#buzot

I saw for a moment when [the jacobin club] was composed of only three members of the National Assembly and twenty to thirty other citizens. Terror had dispersed the rest; it had dispersed several of the men who now play the leading roles there. Of the three members of the Assembly, one was little known. Robespierre, whose reputation was rooted in patriotism, nevertheless did not enjoy the kind of esteem that wisdom and moderation in the conduct of public affairs confer. I saw Robespierre trembling, Robespierre wanting to flee, Robespierre not daring to show himself before the Assembly... Ask him if I trembled. Discours de Jérôme Petion sur l'accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (November 1792), on Robespierre following the founding of the Feuillant club in July 1791.

Eh! What can one imagine that is too cruel from a scoundrel who caused his benefactors, M. and Mme. Roland, to perish on the scaffold, they who saved him after the event on the Champs-de-Mars, who risked everything to save his execrable life, who induced me, whose disinterestedness and, dare I say, virtuous character they knew, to sacrifice my reputation to the point of throwing myself into the Feuillans, to protect Robespierre from the blind anger of the enemies of the Republic: blind, I said; for the vile scoundrel was innocent of the generous movement that had arisen against Louis XVI. He trembled like a leaf shaken by the winds, and his little soul was as incapable of braving an obvious danger as of conceiving a project useful to the liberty of his country. What Madame and Monsieur Rolland wanted from me, I could have done for Pétion, but never for Robespierre, whom I despised with all my might. Mémoires sur la Révolution française, par Buzot, député à la Convention nationale (1828), page 163-164.

[Claire Lacombe] would have said one day, speaking with Lemoce about the members of the Committee of General Security: ”these blancs-becs must be made to tremble.” Another time, following a visit to the Committee of Public Safety, she would have told her that the representatives on mission in the departments had been enriching themselves there. After Lamoce observed the fact Robespierre had never gone on mission she responded: ”He is too cowardly and too afraid for his life. Did you notice how pale he was when I spoke to him? Fear was written all over his face." Denounciation against Claire Lacombe dated May 28 1794, cited in Trois femmes de la Révolution: Olympe de Gouges, Théroigne de Méricourt, Rose Lacombe (1900) by Léopold Lacour, page 412.

Often Carnot had threatened [Robespierre] point-blank, putting his fist under his nose; one evening Robespierre, a little too sharply attacked by Carnot, felt ill or pretended to feel ill.  Dictionnaire néologique des hommes et des choses, ou Notice alphabétique des personnes des deux sexes, des événemens... (1799) by Beffroy de Reigny, volume 3, p. 11.

Collot d’Herbois still remained his hold on Robespierre’s coat-collar. As I had at that very moment left the Convention on my way to the committee, I became a chance spectator of this fearful scene, whose violence was still not the greatest crime in my eyes. Behind it stood revealed the plot of premeditated vengeance, far worse than a mere outburst of anger. I was among those who compelled Collot d’Herbois to release his hold on Robespierre, who thereupon declared that he could no longer sit with his enemies, styling them a party of septemvirs, whom he would unmask and fight in the body of the Convention. He then took his departure, in spite of the entreaties of the entreaties of the committee, which, having been unable to conquer, sought to retain him in its midst. ”Let him go his way,” I said to those surrounding him. All my interest in him lay in the fact that I did not wish to see him strangled on the spot by a stronger man, and one perhaps as wicked as himself. I followed him for a short distance in order to see him safely home; he was trembling as he walked alone.  Memoirs of Barras, Member of the Directorate (1895), volume 1, page 196-198.

“We have been constantly working to fulfill this object of our dearest wishes” (published in Vatel, Vol.2, p.360)

When the Constituent Assembly debated which form to use to inquire the King and the Queen returned from Varennes, Buzot defended, it was on 26th June, the need to entrust the questioning to the ordinary court without forming a commission of deputies to prevent mixing of legislative and judicial powers (Journal des débats et des décrets n°766, p13).

