What we are not talking about already elsewhere
Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:40 p

You do not imagine, Sir, that I am going to compliment this miserable distinction of persons with any long discussion.

The arguments of tyranny are as contemptible as its force is dreadful.

Had not your confiscators, by their early crimes, obtained a power which secures indemnity to all the crimes of which they have since been guilty or that they can commit, it is not the syllogism of the logician, but the lash of the executioner, that would have refuted a sophistry which becomes an accomplice of theft and murder.

The sophistic tyrants of Paris are loud in their declamations against the departed regal tyrants, who in former ages have vexed the world.

They are thus bold, because they are safe from the dungeons and iron cages of their old masters.

Shall we be more tender of the tyrants of our own time, when we see them acting worse tragedies under our eyes?

Shall we not use the same liberty that they do, when we can use it with the same safety — when to speak honest truth only requires a contempt of the opinions of those whose actions we abhor?

This outrage on all the rights of property was at first covered with what, on the system of their conduct, was the most astonishing of all pretexts — a regard to national faith.

The enemies to property at first pretended a most tender, delicate, and scrupulous anxiety for keeping the king's engagements with the public creditor.

These professors of the rights of men are so busy in teaching others that they have not leisure to learn anything themselves; otherwise they would have known that it is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged.

The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity.

The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied.

They never so much as entered into his head when he made his bargain.

He well knew that the public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

This was engaged, and nothing else could be engaged, to the public creditor.

No man can mortgage his injustice as a pawn for his fidelity.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:40 p

It is impossible to avoid some observation on the contradictions caused by the extreme rigor and the extreme laxity of this new public faith which influenced in this transaction, and which influenced not according to the nature of the obligation, but to the description of the persons to whom it was engaged.

No acts of the old government of the kings of France are held valid in the National Assembly except its pecuniary engagements: acts of all others of the most ambiguous legality.

The rest of the acts of that royal government are considered in so odious a light that to have a claim under its authority is looked on as a sort of crime.

A pension, given as a reward for service to the state, is surely as good a ground of property as any security for money advanced to the state.

It is better; for money is paid, and well paid, to obtain that service.

We have, however, seen multitudes of people under this description in France who never had been deprived of their allowances by the most arbitrary ministers in the most arbitrary times, by this assembly of the rights of men robbed without mercy.

They were told, in answer to their claim to the bread earned with their blood, that their services had not been rendered to the country that now exists.

This laxity of public faith is not confined to those unfortunate persons.

The Assembly, with perfect consistency it must be owned, is engaged in a respectable deliberation how far it is bound by the treaties made with other nations under the former government, and their committee is to report which of them they ought to ratify, and which not.

By this means they have put the external fidelity of this virgin state on a par with its internal.

It is not easy to conceive upon what rational principle the royal government should not, of the two, rather have possessed the power of rewarding service and making treaties, in virtue of its prerogative, than that of pledging to creditors the revenue of the state, actual and possible.

The treasure of the nation, of all things, has been the least allowed to the prerogative of the king of France or to the prerogative of any king in Europe.

To mortgage the public revenue implies the sovereign dominion, in the fullest sense, over the public purse.

It goes far beyond the trust even of a temporary and occasional taxation.

The acts, however, of that dangerous power (the distinctive mark of a boundless despotism) have been alone held sacred.

Whence arose this preference given by a democratic assembly to a body of property deriving its title from the most critical and obnoxious of all the exertions of monarchical authority?

Reason can furnish nothing to reconcile inconsistency, nor can partial favor be accounted for upon equitable principles.

But the contradiction and partiality which admit no justification are not the less without an adequate cause; and that cause I do not think it difficult to discover.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:40 p

By the vast debt of France a great monied interest had insensibly grown up, and with it a great power.

By the ancient usages which prevailed in that kingdom, the general circulation of property, and in particular the mutual convertibility of land into money, and of money into land, had always been a matter of difficulty.

Family settlements, rather more general and more strict than they are in England, the jus retractus, the great mass of landed property held by the crown, and, by a maxim of the French law, held unalienably, the vast estates of the ecclesiastical corporations — all these had kept the landed and monied interests more separated in France, less miscible, and the owners of the two distinct species of property not so well disposed to each other as they are in this country.

The monied property was long looked on with rather an evil eye by the people.

