586 PARIS. 
your fentiments and thofe of your family ; and never was 
it more painful for me to pronounce a refufal. If M. 
Labedoyere had only offended me, his pardon fhould be 
granted ; but all France demands the punifhment of the 
man who has brought upon her all the fcourges of war. 
I promife my proteftion to you and to your child.” The 
mother of the unfortunate man was prevented from feeing 
the king, by thofe around him. 
Col.Labedoyere in the mean time was hurried off tothe 
Plain of Grenelle, where two lines of gendarmes were 
drawn up, to carry the fentence into effeft. He refufed 
to have his eyes bandaged ; and, taking off his hat, faid to 
the foldiers, “ Surtuut ue me manquez pas — tirez!" They 
fired, and in an inftant lie was no more; this was at 
lialf-paft five o'clock, Aug. 19, 1815; two hours and a half 
after the confirmation of the fentence. 
The next trial of importance that took place was that 
of Marfhal Ney. This officer, on the return of Louis to 
Paris, left that capital with the intention of retiring to 
a foreign country ; but was arrefted near Aurillac, in Au¬ 
vergne, on the 25th of Auguft. After various delays, it 
was determined that his cafe fhould be fubmitted to a 
court-martial of the firft military division, compofed of 
Marfhal Jourdan as prefident, Marfhals MalTena, Auge- 
reau, and Mortier ; Lieutenant-generals Counts Villatte, 
Claparede, and Maifon. Mafiena, at the opening of the 
proceedings on the 9th of November, urged, as a ground 
for declining the judicial office, an old-grudge, origina¬ 
ting in fome differences which had taken place between 
Ney and himfelf in Spain. This confcientious fcruple 
being overruled by his colleagues, the trial began with 
the reading of fome examinations of the prifoner by the 
prefeft of the police, the depofitions of witneffes who had 
already been examined, and a mafs of papers relative to the 
conduct of the accufed. The reading of thefe documents 
being finifhed on the 10th, Ney was brought before the 
court, but refufed to anfwer any queftions, on the ground 
of the incompetency of that tribunal. His advocate, to 
whom he left the expofition of the grounds of his pro- 
telf, refted his arguments of incompetency on three pofi- 
tions : 1. That, by the charter, all crimes of high treafon 
muff: be tried by the peers of the accufed. 2. That peers 
cannot be tried criminally except by peers. 3. That, even 
fuppofing a marfhal to be amenable to military law, the 
compofition of that tribunal was not legal, becaufe mar¬ 
fhals, as grand dignitaries of the empire, bear no analogy 
to commanders-in-chief, who muff be tried by officers of 
the fame rank. The members of the court retired to con- 
fiderthefe objeftions, and on their return, in half-an-hour, 
ftated, that by a majority of 5 to 2 they declared themfelves 
incompetent to try Marfhal Ney. 
This unexpefted decifion, although extremely morti¬ 
fying to the king and his minifters, produced no hefita- 
tion as to the farther Heps which ought to be taken. On 
the nth the minifters, with the duke of Richelieu at 
their head, repaired to the Chamber of Peers to commu¬ 
nicate a royal ordinance, directing the chamber, in con¬ 
formity to the 33d article of the Charter., to proceed im¬ 
mediately to the trial of Marfhal Ney. The duke, in an 
energetic fpeech, in which he did not difguife the difap- 
pointed feelings of his majelty’s government, conjured 
the chamber to crufh the hopes of a malevolent faftion, 
to aft with promptitude, and not to fuller a longer im¬ 
punity of crime to engender new miferies. This was a 
pretty good hint as to what the king, in his paternal 
goodnefs, expefted and wifhed fhould be the ilfue of the 
trial. The chamber accordingly determined on the 13th 
to proceed to the trial, and fixed the opening of it for 
the 21 ft. 
