HiS TORY OF “EUV ROPE, 
exclufively in their own hands, and 
ruled the nation as they willed, 
without any refponfibility upon their 
conduét, were little difpofed to 
fubmit to the laying of any checks 
or reftraints upon their proceedings. 
It would have been as if the long 
parliament inEngland, after abolifh- 
ing the houfe of lords, had then 
appointed another body to be its 
fubftitute in controlling their own 
arts. Itis faid, and the fact is af- 
' firmed to be now publicly known, 
that the influence, public opinion, 
and patriotic difinterefted chara¢ter 
of the leaders of the moderate 
party, having rendered their fanc- 
tion and countenance highly necef- 
fary in many of the late arrange- 
ments, they had been artfully amufed 
and led along with an idea that 
their favourite fcheme of two cham- 
bers and of mutual checks was fo 
rational and neceflary a meafure, 
that in fettling the conftitution it 
muft be generally agreed to. 
It is not to be forgotten, that the 
minds of the people had been al- 
ready poifoned in an extreme degree 
upon the fubjeét of the three cham- 
bers, which they were taught to 
confider as the great land-marks of 
defpotifm, and as utterly incompa- 
tible with every fcheme of reform, 
and every principle and hope of 
liberty. This prejudice was eafily 
direéted againft any plurality of 
chambers; againft two, as well as 
epant any greater number. It was 
like the cry of « A mad dog!” The 
people accordingly took a moft de- 
cided part in the bufinefs ; efpecially 
thofein the galleries, and the Pari- 
fians. They muft be fceptical in- 
deed who are in any great doubt, 
whether prefent means were want- 
ing to excite this fermentation. 
Liven in the afiembly, every power 
[39 
diftin from that of the reprefenta- 
tives of the people at large was 
branded with the name of ariftocra- 
cy; and fenates were rendered odious 
by being ‘indifcriminately compared 
to that of Venice. A ichifm like- 
wife arofe, as ufual, among thofe 
parties, who were bound by every 
principle of reafon and policy to 
have aéted with one accord; mott 
of the nobility and clergy voting 
againft the meafure, becaufe they 
thought it would entirely preclude 
the renewal at any future time, of 
their old favourite fyftem of fitting ' 
in three orders. The very reafon, 
if it had been valid, why the friends ‘ 
of the new conftitution fhould have 
fupported the meafure. 
Under all thefe circumftances, 
within and without, the gueftion of 
one or two chambers was finally put 
to the vote, when 
only eighty-nine 
members voted for two chambers, 
againfta majority ofabove nine hun-’ 
dred. Although itis @ident that the 
meafure muit have been rejetted 
without any external violence, yet 
it is not incurious to fee the freedom 
of fuffrage which prevailed in this 
new temple of liberty. Of this, 
exclufive of lifts of profcription and 
incendiary letters, we have two fpe- 
cific inftances: The firft is from 
Lally Tolendal, who aflerts, that 
feveral members of the popular fide 
faid to him individually, « Would’ 
you have me expofe my wife and 
children to be murdered by the 
mob ?””——The fecond is from Mou- 
nier, who declares, that different 
members came to him to beg cer- 
tificates that they had not given un- 
popular votes, as they had heard 
their country feats were to be burnt. 
The affembly likewife decreed, 
that the legiflative body fhould be 
{C 4] } renewed. 
Sept. 10, 1789. 
