Meeting of the Estates-General, 1780. 83 
xX 
The circumstances, however, which were to result in an apparent 
yielding of the nobility as well as of the minority of the clergy, 
to the policy of the third estate became more evident every day, 
as did also the absolute failure of the king’s intervention on 
June 23. The editor of the Assemblée nationale clearly summed 
up the situation disclosed by a general survey of conditions on 
June 26. 
“It is only today,” he declared, ‘‘that the inconsistency and 
baneful result of the royal session are felt. They wished to 
divide the orders, but the violent means they have used to 
effect this division, have produced a wholly contrary effect. 
They wished to calm the public mind, to seduce it, but they have 
only irritated and aroused it. They desired to paralyze the 
authority that the national assembly should have, but the 
assembly has acquired more force and more vigor. To restrain 
the people, they conceived the necessity of surrounding them 
with arms and foreign troops, but this unrighteous manoeuvre 
has served merely to cause murmurs, confined up to that time, 
to reveal a fire which in an instant can set all France aflame.’’”! 
It is apparent that the government was treading on dangerous 
ground and that the assembly had less cause for apprehension on 
June 26 than at any time, perhaps, since the royal session. 
As on the day before, so on this day, the strength of the 
assembly was increased in numbers, if in no other sense, by 
seven more of the clergy who were drawn to the majority of 
their order. It is significant that three of these represented the 
high clergy, for two bishops and that object of popular hatred 
and indignation—the Archbishop of Paris—came with a group 
of curés.2, On the opening of the session, the bishops of Orange 
1 Assemblée nationale, I, 231. 
2 Duquesnoy (I, 133-134) names only the two bishops and the Archbishop 
of Paris; Point du jour (1, 53, 54, 59) mentions the three high clergy and says 
(54): “Il y a des curés qui se présentent;’’ Biauzat (II, 141) names merely 
the Bishop of Orange and the archbishop; Courrier de Provence (Lettre XIV, 1) 
speaks of the three high clergy and also “‘ quelques curés;” Assemblée nationale 
(I, 233, 234) notes only the three high clergy; Procés-verbal (No. 8, 1, 2, 16), 
however, names seven; Jallet (104) gives four. Boullé (Docs. inédits, Revue 
197 
