#mathiez

I love him your honor.

"Robespierre, l'amant de la patrie" translates as "Robespierre, lover of the fatherland". Quite cringy but it was written by a descendant of the Duplay familly who had heard so much about him from his relatives that he wanted to put their memories on paper to save them for posterity. I have not read much of it yet, but I'll post anything of interest.

Albert Mathiez, historian and convinced Robespierrist, also admirer of Momoro

Text extract from Mathiez's "La mère de Momoro"

The printer Momoro, who was one of the most capable and convinced leaders of the Hébertist party, did not play a mediocre role in the Parisian revolution—quite the opposite!

As the editor of the journal of the Cordeliers Club, he was included in the prosecutions against the republicans after the unfortunate Champ de Mars affair. The week he then spent in prison brought him the sympathy and support of the sans-culottes. He joined the directory of the Paris department after August 10 and was assigned several missions by the Executive Council.

Raised to honors, he remained simple and profoundly democratic. He died as poor as he had lived.

The day after his execution, Fouquier-Tinville wrote to the administrators of the Doubs department on Germinal 5, Year II, inviting them to confiscate, for the benefit of the Republic, the properties that the condemned Momoro might own in Besançon, where he was born in the Parish of Saint-Pierre, on November 13, 1755.

At that time, Momoro’s father, who had worked as a shoemaker, was already dead. But his mother, who had taken a job as a servant after her husband's death, was still alive.

When the commissioners of the Besançon district went to her home, she had just died, probably from the shock of the news of her son's execution.

“Today, Germinal 11, Year II of the Republic, at eleven o'clock in the morning, we, Jean François Denisot, member of the general council of the Besançon district, appointed by order of the same district on this day to affix seals at the home of the mother of the named Momoro, who has just suffered the death penalty in Paris, and having with us François-Joseph Bernard as our secretary clerk, we went to the home of citizen Forno, a war commissioner, where the said Momoro was a cook. There, we invited citizen Forno to show us the room of the said Momoro, to which she replied that she had died the previous night but was ready to introduce us to the room she occupied.”

Twelve Who Ruled

Danton and the English gold (Albert Mathiez)

The more archives are explored, the more the figure of Danton, embellished by the most questionable of legends, resumes its real physiognomy, as it had appeared to his contemporaries, a sinister and dubious physiognomy.

Our ambassador in London, La Luzerne, wrote to the Comte de Montmorin, our minister of Foreign Affairs, in his dispatch of 29 November 1789, the following phrases: « I have said (to the Duc d'Orléans, then on extraordinary mission in London) that there were two particular Englishmen in Paris, one called Danton and the other called Paré, which some persons suspect of being the most particular agents of the English government… I do not know if one has conducted research in order to know if they really lived in Paris. »

At that time, Danton was still mostly unknown. His name had hardly exceeded the outer wall of the Cordeliers district. The press did not know it. The manner itself in which our ambassador expresses himself about him is very curious. He believes that Danton, which he undoubtedly pronounced Dantonne in English, is an English citizen. It is remarkable that he associated the name of Paré, his head clerk, to him. Everything he knows about these two individuals, and he knows this to the point of affirming it without diplomatic circumlocutions, is that they are being suspected « of being the most particular agents of the English government », and he asks the minister to conduct investigations regarding them.

Danton spoke the English language perfectly. He would take refuge in England, in August 1791, when being troubled for his participation in the riot of the Champ du Mars. He had friends from the other side of the Channel. He would constantly uphold contact with them. In October 1792, his half-brother Recordain, son of the second husband of his mother, lived in London and wrote letters to him in English, in order to prove to him that he had made progress in his knowledge of this language.

An English historian, M. Alger, who particularly dealt with those of his compatriots who have been involved in the French Revolution, tells us that Danton's cousin, Mergez (whom he wrongly spelled Merget), the same who was secretary of Dumoriez, if memory serves, married the daughter of the playwright Holcroft in England. Mergez was in England at the same time as Recordain.

