32 Carl Christophelsmeier 



answer to such a proposal was that it was altogether too indefinite. 

 Again it was suggested that, since the policy of the clergy to- 

 wards the commons had always been different from that of the 

 nobility, the invitation to them should be worded differently. 

 Mirabeau, who on former occasions had advised that the attitude 

 of the commons toward the clergy should be different because of 

 the different attitude of the clergy towards the commons, opposed 

 this policy now. He agreed that the methods employed by the 

 two orders in dealing with the commons were not the same, but 

 that there was no difference really in their pretensions and in the 

 result of their conduct. Both orders had remained apart from 

 the commons ; the last invitation to both orders was therefore 

 equally indispensable. The phraseology in which the invitation 

 was couched presented the motives upon which it was founded 

 and the efforts which it was expected to produce. The motives 

 for, and the effects of, the invitation were the same in regard to 

 the clergy and to the nobility. The invitations, therefore, should 

 be absolutely the same. If a different course were followed some 

 inconveniences would certainly result from it. Mirabeau silenced 

 the opposition. But now another member proposed that, together 

 with the resolution of Sieyes, an address should be prepared and 

 presented to the king. 1 This address should deal with the king's 

 ouvcrturc de conciliation and explain the course which the com- 

 mons had been forced to follow. This amendment was well re- 

 ceived. However, a deputy remarked that the king was per- 

 fectly well informed, that he knew of the refusal of his plan by 

 the nobility and that, therefore, the address was useless. Further- 

 more, it would delay the action on Sieyes' proposition, which was 

 indeed very urgent. The author of the amendment now hastened 

 to state that Sieves' motion ought to be adopted at once, but that 

 it was also in the interest of the assembly to present an account 

 of its policy to the king and to inform him of the motives that had 

 determined the decision of the commons. 



When, at last, the debates seemed terminated, another member 



1 Recit, 106-7; Journal des etats-gencraux, I, 62; Courrier de Provence, 

 Lettre X, 8; Duquesnoy, I, 84; Revue de la revolution, XII, Documents 

 incdits, 53 ; Biauzat, II, 103. Biauzat says Laveniie de Bazas. 



32 



