action, without needing any other ftimulation. Men of this character are not eafily tamed into fubjection to thofe who differ from them in fentiments, and are much more ready to rife in oppofition to them, than those who are governed by the dictates of others.

This confpicuously appeared in that other attempt, which the jacobins made to overthrow the establishment, so very foon after having failed in their late confpiracy. The numbers that voted against the impeachment of Drouet, and his evafion from confinement, plainly fhewed the influence of the jacobin faction. Relying on its many concealed partifans, a refolution was taken, by the undiscovered accomplices of Babeuf in that confpiracy, to rescue him and his affociates from the hands of government, at the time when they were to be removed from their prifon at Paris, and transferred to Vandame, for trial before the high criminal court.

In order to conceal from the public the real actors in the intended rescue, the jacobins affumed the appearance of royalifts. They put on white cockades, difplayed white colours, and every other token of royalifm, and in this manner procceded in their enterprize: but they were quickly difcovered, and their project entirely fruftrated.

Whether through neglect or connivance, no inquiry was made into this business. This induced the jacobins to meditate another plan, and to take what they hoped might prove more efficient means to fucceed. They collected as many of their most daring affociates as could be procured in the capital and its vicinity. They tampered with the foldiery, fome of whom they fe

10

duced, by whofe medium they vaiuly imagined the majority of the remainder would be brought over to them. When they thought they were fufficiently prepared, they embodied themselves, to the number of five or fix hundred, and marched to the camp in the Plain of Grenelle, at a very fmall distance from Paris. They feemed to entertain no doubt of being joined by the troops there, and confidently entered the camp, crying out, the conftitution of ninety-three, and down with the two councils and the five tyrants. At the head of this defperate body of men were three members of the late convention, with as many generals who had been difmiffed the fervice, and Drouet himself, it was faid, not long efcaped from his prifon. They warmly exhorted the foldiers to join them, promifing every remuneration that could be required; but they were totally deceived in their expectations. The foldiers remained true to their officers, and, at the word of command, fell upon the confpirators, who, unable to contend with fuch a force, betook themselves to flight. Numbers were killed upon the fpot, and about one hundred and thirty taken. They were tried as infurgents by a military commission. Sentence of

death or banishment was paffed upon the most notoriously guilty, and the others were difcharged.

The objects proposed by thefe rafh and furious confpirators, were fimilar in every refpect to thofe of Babeuf and his affociates. Blood and the extermination of all perfons in power, thofe only excepted whom they confidered as favourable to their defigns.

While the jacobins were intent upon those deftructive fchemes,

which,

which, happily for France, were fo feafonably prevented, the government was preparing a law, by which it hoped to reconcile the parties that divided the nation, fo far as to extinguish the motives of terror that rendered fo many Frenchmen enemies, through neceffity, of their countrymen in power.

This law, from which fuch falutary effects were expected to flow, was an act of univerfal amnefty, which was to put an immediate stop to all profecutions for revolutionary crimes and offences, committed fince the commencement of July, 1789, to the fourth of Brumaire, in the fourth year of the republic, 1796. The only exceptions to this amnefty were thofe contained in the law enacted in the last fitting of the late convention, and called the law of the third Brumaire.

Thefe exceptions were levelled at the oppofers of the new conftitution, tranfported priests, and emigrants, and those who had participated in the infurrection at Paris against the decree of the convention, ordaining the re-election of twothirds of its members.

But this law had always been confidered, by the impartial, as too indifcriminately favourable to the adherents of the party which had framed it, as it not only put a stop to the proceedings against the agents of terrorifm, but even against individuals guilty of crimes, for which they had been fentenced to fevere and merited punishment, and whom it fat at liberty in direct violation of all juftice, and to the confternation of all perfons inclined to moderation and pacific meafures.

A committee had been appointed to draw up the plan of this propofed

amnefty, the report of which led to a variety of difcuffions relating to it, and occafioned at laft a propofal to repeal the very law of the third of Brumaire, as bearing too inequitably upon those who were related to emigrants, whom it excluded from public offices, together with those who had been concerned in the infurrection of last October, against the decrees of the convention for the re-elections.

