Convention is. Encyclopedic Dictionary of F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron What is the National Convention, what does it mean and how to spell it correctly What is the National Convention

Portal France Prehistoric France Antiquity Modern France

National Convention(fr. convention nationale) or simply Convention- the legislative body (actually endowed with unlimited powers) during the French Revolution (1792-1795).

Chronology of the Convention up to 9 Thermidor

The decisive blow to the Girondins was struck on May 31-June 2, when the convention was attacked for the first time by the Parisian proletariat, led by the Paris Commune. The result of "May 31" was an uprising in the provinces, covering more than half of France (Bordeaux, Toulon, Lyon, Marseille, Normandy, Provence, etc.); its leaders in many places were the Girondins. The Convention brutally crushed these uprisings. At the end of 1793, clashes broke out between the Hebertists, who wanted to continue the terror, and the Dantonists, who sought to put an end to it. On February 5, 1794, Robespierre spoke at the convention both against the "extreme" (Ebertists) and against the "indulgent" (Dantonists): in March, the Ebertists were arrested, accused of having relations with "enemies of freedom, equality and the republic" and executed (March 24 ), and after them, in April, the Dantonists died. Robespierre became the master of the situation, along with Couton and Saint-Just.

The constant intensification of terror, which threatened many influential members of the convention, led on 9 Thermidor (July 27) to the fall of Robespierre and to a reaction against terror. The conspirators, called Thermidorians, now used terror at their own discretion. They released their supporters from prison and imprisoned supporters of Robespierre. The Paris Commune was immediately abolished.

It must be said that out of 780 members of the Convention over the three years of its work, 4 deputies - died in Austrian captivity, 19 - died of natural causes, 9 - died at the hands of the enemy, making military missions to the armies, 126 - deported or imprisoned, of which 73 Girondins, 76 deputies - were guillotined, among them Danton, Desmoulins, Robespierre, Saint-Just and others, Marat was killed by Charlotte Corday, and Leba committed suicide (shot himself) to avoid execution.

Powers of the Convention

The Convention concentrated in itself the powers of the executive and legislative, and partly of the judiciary; throughout his existence, his power was not limited by any law and he ruled the state as an absolute monarch. Executive power was in the hands of committees (up to 15), of which special meaning acquired the committees of public salvation (Comité du salut public) and public safety (Comité de la sûreté générale). The first, consisting first of 9, then of 12 members, elected for a month, was organized with the aim of contributing to the defense of the republic by emergency and urgent measures; the second, also consisting of 12 members and renewed every 3 months, had the right to bring the revolutionary court. The decree of March 21, 1793, placed at the complete disposal of the committee of public safety the local supervisory committees and the national agents or commissars of the convention, and the latter actually had municipal and departmental authorities in their hands and disposed of the revolutionary army and the revolutionary tribunals, which acted without any guarantees for the defendants. Another decree, March 10, 1794, directly subordinated the entire administration to the committee of public safety, and by decree of 12 Germinal II (April 1, 1794), 12 commissions were placed under the authority of the committee, replacing the ministries.

After Thermidor

At the end of the Terror, the composition of the ruling committees was not renewed at all. The first step of the convention after 9 Thermidor was the renewal of the committee of public safety and the revolutionary court, the arbitrariness of which was thus limited. Then, in mid-November, followed the closure of the Jacobin club, the return of 73 Girondins expelled for protesting against "May 31" (December 8), the trial and execution of Carrier, the repeal of the decrees for the expulsion of nobles and unsworn priests, the return of the surviving leaders of the Gironde, announced in 1793 outside the protection of laws (March 1795). The Parisian proletariat, deprived of the importance it had in the era of terror, on 12 Germinal III (April 1) launched an attack on the convention, demanding "bread and the constitution of 1793"; this gave the convention an excuse to arrest some of the Montagnards, reorganize the national guard, and disarm the faubourgs.

Important improvements were made by the convention, at the suggestion of Cambon, in the financial department. Much has been done in the field of education, in the field of which Lacanal played a particularly prominent role: the Normal School, the central school of public works, was created or transformed. special school Oriental Languages, Bureau of Longitudes, Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, Louvre Museum, National Library of France, National Archives, Museum of French Antiquities, Paris Higher National Conservatory of Music and Dance, art exhibitions, National Institute. Decrees 30 and 29 Frimer II (October 21 and December 19, 1793) proclaimed the principle of compulsory and free primary education, which, however, did not receive implementation.

called to life by the Paris uprising in August 1792, met on September 21, 1792. In the first months of its existence, he worked under the leadership of the Girondins (representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie). The moderate policy of this group and its indecision in the fight against the counter-revolution pushed the left wing of the Convention, the Jacobins, onto the path of overthrowing the Girondins. The uprisings of the Parisian poor on May 31 and June 2, 1793, overthrew the Girondin government, and the power was transferred to the Jacobins. The Jacobin Convention proclaimed a republic and announced the abolition of all feudal duties without any redemption and insisted on bringing the king to trial on charges of treason. The era of Jacobin domination was the apogee of the revolutionary upsurge. But this domination could not last long, because the extreme revolutionary radicalism of the Jacobins did not correspond to the objective economic state of France, which at that time was only just entering the period of bourgeois development. Moreover, among the Jacobins themselves, contradictions soon emerged between the more extreme and the more moderate elements. Under such conditions, the dictatorship of the Jacobins could not be strong and quickly disintegrated; On July 27, 1794 (9 Thermidor), the main leader of the convention, Robespierre, was deposed by the Convention itself and executed on the scaffold with a hundred of his adherents (hence the expression "9 Thermidor" to indicate the beginning of the collapse of revolutionary power). see Volume XII, note. 81. /T. 2/

What is a "National Convention"? What is the correct spelling of this word. Concept and interpretation.

