#Bourdon de l'Oise

[nesiacha]

The decrees concerning the discussion of the release of Ronsin and Vincent

Here are links to the parliamentary archives (unfortunately the texts are in French, impossible to translate them, I really don't have time, believe me I'm sorry) concerning the discussion relating to the request for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794) as well as the reasoned discussion of Vadier who announces the impossibility of the Committee of General Security to present a report on the accusations brought against Ronsin and Vincent for lack of documents, during the session of 23 Nivôse Year II (January 12, 1794)

Which confirms my ideas: we know that it was Philippeaux and Fabre d'Eglantine who proposed the mention of arrest (especially Fabre) but let's be honest they are not the only ones responsible for their arrests, the majority of the CSP and the Convention who voted for are also responsible. The point is that contrary to the ideas of films of the French revolution Danton mostly let his colleagues speak for him (Desmoulins, Fabre, Philipeaux led the boat in the "faction" I put it in parentheses because it is more complex). Although we are at a time when Danton feeling condemned begins to go on the offensive (he has this in common with Hébert who backtracks in the most critical moments and sometimes lets Momoro and Ronsin lead the boat of the ultra revolutionary "faction") There is also as an ally of Danton Legendre who asks to speak. Bourdon de l'Oise is the one who is the most on the offensive against Vincent and Ronsin. To be fair Danton speaks out he asks for the release of Vincent and Ronsin in the same way as Fabre although it seems unfair to me for his colleague and ally Philippeaux (some would call Danton's attitude cowardly even if I find the word a little too strong). Interestingly, if Danton is applauded for his speech, the announcement of the release of Ronsin and Vincent is also applauded. This shows that the ultra-revolutionary faction is popular in Paris but still enjoys at this time a good respectability in the Convention although deputies are opposed to their release. Another most important point: the divergence of agreement between the Committee of General Security which announces not having found any pieces or evidence of accusation against Ronsin and Vincent and therefore in favor of their release (Vadier and Voulland) and some of the members of the Committee of Public Safety surely against . But to be fair Voulland and Vadier are for their releases but Bourdon de l'Oise is against the release (I think he was a member of the Committee of General Security) so there is a significant split. Another important point Levasseur announces that Mazuel, a Hébertist friend of Hanriot who would later be executed with Ronsin, Momoro, Vincent, Hébert and many others, had been arrested a first time on the proposal of Fabre d'Eglantine and was released very quickly. The Hébertists were therefore often attacked, which was not to help a possible reconciliation with the Committee of Public Safety (the Hébertists also have their share of responsibility, let's be honest I have the impression that all the "factions" and many deputies share the responsibility for these internal struggles)

The links:

Decree, proposed by Voulland, for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794):

Discussion relating to the request for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794)

Discussion motivated by the report of Vadier which announces the impossibility of the committee of general security to present a report on the accusations brought against Ronsin and Vincenzo for lack of documents, during the session of 23 Nivôse year II (12 January 1794):

What is interesting is that Vadier complains rather that the Basire, Chabot and Delaunay affair is rather very slow.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

People planning to stab Robespierre compilation

What was your plan in going to Robespierre’s house.

To talk to him in person.

What did you want to talk to Robespierre about?

I don’t want to give any response or explanation regarding this question.

Do you realize that your answers lead one to believe you had the intention of committing a crime, and that you must explain your intentions?

She does not want to explain further, and adds that she intended to ask him for instructions on the situation and the strengthening of the Republic.

Do you realize that your declarations and obstinacy to not want to explain yourself cannot be reconciled with such a plan, which is why I’m again asking you to explain yourself?

She persists in not wanting to answer.

Did anyone propose to you the plan of going home to Robespierre and did you tell anyone about it?

No.

Did you go to Robespierre’s house several times during the day?

No.

When you went to Robespierre, did you bring with you knives, and if yes, of which sort?

I had in my pocket two folding knives, one in tortoiseshell and the other in ivory, both trimmed in silver: the one made of ivory was given to me by my brother in 89, having found it at Prés-Saint-Gervais. The other was given to me by my grandmother three or four years ago. It was loaded with rust; I cleaned it and tried to remove the rust by scraping the blade with another knife, eight or nine days ago. I rarely use it.

Do you regularly carry two knives?

I carry the tortoiseshell one regularly, the ivory one showed up in my pocket, I didn’t know it was there.

When you went home to Robespierre, did you have the intention of using these knives to kill him?

No, moreover, we can judge as we please. Interrogation of Cécile Renault, held on May 24 1794

At that time, the indictment that I (Lecointre) was preparing against the traitor (Robespierre) and his accomplices was completed; Fréron who helped me with his insights, Barras, Rovère, Thirion, Courtois, Garnier de l'Aube, Guffroy and Tallien etc advised me to attack him in person, so that success would be more certain. The roles were divided to support my opinion, and to combat with force the sophisms of Robespierre, but they were of the opinion that the memoir should be printed and distributed an hour before being read at the National Convention: Guffroy was in charge and had promised, from the 6th, to have it printed; and it was solemnly sworn by us that if the truth succumbed, we would immolate the tyrant in the middle of the Convention. Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal [sic] par neuf représentans du peuple contre Maximilien Robespierre, pour le poignarder en plein sénat: rapport et acte d’accusation dont la lecture devoit précéder dans la Convention cet acte de dévouement (1794), page 4

Bourdon de l'Oise, rightly frightened by the ease with which, until then, several batches of his colleagues had been delivered to the proscriptions of this tribunal, had wanted to exclude from the number of defendants, whom the two committees alone could bring there, any representative of the people: he had insisted that the decision could only emanate from the Convention itself, and by a special decree. On this subject, a great rumor arose within the assembly: the members of the two committees, whom Bourdon's motion implicitly accused of wanting to get hold of their antagonists, with Couthon and Robespierre at the forefront, had strongly qualified him as a caluminator. Robespierre, in his fury at being thus unveiled, had forgotten himself to the point of throwing the epithet of ”scoundrel” against Bourdon; and, far from retracting Bourdon's claim, he had insinuated that the latter was on his way to get arrested; that the committees could provoke it. 

Bourdon, after this stormy session, had felt only too well that it was a fight to the death which had just begun between him and Robespierre: he had resolved to guarantee his own head, by the precipitous fall of that of Robespierre. It was with his own hand that he wanted to destroy this tyrant of the fatherland, this proud usurper who did not hesitate to degrade the national representation, in order to sacrifice it in detail to his disproportionate ambition. Once this decision to get rid of Robespierre by the dagger had settled in his head, Bourdon thought of taking, before the assassination attempt, some measures relative to his fortune. He took the keenest interest in a woman and several young children whose fate was linked to his own, and had made arrangements in their favor. 

