. 
Meeting of the Estates-General, 1789. 99 
statement was read to the assembly. ‘‘Gentlemen,’’ he wrote, 
“I presented myself to this august assembly adhering in heart 
and spirit to its dispositions, but not master of my will upon 
all subjects.’’ He then explained that while his instructions did 
not forbid a common verification, in which he had always 
believed, unfortunately, they bound him to vote by order. 
These injunctions might not seem so imperative to some, but 
to him the obligation of an oath depended upon the idea attached 
to its taking. When he took the oath, he had believed himself 
bound to the idea of vote by order, and so he must still conceive it. 
Since this oath conflicted with his conscience, he had determined 
to return to his constituents to ask from them new instructions. 
If granted his freedom, he would take part in the labors of 
the assembly; if not, then his firm intention was to resign a 
mission which he could not conscientiously fulfil. He asked the 
assembly to recognize the purity of his motive, even if his con- 
duct did not seem justifiable. If he was making an error, he 
asked their indulgence for an honest error.*° 
Just as this declaration had been read, Lally-Tolendal himself 
entered and expressed his regret that the state of his health 
had caused his absence, thus preventing his reading the declara- 
tion. Again, he avowed that the most urgent considerations 
which weighed equally upon his conscience and his heart had 
forced him to make such a statement. No one, he asserted, 
had tried more carefully than he to fulfil the duty to which he 
was called, as shown by his career in the chamber of nobles, 
with which several members of the assembly were acquainted. 
He ended by declaring that it took more courage for him to make 
this announcement than it ever would to defend the interests of 
the assembly in the most difficult circumstances.* 
These statements of individual intention brought forth some 
debate in the assembly upon the matter and threatened to open 
the whole question of imperative instructions. Fréteau made 
the observation that the assembly could not take cognizance of 
60 Procés-verbal, No. 8, 7-9; Point du jour, I, 55-56; Assemblée nationale, 
I, 237-39. These three sources have the text of the declaration which was. 
read. Duquesnoy (I, 133) mentions it. 
61 Procés-verbal, No. 8, 10-11. 
213 