On May 17th, 1791, he spoke against re-election to the next Assembly and to executive power. "In general, the continuation of any powers and functions is a principle of corruption. <...> Could you forget your principles and your wise foresight for a matter able to compromise the purity of the legislative body and one day alter the respect and confidence which people have for representatives? And you place another one arm in the hands of executive power for it to grow insensibly at the expense of public freedom. <...> Do not believe that only entire corruption leads to the conquest of the majority in a big assembly. A small number of people, an eloquence of one orator, intrigues of another, some cleverly managed terrors can master it in spite of itself, deceive its probity, force it to abandon its principles, to show weakness and injustice it will later repent. And unfortunately, it is these infinitely dangerous and perverse people to whom ministries tend to attach themselves." (Moniteur)

On April 13th, 1791, he said that it is administrative power instead of the Minister of Colonies who National Guard should obey to prevent the concentration of ministerial power (Moniteur).

He even proposed a project of dividing the Assembly into two equal parts formed by draw each month and discussing the same matters independently (21st May 1791, Moniteur).

He viewed the post of a deputy and the one of a Governor of the Dauphin incompatible. And the first was much more honorable for him: "I believe that it is unworthy of a Representative of the Nation to leave his post to be a Governor of the Dauphin." (28 June 1791, Journal des débats et des décrets n°768, p 9)

Another idea that needs to be noted is that all citizens must have an ability to participate in political life to maintain their republican spirit. On 28 April 1791 Buzot defended the right of everyone (not only active citizens) to serve in the National Guard (Moniteur).

He was amongst those who supported the right of petitions signed by organizations: "To leave the right of petitions only to individuals is to annihilate it. Wait until the despotism, which is already raising its head so proudly, will acquire the strength it is rising to. Who will then dare to defy the bayonets and be the first to sign a brave petition? Woe to that first signed. Even if there was someone brave enough to defy the power of the oppressor, the later would laugh at this petition. Whereas a petition which is a general wish strongly expressed by cities, associations and hundred thousand men would make the despots pale." (9th May 1791, Révolutions de France et des Royaumes etc., n°77)

It was 6th August 1789 when he said: “And first of all, I maintain that ecclesiastical property belongs to the Nation.” (Moniteur) He attacked the church as an institution, but do not hasten to classify him as a radical. On 18th April 1791 he supported the opinion that non-sworn priests must be allowed to worship (Journal des débats et des décrets n°693).

Who he was before

Such brilliant career in the National Assembly resulted in Buzot receiving, by the end of it, two offers: of a post of vice-president of the criminal court in Paris and of a president of the same court in his hometown. He chose the last.

François Nicolas Léonard Buzot was born in Èvreux on the first of March 1760. He is mostly known by the name François but Archives National and Louvet in his memoires call him Léonard. His father was a prosecutor and his maternal grandfather was a lawyer in the same court (baptismal certificate, published by Vatel, Vol.2, p.160). On December 26, 1787, he became a lawyer in the court of Èvreux and one year and three months later, on March 28, 1789, he was elected to États généraux (d'Actes de convocation et de députation aux États généraux, published by Vatel, Vol 2 p. 283).

“Born with an independent and proud character, never yielding to the command of any person, how could I support an idea of hereditary rule and inviolability of one person? My head and heart were full of Greek and Roman history, of great men who, in these ancient republics, honored people the most. I’ve shared their maxims from the youngest age. I fed myself with their virtues. My youth was almost wild. My passions, concentrated in my ardent and sensitive heart, were violent, extreme, but dedicated to a single object, always to it. Never debauchery will wither my soul with its impure breath. Lechery always horrified me and to the old age never a licentious word spoiled my lips. But I’ve known misfortune early, still I stayed attached to virtue, whose consolations were my only asylum. What charm I still feel when I recall those happy days of my life now never to return, when I wandered silently through the mountains and woods round the city I was born, reading some works of Plutarch or Rousseaux with delight or recollecting the pieces of their moral and philosophy I cherished the most. Sometimes, sitting on a flowering grass in a shade of dense trees, I, in a sweet melancholy, gave myself over to the memories of the pains and pleasures of my first days. At the evenings, the precious works of two good men often occupied and entertained me and my friend the same age as me whom death took from me when we were thirty years old and whose memory, always cherished and respected, protected me from many mistakes! That was my character, slightly changed by the clash of revolutionary passions, when I arrived at the Constituent Assembly.” (Memoires, p 24)