They saw it connected with their distresses, and aggravating them.

It was no less envied by the old landed interests, partly for the same reasons that rendered it obnoxious to the people, but much more so as it eclipsed, by the splendor of an ostentatious luxury, the unendowed pedigrees and naked titles of several among the nobility.

Even when the nobility which represented the more permanent landed interest united themselves by marriage (which sometimes was the case) with the other description, the wealth which saved the family from ruin was supposed to contaminate and degrade it.

Thus the enmities and heartburnings of these parties were increased even by the usual means by which discord is made to cease and quarrels are turned into friendship.

In the meantime, the pride of the wealthy men, not noble or newly noble, increased with its cause.

They felt with resentment an inferiority, the grounds of which they did not acknowledge.

There was no measure to which they were not willing to lend themselves in order to be revenged of the outrages of this rival pride and to exalt their wealth to what they considered as its natural rank and estimation.

They struck at the nobility through the crown and the church.

They attacked them particularly on the side on which they thought them the most vulnerable, that is, the possessions of the church, which, through the patronage of the crown, generally devolved upon the nobility.

The bishoprics and the great commendatory abbeys were, with few exceptions, held by that order.

In this state of real, though not always perceived, warfare between the noble ancient landed interest and the new monied interest, the greatest, because the most applicable, strength was in the hands of the latter.

The monied interest is in its nature more ready for any adventure, and its possessors more disposed to new enterprises of any kind.

Being of a recent acquisition, it falls in more naturally with any novelties.

It is therefore the kind of wealth which will be resorted to by all who wish for change.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:40 p

Along with the monied interest, a new description of men had grown up with whom that interest soon formed a close and marked union — I mean the political men of letters.

Men of letters, fond of distinguishing themselves, are rarely averse to innovation.

Since the decline of the life and greatness of Louis the Fourteenth, they were not so much cultivated, either by him or by the regent or the successors to the crown, nor were they engaged to the court by favors and emoluments so systematically as during the splendid period of that ostentatious and not impolitic reign.

What they lost in the old court protection, they endeavored to make up by joining in a sort of incorporation of their own; to which the two academies of France, and afterwards the vast undertaking of the Encyclopedia, carried on by a society of these gentlemen, did not a little contribute.

The literary cabal had some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion.

This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety.

They were possessed with a spirit of proselytism in the most fanatical degree; and from thence, by an easy progress, with the spirit of persecution according to their means.

What was not to be done toward their great end by any direct or immediate act might be wrought by a longer process through the medium of opinion.

To command that opinion, the first step is to establish a dominion over those who direct it.

They contrived to possess themselves, with great method and perseverance, of all the avenues to literary fame.

Many of them indeed stood high in the ranks of literature and science.

The world had done them justice and in favor of general talents forgave the evil tendency of their peculiar principles.

This was true liberality, which they returned by endeavoring to confine the reputation of sense, learning, and taste to themselves or their followers.

I will venture to say that this narrow, exclusive spirit has not been less prejudicial to literature and to taste than to morals and true philosophy.

These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own, and they have learned to talk against monks with the spirit of a monk.

But in some things they are men of the world.

The resources of intrigue are called in to supply the defects of argument and wit.

To this system of literary monopoly was joined an unremitting industry to blacken and discredit in every way, and by every means, all those who did not hold to their faction.

To those who have observed the spirit of their conduct it has long been clear that nothing was wanted but the power of carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution which would strike at property, liberty, and life.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:40 p

The desultory and faint persecution carried on against them, more from compliance with form and decency than with serious resentment, neither weakened their strength nor relaxed their efforts.

The issue of the whole was that, what with opposition, and what with success, a violent and malignant zeal, of a kind hitherto unknown in the world, had taken an entire possession of their minds and rendered their whole conversation, which otherwise would have been pleasing and instructive, perfectly disgusting.

A spirit of cabal, intrigue, and proselytism pervaded all their thoughts, words, and actions.

And as controversial zeal soon turns its thoughts on force, they began to insinuate themselves into a correspondence with foreign princes, in hopes through their authority, which at first they flattered, they might bring about the changes they had in view.

To them it was indifferent whether these changes were to be accomplished by the thunderbolt of despotism or by the earthquake of popular commotion.