Mr Alger has rediscovered a curious letter in the Archives nationales, which he published in an article of the Athenæum that remained unnoticed in France ; the letter was addressed by the Foreign Office to the banker Perregaux and today apepars in the papers of Danon that were sealed at the time of his arrest. This is the letter, which I have verified by comparing it to the original:

Whitehall, Friday 13.

The information which you have lately sent us has been very satisfactory, and gives heartfelt satisfaction to 12. We desire you to continue your exertions and to advance 3,000 livres to Mr C.D., 12,000 to W.T., and 1,000 to De M. for the essential services they have rendered us en soufflant le feu and carrying the Jac..... to a paroxysm of fury. We hope that by their endeavours and those of others whom we shall soon send over, the old 7 will be again re-established, or at least the present O prolonged for several years. Staley brought your last. We are determined to grant C.D's request. You'll be pleased to advance him the 18,000 livres, and be kind enough to assist him in discovering the channels in which the money may be most successfully distributed. We have a great deal of business to transact today in the office, which circumstance obliges me to subscribe myself pro S.....e.

Your most obedient and humble servant.

There is something in this letter testing the sagacity of critics. First of all, why is this letter among the papers of Danton? M. Alger gives an unacceptable explanation for this. He recalls that Perregaux was compromised in an attempted evasion of the Duc du Châtelet, who was arrested and whose papers were sealed. The compromising letter, which we have reproduced, would have been sent to Danton in order for him to translate it. But at the time of the arrest of Perregaux, at the end of Frimaire Year II, Danton had ceased to be a member of the Committee of Public Safety for a long time. He never appeared in the Committee of General Security. It was Cambon who was charged by these two committees to report on the Perregaux affair. Well, Cambon spoke English and he defied Danton since the opening of the Convention ; later, he would be one of the most persistent accusers of Danton. How can one suppose that Cambon would have asked for the help of Danton, his enemy, in order to decipher an English document which he himself could read at first sight. This supposition is blatantly improbable. If Cambon had discovered a such document among the papers of Perregaux, he would undoubtedly not have pronounced , as he did in his report of 3 Nivôse, that the banker, who was then released, was innocent!

At this time, the letter was already in possession of Danton. Who could have conveyed it to him, if not Perregaux himself before his arrest?

Why did Perregaux send the letter to Danton after its reception, if not because it affected Danton directly?

There is no more reason to dwell on another supposition of M. Alger, according to was the Duc du Châtelet who was the one indicated by the initials C. D. in the English document. Undoubtedly, the duke Louis-Marie-Florent du Châtelet, former colonel of the French Guards, who had been condemned to death for emigration on 23 Frimaire Year II, attempted to corrupt his guardians by offering a cheque of 100,000 livres on the Perregaux bank to them, but nothing, absolutely nothing indicates that England had something to do with this affair. Having been verified after the arrest of Perregaux, it was acknowledged that du Châtelet had never had a deposit in this bank and that he was boasting about an imaginary credit. This is why Cambon concluded that Perregaux was innocent. The supposition of M. Alger therefore has no basis. Incidentally, the Duc de Châtelet did not appear at the Jacobins, and there is no apparent reason why England would have sent money to him in order to reward his action in the club.

The brutal fact remains. The compromising piece, which quite evidently proves that the English government paid revolutionaries wearing red caps in Paris  in order to maintain anarchy, this piece appears in the papers of Danton that were seized at his house during his arrest.