Development of his principles and his liaisons

Madame Roland opened her salon in the spring of 1791. Not surprising that one of its visitors was Buzot, a friend of Brissot and Pétion. They became friends. Rolands exchanged letters with him since they have all departed from Paris in September 1791, the letters which must have been nothing close to the tender, soulful lines madame Roland would wrote in little less than two years later. Yet these letters allowed them to thoroughly study the souls of each other and, having become intimate soon, brought up the love they found themselves in by the time they saw each other a year after. “Buzot with pure principles, courage, sensitivity and gentle manners has infinitely inspired me with esteem and attachment to him.” (Madame Roland, Memoires, p. 119)

Then, in the reopened salon, he would find two new close friends of him: Louvet and Barbaroux, whom he describes in his Memoires as talented and of great character (p.90).

On 24 September 1792, in the midst of a heated argument caused by Kersaint’s proposition of a law against those who instigate murders, Buzot climbed the rostrum to say:

“Strange to the revolutions of Paris, I arrived here with confidence that I would retain the independence of my soul. Good that I know what to wait for or to fear. What does citizen Kersaint propose? Firstly, to inform each of us about the actual situation in both the Republic and the capital. That is the first thing I demand to be clarified. Secondly, to discover if we have any laws against instigators of murders. <…> We need a public force to provide the compliance with laws. <…> I also demand a public force in which all the departments will participate, because I belong to Paris no more than to the other departments. That is my will, a strongly expressed which will not be suffocated by the declamations of those who speak about Prussians, whom I do not have the honor of knowing, because I lived in my department as if retired. <..> I ask for appointment of four or six commissaires for examining the state that Paris and 83 departments are in to propose in future a project of a law not bloody – I have always raised against those ones, I have fought against that Mirabeau, who had made a martial law – but gentle, which simultaneously reassures good citizens and gives justice to the miscreants. I demand the National Convention to be surrounded by force so imposing that not only did we have nothing to fear but also our departments were completely confident that we have nothing to fear. Oh! Some may think they will make us slaves of some deputies of Paris… I have said this word. It is not too strong. I ask the Convention to examine these questions and for us not to be portrayed as enemies of the people when we want to establish a government that will bring them peace and give them bread.”(Moniteur)

This proposal (which was adopted) and Girondins’ eagerness to bring the guard to life became later one of the reasons for accusing them in federalism.

“When I said yesterday that the Convention must be surrounded by the guard formed by men from all 83 departments, wasn’t I speaking in favor of this unity? I proposed this measure and I say that all we need to prevent the federal division, this tearing of the French republic is to bring departments here, is each primary assembly to send here a man as a guarantee of the unity. <…> One decree is not enough to establish the unity of French Republic. This unity must exist as a fact, as a union of people sent from 83 departments to surround the convention. But these ideas must be organized with care. So, I ask for these observations to be sent to the Editing Commission for it to present its report as soon as possible.” (Moniteur)

To the report on the departmental guard, which Buzot made on 8th October, belongs this definition of republic: “Republic is a holy confederation of people who see themselves as similar and proud, who cherish their kind, honor their character and dignity, work together for the happiness of all to better provide the happiness of every, because in society one necessarily depends on others and is made more significant, more solid by it; of people, finally, equal, independent, but wise and appreciating no rule except law emanated from the general will freely expressed by the representatives by the entire Republic. That beautiful association is not limited by the borders of a small land. It is one, indivisible throughout France. Its perfection, its safety is an interest of 25 million men.” (Moniteur)

What Montagnards called federalism was, in fact, an irritation from Parisians affecting politics under the name of the nation on the basis that they were the nurse of liberty and a fight against what Girondins saw as and called a tyranny of one city. And some party spirit, of course. An important part in this quotation is Buzot talking about cantons. He opposes Paris’ influence with every citizen in the Republic able to vote. During the debates on the king’s trial, he asked for an appeal to people. He would be happy to live in a direct democracy.

It was March 10, 1793. Cambacérès proposed proceeding to the organization of the (future-called) Revolutionary tribunal and the ministries, “the ministries which are now organized as if two powers existed”. He said: “All powers were given to you; you must exercise them all. No separation must exist between the body that discusses and the body that acts.”

