot for investiga
tion of, 68-70; limitations of Brissot
as an investigator, 70; general atti
tude of Brissot toward the, 70; ex
periences of Brissot during voyage
to, 71; visit of Brissot to Cambridge
and John Adams, 74; visit to Han
cock, 74 ; opinions concerning Samuel
Adams, 74; journey of Brissot to
New York, 75-76; opinion of Bris
sot on stage-coaches in, 76; opinion
on inns in, 76; opinion on position of
women in, 76; opinion of growing
luxury in, 76-77; relation with
Quakers in, and opinion of, 77-78;
opinion on forms of worship in, 77-
78; visit to Franklin in, 78; interest
in condition of negro in, 78-80; in
terest in economic problems of, 80-
82; interest in western expansion of,
80; interest in, as a possible place
of settlement, 81-82; criticism of
paper money of, 82-83; admiration
for liberty and equality in, 83-84;
acquaintance with distinguished citi
zens of, 84; attitude toward new con
stitution of, 84; departure from, 85;
interest in land companies in, 85-89;
account of journey to, published in
Nouveau Voyage, 88-90; settlement
of relations in, 89; subsequent in
fluence of, upon Brissot, 90, 150-
151, 176, 310, 413; influence of, seen
in Patriote Frangais, 117-119, 125,
130-133, 137, 142, 152, 176, 181, 227;
influence of, on Brissot in connec
tion with war, 238; influence of, on
Amis des Noirs, 189; influence of,
on Brissot's plan for expedition to
Spanish America, 315-316; alleged

influence of, on federalistic ideas of
Brissot, 349; alleged understanding
of Brissot with government of, 364-
366; plans of Madame Brissot for
emigration to, 394-395; settlement
of Frangois Dupont in, 399; alleged
close connection of Brissot with,
400 and re.; residence of Silvain
Brissot in, 409, 410; correspondence
in regard to speculation in the debt
of, and in land, 431-439; mentioned,
280 re., 291, 332, 348, 364, 372. See
also Gallo-Amiricaine SociHi, and
Nouveau Voyage.
Uri, 313.
Utrecht, Peace of, 319.
Valady, Marquis de, 184, 394 and n.,
395.
Valaze, 321, 384, 407, 420.
Vallots, 396.
Vancouver Sound, 143.
Van Staphorst, 436.
Varennes, 168, 413.
Vatel, 30.
Vellay, Charles, collection of papers of
Brissot, 67 re., 68 re., 87 re., 89 re.
Vendee, 279, 380, 381.
Vergennes, 13, 399.
Vergniaud, 102, 225, 240, 247, 252-253,
261-262, 282-293, 288, 299 and re.,
309, 333-334, 351, 382 re., 420 and
re., 426.
Versailles, 106 re., 115, 191, 276, 340,
352, 354 re., 407.
Vienna, 240, 251, 273 re., 320, 439.
Villar, Noel, 20 and re., 21, 23.
Villate, 383-384 and notes.
Villefranche, 39.
Vingtain, 32.
Virginia, 69, 84.
Volney, 240 re.
Voltaire, 8, 13, 41-42, 45, 56, 146.
War, foreign, opposition to, 229-235;
letters from England concerning,
439-441. See also Brissot.
Warren, 231.
Warville, de, 10 and re., 11, 163 re., 220,
221 and re., 328, 431, 435, 438-
439.
Washington, 68 re., 69, 79-80, 97, 118,
231.

528

Washington, Mrs., 80.
Wethersfield, 69 re.
Wilberforce, 183, 190 re.
Williams, David, 25 and n., 26, 49,
324 re.
Wilhams, Helena, 382, 409

INDEX
Wilmington, 69 re.

Yonne, 223 re., 410 and re.
York, Duke of, 299, 300 and re., 368.
Zurich, 313.

CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS
U . S . A

3 9002 00518 0337