Now, it was me that Bourdon had chosen, to be both the preserver of his final wishes and the protector, after him, of these beings he loved. The day after 23 Prairial, Bourdon brought me to his house, making me believe that it was just a simple dinner. He then occupied a small bachelor's accommodation on rue des Saints-Pères in a house on the left, which only had a narrow door, without a doorman. His apartment was pointed out to me by a woman who was coming out, in despair at not having been able to get him to intercede for her husband. I had barely entered when Bourdon, without further circumlocution, said to me: “Listen, we’ve known each other for a long time; I know that you are a moderate patriot, that you are not very passionate about the republic; but you are an honest man, a good friend; and it is for these two reasons that I was able to open up to you about my projects and the measures they involve. Robespierre is my personal enemy; he attacked and threatened me in the middle of the Convention: he wants to kill me, in order to be able to more easily dominate the Convention and seize absolute power. I want to thwart his ambitious designs by immolating him with my own hand.” 

At the same time, and as if he felt the need to convince me even more of the strength of his mind, he took out from under his bed an oblong casket, in which was tucked the coat he had worn on the day of the storming of the Bastille, the hat which, in the Vendée, had adorned his forehead as a representative of the people, and a large cutlass with which he was always armed on his expeditions. He took great care to point out to me that his coat was still covered with stains from the blood he had spilled at the Bastille, that his hat was riddled with the bullets of the Vendéens. As for the cutlass, he had more than once plunged it into the hearts of his enemies; it was the weapon with which he intended, at the first opportunity which presented itself, to strike Robespierre. I trembled lest the wall, which received these terrible confidences together with me, should share a syllable with anyone. Bourdon, to reassure me, said that for the development of his plan, he needed someone discreet enough to remain silent before and after the action; faithful enough to keep his will; zealous enough and enlightened enough to have it executed in due time. “It is you,” he said to me, “who will be my devoted confidant, I count on it and no longer worry about anything.” He immediately gave me his will with his instructions and some important titles. 

God knows with what agitations this gift filled my soul, what bad nights I passed with the possession of this perilous deposit! At the slightest suspicion, at the slightest word of revelation, I would have been a dead man. What would happen if Bourdon had gotten arrested before or after the consummation of his revenge and the slightest indication of correspondence with him was administered against me? The sixteen days I spent in this state of uncertainty felt like centuries. Finally arrived, against all foresight, and without the isolated provocation on the part of Bourdon de l'Oise, this day, forever precious for humanity, of the 9th of Thermidor.  Souvenirs de M. Berryer, doyen des avocats de Paris (1839)

Tallien: I demanded earlier that one tears apart the veil. With pleasure, I just saw that it is torn apart entirely, that the conspirators have been unmasked, that they will soon be annihilated, and that liberty will triumph. (Loud applause.) Everything announces that the enemy of the national representation will fall under its blows. We give a proof of our republican loyalty to our nascent republic. I forced myself to remain silent until now, because I knew of a man who approached the tyrant of France, that he had formed a proscription list. I did not want to remonstrate, but I have seen the session of the Jacobins yesterday: I have trembled for the patrie ; I have seen the army of a new Cromwell forming itself, and I am armed with a dagger in order to pierce its breast, if the National Convention did not have the courage to issue a décret d'accusation against him. (Loud applause.) Tallien at the Convention, July 27 1794

[czerwonykasztelanic]

The National Convention: parliamentary violence, Phrygian caps and an anecdote about Bourdon de l'Oise.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

I did indeed miss him, nice catch! I’ve never heard of the dude before, but I suppose this is him: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Omer_Granet Though interestingly, it doesn’t say anything about him being a representative on mission in his wikipedia…

Here are the times Max refers to himself in third person in the notes:

Robespierre was accused; he (Danton) didn’t say a single word if it wasn’t for isolating himself from him (97).

[Bourdon de l'Oise] presented a clerk to it which Carnot placed in his offices and who has been dismissed from it upon the repeated proposal of Robespierre.

With how rare it seems to have been to refer to people by their firstname (even in letters exchanged between family members that I’ve seen, the norm seems to be to call each other ”my father/son/mother” etc, I guess Max calling Augustin ”Robespierre the younger” isn’t that out of line, but this is a bit stranger given the fact he refers to himself in first person throughout the rest of the notes…

I've got a little list…

Here’s something to get your teeth into over the weekend.

I recently found this “Liste des hommes sûrs aiant de la tête et du cuer” in Albert Mathiez’s collection of articles and speeches, Autour de Robespierre (1957, reissued in deluxe edition 1976, Eds Famot), between pp.64-65.

Now the funny thing is that apart from Max’s lousy spelling, few people seem to have seen this list, which is currently missing from the Archives (although it is credited here as from the B & AN), and is not published in the Courtois collection of the Robespierre papers that fell into his hands after 9 Thermidor. Almost certainly he wished to spare a few blushes to some of the freshly blooded Thermidorians!

So a couple of mysteries to solve here.

1/ When was the document written?

I’m guessing not before December 1793, as there’s no Marat, Danton or Desmoulins but Fouché & Carrier are on it.

However, assuming there was no need to list “sound men” if they were already in positions of power, why list Moyse Bayle and PFJ Le Bas who were appointed to the Committee of General Security (Aug & Sept? 1793)?

I’m also assuming that reports of the crimes in Lyon and Nantes, which led to the recall of Fouché and Carrier (sent “en mission” in the summer of 1793), would not have reached Paris/the CPS until Jan/Feb 1794?

I think all the names listed are Convention deputies from the Mountain but happy to be corrected

2/ What does L.R. no.23 mean? “Liste (de) Robespierre”?

Was it written by Max or added later by a clerk? Does this mean there are at least 22 other lists waiting to be discovered?! Has anyone seen the originals of the ones in Courtois? Do they also have L.R. (x)?

3/Why does he refer to his own brother as Robespierre jeune?! Perhaps because the list was intended to be passed on to someone, but then why would it be found in Robespierre’s papers?

Thoughts?

[montagnarde1793]

Séance de la Convention nationale du 2 prairial an III d'après le Moniteur universel (par laquelle on voit comment la version des faits donnée pour le Moniteur pour la séance de la veille a été reconstituée post hoc, Réimpression de l'ancien Moniteur, t. XXIV, n° 247, p. 518-523)

GOULY [colon esclavagiste, député de l'Isle-de-France (Île Maurice)] : On a dit tout à l’heure qu’on ne devait pas mettre hors la loi les hommes qui sont en prison ; ce principe est sacré : mais les hommes qui ont été arrêté hier soir étaient déjà hors la loi ; il suffit de constater l’identité des personnes, pour qu’on puisse les frapper. (Vifs applaudissements.) Le temps de l’indulgence est passé. (Nouveaux applaudissements.)

[...]

