over rapidity of concession, which brought about the unexampled horrors of its Revolution.

M. Dumont, whose "Souvenirs sur Mirabeau" is prefixed to this article, was the early and faithful friend of that extraordinary man. He wrote a great proportion of his speeches, and composed almost entirely the Courier de Provence, a journal published in the name of Mirabeau, and to which a great part of his political celebrity was owing. The celebrated declaration on the Rights of Man, published by the Constituent Assembly, was almost entirely composed by him. He was the intimate friend of Brissot, Garat, Roland, Vergniaud, Talleyrand, and all the leaders of the popular party, and his opinion was deemed of so much importance, that he was frequently consulted by the ministers as to the choice of persons to fill the highest situations. In this country he was the intimate and valued friend of Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Holland, and all the party at Holland House. Latterly, he was chiefly occupied in arranging, composing, and putting into order the multifarious effusions of Mr. Bentham's genius; and from his pen almost all the productions of that great and original man have flowed. Half the fame of Mirabeau, and more than half that of Bentham, rest on his labours. He was no common person who was selected to be the coadjutor of two such men, and rendered the vehicle of communicating their varied and original thoughts to the world.

Before quoting the highly interesting observations of this able and impartial observer on the French Constituent Assembly, and comparing them with the progress of Reform in this country, we shall recall to our readers' recollection the dates of the leading measures of that celebrated body, as, without having them in view, the importance of M. Dumont's observations cannot be duly appreciated. Such a survey will at the same time bring to the test the accuracy of Mr. Macaulay's and Sir John Hobhouse's assertion, that it was not the concession, but the resistance, of the privileged orders, which precipitated the fatal cataract of their Revolution. The abstract is abridged from Mignet, the ablest historian on the republican side of which France can boast, and Lacretelle, the well known annalist of its events.

In August, 1788, Louis, in obedience to the wishes of the nation, agreed to assemble the States-General, which had not met in France since 1614.

In September, 1789, the king, by the advice of Neckar, by a royal ordinance, doubled the number of the representatives of the Tiers Etat; in other words, he doubled the House of Commons of France, while those of the clergy and nobles were left at their former

amount.

decently dressed was allowed to vote, without asking any questions.

When the States-General met in May 6, 1789, the king and his minister, Neckar, were received with cold and dignified courtesy by the nobles and clergy, but rapturous applause by the Tiers Etat, who saw in them the authors of the prodigious addition which the number and consequence of their order had received.†

May 9. No sooner had the States-General proceeded to business, than the Tiers Etat de manded that the nobles and clergy should sit and vote with them in one chamber: a proceeding unexampled in French history, and which it was foreseen would give them the complete ascendency, by reason of their numerical su periority to those of both the other orders united.

May 10 to June 9. The nobles and clergy resisted for a short while this prodigious innovation, and insisted that, after the manner of all the States-General which had assembled in France from the foundation of the monarchy, the orders should sit and vote by separate chambers; and that this was more especially indispensable since the recent duplication of the Tiers Etat had given that body a numeri cal superiority over the two other orders taken together.§

June 17. The Tiers Etat declared themselves the National Assembly of France, a designation, says Dumont, which indicated their in tention to usurp the whole sovereignty of “the state."

June 21. The king, terrified at the thoughts of a collision with the Commons, and thinking to put himself at the head of the movement, first persuaded, and at length, through the medium of Marshal Luxembourg, commanded the nobles to yield to this demand of the Tiers Etat.

The nobles and clergy gradually yielded On the 19th June, 1789, one hundred and fortyseven of the clergy joined the Tiers Etat, and on the 25th, the Duke of Orleans, with fortyseven of the nobles, also deserted their order, and adhered to the opposite party. The re mainder finding their numbers so seriously weakened, and urged on by their Reforming Sovereign, also joined the Tiers Etat, and sat with them in one assembly on 27th June. "On that day (says Dumont) the Revolution was completed."

On the 23d June, 1789, the king held a solemn meeting of the whole estates in one assembly, and while he declared the former proceedings of the Tiers Etat unconstitutional, granted such immense concessions to the people, as never, says Mirabeau, were before granted by a king to his subjects. All the objects of the Revolution, says Mignet, were gained by that royal ordinance.**

⚫ Mignet, i. 25.

* Dumont. + Mignet, i. 30. Mignet, i. 37. || Lacretelle, Pr. Hist. p. 3. Lacretelle, Pr. Hist. i. 42.

tt Ibid. i. 3.

Mignet, i. 37.