These members of the legislature, who favoured the repeal of this law, confidered it as inconfiftent with the real principles of the conftitution, by which no man ought to be fubjected to fo heavy a punishment as the forfeiture of his civic rights, without evident proof of his deferving it. In confequence of the reafonings they used in fupport of this opinion, a committee was chofen to deliberate on the merits of this law, and whether it could, with fafety, be repealed at the prefent period.

The public was, in the mean time, greatly divided in its opinion on this queftion. Some pronounced it at once a trial of ftrength between the royalifts and the republicans. Were the law to be repealed, an inundation of the former would infallibly take place in every department, and the restoration of monarchy would be the unavoidable confequence.

The nation at large held itself deeply concerned in the decifion of this important queftion, and waited for it with the utmost impatience. The committee, appointed to examine the advantages and illconfequences refulting from the law alluded to, was confidered as holding in its hands the fate of the nations. Loud and fervent were the

wishes

wishes of the respective parties, that the examination might terminate in their favour. The remarkable fervour with which the royalifts expreffed their hope of its repeal, fufficiently indicated how much they expected it would militate for them, while the apprehenfions of the republicans, left it fhould be repeated, manifefted equally their conviction, how ftrongly this would operate to their detriment.

This fermentation of the public mind carried the weight of the ftrongeft argument with thofe who were entrusted with this great decifion. The elatedness of the royal party, on the bare poffibility of a repeal, clearly pointed out the danger of it to the commonwealth, and admonified its well-wishers to oppofe fuch a measure with all their might. The members of the committee of examination, being ftaunch republicans, could not fail to perceive the question before them in the fame light. They did not therefore hesitate to pronounce explicitly a verdict conformable to the opinion of their party, which was thereby released from a ftate of the deepest anxiety on the iffue of this bufinefs.

There were, however, fome very fincere republicans in both the councils, who difapproved of this law, and exerted their abilities for its repeal. They argued that it made no difference between the relations of real enemies to the revolution, who had abandoned their country, out of hatred to the fyftem introduced by that event, and the relations of individuals who had fled from the tyranny that had deluged France with profcriptions and murders. Such a flight ought not, in the cleareft equity, to be accounted

punishable. The law thould have been pointed at those chiefly whole crimes had rendered them objects of abhorrence to all parties; and who, having been tried and condemned for them, had been shielded from punishment, by the amnefty extended to them by that law, in defiance of equity and the general fenfe of the public, which loudly demanded that they should be made examples of, as guilty of plunders and affaffinations that had filled the nation with dread and horror. Were fuch men to be excepted from the rigour of a law which ought to have been made for them alone, inftead of falling upon the innocent? Was it reconcileable with reafon and propriety, that fuch men should be promoted to pofts of honour and authority? but the fact was, that the period when this law took place was marked by the terrors that hung over those who, though they reprobated, did not dare to refufe their affent to it. The conftitution, though framed and accepted, ftood yet upon a tottering foundation. The most upright men in the convention felt themfelves in danger from that violent party ftill prevailing, and with which they had no other expedient to compromife for their own fafety, than confenting to this inequitabe law, in hope however of fome aufpicious opportunity to repeal it. This opportunity was arrived, and every motive concurred to induce the legiflature to refcind an act replete with cruelty and fcandal. It was well known, that thofe, whom it affected, had been falfely held out to the public, as enemies to the ftate, and their names, together with thofe of their relations, wantonly inferted in the lift of emigrants, while

it was notorious that many of the unfortunate individuals, thus traduced, were locked up in prifons, where calumny and fufpicion were at that tyrannical period fufficient reasons to confine and to treat them with the most unfeeling barbarity, But were it only out of respect for the rights of the people at large, a law fhould be abrogated, that took from them the conftitutional right of chufing to places and dignities in the ftate, thole whom they reputed worthy of their confidence. To deny them this right, was to abridge them of their liberties in a moft effential point. To plead the fafety of the nation was the language of tyranny, and would juftify every fpecies of defpotifm. What crimes had not been committed by the fanguinary tribunals, erected on the pretence of punifhing the foes to the revolution?

