sion will be forced to follow the proposal made by La Tour d'Auvergne in the Conference of London and draw a line based on the vote, in the way that shall most nearly satisfy the obvious desires of the inhabitants of the region. Here is the proper place for the clause of option, a place first accorded it in the Treaty of Mulhausen of 1798. It is properly a measure to protect the dissatisfied minority.

The chief theoretical opposition to the doctrine comes now from the apprehension that, once admitted, small units, even so small as cities, may demand self-determination. Although this difficulty has so far been an academic one it has now become one of importance. No rule is, of course, possible. The question is one primarily of proportion, of geographic position and economic relation; in a word, it must be settled according to the specific case. No group, however small, should be without its day in court. The court should be an international commission to whose judgment the matter must be left. With the resources of customs zones and internationalization of rivers, ports and the like, the desires of the several parties in interest, even in the case of a single city, should be capable of being harmonized and the will of the majority satisfied.

The chief practical opposition to the doctrine comes at present from those who fear, and with reason, that application in various regions where the conqueror has bent every effort to denationalize the people and has resorted to restrictions on language, to deportation and to massacre, would sanction the former conquest. It is obviously necessary that such methods should fail of their object and that their results should be neutralized. To arrive at a just solution in such a case is not easy. There are, however, means of solution which suggest themselves. It might be well to let only those vote who are native-born, or who were domiciled in the region before the conquest, and even to let those children of emigrants or optants vote who will give pledge to live in the territory if the vote goes in their favor. Finally, by letting the women vote, not only would there be a more comprehensive expression of opinion but there would also be secured representation for the men who have been killed in war or have perished through deportation.

Solution of these problems is not easy, nor should one attempt it without full knowledge both of the special cases at issue and of the problems, failures and successes of the past.

THE PLEBISCITES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

AVIGNON AND THE COMTAT VENAISSIN, 1791

In 1789 Avignon and the neighboring Comtat Venaissin were still a part of the patrimony of the Holy See, an alien dominion in the heart of France,

an enclave, surrounded by the departments of Bouches-du-Rhône, Bases and Hautes Alpes, Drôme and Gard, and itself encircling, or nearly so, the French communes of Suze and Mondragon and the tiny principality of Orange. The Papacy had acquired the two bits of territory by somewhat dubious title in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. After Avignon had ceased to be the papal residence both it and the Venaissin had been left in the hands of a vice-legate, under whom the two territories were separately administered.

1

By 1789 the ninety-eight communes of the two territories contained over 130,000 inhabitants. The people were French in race and language, and enjoyed the privilege of regnicoles, sharing freely in the holding of offices under the French government. To France the inconvenience of this situation was great, for the region was a refuge for fugitives from justice and a base for smugglers. History, too, had shown it to be of great strategical importance in case of invasion from Savoy or Lombardy. The Kings of France had always considered that as heirs to the Counts of Provence they had a claim to the territory. Before 1789 it had been occupied and annexed at various times during the quarrels with the Popes, but had always been restored, though the restoration had been accompanied by the statement that actual sovereignty lay with the crown and that the Pope held merely a mortgage. The method by which the papal title had been acquired enabled those opposing it to question its validity. The Venaissin had been taken in 1274 from Raymond of Toulouse by Philip the Hardy and given to Pope Gregory X in return for his aid against Raymond. Avignon had been sold to Clement VI in 1348 by Jeanne, Queen of Naples and Countess of Provence, in order, as the story runs, to gain absolution for the murder of her husband. It was further asserted that Jeanne was a minor at the time and that the property was entailed.

For many years there had been in Avignon a party for annexation to France. The ties had been strengthened by the several annexations to the kingdom under Louis XIV. The silk manufacturers whose output supplied the chief industry of Avignon saw their rivals of Lyons far outstripping them, thanks to the customs barriers. The tobacco growers resented being deprived of the French market.

On the breaking out of the revolution in France a similar one immediately engulfed the city of Avignon and spread from there to the Venaissin. Immediately three parties appeared, the modérés who wished to adopt the French Constitution but to continue under the sovereignty of the Pope, the

1 The Abbé Maury stated the figures for Avignon to be 30,000 and for the Comtat 100,000. Archives parlementaires, series 1, vol. 25, pp. 237 and 545. Menou gave the exact figures as 152,919 in his final report, q. v. Documents, post, p. 232.

In 1789 there were ninety churches, convents or religious establishments in Avignon alone. Soullier, vol. 1, p. 349, note 8.

patriotes who wished both the French Constitution and union with France, and the aristocrates who were against the constitution and for the sovereignty and unchanged administration of the Pope. To the patriotes belonged a large part of the professional class who desired political reform, the majority of the merchants, who wished economic advantages, and the Jacobin element. To the aristocrates were joined the very numerous and powerful clericals. Roughly speaking, of the ninety-eight communes, those of any size appear to have been for France, whereas the small communes of the upper Comtat and the rural districts, where there was great poverty, were for the Pope. The ensuing disturbances and civil wars were not wholly on political lines, however; excessive jealousy between the two chief towns, Avignon and Carpentras, and the complex local and personal rivalries confused the issues. Later a fourth party, for autonomy, developed, but was never of importance save in continuing disorder.

