ncy for universal use grew stronger and stronger. The
finance committee of the Assembly reported that "the people demand a new
circulating medium"; that "the circulation of paper money is the best of
operations"; that "it is the most free because it reposes on the will
of the people"; that "it will bind the interest of the citizens to the
public good."

The report appealed to the patriotism of the French people with the
following exhortation: "Let us show to Europe that we understand our
own resources; let us immediately take the broad road to our liberation
instead of dragging ourselves along the tortuous and obscure paths of
fragmentary loans." It concluded by recommending an issue of paper money
carefully guarded, to the full amount of four hundred million _livres_,
and the argument was pursued until the objection to smaller notes faded
from view. Typical in the debate on the whole subject, in its various
phases, were the declarations of M. Matrineau. He was loud and long for
paper money, his only fear being that the Committee had not authorized
enough of it; he declared that business was stagnant, and that the sole
cause was a want of more of the circulating medium; that paper money
ought to be made a legal tender; that the Assembly should rise above
prejudices which the failures of John Law's paper money had caused,
several decades before. Like every supporter of irredeemable paper money
then or since, he seemed to think that the laws of Nature had changed
since previous disastrous issues. He said: "Paper money under
a despotism is dangerous; it favors corruption; but in a nation
constitutionally governed, which itself takes care in the emission of
its notes, which determines their number and use, that danger no longer
exists." He insisted that John Law's notes at first restored prosperity,
but that the wretchedness and ruin they caused resulted from their
overissue, and that such an overissue is possible only under a
despotism. [3]

M. de la Rochefoucauld gave his opinion that "the _assignats_ will draw
specie out of the coffers where it is now hoarded. [4]

On the other hand Cazales and Maury showed that the result could only
be disastrous. Never, perhaps, did a political prophecy meet with more
exact fulfillment in every line than the terrible picture drawn in one
of Cazales' speeches in this debate. Still the current ran stronger and
stronger; Petion made a brilliant oration in favor of the report, and
Necke