102 Jeanette Needham. 
several changes were, made. In the committee of verification, 
two curés, MM. Viochot and Guépin, took the places of the 
Abbé d’Abbecourt and the Abbé de Villeneuve. M. Royer was 
substituted for Curé Gouttes in the committee of redaction. 
Five of the clergy, MM. Brouse, Genetet, Guiniot, Gibert, and 
Le Frangois, were in part added to the committee on food 
supply and in part substituted for other members.” As usual, 
the committees were notified to meet for work that evening.” 
Besides the committee work, the intervals during the session 
seem to have been given over to the reading of past minutes. 
Those of June 15, 16, 17 and I9 were read to the assembly.” 
Another matter of organization is said to have been broached 
in this session. Duquesnoy and Boullé both state that Bailly 
proposed to resign and to have an election held the next day, 
doubtless that all orders might participate. But Duport, a 
noble, opposed such action until all the orders were united and 
his fellow nobles seem to have supported his view.” 
A further subject of. consideration, toward the close of the 
session, was the old affair of the military investment of the 
hall. As to the deputation decided upon June 25, the Arch- 
bishop of Vienne announced that he had taken some steps 
looking to its reception by the king. While he had no posi- 
tive assurance, still he felt reasonably certain that it would be 
admitted to the royal presence.” 
71 Biauzat, II, 143; Procés-verbal, No. 8, 25-27; Point du jour, I, 59; As- 
semblée nationale, 1, 248. The Procés-verbal gives a detailed account of the 
changes made. 
7 Point du jour, 1, 59; Procés-verbal, No. 8, 27. 
73 Procés-verbal, No. 8, 15; Duquesnoy, I, 137; Assemblée nationale, I, 248. 
_ ™ Duquesnoy, I, 137; Boullé, Documents inédits, Revue de la rév., XIII, 79; 
Assemblée nationale, I, 269. The latter gives, in the report of the session of 
June 30, this notice relative to an election of officers: ‘‘ Le 27, a la séance 
du matin, M. Bailly avait proposé de nommer les officiers; mais cette nomina- 
tion avait été remise.’’ Either this writer made a mistake in the date, or 
else Bailly broached the matter again, June 27. No other source mentions 
his having done so. It seems not improbable that the reference is to the 
same thing as reported for June 26. 
% Procés-verbal, No. 8, 25; Point du jour, I, 59; Duquesnoy, I, 137; Efats- 
\ généraux, Extrait du journal de Paris, I, 116; Boullé, Docs. inédits, Revue de 
la rév., XIII, 78. 
216 
Se ee ee 
