Part 411

"I took part in the opening of the States-General, and, in spite of the pomp with which the royal power was still surrounded, I there saw the passing away of the old regime. The regime which preceded '89, should, it seems to me, be considered from a two-fold aspect: the one, the general condition of the country, and the other, the relations existing between the government and the country. With regard to the former, I firmly believe that, from the earliest days of the monarchy, France had at no period been happier than she was then. She had not felt the effects of any great misfortune since the crash which followed Law's system. The long lasting ministry of Cardinal de Fleury, doubtless inglorious, but wise and circumspect, had made good the losses and lightened the burdens imposed at the end of the reign of Louis XV. If, since that time, several wars undertaken with little skill, and waged with still less, had compromised the honor of her arms and the reputation of her government; if they had even thrown her finances into a somewhat alarming state of disorder, it is but fair to say that the confusion resulting therefrom had merely affected the fortune of a few creditors, and had not tapped the sources of public prosperity; on the contrary, what is styled the public administration had made constant progress. If, on the one hand, the state had not been able to boast of any great ministers, on the other, the provinces could show many highly enlightened and clever intendants. Roads had been opened connecting numerous points, and had been greatly improved in all directions. It should not be forgotten that these benefits are principally due to the reign of Louis XV. Their most important result had been a progressive improvement in the condition of agriculture. {1259} The reign of Louis XVI. had continued favoring this wise policy, which had not been interrupted by the maritime war undertaken on behalf of American independence. Many cotton-mills had sprung, up, while considerable progress had been made in the manufacture of printed cotton fabrics, and of steel, and in the preparing of skins. … I saw the splendors of the Empire. Since the Restoration I see daily new fortunes spring up and consolidate themselves; still nothing so far has, in my eyes, equalled the splendor of Paris during the years which elapsed between 1783 and 1789. … Far be it from me to shut my eyes to the reality of the public prosperity which we are now [1822] enjoying. I am cognizant of the improvement in the condition of the country districts, and I am aware of the fact that all that rests on this solid foundation, even though its appearance may be somewhat more humble, is much to be preferred to a grander exterior that might hide a less assured solidity. I do not seek to disparage the present time—far from it. I am ready to admit the advantages which have accrued, in many respects, as the results of the Revolution; as, for instance, the partition of landed property, so often assailed, and which, so long as it does not go beyond certain limits, tends to increase wealth, by introducing into many families a well-being hitherto unknown to them. But, nevertheless, when I question my reason and my conscience as to the possible future of the France of 1789, if the Revolution had not burst, if the ten years of destruction to which it gave birth had not weighed heavily upon that beautiful country … I am convinced that France, at the time I am writing, would be richer and stronger than she is to-day."

_Chancellor Pasquier, Memoirs, pages 44-47._

"In the spring of 1789 who could have foreseen the bloody catastrophe? Everything was tinged with hopefulness; the world was dreaming of the Golden Age. … Despite the previous disorders, and seeds of discord contained in certain cahiers, the prevailing sentiment was confidence. … The people everywhere hailed with enthusiasm the new era which was dawning. With a firm king, with a statesman who knew what he wished, and was determined to accomplish it, this confidence would have been an incomparable force. With a feeble prince like Louis XVI., with an irresolute minister like Necker, it was an appalling danger. The public, inflamed by the anarchy that had preceded the convocation of the States, disposed, through its inexperience, to accept all Utopias, and impelled by its peculiar character to desire their immediate realization, naturally grew more exacting in proportion as they were promised more, and more impatient and irritable as their hopes became livelier and appeared better founded. In the midst of this general satisfaction there was but one dark spot,—the queen. The cheers which greeted the king were silent before his wife. Calumny had done its work; and all the nobles from the provinces, the country curates, the citizens of the small towns, came from the confines of France imbued with the most contemptible prejudices against this unfortunate princess. Pamphlets, poured out against her by malicious enemies; vague and mysterious rumours, circulated everywhere, repeated in whispers, without giving any clew to their source,—the more dangerous because indefinite, and the more readily believed because infamous and absurd,—had so often reiterated that the queen was author of all the evil, that the world had come to regard her as the cause of the deficit, and the only serious obstacle to certain efficacious reforms. 'The queen pillages on all sides; she even sends money, it is said, to her brother, the emperor,' wrote a priest of Maine, in his parochial register, in 1781; and he attributed the motive of the reunion of the Notables to these supposed depredations. If, in 1781, such reports had penetrated to the remotest parts of the country, and found credence with such enlightened men as the Curé Boucher, one can judge what it must have been two years later, when the convocation of the States-General had inflamed the minds of the people. If the States should encounter any inevitable obstacle in their path; if certain imprudent promises should be unfulfilled; if promised reforms should fail,—public resentment and ill-will, always on the alert, would be sure to blame Marie Antoinette; they would impute to her all the evil done, and all the good left undone. The symptoms of this distrust were manifest at the outset. 'The deputies of the Third Estate,' Madame Campan observes, 'arrived at Versailles with the strongest prejudice against the court. The evil sayings in Paris never failed to be spread through the provinces: they believed that the king indulged in the pleasures of the table to a most shameful excess; they were persuaded that the queen exhausted the State treasury to gratify her inordinate love of luxury; almost all wished to visit Little Trianon. As the extreme simplicity of this pleasure-house did not correspond with their ideas, they insisted on being shown even the smallest closets, saying that richly furnished apartments were being concealed from them. Finally they designated one, which according to their account was ornamented with diamonds, and twisted columns studded with sapphires and rubies. The queen was amused at these mad fancies, and told the king of them.'"

