9

plicity to M. Necker, which at no time belonged to his character. It must have occurred to him, however, that he had little chance of eyer acquiring great influence with the noblesse, the majority of whom despised him on account of his birth, more than they admired him for his talents or integrity. He had as little chance of becoming a favourite with the clergy, who hated him on account of his particular religion, more than they esteemed him for his general piety: but by augmenting the power of the tiers-etat, and thus attaching them to him, he might expect to insure his own, and be enabled to do all the good he intended, and acquire all the renown which his ambition desired.

The notables gave their decision in the month of De cember 1788. M. Necker towards the end of the same month laid his report before the council, concerning the same subject on which the notables had previously given their opinion. In this report three questions are stated for the consideration of the council: the first regards the manner in which the deputies were to be elected; the second, the number of which those of the third order should consist; and the third question was, whether each order should be obliged to choose the deputies from their own class, or might elect them from all the three. M. Necker's report was a laboured reasoning on these three questions, all of which he decided differently from the notables: the second question is by much the most important; and the chief object of M. Necker is to prove the expediency of the tiers having double the number of deputies.

This report, having been approved by the council, was published at the beginning of 1789. All Europe were certainly surprised, that a measure, which many foresaw would operate so powerfully against the crown, should have been recommended by the king's minister, and approved of by his council; yet M. Necker said, that in this he only followed what he called le bruit sourd de l'Eu

rope.

He also declares, what nobody will think improbable, that it was the general desire of the tiers-etat themselves and their desire, he adds, must be considered as the desire of the nation. This seems rather hard on the noblesse and clergy, who had been accustomed to consider themselves as a very considerable part of the nation. They were now informed that their importance was nearly gone, and that the best way of retaining a little would be to amalgamate themselves with the general mass of the people. Some of them took the hint very soon afterwards.

Another of M. Necker's reasons, as little flattering for the noblesse and clergy as the former, was, that by calling a great number of deputies from the tiers, a greater quantity and variety of knowledge useful to government would be concentered, than by the same number of deputies from either of the other two orders: but as if he had been afraid that it might be suspected that he meant to insinuate, that the third order of the state had the superiority in every kind of knowledge, that they even excelled the noblesse in polite accomplishments and the bishops in divinity, he qualifies the assertion by particularizing commerce, manufactures, agriculture, with the knowledge of finance, and of the properest measures for supporting public credit, as the branches in which the tiers excelled.

He next admonishes the third order to use the power which is to be devolved to them with prudence and moderation, and by no means ever to think of making use of it to force the assembly to decide questions by individual votes, but always by their different orders.

M. Necker must have ideas very different from what are generally received regarding the efficacy of advice, and the manner in which newly-acquired power is usually exercised, if he really expected that the third order would act with all the moderation he so wisely advised. What rendered this the less to be expected was, that this order considered themselves as having been for a long period

of time very scurvily used by the two others, and might therefore have been suspected of being disposed to indulge in retaliation; especially as the Christian religion, and the divine precept of doing good for evil, seemed to make less impression than ever on the minds of the French nation at this period.

M. Necker proceeds to assure the king, that he will on the whole be a gainer by the diminution of his own power and the augmentation of that of the people. In the language of philosophy he tells the monarch, La satisfaction attachée à un pouvoir sans limite est toute d'imagination.Votre majesté, en s'entourant des députés de la nation, se délivre d'une suite cruelle d'incertitudes et de balancemens, de defiances et de regrets, qui doivent faire le malheur d'un prince, tant qu'il demeure sensible au bien de l'état et à l'amour de ses peuples.'*

This argument to persuade a king to abridge his power, because of the solicitudes which attend it, however ingenious and just it may be, is not more successful than the common one against riches. Men have been long told, that money is the root of all evil, and that heaping up riches is heaping up care. Nobody disputes the truth of the maxims; but nobody gives away money, on purpose to be relieved from care: on the contrary, we see men of immense wealth, whose only pangs and vexations in life arise from money; yet, like the man who put a serpent in his bosom, they hug it, although it stings them, and the more it stings them, they hug it the more.

The argument is seldom used, therefore, in the hope of prevailing on people to resign their riches voluntarily; it is only applied to those who by some accident have lost part of their fortune, to console them for what cannot be helped; and in this sense M. Necker's reasoning must be understood-not as intended to persuade the king to give

*The pleasure of unlimited power is imaginary. By surrounding your person with the national deputies, you will be freed from much anxiety and solicitude, and many of those sources of regret which create the unhappiness of every prince endowed with sensibility for the good of the state and the love of his subjects,

up power which he could keep, but to comfort him under the loss of what he could not retain.

M. Necker concludes with a supposition of the possibi lity that the tiers might not act with all the moderation that was to be wished; in which case he mentions, as his last advice, a measure from which it is difficult to imagine that any great comfort could flow. • Cependant,' continues he,si une difference dans le nombre de députés du tiers-etat devenoit un sujet ou un pretexte de discorde; si, par des vues particulieres, on cherchoit à lasser l'honorable constance de V. M.; si votre volonté, sire, n'étoit pas suffisante pour lever ces obstacles; alors quel conseil pourrai-je donner à V. M.? Un seul, et ce seroit le dernier, celui de sacrifier le ministre qui auroit. eu le plus de part à votre deliberation.' *

As this last measure could remedy none of the mischiefs supposed to be done by the advice which the minister had prevailed on the king to follow; and as it will appear of small importance in the eyes of most people, it is a little surprising that M. Necker mentions it with so much emphasis.

Sensible that his influence in the cabinet depended on his popularity, and believing that his popularity would be ruined, if the favourite point of a double representation of the tiers was not carried, he persuaded the king into that measure; yet it is not difficult to perceive his fears, lest a bad use should be made of it, breaking through his reasoning in its favour.

His ambition lulled his fears, and tempted him to risk all the evils which threatened, but which his vanity made him believe he had ability to overcome. Had he foreseen with certainty half the mischiefs that were the consequence of that measure, no consideration could have pre

* Nevertheless, if a difference in the number of deputies of the tiersetat becomes a subject or a pretence of discord; if, from private views, they tried to tire your majesty's constancy; if your will, sire, should not be sufficient to remove these obstacles; what advice can I then give to your majesty? Only one, and it shall be the last,-namely, to sacrifice the mimister who has had the principal share in advising you to this measure.

vailed on M. Necker to advise it; for he unquestionably had the prosperity of the French nation sincerely at heart, as his greatest ambition was to be the instrument of it. Although born a republican, he was of opinion that a republican form of government neither suited the extent of the French empire, nor the character of the French people. He was the friend of liberty; but thought she could be sure of a permanent and happy residence in France under a limited monarchical form of government only; yet his conduct immediately before the assembling of the states-general, and for some time afterwards, has been thought to have greatly contributed to the destruction of monarchy in France, and to the establishment of a republic which hitherto seems of a more terrible nature than any government that ever was known, inasmuch as it seems to combine all the tyranny of which republicans accuse monarchy, with all the anarchy of which the friends of monarchy accuse republics.

CHAPTER VI.

The Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland-The Noblesse of France.

THE deputies to the states-general being elected were, in the terms of the king's proclamation, to assemble at Versailles, and the assembly was to be opened on the 5th of May 1789.

The public at large expected the redress of many grievances, and the reformation of many abuses, from this as sembly; but as the noblesse and clergy enjoyed many privileges and immunities at the expense of the tiers-etat, it may easily be imagined that a number of those would appear abuses in the eyes of the latter, which were regarded as wise institutions by the former.

The privileges possessed, and the superiority assumed, by the noblesse of France over the inferior orders, were evils of greater magnitude than they may seem to those