' 24 Julia Crewitt Stoddard 



the French people might some day accuse me of injustice or of 

 weakness. Monsieur Archbishop, you submit yourself to the de- 

 crees of providence; I believe that I am submitting to providence 

 in not yielding to this enthusiasm which has taken possession of 

 all the orders, but which makes slight impression on my soul. I 

 will do all in my power to preserve my clergy, my nobility. . . 

 If force shall oblige me to sanction, then I will yield ; but then 

 there will be no longer in France either monarchy or monarch. 1 



In tracing the history of the 4th of August decrees, I have 

 virtually shown the king's attitude towards the declaration of the 

 rights of man and the constitutional articles proposed by the as- 

 sembly. Since July the efforts of the friends of the revolution 

 had been directed towards making a constitution in accordance 

 with the wishes and demands of the people expressed in the 

 cahicrs. The plan of having a declaration of rights was pro- 

 posed by Lafayette, who thus showed his admiration of the 

 American declaration of independence. 2 This declaration to- 

 gether with the constitutional articles, having been discussed and 

 voted upon by the assembly, was sent to the king for the royal 

 sanction. The reply came at last on the 5th of October and 

 raised a lively storm in the assembly. Instead of being a simple 

 acceptance of the constitutional articles, it was a sort of criticism 

 expressing approbation on some points and acceding to others 

 only under the "positive condition," from which he "would never 

 depart, that the executive power be left absolutely in the hands 

 of the monarch." As for the declaration of rights, it contained 

 "some very good maxims," but it also included principles sus- 

 ceptible of explanation and even of different interpretations." 3 



This reply, said Muguet in the assembly, "was not the response 

 the nation had a right to expect." 4 If they granted that the 

 king "had a right to modify the constitution, would they not be 

 giving him the right to refuse it? If he could change it, could 

 he not destroy it?" Robespierre claimed that "the response of 



1 Histoire pariementaire, II, 248. 



2 Lafayette, Memoires, II. 360. 



3 Proces-i erbal d-> Passemblte nationale, No. XCII. 

 4 Histoire parlementaire , III, 97. 



290 



