Reta! 
Per ae 
a ee 7. 
bP wee 6 
Re: 
their persistence in the stand they had taken. Their first act 
after the opening of the assembly by the president was a re- 
emphasis of their resistance of the previous day; the decrees 
passed after the royal session were re-read. Not content with 
_ this action, they seem to have taken further steps in the develop- 
ment of their attitude of persistency by making more compre- 
hensive the decree of inviolability, and by providing for the 
printing of their proceedings. The Point du jour is responsible 
_ for the statement that on the reading of the motion of inviola- 
bility, M. Target proposed an additional provision. By that 
measure, the deputies were to be protected from civil and 
criminal prosecutions, or, at least, the assembly, upon appeal 
to it, was to decide upon the cases in which its members should 
not be exempt from prosecution. While, by the original act, 
the deputies were to be protected from arbitrary seizure by the 
government, through the added clause they were to be secured 
from any arrest whatsoever unless the assembly itself should 
decree that detention were permissible. To the proposed addi- 
tion, Pison du Galland is reported to have made objections on 
the ground that since it concerned the limits of executive power, 
it could not be appended without the king’s sanction. The 
decree of the previous day, however, being only a declaration 
of rights, did not require the royal assent. Apparently, Mirabeau 
made clear the nature of the provision and removed the objection 
by declaring that Target’s motion was not a new law, but a 
provision of the rights of man. Furthermore, he urged the 
necessity of establishing an impenetrable barrier as a guarantee 
for the deputies against the obscure legislation of the court at 
that time when the principles of the national assembly were not 
yet established. Accordingly, without evidence of longer debate, 
_ the motion is said to have been adopted.® 
5 Procés-verbal, No. 6, 1; Point du jour, 1, 44. The Point du jour does: not 
directly state that the decrees were read, but the matter of the discussion 
relative to the decree of inviolability indicates that such was the case. 
6 Point du jour, 1, 44-45. Strangely, the Procés-verbal makes no mention 
of this motion, but because of the reliability of this paper, we may feel reason- 
ably certain that this clause was added. Mercure de France: Journal Politique 
de Bruxelles, No. 27, 4 juillet 1789, 40. The last named source states: ‘‘ Quoi- 
LEZ} 
