deliberations and bestowed popularity. The following were the divisions of
views and interests it contained within itself:--

The court had a party in the assembly, the privileged classes, who
remained for a long time silent, and took but a tardy share in the
debates. This party consisted of those who during the dispute as to the
orders had declared against union. The aristocratic classes,
notwithstanding their momentary agreement with the commons, had interests
altogether contrary to those of the national party; and, accordingly, the
nobility and higher clergy, who formed the Right of the assembly, were in
constant opposition to it, except on days of peculiar excitement. These
foes of the revolution, unable to prevent it by their sacrifices, or to
stop it by their adhesion, systematically contended against all its
reforms. Their leaders were two men who were not the first among them in
birth or rank, but who were superior to the rest in talents. Maury and
Cazales represented, as it were, the one the clergy, and the other the
nobility.

These two orators of the privileged classes, according to the intentions
of their party, who put little faith in the duration of these changes,
rather protested than stood on the defensive; and in all their discussions
their aim was not to instruct the assembly, but to bring it into
disrepute. Each introduced into his part the particular turn of his mind
and character: Maury made long speeches, Cazales lively sallies. The first
preserved at the tribune his habits as a preacher and academician; he
spoke on legislative subjects without understanding them, never seizing
the right view of the subject, nor even that most advantageous to his
party; he gave proofs of audacity, erudition, skill, a brilliant and well-
sustained facility, but never displayed solidity of judgment, firm
conviction, or real eloquence. The abbe Maury spoke as soldiers fight. No