The correspondence between this cabal and the late king of Prussia will throw no small light upon the spirit of all their proceedings.

For the same purpose for which they intrigued with princes, they cultivated, in a distinguished manner, the monied interest of France; and partly through the means furnished by those whose peculiar offices gave them the most extensive and certain means of communication, they carefully occupied all the avenues to opinion.

Writers, especially when they act in a body and with one direction, have great influence on the public mind; the alliance, therefore, of these writers with the monied interest had no small effect in removing the popular odium and envy which attended that species of wealth.

These writers, like the propagators of all novelties, pretended to a great zeal for the poor and the lower orders, whilst in their satires they rendered hateful, by every exaggeration, the faults of courts, of nobility, and of priesthood.

They became a sort of demagogues.

They served as a link to unite, in favor of one object, obnoxious wealth to restless and desperate poverty.

As these two kinds of men appear principal leaders in all the late transactions, their junction and politics will serve to account, not upon any principles of law or of policy, but as a cause, for the general fury with which all the landed property of ecclesiastical corporations has been attacked; and the great care which, contrary to their pretended principles, has been taken of a monied interest originating from the authority of the crown.

All the envy against wealth and power was artificially directed against other descriptions of riches.

On what other principle than that which I have stated can we account for an appearance so extraordinary and unnatural as that of the ecclesiastical possessions, which had stood so many successions of ages and shocks of civil violences, and were girded at once by justice and by prejudice, being applied to the payment of debts comparatively recent, invidious, and contracted by a decried and subverted government?


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:40 p

WAS the public estate a sufficient stake for the public debts?

Assume that it was not, and that a loss must be incurred somewhere.

When the only estate lawfully possessed, and which the contracting parties had in contemplation at the time in which their bargain was made, happens to fail, who according to the principles of natural and legal equity ought to be the sufferer?

Certainly it ought to be either the party who trusted or the party who persuaded him to trust, or both, and not third parties who had no concern with the transaction.

Upon any insolvency they ought to suffer who are weak enough to lend upon bad security, or they who fraudulently held out a security that was not valid.

Laws are acquainted with no other rules of decision.

But by the new institute of the rights of men, the only persons who in equity ought to suffer are the only persons who are to be saved harmless: those are to answer the debt who neither were lenders nor borrowers, mortgagers nor mortgagees.

What had the clergy to do with these transactions?

What had they to do with any public engagement further than the extent of their own debt?

To that, to be sure, their estates were bound to the last acre.

Nothing can lead more to the true spirit of the Assembly, which sits for public confiscation, with its new equity and its new morality, than an attention to their proceeding with regard to this debt of the clergy.

The body of confiscators, true to that monied interest for which they were false to every other, have found the clergy competent to incur a legal debt.

Of course, they declared them legally entitled to the property which their power of incurring the debt and mortgaging the estate implied, recognizing the rights of those persecuted citizens in the very act in which they were thus grossly violated.

If, as I said, any persons are to make good deficiencies to the public creditor, besides the public at large, they must be those who managed the agreement.

Why, therefore, are not the estates of all the comptrollers-general confiscated?

Why not those of the long succession of ministers, financiers, and bankers who have been enriched whilst the nation was impoverished by their dealings and their counsels?

Why is not the estate of M. Laborde declared forfeited rather than of the archbishop of Paris, who has had nothing to do in the creation or in the jobbing of the public funds?

Or, if you must confiscate old landed estates in favor of the money-jobbers, why is the penalty confined to one description?

I do not know whether the expenses of the Duke de Choiseul have left anything of the infinite sums which he had derived from the bounty of his master during the transactions of a reign which contributed largely by every species of prodigality in war and peace to the present debt of France.

If any such remains, why is not this confiscated?

I remember to have been in Paris during the time of the old government.

I was there just after the Duke d'Aiguillon had been snatched (as it was generally thought) from the block by the hand of a protecting despotism.

He was a minister and had some concern in the affairs of that prodigal period.

Why do I not see his estate delivered up to the municipalities in which it is situated?

The noble family of Noailles have long been servants (meritorious servants I admit) to the crown of France, and have had, of course, some share in its bounties.

Why do I hear nothing of the application of their estates to the public debt?

Why is the estate of the Duke de Rochefoucault more sacred than that of the Cardinal de Rochefoucault?

