CHAPTER II. OBSERVATIONS ON THE VETO. THE WOMEN OFFER UP THEIR ORNAMENTS TO THE PUBLIC. DEBATE WHETHER THE SPANISH BRANCH OF THE BOURBONS COULD REIGN IN FRANCE. CONDUCT OF THE KING RESPECTING THE DECREES OF THE FOURTH OF AUGUST. VANITY OF THE FRENCH. DEBATES ON QUARTERING A THOUSAND REGULARS AT VERSAILLES. INDIVIDUALS OFFER THEIR JEWELS AND PLATE TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY OF THE LOAN. THE KING SENDS HIS RICH SERVICE OF PLATE TO THE MINT. NECKER’S PROPOSAL FOR EVERY CITIZEN TO GIVE UP A FOURTH OF HIS INCOME. SPEECH OF MIRABEAU ON IT. HIS ADDRESS TO THE NATION. After the national assembly had determined, that the legislative body should consist of one house, to be renewed every two years, they appear to have had some suspicion of the impolicy of the decree; but not allowing themselves time to comprehend the use of a senate taken from the body of the people, they attempted to silence the fears, some moderate men entertained, of the bad consequences which might arise from the decisions of an impetuous assembly without a check, by assuring them, that the delay, the _veto_ would occasion, was a sufficient counterpoise. They represented the king’s _veto_ as the negative archetype of the national will; adding, that it would be the duty of the sovereign to examine with vigilance the justice or wisdom of their decrees; and by the exertion of his power prevent the hasty establishment of any laws inimical to the public good. So easy is it for men to frame arguments, to cover the homely features of their own folly—so dangerous is it to follow a refined theory, however feasible it may appear, when the happiness of an empire depends on it’s success; and so inconsiderately did the national assembly act in this great business, that they did not wait even to determine the precise meaning of the word _sanction_. If the king then represented the negative will of the nation, which the assembly pretended to say he did; and if he possessed the supreme wisdom and moderation necessary to guaranty that will, which supposing he did not, it was a folly too gross to require any comment; in the name of common sense—why was his _veto suspensive_?