Meeting of the Estates-General, 1789. 179 
‘ 
f 
_ mercial importance of the colony. In the ratio of one to twenty 
_ thousand, San Domingo would be entitled to twenty-five if all 
_ her inhabitants were counted. If whites alone were considered, 
she would have but two. Under those circumstances, he deemed 
ten a just compromise.*4 
Lejeans opposed the admission of too large a number, because 
it would set a precedent which would mean two hundred colonial 
representatives when all French dependencies should demand 
the same consideration, as doubtless would be done. Garat, 
however, held that inequality should not preclude representation 
for the colony.** Apparently, just at this stage Gouy d’Arsy, 
from San Domingo, took occasion to explain that the large 
number elected was not due to any ambitious motives, but only 
to a desire to co-operate in the interests of the colony.*® In his 
conception, no valid objection to the admission of twenty had 
been raised. He denied that such a number would result in 
two hundred colonial representatives. He contended that the 
population of San Domingo, its richness, its taxation, over- 
balanced the importance of all the other French colonies. If San 
Domingo were granted the number desired, representatives for 
all the possessions of France would not exceed forty. 
Mirabeau took occasion to criticize in the Courrier de Provence 
the bases upon which San Domingo was to be accorded twenty 
deputies, just as he had reflected upon the admission of colonial 
representatives in itself. If slaves were to be counted as men, 
he wrote, then let them be enfranchised; if they were beasts, 
why should not France consider horses and mules in apportioning 
her representatives. On the other hand, he denied that there 
was any reason for emphasizing commercial importance, since 
it did not apply in continental provinces. If it was to be con- 
sidered, then France would be under the necessity of giving her 
laborers an immense representation, and cities such as Nantes 
4 Tlie. 
85 Moniteur, I, 105. The name Legeand, given in the Moniteur, is not 
found in Brette. The name evidently should be Lejeans, deputy from Mar- 
seilles. 
*6 Point du jour, 1, 65; Assemblée nationale, 1, 261-62. The latter gives the 
speech ascribed to the Marquis ot Gouy d’Arsy. 
293 