national convention(Convention nationale) - a meeting convened to resolve the issue of new form government for France, after the announcement of the "fatherland in danger" and the suspension of the executive power, proclaimed on August 10, 1792. Primary elections to the N. Convention, with the participation of all citizens who have reached the age of majority, were held on August 26, 1792, departmental - on September 2; a convention was organized on September 20, and at the very first meeting, on September 21, he decreed the abolition of royalty and the proclamation of a republic. The vast majority of the convention (about 500 people) was the so-called "Plain" (Plaine), which did not play an independent role and was subject to the influence of either the Girondins, who occupied the right side of the convention, or the Montagnards, who occupied the left. From the first meetings, the inevitability of a merciless struggle between the Girondins and the Montagnards was clear. The discord between them manifested itself even during the debate on the punishment of the perpetrators of the September massacre (see); even then the Girondins accused the Montagnards of striving for dictatorship. They were even more divided by the question of the execution of Louis XVI, who was put on trial on October 16, 1792, and executed on January 21, 1793. will be within France; in addition, the convention issued a decree disarming the nobility and clergy. After the betrayal of Dumouriez (see), revolutionary committees were established in all communities to supervise the "suspicious". On March 10, 1793, a revolutionary tribunal was established to try traitors, rebels, unscrupulous suppliers to the army, counterfeiters paper money etc. On April 1, 1793, a decree was adopted depriving the right of immunity of any deputy who was suspected of complicity with the enemies of the republic. This was a real organization of terror (see), supplemented by the establishment of committees of public safety (April 6, at the suggestion of Barrera) and general security. The decisive blow to the Girondins (see) was delivered on May 31-June 2, when the convention was attacked for the first time by the Parisian proletariat, led by the Paris Commune (see). The result of "May 31" was an uprising in the provinces, which engulfed more than half of France (Bordeaux, Toulon, Lyon, Marseille, Normandy, Provence, etc.); its leaders in many places were the Girondins. The Convention suppressed these uprisings with terrible energy and cruelty. At the end of 1793, clashes began between the Hebertists, who wanted the continuation of the terror, and the Dantonists, who sought to put an end to it. On February 5, 1794, Robespierre spoke at the convention both against the "extreme" (Hebertists) and against the "indulgent" (Dantonists): in March, the Hebertists were arrested, accused of having relations with "enemies of freedom, equality and the republic" and executed (March 24 ), and after them, in April, the Dantonists died. Robespierre became master of the situation, along with Couton and S. Just. When the convention was still in the power of the Hebertists, the latter, insisting on replacing the Christian calendar with a republican one (see), proposed to replace Catholicism with the cult of Reason: on November 10, a festival of Reason took place in the Cathedral of Our Lady, after which the commissioners of the convention began to spread the new cult in the provinces, and the Paris commune closed the city's churches. On May 7, Robespierre proposed to the convention to decree the recognition by the French people of the existence of the Supreme Being. The constant intensification of terror, which threatened many influential members of the convention, led, on 9 Thermidor (July 26), to the fall of Robespierre and to a reaction against terror.

First measures taken by the Convention. - How the Convention was drawn up. - The rivalry between the Montagnards and the Girondins. - Strength and intentions of these parties. - Robespierre; the Girondins accuse him of striving for a dictatorship. - Marat. - A new charge of dictatorship against Robespierre, brought against Louvet; defense of Robespierre; The convention moves on to the next question. - The Montagnards, having won this fight, demand the trial of Louis XVI. - The opinions of the parties on this matter - the Convention decides that Louis XVI will be judged, and, moreover, by the Convention itself. - Louis XVI in the Temple; answers before the Convention, his defense, his condemnation, the courage and spiritual purity of his last minutes of life. - What did he lack as a king, and what were his virtues.

On September 20, 1792, the Convention was organized, and its meetings opened on the 21st. At the very first meeting, he destroyed the royal power and proclaimed a republic. On the 22nd, the Convention closely connected the republic with itself, deciding that the beginning of the chronology would be considered not the fourth year of freedom, but the first year of the French Republic. After these first measures, unanimously and even with a certain rivalry in democracy and enthusiasm, adopted by both parties, which had decided by the end of the Legislative Assembly, the Convention, instead of getting to work, indulged in internal strife. Girondins and Montagnards before organizing new revolution, wished to determine who would be the main arbiter of its fate, and even the enormous dangers of the situation did not stop them in the struggle for primacy. The fact is that we had to fear the actions of the European coalition more than ever. Austria, Prussia and some German princes attacked France already before August 10; everything made one think that now, after the fall of the monarchy, the imprisonment of Louis XVI and the September beatings, the rest of the sovereigns would also come out against France. Inside the country, the number of opponents of the republic also increased. To the adherents of the former order, the nobility and the clergy, now it was necessary to add the admirers of the constitutional royal power, all those who were keenly concerned about the fate of Louis XVI and who did not believe in the possibility of freedom without order and under the rule of the mob. Despite so many obstacles and so many adversaries, at a time when agreement was so necessary for the struggle, the Gironde and the Mountain attacked each other with furious ferocity. It must be admitted, however, that the parties, according to their views, could not exist together and that it was absolutely impossible for their leaders to get closer to each other; there were too many reasons for disunity in their striving for superiority and in their intentions.

The Girondins, by force of circumstances, were forced to become republicans. It was much more incumbent on them to remain constitutionalists. This was required by the directness of their intentions, and their aversion to the crowd, and aversion to drastic measures, and especially prudence, which allowed them to take only what was possible; however, it was not possible for them to remain what they first showed themselves to be. They could not hold on to that inclined plane which led them irresistibly towards the republic, and little by little got used to such a form of government. They now desired a republic wholeheartedly and ardently, but did not turn a blind eye to how difficult it would be to establish and then strengthen it. The task seemed to them great and beautiful, but they saw that there was a great shortage of suitable people. The crowd was not sufficiently enlightened and did not have those pure morals that are necessary for such a social order. The revolution brought about by the Constituent Assembly was legal not only because it was possible, but also because it was just: it had its own constitution, it had its own citizens. It was not so with the new revolution - it called the lower class to the helm of the state and therefore could not be stable. It affected the interests of too many people, and it could have only temporary defenders, because the lower class, interfering in the case at the time of the crisis, could not constantly take a direct part in it. Meanwhile, it was only on this class that one could rely, having decided on a second revolution. The Girondins did not understand this and very quickly found themselves in a false position; they lost the sympathy of the constitutionalists and did not gain help from the democrats; they did not become either at the top or at the bottom of society. Therefore, they formed some kind of semi-party and, having no basis under them, were quickly beaten. In a word, after August 10, the Girondins found themselves between the middle class and the crowd in exactly the same position as the party of Necker and Munier, or the monarchists, after July 24, between the privileged classes and the bourgeoisie.

The mountain, on the other hand, wanted a republic along with the people. The people at the head of this party, offended by the confidence in which the Girondins enjoyed, looked for an opportunity to overthrow them and take their place. They were less educated, less eloquent, but on the other hand more dexterous, resolute and unscrupulous in their means. The most extreme democracy seemed to them the best form of government. The subject of their constant flattery and no less fervent, though based on personal interests, concern was what they called the people, that is, the lowest classes of society. No party has been so dangerous to France as this, but none has been so consistent. She worked for those in whose ranks she fought.

From the very opening of the meetings of the Convention, the Girondins occupied the right-hand benches, and the Montagnards took their places on the upper benches of the far left, from which the name of their party, Hora, was given. The Girondins were the largest party in the Assembly; in general the elections in the departments were in their favour. A huge part of the deputies of the Legislative Assembly was re-elected, and since at that time connections meant a lot, all the members, in one way or another connected with the Gironde or the Paris Commune before August 10, entered the Convention with their former convictions. There were, next to the Gironde and the Mountain, in the Convention also people who did not adhere to any system, did not belong to any particular party, who had neither affection nor enmity; they formed what at that time was known as the Plains, or Marshes. The members of the Plains joined one or the other party, depending on which one they considered more right in this case, but for the time being they could remain moderate and not be afraid for their own fate.

