Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/633

 THE STATES-GENERAL.] FRANCE 597 their embers, and had lost the power to arouse enthusiasm ; while the ancient framework of long worn-out institutions still encumbered all the land, and with their dead weight pressed men down. Selfishness above, hypocrisy in faith, misery below, these things demanded vocal leaders for attack, and the leaders were not wanting they were first the great writers, and afterwards the chiefs whom the violence of the time threw to the surface. Europe had long beeii uneasy ; the &quot; benevolent despots &quot; had tried their utmost for the people and against privilege ; enlightened ministers seemed to themselves to be carry ing out the principles of Richelieu; they fought against custom and institutions, irritating, weakening, even revers ing them. And yet in all they scarcely recognized the ex istence of Democracy, of a people which would be heard, nnd would take the foremost place in the rearrangement of Europe. While the monarchs Avho said of their business with Joseph II., &quot; C est d etre royaliste&quot; were levelling privilege or church immunities, dismissing parliaments or exiling Jesuits with a view to raising their own authority, they little knew that they themselves were in danger. For the new democracy changed the centre and place of sove reignty, and while, as De Tocqueville says, &quot; it swept away the feudal institutions and replaced them with a social and political order, more uniform and simple, and based on the equality of the condition of all,&quot; it was also sure pro foundly to modify the views of Europe as to the position of the monarch, as to the headship and sovereignty in a nation. And the great change began in France, not because she was more, but partly because she was less oppressed than her neighbours. In comparison with the German, the French peasant had many advantages, there was less serfage, there were more peasant proprietors. &quot; This,&quot; said Arthur Young in 1788, &quot; is the mildest government of any considerable country in Europe, our own excepted.&quot; This milder state of things made men more capable of indig nation against the injustice they could feel ; the most crushed do not feel the most ; they are helpless, ignorant ; but when men have begun to rise and to understand, then they grow dangerous to their masters. The very attempts made by benevolence in high place to succour the misery of the people roused their anger against their lords, a point to which De Tocqueville dedicates a whole chapter, entitled &quot; Comment on souleva le peuple en voulant le soulager.&quot; In addition to this we must remember that the Revolution found much to forward it in the brightness of the French temperament. The simple principles it preached, with accompanying appeals to virtue and patriotism, at once commended themselves to a people fearfully ignorant, yet unusually intelligent and lively. In their strength and their weakness alike the French people were singularly well fitted to be the heralds of the new conditions of political life in Europe. Early in 1789 all France was busy with the elections to the States-General, and in drawing up the cahiers, or papers of grievances. From the moment of the king s edict (8th August 1788), convoking the States-General, discussions had gone on with growing eagerness as to their proper consti tution and form. Some urged the pattern of the English constitution; others wished for the forms of 1614; others pointed out the increased importance of the third Estate iu numbers and wealth. It was seen that the Estate which in fact would be called on to pay almost the whole sum to be raised must have greater strength than the precedent of 1614 could give it. Bankruptcy stared the court in the face ; the king only called the Estates together because the finances were in a frightful condition ; he openly sets this forward as the chief reason for their convocation. A demand accordingly arose for two things : first, that the third Estate should be composed of as many members as the other two orders combined; secondly, that the three 1789. orders should debate and vote by head, in one chamber. It was urged on this hand that thus only could those defend themselves who would have to pay the taxes ; oil the other hand, that to sit in one chamber would be a dangerous innovation, and that a majority of the third Estate would set the unprivileged public above the privi leged few. The parliament of Paris, with its lawyer-liko preference for precedent over justice, and its incapacity to discern the real issues before it, warmly supported the latter view, and urged the king to follow the rules of 1614. The popularity they had up to that time rather undeservedly enjoyed was destroyed in a moment ; it was seen now that the lawyers were as earnest for privilege as the rest. A convocation of notables, chiefly members of the privileged orders, to rule the form of procedure, 5 in spite of Necker s efforts, supported the views of the parliament. The matter grew warm ; the princes of the blood, Artois and Cond6 and the others, who had supported the queen in all her follies, added their remonstrances in the same direction ; the popular ferment spread all the more, and Necker became the idol of the people. By his influence the king was induced at last to issue an edict to the effect that there should be in all full a thousand deputies to the States- General, made up in proportion to the population, and that there should be as many deputies of the third Estate as of the other two combined. As to the one-chamber ques tion the decree was silent. In former States-General the third Estate had usually sent more than either of the others ; in those of 1560 the third Estate had much exceeded the other two combined, so that this great concession was little more than a continuance of ancient use. It was also de cided that the election should be by a double process. The electors, in number about three millions, were limited by noTheman- property qualification ; it was a kind of simple household n * r suffrage in the country districts, each 200 hearths choosing two representatives, and so on ; in the towns two delegates for each 100 inhabitants, and so on upwards,- so that the towns chose twice as many primary delegates as the country districts did for their numbers. These delegates from bailiwicks and towns were empowered to meet in the chief town of each province, there to draw up their cahiers, and to choose from their own body the persons who should proceed with the grievances in hand to Versailles as members of the third Estate. The elections to the first Estate, the clergy, returned 291 The members, 48 archbishops and bishops, 35 abbe s and &quot;&quot;&quot; canons, 208 parish priests ; these latter were largely in favour of liberty, and when the time came supported the third Estate in its struggle, while the bishops and higher clergy mostly went with the privileged orders. The second Estate, the noblesse, returned in all 270 persons, one prince of the blood, 28 magistrates, 241 &quot;gentlemen&quot; or holders of noble fiefs. The smallness of their total is due to the proud abstention of the Breton nobles : There were among them a few who sympathized with the popular movement,- at their head the duke of Orleans. The third Estate was composed of 557 members, nearly half of them barristers, and almost all united in defence of the country against privilege. The cahiers of all the orders, the third no less than the others, breathed a very moderate spirit. Almost all spoke warmly and hopefully of the king, all expressed respect for the royal power. The cahiers of the nobles urged the interests of their order without hesitation ; those of the clergy desired the bettering of the condition of parish priests ; those of the third order insisted on the abolition of the unequal rights and services, which were felt throughout France to be a great grievance and hindrance to the well- being of the country. When the three Estates met at Versailles, it was seen election.