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.

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.

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 comAfter 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 Only one or two of the communes seem to have had more formal

mune.

versa.

1 Cf. Documents, post, p. 211.

2 Documents, post, pp. 239 et seq.

proceedings or to have used a ballot. The communal assemblies met on different days during the period between July 7 and July 24.1 At many of these assemblies the meeting was opened by one of the mediators with an address, setting forth the advantages of union. French troops were present, apparently at the desire of both parties and at the request of the communal authorities to prevent disturbance.

The vote of Avignon was taken by districts. Its sincerity is the special object of attack. The first meetings of the districts were adjourned by the mediators on account of the turbulence of the electors.2 At the final meetings, two days later, it is said that only the adherents of union dared attend. Owing to the small numbers of electors present at the second meeting, it was announced that those citizens who had been absent should go to the Hôtel de Ville to put their signatures to the minute of the vote. No one dared refuse, say the opponents, who thus account, probably with reason, for the fact that at the end of three days the same act which had been drawn up in the almost deserted district assemblies was covered with signatures. The émigrés protested from their refuge across the river at Villeneuve that the vote had been taken while the active citizens were in exile.3

The delegates elected by each communal assembly met in a “national assembly" at Bédarrides, proclaimed the independent state of "Vaucluse" and voted for incorporation with France. Three delegates from this assembly accompanied the mediators to Paris, to carry the vote to the Constituent Assembly.

The Committee on Avignon, to which the question was again referred, in an elaborate report declared that on examination of the votes it was convinced of their authenticity and of the freedom under which they were cast. The report stated that of the 98 communes, 71 had assembled and voted, 52 voting for France, 19 for the Pope. Of the 27 others, 17 had voted for France in the earlier votes of April and May and, being busy with the harvest, refused to assemble again. The committee counted these as still for union. Ten had abstained entirely from voting. Whether these should be counted for France or for the Pope, the Committee reported that the majority of communes were clearly for union. As for the majority of the population of 152,919 the Committee estimated that the 52 communes voting for France contained 101,044. Even counting as now for the Pope all of the communes formerly voting for 1 One commune met as late as August 11.

2 The story was widely credited that at the first assembly the patriotes opened the tombs in the church where the assembly was meeting and threatened to throw the papists in and that the mediators contented themselves with merely closing the tombs and did not allow the Municipality to prosecute. This story is answered by Le Scène des Maisons in his answer to Maury's charges. Documents, post, p. 260.

3 Pierre Charpenne, Les grands épisodes de la révolution dans Avignon et le Comtat, vol. 1, p. 204, points out that this protest bears no signatures.

France, but later abstaining, as well as the 10 abstaining and the 19 actually voting for him, the inhabitants of the communes voting for the Pope numbered only 51,873.1

The vote, according to the report of the mediators, had been free and independent of all pressure, which was proved, they said, by the fact that some of the communes, even though French garrisons were present, had voted for papal sovereignty. The Committee, therefore, considering that the independence of the territory had been recognized by the Preliminaries of Orange and being of the opinion that union would be to the interest of France as well as that of Avignon and the Comtat and that the Powers would not object to a proceeding so founded on justice and reason, reported in favor of union, basing its final report on the communal vote of the territory. After a stormy debate the law of union was passed by the Assembly on September 14, 1791. The vote of Avignon and the Comtat is a matter of controversy to this day. Local and religious feeling, never more intense, have served to cloud the whole affair with recriminations which later historians have perpetuated without adequate consideration as to whether the charges are really meant as attacks on the votes themselves or concern other and separate local issues. The complexity of the rivalries of the region, which makes investigation at this distance of time most hazardous, appears in the fact that one of the chief complaints against the mediators, namely, that they recognized the Army of Vaucluse and the electoral assembly of Cavaillon, came from the municipalities of Avignon and of Carpentras, both bodies having recently voted for union with France.

The clerical party made the accusation that the revolution in the Comtat and Avignon was incited from France, that the mediators had shown partiality towards the "Army of Vaucluse" which was a self-confessed band of brigands, whose leader gloried in the name of "Coupe-tête; " that they had shown unpardonable lack of judgment in having summoned the leaders of the band to a conference at Orange; that they had recognized the less legally constituted of the two rival assemblies, and that, by threats of withdrawal of the French forces, they had played upon the resulting fear of violence and thus forced the communes which were really papal in sentiment to vote for France. The French party in answer to this last pointed to the respectable number of communes which, although voting for the Pope, had incorporated in their minutes a vote of thanks to the mediators.2

1 The question of what percentage of the total population of Avignon and the Comtat were "active citizens" and what percentage of these voted can not be answered definitely. Menou in his report stated that the population of the city of Avignon was 24,000 and that there were four to five thousand active citizens. The proportion in the Venaissin must have been very much less than in Avignon owing to the great poverty of the rural districts. 2 See the Minutes of the Commune of Séguret, Documents, post, p. 216. The minutes of the Commune of Caderousse, after reciting that the active citizens met to the number of 308