When Necker undertook to re-establish the finances, and to reform generally the abuses in the Government, he was the most popular Minister (Lord Chatham, when the great Pitt, excepted) in Europe.  Yet his errors were innumerable, though possessing such sound knowledge and judgment, such a superabundance of political contrivance, diplomatic coolness, and mathematical calculation, the result of deep thought aided by great practical experience.

But how futile he made all these appear when he declared the national bankruptcy.  Could anything be more absurd than the assumption, by the individual, of a personal instead of a national guarantee of part of a national debt?—­an undertaking too hazardous and by far too ambiguous, even for a monarch who is not backed by his kingdom—­flow doubly frantic, then, for a subject!  Necker imagined that the above declaration and his own Quixotic generosity would have opened the coffers of the great body of rich proprietors, and brought them forward to aid the national crisis.  But he was mistaken.  The nation then had no interest in his financial system.  The effect it produced was the very reverse of what was expected.  Every proprietor began to fear the ambition of the Minister, who undertook impossibilities.  The being bound for the debts of an individual, and justifying bail in a court of law in commercial matters, affords no criterion for judging of, or regulating, the pecuniary difficulties of a nation.  Necker’s conduct in this case was, in my humble opinion, as impolitic as that of a man who, after telling his friends that he is ruined past redemption, asks for a loan of money.  The conclusion is, if he obtains the loan, that “the fool and his money are soon parted.”

It was during the same interval of Her Highness’s stay in England, that the discontent ran so high between the people and the clergy.

I have frequently heard the Princesse de Lamballe ascribe the King’s not sanctioning the decrees against the clergy to the influence of his aunt, the Carmelite nun, Madame Louise.  During the life of her father, Louis XV., she nearly engrossed all the Church benefices by her intrigues.  She had her regular conclaves of all orders of the Church.  From the Bishop to the sexton, all depended on her for preferment; and, till the Revolution, she maintained equal power over the mind of Louis XVI. upon similar matters.  The Queen would often express her disapprobation; but the King was so scrupulous, whenever the discussion fell on the topic of religion, that she made it a point not to contrast her opinion with his, from a conviction that she was unequal to cope with him on that head, upon which he was generally very animated.

It is perfectly certain that the French clergy, by refusing to contribute to the exigencies of the State, created some of the primary horrors of the Revolution.  They enjoyed one-third the national revenues, yet they were the first to withhold their assistance from the national wants.  I have heard the Princesse de Lamballe say, “The Princesse Elizabeth and myself used our utmost exertion to induce some of the higher orders of the clergy to set the example and obtain for themselves the credit of offering up a part of the revenues, the whole of which we knew must be forfeited if they continued obstinate; but it was impossible to move them.”