100 Jeanette Needham. 
this declaration or permit Lally-Tolendal to appeal to his con- 
stituents till the assembly had passed upon this subject. He 
held that the assembly must be master of all the individuals 
composing it and Target at once proposed that the assembly ~ 
pronounce immediately upon imperative instructions. But — 
Fréteau evidently believed that such deliberation should be 
postponed until all credentials were verified. Lally-Tolendal’s 
statement, however, might be inserted in the minutes.” To 
this, Mounier is said to have retorted that in case of such dis- 
position, the minutes would have to make mention of Target’s 
motion also. At this point the matter was dropped, evidently 
because of the announcement of the deputation from the nobles 
already mentioned. 
A very similar declaration, verbal, however, was made by 
Clermont-Tonnerre when Bluget reported on the seven nobles 
and clergy, one of whom was Clermont-Tonnerre. His instruc- 
tions, he stated, contained the order to form a constitution and 
one of the bases outlined for that was vote by order, subject 
to a decision by the majority of the nobility. But, on the other 
hand, the same article provided that the states-general might 
decide that the veto of one order should not prohibit the enact- 
ment of laws for the general welfare. Hence this was contrary 
to the principle adopted by his order, that the veto of each 
order was a basic principle of the monarchy. He felt that a 
condition so clearly hostile to the intentions of his constituents 
must be decided by an appeal to them. Until their decision was 
known, he did not desire to participate in the work of the assembly 
although he would remain in the hall. Both of these deputies 
seemed to regard their constituency, rather than the assembly, 
as the final arbiters of their action. Yet it is quite evident that 
they took this more narrow view because of their earnest desire 
to support the assembly’s policy of vote by head and majority rule. 
& Point du jour, I, 57; Assemblée nationale, 1, 239. The first source has 
Fréteau open the debate with Target as the second speaker; in the Assemblée 
the order is reversed. Perhaps Fréteau spoke before Target and again after- 
ward, thus leaving no conflict. The two accounts vary on the details of 
what was said. 
63 Assemblée nationale, I, 239. 
64 Procés-verbal, No. 8, 13-14; Point du jour, I, 58; Duquesnoy, I, 133. 
214 
