at ih eh [Foie ir Tb! 
BAILLY IS CALLED AS 
THE QUEEN. — HIS OWN TRIAL BEFORE THE REV- 
a) 
A WITNESS IN THE TRIAL OF 
OLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL. — HIS CONDEMNATION TO 
DEATH.— HIS EXECUTION. — IMAGINARY DETAILS 
ADDED BY ILL-INFORMED HISTORIANS TO WHAT 
THAT ODIOUS AND FRIGHTFUL. EVENT ALREADY 
PRESENTED. 
Bailly, under the weight of a capital accusation, and 
precisely on account of a portion of the acts imputed to 
Marie Antoinette, was heard as a witness in the trial of 
that princess. The annals of tribunals, either ancient 
or modern, never offered any thing like this. What did — 
they hope for? To lead our colleague to make inexact 
declarations, or to concealments from a feeling of immi- 
nent personal danger? ‘To suggest the thought to him 
to save his own head at the expense of that of an un- 
happy woman? ‘To make virtue finally stagger? At 
all events, this infernal combination failed; with a man 
like Bailly it could not succeed. 
* Do you know the accused?” said the President to 
Bailly. “Oh! yes, I do know her!” answered the 
witness, in a tone of emotion, and bowing respectfully to 
Marie Antoinette. Bailly then protested with horror 
against the odious imputations that the act of accusation 
had put into the mouth of the young dauphin. From 
that moment Bailly was treated with great harshness. 
He seemed to have lost in the eyes of the tribunal the 
character of a witness, and to have become the accused. 
The turn that the debates took would really authorize us 
to call the sitting in which the queen was condemned, (in 
which she figured ostensibly as the only one accused,) the 
trial of Marie Antoinette and of Bailly. What signified, 
10 * 