The former is, I doubt not, a worthy person, and (if it were not a sort of profaneness to talk of the use, as affecting the title to the property) he makes a good use of his revenues; but it is no disrespect to him to say, what authentic information well warrants me in saying, that the use made of a property equally valid by his brother, the cardinal archbishop of Rouen, was far more laudable and far more public-spirited.

Can one hear of the proscription of such persons and the confiscation of their effects without indignation and horror?

He is not a man who does not feel such emotions on such occasions.

He does not deserve the name of a freeman who will not express them.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:40 p

Few barbarous conquerors have ever made so terrible a revolution in property.

None of the heads of the Roman factions, when they established crudelem illam hastam in all their auctions of rapine, have ever set up to sale the goods of the conquered citizen to such an enormous amount.

It must be allowed in favor of those tyrants of antiquity that what was done by them could hardly be said to be done in cold blood.

Their passions were inflamed, their tempers soured, their understandings confused with the spirit of revenge, with the innumerable reciprocated and recent inflictions and retaliations of blood and rapine.

They were driven beyond all bounds of moderation by the apprehension of the return of power, with the return of property, to the families of those they had injured beyond all hope of forgiveness.

These Roman confiscators, who were yet only in the elements of tyranny, and were not instructed in the rights of men to exercise all sorts of cruelties on each other without provocation, thought it necessary to spread a sort of color over their injustice.

They considered the vanquished party as composed of traitors who had borne arms, or otherwise had acted with hostility, against the commonwealth.

They regarded them as persons who had forfeited their property by their crimes.

With you, in your improved state of the human mind, there was no such formality.

You seized upon five millions sterling of annual rent and turned forty or fifty thousand human creatures out of their houses, because "such was your pleasure".

The tyrant Harry the Eighth of England, as he was not better enlightened than the Roman Mariuses and Sullas, and had not studied in your new schools, did not know what an effectual instrument of despotism was to be found in that grand magazine of offensive weapons, the rights of men.

When he resolved to rob the abbeys, as the club of the Jacobins have robbed all the ecclesiastics, he began by setting on foot a commission to examine into the crimes and abuses which prevailed in those communities.

As it might be expected, his commission reported truths, exaggerations, and falsehoods.

But truly or falsely, it reported abuses and offenses.

However, as abuses might be corrected, as every crime of persons does not infer a forfeiture with regard to communities, and as property, in that dark age, was not discovered to be a creature of prejudice, all those abuses (and there were enough of them) were hardly thought sufficient ground for such a confiscation as it was for his purpose to make.

He, therefore, procured the formal surrender of these estates.

All these operose proceedings were adopted by one of the most decided tyrants in the rolls of history as necessary preliminaries before he could venture, by bribing the members of his two servile houses with a share of the spoil and holding out to them an eternal immunity from taxation, to demand a confirmation of his iniquitous proceedings by an act of Parliament.

Had fate reserved him to our times, four technical terms would have done his business and saved him all this trouble; he needed nothing more than one short form of incantation — "Philosophy, Light, Liberality, the Rights of Men".

I can say nothing in praise of those acts of tyranny which no voice has hitherto ever commended under any of their false colors, yet in these false colors an homage was paid by despotism to justice.

The power which was above all fear and all remorse was not set above all shame.

Whilst shame keeps its watch, virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart, nor will moderation be utterly exiled from the minds of tyrants.

I believe every honest man sympathizes in his reflections with our political poet on that occasion, and will pray to avert the omen whenever these acts of rapacious despotism present themselves to his view or his imagination: —

May no such storm
Fall on our times, where ruin must reform.
Tell me (my Muse) what monstrous dire offense,
What crimes could any Christian king incense
To such a rage? Was't luxury, or lust?
Was he so temperate, so chaste, so just?
Were these their crimes? they were his own much more,
But wealth is crime enough to him that's poor.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:40 p

This same wealth, which is at all times treason and lese nation to indigent and rapacious despotism, under all modes of polity, was your temptation to violate property, law, and religion, united in one object.

But was the state of France so wretched and undone that no other recourse but rapine remained to preserve its existence?

On this point I wish to receive some information.

When the states met, was the condition of the finances of France such that, after economizing on principles of justice and mercy through all departments, no fair repartition of burdens upon all the orders could possibly restore them?