The first proposition made in the French Assembly for the union of the territory with France came on November 12, 1789, from the neighboring French departments. It was based wholly on the claims of France to the territory and on an elaborate indictment of the papal title. No mention was made of the wish of the inhabitants.1 Although there was no discussion in the Assembly, this proposal of union caused a protest by the parishes of the Comtat to the French Assembly. This protest avowed the greatest admiration for the principles of the Revolution, but emphasized that among them was the principle of self-determination, and stated the undying loyalty of the people of the Comtat to the Pope.2

On June 10, 1790, the aristocrates and patriotes became involved in a hot armed conflict. The "patriotes " defeated their opponents and drove off the papal legate. After several insurrections the liberals of Avignon had secured from the vice-legate a municipal government on the French pattern, and an elective assembly. At the call of the municipal officials the district assemblies now met, declared the Pope deposed and Avignon an independent State, and then voted for union with France. At the same time the States. General of the Venaissin, which had just adopted the French Constitution, reiterated its desire for the continuance of papal sovereignty.3

A delegation from Avignon presented the vote and petition for union to the Constituent Assembly at Paris on June 26. This petition and succeeding ones were referred by the Constituent Assembly to a Committee on Avignon to which were added later the Diplomatic Committee and the Committee on the Constitution. The Committee reported on August 27 that the Pope's 1 See Documents, post, p. 173.

2 Documents, post, p. 175.

3 Documents, post, pp. 178, 182.

4 The original committee was composed of Mirabeau (the elder), Barnave, Tronchet,

title, though faulty, could not reasonably be contested, that no transfer of sovereignty should be made without the consent of the people involved, and that the vote of union, taken during disturbances and in the absence of the losing party, should not be considered as legal.1 Although there was a spirited opposition in the Assembly the report was accepted.

Civil war now broke out with intense passion. The Pope, who maintained no force in the territory, asked the French Government to intervene. Debates on union once more occupied the Assembly, but in place of union, French troops were sent to protect French property and to restore law and order. This force was of little avail and was withdrawn in the following January.

During this period of civil war, from December, 1790, to April, 1791, votes in favor of union were taken by many of the communal assemblies of the territory. On April 30, 1791, delegates carrying what purported to be the formal minutes of these communal votes presented themselves to the Assembly at Paris. The matter was referred to the Committee on Avignon which, after examining the records, reported in favor of union on the ground that fifty-nine communes had actually voted for union, that all but one of the forty others had indicated a corresponding desire, and that, moreover, the papal title was faulty.

There were three groups in the Assembly, those for union, whether the people of the territory wished it or not, the clericals who were absolutely against union, and the independent group who wished union but only if voted by the people of Avignon and the Comtat. The question of the freedom of the votes was at once raised from the floor. It was asserted that the evidence regarding them was insufficient. Robespierre and others defended the votes but the testimony of La Tour-Maubourg, the analysis of Clermont-Tonnerre and the arguments of various members of the Assembly that the votes were taken in the midst of civil war and under intimidation by the revolutionists convinced the Assembly that the expression of the popular will was neither sufficiently clear, formal nor free to be adequate and the ensuing vote resulted in 487 to 316 against annexation.3 A similar fate met the draft decree introduced by the committee on the following day providing for the annexation of Avignon alone.*

Charles de Lameth, De Meunier and Bouche. To these were added by decree of August 7, 1790, Pétion de Villeneuve, Cazales and Redon. Archives parliamentaires, series 1, vol. 32, p. 547.

1 Cf. Documents, post, p. 185, for report by Tronchet.

2 Cf. Documents, post, 186, for decree.

3 Extracts from the report and debate are given in Documents, post, p. 188. The deputies from the departments touching Avignon voted against the union in about the same proportion as the other deputies.

4 Cf. Documents, post, p. 207.

It was evident, however, to all parties that something must be done to curb the civil war whose violence was threatening the neighboring departments. Petitions for intervention to prevent further bloodshed poured in from the region. After interminable discussion the Assembly finally adopted a compromise measure and on May 25 voted to send three commissioners as mediators to do all in their power to bring about a cessation of hostilities as a necessary preliminary to taking any further decision regarding the rights of France in the country.1

Le Scène des Maisons, Verninac-Saint-Maur and the Abbé Mulot were appointed mediators. These made their way at once to Orange where they conferred with deputies of the patriote army of Vaucluse, of the two municipal bodies of Avignon and Carpentras, and of one of the two rival representative assemblies of the territory. A treaty of peace was drawn up, called the "Preliminaries of Orange," which provided that the two armies should be disbanded, order guaranteed by the mediators by means of French national guards and an electoral assembly held in a place not suspected of partisanship, where it should occupy itself with the decision as to the political state of the country.

The Preliminaries were ratified by the French Assembly on July 4. After comparative order had been restored, the mediators requested the president of the national assembly of the two states to convoke the active citizens of the communes for the election of deputies to an electoral assembly, where they should draw up a statement of the communal votes on the question of union with the French Republic or continuance under papal rule.

The various versions of the history of the voting in the communes and the conditions surrounding the votes may be gathered in detail from the reports of the mediators, the report of the Committees on Avignon, and the formal charges brought by Abbé Maury in the Assembly.2 The election machinery, though of the crudest, merely reflects the customary lack of political sophistication of the times. Minorities had little or no protection. The electors or "active citizens" were all those men, not domestic servants, of the age of 25 or over, who paid taxes amounting to about thirty cents annually. These were summoned by town crier or by placards on the day before the meeting. The meeting took place in the chief church of the commune. After an address, the presiding officer, either the mayor or the eldest citizen, put the question in his own words. Those of the electors who wished for union with France were told to remain in the body of the church and those wishing to remain under the Pope to pass into the chapel, or vice versa. Only one or two of the communes seem to have had more formal 1 Cf. Documents, post, p. 211.

2 Documents, post, pp. 239 et seq.