Meeting of the Estates-General, 17809. ce) 
three o’clock until the usual hour, nine o’clock of the following 
morning.” 
Vv 
The renewal of the schism in the chamber of the clergy led to 
decisive action by the minority. Since both of the secretaries, 
Thibault and Dillon, accompanied the majority to the national 
assembly, Barmond and Coster were appointed secretaries pro 
tem.1 The latter claims that, after the retirement of the majority, 
the body had the minutes of June 19 read. Doubtless, these 
were the minutes which, according to Jallet, had been drafted 
in the special session of the minority, held at Notre Dame, on 
the evening of June 19. Coster continues that these proved that 
the legal plurality was for verification by order, and adds that 
it was decreed to print this record in a memoir justifying the 
course of the minority.’ 
- With all opposition removed, they returned to the proposal 
of the president, that the documents of the king be read. After 
the reading, they deliberated upon the action to be taken under 
the circumstances.? Without evidence of any debate, the 
chamber passed a decree defining their position upon one phase 
of the first declaration, namely, upon its provisions touching 
% Thid.; Assemblée nationale, I, 217, says that the assembly was adjourned 
until ten o’clock the following day, but the minutes are to be relied upon in 
the matter. The hour of closing is stated in the following accounts: Lettre 
d'un membre de l’assemblée nationale, 39; Boullé, Documents inédits, Revue de 
la révolution, XIII, 74. 
1 Barmond, Récit, 268. 
2 Coster, Récit, 339. Jallet alone makes reference to the existence of 
minutes drafted by the minority on June 19. It seems reasonable to presume 
that these were the minutes read on June 24, inasmuch as those drafted by 
Thibault contained the majority’s version of the vote on June 19, and would 
not have been read by the minority to justify its action. Further proof of 
the existence of another set of minutes is given in the fact that the figures, 
presented by the minority in the memoir drawn up June 26-27 and submitted 
~ to the chamber on June 27, differ from those found in the majority’s minutes, 
drafted by Thibault. There is no evidence of the formulation of any memoir, 
prior to that drawn up June 26-27. Probably the latter was the memoir in 
which the record read on June 19 was incorporated. I have been unable to 
find a copy of the minutes of the minority on June I9. 
3 Barmond, Récit,, 268. 
151 
