38 Mae Darling 



make it clear that the commons were waiting for the other two 

 orders to join them, that nothing could be done without them, and 

 that everything was ready for this union. 



It should be noted, however, that in spite of the claims of the 

 third estate that the deputies were no longer representatives of 

 any class, but of the whole nation, they still recognized a dis- 

 tinction between the orders. This is shown by the fact that they 

 had reserved for the upper orders the places they had occupied 

 at the session of May 5. If the commons had followed their 

 claims to their logical conclusion, they would not have recognized 

 a separation into three distinct orders within the hall, any more 

 than they recognized such a distinction outside the hall. 



The deputation which had come from the clergy consisted of 

 six members.'- The Bishop of IMontpellier was at their head, 

 and reported to the third estate the result of the deliberations of 

 the clerg}^ He announced that after considering the request of 

 the third estate that the orders jmite for the verification of cre- 

 dentials, the clergy had decided to name commissioners whose 

 duty it should be to confer with other commissioners appointed 

 by the third estate and by the nobles on the manner in which the 

 credentials ought to be verified. The clergy, therefore, requested 

 the third estate to name commissioners to take part in these 

 conferences.'^^ This, then, was the reply of the clergy to the 



''- Biauzat, II, 41 ; Rccit des seances des deputes des communes, g', Vallet, 

 Rccit, 8; Coster, 7 mai ; Lettres du Comte de Mirabeau, No. i, 19; Proces- 

 verbal historique, 44. Vallet and the Proccs-verhal historique name the 

 following persons as having made up the deputation : Bishop of Mont- 

 pellier; Bishop of Orange; I'abbe de Grieu, prieur de Saint-Himere de 

 Rouen ; M. David, cure de Lormaison. depute de Beauvais ; Dom Davoust, 

 prieur de Saint-Orien de Rouen; D. Dillon, cure du Vieux-Pouzauges. 

 There is evidence that the Proces-verbal historique used the account of 

 Vallet and therefore the agreement of these two in regard to the names 

 is not sufficient to prove that the list is correct. Thibault (181) simply 

 gives the names of the Archibshop of Montpellier and Archbishop of 

 Nimes. The last is not given either by Vallet or in the Proces-verbal 

 historique. 



"'^ Biauzat, II, 41 ; Recit des seances des deputes des communes, g; Lettres 

 du Comte de Mirabeau, No. i. 18; Thibault, 181; Coster, 7 mai; Vallet, 

 Recit, 8; Proces-verbal historique, 8. 



240 



