spread with the rapidity of a new fashion all over France. The sentiments of loyalty became every day cooler in the breasts of Frenchmen; they began to value popularity and the huzzas of the mob more than the smiles of the sovereign; political clubs were established as in Eng land; the conduct of government was canvassed in coffeehouses; and the Palais Royal, without ceasing to be the rendezvous of profligacy, became also the focus of sedí

tion.

The cabinet of Versailles expected, no doubt, that, without weakening France, the assistance given to America would greatly impoverish England. The effect has turned out otherwise; that measure, without much affecting the riches of England, has made France poor indeed.

The abolition of the household troops of France may also be reckoned among the remote causes of the revolution. The crown was by that measure deprived at once of a great support and a considerable source of splen dour. It is absurd to imagine, that the people can abstract the impression made on their minds by the magnificence which they are accustomed to see accompany their king, from what they owe to his rank and personal qualities: diminish the first, and they will think more slight ingly of the two others. This ill-judged reform, therefore, while it lessened the veneration of the subjects for their sovereign, overspread the provinces with discontented gentlemen, and converted those who at Versailles would have remained submissive servants, into acrimonious censurers at Paris.

It is impossible for any government to support itself long, after a great majority of the governed are of opinion, that it is unjust and oppressive, and wish for an alteration.

This opinion had gained so much among people of all conditions in France, with respect to their government, that it would have been wise in the administration to have acquiesced in the wishes of the people, by forming some

moderate and prudent plan of reformation. Some things, for example, which had been thought proper and becoming at the time they were established, but by a change of manners and other circumstances were now considered as ridiculous, oppressive, and odious, might have been abolished gradually, with such efficacy as entirely to preclude, or greatly diminish, the probability of any of those rapid and violent revolutions, which are never effected without bloodshed and injustice.

But this measure of abolising the household troops, and thereby so considerably lessening the influence and obscuring the lustre of the crown, seems so violent, that it is difficult to conceive how it could have been adopted by any minister, however fond of public freedom, who was at the same time a friend to monarchy in France.

The introduction of the German custom of punishing the soldiers by blows, as it disgusted the men, and led to that defection which afterwards appeared in the troops, has also been thought to have contributed to the revolution. This kind of punishment certainly occasioned great desertion when first introduced, not only among the pri vate soldiers, but also among the serjeants and corporals; for it was thought debasing to those who were ordered to inflict it, as well as to those on whom it was inflicted. Punishment is peculiarly necessary to keep those who have arms in their hands in due order and obedience; but when permitted to be arbitrarily inflicted by men often under the influence of passion, it cannot appear so just, nor have so good an effect, as when appointed by a cool and impartial court-martial.

One would naturally imagine that the practice of caning has a tendency to break the spirits of soldiers, and to make them think meanly of their profession; and it can hardly be conceived, that to keep men's minds under the continual impression of fear is a likely means of inspiring them with courage. But we have been told with peculiar emphasis of late, that what seems excellent in theory is absurd in practice; and that many things which are very

horrid to the mind to contemplate beforehand, are, notwithstanding, very advantageous when put in practice. From the frequent repetition of this observation, and the manner in which it is applied, one would almost suspect that the following are meant to be recommended as

1. We ought to avoid every new measure which, to our fecble and circumscribed understandings, seems likely to produce a good effect.

2. Although a measure, from apparent absurdity and the cruelty requisite in the execution, revolts at once the head and the heart, it is not rashly to be rejected on that account, as it may be attended with considerable advantages notwithstanding.

3. With regard to the practice of caning soldiers, as it has been of late entirely banished from the French armies, that circumstance is sufficient of itself to determine a prudent and humane general to adopt it, and order the soldiers to be caned with more zeal than ever, that he may not be accused of imitating the French.

The same train of reasoning goes to prove, that the patriotism which actuated many Frenchmen at the beginning of the revolution, and the efforts they made to reform abuses and obtain a free constitution, having failed of success, ought to serve as a warning to mankind never to make a similar attempt again; but rather to combine in establishing despotic governments of Herculean force to crush the hydra of democracy wherever she tries to rear her savage heads. And as the spirit of freedom in France has been perverted to the most wicked purposes, by a set of the most abominable men that ever the earth produced, therefore the spirit of passive obedience and slavish submission should alone be cherished in every country, and honoured by every government, for the tranquillity of the human race. And, completely to secure the peace and prosperity of the governing power in all nations, which is the chief object of government, it would be expedient to grant it the power, in times of alarm, to oblige all sus

pected persons to wear fetters, since nobody can deny the wisdom and justice of putting madmen and murderers in chains,

Another circumstance which had considerable influence in hastening, and much more in perverting, the revolution in France, was the fixing on Versailles as the place for the states-general to meet at. Although it was impossible to foresee all the mischief which has arisen from that measure, it might naturally have occurred, that an assembly which, it was supposed, was to act with freedom and independence, would have been placed with more propriety at a greater distance from the populous and turbulent city of Paris.

This is so evident, that many have thought it could not escape M. Necker; yet he first advised the king to convoke the assembly at Paris, and did not propose Versailles, until he found the king and the ministers positively against that measure; and as it is not easy to assign a good reason for this, it has been imputed to M. Necker's fondness for popular applause, and to his thinking, that the more evident his popularity was, the greater would be his influence with the assembly. He little thought, that the very scheme which he formed for the augmentation of his own influence was, in a short time, to be a principal cause of the annihilation, not only of his influence, but of the influence of reason, justice, and humanity, and of subjugating the national assembly, and the nation itself, to the most dreadful tyranny that ever oppressed mankind.

It may be thought improper to mention the arbitrary nature of the French government as a cause of the revolution, because it has subsisted many years, and because it subsists still in other countries where no revolution has taken place but that may prove a powerful cause in certain situations, which would have remained inactive in others; in no other nation do the circumstances above enumerated occur in addition to their arbitrary government, nor did they ever before occur in France.

Perhaps all those causes together would not have produced the revolution, without the calling together of the states-general: and notwithstanding the greatness of the deficit, it is the opinion of some, that this measure might have been eluded. However that may be, the disorder in the French finances was so great, some time before the year 1789, that the imposition of very considerable additional taxes was thought the only effectual remedy; but as the people thought themselves already overloaded, and were in a state of mutinous discontent, the application of this remedy required prudence and delicacy.

CHAPTER III.

The Notables-M. de Calonne-The Clergy-The Archbishop of Toulouse Minister-Abbe Vermon-A Bed of JusticeParliament of Paris refuse to register the King's Edicts-Parliament banished-Duke of Orleans-Two Counsellors of the Parliament sent to Prison.

It had been long the usage for the parliament of France to register every new imposition. The tax was indeed not considered legal by the people till the registration had taken place; and it sometimes happened, that, instead of obeying the edict, the parliament made a remonstrance, pointing out the hardship or impropriety of the tax, and praying the king to reconsider or withdraw it.

So much the kings of France themselves admitted that the parliament had a right to do; but having made the remonstrance, it was insisted that the parliamentary function was completed, and it remained with the king to give what weight to it he pleased. If he still insisted on the tax, it was then the duty of the parliament to register without farther resistance, on a letter from the king, called Lettre de Jussion, being addressed to them.

The friends of prerogative asserted, that this registration of taxes was a mere matter of form, and that the king's edict gave them all their efficacy, independent of