[On ne suit pas Gouly et] Le décret est rendu dans les termes suivants :

« La Convention nationale décrète d’accusation les représentants du peuple Duquesnoy, Duroy, Bourbote [Bourbotte], Prieur (de la Marne), Romme, Soubrany, Goujon, Albitte aîné, Peyssard, Lecarpentier (de la Manche), Pinet aîné, Borie et Fayau, décrétés d’arrestation dans la séance du 1er prairial ;

« Et les représentants Ruamps, Thuriot, Cambon, Maribon-Montaut, Duhem, Amar, Choudieu, Chasles, Foussedoire, Huguet, Léonard Bourdon, Granet, Levasseur (de la Sarthe), Lecointre (de Versailles), décrétés d’arrestation dans les séances des 12 et 16 germinal ;

« Et charge ses comités de sûreté générale et de législation de lui faire un rapport, dans trois jours, pour déterminer le tribunal et la commune dans lesquels ils seront jugés. (On applaudit.)

[...]

BOURDON [de l'Oise] : Vous venez de porter un décret d’accusation ; je dois acquitter ma conscience sur le compte d’un de ceux qui s’y trouvent compris sans de grands motifs. Ruhl [Rühl], ce vieillard de soixante-dix ans, hydropique, ne me paraît pas suffisamment accusé ; je n’ai entendu lui reprocher que quelques paroles adressées au peuple égaré. J’ai vécu longtemps avec ce vieillard, et j’ai appris à le respecter. Cependant je saurai faire céder à la justice les sentiments les plus doux : s’il est criminel je cesse de le défendre ; mais je désire être convaincu avant d’user de toute la rigueur des lois, et je demande qu’il reste en arrestation jusqu’à ce que les comités fassent un rapport.

BOISSY : Je demande à rendre compte d’un fait : Ruhl [Rühl] m’a apporté au bureau une motion écrite, tendant à décréter qu’il ne serait porté aucune atteinte à la constitution de 1793, et que la Convention s’occuperait sans relâche d’assurer les subsistances de Paris. Je lui représentai qu’il était impossible de délibérer, et je priai de ne point insister ; il se retira ; le papier fut enlevé par eux qui m’environnaient.

LEGENDRE : La proposition de Bourdon est sage ; je demande qu’on l’adopte.

« La Convention décrète que Ruhl [Rühl] restera en arrestation jusqu’à ce que le comité fasse un rapport à son égard.

*** : Je demande la même faveur pour Prieur (de la Marne) : j’ai été toujours près de lui, il n’a pas dit un seul mot.

[...]

Le membre qui avait déjà parlé en faveur de Prieur (de la Marne) reprend la parole ; il assure lui avoir entendu dire aux factieux : « Enfants, laissez la Convention libre, elle fera de bonne [sic] lois ; vous aurez du pain ; n’attaquez point l’intégralité [le Journal des débats et des décrets met "intégrité"] de la représentation nationale. »

BOURDON [de l'Oise] : Je suis obligé de dire que cette nuit, me promenant dans le salon de la Liberté avec mon collègue Quenet, et notre conversation roulant sur les malheureux événements dont nous avions été témoins, il me dit qu’au moment où le comité fit entrer les bons citoyens pour chasser les factieux de votre salle, il entendit Prieur crier deux fois : « A moi, à moi, braves sans-culottes, marchons ! »

QUENET [Quéinnec, ancien Brissotin et député du Finistère, où Prieur a été envoyé comme représentant en mission] : Je n’ai pas bien distingué si c’était Prieur, parce que ma vue est faible ; mais j’ai entendu le cri, et j’ai reconnu sa voix.

L’assemblée maintient le décret contre Prieur.

[rbzpr]

Robespierre’s Tail or The Dangers of the Freedom of the Press (Méhée de La Touche)

This pamphlet was published on 9 Fructidor, Year II – mere weeks after the events of Thermidor – by Méhée de La Touche, the former secretary of Tallien, under the name “Félhemesi” (an anagram for Méhée fils).

Being a a satirical commentary on the political discussions of the time, the pamphlet is directed against certain Thermidorian Montagnards (e.g. Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Collot d’Herbois), who were considered to be the « continuators » of Robespierre. This is what the title alludes to: while Robespierre’s head had been cut of, his “tail” – a term with various sexual connotations – was still wagging. The publication enjoyed great success, with around seventy thousand copies sold in only one week, and apart from inspiring numerous sequels and imitations that took up the image of “Robespierre’s tail” (e.g. Suite à la Queue de Robespierre, Anneaux de la queue, Rendez-moi ma queue, Défends ta queue!, etc), it inaugurated a flood of anti-Jacobin pamphlets that would come to shape the press of Year III, mixing political commentary and obscene humour.

Whoever dares to think was not born to believe in me: To obey in silence is your only glory

  – Voltaire, Mahomet.

Citizens,

this morning, the friends of order and of the good police have seen one of these liberticidal motions, whose danger one has always been able to hide under the veil of popularity that they present, being scandalously repeated at the Convention ; it concerned a new question, the freedom of the press: we have barely had two thousand years to reflect about it, and men [who are] enemies of any kind of order already wanted to wrest [from the Convention], in a single session, and without the report of the committees, a decree which would have acknowledged this right to the full extent. Where would we be, great Gods! if this fatal motion had passed, as it was supposed to! Where would we be, if these supposed axioms of eternal law, preached by the Voltaires, Rousseaus, Hélvetiuses and so many other factitious or moderate [writers] of the Ancien Régime, had prevailed over the maxims of royal prudence [that have been] practised for so long and with so contained success by the St. Florentins, Sartines, Lenoirs etc, and invoked today with so much reason by Cambon, Bourdon de l'Oise and Granet! Where would we be, if everyone came to meddle in examining and discussing! if some blunderer would come to manage financial matters! what would Louis XIV, so justly called the Great, have become, without the care which he always had to halt the babbling of the press! Ah! citizens, be wary of the mania of reasoning ; this mania is good only for confusing everything ; it alone can destroy the most beautiful order of things and disturb the most honest dispositions: one already reasons only too much in the entire Republic ; and if you just want to imagine the disasters that slander can cause, listen to only a part of what one says.

