s representative of France in the matter of religion than in any
other; for it was the intellectual and professional class only, to
which nearly all the deputies belonged, that was Voltairian or
anti-Catholic, the mass of the people of France were still attached to
their ancient faith. During the protracted debates that took place on
the Church question in the spring of 1790, the assembly attempted
several times to evade the question of the Catholic members as to
whether or not it would recognise the existence of the Church. At
last, with great reluctance, in June, the assembly voted that the
Catholic religion was that of France; but it followed this up by
passing what was known as the _Constitution civile du clerge_. This
decree provided that all priests should receive their {102} salaries
from the State; that the old dioceses of France should be broken up and
made to fit the new departmental division that had supplanted the old
provincial one; that the bishop should be created by the vote of the
electors of his department; and that the Pope should exercise no
authority over bishops or priests.

It needs but little acquaintance with history to realize how wilfully
subversive this plan was. The maintenance of the clergy by the tithes,
placed it outside the sphere of Government control, and helped to
maintain the ancient Roman internationalism; whereas the breaking off
of the Pope's direct connection with the bishops was Gallicanism of the
most pronounced character. Pope Pius VI unequivocally declared that
the carrying through of any such law in France would amount to a
schism, and transmitted that opinion to Louis XVI.

The falseness of the King's position was made intolerable by the
dilemma in which he was now placed. There was as yet no formal
Constitution, only a revolutionary situation in which the assembly had
usurped a large part of the King's prerogative. It was, however,
virtually accepted by both sides that under the {103} constitution when
passed, the King should have the power of veto, and by tacit accord
that arrangement had been from the first put into force. The assembly
voted decrees and sent them to the King for his signature. But in
reality the veto, even before its strict constitutional existence, was
little more than a sham. The situation was revolutionary. Both
parties were hostile, and almost without exception every signature of
the King was an act of moral compulsion. Hitherto, however