150 Jeanette Needham. 
Evidently before the arrival of the presidents of the upper 
orders, the king had already decided to request the union. As 
Barentin surmises, probably they were summoned to ensure the 
success of the scheme through a personal appeal to the heads of 
the chambers. 
The details of what occurred in the ensuing conferences rest 
upon accounts written from one to ten years after the occurrence. 
These accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. This natur- 
ally lessens their value and it is lessened even more by the fact. 
that their sources of information are not known.!® On his 
arrival, the Duke of Luxemburg is said to have presented to 
the king the decree passed by the nobility on June 26.19 The 
interview between them is given at some length in the con- 
temporary history by Deux amis de la liberté.2°. The king had 
the duke follow him into his cabinet where he began: “M. de 
le nombre de ses eee s’était décidée 4 demander au roi la permission 
de se réunir a son ordre.” 
18 Histowre de la rév., 1, 235-238; Moleville, I, 243-246; Barentin, footnote, 
243; Droz, II, 195-197; Dorset, I, 226. Dorset had heard that the two 
princes conferred with the king Friday evening, June 26. Barentin merely 
states that there was a conference with the presidents of the upper orders in 
the presence of the queen and princes, during which the presidents tried to 
dissipate the fears of the king. The Histoire gives a very full report of the 
interview between the Duke of Luxemburg and the king, but nothing of the 
part taken by the representatives of the clergy other than that the Cardinal 
de la Rochefoucauld was called into the king’s cabinet. This work appeared 
for the first time probably in 1790. A revised edition was printed in 1792, 
but there is no hint as to the source of its information. Moleville may have 
used it for the very brief account of the conference between the king and the 
duke, but Moleville gives additional material in the shape of a rather extended 
protest by the Archbishop of Aix, to which none of the other accounts refer. 
Droz may have used the Histoire as the basis of his narrative since the texts 
are identical, barring some omissions in Droz. The latter, however, states at 
the opening of the debate: ‘“‘ Voici une partie de leur conversation que le 
duc pour sa responsibilité, écrivit en quittant Louis XVI.” This explanation 
may mean that Droz may have drawn from some contemporary pamphlet 
containing the statement of the Duke of Luxemburg as to what occurred. 
The writers of the Histoire may have used the same pamphlet which Droz 
used later. I have been unable to find any further evidence that the Duke 
of Luxemburg made such a statement as Droz suggests, 
19 Moleville, I, 243. 
20 Histoire de la rév., I, 235-238. 
264 
