HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



175 



Solved it in so many disputes. The 

 death of Robespierre, it was ex- 

 pected, would restore concord 

 among them, from the evident ne- 

 cessity of putting a. period to a 

 spirit of disunion that had been 

 productive of so many fatal conse- 

 quences, and had con tributedy more 

 than any other cause, to the exal- 

 tation of the tyrant to supreme 

 power. But that genius of discord 

 which had wrought siich mischief, 

 seemed inseparably annexed to the 

 conductors of the revolution.— 

 When no longer oppressed with 

 fears they became d;stractcd with 

 jealousies, as if they had not a suf- 

 licient lield for their abilities with- 

 out exercising them to the detri- 

 ment of each other. Scarce a 

 month had elapsed since the death 

 of Robespierre, when a quarrel of 

 a roost serious nature broke out 

 among those who had been the 

 principal agenff in his destruction, 

 I'he party in the Convention that 

 ledthe way in eti'ectingthis, thought 

 themselves entitled to a higher de- 

 j;ree of contidenceand applause thaa 

 ilie members of the committees, — 

 who had not dared to declare them- 

 selves and openly join them, till 

 success evidently inclined to their 

 side. It was not therefore equit- 

 able, as they had not participated 

 equally in the danger, that they 

 should have an equal share in the 

 honour accruing from the service 

 that bad been performed, and claim 

 the same proportion of power and 

 popular favour. Th'- public were 

 no strangers to the circumstances 

 alluded to ; but it was no less con- 

 vinced that the committees had act- 

 ed as meritorious a part in that bu- 

 siness as they had been able j and 

 was not pleased at a dissention ari- 

 sing from motives merely personal. 



The party inimical to the cotnmit- 

 lees resolved^ however, to proceed 

 against them, and, on the 29th of 

 August, laid before the Convention 

 an accusation against Barrere, Bil- 

 laud Varennes, Collot D'Herbois, 

 Vadier, Amar, and David; the last 

 had been a iirm adherent to Robes- 

 pierre at that meeting of the Jaco- 

 bins where he made his last ap- 

 pearance, and excited such invec- 

 tives and denunciations against the 

 Convention. David had espoused' 

 his cause in the most explicit man- 

 ner, and weiit so far as to embrace 

 Robespierre, and to assure him,that 

 if he was condemned to drink hem- 

 lock, like Socrates, he would drink 

 it with him. This attachment did 

 not however diminish the esteem he 

 was held in for his eminence in se- 

 veral of the liberal arts: in that of 

 painting, he was the first man in 

 France. Nor was his attachment 

 to the tyrant imputed to base mo- 

 tives : he was the dupe of Robe- 

 spierre's hypocrisy, rather tlian the 

 interested follower of his fortune. 



The denunciation against those 

 members of' the committee produ- 

 ced a most violent debate ; but they 

 defended themselves with so much 

 judgmentand firmness, and adduced 

 such proper and strong proof of the 

 invalidity of the charges bro.ight 

 against them, that they were ho- 

 nourably acquitted, a;id theacctiia- 

 tion pronounced false and defama- 

 tory. The truth was, that thi>se 

 members of the two committees had 

 acted in conjunction with Robe- 

 spierre on many occasions, whreein 

 they were rather otiicially than in- 

 tentionally concerned j thtry had 

 long be«n desirous to extricate 

 themselves fiom this state of per- 

 plexity ; but inau?picious circum- 

 stancci. had obviated their inten- 

 tions. 



