Meeting of the Estates-General, 1780. 55 
the coming of the nobles between ten and eleven o'clock." It 
was rumored and even semi-officially announced to the assembly 
the evening before that this union would take place” and this 
(I, 220) has six: ‘‘ Trois curés se sont rendus 4 la salle nationale.” ‘‘ Un 
autre curé s’y est rendu également,” who, from the explanation he made 
of changed credentials, we identify as M. Perier, whose speech is given in the 
Procés-verbal (No. 7, 6-7). Bcsides these four, the prior of Marmoutiers ard 
the rector of the university are named. Boullé (Documents inédits, Revue de 
la rév., XIII, 76) gives six. Thus four accounts give six, the Point du jour, 
five, the Journal de Paris, nine, the Procés-verbal eight, while the Courrier 
de Provence does not mention them at all. Since the Procés-verbal gives the 
names or speech in every case, we may accept that number as correct. That 
the one man merely sent his credentials, might account for his being passed 
over by witnesses who were perhaps depending upon sight to note how many 
there were. Then another evidently made no speech, at least, the Procés- 
verbal does not record any from Rouph de Varicourt, so perhaps he was not 
noticed. Furthermore, the attention of the assembly was being taken up 
* by other matters. Boullé, the Procés-verbal, Biauzat, and the Assemblée 
_ nationale all treat the clergy’s coming as the first event of the session; the 
Point du jour and Duquesnoy mention these deputies after the entrance of 
the nobles. But it can be seen that the union of the nobles would be con- 
sidered important enough to subordinate this other to it. The situation may 
have been this: Some curés did come at the opening of the session, but others, 
as the prior of Marmoutiers, did not enter until after the arrival of the nobles. 
4 Boullé (Documents inédits, Revue de la rév., XIII, 76) says at half past 
ten; Procés-verbal (No. 7, 7) says of the time: ‘‘ A dix heures’ and has the 
session opening at nine o’clock. The Point du jour (I, 49) gives the time as 
“hier a onze heures.”” The Assemblée nationale (I, 220) has this: ‘La 
séance s’est ouverte a dix heures ” and (I, 220) ‘‘ sur les onze heures la minorité 
s’y rendit.”” Duquesnoy does not refer to the time nor does the Courrier de 
Provence. Perhaps the session was formally called about nine o’clock, the 
usual hour, but it may be that nothing official was immediately transacted, 
thus accounting for the statement of ten o’clock in the Assemblée nationale. 
If several of the clergy came and made speeches before the nobles arrived, 
evidently it must have been between ten and eleven o’clock when the latter 
came, thus accounting for some sources saying ten o’clock, the others eleven. 
Biauzat (II, 140) wrote that the nobility ‘‘ est arrivée au moment de l’ouverture 
de la séance,’”’ perhaps indicating that the opening had been deferred to a 
later hour than the usual nine o'clock. 
#2 Boullé, Documents inédits, Revue de la rév., XIII, 14; Lettre d'un membre 
de l’assemblée, 39; Duquesnoy, I, 127; Biauzat, II, 140; Branche, in a letter 
under date of June 24, 1789, quoted in a footnote to Biauzat (II, 139) also 
gives this. As one of Biauzat’s colleagues, he may not be independent as to 
this matter. 
169 