If such an equal imposition would have been sufficient, you well know it might easily have been made.

M. Necker, in the budget which he laid before the orders assembled at Versailles, made a detailed exposition of the state of the French nation.

If we give credit to him, it was not necessary to have recourse to any new impositions whatsoever to put the receipts of France on a balance with its expenses.

He stated the permanent charges of all descriptions, including the interest of a new loan of four hundred millions, at 531,444,000 livres; the fixed revenue at 475,294,000, making the deficiency 56,150,000, or short of £2,200,000 sterling.

But to balance it, he brought forward savings and improvements of revenue (considered as entirely certain) to rather more than the amount of that deficiency; and he concludes with these emphatical words (p. 39), "Quel pays, Messieurs, que celui, ou, sans impots et avec de simples objets inappercus, on peut faire disparoitre un deficit qui a fait tant de bruit en Europe".

As to the reimbursement, the sinking of debt, and the other great objects of public credit and political arrangement indicated in Mons. Necker's speech, no doubt could be entertained but that a very moderate and proportioned assessment on the citizens without distinction would have provided for all of them to the fullest extent of their demand.

If this representation of Mons. Necker was false, then the Assembly are in the highest degree culpable for having forced the king to accept as his minister and, since the king's deposition, for having employed as their minister a man who had been capable of abusing so notoriously the confidence of his master and their own, in a matter, too, of the highest moment and directly appertaining to his particular office.

But if the representation was exact (as having always, along with you, conceived a high degree of respect for M. Necker, I make no doubt it was), then what can be said in favor of those who, instead of moderate, reasonable, and general contribution, have in cold blood, and impelled by no necessity, had recourse to a partial and cruel confiscation?

Was that contribution refused on a pretext of privilege, either on the part of the clergy or on that of the nobility?

No, certainly.

As to the clergy, they even ran before the wishes of the third order.

Previous to the meeting of the states, they had in all their instructions expressly directed their deputies to renounce every immunity which put them upon a footing distinct from the condition of their fellow subjects.

In this renunciation the clergy were even more explicit than the nobility.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:40 p

But let us suppose that the deficiency had remained at the fifty-six millions (or £2,200,000 sterling), as at first stated by M. Necker.

Let us allow that all the resources he opposed to that deficiency were impudent and groundless fictions, and that the Assembly (or their lords of articles at the Jacobins) were from thence justified in laying the whole burden of that deficiency on the clergy — yet allowing all this, a necessity of £2,200,000 sterling will not support a confiscation to the amount of five millions.

The imposition of £2,200,000 on the clergy, as partial, would have been oppressive and unjust, but it would not have been altogether ruinous to those on whom it was imposed, and therefore it would not have answered the real purpose of the managers.

Perhaps persons unacquainted with the state of France, on hearing the clergy and the noblesse were privileged in point of taxation, may be led to imagine that, previous to the Revolution, these bodies had contributed nothing to the state.

This is a great mistake.

They certainly did not contribute equally with each other, nor either of them equally with the commons.

They both, however, contributed largely.

Neither nobility nor clergy enjoyed any exemption from the excise on consumable commodities, from duties of custom, or from any of the other numerous indirect impositions, which in France, as well as here, make so very large a proportion of all payments to the public.

The noblesse paid the capitation.

They paid also a land-tax, called the twentieth penny, to the height sometimes of three, sometimes of four, shillings in the pound — both of them direct impositions of no light nature and no trivial produce.

The clergy of the provinces annexed by conquest to France (which in extent make about an eighth part of the whole, but in wealth a much larger proportion) paid likewise to the capitation and the twentieth penny, at the rate paid by the nobility.

The clergy in the old provinces did not pay the capitation, but they had redeemed themselves at the expense of about 24 millions, or a little more than a million sterling.

They were exempted from the twentieths; but then they made free gifts, they contracted debts for the state, and they were subject to some other charges, the whole computed at about a thirteenth part of their clear income.

They ought to have paid annually about forty thousand pounds more to put them on a par with the contribution of the nobility.

When the terrors of this tremendous proscription hung over the clergy, they made an offer of a contribution through the archbishop of Aix, which, for its extravagance, ought not to have been accepted.

But it was evidently and obviously more advantageous to the public creditor than anything which could rationally be promised by the confiscation.

