These sentences are at the beginning of a paragraph. I am not sure whether they are a conditional or a guessing or a historical fact. I have read this discussion, but the answers are implying that the meaning is context-dependant. Here is the whole sentence:
The ruling sections of the bourgeoisie would have accepted a compromise which, in the image of the English revolutions of the 17th century, would have set up over the subdued lower classes the domination of the notables and the moneyed class. The aristocracy would have none of it, thus rendering inevitable recourse to the popular masses in order to break its resistance. Only a minority, symbolized by the name of La Fayette, understood that it stood to lose nothing in this compromise; the example of England proved that. Compromise was possible in the spring of 1789; but the monarchy would have had to take the initiative boldly.
If the first sentence is just a guess or expectation about the possible fact, then What does "The aristocracy would have none of it" mean? And why the author doesn't use the "would have + PP" form in the next sentence and says: "Only a minority ... understood that..."
The previous and succeeding paragraphs:
The revolution was marked by stages, as the struggle of classes became sharper and more complicated. We shall not go over them here, but merely raise some problems, which are organically bound together: the problem of the failure of the compromise policy, the problem of the Girondins' "failure of nerve" when confronted with the necessities of the war, and the problem of the Jacobin dictatorship.
Was compromise still possible after July 14 and the October days? There were those who thought so among the bourgeoisie as well as among the aristocracy, and had plans for bringing it about.15 But the majority of the nobility, and the aristocratic upper clergy, both refused to accept the initial reforms of the Revolution.
Here is the link of the article: Classes and Class Struggles during the French Revolution