The mountain was made up of deputies from Paris, chosen under the pressure of the Commune of August 10, and some very ardent republicans from the departments; it was replenished subsequently by those who were driven here by fear or who were exalted by events. In terms of numbers, Horus was less significant in the Convention than the Gironde, but even in this era she was nevertheless very influential. She reigned in Paris, the Commune sympathized with her, and the Paris Commune at that time acquired a paramount importance in the state. The Montagnards also tried to manage the departments of France, establishing constant communication between the Paris Commune and the provincial municipalities in order to clarify the course of action and intentions. Their efforts, however, were not crowned with complete success, and the departments for the most part remained disposed towards their political opponents, who maintained this benevolent attitude with the help of pamphlets and magazines sent out by the minister Roland, whose house the Montagnards called the bureau of the public mind, and friends - intriguers. . The support of the communities, however, had to come sooner or later to the Montagnards, but for the time being they were supported by the Jacobins. This most influential, most populous, and most ancient club, at every crisis, changed its political physiognomy without changing its name; he made shots where power-hungry people appeared, conquering some and excluding those who disagreed with them from the club. The Club of Paris was the mother country of the Jacobins and ruled almost unrestrictedly the provincial branches. The Montagnards took over the club. They forced the Girondins to leave it, acting against them with denunciations and taking advantage of the disgust aroused in them; they replaced the representatives of the bourgeoisie who left the club with sans-culottes. Only one ministry remained in the power of the Girondins, but, due to the resistance offered by the Paris Commune, it had almost no power. In the capital, the Montagnards had almost all the real means and forces. They influenced public opinion through the Jacobin Club, they influenced sections and faubourgs through the sans-culottes, and led uprisings with the help of the municipality.

Having established a republic, the parties first attacked each other. The Girondins were indignant at the September beatings and saw with horror on the benches of the Convention the people who caused these beatings. Two of them inspired them with especially strong antipathy and disgust - Robespierre, who, in their opinion, dreamed of a dictatorship, and Marat, who from the very beginning of the revolution became a preacher of murder in his leaflets. They tried to expose Robespierre with much more passion than prudence. Robespierre was not yet fearsome enough to incur the suspicion of striving for a dictatorship. Accusing Robespierre of plans at that time completely implausible, and besides, accusing him completely without evidence, his enemies only contributed to the growth of the popularity of this figure and increased his importance.

Robespierre, who played such a terrible role in the French Revolution, meanwhile began to come to the fore. Until then, despite all his efforts, there were always people in his own party who surpassed him; during the Constituent Assembly, these were the famous leaders of this assembly; during the Legislative Assembly, Brissot and Pétion; on August 10, Danton. At these various moments, he was always against those who overshadowed him with popularity or reputation. Among the great men of the first assembly, he could stand out only by the strangeness of his opinions, and therefore showed himself to be an extreme reformer; during the second meeting, his opponents were in favor of reforms, so he became a constitutionalist. In the Jacobin Club, he advocated for peace, for his opponents were for the war; after August 10, continuing to combine the interests of his own vanity with the interests of the crowd, he began to campaign against the Girondins in the Jacobin Club and try to oust Danton from there. Being a man of mediocre abilities and having an empty and vain character, Robespierre, precisely because of his mediocrity, always entered the political arena later than everyone else, which during the revolution is certainly very beneficial; as a result of his passionate pride, he strove to occupy the first place everywhere and did not retreat from anything in order to obtain and maintain such a leading position. Robespierre fully possessed everything that is needed for tyranny: a soul, though not at all great, but in any case outstanding, devotion to one dominant passion, outward appearances of patriotism and a well-deserved reputation for incorruptibility; in addition, he was distinguished by a strict lifestyle and did not have the slightest aversion to the shedding of blood. Robespierre proved by his own example that during civil unrest political career they do not by the mind, but by the behavior, and that stubborn mediocrity at this time is stronger than insufficiently consistent genius. It must be added to this that Robespierre was supported by a huge fanatical sect, for which he had demanded power since the closing of the Constituent Assembly and whose views he had always defended. This sect originated in the 18th century. and was the embodiment of some of the ideas of this century. In politics, its motto was the absolute sovereignty of the people, as understood by J.-J. Rousseau in the "Social contract" ("Contrat social"), and in religion - the ideas of the Savoyard vicar from "Emil" of the same writer; the ideas of these parties then temporarily succeeded in implementing the Constitution of 1793 and in the worship of the Supreme Being. In the various epochs of the revolution there was much more system and fanaticism than is commonly thought.

Perhaps the Girondins foresaw the dominion of Robespierre, perhaps they were carried away by their hatred of him, but in any case they charged him with the most terrible crime for a republican. Paris was in an uproar under the influence of the strife of the party; the Girondins wished to legislate against those who cause disorder and call for excess and violence, and at the same time give the Convention an independent power based on all 83 departments. At their request, a commission was appointed to draw up a report on this subject. The mountain attacked this measure, finding it offensive to Paris. The Gironde defended her proposal, pointing to the draft triumvirate drawn up by the Paris deputies. “I was born in Paris,” Osselin said then, “and I am its deputy. We are told that a party has arisen in Paris that desires the establishment of a dictatorship, triumvirs and tribunes. I vociferously declare that one would have to be either a deeply ignorant person or a hardened villain to work out such a plan. May that one of the Parisian deputies be damned who dared to have such an idea. “Yes,” exclaimed the Marseilles deputy Rebecca, “in our Assembly there is a party striving for a dictatorship, and I will name the leader of this party: this is Robespierre. Here is the man I expose before you." Barbara supported this denunciation with his testimony. Barbarou was one of the main figures on 10 August; he led the Marseilles and enjoyed quite a lot of influence in the south of France. He declared that on August 10 both parties, all the time arguing for primacy in Paris, fawned over the Marseilles and that he was invited to Robespierre; here he was persuaded to join the most popular citizens, and Pani directly pointed to Robespierre as that virtuous person who should become the dictator of France. Barbarou said so against Robespierre, for he was a man of action. The right, besides him, had several more members who thought that it was necessary to finally defeat the enemy so as not to be defeated by him. These people wished, by opposing the Convention to the Paris Commune, to separate the departments from Paris, and believed that the enemies should not be spared while they were weak, because this gave them the opportunity and time to strengthen themselves. However, much of the right was wary of an open rupture and did not sympathize with drastic measures.

