1789.

CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY.

225

amounting to 600, equalling those of the clergy and nobles united, formed an apter symbol of their power than all the gorgeousness of embroidery. Here were assembled the select mass of the nation, of its proud names, its intellect, and its wealth; and yet scarcely one was known to fame. Orleans was remarked, perhaps, and Mirabeau, the latter a noble rejected by his caste, and sent as deputy by the commons of Provence. A disordered life was also his chief claim to notoriety. Under the ancient régime, talents could only rise to fame by the aid of profligacy.

The assembly met on the following day, in a large building in the avenues of Versailles, that had been prepared for them. The monarch opened the important session with a speech characteristic at once of the benignity and irresolution of his nature. Barentin, the chancellor, followed with a kind of political homily; and Necker continued by unfolding his budget of finance, at a moment when the great question which preoccupied all minds, and shut out every other consideration, was, how the orders were to vote,-whether united, each member with a voice, or separate, each body with a veto. Both Necker and the king left this question undecided. The commons, supported by the popular sentiment, came prepared to insist on the union of the three orders, and for very natural reasons. Both noblesse and church had resisted in their several assemblies the ameliorations proposed by Calonne and Brienne. The states were called to effect these; and apparently this could not be done if each order remained apart, intrenched behind its veto. The monarch saw and acknowledged the force of these arguments. The previous inveteracy of the noblesse prevented him from frankly embracing their cause, and establishing their independence. The states were, therefore, left to decide the point betwixt them.

The architectural distribution of the edifice was not without influence. The large hall of assembly was allotted to the tiers état; two smaller ones had been prepared for the noblesse and clergy. The commons affected to expect that the two orders would join them, in order to verify their powers in common; but these, in their respective chambers, decided against the coalition. Still there was but a majority of sev enty even amongst the nobles for remaining separated, and but a majority of twenty amongst the clergy. In the latter body, the number of curates, elected by the low-church, was great. The ministry in the elections had favored the popular, much more than the aristocratic or high-church, candidates. Learning this distribution of parties, the tiers necessarily per

sisted. They were certain of succeeding in their aim. Meantime all business was deferred. The public expectation, wound up, and daily disappointed, turned to anger against the aristocrats. Irritation increased, and with it increased the influ ence of the tiers. The minister at length proposed a plan of accommodation as to the verification of powers, which favored the pretensions of the noblesse much more than those of the tiers. Nevertheless the deputies of the latter had the art and address to show no decided objection, and by this means threw on their opponents the odium of opposing all conciliation. The noblesse, indeed, at first accepted, but then demurred against, the title of commons, assumed by the tiers. This being inserted in the conferences, the peers refused to sign them, risking an open quarrel for the sake of an empty word. Their democratic opponents made decisive use of this pretext. In the body of the tiers état were two parties: one, headed by Mounier and Malouet, was constitutional and moderate, anxious to secure public liberty, but to check revolution; and desirous of forming a system of government analogous to that of England. An adverse party was led by Mirabeau and Sieyes, with principles and aim yet unfixed, but bent on the establishment of one assembly, in which all rank and distinction merged. Mirabeau, smarting from a long imprisonment, was eager to retaliate on the higher classes, and on the throne itself. Ardent, conscious of the long-pent-up fire of genius, to rule by eloquence and wield the sceptre of popularity was his object. Sieyes, equally ambitious, presented a contrast with his fiery colleague: he was cold, ratiocinating, systematic; one of those temperaments which naught but the fever of political rabies could warm; and even this could but affect his head his heart was chill as his imagination. Sieyes spoke little; his ideas were mathematically put together. This singularity won for him a character for profound and mysterious wisdom.

The parties and their chiefs now for the first time came into collision. The ultra-liberals declared, that the noblesse merely manœuvred, and raised futile objections, in order to embarrass the march of the states-general, and retain them in complete inaction. Sieyes therefore advised that, preparatory to their constituting themselves into a national assembly, a final summons should be made to the recusant orders to join the commons. This took place on the 10th of June. Its consequence was the defection of three curates from the clergy to join the tiers; in two days after, more of their brethren followed; amongst others, the famous Gregoire; and at length, on the 17th, took place the famous debate on the title

1789.

CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY.

227

meaning the powers which they should assume. The preamble of Sieyes stated, that they were ninety-six-hundredths of the nation; and that such a majority could no longer postpone the commencement of business, because the four-hundredths which remained, meaning the noblesse and the clergy, refused to join them. This fractional logic, which at once swept away all rights of property or birth, was adopted without dissent. And in truth the doctrine, which it discovered to be that of the overwhelming majority, might well alarm the court. Mounier, to palliate such a declaration, proposed that they should assume the title of representatives of the commons, or of the major part of the nation. But brevity in a title being justly considered dignity, Le Grand's proposal of adopting that of "national assembly" was preferred. Nevertheless, the body now self-constituted is known in French history as the Assemblée Constituante.

