50 Ethel Lee Hozuie 



M. the Baron de Poutet.-'" The deputies of the nobles of the 

 bailHages replied to the nobles of Metz that it (Metz) would 

 voluntarily deprive itself of its right of representation by separat- 

 ing from the other bailliages and by violating the reglement for 

 elections. "-^^ Freteau, it is said, defended the action of the nobles 

 of Metz on the ground that the nobles of that bailliage were very 

 numerous and that it was unjust not to have them represented in 

 the states-general. ^^^ M. Poutet gave a simple but " interesting 

 statement" concerning his credentials and seems to have gained 

 some friends, but when the vote was taken the majority of the 

 assembly voted to receive AI. de Custine and M. de Neubourg as 

 members. ^^^ 



-'''^ Assemblce nationale, I, 452; Point du jour, 156. The Assemblee 

 nationale agrees with the Point du jour that Poutet was elected. 



2"! Point du jour, I, 157. 



2"2 Assemblee nationale, I, 458. 



^'i^ Point du jour, I, 157; Assemblee nationale, I, 452, 458; Proces-verbal, 

 I, No. 20, 3 ; Bulletins de I'assemblee nationale, July 10 ; Journal de Paris, 

 No. 193, July 12 ; Courrier de Provence, I, 19th letter, 5 ; Duquesnoy, 

 Journal, I, 182. According to the Proces-verbal the vote was by roll call, 

 and the Assemblee nationale states that the vote was to decide whether to 

 admit the first deputation only or to admit both and that the voting resulted 

 in 442 votes for the first deputation and 131 for the second. The Assem- 

 blee nationale (I, 453-457) gives a letter of the Baron de Poutet to the 

 Comte de Custine in which M. Poutet discusses his rights. Duquesnoy 

 states that Custine and Neubourg lost in the chamber of the nobles. (The 

 credentials had first been presented to this order.) The Assemblee na- 

 tionale says that they would have admitted both deputations. The Proces- 

 verbal of the nobles (page 50) states that the nobles of Metz alone were 

 more numerous than those of the other bailliages . . . that the nobles of 

 the bailliages of Thionville, Sarrlouis, and Longwy were united with the 

 nobles of Metz in asking the admission of a deputy from Metz. Neither 

 deputation was admitted at this time. We find (page 65) that the deputy 

 of Metz was not received, but that the president of the nobles announced 

 that, according to the wishes of the nobles, he had asked the king for a 

 new convocation of the nobles of Metz, Thionville, Saarlouis, Longwy, etc. 

 (page 84). No definite action regarding M. Poutet was taken by the 

 nobles, however, for on June 26 discussion on this question was postponed 

 till another day (page 299). Evidently the question was referred to the 

 committee of verification for the assembly after the union of orders and 

 no decision had been made in the chamber of the nobles. 



