[p. 578]
|578| much concerned about the grievances as about the constitution, that they had been plunged into the greatest affliction by the royal resolution, since they were to be prorogued before they could bring the people any comfort, any reassurance. Besides this disavowal, that the king had conceded so much that they themselves held to be essential, but in fact as good as everything essential, they added the notification that they [had] empowered a committee of 25 members under the presidency of the hitherto president of the assembly, which was to conduct the negotiations for a settlement and in general to attend to the interest of the country. Moreover, they could give no other instruction than that which they had received from the people and bore in their hearts; they further reserved to themselves the approval of the negotiations. – There was thereby under way, namely on the part of the estates, a committee of the old style, a committee empowered to attend to the interest of the country in general. The king preserved his people from this and saved the estates of the realm against their will and against themselves. A resolution of 26 July (Div. X, p. 50) rejected the ridiculousness of the estates’ motion by observing that it was not compatible with the concept of prorogation that a body representing the whole assembly should remain behind. – But with the notions of these estates, as has been seen sufficiently, much was compatible that is not compatible with the concept. – They were further to leave behind plenipotentiaries in the former number of their negotiating commissioners. – In the same sitting, on 26 July, in which this royal resolution was read out, Herr Bolley developed in a votum scriptum that the assembly could in no respect leave behind only four plenipotentiaries. Then the dispatch of a deputation to the king, which was to repeat the previous petitions orally, came up as a proposal; but it was rejected, because such a deputation, no more than the previous written submissions, would accomplish anything, because it would further be contrary to the old norms,
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.