162 Jeanette Needham. 
of union. When it returned, the bishop is said to have borne 
the news that the nobility would go to the hall of the estates.'® 
XVII. 
This decision was the final outcome of a long and stormy 
session of the nobility, in which the debate was heated and the 
opposition obstinate. Presumably, the session opened before 
the return of the president from the chateau.1 The minutes 
of the previous day were read and the debate was begun upon 
the refusal of the third estate to recognize the deputation of 
the day before, other than as ‘“‘non-united nobles.”’ This dis- 
cussion, it will be recalled, had been postponed June 26 until 
the next morning. It promised to be very violent, but not 
much had been done when the president presented the king’s 
letter, asking them to submit, in a sense, to the very thing 
against which they were protesting. The letter was practically 
the same as that sent to the clergy.2, Whether the president 
16 Barmond, Récit, 282; Procés-verbal . . . de la noblesse, 301-302. The 
latter states that there were eight, but the Récit merely notes that it was com- 
posed suivant l’usage. The Procés indicates that their deliberation was inter- 
rupted by the deputation, which came before the receipt, by the nobility, of 
the letter from the Comte d’Artois, and which withdrew immediately after 
reading the clergy’s decree. The Récit, however, states that the Bishop of 
Uzés brought the news that the nobles would obey the king and awaited the 
clergy. He may have inferred from what he heard that the nobility would 
yield, but their own record indicates further action after the clerical deputa- 
tion lett the chamber. 
1 Procés-verbal . . . de la noblesse, 300; Gauville, 8. The usual hour of © 
opening was nine o’clock. If the Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld did not 
return until half past nine, probably the Duke of Luxemburg did not return 
earlier. The fact that the chamber began to discuss the action to be taken 
upon the third estate’s response of the previous day, would indicate that the 
duke was absent or the letter would have been presented immediately on the 
opening of the session. Gauville implies that the nobility was in session 
before the duke’s return. 
2 Procés-verbal . . . de la noblesse, 300; Barmond, Récit, 277-278. Com- 
parison of the texts shows that they are practically identical except for the 
substitution of ma fidele noblesse for mon clergé. Texts of the letter are given 
in Etats-généraux, Extrait du journal de Paris, I, 123 (last two sentences omit- 
ted); Boullé, Docs. inédits, Revue de la rév., XIV, 28; Letter of a deputy from 
Paris, le 27, & minuit, appendix; Duquesnoy, II, 139-140 (part omitted). 
The following refer to the letter: Dorset, I, 226; Jallet, 107; Biauzat, II, 
276 
q 
