a term to it. The multitude, still enraged against all who had
participated in the project of the 14th of July, had put to death, with
relentless cruelty, Foulon, the intended minister, and his nephew,
Berthier. Indignant at these executions, fearing that others might fall
victims, and especially desirous of saving the baron de Besenval,
commander of the army of Paris, under marshal de Broglie, and detained
prisoner, Necker demanded a general amnesty and obtained it from the
assembly of electors. This step was very imprudent, in a moment of
enthusiasm and mistrust. Necker did not know the people; he was not aware
how easily they suspect their chiefs and destroy their idols. They thought
he wished to protect their enemies from the punishment they had incurred;
the districts assembled, the legality of an amnesty pronounced by an
unauthorised assembly was violently attacked, and the electors themselves
revoked it. No doubt, it was advisable to calm the rage of the people, and
recommend them to be merciful; but instead of demanding the liberation of
the accused, the application should have been for a tribunal which would
have removed them from the murderous jurisdiction of the multitude. In
certain cases that which appears most humane is not really so. Necker,
without gaining anything, excited the people against himself, and the
districts against the electors; from that time he began to contend against
the revolution, of which, because he had been for a moment its hero, he
hoped to become the master. But an individual is of slight importance
during a revolution which raises the masses; that vast movement either
drags him on with it, or tramples him under foot; he must either precede
or succumb. At no time is the subordination of men to circumstances more
clearly manifested: revolutions employ many leaders, and when they submit,
it is to one alone.

The consequences of the 14th of July were immense. The movement of Paris
communicated itself to the provinces; the country population, imitating