“(Cries “to the vote! to the vote!” are heard in the big part of the Assembly. Some murmurs then follow the cries – that is Buzot appears on the tribune.)

Buzot: Citizens, I request the floor. (The murmurs on the left are heard once again) This noise tells me, and I knew before, that some courage is needed to oppose the ideas by which some want to lead us to despotism more terrible than anarchy. (The same murmurs) For every moment I live I thank those who let me to. I view my life as a voluntary concession from their side. (The murmurs continue in the very big part of the Assembly) But may they at least give me the time to save my memory from dishonor by letting me vote against the despotism of the Convention.” (Histoire Parlementaire, t.XXV, p.50)

A prophecy.

By that time Buzot was extremely unloved by all left. His endless attacks, sometimes absurd, e.g. his accusation of Robespierre and Danton being in the Orlean’s party (he did not believe it himself), his resistance to Dubois-Crancé’s army reform made him unbearable. He would become even more after his resistance to the Committee of Public Safety’s power expanding, his eager to bring Marat to justice (even more fiery because he had called him innocent for months before, but that is a story for another day). No one would forget that he stood for the stay of execution (and had an argument on that matter with Barbaroux).

On 8 May 1793 he tells the Convention the following story when one deputy reminds it to him.

 “My servant was arrested on fifth of that month. He was riding a horse of my friend [Dugazon]. He was taken to the Garde-Meuble and asked to show his civil card. He had no. Therefore, I had to present myself four times to the Section Quatre-Nations, where I live. I was refused. The servant said he was mine and this single circumstance determined his arrest and imprisonment. He was being held at the city hall, and I went there with my claim. There I saw, among others, a man with big moustache and big saber, a type which can be frequently seen near the Convention. I was refused taking my servant back in front of witnesses. I asked for their names but was refused. A big man [the man with big moustache] asked me if I needed his help, "the one on the end of my saber" — he added. I answered that I'm ready for it, armed with my courage and some bullets. I went out. The guard decided to follow me. I refused him, but he still did. I came to the mayor who received me decently. I've been there for a very little time when a municipal officer and a military officer began to argue. The object of their argument was the arrest of the man with big moustache and the cause of the arrest was his treat to leave only with my head. This man was taken to the Committee of police and released by it, because he said he was a true patriot and a good citizen. Finally, after two hours and a half of interrogation, when all means to get my servant make contradictions ended, he was returned to me.” (Moniteur)

On 22nd of May Buzot spoke about big municipalities division (Moniteur, I recommend reading it), and on May 23rd about 10th March (Moniteur). He said no single word on 31st of May. On the 2nd of June he stayed at Meillan's, as many other girondins did, and had no intention of participating in the session. Having heard that the idea of proscribing thirty-four deputies instead of twenty-two had been suggested, Buzot rushed to the door, willing to die on the tribune of the Convention. While his colleagues were holding him by pure physical strength, Barbaroux, possessed by the same desire, managed to escape unnoticed (Memories de Meillan, p.52).

Who he became

He became the soul of the Federalist revolt. A great inspirator. Next to his and Barbaroux 's names Brissot, in Saint-Just’s report on 8th July, looks like a petty hooligan.

Madame Roland, an author of at once chaste and passionate letters, wrote him on 6th July: "I’m penetrated by your courage, your affection honors me and I praise everything that inspires your proud and sensitive soul." (Madame Roland’s third letter, published by Dauban, p.36)

Those were the days of energy and hope. They soon ended, being followed by "cruel adventures" (Louvet's word) about which Buzot, in one of many fits of rage, writes in his memoires: “Yes, to avenge! To avenge my friends, their memory on the barbarians oppressing us. That is my goal, my will, my hope! It takes me whole; I think of it all day, I see it in my dreams, to fulfill this duty is the only reason I live! And who of us could agree, without this reassuring hope, to wander in this senseless, torturing life from district to district, from house to house, sometimes staying in the wild and desert forests of Bretagne and Perigord, sometimes sailing two hundred lieus on the sea, exposed to illnesses, inconstancy of the stormy sea, invasion of English, pirates and to the danger a thousand times more cruel than all English and storms, to the danger of being recognized by French, finding hearts cold everywhere, indifferent, frozen with fear or terrible souls tainted with our blood? Could we have another interest? Who of us could agree, without that reassuring hope, to live in our free land after death of our friends and our independence. Alas! We desire no more! What is left of us except pain?” (p.128)