Why was it not accepted?

The reason is plain: there was no desire that the church should be brought to serve the state.

The service of the state was made a pretext to destroy the church.

In their way to the destruction of the church they would not scruple to destroy their country; and they have destroyed it.

One great end in the project would have been defeated if the plan of extortion had been adopted in lieu of the scheme of confiscation.

The new landed interest connected with the new republic, and connected with it for its very being, could not have been created.

This was among the reasons why that extravagant ransom was not accepted.


Site Admin
Posts: 26668
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 p

THE madness of the project of confiscation, on the plan that was first pretended, soon became apparent.

To bring this unwieldy mass of landed property, enlarged by the confiscation of all the vast landed domain of the crown, at once into market was obviously to defeat the profits proposed by the confiscation by depreciating the value of those lands and, indeed, of all the landed estates throughout France.

Such a sudden diversion of all its circulating money from trade to land must be an additional mischief.

What step was taken?

Did the Assembly, on becoming sensible of the inevitable ill effects of their projected sale, revert to the offers of the clergy?

No distress could oblige them to travel in a course which was disgraced by any appearance of justice.

Giving over all hopes from a general immediate sale, another project seems to have succeeded.

They proposed to take stock in exchange for the church lands.

In that project great difficulties arose in equalizing the objects to be exchanged.

Other obstacles also presented themselves, which threw them back again upon some project of sale.

The municipalities had taken an alarm.

They would not hear of transferring the whole plunder of the kingdom to the stockholders in Paris.

Many of those municipalities had been (upon system) reduced to the most deplorable indigence.

Money was nowhere to be seen.

They were, therefore, led to the point that was so ardently desired.

They panted for a currency of any kind which might revive their perishing industry.

The municipalities were then to be admitted to a share in the spoil, which evidently rendered the first scheme (if ever it had been seriously entertained) altogether impracticable.

Public exigencies pressed upon all sides.

The minister of finance reiterated his call for supply with a most urgent, anxious, and boding voice.

Thus pressed on all sides, instead of the first plan of converting their bankers into bishops and abbots, instead of paying the old debt, they contracted a new debt at 3 per cent, creating a new paper currency founded on an eventual sale of the church lands.

They issued this paper currency to satisfy in the first instance chiefly the demands made upon them by the bank of discount, the great machine, or paper-mill, of their fictitious wealth.

The spoil of the church was now become the only resource of all their operations in finance, the vital principle of all their politics, the sole security for the existence of their power.

It was necessary by all, even the most violent means, to put every individual on the same bottom, and to bind the nation in one guilty interest to uphold this act and the authority of those by whom it was done.

In order to force the most reluctant into a participation of their pillage, they rendered their paper circulation compulsory in all payments.

Those who consider the general tendency of their schemes to this one object as a center, and a center from which afterwards all their measures radiate, will not think that I dwell too long upon this part of the proceedings of the National Assembly.

To cut off all appearance of connection between the crown and public justice, and to bring the whole under implicit obedience to the dictators in Paris, the old independent judicature of the parliaments, with all its merits and all its faults, was wholly abolished.

Whilst the parliaments existed, it was evident that the people might some time or other come to resort to them and rally under the standard of their ancient laws.

It became, however, a matter of consideration that the magistrates and officers, in the courts now abolished, had purchased their places at a very high rate, for which, as well as for the duty they performed, they received but a very low return of interest.

Simple confiscation is a boon only for the clergy; to the lawyers some appearances of equity are to be observed, and they are to receive compensation to an immense amount.

Their compensation becomes part of the national debt, for the liquidation of which there is the one exhaustless fund.

The lawyers are to obtain their compensation in the new church paper, which is to march with the new principles of judicature and legislature.

The dismissed magistrates are to take their share of martyrdom with the ecclesiastics, or to receive their own property from such a fund, and in such a manner, as all those who have been seasoned with the ancient principles of jurisprudence and had been the sworn guardians of property must look upon with horror.

Even the clergy are to receive their miserable allowance out of the depreciated paper, which is stamped with the indelible character of sacrilege and with the symbols of their own ruin, or they must starve.

So violent an outrage upon credit, property, and liberty as this compulsory paper currency has seldom been exhibited by the alliance of bankruptcy and tyranny, at any time or in any nation.


Post Reply