humanity.

These generalities being adopted, the assembly turned its attention to the
organization of the legislative power. This was one of its most important
objects; it was to fix the nature of its functions, and establish its
relations with the king. In this discussion the assembly had only to
decide the future condition of the legislative power. Invested as it was
with constituent authority, it was raised above its own decisions, and no
intermediate power could suspend or prevent its mission. But what should
be the form of the deliberative body in future sessions? Should it remain
indivisible, or be divided into two chambers? If the latter form should be
adopted, what should be the nature of the second chamber? Should it be
made an aristocratic assembly, or a moderative senate? And, whatever the
deliberative body might be, was it to be permanent or periodical, and
should the king share the legislative power with it? Such were the
difficulties that agitated the assembly and Paris during the month of
September.

If we consider the position of the assembly and its ideas of sovereignty,
we shall easily understand the manner in which these questions were
decided. It regarded the king merely as the hereditary agent of the
nation, having neither the right to assemble its representatives nor that
of directing or suspending them. Accordingly, it refused to grant him the
initiative in making laws and dissolving the assembly. It considered that
the legislative body ought not to be dependent on the king. It moreover
feared that by granting the government too strong an influence over the
assembly, or by not keeping the latter always together, the prince might
profit by the intervals in which he would be left alone, to encroach on
the other powers, and perhaps even to destroy the new system. Therefore to
an authority in constant activity, they wished to oppose an always