He always was a man of feeling more than a one of thought. And so to say, a man of a deep, strong feeling. All his memories (and they consist of three chapters written in different times and places and to be the last words) are written to splash out the emotions he could not take any more. “My heart cannot handle the feelings oppressing it. There are still some cruel ones I have to devour in silence! Great God! How long do I have to endure? How much is it left of me? You’ve given hope to an unfortunate man but hope also abandoned me! <…> I search in vain for something dear to me, that will force me to once again love life. But in an isolated loneliness I now find nothing. On a despair of no longer having tender, honest feelings. Of no longer having a heart able to respond and rekindle my life with its sweet flame. All is lost for me, forever lost! How terrible those words! They plunge me into oblivion.” (p.132)

His Memoires possess no structure of Barbaroux's or facts of Pétion's. They were written in the same time, Buzot and Pétion were working on them literally elbow to elbow, so it says a lot about their priorities.

Prone to melancholy (Madame Roland's description of him), Buzot rapidly changes his tone from flashes of high lyricism to furious screams but is always uncommonly permeated by sadness.

"Celestial ray, shining from Divinity itself, I bless you for the evils I suffer for you! Support my courage and make me, always faithful to myself, never be unfaithful to your laws.” (p.41)

“Pache, Garat, awful names! Execrable memories! What regrets, what remorse they cause in me! You are partly obliged to me in your sudden rising and I’m well punished for it.” (p.100)

He barely tries to properly explain his theories. The only one chapter that contains them is the one about federalism (p.149), but it still has nothing specific, only an idea of it being a reasonable system, still never ever proposed by him to France.

A consequence of this will to turn his soul inside out is a brilliant honesty he writes with. Not objectivity, but honesty of judgements he had the moment he was writing.

“Following the basis of known ideas of Saint-Just, Robespierre and Barère, I see only a fatal advantage of having a new revolution every new year until the people, tired by its poverty and anarchy, finally fall back, under their own weight, to the most absolute despotism.” (p.158)

“Danton loves glory not less than pleasure and money; he is indifferent to crime as well as to courage, cruelty for him is only a calculated mean; following his interests, he signed pardon for September prisoners as he signed their massacre. <…> I don’t consider him as envious as Robespierre and as stained with blood as Marat, but he drinks it when it’s in his interests. <…> His mind knows no culture, he doesn’t hear arguments, he has no knowledge in any field; he was born awful and becomes even more in his convulsions of anger.” (p.94)

“What will happen with humanity, morals, virtues if Robespierre, Barère and Danton die peacefully in their beds?” (p. 131)

The attitude is clear. Yet – Memoires had been already finished – Buzot wrote on a piece of paper: “I’ve just read about Danton’s trial, and I found myself regretting his death.” (p.195)

"Alas! In the sad refuge where I am confined, I feel no longer the gracious heat of the sun, I see no green of the fields, the murmur of the stream doesn't come to my ear to doze the pains of my heart. Nothing living mixes its tears with mine. I see nothing breathing, and hope itself proposes to me nothing but a funeral shroud! Oh! A few more days, a few days after the fall of our tyrants to fulfil the supreme duty that remains to me, and the dream of life can vanish forever! But if it is my destiny to, after long sufferings, perish in France, in the midst of executioners, surrounding and pressing me, oh you, who are interested in the glory of mine and my friends, do not fear anything undignified of us. Our souls have never feared death, but never will the assassin have the glory of contributing it. And till the last breath Pétion, Barbaroux and Buzot will be free!.." (p.187, and the last)

He killed himself together with Pétion on the same day and the same wheat patch as Barbaroux.

"We've discussed a lot and decided nothing. I will always remember the opinion that Buzot developed with great energy. The question was if we were accused, should we prefer a voluntary death to the ignominy of mounting the echafaud. Buzot preferred the last and proved that the death on the echafaud was more courageous, more dignified to the patriots, and, even more, it was more useful for the Liberty." (Brissot, Memoires, Vol.4, p.261)