History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814Mignet, M. (François-Auguste-Marie-Alexis)
History
History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814
Mignet, M. (François-Auguste-Marie-Alexis)
France -- History -- 1789-1815; France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799
For some time there had been a question in the assembly as to the trial of
this prince, who, having been dethroned, could no longer be proceeded
against. There was no tribunal empowered to pronounce his sentence, no
punishment which could be inflicted on him: accordingly, they plunged into
false interpretations of the inviolability granted to Louis XVI., in order
to condemn him legally. The greatest error of parties, next to being
unjust, is the desire not to appear so. The committee of legislation,
commissioned to draw up a report on the question as to whether Louis XVI.
could be tried, and whether he could be tried by the convention, decided
in the affirmative. The deputy Mailhe opposed, in its name, the dogma of
inviolability; but as this dogma had influenced the preceding epoch of the
revolution, he contended that Louis XVI. was inviolable as king, but not
as an individual. He maintained that the nation, unable to give up its
guarantee respecting acts of power, had supplied the inviolability of the
monarch by the responsibility of his ministers; and that, when Louis XVI.
had acted as a simple individual, his responsibility devolving on no one,
he ceased to be inviolable. Thus Mailhe limited the constitutional
safeguard given to Louis XVI. to the acts of the king. He concluded that
Louis XVI. could be tried, the dethronement not being a punishment, but a
change of government; that he might be brought to trial, by virtue of the
penal code relative to traitors and conspirators; that he could be tried
by the convention, without observing the process of other tribunals,
because, the convention representing the people--the people including all
interests, and all interests constituting justice--it was impossible that
the national tribunal could violate justice, and that, consequently, it
was useless to subject it to forms. Such was the chain of sophistry, by
means of which the committee transformed the convention into a tribunal.
Robespierre's party showed itself much more consistent, dwelling only on
state reasons, and rejecting forms as deceptive.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account