HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
establishment in France must eclipse 
what remained of the splendor of 
the crown, throw a cloud of dis- 
gust and even contempt on their 
Majesties, as being incapable of 
maintaining a throne which they 
had restored, and put all places of 
power and trust in the hands of 
their party. From the commence- 
ment of the revolution the court of 
France was divided into different 
parties: that of the Count d’ Artois, 
under the direction of M. de Ca- 
Ionne, who had been disgraced at 
the instigation of the Queen in 
1788 ; and that of this princess, to 
which the other was in direct op- 
position. When their Majesties 
attempted their escape to Mont- 
medi, and were stopped at Varennes, 
neither the Count d’Artois, the 
Prince of Condé, nor M. de Ca- 
lonne were in the secret: nor did 
they receive any intelligence be- 
fore they read it in the newspapers. 
To suppose that there was a secret 
collusion and concert between their 
Majesties and the princes, appeared 
in reality to those who were ac- 
quainted with the court of France, 
and on whose authority we give 
these facts, not only improbable, 
but extravagant. Yet it must be 
owned that there were not wanting 
many circumstances which might 
‘Daturally nourish suspicion in the 
breasts of such a people as the 
French; of whom it is a character- 
istic that they are at once prone to 
Suspicion and credulity: a paradox 
that will not appear altogether in- 
explicable to Hibs who reflect on 
the extreme sensibility of their 
temper, and that a momentary be- 
[13 
lief attends the vivid conception of 
every object. His Majesty’s letter 
to his officers, when he fled to 
Montmedi, evidently tended to 
throw all things into confusion.* 
When the King accepted the con- 
stitution of 1791, he should have 
done it firmly and frankly ; and, 
at the same time, given positive 
orders to his brothers and the other 
emigrants to disarm: though they 
would have been involved in dis- 
astrous consequences by a refusal, 
he had still in reserve the power 
of pardon. The manner too in 
which he accepted the constitution, 
and the observations he made on 
it, were not calculated to inspire a 
belief and confidence in his since- 
rity.—‘‘It appears to me,” said the 
King, “ that the constitution does 
not possess that energy of execution 
and administration which are ne- 
cessary to impress the movement 
and preserve the unity of so vast 
an empire.”’ This observation was 
just: but it was imprudent to make 
it. In this qualified acceptance, 
the republicans imagined that they 
saw hypocrisy,—and. the constitu- 
tionalists, a King protesting against 
laws entrusted to his execution. It 
would be hard to censure with 
severity the conduct of the King at 
this crisis: he was sincere, but de- 
ficient in decision and vigour: he 
had penetration to discover the de- 
fects of the constitution; but not 
to foresee the consequence of his 
strictures. ‘There are some other 
circumstances naturally tending to 
produce a suspicion of the sincerity 
of the King, which it may be na- 
tural in this place to mention. It 
 * A-measure not altogether dissimilar to that of James IL, of England, who, 
before his flight into France, caused the great seal to be thrown into the river 
3 ‘ ames. 
was 