** Ibid. i. 43

of orders, did not venture to table the expres sion, National Assembly. It was hazarded for the first time by a deputy named Le Grand; there was an immediate call for the vote, and it was carried by a majority of 500 to 80 voices."-Pp. 73, 74.

He will learn to his cost that the radicals can find as good plunder in the estates of the Whig as the Conservative nobility. But when the day of reckoning comes, he cannot plead the excuse of the honest and benevolent Bishop of Chartres. He was well forewarned of the consequences; the example of France was before his eyes, and it was clearly pointed out to his attention; but he obstinately rushed forward in the insane career of innovation, which, almost under his own eyes, had swallowed up all the reforming nobility and clergy of that unhappy kingdom.

The vast importance of words in revolutionary convulsions, of which Napoleon was so well aware when he said that "it was by epithets that you govern mankind," appears in the account given by this able and impartial writer on the designation which the Tiers Etat chose for themselves before their union with the other orders.

"The people of Versailles openly insulted in the streets and at the gates of the Assembly those whom they called Aristocrats. The power of that word became magical, as is always the case with party epithets. What astonishes me is, that there was no contrary denomination fixed on by the opposite party. They were called the Nation. The effects of these two words, when constantly opposed to each other, may readily be conceived.

"Though the Commons had already become sensible of their power, there were many opinions on the way in which it should be exerted, and the name to be given to the Assembly. They had not as yet all the audacity which they have since evinced; but the men who looked into futurity clearly saw that this deterinination would have been of the most important consequences. To declare themselves the National Assembly was to count for nothing the king, the noblesse, and the clergy; it was equivalent to a declaration of civil war, if the government had had sufficient vigour to make any resistance. To declare themselves the Assembly of the Commons, was to express what undoubtedly was the fact, but what would not have answered the purpose of compelling the clergy and nobles to join them. Many denominations were proposed which were neither the one nor the other of these; for every one as yet was desirous to conceal his ultimate pre

In debate on Reform Bill, Oct. 8, 1831.

This is the never-failing device of the democratic party in all ages. Trusting to the majority of mere numbers on their side, they invariably represent themselves as the whole nation, and the friends of the constitution as a mere fragment, utterly unworthy of consideration or regard. "Who are the Tiers Etat?" said the Abbé Sieyes. "They are the French nation, minus 150,000 privileged individuals.”"Who are the Reformers?" says the Times. "They are 24,000,000 of men, minus 200 boroughmongers." By such false sweeping assertions as these, are men's eyes blinded not only to what is honourable, but to what is safe and practicable. By this single device of calling the usurping Commons the National Assembly, the friends of order were deterred from entering into a struggle with what was called, and therefore esteemed, the national will; and many opportunities of stemming the torrent, which, as Dumont shows, afterwards aruse, irrecoverably neglected.

Of the fatal weakness which attended the famous sitting of the 23d June, 1789, when Louis made such prodigious concessions to his subjects, without taking at the same time any steps to make the royal authority respected, the opinion of Dumont is as follows:

"Neckar had intended by these concessions to put democracy into the royal hands; but they had the effect of putting the aristocracy under the des potism of the people. We must not consider that royal sitting in itself alone. Viewed in this light, it contained the most extensive concessions that ever monarch made to his people. They would, at any other time, have excited the most lively gratitude. Is a prince powerful? Every thing that he gives is a gift, every thing that he does not resume is a favour. Is he weak? every thing that he concedes is considered as a debt; every thing that he refuses, as an act of injustice.

"The Commons had now set their heart upon being the National Assembly. Every thing which did not amount to that was nothing in their estimation. But to hold a Bed of Justice, annul the decrees of the Commons, make a great noise without having even foreseen any resistance, or taken a single precaution for the morrow, without having taken any steps to prepare a party in the Assembly, was an act of madness, and from it may be dated the ruin of the monarchy. Nothing can be more dangerous than to drive a weak prince to acts of vigour which he is unable to sustain; for when he has exhausted the terrors of words he has no other resource; the authority of the throne has been lowered, and the people have discovered the secret of their monarch's weakness."-P. 87.

The Reformers in this country say, that these immense concessions of Louis failed in their effect of calming the popular effervescence,

because they came too late. It is difficult to say what they call soon enough, when it is recollected that these concessions were made before the deputies had even verified their powers; before a single decree of the Assembly had passed, at the very opening of their sittings; and when all their proceedings up to that hour had been an illegal attempt to centre in themselves all the powers of government. But, in truth, what rendered that solitary act of vigour so disastrous was, that it was totally unsupported; that no measures were simultaneously taken to make the royal authority respected; that the throne was worsted from its own want of foresight in the very first contest with the Commons, and above all, that the army betrayed their sovereign and rendered resistance impossible, by joining the rebels to his government.