_M. de la Rocheterie, Life of Marie Antoinette, volume 2, chapter 1._

ALSO IN: _A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France before the Revolution._

_A. Young, Travels in France, 1787-89._

_R. H. Dabney, Causes of the French Revolution._

_E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (May). Meeting of the States-General. Conflict between the three Estates. The question of three Houses or one.

"The opening of the States-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789, and Versailles was chosen as the place of their meetings. On the 4th, half Paris poured into that town to see the court and the deputies marching in procession to the solemn religious ceremony, which was to inaugurate the important epoch. … On the following day, the States-general, to the number of 1,200 persons, assembled in the spacious and richly decorated 'salle des menus plaisirs.' The King appeared, surrounded by his family, with all the magnificence of the ancient court, and was greeted by the enthusiastic applause of the deputies and spectators." The king made a speech, followed by Barentin, the keeper of the great seal, and by Necker. The latter "could not prevail upon himself to avow to the Assembly the real state of affairs. He announced an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs, and thereby confused the mind of the public, which, since the meeting of the Notables, had always been discussing a deficit of from 120,000,000 to 140,000,000. {1260} He was quite right in assuming that those 56,000,000 might be covered by economy in the expenditure; but it was both irritating and untrue, when he, on this ground, denied the necessity of summoning the States-general, and called their convocation a free act of royal favour. … The balance of income and expenditure might, indeed, easily be restored in the future, but the deficit of former years had been heedlessly allowed to accumulate, and by no one more than by Necker himself. A floating debt of 550,000,000 had to be faced—in other words, therefore, more than a whole year's income had been expended in advance. … The real deficit of the year, therefore, at the lowest calculation, amounted to more than 200,000,000, or nearly half the annual income. … These facts, then, were concealed, and thus the ministry was necessarily placed in a false position towards the States-general; the continuance of the former abuses was perpetuated, or a violent catastrophe made inevitable. … For the moment the matter was not discussed. Everything yielded to the importance of the constitutional question—whether the three orders should deliberate in common or apart—whether there should be one single representative body, or independent corporations. This point was mooted at once in its full extent on the question, whether the validity of the elections should be scrutinised by each order separately, or by the whole Assembly. We need not here enter into the question of right; but of this there can be no doubt, that the government, which virtually created the States-general afresh [since there had been no national meeting of the Estates since the States-general of 1614-see above: A. D. 1610-1619], had the formal right to convoke them either in one way or the other, as it thought fit. … They [the government] infinitely lowered their own influence and dignity by leaving a most important constitutional question to the decision and the wrangling of the three orders; and they frustrated their own practical objects, by not decidedly declaring for the union of the orders in one assembly. Every important measure of reform, which had in view the improvement of the material and financial condition of the country, would have been mutilated by the clergy and rejected by the nobles. This was sufficiently proved by the 'cahiers' of the electors ['written instructions given by the electors to the deputies']. The States themselves had to undertake what the government had neglected. That which the government might have freely and legally commanded, now led to violent revolution. But there was no choice left; the commons would not tolerate the continuance of the privileged orders; and the state could not tolerate them if it did not wish to perish. The commons, who on this point were unanimous, considered the system of a single Assembly as a matter of course. They took care not to constitute themselves as 'tiers état,' but remained passive, and declared that they would wait until the Assembly should be constituted as a whole. Thus slowly and cautiously did they enter on their career. … Indisputably the most important and influential among them was Count Mirabeau, the representative of the town of Aix in Provence, a violent opponent of feudalism, and a restless participator in all the recent popular commotions. He would have been better able than any man to stimulate the Assembly to vigorous action; but even he hesitated, and kept back his associates from taking any violent steps, because he feared that the inconsistency and inexperience of the majority would bring ruin on the state. … It was only very gradually that the 'tiers état' began to negotiate with the other orders. The nobles shewed themselves haughty, dogmatical, and aggressive; and the clergy cautious, unctuous, and tenacious. They tried the efficacy of general conferences; but as no progress was found to have been made after three weeks, they gave up their consultations on the 25th of May. The impatience of the public, and the necessities of the treasury, continually increased; the government, therefore, once more intervened, and Necker was called upon to propose a compromise," which was coldly rejected by the nobles, who "declared that they had long ago finished their scrutiny, and constituted themselves as a separate order. They thus spared the commons the dreaded honour of being the first to break with the crown. The conferences were again closed on the 9th of June. The leaders of the commons now saw that they must either succumb to the nobility, or force the other orders to submission."

