HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
tuin of monarchy in France, was 
the war prepared by the emigrants, 
secretly supported by foreign pow- 
ers, and which was generally, 
though erroneously believed to 
have been undertaken with the 
privity and approbation of the King 
and Queen of France. | 
The immediate or proximate 
cause of the final dissolution of the 
monarchy, then, and what had been 
produced by a series of preceding 
causes, of which some have been 
enumerated, was, the uncontroula- 
ble will of the people, who were 
permitted to assemble, and form, 
and execute resolutious too in a 
summary way, by violence, in spite 
of all the new laws and new magis- 
trates, on whom the lapse of time 
had not conferred that authority 
which is necessary to give life'and 
action to forms of government. So 
that on the whole it may be said, 
that the catastrophe of the 10th of 
August, 1792, was effected by the 
same means precisely as that of the 
14th of July, 1789:—the doctrine 
of the equality and the rights of 
men, and of the sacred duty, for 
such it had beencalled by La Fayette 
and others, of insurrection.* 
_ While the power of the King was 
too feeble to resist the repeated 
encroachments and attacks of the 
Legislative Assembly, the ambi- 
tious and unprincipled leaders of 
that Assembly courted popular fa- 
vour by flattering all their passions, 
paying homage to all their caprices, 
and indulgence to all their excesses. 
Petion basely courted the favour of 
[53 
the populace by the sacrifice of all 
that was generous or just; and even 
avowed as a maxim, that amidst all 
the outrages of popular insurrection, 
it is not justifiable on any account 
to spill the blood of a citizen. 
While the shadow of kingly 
power remained, men sought to 
cover their actions under the veil of 
some plausible theory;—Still they 
attempted or pretended to establish 
their political systems on the basis of 
morality; and accordingly, in the 
first stages of the revolution, they 
talked of right andjustice. The de- 
mocratic leaders began now tospeak 
only of necessity, expediency, and 
revolutionary ardour. A conflict 
of factions ensued for the sake of 
power, but not of principles. Po- 
pular favour was courted by accu- 
Sations, proscriptions, connivance 
at plunder and every crime; and 2 
prospect held forth of a general 
equalization of both power and 
property. All power being vested 
in the very dregs of the people, 
there was no other government than 
a tumult of various and contending 
passions, until this at last, accord- 
ing to the usual process of anarchy, 
yielded the sceptre to the single 
emotion of terror. 
Soon after the flight of the King, 
and the reduction of the castle of 
the Thuilleries, a deputation from 
the new chosen community of 
Paris appearing at the bar of the 
Assembly, said ‘ Legislators! the 
new magistrates of the people ap- 
pear at your bar; the dangers of 
the country occasioned our elec- 
* Of the French principles, modified afterwards by Condorcet into a democra» 
tical form, and proposed among other schemes. though rejected, Horace Walpole, 
Earl of Orford, in his posthumous works lately published, says, ‘‘ I did but just 
cast my eyes on the beginning and end,and was so lucky as to observe the hypocrite’s 
(Condorcet’s) contradiction. He sets out with a declaration of equality, and ends 
with security of property; that is, wewill plunder every body, and then entail 
the spoils on our own heirs,” 
Vol v. p. 619. 
[FE] 2 
election ; 