To these, and other arguments, in favour of a repeal, it was replied, by the supporters of the law, that it pafled at a time when it was deemed indifpenfible for the prefervation of the national freedom, and the fecurity of the conftitution just established. Its numerous and active enemies were every where in motion, and striving with all their might to fet the people against it. Sufpicions were warrantable motives to exclude those on whom they fell, at a time when fo many were juftly fufpected, from ftations of power and truft, wherein they might have acted fo hoftile a part to the commonwealth. Would it have been prudent to expofe it to fuch danger at home, while menaced by fo many fues from abroad? Allowing that a number of individuals fuffered unjustly by this law, was not this a much lefs inconvenience than to

VOL. XXXVIII.

throw the whole nation at once into the hands of fo many concealed enemies? But the fuffering, fo bitterly complained of, amounted only to a temporary fufpenfion of their rights, of which they would undergo the deprivation,, no longer than the fhort fpace that might elapfe till the reftoration of general tranquillity. As foon as peace was re-established, both at home and abroad, the fufpenfion of all privileges would ceafe, and every man be placed on the completeft footing of equality, in refpect of pretenfions to public employments. But till that period, it were the height of imprudence to place confidence in any but the tried friends to the commonwealth. The promotion of others would unavoidably excite fears and jealoufies. With what profpect of impartial juftice couldthe relations of emigrants be entrufted with the execution of the fovere, but neceffary, laws enacted againft them? Inftances might occur, in the prefent fituation of things, when not only the liberty and property, but the very life of the deareft relative would be at fake: was it to be expected that the ties of confanguinity would not have their influence on thefe occa fions, and that a man coolly and determinately would doom another? to death, whofe life was as dear to him as his own? In this light, the law, fo violently reprobated, was in, fact humane and merciful: it exempted individuals from those terrible conflicts between the feelings of nature, and the dictates of duty, wherein they could neither yield to the one nor to the other, without incuring the imputation of betraying their truft, or of wanting huma nity. When thefe various circum

[ M ]

ftances

ftances were duly confidered, it muft appear that the repeal of the law in queftion would be attended evidently with fo many inconveniences, that no judicious and unbiaffed perfon could require it. The intereft of the public was not, in truth, more concerned in maintaining that law in its full vigour, than that of private families: both would equally fuffer from its abolition. It would often happen that juftice would not be done to the public, or that by doing it, men would embitter the remainder of their lives, and become objects either of general refentment or compaffion. It being clear, therefore, that much more evil than good, muft flow from the repeal of the law; and the fecurity of the ftate being, at the fame time, a motive that ought to fuperfede all others, that law could not with any propriety be abrogated. It was, at the fame time, much to be fufpected, that many of thofe, who recommended fuch a measure, acted from finister motives, as nothing could be a ftronger proof of its impropriety, than the fatisfaction univerfally expreffed, by the royalifts, at fuch a queftion being brought before the two councils.

A multiplicitly of other arguments were alleged by the contending parties, in which the public joined with an earneftnefs that fhewed how much all men were convinced of the importance of the fubject in debate. But the report of the committee feemed to carry an influence that could not, and ought not to be refifted. This was the opinion of the people at large, even more than of the council of five hundred, as the queftion against

the repeal was carried by a majority of only forty-four.

The minority, encouraged by this evidence of their ftrength, refolved, if it were not able to compass the repeal of the law of the third of Brumaire, (25th October, 1795;) fo to modify its provifions, as to direct them equally at the partifans and inftruments of the terrorifts and jacobins; and the royalifts, who, after taking up arms against the republic, had fubmitted and been pardoned. The propofal of fuch an amendment proved highly exafperating to the fupporters of that law, who afferted, that fufficient moderation had been fhewn in exempting from its operation the actors and abetters in the infurrection against the conventional decrees for the re-elections. But the general difpofition of the council was fo ftrongly marked by impartiality on this occafion, that the amendment was carried, to the great furprize of the public; the majority of which, though decidedly inclined to meafures of lenity, was fearful of that preponderance of jacobinifm, which had hitherto exerted fo irrefiftable an influence over all the proceedings of the legiflature.

The council of elders would willingly have confented to the total repeal of the law of the third Brumaire, and embraced, therefore, with readinefs, an opportunity of mitigating its feverity, by affenting to the amendment made by the council of five hundred.

This alteration of that fevere law proved a matter of unexpected triumph to the moderate party, which conftituted a large majority of the nation. The exclufion from pofts of emolument, or of power,

was