the third estate; the Bishop of Nancy, M. de la Fare, maintained the traditional distinctions even in the sermon he delivered before the king.  “Sir,” said he, “accept the homage of the clergy, the respects of the noblesse, and the most humble supplications of the third estate.”  The untimely applause which greeted the bishop’s words were excited by the picture he drew of the misery in the country-places exhausted by the rapacity of the fiscal agents.  At this striking solemnity, set off with all the pomp of the past, animated with all the hopes of the future, the eyes of the public sought out, amidst the sombre mass of deputies of the third (estate), those whom their deeds, good or evil, had already made celebrated:  Malouet, Mounier, Mirabeau, the last greeted with a murmur which was for a long while yet to accompany his name.  “When the summons by name per bailiwick took place,” writes an eye-witness, “there were cheers for certain deputies who were known, but at the name of Mirabeau there was a noise of a very different sort.  He had wanted to speak on two or three occasions, but a general murmur had prevented him from making himself heard.  I could easily see how grieved he was, and I observed some tears of vexation standing in his bloodshot eyes " [Souvenirs de Dumont, p. 47].

Three great questions were already propounded before the Assembly entered into session; those of verification of powers, of deliberation by the three orders in common, and of vote by poll.  The wise men had desired that the king should himself see to the verification of the powers of the deputies, and that they should come to the Assembly confirmed in their mandates.  People likewise expected to find, in the speech from the throne or in the minister’s report, an expression of the royal opinions on the two other points in dispute.  In a letter drawn up by M. Mounier and addressed to the king, the estates of Dauphiny had referred, the year before, to the ancient custom of the States-general.  “Before the States held at Orleans in 1569,” said this document, “the orders deliberated most frequently together, and, when they broke up, they afterwards met to concert their deliberations; they usually chose only one president, only one speaker for all the orders, generally amongst the members of the clergy.  The States of Orleans had the imprudence not to follow the forms previously observed, and the orders broke up.  The clergy in vain invited them to have but one common memorial and to choose one single speaker, but they were careful to protest that this innovation would not interfere with the unity and integrity of the body of the States.  The clergy’s speaker said in his address that the three estates, as heretofore, had but one mouth, one heart, and one spirit.  In spite of these protests, the fatal example set by the States of Orleans was followed by those of Blois and those of 1614.  Should it be again imitated, we fear that the States-general will be powerless to do anything for the happiness of the kingdom and the glory of the throne, and that Europe will hear with surprise that the French know neither how to bear servitude nor how to deserve freedom.”