« One has to admit, a citizen said yesterday, that we are quite unfortunate: lo and behold, the Plain which still attacks the Montagne! – Bast, another one responded, do you believe that there is still a Plain and a Montagne? do you believe that we have guillotined forty deputies and locked up sixty others, just to still find divisions in the Convention? – Nothing is more true, my man continued. I had read Le Journal Universel by Adounin ; I wanted to see if it would inspire respect: I went to the National Convention, and I observed, very clearly, a Plain and a Montagne: in truth, it is no longer the Montagne of olden times ; I have seen the old friends of the people sitting on the lower seats, and I did not recognise anyone at the top, apart from BARRÈRE, whom I had seen at the Feuillants, and Billaud-Varennes, very pale and dishevelled. This should suffice, his colleague responded, in order to show you that the Plain and the Montagne have merged, in order to form only one compound of true friends of the people, which, in spite of slight disagreements, always unite when it is a matter of saving it! It is not necessary to attach civisme to [certain] rows of seats, nor to believe that a few continuators of Robespierre (I REPEAT THIS ; BUT THESE ARE HIS EXPRESSIONS), by seeking to seduce some honest men, who will soon be disillusioned, could ever succeed in separating them: let the freedom of the press come, and many things will be revealed. »

You see it, citizens, let the freedom of the press come: this is the hope of all these people ; this is their eternal chorus: they wait only for this in order to unthread a chain of certain unfortunate truths that one should be wary of hearing. It is, above all, around the Convention that the bad tongues are practising most relentlessly. Will you believe it! I have seen men denying the gentleness and humanity of Billaud-Varennes. I have heard others saying, with an air of self-assurance, that there could be innocents, and even patriots, among the men that had been mitraillés at Collot's command, and four thousand [people] at the same time! They are quite far from admiring, like me, this ingeniously revolutionary invention, and this spectacle, the idea of which has produced so many friends of the revolution. How petty Louis the Great was, with his changing dragonaille, compared to Collot, who, I hope, will be called the very Great! Several [people] assured that Collot deliberately came from Commune-Affranchie in order to defend Vincent and Ronsin. At last, one did not grow tired [of speaking about] this legislator: but it was much worse when one opened the discussion on Barrère ; on Barrère, this immortal man, whose reports on our victories are so pleasant, that it is a matter of knowing if one applauds to our victories or to his good words. They accused him of fickleness, whereas it is well-known that he constantly belonged to the party of the strongest ; they say that he was an aristocrat at first ; then, he became captain of the Feuillants, just as, towards the end, he made became a Jacobin, more or less as God has became become a human, and through the intervention of Robespierre, his mortal enemy. Far from stopping these detractors of the old Committee of Public Safety, which I thought was necessary, I have seen many people applauding them, one criticised that the Committee had the weakness of hiding a thousand acts of counter-revolution at the Convention ; these measures affirmed that it was not possible that Robespierre had done all the evil on his own: they said that the matter would at least have merited the ad hoc nomination of a commission, which would be charged with verifying who signed the famous last arrêtés, when Saint-Just was at the army, and Robespierre [was] absent from the committee ; they were surprised when Billaud denied that the famous law on the Revolutionary Tribunal had been the work of the committee (something that, according to them, it would have been necessary to say in the moment of the report), while this same committee had raged so much about a simple recital of said law ; they took fright when seeing these supposed suspects controlling our political means, our military forces and our public fortune.

On the other hand, I believed to get rid of all of these arguers by fleeing: but everywhere, I heard the same calumnies being repeated against these respectable men. Ah, well! citizens, judge by something that has been said in a corner of Paris, of what is said in France ; of what would be said, if one did not hasten to make this salutary terror the order of the day again, which has maintained, for six months, this fortunate harmony, without which Barrère can no longer govern. Thus, what would happen if one dares to print what one says? Where would we be if one came to demonstrate it? Where would we be, if one came to tell France that our faithful Audounin, the successor of this [party] of the Père Duchesne, sells fourteen thousand copies of his hellishly patriotic newspaper to the Committee of Public Safety per day ; which, with two liards of profit per rag, yields him a small income of 127.755 livres per year (the poor man!). What do you think, what opinion should one hold of Barrère and Billaud-Varennes, if one came to say that they give almost as much to Charles Duval for preaching, in their sense, against the old Montagnards, which they today call the Marais! Oh, my friends, let us repel, with salutary fear, the freedom of the press which is threatening us ; can you not see that, if the aristocrats or the royalists came to use it, we would recognise them, and everything would be lost? Is it not better that they continue wearing red bonnets and singing the Carmagnole: if the aristocrats preached counter-revolutionary maxims, one would unmask them, you see ; one would make the people see the danger of their opinions, and this must not happen! One must let them hide themselves under the patriotic mantle, so that, in the fray, we strike each other indistinctly, which is much better ; thus, beware of allowing the freedom of the press ; do not allow one to say that Granet, whose costume made me shed tears for his misery several times, has a hundred thousand écus of property in Marseille, and in good houses ; one must not know that his brother and him let themselves be granted a hundred thousand écus of compensation for three months of detention ; one must not say that, for five years, one has been seeking to federalise the Midi, and to turn Marseille into a capital: all these truths are good only for causing trouble in the state ; thus, let us stay quiet ; let us sleep, and the patrie is saved once more.

FETHEMÉSI. [sic]

Source: La queue de Robespierre

[montagnarde1793]

Séance de la Convention nationale du 5 prairial an III (Réimpression de l'ancien Moniteur, t. XXIV, n° 250, p. 542-543)

CLAUZEL : Puisqu’on me force à parler, je vais dire ici la vérité tout entière : je déclare donc que c’est à la lâcheté que quelques-uns de nos collègues ont montrée, lors du procès des grands coupables, que nous devons tous les malheurs qui depuis ont eu lieu ; il faut des mesures sévères pour faire le bien ; je persévère donc à demander que les comités envoient sur-le-champ des courriers extraordinaires à l’île d’Oléron, pour faire ramener à Paris et traduire à la commission militaire les ci-devant membres de cette assemblée condamnés à la déportation ; secondement, que la Convention nationale décrète que tous ceux qui donneront asile aux autres représentants qui se sont soustraits au décret d’arrestation que vous avez lancé contre eux seront aussi traduits à la commission, et jugés comme conspirateurs.

[…]

BOURDON de l’Oise : Je suis bien loin de m’opposer aux mesures sévères que l’on propose, je suis trop convaincu de leur nécessité ; souvenez-vous d’un mot profond de l’un des scélérats que vous avez envoyés au château de Ham. « Cette Convention, disait-il à l’officier qui le conduisait, n’entend rien en révolution ; si nous avions été les plus forts, nous ne les eussions pas envoyés à Ham. » Je suis de l’avis de les faire juger par une commission militaire ; mais il ne faut pas que la république paie, pour de pareils scélérats, les frais d’un voyage ; je demande donc qu’ils soient jugés par une commission nommée, sur les lieux où ils se trouvent, par les comités de gouvernement.

La première proposition de Clauzel ainsi amendée par Bourdon est décrétée, sauf rédaction.

CHARLES DELACROIX : Je dois à la vérité de dire que notre collègue Prieur.…. (Les murmures interrompent l’orateur et l’obligent d’abandonner la parole.)

[Le Courrier français (n° 80, p. 5) donne une version légèrement différente :

Charles Lacroix veut encore réclamer pour Prieur, de la Marne. Ma conscience me fait un devoir…

De te taire, dit Ph. Delville [Philippe-Delleville, député du Calvados]. C’est un assassin, c’est un des principaux chefs de la journée du premier prairial, s’écrie une grande majorité de l’assemblée.]