Robespierre's accusation had no effect, but it fell on Marat, who advised the dictatorship in his journal "Friend of the People" and justified the murders. When he stepped onto the podium to make excuses, a feeling of horror seized the assembly. “Down, down!” shouts were heard from all sides. Marat remained unshakable and, taking advantage of a moment of silence, said: “I have many personal enemies in this meeting.” - “Everything, everything!” - “I appeal to their shame; I ask them not to allow themselves violent cries and indecent threats against a man who served the cause of freedom and rendered them themselves much more services than they think; At least this time, be able to listen to the speaker.” Further, Marat stated to the Convention, struck by his audacity and composure, what he thought about proscriptions and dictatorship. For a long time he ran away, hiding in the dungeons from public hatred and arrest orders issued against him. Only his bloodthirsty pages appeared; in them he demanded executions and prepared the crowd for the September beatings.

There is no extravagant thought that could not occur to a person and, worst of all, that could not be carried out at a certain moment. Marat was obsessed with several similar ideas. The revolution has enemies, and, according to Marat, for its successful continuation, these enemies should not be; the simplest thing, in his opinion, is therefore to destroy all enemies and to appoint a dictator, whose exclusive duty would be to issue decrees on proscriptions; he preached these two measures with cruel cynicism, sparing not only decency, but even human life and considering as weak minds all those who called his projects terrible, and not thoughtful. The revolution had other figures, just as bloodthirsty, but none of them had such a detrimental effect on his era as Marat. He corrupted the already shaky morality of the parties, he gave those two ideas, which then the Committee of Public Safety, through its commissars, carried out and which consisted in dictatorship and mass extermination of the enemies of the revolution.

The accusation of Marat also had no consequences; he inspired more disgust, but less malice, than Robespierre. Some saw in him only a madman, others saw in these strife only a manifestation of the enmity of the parties, which was completely of no interest from the point of view of the republic. Moreover, it seemed dangerous to expel one of its members from the Convention, or bring charges against him; it was a difficult step even for the parties. Danton, however, did not justify Marat. “I don’t like him,” he said, “I actually got to know his character: Marat is a volcanic, stubborn and unsociable person. Why, however, in what he writes, seek the opinion of any party? Doesn’t the general excitement of minds come solely from the movement of the revolution itself? “Robespierre, for his part, testified that he knew Marat very little, that before August 10 he only talked to him once and that after this single conversation Marat, whose extreme convictions he did not approve at all, found her views so narrow that he wrote in his journal that he, Robespierre, has neither the views nor the courage of a statesman.

However, it was against Robespierre that the main hatred was directed, since he was much more feared. The first accusation against Rebecca and Barbara was unsuccessful. Some time later, Minister Roland presented a report on the state of France, and in particular Paris; in it he exposed the September murders, the wrong actions of the Commune and the intrigues of the agitators. “Since,” he said, “the wisest and most fearless defenders of liberty incur hatred and suspicion, since the principles of rebellion and robbery are loudly preached, and public meetings express their approval to them, since murmuring is heard even against the Convention itself, I cannot doubt that the adherents of the old order of things or the false friends of the people, hiding their folly or their villainy under the mask of patriotism, have drawn up a whole plan of revolution by which they expect to rise on ruins and corpses and feed on blood, gold and cruelty. In support of his report, Roland read a letter by which the vice-president of the second chamber of the criminal tribunal informed him that he and other most famous Girondins were in danger; that, according to their enemies, there is a need for a new bloodletting and that these people do not want to hear about anyone else but Robespierre.

With these words, Robespierre runs to the podium to justify himself. “No one,” he says, “will dare to accuse me to my face.” “I,” then cried Louvet, one of the most determined representatives of the Gironde, “yes, I, Robespierre,” he continued, fixing a burning look on him, “I accuse you.” Robespierre, who until that time had retained his full presence of mind, was embarrassed: he once had to measure himself in the Jacobin Club with this dangerous opponent, and he knew him for a smart, ardent and merciless person. Louvet at once asked for the floor and, in the most eloquent improvisation, spared neither his deeds nor his names; he described the activities of Robespierre in the Jacobin Club, in the Paris Commune, in the electoral assembly: “Everywhere he slandered the best patriots, lavished the lowest flattery on several hundred citizens, first considered as the population of Paris, then simply as a people and, finally, as a sovereign people ; everywhere he listed his own merits, his perfections, his virtues and never forgot, having testified to the strength, greatness and right to the primacy of the people, to add that he also belongs to the people. Further, Louvet showed how Robespierre hid on August 10, and then dominated the meetings of the conspirators of the Paris Commune. Turning then to the September murders, he exclaimed: “The revolution of August 10 was the work of everyone, but the revolution of September 2 (here he turned towards the Montagnards) we owe to you and only to you, and aren’t you yourself proud of it? Didn't your like-minded people call us patriots on August 10 with ferocious contempt, and didn't they proudly say about themselves that they were patriots on September 2? Let this distinction be left to them, worthy of their characteristic courage, let it be left to them for our lasting justification and for their lasting shame. These alleged friends of the people wanted to accuse the Parisian people of the horrors that stained the first week of September... They dishonestly slandered him. The people of Paris know how to fight, but they don't know how to kill. On the beautiful day of August 10, all the Parisian people gathered in front of the Tuileries, it is quite true, but a lie, that he was seen in front of the prisons on the terrible day of September 2. How many executioners were inside the prisons that day? Two hundred, or rather, even less; and how many idle spectators could be counted outside the prisons, drawn here by a truly incomprehensible curiosity? Only twice as much. But they said, if the people did not take part in the killings, then why didn't they prevent them? Why? Yes, because the protective power of Pétion was paralyzed, because Roland spoke in vain, because the Minister of Justice Danton did not speak at all ... because the presidents of 58 sections were waiting for requisitions, which the commander-in-chief did not make at all, because the municipal councilors in their scarves led the murderers and were present at these terrible beatings. But the Legislature? Legislative Assembly! Representatives of the people, you will avenge him. The impotence to which your predecessors were led is the most important of all the crimes for which those possessed, whom I expose before you, must be punished. Returning further to Robespierre, Louvet pointed out his ambition, intrigues, excessive influence on the mob and ended his passionate philippic by listing a whole long series of facts, starting each accusation with these formidable words: “Robespierre, I accuse you.”

