VIII. 1792. CHAP. the nation for this great event, and familiarise them with the tragedy in which it was intended to terminate, the most vigorous measures were taken by the Jacobins over all France. In their central club at Paris the question was repeatedly canvassed, and the most inflammatory harangues were delivered, on the necessity of striking a decisive blow against the royalist faction. The popular societies in the departments were stimulated to present addresses to the Convention, openly demanding the condemnation of the King. The sections of Paris imitated their example. Petitions were daily heard at the bar of the Assembly, praying for vengeance on the murderers of the 10th August, and for the death of the last tyrant. In the barbarous language of the age, the President had frequently Par promised satisfaction to the numerous petitioners who Lac. ii. 35. prayed, “De faire rouler la tête du tyran ;' " and in many proclamations the monarch they were about to try had been already condemned by the Convention.' 1 Journal des Jaco bins, No. 295, 296, 297. Hist. xx. 361, 372. Mig. i. 227, 228. 66. A discovery was at this juncture made in the Tuileries, Discovery which increased to a very high degree the popular disconcloset in the tent against the unfortunte prince. In a cavity in the Tuileries. wall, behind a concealed iron door, were found a great of the iron variety of secret papers, belonging to the court, placed there, as already mentioned, by order of Louis. Evidence was there discovered of the measures of Talon, the agreement with Mirabeau, the propositions of Bouillé, and many other secret transactions. Roland had the misfortune, by giving publicity to this discovery, to hasten the death of the sovereign he was desirous of saving. The papers discovered threw a doubt on the consistency of many individuals on the popular side; but they in no degree implicated Louis in any sinister or unworthy design. They amounted merely to this, that the monarch, severely pressed by his enemies, and deserted by all the world, was desirous of strengthening his party by a junction with some of the popular leaders, or received To cause the head of the tyrant to roll on the ground. VIII. 1792. and entertained projects of deliverance from the most CHAP. zealous of his adherents. But no trace was discovered of any intention, on his part, to subvert the constitution he had sworn to maintain, or do more than extricate himself from the tyranny to which, in the pretended days of Deux freedom, he was really subjected by the democratic Amis, ix. faction. And is the sovereign to be the only person, Moll. x.216, in a free country, who is to be denied the privilege of 218. Lac. making those efforts in favour of his just rights, which Mig. i. 229. are so zealously asserted for the meanest of his sub- 327. jects ?1 144, 147. Bert, de ii. 33, 34. Th. iii. 326, 67. point The charges brought against Louis were very numerous. Among others, he was accused of having written to the Preliminary Bishop of Clermont, on 16th April 1791, "that if he could Louis recovered his power he would restore the clergy and the be tried? constitution to their ancient state;" of having entertained designs of betraying his oaths and overturning the Revolution; of having corresponded with the emigrant faction, whose avowed object was the restoration of the ancient order of things. Of all these grounds of complaint, it is sufficient to observe, that in so far as they were founded in fact, they were perfectly justifiable in the circumstances in which he was placed; but that in greater part they were base calumnies, equally contradicted by his virtues and his irresolution; and that, if he had really been actuated by the principles imputed to him, he never would have been reduced to the necessity of vindicating himself before a popular assembly. The preliminary question which occupied the Convention was, Whether Louis could be legally brought to trial before them? The Committee of Twelve, to whom the point was referred for investigation, reported in the affirmative. Mailhé, charged with delivering its report, maintained-"That the inviolability awarded to Louis by the constitution was as King, not as an individual; that the nation had supplied the inviolability of the sovereign by the responsibility of his ministers; and that, where he had acted as an individual, and not through VOL. II. T VIII. 1792. CHAP. them, his protection was at an end; that his dethronement was not a punishment, but a change of government ; that he was not amenable to the law against traitors and conspirators; finally, that the arraignment should be before the Convention, and not any inferior court, 1 Bert, de because, as it embraced all those interests which were Moll. x.192, centred in the maintenance of justice, it was impossible that that supreme tribunal could violate justice, and Mig. i. 230. therefore needless that it should be fettered by its forms."1 193. Hist. Parl. xx. 322, 323. 