BOURDON : Il faut que vous débarrassiez enfin le sol de la liberté de bien d’autres monstres qui n’ont été révolutionnaires que pour puiser dans le sac ou tremper leurs mains dans le sang : un Pache, un Bouchotte, un Marchand, un Daubigni, un Héron, un Audouin, et bien d’autres scélérats, doivent enfin subir la peine de leurs forfaits. Il n’y a que la mort qui puisse les empêcher d’ébranler de nouveau les colonnes de la liberté. Je demande que les comités vous fassent un rapport général.

Cette proposition est décrétée.

[mali-umkin]

So I found this in chapter 7 of Robespierre : Portraits croisés, the chapter in question is by Philippe Bourdin (L'éducation selon Robespierre)

[Michel le Peletier's half-brother Félix took over his education project after he died.]

"Like Chabot reminded the delegates on July 3rd, 1793, Félix had 'already presented himself several times at the Convention, but was never allowed to speak' (The universal monitor, 6th of July 1793), and this time again the delegates only chose to have the text [the Education plan] printed, even though on June 26th Lakanal had already produced a long report on education. On July 12nd, as written by Félix in Œuvres de Michel le Peletier, he and Robespierre bumped into each other in the Jardin des Tuileries, and the latter insisted a lot to learn more about the Education plan. Le Peletier ended up accepting to communicate the plan's content to Robespierre, under the guise of being given it back the following day. Without knowing it, he had just lost his authority on the matter, and had been cheated. Imagine his surprise when the newspapers vendors announced, on July 13rd, "A major report at the Assemblée of Michel le Peletier's plan for public education by Maximilien Robespierre".

The day before Robespierre had become a member of the Public instruction commission, called the "commission of the six" : created following his proposal on July 3rd, it replaced, until October 6th, the Comity of public instruction, and aimed to present a global plan for public education. The first nominated members were Saint-Just, Jeanbon Saint-André (both had to decline to become members of the Comité de Salut Public) Lavicomterie (who refused), Ruhl, Lakanal and Grégoire ; the unavailable members were replaced by Coupé de l'Oise, Léonard Bourdon and Robespierre - who resigned too when he was called at the Comité de Salut Public on July 27th. On July 13rd, in the name of the Comission, Robespierre read for several hours, in front of the Convention, the Le Peletier plan, slightly modified by him and presented along with a decree proposal (OC, X-12 41)".

Wait do we know more about Robespierre stealing Michel Le Peletier's education plan from his half-brother Félix? Did he just meet him in the jardin des Tuileries, lied about giving him the plan back the following day and presented it in front of the Convention? This way of proceeding really surprises me, it seems unlike him

[montagnarde1793]

Séance du 15 septembre 1793 à la Convention nationale (AP, t. 74, p. 237-238)

Une députation du département de Paris, des districts ruraux de la municipalité, des sections et des sociétés populaires réunis, est admise à la barre.

Dufourny, son orateur, présente des réflexions sur l’instruction publique, dans lesquelles il démontre combien est vicieux le mode actuel de l’instruction. Il demande que les collèges de Paris soient réduits à six ; que les écoles de théologie, de droit et de médecine soient supprimées, et qu’indépendamment des écoles primaires, qu’il soit établi trois degrés d’instruction publique.

Jean-Bon-Saint-André : Je convertis en motion la demande des pétitionnaires.

Lakanal : Je demande que vous rendiez cette journée à jamais mémorable, en consacrant par un décret les mesures salutaires qui vous sont proposées.

Chargé par votre Commission des Six de vous présenter l’organisation générale de l’éducation publique, je vous déclare en son nom que c’est le plan proposé qu’elle a adopté, parce qu’il est propre à hâter les progrès de la raison humaine, et alimenter dans l’âme des jeunes citoyens ces affections énergiques qui perpétuent les races d’hommes généreux et libres.

Nous ne doutons pas que la Convention nationale n’adopte bientôt ce plan, en l’étendant à toutes les parties de la République. Je vote pour l’adoption du projet proposé par les pétitionnaires.

Lakanal le présente en ces termes à la discussion :

« La Convention nationale, sur la pétition présentée par le département de Paris, les districts ruraux, la commune, les sections et les sociétés populaires, réunis, et convertie en motion par plusieurs membres, décrète,

Art. 1er. Indépendamment des écoles primaires dont la Convention s’occupe, il sera établi dans la République, trois degrés progressifs d’instruction ; le premier, pour les connaissances indispensables aux artistes et ouvriers de tous les genres ; le second, pour les connaissances ultérieures, nécessaires à ceux qui se destinent aux autres professions de la société ; et le troisième, pour les objets d’instruction dont l’étude difficile n’est pas à la portée de tous les hommes.

Art. 2. Les objets d’étude de ces écoles seront classés et enseignés d’après les tableaux annexés au présent décret.

Art. 3. Pour les moyens d’exécution du présent décret dans l’étendue du département de Paris, ledit département ainsi que la municipalité sont autorisés à se concerter avec la Commission de l’instruction publique de la Convention nationale, afin que ces établissements soient mis en activité au 1er novembre prochain ; les collèges de plein exercice et les facultés de théologie, de médecine, des arts et de droit, sont supprimés sur toute la surface de la République.

Coupé de l’Oise : Le plan qui vient de vous être présenté par les pétitionnaires, est l’ouvrage d’hommes instruits. Cependant, comme en matière d’instruction, tout doit être approfondi et soumis à un scrupuleux examen, je demande l’ajournement à demain de toutes les propositions.

Jean-Bon-Saint-André : Le plan proposé par les pétitionnaires n’a besoin que de la simple lecture pour être suffisamment entendu. Je demande qu’on mette aux voix leurs propositions.

Lakanal relit le premier article de son projet.

Jean-Bon-Saint-André : Cet article ne peut souffrir de difficultés ; car, indépendamment de ce que vous vous proposez de faire pour les départements, vous sentez tous combien les établissements proposés sont nécessaires à Paris.

Coupé de l’Oise : Je le répète, il est impossible de décréter un plan d’éducation, dont on ne connaît pas les détails.

Léonard Bourdon : Il ne s’agit pas de décréter actuellement un plan d’éducation, mais bien de chasser des collèges l’aristocratie et la barbarie qui y règnent, et d’élever à la place de l’Université, des écoles d’arts et métiers.

Barère : Votre intention à tous est d’organiser une instruction publique qui puisse favoriser la classe du peuple la plus indigente ; or, le plan proposé par les pétitionnaires remplit parfaitement ce but. Citoyens, Paris a perdu une population d’aristocrates, il faut le repeupler de savants ; il ne faut pas non plus négliger les départements. Je demande que demain, on fasse un rapport qui leur fasse partager les bénéfices du décret qui vous est proposé, et dont je demande l’adoption.

