"What is the Third-Estate？" says Sieyès， "everything. What， thus far， is it in the political body？[46] Nothing. What does it demand？ To become something."Not something but actually everything. Its political ambition is as great as its social ambition， and it aspires to authority as well as to equality. If privileges are an evil that of the king is the worst for it is the greatest， and human dignity， wounded by the prerogative of the noble， perishes under the absolutism of the king.
Of little consequence is it that he scarcely uses it， and that his government， deferential to public opinion， is that of a hesitating and indulgent parent. Emancipated from real despotism， the Third-Estate becomes excited against possible despotism， imagining itself in slavery in consenting to remain subject. A proud spirit has recovered itself， become erect， and， the better to secure its rights， is going to claim all rights. To the people who since antiquity has been subject to masters， it is so sweet， so intoxicating to put themselves in their places， to put the former masters in their place， to say to himself， they are my representatives， to regard himself a member of the sovereign power， king of France in his individual sphere， the sole legitimate author of all rights and of all functions！ -- In conformity with the doctrines of Rousseau the registers of the Third-Estate unanimously insist on a constitution for France； none exists， or at least the one she possesses is of no value. Thus far "the conditions of the social compact have been ignored；"[47] now that they have been discovered they must be written out. To say， with the nobles according to Montesquieu， that the constitution exists， that its great features need not be changed， that it is necessary only to reform abuses， that the States-General exercise only limited power， that they are incompetent to substitute another regime for the monarchy， is not true. Tacitly or expressly， the Third-Estate refuses to restrict its mandate and allows no barriers to be interposed against it. It requires its deputies accordingly to vote "not by orders but each by himself and conjointly." -- "In case the deputies of the clergy or of the nobility should refuse to deliberate in common and individually， the deputies of the Third-Estate， representing twenty-four millions of men， able and obliged to declare itself the National Assembly not-withstanding the scission of the representation of 400，000 persons， will propose to the King in concert with those among the Clergy and the Nobility disposed to join them， their assistance in providing for the necessities of the State， and the taxes thus assented to shall be apportioned among all the subjects of the king without distinction."[48] -- Do not object that a people thus mutilated becomes a mere crowd， that leaders cannot be improvised， that it is difficult to dispense with natural guides， that， considering all things， this Clergy and this Nobility still form a select group， that two-fifths of the soil is in their hands， that one-half of the intelligent and cultivated class of men are in their ranks， that they are exceedingly well-disposed and that old historic bodies have always afforded to liberal constitutions their best supports. According to the principle enunciated by Rousseau we are not to value men but to count them. In politics numbers only are respectable； neither birth， nor property， nor function， nor capacity， is a title to be considered； high or low， ignorant or learned， a general， a soldier， or a hod-carrier， each individual of the social army is a unit provided with a vote； wherever a majority is found there is the right. Hence， the Third-Estate puts forth its right as incontestable， and， in its turn， it proclaims with Louis XIV， "I am the State."This principle once admitted or enforced， they thought， all will go well.