Louvet stepped down from the podium to a thunder of applause. Pale and accompanied by a murmur, Robespierre ascended the podium in order to justify himself. Out of embarrassment or fear of being accused, he asked for an eight-day delay to give explanations. After this time, he appeared at the Convention no longer accused, but rather triumphant; ironically, he refuted Louvet's accusations and uttered a lengthy apology to himself. It must be confessed that, in view of the vagueness of the accusations, it was difficult for him to mitigate or refute them. The stands were disposed to applaud Robespierre; the Convention itself, which saw in the accusation of Robespierre only a quarrel of offended vanities and was not afraid of this, according to Barer, a temporary worker and a small producer of unrest, was disposed to put an end to these debates. Therefore, when Robespierre concluded his speech, he said: “Regarding myself personally, I will not draw any conclusions; I have given up the easy way of responding to the slander of my enemies with even more formidable revelations; I completely discarded the entire accusatory part of my defense speech. I renounce the perfectly legitimate vengeance with which I could pursue my slanderers; I do not seek anything other than the restoration of peace and the triumph of freedom,” he was applauded, and the Convention moved on to discussing the next issue. Louvet wanted to object to Robespierre, but he was not given the floor; unsuccessfully volunteered to be Barbara's accuser, and Lanjuine spoke against moving on to the next case - the debate was not resumed. Even the Girondins themselves echoed Robespierre; it was a mistake on their part to raise an accusation, but it is even more mistaken now not to support it. The Montagnards won, and Robespierre only approached the role from which he had previously been so far away. During a revolution, people quickly become what they are thought to be; the Montagnards recognized Robespierre as their head only because the Girondins considered him as such and persecuted him for this.

Even more important than the personal attacks were the debates about the system of government and the way in which the authorities and parties operate. The Girondins were defeated not only in the struggle against individuals, but also against the Paris Commune. None of the measures they proposed were adopted: they were all either ill-founded or poorly supported. They needed to strengthen the government, change the composition of the municipality, hold on to the Jacobin Club and take it over, win over the crowd, or at least prevent its actions, but they did nothing. One of the Girondins, Buzot, suggested that a guard of 3,000 men recruited from the provinces be established at the Convention. This measure was, in any case, to maintain the independence of the Assembly, but it was demanded insufficiently insistently, and it was not adopted. Thus the Girondins attacked the Mountain and did not weaken it, attacked the Commune and failed to subdue it, fought the suburbs and did not destroy their influence. They irritated Paris by calling on the help of the provinces, but they failed to get the necessary help; in general, they acted contrary to the most primitive prudence, for it is always better to do something, and not only to threaten.

The opponents of the Girondins took advantage of this circumstance. They took care to secretly spread rumors that the Girondins were trying to transfer the republic to the south of France, and leave the rest of the country to their fate; such rumors could not but compromise the Gironde. From these rumors arose the accusation of federalism, which later became so fatal to this party. The Girondins did not understand the full danger of such an accusation and treated it with disdain. This accusation, however, was given more and more credibility as the Gironde grew weaker and her opponents became more and more bold. The reason for the clearer expression of the accusation was at first the project of defending the enemy against the Loire and, if the north was captured by the enemy and Paris taken, to transfer the seat of the government to the south, and then the preference that the Girondins showed to the provinces, and the bitterness that they showed against agitators of the capital. It was not difficult for the opponents of the Gironde to present the project of defense in a distorted form, attributing its compilation to another time, and from the censure of the disorderly actions of one city, they deduced the intention to form an alliance of all cities against Paris. By such comparisons and overexposures, the Girondins were succeeded in making federalists appear in the eyes of the crowd. While they were making accusations against the Paris Commune and Robespierre, the Montagnards managed to pass a decree on the unity and indivisibility of the republic. Here, too, there was a means of attack, and this suggestion threw suspicion on the Girondins, although they hastened to agree to the proposal made and even seemed to regret that they themselves did not make it.

The Montagnards benefited from one more thing, apparently completely alien to the strife of the parties and, in any case, very regrettable. The Montagnards, emboldened by the failure of the attempts directed against them, waited only for an opportunity to go on the offensive themselves. The Convention was weary of endless debate; those members who were not directly affected by the quarrels, and even those who, although they were listed in one or another of the warring parties, but did not stand in them in the first place, felt the need for an agreement and wished to deal with the affairs of the republic. There was an apparent truce, and the attention of the Assembly was for some time directed to a new constitution, but the Montagnards forced these studies to be interrupted, demanding some kind of decree regarding the deposed monarch. In this case, the leaders of the extreme left were guided by numerous reasons: they most did not want the organization of the republic to fall to the lot of the Girondins and moderate members of the Plain, who stood at the head of the constitutional committee and acted alone through Pétion, Condorcet, Brissot, Vergniaud, Jeansonnet, and others through Barer, Sieyes and Thomas Paine. These people would have established a bourgeois regime, giving it only a more democratic character than under the Constitution of 1791. The mountain wanted complete domination of the mob. However, it was impossible for them to achieve their goals except by gaining dominance, and it was impossible to obtain it otherwise than by maintaining the revolutionary state of France. In addition to the desire to prevent the establishment of legal order by means of such a terrible coup d'etat as the condemnation of Louis XVI, a coup that was supposed to excite all passions and attract to them all extreme parties, since they would see in them the most incorruptible guardians of the republic - the Montagnards they also hoped that the Girondins, who did not hide their desire to save the king, would have to show their feelings and thereby completely destroy themselves in the opinion of the crowd. Without any doubt, among the Montagnards there were those who acted in this case completely sincerely, and those in whose eyes Louis XVI was guilty before the revolution, and, finally, those who considered any debunked monarch dangerous for the emerging democracy, but the whole party could not show itself such merciless, if it had not sought, together with Louis XVI, to destroy the Gironde.

For some time the Montagnards began to prepare the public for the trial of the king. The Jacobin Club showered him with abuse: the most offensive gossip spread about his character; his condemnation was demanded in the name of strengthening freedom. Various popular societies sent addresses in this sense to the Convention; the sections of Paris were in session; the wounded on August 10 were carried through the hall of the Convention on a stretcher, crying out for revenge on Louis Capet. Louis XVI was no longer called otherwise than by this name, wishing to replace the title of king with his surname.

Party tasks and popular bitterness - everything united against this unfortunate former ruler. Those who, only two months ago, would have rejected the very idea of ​​any other punishment for the king than being overthrown, were now thrown into a complete stupor: in times of crisis, the right to defend one's convictions is so easily lost. The content of the iron cabinet found in the king's palace especially increased the fanaticism of the mob and weakened the king's defenders. After August 20, among the king's papers, documents were found that proved the king's relations with disgruntled princes, emigrants and Europe. In a report drawn up by order of the Legislative Assembly, the king was accused of intending to betray the state and suppress the revolution. He was reproached for having written to the Bishop of Clermont on April 16, 1791, that if he had acquired the former power, he would have restored the former mode of government and restored to the clergy their former rights. He was blamed for having later offered to start a war only in order to hasten the arrival of his liberators, that he was in contact with people who wrote to him: “The war will force all powers to unite against the malefactors and villains who tyrannize France, with the aim of punishing them to set an example for all those who would wish to disturb the peace in the state ... You can count on 150,000 Prussians, Austrians and foreigners in general, and on an army of 20,000 emigrants. Finally, Louis was accused of having publicly reproved his brothers while secretly approving their course of action, and that he never ceased to act against the revolution at all.