Les trois articles du projet de décret présenté par Lakanal sont successivement adoptés.

Prieur de la Marne : Je demande qu’à l’instant vous étendiez à toute la République les trois degrés d’instruction que vous venez de décréter pour Paris.

Cette proposition est adoptée.

[montagnarde1793]

do you think that the list found among robespierre's papers after thermidor mentioning dubois, delmas, thuriot, bourdon de l'oise and leonard bourdon was a proscription or epuration list? it seems weird to me that he would target them in particular as i do not recall them being expelled by the jacobin club in the months before thermidor.

Well, it’s not exactly a list: it’s more notes concerning them, which are uniformly condemnatory. Whether that means Robespierre was planning on taking concrete action against them, or just keeping a record of people not to trust is pretty impossible to determine in the absence of other sources. It is worth noting that they all took an active role in opposing him in Thermidor, and it was clearly written sometime between Germinal and Thermidor, by the references.

And there’s a further complication: there is a least one thing that leads me to wonder about the document’s authenticity, in the absence of the original manuscript or a facsimile. At one point Robespierre refers to himself in the third person in these notes, which is not something I’ve encountered elsewhere in his writing. It also does seem a bit too neat: surely if Robespierre was writing critical notes on his colleagues, it wouldn’t have only been those that played an active role in Thermidor. That said, the notes do reflect actual grievances that Robespierre had with these deputies, at least some of which are corroborated by other sources. It may be the case that the published version altered or embellished an original text. If that is the case — but it’s impossible to know for sure with the manuscript — that makes using it for any kind of interepretation even more dicey.

[rbzpr]

Aftermath of Robespierre’s speech at the National Convention (8 Thermidor, Year II)

This is an excerpt from the record of the session of 8 Thermidor, which was published in issue 311 of Gazette Nationale ou Le Moniteur Universel on 11 Thermidor. It records the proceedings of the National Convention following Robespierre’s speech, wherein he analysed the situation of the Republic, defended himself against the charge of dictatorship and denounced the conduct of several deputies.

LECOINTRE (de Versailles). I demand the printing of the speech.

BOURDON (de l'Oise). I oppose the printing ; this speech contains matters [that are] serious enough in order to be examined ; it can contain errors as well as truths, and it is prudent of the Convention to send it to the examination of the two Committees of Public Safety and of General Security before ordering its printing.

BARÈRE. I also value above all else the quality of man and the one of French citizen ; I speak here as an individual and not as a member of the Committee ; I insist on the printing of the speech, because in a free country, there is no truth which has to be hidden ; the lamp must not be under a bushel, and there is no assertion which cannot be attacked and examined ; this is why you are the National Convention, and I do not doubt that all our colleagues insist on the printing.

COUTHON. I add to the proposal to print it an amendment which appears very weak, and which I consider very serious ; it is necessary that all of France, that the smallest commune, knows that there are men here who have the courage to speak the entire truth ; it is necessary that one knows that the great majority of the Convention is able to hear it and take it into consideration. I do not only demand that this speech is printed, but also that it is sent to all communes of the republic ; and when one has dared to demand that it shall be sent to the examination of the two committees, this was an insult to the National Convention ; because it is able to feel, it is able to judge.

I am very pleased to find this occasion to pour out my soul. For some time, to the system of calumny against the representatives [that are] the most faithful to the cause of the people, the oldest servants of the revolution, one has added this abominable manoeuvre of circulating that some members of the Committee of Public Safety seek to hamper it ; I am one of those who have spoken against some men, because I have regarded them as immoral and unworthy of sitting in this enclosure. I will repeat here what I have said elsewhere ; and if I will believe to have contributed to the loss of a single innocent [person], I will immolate myself out of pain.

The Convention adopts Couthon's proposal.

VADIER. With pain, I have heard Robespierre say that the report concerning a girl named Catherine Théos only seemed to belong to an absurd farce of mysticism, that it was a woman [that is] to be scorned.

ROBESPIERRE. I have not said that.

CAMBON. I also demand the floor ... (He rushes forward to the tribune.) Before being dishonoured, I will speak to France...

THE PRESIDENT. Vadier has the floor.

VADIER. I will speak with the calm which suits virtue. Robespierre has said that this report, having led to an absurd distortion, was able to harm the common weal. This report has been made with the tone of ridicule which is suitable for throwing fanaticism off balance. I have since received new information, tremendous documents ; you will see that this conspiracy is the most understood ; you will see that Pitt conspires there ; you will see that this woman had close connections with the former Duchess of Bourbon, with Bergasse, and all visionaries.

I will make this conspiracy enter in a more imposing frame ; but this work is long, because it is connected to all plots, and because one will see all old and modern conspirators appear there.

I still have something to say on Robespierre's speech. The operations of the Committee of General Security have always been dedicated to the sections of justice and severity [that are] necessary in order to repress the aristocracy ; they are included in the decrees which it has passed, and which one can print and judge afterwards. If we have had agents who have behaved inappropriately, who have brought fear into the soul of patriots, the Committee has punished them as it found out about them, and the head of many has fallen under the sword of the law.

This has been our conduct, and here is the proof for it : the popular commissions, established in concert with the two Committees, have already judged seven to eight hundred cases ; how many patriots do you believe they have found? They were at the rate of 1 in 80. This proves that it is not patriotism that is oppressed, but the aristocracy which has been persecuted justly.

This is what I had to say for the justification of the Committee of General Security, which has never been divided with the Committee of Public Safety. There can be some arguments, but they have never diminished the mutual esteem and trust which the two committees feel for each other.

CAMBON. I also demand the floor ; I present myself in the arena ; although I have never sought to form a party around me, Robespierre just said that the last decree on finances had been calculated in such a way as to increase the number of discontents ; it would perhaps be easy to make him admit that he has done nothing in order know these calculations ; but I will content myself with repelling an attack from which my conduct, which has been known since the beginning of the revolution, should have been able to protect me.

I do not come armed with polemical writings: there is only one truth ; I will answer with facts.

The last decree on life annuities respects the rents from 1,500 to 10,500 livres, according to the age ; it thus does not remove anything from the income that is necessary for each age ; we have thus confined ourselves to reforming the abuses.

I know that the agitators have an interest in attacking this operation. It is proven, by a table which I will place under the eyes of the assembly, that agiotage is interested in it for 22 million [livres] or rents ; and it is it alone that we wanted to attack. It is thus not surprising that it has sought support in order to prevent reforms ; the agitators could even provide materials in order to give speeches ; but, [being] firm at my post, I always will have the courage to denounce everything which would appear contrary to the national interest to me.

