98 Chapter V
Rousseau, fleeing from Paris, was kept from Geneva by the decree of arrest, and
was also refused asylum in the neighboring Vaud, a subject district of Bern. He
presently settled in Neuchatel, not far from Geneva. Neuchâtel then belonged to
the King of Prussia, who extended his royal protection to the harassed republican.
With alternating moods of enthusiasm and reluctance, tossed between concern
for Geneva and a desire to be rid of it forever, in an ambivalent and deeply trou-
bled state of mind, Rousseau now entered into a series of talks with Burgher lead-
ers who came to see him in Neuchâtel. His dream had been shattered by his con-
demnation; he was confused and depressed; he was hurt that no one at Geneva
had yet taken any public stand in his favor; he feared that none of his fellow-
citizens really cared about him or understood him. Lonely, abandoned, disap-
pointed, and baffled, craving sympathy, and wishing to call attention to his plight,
he dramatically abdicated his title of Citizen of Geneva. He thus tormented him-
self by surrendering what had given him so much pride. He took an irrevocable
action which he may soon have secretly regretted. Three weeks later, on June 18,
1763, d’Ivernois, de Luc, and forty other citizens and burghers submitted a “repre-
sentation” to the Syndics.
This document declared that there had been a breach of legality in the condem-
nation by the Small Council of Rousseau’s two books, and that therefore the case
should be referred for review to the General Council, that is, to all Burghers in
town meeting assembled. The Small Council, denying any breach of legality, re-
fused to refer the representation to the General Council. The Small Council, in
its official reply, conceded the right of Burghers to make representations, but held
that nothing in the Act of 1738 obliged it to transmit such representations to the
General Council, if, as in this case of Rousseau, members of the Small Council
were undivided and felt no uncertainty in their own minds on the legality of their
decision. The Small Council pointed out, too, that the Act of 1738 forbade any of
the Orders to encroach on the rights of others—that, in short, the General Coun-
cil must not interfere with the conduct of government by the Small. Many repre-
sentations followed the first one, and many were vetoed. Thus was launched the
constitutional crisis at Geneva. For want of better names, the Burgher party
called itself the Representants, from the “representations” that they made; the
party of the government were called Négatifs, because they claimed the right to
negative, or veto, any Burgher representation by refusing to transmit it to the Gen-
eral Council.
The Small Council also deputed one of its members, J. R. Tronchin, to set forth
its position more fully in a book. Tronchin did so in his Lettres écrites de la cam-
pagne. The friend of Voltaire, a declared enemy of Rousseau, Tronchin was a
learned and accomplished man, courteous and equable in public debate, but crush-
ing in the wealth of legal and constitutional arguments at his command. He was
once called the Montesquieu of Geneva, and, like Montesquieu, put his case on a
high plane. The droit négatif of the Small Council, he said, was like the royal veto
in England, a necessary and salutary check upon the powers of the people, de-
signed to maintain the balance in the state; it might prevent progress, but certainly
prevented anarchy; it was a power that could not itself make law, but prevented
capricious lawmaking by disaffected persons; hence it directly served “the great