arbitrary power, inequality on the part of the nobility, and privileges on
the part of the different bodies; in a word, if he had accomplished all
the reforms which were demanded by public opinion, and executed by the
constituent assembly, he would have prevented the fatal dissensions which
subsequently arose. It is rare to find a prince willing to share his
power, or sufficiently enlightened to yield what he will be reduced to
lose. Yet Louis XVI. would have done this, if he had been less influenced
by those around him, and had he followed the dictates of his own mind. But
the greatest anarchy pervaded the councils of the king. When the states-
general assembled, no measures had been taken, nothing had been decided
on, which might prevent dispute. Louis XVI. wavered between his ministry,
directed by Necker, and his court, directed by the queen and a few princes
of his family.

Necker, satisfied with obtaining the representation of the third estate,
dreaded the indecision of the king and the discontent of the court. Not
appreciating sufficiently the importance of a crisis which he considered
more as a financial than a social one, he waited for the course of events
in order to act, and flattered himself with the hope of being able to
guide these events, without attempting to prepare the way for them. He
felt that the ancient organization of the states could no longer be
maintained; that the existence of three orders, each possessing the right
of refusal, was opposed to the execution of reform and the progress of
administration. He hoped, after a trial of this triple opposition, to
reduce the number of the orders, and bring about the adoption of the
English form of government, by uniting the clergy and nobility in one
chamber, and the third estate in another. He did not foresee that the
struggle once begun, his interposition would be in vain: that half
measures would suit neither party; that the weak through obstinacy, and
the strong through passion, would oppose this system of moderation.