If I had wanted to serve the intrigues, it would perhaps have been easy for me, in critical circumstances, to provoke discontents [that are] useful to the party that I had always embraced ; but, being a stranger to all factions, I have, by turns, denounced them when they attempted to attack the public fortune : being completely devoted to my country, I have only known by duty, and I only used my liberty. Furthermore, all parties have always found my on their path, opposing the barrier of surveillance to their ambition, and, lastly, one has neglected nothing in order to seek to know how far my firmness can go and in order to weaken it. I have defied all attacks ; I have reported everything to the Convention. It is time to speak the entire truth : a single man paralysed the will of the National Convention ; this man is the one who just delivered the speech, it is Robespierre ; judge accordingly. (Applause.)

ROBESPIERRE. I demand the permission to respond only a few words to this charge, which seems as unintelligible as extraordinary to me. Cambon claims that I paralyse the will of the Convention in regard to finances. If there is one thing which is not in my power, it is to paralyse the Convention, and particularly in financial matters. I never got involved in this party : but, by general considerations on the principles, I believed to be able to perceive that Cambon's ideas in finances as favourable to the success of the revolution as he thinks. This is my opinion, I have dared to say it ; I do not believe that this is a crime.

Cambon says that his decree has been attacked by agitators ; this could be true : I do not know which party could profit from this, I do not dealt with this. But, without attacking Cambon's intentions, I persist in saying that the result of his decree is such that it distresses the poor citizens.

CAMBON. This is false. We have already received sixty-five titres, and one has paid 25 million [livres] of rents within one month and a half.

BILLAUD-VARENNES: The day to bring all truths to light has arrived. The more Robespierre's speech accuses the committee, the more the Convention has to examine it scrupulously before decreeing to send it to the communes. I demand that the two committees bring their conduct to light. One says that one has stripped Paris of cannons and gunners ; if Robespierre had not abandoned the Committee during the last for décades, he would know ...

ROBESPIERRE. It is not the Committee en masse that I attack. In order to avoid discussions, I demand the liberty to say my opinion from the Convention. (A number of members rising simultaneously: We all demand this!)

BILLAUD-VARENNES. I declare that one has imposed oneself on the Convention and on public opinion in the matter of the gunners ; there is a decree which orders that from the forty-eight gunner companies from Paris, there will always be half of them in this commune ; well, in this moment, there remain thirty-three of them. It is with such opinions that one fools the people, and that one halts, as it happened some days ago, the gunpowder which the Army of the North desperately needs. Robespierre is right ; it is necessary to rip off the mask, on whatever face it may find itself ; and if it is true that we do not enjoy the liberty of opinions, I would prefer that my corpse serves as a throne to an ambitious [person] to becoming, through my silence, the accomplice of his crimes. I demand that one sends it to the two committees.

PANIS. I reproach Robespierre for making the Jacobins drive out whoever he sees fitting. I wish that he did not have more influence than anyone else ; I wish that he said if he has outlawed our heads, that he said if mine is one the list which he has drawn up. I wish that Couthon explains himself concerning the six members which he persecutes.

It is time for me to overflow my saddened heart ; I have been showered in calumnies. I have not made any profit in the Revolution with which I could give a sabre to my son to fight in the frontiers, or a skirt to my daughters, and nonetheless one depicts me as a scoundrel, a vandal, a man dripping with blood from the prisons, me, who bears a sensitive and tender soul!

Here is another fact which proves how much the explanation which I demand from Robespierre is necessary. A man approached me at the Jacobins and told me : « You are a good man, you have saved the patrie. – I do not have the honour of knowing you. – I, for my part, know you well ; you are [part] of the first load. – Pardon? – Your head is called for. – My head ! mine, who I am one of the best patriots ! » He did not want to tell me more of it. Since, I have heard from all parts that this fact is true, and that it was Robespierre who had made the list. I demand that he explains himself in this regard, as well as on Fouché's account. (Applause.)

ROBESPIERRE. I demand the floor. My opinion is independent : one will never draw a retraction from me which is not in my heart ; by throwing away my shield, I presented myself defenceless to my enemies : I have not flattered anyone, I do not fear anyone, I have not slandered anyone.

PANIS. And Fouché?

ROBESPIERRE. One has spoken of Fouché to me, I do not want to deal with this at the moment ; I put myself aside concerning all of this ; I only listen to my duty ; I want neither the support, nor the friendship of anyone ; I do not seek to form a party for myself ; there is thus no question of asking me to clear one person or another. I have done my duty ; it is up to the others to do theirs.

BENTABOLE. Sending Robespierre's speech appears very dangerous to me : the Convention would, in decreeing to send it, seem to approve of its principles, and would make itself responsible for the movements which the confusion, into which it would throw the people, could cause.

COUTHON. By demanding to send it to the communes, I wanted that the National Convention, which had already ordered to print the speech, not only makes a section of the people its judge, but the entire republic.

CHARLIER. I insist that one adjourns the sending of the speech ; it contains principles which seem to deserve the highly cautious examination of the committees. I therefore demand that it is sent to them.

ROBESPIERRE. What! I will have the courage to come to bring truths into the centre of the Convention which I consider necessary for the safety of the patrie, and one will send my speech to the examination of the members which I accuse! (Murmurs.)

CHARLIER. When one boasts about having the courage of virtue, it is necessary to have the one of the truth. Name those who you accuse! (Applause.)

Several voices. Yes, yes, name them!

ROBESPIERRE. I persist in what I have said, and I declare that I do not take any part in what one will be able to decide in order to prevent the sending of my speech.

AMAR. Robespierre's speech accuses the two committees. Either the opinion which he holds on some members is connected to the public weal, or it is a private opinion. If it is connected to the public weal, he has to name names ; the public interest does not entail any restraint ; but if these are only private sentiments, it is not necessary that one man puts himself in place of everyone, it is not necessary that the National Convention is troubled by the concerns of wounded pride. If there are some reproaches to be made, he shall articulate them ; one shall examine our political life, it is irreproachable ; one shall consult the roll calls, one will see that we have always voted in the sense of liberty ; one shall remember our opinions, and one will be assured that we have always only spoken for the support of the rights of the people. It is according to this that we demand to be judged.

THIRION. Robespierre's speech presents accusers and accused [ones] to you, all of whom are our colleagues, and to which you owe equal justice. If you send this accusing speech to the communes, you will not exercise impartial fairness, because you will, by this act alone, prejudge in favour of the accusation. (Applause.) I do not know how Robespierre alone claims to be right against several [deputies]. The presumptions are in favour of the committees. (Renewed applause.) I therefore demand that you return this decree, which was passed in surprise, to your faith [i.e. reconsider it].