In support of all these accusations, new facts have appeared. In the Tuileries Palace behind one of the wall panels was a recess, closed with an iron door. This secret closet was pointed out to the minister Roland, and new evidence was found in it regarding all the conspiracies and intrigues of the palace party against the revolution; there were projects to strengthen the constitutional power of the king with the help of popular leaders and restore the old order with the help of aristocrats, Talon's plans, agreements with Mirabeau, Bouillet's proposals adopted during the Constituent Assembly, and some plans worked out already during the Legislative Assembly. This discovery further intensified the already existing bitterness against Louis XVI. In the Jacobin Club, the bust of Mirabeau was completely destroyed, and in the Convention it was covered with a curtain.

In the Assembly, the question of the trial of the unfortunate sovereign was raised, but in essence, since he had already been deposed from the throne, he could not even be persecuted. There was no court that would have been competent to pronounce sentence on him. There was no punishment to which he could be subjected. The Convention, in order to create an external legality for the prosecution of the king, therefore had to resort to a false interpretation of the right of immunity, which was used by Louis XVI. The great mistake of the parties is that they do not so much care about justice as about not appearing unfair. The Legislative Committee, which was charged with drawing up a report on the question of whether Louis XVI could be tried, and if so, whether the Convention could not be tried on him, spoke in a positive sense. The deputy Mayle, who spoke on behalf of this commission, rebelled against the principle of inviolability, and since this principle was recognized in the period preceding the revolution, he resorted to a trick, pointing out that Louis was inviolable as a king, but not as a private person. He argued that since the nation could not refuse to guarantee itself against the arbitrariness of the government, it contrasted the immunity of the king with the responsibility of his ministers, and that where the king acted as a private person and where, therefore, his responsibility to no one transferred, he ceased to enjoy the right of immunity. Mail thus limited the constitutional immunity of Louis XVI to his deeds and actions as king. He further said that Louis XVI should be tried, because his overthrow from the throne does not mean punishment at all, but is a simple change of government, that he should be judged according to the criminal laws concerning traitors and conspirators, and, finally, that he himself should be judged. Convention without respecting the forms adopted in other courts. The convention is the representative of the people, the people embody the totality of all interests, represent justice, and therefore there is no possibility that a national court violates justice, and there is nothing to bind it in any form whatsoever. This is how the Legislative Committee turned the Convention into a court of justice with a chain of terrible sophisms. The party of Robespierre showed more consistency, exposing exclusively state considerations and completely rejecting all forms as false.

The debate opened six days after the committee's report, on 13 November. Supporters of the inviolability of the king, recognizing his guilt, argued that he could not be judged. Chief among them was Morrison; he said that the inviolability of the king was of a general nature, that the constitution provided for something much more essential than the secret machinations of the king, namely, an open attack on the revolution, and even for this the punishment was only deposition from the throne, that by this the people secured dominion, that by mandate It was the reform of the government, and not the trial of Louis XVI, that not only the laws of justice, but also the customs of war do not allow doing what the committee suggests, for it is considered dishonorable to get rid of the enemy except during the battle, and after it is over, he is subject to the protection of the law, that, finally, the republic has no interest in condemning Louis XVI, that it should confine itself to taking precautionary measures towards him, that is, either keep him prisoner or expel him from France. Morrison's opinion was the opinion of the entire right of the Convention. The plain shared the opinion of the committee, while the Mountain rejected both the immunity of Louis XVI and his trial.

“Citizens,” said Saint-Just, “I want to prove that the opinion of Morrison, who retains complete immunity to the king, and the opinion of the committee, which believes that the king should be tried as a private person, are equally false. I maintain that the king should be judged as an enemy; that we should not so much judge him as finally strike him down; that since he has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty by which the French are bound together, the forms of legal proceedings applicable to him are to be found not in the civil code of laws, but in international law; that any kind of delay and prudence in this case are real imprudence, and that if it is most disastrous to delay the moment when we give ourselves laws, then it is a little less disastrous to postpone the decision of the fate of the king. Reducing everything to considerations of hostility and politics, Saint-Just added: “The very people who will judge Louis will then have to found a republic; those who have any fear or dread of the just execution of the king will never be in a position to establish a republic. Citizens, if the Roman people, after six hundred years of existence, full of virtues and hatred of kings, if Great Britain, after the death of Cromwell, in spite of all her energy, saw the revival of monarchical power, then what do all good citizens and friends of freedom have to fear at the sight of, how the ax trembles in your hands, and how the people honor the memory of their fetters from the first days of freedom?

That ardent party that wished to replace a judgment by a mere violent act, that thought to cast aside all laws and forms, and strike Louis XVI as a conquered prisoner, continuing hostile actions even after victory, constituted a weak minority in the Convention; but outside the Convention it was strongly supported by the Jacobins and the Paris Commune. Despite the horror that she had already managed to inspire, her bloodthirsty proposals were rejected by the Convention. The defenders of the inviolability of the king, in their turn, were able to expose state considerations, and the rules and laws of justice and mercy. They pointed out that the same persons cannot at the same time be judges and legislators, and prosecutors and juries. They sought to enable the nascent republic to mark its appearance with the brilliance of high virtues, generosity and forgiveness; they wished that the republic should follow the example of Rome, which won freedom and kept it for five centuries, thanks to its generosity, for it expelled the Tarquins, but did not destroy them. From the point of view of politics, they pointed to the unfortunate consequences of condemning the king, which undoubtedly increased the courage of the anarchist party in France itself and forced those European powers that had so far remained neutral to enter into a coalition against the republic.

But then Robespierre came to the podium, showing courage and perseverance in the continuation of this long process, foreshadowing all his future strength, and began to support Saint-Just's proposal. He reproached the Convention for vacillating over a question already resolved by the insurrection, and for strengthening the utterly defeated monarchist party by its pity and publicity of defense. “The meeting,” said Robespierre, “imperceptibly for itself, was far distracted from the main issue. There can be no question of any trial, Louis is not the accused at all, and you are not judges; you are statesmen, and that is all you can be. You don't have to pass sentence for or against that person at all. You need to take measures of public safety, to carry out an act of national foresight. The dethroned king can serve only two purposes: he can either be an instrument against the tranquility of the state and shake its freedom, or strengthen both. Louis was king; the republic has already been established; The question that occupies us is completely resolved by these words. Louis cannot be judged, for not only has he already been judged, but he has been condemned, otherwise there is no justification for the republic.” At the end of his speech, Robespierre demanded that the Convention declare Louis XVI a traitor against the French and a criminal before all mankind and immediately sentenced him to death penalty in the name of rebellion.