The National Assembly, like every other body which commits itself to the gale of popular applause, experienced the utmost disquietude at the thoughts of punishing any of the excesses of their popular supporters. How exactly is the following description applicable to all times and nations!

"The disorders which were prolonged in the provinces, the massacres which stained the streets of Paris, induced many estimable persons to propose an address of the Assembly, condemnatory of such proceedings to the people. The Assembly, however, was so apprehensive of offending the multitude, that they regarded as a snare every motion tending to repress the disorders, or censure the popular excesses. Secret distrust and disquietude was at the bottom of every heart. They had triumphed by means of the people, and they could not venture to show themselves severe towards them; on the contrary, though they frequently declared, in the preambles of their decrees, that they were profoundly afflicted at the burning of the chateaux and the insults to the nobility, they rejoiced in heart at the propagation of a terror which they regarded as indispensable to their designs. They had reduced themselves to the necessity of fearing the noblesse, or being feared by them. They condemned publicly, they protected secretly; they conferred compliments on the constituted authorities, and gave encouragement to license. Respect for the executive power was nothing but words of style; and in truth, when the ministers of the crown revealed the secret of their weakness, the Assembly, which remembered well its own terrors, was not displeased that fear had changed sides. If you are sufficiently powerful to cause yourselves to be respected by the people, you will be sufficiently so to inspire us with dread; that was the ruling feeling of the Cote Gauche.”—P. 134.

This is precisely a picture of what always must be the feeling in regard to tumult and disorders of all who have committed their political existence to the waves of popular support. However much, taken individually, they may disapprove of acts of violence, yet when they feel that intimidation of their opponents is their sheet-anchor, they cannot have an insurmountable aversion to the deeds by which it is to be effected. They would prefer, indeed, that terror should answer their pur

poses without the necessity of blows being actually inflicted; but if mere threats are insufficient, they never fail to derive a secret satisfaction from the recurrence of examples calculated to show what risks the enemy runs. The burning of castles, the sacking of towns, may indeed alienate the wise and the good; but alas! the wise and the good form but a small proportion of mankind; and for one whose eyes are opened by the commencement of such deeds of horror, ten will be so much overawed, as to lose all power of acting in obedience to the newly awakened and better feelings of his mind.

"Intimidation," as Lord Brougham has well observed, "is the never-failing resource of the partisans of revolution in all ages. Mere popu larity is at first the instrument by which this unsteady legislature is governed; but when it becomes apparent that whoever can obtain the direction or command of it must possess the whole authority of the state, parties become less scrupulous about the means they employ for that purpose, and soon find out that violence and terror are infinitely more effectual and expeditious than persuasion and eloquence. Encouraged by this state of affairs, the most daring, unprincipled, and profligate, proceed to seize upon the defenceless legislature, and, driving all their antagonists before them by violence or intimidation, enter without opposition upon the supreme functions of go vernment. The arms, however, by which they had been victorious, are speedily turned against themselves, and those who are envious of their success, or ambitious of their distinction, easily find means to excite discontents among the multitude, and to employ them in pulling down the very individuals whom they had so recently elevated. This disposal of the legislature then becomes a prize to be fought for in the clubs and societies of a corrupted metropolis, and the institution of a national representation has no other effect than that of laying the government open to lawless force and flagitious audacity. It was in this manner that, from the want of a natural and efficient aristocracy to exercise the functions of hereditary legislators, the National Assembly of France was betrayed into extravagance, and fell a prey to faction; that the Institution itself became a source of public misery and disorder, and converted a civilized monarchy first into a sanguinary democracy, and then into a military despotism."* How exactly is the progress, here so well described, applicable to these times! "Take this bill or anarchy," says Mr. Macauley.-"Lord Grey," says the Times, "has brought the country into such a state, that he must either carry the Reform Bill or incur the responsibility of a revolution." How exactly is the career of democratic insanity and revolutionary ambition the same in all ages and countries!

Dumont, as already mentioned, was a leading member of the committee which prepared the famous declaration on the Rights of Man. He gives the following interesting account of the revolt of a candid and sagacious mind at the absurdities which a regard to the popular opinion constrained them to adopt :

Edinburgh Review, vi. 148. †Times, March 27, 1832.