Ney meanwhile, “ in his laft extremity,” as he exprefles 
himfelf, addreffed a memorial to the minifters of the four 
great allied powers^ demanding from them and their 
courts the protection which he claimed under the 12th ar¬ 
ticle of the Military Convention of July, before referred 
to. By that article, “the lives and properties of the Irf-* 
habitants, and all perfons in general who were then iri 
Paris, werefecured from all inoleftation on account of the 
functions which they held, or their political conduCl or 
opinions.” He contends, that, as this Convention was 
figned by the Britiffi and Pruffian generals on the part of 
the allied powers, of whom Louis XVIII. was one, the 
King of France is equally bound to the obfervance of its 
conditions with every other member of the confederacy ; 
and that, independently of this virtual affent, the Conven¬ 
tion afterwards received the exprefs fanftion of his majefty 
on entering the capital. He concludes with declaring, 
that, had it not been for his implicit reliance on the word 
of fo many fovereigns, he would have retired to fome 
country where he was unknown, to bury himfelf in ob- 
feurity. To this memorial the duke of Wellington 
briefly anfwered, that the Convention related merely to 
the military occupation of Paris; that it was defigned 
for the protection of the inhabitants from any meafures 
of feverity under the military authority of thofe who con¬ 
cluded it ; but was never intended to tie up the hands of 
the then exifting French government or any other which 
might fucceed it, from aCtingas it might think fit. 
The chamber of peers met on the day appointed ; and, 
after about a fortnight’s delay allowed for the fummon- 
ingof witneffes, Ney was brought, on the 4th of December, 
before that tribunal. As the faCt of his treafonable con¬ 
duct in deferting the caufe of the king, and joining Bona¬ 
parte with the force under his command, could not be 
controverted, the defence of his counfel principally aimed 
at a palliation of his guilt, founded on the alleged diffi¬ 
culty of the fituation of the marfhal, who was hurried 
away by the force of circumftances. It was alfo urged at 
the trial, as it had previoufly been in a note addreffed 
to the duke of Wellington, that the Convention con¬ 
cluded for the furrender of Paris held out fecurity to the 
perfons and property of its inhabitants, whatever might 
have been their political conduCl anterior to that event. 
The minifters fhamefully contended that this convention 
had no reference to the king’s difpofitions and rights 
as fovereign of the country, that he never acceded to it, 
and that confequently he could not be bound by any of its 
provilions. 
M. Dupin, his advocate, then attempted another mode 
of defence, which will appear rather lingular: “The 
marfhal (faid he) is not merely under the proteClion of 
the French laws ; he is under the protection of the law of 
nations. I fpeak not now of the Convention, but of the 
limits traced by the Treaty of the 20th of November, 
wdiich certainly is an aft folemn and legal, which vve may 
invoke, fince it is to that we owe the happy peace we now 
enjoy. The Treaty of the 20th of November, in tracing 
a new line round France, has left on the right Sarrebruck, 
the country of the marfhal. The marfhal, Frenchman as 
he is in heart, is no longer a Frenchman fince the treaty.” 
Here the accufed with great vehemence interrupted his 
advocate: “ I am a Frenchman ! I will die a Frenchman ! 
I thank my counfel for what they have done, and are 
ready to do ; but defire them rather to ceafe defending me 
at all than to defend me in this way. I forbid my coun¬ 
fel from faying a word more.” 
M. Bellart, after a conference with the king’s minifters, 
faid, “ Since the marfhal renounces all furtherdefence, we 
renounce the right of reply. I ffiall nowprefent the requi¬ 
sition, upon which the chamber will retire to deliberate.” 
The chamber having deliberated fix hours, brought in 
the expefted verdift, declaring the unfortunate marfhal 
guilty of high treafon, and condemned him to fuffer death. 
There were 160 peers prefent: 139 voted for the punifh¬ 
ment of death; 17 for banifhment, (deportation;) 4 re¬ 
fufed to vote at all; three upon the principle that it is not 
lawful for one man to decide upon the life of another, 
and one (the duke de Choifeul) laid that, having himfelf 
been more than once condemned to death during the re¬ 
volution. 