The Montagnards, by these extreme proposals, and by the sympathy they aroused outside the Convention and among the fanatical and cruel mob, believed to make the condemnation of the king in some way inevitable. Running unusually far ahead of other parties, the Montagnards forced them to follow them, even from a distance. The majority of the Convention, which consisted of most of the Girondins, who did not dare to recognize Louis as inviolable, and from the Plain, at the suggestion of Pétion and against the opinion of the Montagnards and those who recognized Louis as inviolable, decided that Louis XVI would be tried by the Convention. After that, Robert Lende, on behalf of the Commission of Twenty-one, wrote a report on Louis XVI. An indictment was also drawn up on those actions that were blamed on the king, and the captive king was summoned by the Convention to a meeting. Louis had already been imprisoned in the Temple for four months; there he did not at all enjoy the freedom that the Legislative Assembly gave him, appointing the Luxembourg Palace for residence. The suspicious Paris Commune watched him closely; however, resigned to his fate and ready for anything, Louis showed neither regret nor malice. He had only one servant, Clery, who at the same time served the entire royal family. The king spent the first months of imprisonment with his family and found some consolation even in the presence of loved ones; he consoled and supported his two friends in misfortune - his wife and sister; he was the tutor of the young dauphin and expounded to him the teachings of the unfortunate man and the captive king. He read a great deal, and very frequently referred to Hume's History of England; in it he found many monarchs deposed from the throne, and one among them condemned by the people. Everyone tends to look for and be interested in destinies similar to their own. However, the king did not have long to find solace in a common life with his family; as soon as there was talk of his trial, he was separated from his family. The Paris Commune considered it necessary to prevent the captives from agreeing on what to say in their defense; supervision over Louis XVI became every day more petty and stricter.

Meanwhile, Santerre received orders to bring Louis XVI to the court of the Convention. Santerre went to the Temple, accompanied by the mayor, who told the king about the task entrusted to them and asked if he intended to obey. Louis, after a moment's hesitation, answered: “This is a new violence; I have to give in to him." Thus, Louis agreed to appear before the Convention, in contrast to Charles I, who rejected the competence of his judges. When the Convention learned of the king's arrival, Barère said: "Representatives of the people, you will now have to administer the people's justice. Let your behavior correspond to these new functions of yours, ”and turning to the tribunes, he added:“ Citizens, remember the terrible silence with which Louis was met after fleeing to Varennes; this silence was a harbinger of the judgment of the peoples on the kings.” Louis XVI entered the hall with complete composure; entering, he swept the assembly with a bold look. He stopped at the entrance, and the president said to him in an agitated voice: “Louis, the French people bring charges against you. Now you will hear the indictment; Ludovic, sit down!“

A chair was prepared for the king, and he sank into it. Throughout the lengthy interrogation, he showed a lot of calmness and presence of mind, he always answered every question appropriately and, for the most part, touchingly and successfully. He dismissed all the reproaches made to him about his behavior before July 14, reminding the Assembly that at that time his power was not yet limited; he pointed out to the accusations regarding his actions before the flight of Varna that the Constituent Assembly, by a special decree, recognized his explanations as satisfactory; and, finally, the responsibility for everything that happened before August 10, laid down on the ministers responsible for everything related to public actions, and he directly denied any kind of secret actions that he personally was accused of. These denials, however, did not, in the eyes of the Convention, destroy the significance of the facts, established for the most part by documents written entirely by the king or signed by his hand. The king in these denials simply used that natural right that belongs to every accused. He did not acknowledge the existence of the notorious iron cabinet, nor the authenticity of the documents presented to him. Louis referred to the protective law, which the Convention did not want to allow, and the Convention sought to prove the presence of counter-revolutionary attempts, which the king did not want to recognize.

When Louis XVI was taken back to the Temple, the Convention began to discuss his request for a defender. In vain did some of the Montagnards oppose a positive decision in this respect; The convention ruled that Louis could have a defender. For this purpose, he even pointed to Targe and Tronche, but the former refused them. Then the venerable Malserbe himself volunteered to be the protector of the king. “Twice,” he cried, “I was called for advice to the one who was my master at that time, when everyone sought this honor. I I am obliged to render him a similar service now, now that such a duty seems to the majority to be fraught with danger. Malserbom's offer of services was accepted. Louis XVI, abandoned by everyone, was touched by such an expression of devotion. When Malserbe came to him, Louis stood up to meet him, hugged him tightly and said with tears in his eyes: “Your sacrifice is generous, all the more so that by risking your life, you will not save mine.” Malserbe and Tronchet immediately took up the protection of the king and invited Desaise to help them; they tried to encourage the king, but he turned out to have no hopes: “I am convinced that the opponents will succeed in destroying me; but come what may, we will begin to deal with the process as if there was a complete hope of winning it; yes, finally, I will really win it, since the memory of me will remain unsullied.

Finally, the day came when the defense speech was to be delivered. Louis was present at this meeting, and the speech was delivered by Desez in the deathly silence of the Assembly and the tribunes. Desez, in defense of the royal defendant, brought all possible considerations of justice. He appealed to the immunity granted to the king; he said that it was impossible to judge Louis as a king, that, being accusers, the representatives of the people could not be his judges. There was nothing new in all this; all this had already been expressed in the Convention by the representatives of the parties. Mostly, however, he tried to justify the behavior of Louis XVI and attribute to him exceptionally pure and impeccable intentions. He ended his speech with the following significant words: “Listen in advance to the verdict that history will pronounce: having ascended the throne at the age of 20, Louis showed him an example of morality, justice and thrift; he had no weakness, no vicious passion; he was a constant and faithful friend of the people. As soon as the people wished that the ruinous tax be abolished, Louis abolished it; the people desired the abolition of slavery, and Louis abolished it; the people demanded reforms - reforms were given; if the people wanted changes in laws, changes were made; the people wanted millions of French people to get their rights again - they returned them; the people longed for freedom, and freedom was given. You cannot take away the glory of warning from Louis by his donations to the desires of the people, and, despite this, he is offered to you ... But no, citizens, I will not finish my sentence, I am stopped by the court of history; history, remember this, will judge you and your judgment, and its judgment will be the judgment of the ages.” Passions were, however, deaf and incapable of either justice or foresight.

