The forced relocation of the king and National Assembly to Paris from Versailles was in contravention of the principles of liberty and fraternity. When the women of Paris marched on Versailles, they brought back the king and the National Assembly to Paris instead of the bread they had been demanding from the government. The king and National Assembly became virtual prisoners of the radical elements in Paris as a result of the forced relocations. They could no longer freely discharge their duties in Paris where there was greater mob interference and influence in government business. Given this scenario it
was impossible to speak of political liberty and free expression as promised by the revolutionaries.

The peasants’ violence against the nobles was contrary to the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity. The peasants displayed a lack of respect for property rights and impoverished the nobles and clergy through their orgy of violence and looting. The nobles’ right to life was also compromised by the murder that characterised the violence of the peasants during the so-called “Great Fear”. They were also exasperated into emigrating from France. As a result they were estranged and became sworn enemies of the revolution. That destroyed the chances of fraternity with the Third Estate. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy limited the church’s influence in state affairs and contravened the principles of liberty and fraternity. Requirements that the clergy take an oath of loyalty to the government were felt to be degrading. It fanned conflict between the church and state especially after the majority of the clergy chose to reject the constitution. The Civil Constitution was the most significant
cause of the revolt in Vendee in 1793 and the consequent civil war.

The classification of French people into the broad categories of “active” and “passive” citizens as contained in the 1791 constitution ran counter to the principle of equality. The government imposed property and income qualifications and these prevented the majority from voting or standing as candidates. Those who qualified to vote were classified as “active” citizens and those who did not were termed “passive” citizens. Such measures led to the perpetuation of class inequalities. The much
advertised liberties that included the right of all to participate in politics either as voters or officebearers in the end just a sham.
The September massacres of 1792 demonstrated the strong current of intolerance of reaction and antiJacobin views and made it clear that there was no liberty in revolutionary France. It was the revolutionary government’s fears of counter-revolution which bred paranoia and heavy-handedness in dealing with opponents. There was state-sanctioned violence designed to crush revolt and cow opponents into submission. The result was high levels of intolerance and there could be no hope for liberty without tolerance.

The introduction of the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794 removed any illusions that there could be any liberty to express any counter-revolutionary and anti-Jacobin sentiments. Radical Jacobins like Maximillien Robespierre made it clear that there was no question of equality and fraternising with counter-revolutionaries and anybody else who did not share their Jacobin views. He spoke of terror as necessary to frighten dissidents. The high levels of intolerance were contrary to the revolutionary ideals.
Even fellow revolutionaries were not spared imprisonment and execution if their views contradicted those in power at the time. Mere jealousy or competition for power also produced serious violations of liberty and equality. A special court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was established to try counterrevolutionary suspects. The Law of Suspects was passed to criminalise support for royalists and insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution. It was not clear what constituted insufficient enthusiasm for
the revolution and it was up to the Revolutionary Tribunal to decide. Given the clearly Jacobin sympathies of that court, the Law of Suspects was inevitably used to punish anti-Jacobins. The Law of Maximum which was passed in 1794 to criminalise the selling of goods above the prices prescribed by government violated the liberal principles of freedom of commerce. When the Law of Twenty-Second Prarial was passed in 1794 even members of the National Convention lost their immunity and could now be hurled before the Revolutionary Tribunal on accusations of counter-revolutionary behaviour. There were spirited attempts to de-Christianise France between 1793 and 1794. This followed the overwhelming rejection of the Civil Constitution by the clergy in 1790. Churches were closed in many parts of the country and priests were persecuted. There were attempts to introduce the “Worship of Reason” and even a “Cult of the Supreme Being” to replace Christianity. That way the liberty of religion was lost in revolutionary France. Other policies like the requisitioning of grain and other goods essential
to the war effort also violated the freedom of commerce. The introduction of mass conscription to provide recruits for the revolutionary armies who had the urgent task of defending France from imminent invasion also demonstrated the loss of freedom of choice. The government allowed imprisonment, executions, torture and fines as punishment for those found guilty of reaction thus demonstrated loss of various civil rights in France.

The permanent suspension of the highly democratic 1793 constitution was further evidence that expressions of liberty, equality and fraternity were farcical. That constitution would have provided for universal suffrage and that would have given all the right to freedom of expression and political participation. The constitution was too radical and therefore unacceptable to the upper middle class and moderate majority in the National Convention and their successors in the Directory. The use of armed force to crush dissent showed that there was no liberty to challenge the Directory from 1795 to 1799. The Jacobins were the first to taste the full wrath of the Directory after it ordered troops led by Napoleon to crush their revolt in 1795. The turn of Simon Babeuf and his supporters came afterwards. Babeuf was one of those who were executed for plotting to overthrow the Directory. The annulment of unfavourable election results was common feature of politics during the Directory and it demonstrated its anti-liberal and intolerant nature. In 1797 and 1798 the Directors cancelled election results which showed Jacobin and Royalist gains to the legislature. They ordered fresh elections in order to produce more favourable results to themselves.

The violent overthrow of the Directory and the subsequent introduction of the Consulate was further evidence that France was still a long way off from embracing its own expressed principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In 1799, Napoleon induced three directors to resign and had the other two arrested and jailed. Members of the Council of Five Hundred were either dispersed or arrested and the remnant was coerced into voting the Directory out of existence. The support of the army helped
Napoleon to establish the Consulate in which he was a virtual dictator. He centralised power in his hands, re-introduced press censorship and a system of spies to identify dissenting voices. He succeeded in giving France order and stability but that was at the cost of their liberty. In the final analysis, it becomes clear that liberty, equality and fraternity remained elusive ideals during the years 1789 to 1799 despite the frequent promises and public protestations of the revolutionaries.
Intolerance, repression and suppression of civil rights were the outstanding features of the period and this was due to fears of counter-revolution, competition for power and personal animosities among other things.