No sooner was this great and bold act accomplished, than the assembly hastened to exercise the power which it had assumed, by voting that the imposts now levied had been hitherto illegal, wanting the sanction of the representatives of the people; henceforth, however, their levy was sanctioned temporarily. These votes, this legislative power fully and exclusively assumed by the commons, startled the court and the king himself. The noblesse, thunderstruck, and conscious at once of present weakness and past imprudence, implored the monarch to support their rights. Louis had hitherto been not adverse to the union of the orders: he looked on the states as endowed with financial, merely, not political capacity. Timid himself, he had not expected such audacity; he hesitated whether he should yield or resist. His brother, his queen, the court, all struck with legitimate and prophetic terrors, entreated him to take some decisive step: Necker deprecated extremities. In the midst of this combat of principles, of prudence, and resentment, fear and hope, the clergy came to a decision on the 19th, carried by a single vote, that their order should merge in that of the commons. This came to complicate the question. Necker instantly proposed a royal sitting, somewhat resembling the beds of justice in parliament, in which the king should command the union of the orders in all subjects of general or pecuniary interest; in the consideration of others, they were to remain separate. Even this was not decided without dispute. Louis listened to all: the whole court was one distracted and noisy council, in which Necker had no predominant voice.

Orders were issued immediately for the royal sitting. Carpenters took possession of the house of assembly, and, bv

a strange oversight, the president of the assembly was made acquainted with the circumstance but on the previous evening. If, in this crisis, it must be allowed that the fears of the court were just, it must also be admitted that the commons had some reason to be alarmed: they heard of a projected bed of justice; they knew of the intrigues, the fears, the solicitations of the noblesse: the liberty, which it was their mandate to establish, was in peril. On the morning of the 20th, Bailly, the president, proceeded, despite the notice he had received, to the door of the hall of meeting: it was barred; the sentinels refused entrance, allowing it, however, to Bailly, upon the pretext that he wished to draw up a note of the prohibition. Some young members forced admission also: there was prospect of an altercation, when Bailly withdrew, bringing with him the angry members.

The assembly had by this time collected, and filled in a tumultuary manner the public avenue. Different proposals were made, to hold the assembly where they were, or under the windows of the royal château. There was a tennis-court at hand: it was suggested to adjourn thither, and the idea was welcomed with acclamation. Even the most moderate deputies joined in the general enthusiasm; and it was Mounier who first moved that the assembly should bind itself not to separate till they had prepared and voted a constitution. “An oath! an oath! let us swear it!" was the universal cry. Bailly, standing on a bench, now held up his hand towards the heavens that canopied the dilapidated place of meeting, and repeated the oath, whilst all the other members, one alone excepted, extended their arms and joined in the solemn adjuration. "If the privileged orders had been more formida ble at the moment when they were thus attacked, or had the national party shown themselves afterwards more forbearing in their triumph, history would have consecrated this day as one of the most memorable in the annals of liberty.'

This bold act of independence struck the courtiers as frowardness and sedition: it unfortunately gave fresh weight to their words, and to their influence with the king. The royal brothers were admitted to the council: the younger, then count d'Artois, since Charles X., was the leader of the antipopular party; and he found a powerful auxiliary in Marie Antoinette, who, with the quick and single-thoughted feelings of her sex, perceived the arrogance, without being able to appreciate the motives, of the commons. In the midst of a discussion in council, a note from the queen called out Louis and interrupted the decision: the monarch was induced to modify Necker's plan of the royal sitting, and render it an act of severity rather than conciliation. Necker resigned.

1789.

ROYAL SITTING.

229

On the 23d took place the royal suting. The king made known his will. He annulled all the previous votes and acts of the assembly; commanded the orders, according to Necker's plan, to unite in the same chamber to decide on pecuniary questions, to remain separate on others. A report was then read of the reforms and concessions to be granted by the monarch, after which Louis himself resumed, "If by a fatality that I cannot bring myself to expect, you abandon me in my benevolent enterprise, I will alone undertake the good of my people: I will consider myself alone their true representative." The act here threatened might have been dangerous, but it was less dangerous than the menace. The monarch and the assembly were now at open variance: both had avowed their principles; they were incompatible and hostile; for either to recede was to succumb for ever.

The assembly felt this as it were by instinct. The last words of the king bade them instantly separate for that day; he himself retired, accompanied by the noblesse. The commons remained immovable. De Brezé, the master of the ceremonies, summoned them to depart: the president said, "that he should obey the orders of the assembly alone." Mirabeau started up, and apostrophized De Brezé,-"Tell your master we are here by the will of the people, and nothing less than the force of bayonets shall expel us. Workmen began now to remove the decorations of the hall: Bailly ordered them to cease. After much agitation, Mirabeau proposed a vote, that the persons of the members were inviolable. With this concluded the sitting.

What was the resolve of the court on learning that the commons persisted in the positions which they had taken up? In deciding on the measure and language of the royal sitting, it should have been prepared for resistance as for obedience. Now was the time to act, if ever. But no:-they had flung away the scabbard, yet feared to use the sword. The queen was the first to yield. Rumors had spread of Necker being in disgrace; the inhabitants of Versailles began to shout his name: Marie Antoinette herself summoned the popular minister, promised to support and adopt his views, and so persuaded him to resume his ministry. Thus in the morning the king was made to address the commons with the bravado of a soldier, in the evening to retract with all the weakness of a woman.

Each day of this important period forms a crisis, and comes fraught with some portentous event. The closer, indeed, that history here approaches to a journal, the more clear and perfect will be the idea conveyed of how fatuity dragged on evil