38 Ethel Lee Howie 



The Bishop of Autun thought that this action did not decide 

 the question about the instructions which had been put on the 

 table, but he was informed that he was mistaken in this idea and 

 that the action bore directly upon these declarations.^*" 



The Journal de Paris asserts that although the general opinion 

 was that the question was not in order, yet the motives leading 

 to this decision differed in the three orders. " The nobles wished 

 this verdict because they did not desire the general assembly to 

 pass a decree which would almost abolish the order, at least in 

 legislative affairs. The commons did not wish to deliberate be- 

 cause they regarded the national assembly as reclothed, from this 

 moment, with the rights of the nation and they thought there 

 was no necessity of releasing the bearers of the imperative in- 

 structions in order to gain rights which they already had."^®^ 



It is necessary to recall that Target had introduced the subject 

 of imperative instructions to prevent a meeting of the nobles and 

 to stop them from making protests. As the question of impera- 

 tive instructions was not decided at this time, Target was not 

 successful in his undertaking for on the evening of July 3, the 

 same day in which he had introduced his motion, between 138 

 and 160 nobles met in their chamber. ^^^ The Assemhlee 



Proces-vcrhal, I, No. 18, 2* This states that the vote was taken by roll 

 call of the different bailliages ; Duquesnoy, Journal, I, 174. 



The result of the voting differs in the sources as follows : Point du jour, 

 731 to 28; Assemhlee nationale, 700 to 29; Btilletins de I'assemblee na- 

 tionale (July 7) gives 708 to 28 and states that the bearers of imperative 

 instructions did not vote; the Proces-verbal does not give the exact vote; 

 Journal de Paris (No. 191, 859, July 10) gives 700 to 28. 



^^'^ Assemhlee nationale, I, 415. 



'^^'^ Journal de Paris, No. 191, 859 (July 10). 



1^2 Courrier de Provence, I, i6th letter, 37, says there were 138 present ; 

 Duquesnoy, Journal, I, 172, in letter for July 7, speaks of the meeting 

 being on July 4 and says there were 151 members present. He evidently 

 erred regarding the day. Bulletins de I'assemblee nationale, July 3, states 

 that there were between 150 and 160 present; Assemhlee nationale, I, 406, 

 in the issue for July 7 has a division headed " A Versailles le 3 juillet, 

 1789," in which the action of the nobles is treated, but the number present 

 is not given. Gazette de Leyde, Sup. No. 56 (July 9), says "a part of the 

 nobles." This meeting was evidently not well known at the time although 



320 



