HIS PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTER. 387 
astonished to find his political honesty impregnable, and that his 
principles were not, in the slightest degree, to be shaken. Charles 
Elie Marquis de Ferriére, who was decidedly hostile to the Revo- 
lution, makes the following observations in his Memozres, with re- 
spect to the character borne by Robespierre at this period. ‘Some 
were of opinion that he acted from conviction ; and even those who 
were opposed to him believed that he wasan honest man, attributing 
to inexperience of the world, and non-acquaintance with the eco- 
nomy of governments, those crude notions by which he confounded 
law with despotism, and liberty with licentiousness. It is true,” he 
adds, “ that those best informed on the subject considered Robes- 
pierre to be a scoundrel, influenced entirely by selfish motives, &c. :’’ 
but personalities have been invariably substituted for arguments by 
the representatives of factions; consequently, the sources whence 
this unfavourable deduction was drawn are no where discoverable. 
By a resolution of the Constitutional Assembly, which Robespiérre 
much contributed to carry into effect, the members of that body 
were rendered ineligible to the Legislative Assembly, which was 
about to supersede it; and Robespierre, having declined offers of 
many valuable appointments under the government,* returned to 
Arras as poor as he had left it in 1789. This circumstance alone 
clearly demonstrates the sincerity of his professions, affording also a 
most convincing proof that his vision, as to the future, was by no 
means obscured, and that he could anticipate coming events with 
greater facility than those who exulted in a more extensive experi- 
ence of the world. 
The circumstances which enabled Robespiérre to establish him- 
self in supreme power on the 31st of March, 1793, are too well 
known to need repetition in this place ; but it will nevertheless be 
desirable to ascertain, if it be possible, the specific influence which 
he exercised over his fellow-countrymen ; all who attentively watch 
the progress of events, during his reign of terror, being forcibly 
struck with the apparent inadequacy of the means at his command 
to effect the object which he endeavoured to attain: the question, 
then, is, What sort of influence was his? Bailleult says, “It isa 
question which will puzzle all historians.”. This observation may 
be just as regards those historians whose researches extend no fur- 
ther than to define the engine, in its practical and external sense, 
by which whole nations are set in motion ; but we shall make an 
* Bonnet, Essai sur ? Art de Faire les Revolutions Utiles. 
| In his work on Madame de Stael. 