_H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution., book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN: _W. Smyth, Lectures on the History of the French Revolution, lecture 8 (volume 1)._

_Prince de Talleyrand, Memoirs, part 1 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (June). The Third Estate seizes the reins, proclaims itself the National Assembly, and assumes sovereign powers. The passionate excitement of Paris. Dismissal of Necker. Rising of the mob.

"At last … on the proposal of Sieyès [the Abbé, deputy for Paris] and amid a storm of frantic excitement, the Third Estate alone voted themselves 'the National Assembly,' invited the other two orders to join them, and pushing their pretensions to sovereignty to the highest point, declared that the existing taxes, not having been consented to by the nation, were all illegal. The National Assembly, however, allowed them to be levied till its separation, after which they were to cease if not formally regranted. This great revolution was effected on June 17, and it at once placed the Third Order in a totally new relation both to the other orders and to the Crown. There were speedy signs of yielding among some members of the privileged orders, and a fierce wave of excitement supported the change. Malouet strongly urged that the proper course was to dissolve the Assembly and to appeal to the constituencies, but Necker declined, and a feeble and ineffectual effort of the King to accomplish a reunion, and at the same time to overawe the Third Order, precipitated the Revolution. The King announced his intention of holding a royal session on June 22, and he summoned the three orders to meet him. It was his design to direct them to unite in order to deliberate in common on matters of common interest, and to regain the royal initiative by laying down the lines of a new constitution. … On Saturday, the 20th, however, the course of events was interrupted by the famous scene in the tennis court. Troops had lately been pouring to an alarming extent into Paris, and exciting much suspicion in the popular party, and the Government very injudiciously selected for the royal session on the following Monday the hall in which the Third Order assembled. The hall was being prepared for the occasion, and therefore no meeting could be held. {1261} The members, ignorant of the fact, went to their chamber and were repelled by soldiers. Furious at the insult, they adjourned to the neighbouring tennis court [Jeu-de-Paume]. A suspicion that the King meant to dissolve them was abroad, and they resolved to resist such an attempt. With lifted hands and in a transport of genuine, if somewhat theatrical enthusiasm, they swore that they would never separate 'till the constitution of the kingdom and the regeneration of public order were established on a solid basis.' … One single member, Martin d'Auche, refused his assent. The Third Estate had thus virtually assumed the sole legislative authority in France, and like the Long Parliament in England had denied the King's power to dissolve them. … Owing to the dissension that had arisen, the royal session was postponed till the 23rd, but on the preceding day the National Assembly met in a church, and its session was a very important one, for on this occasion a great body of the clergy formally joined it. One hundred and forty-eight members of the clergy, of whom 134 were curés, had now given their adhesion. Two of the nobles, separating from their colleagues, took the same course. Next day the royal session was held. The project adopted in the council differed so much from that of Necker that this minister refused to give it the sanction of his presence. Instead of commanding the three orders to deliberate together in the common interest, it was determined in the revised project that the King should merely invite them to do so. … It was … determined to withdraw altogether from the common deliberation 'the form of the constitution to be given to the coming States-General,' and to recognise fully the essential distinction of the three orders as political bodies, though they might, with the approval of the Sovereign, deliberate in common. Necker had proposed … that the King should decisively, and of his own authority, abolish all privileges of taxation, but in the amended article the King only undertook to give his sanction to this measure on condition of the two orders renouncing their privileges. On the other hand, the King announced to the Assembly a long series of articles of reform which would have made France a thoroughly constitutional country, and have swept away nearly all the great abuses in its government. … He annulled the proceedings of June 17, by which the Third Estate alone declared itself the Legislature of France. He reminded the Assembly that none of its proceedings could acquire the force of law without his assent, and he asserted his sole right as French Sovereign to the command of the army and police. He concluded by directing the three orders to withdraw and to meet next day to consider his proposals. The King, with the nobles and the majority of the clergy, at once withdrew, but the Third Order defiantly remained. It was evident that the attempt to conciliate, and the attempt to assert the royal authority, had both failed. The Assembly proclaimed itself inviolable. It confirmed the decrees which the King had annulled. Sieyès declared, in words which excited a transport of enthusiasm, that what the Assembly was yesterday it still was to-day; and two days later, the triumph of the Assembly became still more evident by the adhesion of 47 of the nobility. After this defection the King saw the hopelessness of resistance, and on the 27th he ordered the remainder of the nobles to take the same course. … In the mean time the real rulers of the country were coming rapidly to the surface. … Groups of local agitators and of the scum of the Paris mob began to overawe the representatives of the nation, and to direct the course of its policy. Troops were poured into Paris, but their presence was an excitement without being a protection, for day after day it became more evident that their discipline was gone, and that they shared the sympathies and the passions of the mob. … At the same time famine grew daily more intense, and the mobs more passionate and more formidable. The dismissal of Necker on the evening of July 11 was the spark which produced the conflagration that had long been preparing. Next day Paris flew to arms. The troops with few exceptions abandoned the King."

_W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 20 (volume 5)._

ALSO IN: _E. Dumont, Recollections of Mirabeau, chapters 4-5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July). The mob in arms. Anarchy in Paris. The taking of the Bastille.