oT 
Meeting of the Estates -General, 1789. 103 
Apropos of the same matter, Target read the project of an 
address which, it was intended, should be presented by the 
deputation. It had already been submitted to the committee 
of redaction to which Target belonged, but it did not meet the 
approval of the assembly, so was returned to the committee.” 
Its language, its arraignment of the offenders in court circles, 
who were believed to be responsible for the position of the 
assembly, and its bold outlining of policies are hinted at as 
the causes of rejection by the assembly.77 The conservative, 
Duquesnoy, characterized it as full of bombast, of vague dec- 
lamations against the ‘“‘flatterers of the king who slander the 
nation, as a ridiculous apology for the conduct of the commons; 
not a word of union, although the deputation is composed of 
the three orders.’’ He continued: ‘It seems very strange that 
in ten or a dozen lines, M. Target alone should have laid down 
the principles of the constitution and have indicated the re- 
spective limits of the rights of the nation and of the royal author- 
ity.”78 Even if it had not been immoderate in tone, the assembly 
could not have afforded to throw prudence to the winds under 
the conditions then existing. It was gaining in strength without 
doubt, but still it could not assume the responsibility for an 
76 Procés-verbal, No. 8, 25. The name is not given. Point du jour, I, 59; 
Duquesnoy, I, 136; Assemblée nationale, I, 247; Courrier de Provence, Letire 
XIV,4. The Assemblée nationale says the project had been presented to the 
Archbishop of Vienne, also, but the Point du jour seems to make him partly 
responsible, at least for its return. ‘‘ M. l’archevéque de Vienne, en donnant 
des éloges au style eloquent de cette adresse, a demandé de réfléchir sur 
certains articles; elle a été renvoyée de nouveau au comité.” Duquesnoy 
indicates that it was not returned to the committee: ‘‘On a nommé 6 com- 
missaires de la noblesse qui avec 6 du clergé et 12 des communs, doivent 
revoir ce projet ou en faire un nouveau.” Perhaps the membership of the 
delegation that was to take the address to the king has been confused with 
those who were to draft the address. Etats-généraux, Extrait du journal de 
Paris, I, 116-117. No name is given, but it says: ‘‘ Ona paru approver une 
grande partie de ce discours; mais il a été impossible de ]’adopter dans son 
entier, sur une lecture rapide; il a été renvoyé a l’examen du comité de 
rédaction, qui, aprés les changemens qu'il croira nécessaires, le renverra au 
jugement de |’assemblée. 
™ Duquesnoy, I, 136; Assemblée nationale, I, 247. 
78 Duquesnoy, I, 136. 
207 
