;

mately ruin the public credit of France." It turned out as Lord North foretold. The Parliament of Paris would not assist M. de Calonne to provide for this unfunded debt he was forced to assemble the Etats Généraux ; and revolution was the consequence. I know the friends of M. Necker have said, that if he had continued Minister till the conclusion of the war, he would have funded this debt, and provided for the payment of the interest. It is possible that he might have been able to have done this; but he did not remain Minister, and the mischievous consequence took place. M. Necker would, I believe, have been a very able premier Commis for a great speculating bank; but this is a situation widely different from that of the financier of a great nation. In this latter character, Lord North was infinitely his superior. (Note 10.)

I have said that M. Necker was also deficient as a statesman. I think I am right. The idea that his popularity would enable him to stand as mediator between the National Assembly on one side, and the Bourbons and the Noblesse on the other, was a

notion which could never have entered into the head of any but the vainest and the weakest of men. The National Assembly was carried forward by the torrent of popular opinion. If a Minister had been able to corrupt the majority of that assembly, yet he could not have stopped the torrent. The Bourbons and the Noblesse must ultimately have given way. (Note 11.)

From the joy which the people of Paris expressed on the destruction of the Bastile, it might be supposed that lettres de cachét were extremely odious: but I doubt the correctness of this opinion. Lettres de cachét chiefly affected the Noblesse and Bourgeois of the higher orders.

It is possible that many causes besides those which I have enumerated contributed to the Revolution; but I believe that the odious distinction of Noblesse and Bourgeoisie, and the privileges of the former, the oppressive feudal burdens, and the hatred and contempt in which the Clergy were justly held by the great body of the people, were the circumstances which most contributed to it.

When the National Assembly had once held out to the people the hope of relief, the wavering irresolute conduct of the King, the known imperious character of the Queen, and the persuasion that the Courtiers and the Noblesse would never relinquish those intrigues by which they hoped to disappoint the reform of abuses, kept the people in constant agitation. The apprehension that they should again be subjected to those abuses, drove a large portion of the nation mad; for, during the reign of terror, the people seemed to be divided into two classes, viz. men actuated by madness, and men subdued by fear. (Note 12.)

The high price of corn in 1789 certainly kept the people in a state of great agitation. In the existing state of the country it had considerable effect; and I must consider: this among the accelerating causes of the Revolution. (Note 13.)

I have said, that the privileges of the Noblesse and feudal services were among the principal causes of the French Revolution: I believe that I am right in this opi

nion, although I do not pretend to know how the distinction of Noblesse and Bourgeoisie first became established. It is manifest that France has been conquered at different periods by successive swarms from the great northern hive. The original language of the conquered nation remains in every part of France, under the name of Patois. In different parts of the country, this Patoisis, I believe, a different language; but a language distinct from the French is found every where. In the south and the west of France, as far north as the Loire, this Patois seems to consist of corrupt dialects of the Provençal. The Provençal was the language into which the Latin first passed when it became corrupted; it was the language in which that race of poets, called Troubadours, celebrated the achievements of the heroes of the Crusades; and from this language have been formed Italian, Catalan, the language of other provinces of Spain, the Patois of a large portion of France, and a great part of what is called the French language.

Where the conquered people are extirpated, or exterminated, the original language is lost with them; but where the conquered people remain, much of the original language remains: in our island, the Saxons extirpated, or exterminated, the Britons; few or no British words, therefore, are found in our language. The Normans did not extirpate the Saxons; the present English language is, therefore, a mixture of the Saxon and Norman. I recapitulate these circumstances in support of my assertion, that France has, at different periods, been overrun by northern invaders. Conquest naturally brings forward the distinction of Noblesse, for the conquerors are Nobles. In general, the conquerors gradually blend with the conquered; they become one race, and the distinction is lost.

There is another circumstance which may possibly have contributed to keep up the distinction of Noblesse in France, and other states of Europe. After the fall of the Roman Empire, for many ages the strength of armies consisted in heavy-armed cavalry.