BARÈRE. It is time to end this discussion which can only serve Pitt and the Duke of York. I have proposed the printing of Robespierre's speech, because my opinion is that, in a free country, one has to publish everything. There is nothing [that is] dangerous for liberty, particularly when one knows the French people. If, since four décades, Robespierre had followed the operations of the Committee, he would have suppressed his speech. Above all, the word accused has to be erased from all of your thoughts. It is not up to us to appear in the arena. We will respond to this declamations with the victories of our armies, with the measures which we will take against the conspirators, by those which we will take in favour of the patriots, and, finally, with polemical writings, if necessary.

BRÉARD. If the Convention, in ordering the sending of this speech, puts its tie there, it would give an influence to it which could become dangerous. This is a great project which has to be judged by the Convention itself. I demand that the Convention withdraws the décret d'envoi.

The withdrawal of the decree is passed.

Barère mounts the tribune.

BARÈRE, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety. Citizens, if the Committee of Public Safety comes everyday in order to announce the successes of the French armies with patriotic enthusiasm, it is because it sincerely shares their glory. Woe to the time where the successes of the armies will be heard of coldly in this enclosure.

If I come to elaborate on their victories in civic speeches, it is less for you who do not need this homage that the committee pays at the National Convention, than for the armies of the republic, to whom this justice is owed, [and] which your solemn justice electrifies more every day.

The taking of Nieuwpoort deserves to be known by the National Convention : the commitment of fifteen places, because of the flood, was begun with three battalions, and ended with only five. The taking of this considerable place was the consequence. Two ships, five frigates and several English cutters have vainly fired on the republicans for eight days. This flotilla was the witness of the shameful surrender of Nieuwpoort.

The fort of Woiwouth [sic] was subject to some anxieties : volunteers demanded to take it by storm ; they wanted to oppose bayonets to cannons ; but so much bravery was not necessary.

You have just seen the banners of despotism ; they will form the garde-meuble of liberty, and we will show them to all travellers of Europe, so that they may imitate us, to all young republicans, so that they may remember the courage and the sacrifices of their fathers.

Citizens, if liberty counts new successes today, the courage of the armies cannot draw terrible and superb glory from the battles. The conquered enemies fleeing before the republicans ; Anvers and its citadel, evacuated by the united cowards, are in this moment in the power of the troops of the republic ; but maybe it also enters the sight of our enemies to make us soft by so many successes, to let us fall asleep on laurelled fasces, and to renew the sad days of Aix-la-Chapelle among our spread troops ; but whatever the enemies of the people may do in the interior, no matter how hard they try to occupy the revolutionary government with its own length, and the members who form it with their security, for a long time their days and nights already belong to the patrie ; it is for her alone that one will rip away their existence. The efforts of Machiavellianism and of the foreign party who want to divide us in order to fight us more easily, and fight us in order to reign with more impunity, are pointless : wisdom will lead to victory. The experience of the last campaign will use our successes and our work in order to make the most of the courage of the republicans, and the flight of the kings' slaves is already prepared. We would have debated on this for eight days, if one had not occupied us with affairs of the interior.

The Committee of Public Safety will also have its Minerva, like the ancients ; and we will not let these beautiful and heroic armies spill across Europe uselessly, and this bellicose and republican population which the French people has entrusted to the National Convention. Those who pride themselves on the name citizens shall not forget that the Convention is the first assembly of free men ; that it has the eyes of the world and the hatred of the kings upon itself ; that its name alone makes the tyrants tremble and founds the hopes of the nations, and that the French people, with its virtue and its courage, has not risen with impunity against every kind of intriguers, of dividers, of alarmists, of exaggerators, of traitors and of counter-revolutionaries.

Barère reads out the official letters. [...]

The session is closed at five o'clock in the afternoon.

Source: Réimpression de l'Ancien Moniteur, Volume 21, p. 329 et seq.

[frevandrest]

Ok, let me try to answer seriously now (anon, I apologize for the delay and I hope you had a laugh!)

So, Hérault was definitely a more prominent figure than how history remembers him. Ok, "prominent" might not ne the best word, but the point is that people knew of him the way they didn't always know of other revolutionaries. Being a noble and a first cousin to the queen's favourite can do that for you.

During the frev, here are the things he did (chronologically; bolded are things that attracted the most attention):

• He witnessed the fall of the Bastille (or so he claimed).

• He made his support for the revolution known early on and was shunned by his family. As a result (?) he traveled outside of France in like 1790-1791 (implied that it was because of the family fights).

• During his travel, he was trashed by the nobles in exile as a "traitor of his own kind" and was banished from Savoie.

• Upon his return, he was elected a deputy to the Legislative Assembly and was the President of the Assembly at one time.

• He got elected for the National Convention in 1792.

• He was the President of the Convention in November 1792, when they started their discussions on whether the king can be tried. (= he was the President during Saint-Just's first speech).

• He was sent as a representative on a mission to Savoie, newly attached to France (and I feel he asked to go there precisely because he was once banished from it).

• Because he was on a mission during the king's trial, he did not vote for (or against) Louis' death. However, he and others on a mission sent a letter of support for the trial. But the wording is kind of ambiguous so historians and people who know of this still argue whether Hérault supported the death penalty for Louis or not. I've seen arguments for both (royalists tend to insist that he was against).

• He was the (impromptu) President of the National Convention during the insurrection on 2nd June 1793, and he faced Hanriot and the armed men, and then led the Convention session where Girondin deputies were denounced.

• He was chosen as one of the five people to be the writers of the new Constitution. Furthermore, he was chosen among the five to be the one to present the Constitution to the Convention. He was basically known as the writer of the Constitution at that point (more about the Constitution in the linked post above).

• Constitution writing made him a member of the Committee of the Public Safety. He remained in CSP even after the Constitution was written.

• He was the President of the Convention during the first anniversary of the 10 August insurrection, and he played a prominent role in the celebration (known as the "libertitty" event here on tumblr).

• He was sent as a representative on a mission to Alsace in late 1793. During this time, Bourdon de l'Oise accused him of treason (for conspiring with the enemy, in part I believe for having a mistress married to a man who was loyal to the king of Sardinia and, at the time, an officer in the Austrian army). Hérault reacted by offering his resignation from CSP but the others didn't accept this.

• In early 1794, the whole mess over the Foreign Plot happens, and Hérault gets under suspicion again. There are talks about a mole in the CSP and the blame falls on him. There is also a letter (whose author was never proven) to SJ that implicates Hérault in conspiring with the enemy. Plus, it seems that Hérault tried to help at least one émigré by hiding them in his home. (That part of the accusation seemed to be true, but it's never been proven that he was a spy in the CSP or that he conspired with counter-revolutionaries).

• In any case, he is tried at the Revolutionary Tribunal and guillotined on 5 April 1794, along with Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Fabre and many others.

What was Herault's contribution to the revolution? Did he do anything except be 'hot'. I'm confused.

Lmao, drag him. But he was actually considered a major player, I think, especially for being in CSP. Not a key figure like some others, but definitely more prominent than how history remembers him, imo.

Off the top of my head (chronologically):