68. cussion in tion. 3d Dec. When this report was received in the Convention, a Stormy dis- stormy discussion arose. The partisans of Louis, though the Conven- obliged to profess themselves satisfied of his guilt, maintained “that the inviolability was general; that the constitution had not only provided for secret hostilities on his part, but open warfare, and in either alternative, had prescribed no other pain than dethronement; that the nation had placed him on the throne on these conditions; that the Convention was commissioned by the nation to change the government, but not to judge the sovereign; that if the rules of justice forbade his prosecution, much more did the usages of war, which permitted no severity to the vanquished except on the field of battle; that the Republic had no interest in his condemnation, but only in such measures as were called for by the public safety, which would be sufficiently secured by his detention or exile." There were not wanting, however, some deputies who courageously supported a more humane opinion. "What,” said Rauzet, "was the true position given to the King by the constitution of 1791? of the national representation as a rival to it. Was it not natural that he should seek to recover as much as possible his lost authority? Did not you yourselves call him to enter upon that strife with the legislative body? In that contest he was overthrown, and he lies now alone and bound at the feet of twenty-five millions of men, and shall they have the baseness to murder the vanquished? Has not Louis repressed, beyond any other man, the eternal He was placed in presence VIII. 1792. desire for power which is so strongly impressed on the CHAP. human heart? Did he not, in 1789, voluntarily abandon a large part of his authority? Has he not abolished servitude in his domains, admitted philosophers into his councils, and even the empirics imposed upon him by the 1 Hist. Parl. public voice? Does not France owe to him the convoca- xxi. 158, tion of the States-general, and the first establishment of teur, Nov. 13. Mig. i. its political rights?" The Girondists supported this 231. Th.iii. opinion; the neutral party was inclined to adhere to the 305. report of the committee.1 66 opinions advanced on both 161. Moni 295, 298, 69. Just on the But the Jacobins openly avowed a more manly doctrine, if such an epithet can be fitly applied to severity Speech of St towards a fallen enemy. Citizens," said St Just, "I subject. undertake to prove that the sides are equally erroneous. reported, you yourselves, our adversaries, seek for forms to authorise the trial of the late King-I, on the contrary, affirm that the King is to be regarded more as an enemy whom we have to combat, than as a criminal whom we are to judge; the forms to be observed are not those of private prosecutions, but of public conflicts. Hesitation, delay, in such a case, are the greatest acts of imprudence. After postponing the formation of laws, no calamity could be so great as that of temporising with a dethroned monarch. The mere act of having reigned is a crime, a usurpation which nothing can absolve, which a people are culpable for having suffered, and which invests every man with a personal right of vengeance. No one can reign innocently; the very idea of such a thing is ridiculous. We must treat such a usurpation as kings themselves have treated all attempts to dethrone them. Was not the memory of Cromwell arraigned for having overturned the authority of Charles? Yet, in truth, the one was not more a usurper than the other; for when a people is sufficiently base to allow itself to be ruled by a tyrant, power belongs of right to the first person who can seize it, and is not more legitimate when held by one than by the other. The time will come when the world will be VIII. 1792. CHAP. astonished that, in the eighteenth century, we should have been so much behind the days of Cæsar: that tyrant was slain in a crowded senate, without any other formality than three-and-twenty strokes of a poniard, and no other warrant than the liberty of Rome. And now you hesitate to engage in the trial of a man, the assassin of the people, arrested in the very commission of his crimes. The men who are charged with the judgment of Louis have a republic to form those who scruple at inflicting a just punishment on a king, will never succeed in establishing one. If the Roman people, after six hundred years of hatred of tyrants-if England, after the death of Crom1 Hist. Parl. well-saw the race of sovereigns revive in its bosom, what Moniteur, have all to fear among ourselves who see the axe tremble Mig. i. 232. in the hands of those who have only just begun to wield 303. 'it, and the people, in the first days of their liberty, awed by the recollection of their former fetters? "1 xx. 329,331. 14th Nov. Th. iii. 300, 70. Robespierre's arguments. Robespierre strongly supported these arguments. Consider," said he, "what audacity the enemies of liberty have already acquired. In August last they sought concealment; now they boldly show themselves, and demand impunity for a perjured tyrant. We have heard of his virtues and benefactions. While we have the utmost difficulty in rescuing the best citizens from a precipitate accusation, the cause of the despot alone is so sacred that it cannot be too fully or patiently discussed. If we are to believe his apologists, his trial will last several months; it will be protracted till next spring, when the despots will execute a general attack for his rescue. What a career is thus opened to the conspirators! what room afforded for intrigues of the aristocracy! The Assembly has been unconsciously led from the true question before it. There is in reality no criminal process; Louis is not an accused party; you are not judges; you are, and can be, only statesmen; you have not a verdict to pronounce for or against any individual, but a measure of public importance to adopt, an act essential to national existence to |