The Girondins wanted to save Louis XVI; they were afraid, however, of accusations of royalism, and this accusation was already brought against them by the Montagnards. Throughout the process, their behavior was ambiguous; they did not have the courage to openly speak either for or against the royal defendant, and their vague moderation not only did not benefit him, but completely ruined them. They did not understand that at that moment the king's business, a matter that concerned not the throne, but life, was closely connected with their own existence. It was to be decided either by strict justice or by a bloody act of violence whether France would return to the lawful course of action or whether the revolutionary period of her history would be continued. The triumph of the Gironde or the Mountain was closely connected with this or that decision. The Montagnards were very worried. They argued that revolutionary energy had been forgotten in the pursuit of form, and that Louis XVI's speech of defence, was a public exposition of monarchical doctrine brought to the attention of the nation. The Jacobins provided substantial assistance to the Montagnards, and deputation after deputation came to the Convention demanding the death of the king.

Meanwhile, the Girondins, who did not dare to maintain the immunity of the king, proposed a clever way to save Louis XVI from execution by appealing to the people on the decision of the Convention. The extreme right once again protested against the transformation of the Convention into a court. But the competence of the Convention was predetermined, and here it succeeded in doing nothing; her efforts therefore had to be directed elsewhere. Sall proposed that Louis be found guilty, but that the choice of punishment be left to the primary electoral assemblies. Buzot, fearing that the Convention would be accused of weakness, believed that he himself should determine the punishment for the king, but then submit his decision to the people for approval. This last opinion was especially strongly disputed not only by the Montagnards, but even by most of the moderate members of the Convention, who saw in the convening of elected assemblies a phantom civil war. The assembly unanimously decided that Louis was guilty of the charge brought against him before the question of appealing to the people was resolved. There were 284 votes in favor of the appeal and 442 against it, with 10 abstentions. Then the terrible question of the punishment to which the king was subject had to be decided. Paris was in the most extreme excitement; threats were made to the deputies at the very door of the Convention; there was every reason to fear new popular unrest and violence; The Jacobin club burst into a hail of the most unbridled curses against the king and the right of the Convention. The party of the Mountain, hitherto the smallest in the Convention, tried to gather a majority by means of fear, and resolved beforehand, even in case of failure, to put an end to the king. The roll call went on for four hours, and finally, at the end of it, President Vergniaud said: “Citizens, I will now announce the result of the ballot. Justice has spoken, now it's the turn of philanthropy." There were 721 voters in total. Absolute majority amounted to 361 votes. The death sentence was pronounced by a majority of 26 votes. Opinions are mixed up; many Girondins voted for the execution, however, with a delay in its execution; most of the right voted for exile or imprisonment; some Montagnards voted along with the Girondins. When the result of the ballot became clear, the president said with a hint of sorrow in his voice: “ On behalf of the Convention, I declare that it has recognized Louis Capet as deserving of execution.“. The king's defenders appeared at the pulpit; they were all very excited. They appealed to the mercy of the Assembly, pointing out the small number of votes that passed the decision to execute. But this issue has been discussed before and has been resolved before. „ Laws are always passed by a simple majority vote.“, - said one of the Montagnards. „ Yes, - someone's voice objected to him, - but we must take into account that the decree can then be canceled, and there is no way to return life“. Malserbes wanted to speak, but did not have the strength to do so. Sobs drowned out his voice, and he could only utter a few pleading incoherent words. His despair touched the Assembly. As a last resort to save the king, the Girondins tried to obtain a stay of execution, but here they failed, and the fatal verdict was pronounced in its final form.

Louis was ready for such a verdict. When Malserbe, all in tears, came to announce the death sentence to Louis, he found him in dark room sitting in deep thought, leaning his elbows on the table and covering his face with his hands. At the noise of Malserbe's footsteps, Louis rose from his seat and said: “For two whole hours I was busy trying to remember whether I deserved even the slightest reproach from my subjects during the whole time of my reign. And well, I swear to you, Mr. Malserbe, I swear with all my heart that as a man who in the shortest time will appear before the Almighty, I constantly wished happiness for my people, and never had any desire or intention that was contrary to them. good." Malserbe tried to assure the king that the reprieve would not be rejected, but Louis did not believe this. Seeing off Malserbe, he asked not to leave him in the last minutes. Malserbe promised him to return, but no matter how many times he came to Tampa

The convention opened on September 21, 1792, and a day later proclaimed France a republic. Elections to the Convention were made on the basis of universal male suffrage, and therefore its composition was more revolutionary than that of the Legislative Assembly. The Convention included almost exclusively representatives of the bourgeoisie. It did not have at all that part of the nobles who at first supported the revolution - they also fled abroad.

In the autumn of 1792, the French army crossed the border, drove the Austrian troops out of Belgium. The Convention issued a decree to help peoples who wish to overthrow their tyrants, and proclaimed the slogan: "Peace to huts, war to palaces."

At first, the Girondins occupied the leading position in the Convention. They voted for a republic but tried to keep further development revolution, fearing for the interests of large owners. The Girondins sat on the lower benches of the Convention. With them and above, most of the hesitant, ready to follow those who are stronger at the moment, are located. At first they supported the Girondins. The unstable part of the deputies was contemptuously called by the people the "belly" or "bog" of the Convention, and the deputies who belonged to it - "bog toads."

The upper benches in the Convention hall were occupied by the most resolute representatives of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, ready to make further alliances with the masses of the people in order to complete and defend the revolution. Robespierre and Marat were at the head of this grouping, nicknamed the "mountain" of the Convention. At first they were followed by a minority of the Convention, but they enjoyed great influence among the people. They were supported by the Commune of Paris. Gradually, they gained the upper hand in the Jacobin club, and the Girondins were excluded from it.

The role of the popular lower classes as the driving force of the revolution intensified. The Commune of Paris and its revolutionary sections expressed the aspirations of the mass of sans-culottes - the common people, artisans, workers, small shopkeepers. Representatives of sections and crowds of people surrounded the Convention and put forward their demands. They sought the execution of the king. Relying on the people, the Jacobins achieved their submission to the court of the Convention. The king was sentenced to death by open vote and by roll call. In January 1793, Louis XVI was beheaded.

Defeat in the war against the interventionists and the collapse of the Girondins' policy

The execution of the king alarmed the monarchical governments of Europe. England and Spain joined the alliance (coalition) of Austria and Prussia. Due to the fault of the Girondins, the French revolutionary troops did not have uniforms and food. Speculators cashed in on military supplies, but in fact the troops remained barefoot and hungry. The peasants did not want to fight because they did not. feudal obligations were finally abolished.

The Girondin generals turned out to be traitors. In the spring of 1793, the Austrian troops went on the offensive and defeated the French army. The threat of an interventionist invasion loomed over the country again. This greatly undermined the influence of the Girondins, responsible for the military failures.

The patience of the masses was exhausted when the Girondins put Marat on trial for exposing their actions and began to prepare reprisals against the revolutionary sections of the Commune. Under pressure from the Parisian sans-culottes, the court acquitted Marat, and the people solemnly carried their favorite in their arms through the streets of Paris. The eastern sections of the capital demanded the expulsion of the Girondins from the Convention.

Turning the pages of history: