84] 
that, had been exercised over the 
people, and the convention. ‘To 
the courage of this body the down- 
fall of oppression was due. ‘The 
accused members. alleged, in their 
exculpation, that Roberspierre and 
St. Just were the authors of the 
atrocities committed by the orders 
issued under their direction; but 
why did not the members re- 
monstrate against those orders ? 
why did they not refuse to sign 
them? Roberspierre had absented 
himself forty days from the com- 
mittee, and St, Just was gone to 
the armies, and yet these members 
issued those orders. Sueh was the 
substance of the reports presented 
to the convention, in the beginning 
of March, by the commissioners 
it had appointed for that pur- 
pose. 
These were heavy and grievous 
charges, and not ill-founded, in the 
apprehension of those who reflected 
on the intimacy that had subsisted 
between Roberspierre and those 
members who were ostensibly the 
direct and immediate agents under 
him: but they asserted in their de- 
fence, that the jacobin club, and 
the revolutionary tribunal, were, 
in conjunction wiih him, the real 
aGtors in whatever he directed. 
Dumas, president ct the revolution. 
ary tribunal, and Coflinhail, a head 
of the jacobins, concerted with him 
all his measures; the committees 
were passive, and unuble to oppose 
them; the convention alone was 
equal to, sticha task: the tyran- 
nical laws, that gave almostabsolute 
power to Robetspierre, and em- 
powered him to shed so inch blood, 
had never been discussed in the 
committee, and were carried to the 
convention by, him and Coutkon, 
ANNUAL REGISTER; 1795. 
had been accessary to the tyranny 
as soon as they had framed them.. 
It were hard to impeach the com-: 
mittee for the crimes of the depu- 
ties to the different departments,. 
for those committed by the two hun- 
dred and fifty thousand members 
of the revolutionary committees 
throughout France, or for the cre. 
cation of six popular commissions, 
for which Roberspierre obtained a 
decree from the convention. The 
committee threw as many jobstacles 
and delays as they were able in the 
formation of these commissions. 
Roberspierre compelled the framing 
of two, which fortunately came too. 
late for his purposes. 
The case of the denounced mem-= 
bers was ably argued by' Carnot and 
Lindet, who had been their col. 
leagues in the committee of public 
safety, under Roberspicrre. During 
his empire, said they, every man 
trembled for his safety, and all his 
commands were implicitly obeyed. 
None of those members of the con. 
vention, who so inexorably ‘cons 
demmned the obnoxious members, 
would probably have dared to act 
otherwise than they did, driven by 
compulsion, and unable to resist. 
The generality of men allowed these 
reasonings to be valid. Notwith- 
standing that they lodked on the 
accused members as implicated in 
the criminal conduét of Roberspierre,y 
still they absolved thei of his atro- 
cious designs, and were willing to 
consider them as acquiescent in his 
orders, merely from the total inabi- 
lity to prevent their execution, and 
from the dread of becoming instant-. 
ly the viciims of their disobedi. 
ence, 
While the trial of these oohetal ; 
which commenced before the con- 
vention on the twenty-second of 
March, was pending, ,and it yet 
appeared 
