eee eee’ 
Meeting of the Estates-General, 1789. 145 
course, that Necker desired a union of the orders in some sort 
of general assembly in which, by means of a vote by head, a 
solution of the urgent financial problems of the country might 
- be reached. He had advocated such a scheme before the 
estates met. Nor is there any doubt that Necker urged the 
union of the orders. There is extant his project of a letter to 
the king for that very purpose. There is no evidence, however, 
to indicate that he was intriguing to cause the destruction of 
the orders through vote by head. Far from influencing the 
king, the letter, as will be shown later, varies so widely from the 
one which the king sent to the clergy and nobles that it can 
hardly be said that the king did more than accept the idea of 
union by a letter of invitation.’ 
Circumstances other than the insistence of Necker doubtless 
caused king and court to request the union of the orders, although 
the king evidently adopted the method suggested by the minister. 
As to the time when action looking to the union of the estates 
was first seriously considered, it cannot have been later than 
June 26. By that date even if they had not been influenced by 
6 Fling, Source Studies on the Fr. Rev., 7. 
7Letter quoted by Loménie, “Les Préliminaires de la séance royale,” 
in Annales de l’école libre des sciences politiques, V, 128. The public believed 
that Necker was responsible for the letter when the reunion occurred, but 
rumors that it did not emanate from him were abroad on June 30. The 
Assemblée nationale (1, 280) makes the following comment: ‘ L’on dit et 
peut-étre n’est-ce pas sans fondement, que M. Necker n’est pas l’auteur de 
la lettre du 27, écrite par le roi 4 la noblesse et au clergé pour la réunion. 
M. Necker, dit on, l’a publiée lui-méme; mais il a fait un secret du nom de 
l’auteur. 
“Si cela est, a qui l’attribuerons-nous donc? Est-ce a M. de Villedeuil? 
On verra par la suite qu’il était bien éloigné de cette facon de penser. Est-ce 
a M. Vidaud de la Tour? Encore moins. Est-ce 4 M. de Montmorin, aa 
ministre de la guerre, de la marine? L’on n’en parle nullement. Est-ce 
enfin 4 M. le garde des sceaux? Ce ministre avait intérét de ramener la paix, 
de calmer les esprits un peu trop échauffés, surtout dans les communes: ce 
ministre pleurant la mort de son fils et la perte prochaine de son épouse; en 
butte, comme M. Necker, aux jntrigues des autres ministres, aura sans doute, 
par ce coup imprévu et subit, cru ramener l’opinion publique, se consoler, 
par une belle action, des chagrins domestiques, et s’affermir plus que jamais 
contre les traits de ses rivaux. 
“ Avons-nous deviné l’auteur? Ne nous en flattons pas.” 
259 
