The Counter Revolution of Jtme-July 117 



4. 



were some acclamations showing respect for the sovereign. 

 Duquesnoy states, however, that it was almost impossible to be- 

 lieve that these cries of " Long live the king" were very few and 

 an attempt was made by some to impose silence on those who gave 

 these signs of joy. He also states that it is hard to believe that 

 when the words " the assembly of the states-general " were read 

 a murmur arose and the expression " national assembly " was 

 heard. This act in general was very much disapproved, but there 

 were some who saw in it indications of an effort to turn the king 

 against the commons. ^®^ 



The answer of the king was, indeed, significant, because it 

 showed clearly that he had not changed his attitude towards the 

 assembly since June 23, the day of the royal session. He still 

 viewed the action of the commons on June 17 as illegal. 



July 3 a letter, written by the king to the Archbishop of Paris, 

 was read in the assembly."*^- That this letter was addressed to 

 the Archbishop of Paris instead of the president of the assembly 

 is important for it shows that the king did not recognize the 

 existence of the national assembly and strengthens the supposi- 

 tion that the union of orders was looked on by the government 

 as only temporary. The letter ran as follows : " An exact ac- 

 count, my cousin, of what took place on the evening of June 30 

 has been given me. The violence employed to deliver some 

 prisoners from the abbey is most condemnable; and every order, 

 every body, every honest and peace-loving citizen has the greatest 

 interest to maintain in full force the laws which protect public 

 order. I shall yield, however, when order is established, to a 

 kindly feeling; and I hope that reproaches will never be made 

 to me because of my clemency when it has been invoked for the 

 first time by the assembly of the representatives of the nation. 



" But I do not doubt that the assembly attaches an equal im- 



561 Duquesnoy, Journal, I, 152; Gazette de Leyde, No. 56 (July 4). 



^^^ Prbccs-verbal, No. 13, I ; Point du jour, I, 97; Courrier de Provence, 

 I, i6th letter, i ; Assemblee nationale, I, 318, states that the letter was read 

 in the evening session of July 2, but this is without doubt a mistake ; 

 Biauzat, Sa vie et sa correspondance, II, 155. The letter was evidently 

 sent to the Archbishop on July 2, but read on the morning of July 3 ; 

 Gazette de Leyde, No. 56 (July 4). 



399 



