Each of them applied his hand to the regulator of the revolution. The two first endeavoured to direct its energy; Fouché tried to moderate its movement: they in following their plans employed too much confidence, or too much determination; he, examining always what was true, undertook only what was possible.

Sieyes endeavoured to consolidate by organic forms the principle

*

-the sovereignty of the

of the revolution

failed of success, he retired, and was silent.

Carnot endeavoured to confirm the republic by victory. To speak the truth, he attached victory to the arms of France; but the republic perished. Inflexible as he was, he

* We distinguish the principle of the revolution, and the maxim according to which some revolutionists have acted, exemplified by this saying of Sieyes: "It is necessary that property should change hands." ("Ut redeat miseris, abeat fortuna superbis."-HOR.).

went into retirement, where he had the mortification to see the standard of France aban

doned by victory.

Fouché has at all times desired only to rule the passions of anarchy in order to save the state. Always submitting to the law of social order, he observed all with care, and he more than any other accurately knew the hidden design of each party: but the depositaries of power feared him, as in the midst of all no one kept himself more firm and more free than himself. He found means to banish for some time the demon of anarchy; at a dreadful moment it was he who saved Paris and who withheld the arm of despair, that generosity and justice might again raise up dejected France: but after he had devoted twenty-three years of his life to his country, reaction prevailed; the crime in which the whole nation had participated of having lived in the revolution and having served the republic, drove him into

exile. He retired from France. All the passions old and new remained there.

It is the passions which have condemned the Duke of Otranto: such is the fate of every man who dares to pass through them with a free and confident step.

age

Henceforth he may be considered as belonging to history. It is that which will weigh his merit and his failings, his strength and his weakness; the influence of the spirit of his and his own will. In spite of the clamour of his enemies, his age has already acknowledged his merit; his King has thrown a veil over his fault. Now, it is only God who may judge him; his cotemporaries cannot and ought

not.

At this moment there has arisen in France a party, which condemns whoever has lived in the revolution, and has belonged to it, by being engaged in it and obliged to be so. The limited view of some men does not per

mit them to see the history, nor the impetuous movement of the genius of Europe and of France in the course of the three last centuries. In their eyes it is the state of France before the year 1789, which is alone true and legitimate: whatever has since occurred, they call crimes, and whoever has participated in it, they call criminal. The emigrants left their country because they would not renounce the state of 1789, though the government, by convoking the StatesGeneral, had first set them the example. The French who remained, that is to say the nation, saw in all that passed, only the development of the destinies of their country. It hoped for a more happy futurity; and every one in France thought it his duty to contribute to it as far as he was able. He brought much evil on himself: there arose still more misfortunes. But could he who found himself in the midst of all this, ought he to withdraw himself from serving the pub

lic cause? When the form of the government was changed, ought he to excite civil war, or call in the aid of strangers, instead of obeying the law and concurring in the re-establishment of social order? woe to him who raises up the people, to him who lights up the flame of revolution; but as soon as this exists, woe to him who thinks to subdue anarchy by anarchy, to stifle revolution by revolution! Whoever loves his country will range himself on the side of the law, which alone in the midst of the storm is willing and able to cause the voice of justice and reason to be heard.

Many have deceived themselves. Few have been culpable. The subversion or the reestablishment of a monarchy that has endured more than ten centuries is not the work of some men, nor of some years. It is not the forms of the relations, amidst which the law exists, that constitute the law; it is the law which renders the forms legitimate. Every man who