The electors of Nemours suggest certain truths which ought to be inserted in this Declaration. Some of these ideas are quite fanciful. Every man is said to have the right to do that which does not injure others. Every man has a right to the assistance of others, and to a reciprocal service from any one who has claimed his aid. Every helpless person has a right to the gratuitous assistance of others. No man ought to be interrupted or hindered in his work. No authority can compel any person to labor without salary, or with insufficient salary. These maxims are very wise, no doubt, but scarcely belong in a Declaration like the one intended. Other demands are: Freedom of contract; inviolability of person and property; no imprisonment without conviction; speedy trial; taxes to be levied in proportion to income; no authority to supplant that of the taxpayers or their representatives in levying taxes; freedom of speech, of petition, and of the press. This is the gist of the thirty articles this draft contains.

But already this draft seems to contain the germs of that spirit which eventually destroyed individual liberty in France; namely, the desire for a falsely conceived equality. Such appears to be the tendency of statements like the one that every person is entitled to the assistance of others; that every person in a state of infancy, helplessness, or infirmity has a right to the gratuitous help of others; that any person who has no income ought not be obliged to contribute to the payment of the public expenses, but has a right to gratuitous aid.

It was, as we have seen, an injunction of several districts of France upon the States General to enumerate and guarantee the Rights of Man and of the Citizen after the American fashion. It was universally felt that the

insecurity of the individual was one of the chief evils from which the French were suffering, that lettres de cachet, Bastille, seignorial rights, ought to be abolished.

The members of the States General, those representing the Third Estate at least, were not likely to forget this behest.

It is true that in regard to the form of government the majority of the members of the Constituent Assembly took England, rather than America, as their model. Scarcely any one thought of the republic as a possible or desirable form of government for France. Almost without exception the monarchy was regarded as essential, even by such men as Lafayette. But it was to become a constitutional monarchy.

But nevertheless the American idea of a Declaration of the Rights of Man met with almost universal favor. It accorded perfectly with the tendency of thought. Madame de Staël speaks of the democratic declarations which found such applause in the Assembly, and states that this body was seized by an enthusiasm for philosophy, of which the example of America was a cause, the people of France believing that they might take as a basis the principles which the people of the new world had adopted.1

1 Madame de Staël, Considérations sur la Revolution Française, I. 238, 239.

CHAPTER XI

THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY AND THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN

JULY 9, 1789, there was presented to the French Constituent Assembly the report of the committee which that body had selected to draft a constitution for France, regarding the plan according to which the constitution should be framed. It was Mounier who acted as reporter of the committee. He declared the sole end of government to be the maintenance of the rights of man. In order to keep this object constantly in view, there should be prefixed to the constitution a Declaration of the Natural and Unalienable Rights of Man.1

Three days later, Lafayette, of American fame, addressed the Assembly. As commander of the National Guard he had no right to vote in that body, but might participate in its deliberations. He now wished "to offer the tribute of his thoughts." 2

While in America Lafayette had imbibed the principles put forth during the Revolution. On his return to France he enclosed a copy of the American Declaration of Rights in a valuable frame. Beside the Declaration there was an empty column headed: Declaration of the Rights of the French people.

Lafayette regarded the American Revolution as having inaugurated a new social era. This new social order he held to be, properly speaking, the period of the 2 Ibid., p. 221.

1 Arch, Parl., VIII. p. 216.

1

Declaration of Rights. He said that only since the American Revolution had the idea prevailed of defining the rights which nature gives to each man and which are independent of all preexisting order, rights which are to such an extent inherent in man's existence that not even the entire society has the right to deprive him of them. He believed that the opportunity had now come for France to imitate the example set by the Americans. In his address to the Assembly, Lafayette affirmed the double purpose of a Declaration of Rights as being: 1. To recall the sentiments which nature had engraved on the heart of each individual, and to facilitate their development, a task which is the more interesting because of the fact that in order that a nation love liberty, it suffices that it know what liberty is; and that in order to be free, it need only wish to be So. 2. To express the eternal truths to which all institutions ought to conform and which ought to be a guide to the representatives of the nation, leading them to the source of Natural and Social Law. He said that a Declaration of Rights should be true and precise, and should express what the whole world knows and feels. As an attempt at such a Declaration Lafayette presented a bill which contained the following stipulations: 1. Nature has made men free and equal; distinctions necessary for the social order are founded on general utility alone. 2. Every man is born with unalienable rights, such as liberty of opinion, care of honor and of life, the right of property, the entire disposition of his person, of his business, and of his faculties, the communication of his thoughts in all ways possible, the pursuit of happiness, and resistance to oppression. 3. The only limits to the exercise of Natural Rights are II. p. 303. 2 Ibid., p. 304.

1 Mémoires,

those which are necessary to ensure their enjoyment to other members of society. 4. No man can be subjected to any other laws than those consented to by himself or his representatives, and these laws must have been previously promulgated and must be legally applied. 5. The origin of all sovereignty is in the people. 6. No individual or corporation can have any authority which does not expressly emanate from the people. 7. All government has for its sole end the common welfare. This interest demands that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be distinct and defined, and that their organization assure the free representation of the citizens, the responsibility of agents, and the impartiality of judges. 8. The laws should be clear, precise, and uniform. 9. The subsidies should be freely voted and proportionally divided. 10. As the introduction of abuses and the rights of succeeding generations necessitate the revision of all human establishments, it ought to be possible for the nation to have, in ecrtain cases, an extraordinary convocation of deputies, whose sole object be to examine and correct, if necessary, the faults of the constitution.1

It is evident that the project of Lafayette is modelled after the Virginia Bill of Rights. It is clear and precise, and is surely as good as many other Declarations that were subsequently submitted to the Assembly. Its adoption would have prevented much precious time from being wasted by foolish debates on the value and composition of a perfect Declaration of Rights. There were long debates as to whether the Declaration should precede the constitution, establishing the Rights of Man previous to those of society, or be placed at the end, as a result of the constitution. No agreement

1 Arch. Parl., VIII. pp. 221, 222. 2 Mémoires, II. 305.