Le Staley, who played the role of a courier between Paris and London, could well be the Stanley which the observator Francqueville denounces an agent of Pitt in his report of 28 Frimaire Year II. This Stanley actually indulged, in the section Mutius Scævola, in demagogic excesses. « Everyday, one can hear bitter complaints against certain members of the revolutionary Committees renewing themselves, wrote the observer Le Harivel in his report of 10 Nivôse. Stanley, a member of the [revolutionary committee] of the section Mutius Scævola, was described as a dangerous man in several reports ; one assures that the arbitrary vexations which he practised every day aim to exhaust all good citizens, to make them disgusted with the Revolution, that he intended to destroy like an agent of Pitt ; this man, being a foreigner, should not be, one said, member of any administration. »

The piece that was seized at the home of Danton bears no other date than Friday 13. Mr Alger believes that it must be Friday, 13 September, and this assumption is plausible. It was, in fact, in September 1793 that the most revolutionary measures succeeded one another at great speed (Law of Suspects, arrest of bankers, General Maximum etc.) The Jacobins could then appear to the Foreign Office at a « paroxysm of fury ».

Now, who are the individuals that were bribed by the English gold to arouse this fury?

They were quite evidently not individuals without influence. The important sums, which the Foreign Office charged Perregaux to put at their disposal, prove that [these individuals] were leaders. One of them, C.D., demanded an advance of 18,000 livres in order to distribute it among lower rank clubistes and it was granted to him. This C.D. has to be an important figure.

These initials reappear twice in the English missive. The first time, they are preceded by the letter Mr (which Mr Alger has forgotten in his transcription). This means Master or, in French, Monsieur. This is another indication that the Monsieur is a somebody.

Can we go further and attempt to figure out the names which these mysterious initials conceal?

Mr Alger has made two assumptions: « Those who believe, he says, in the venality of Danton can suppose that C. D. signifies ‹ Citoyen Danton › and that Perregaux has given the letter to him. » But Mr Alger is too respectful towards a great reputation in order to stop for a single moment at an assumption which he considers unbelievable. However, one has to remember that the truth can sometimes be unlikely.  

Mr Alger also wonders if C. D. designated Camille Desmoulins, if De M. concealed Mergez, Danton's nephew. I do not believe that Mergez would have played any role at the Jacobins at that time. Furthermore, the De which precedes the M renders the assumption little likely.

Finally, Mr Alger supposes that 12 could mean Grenville or Pitt, 7 the monarchy and O anarchy. This is very likely.

Whatever it be, there is no doubt that England maintained agents at the Jacobins that were charged with driving the club towards the route of demagogic overbidding, and there is equally no doubt that the letter which opened a credit at the Perregaux bank in order to pay them appears in Danton's papers.

There is also no doubt that out ambassador in London, La Luzerne, from November 1789 onwards, considered Danton and his clerk Paré to be agents of the English government charged with arousing troubles in Paris.

Finally, there is no doubt that, in the course of Danton's trial, the members of the Committee of General Security who pursued the charge, Amar, Voulland and Vadier among, others, have conveyed to the judges, in the Council Chamber, a secret piece which determined their conviction. Could this secret piece not have been the letter of the Foreign Office?

Nonetheless, I do not demand that Mr Aulard should be invited to make amends at the bottom of Danton's statue.

The Dantonists and clemency (Albert Mathiez)

In the end of 1793, the exterior and interior peril had been warded off… From then on, it seemed to Danton that the regime of the Terror no longer had a raison d'être.

Albert Malet

The handbooks which represent the Terror as the necessary instrument of national defence nonetheless compliment the Dantonists for having wanted to suppress the emergency laws. These had fallen victim, if we believe them, victim to their generosity and their clemency. But if the Terror, which has played the same role in this crisis as in our état de siège [during WW I] , was indispensable to victory, how can one praise those who would have wanted to deliver France from it without contradiction? The handbooks endure the embarrassment through a distinguished chronology. They explain that Danton and his friends only demanded the relaxation of the Terror when it had become useless, after the victories had been obtained over the interior and exterior enemies.

This explanation does not hold up to scrutiny. A good calendar suffices in order to do justice.

The truth is that the Dantonists have fought the Terror even before it was definitely organised ; the truth is that their offensive against the Committee of Public Safety dates from the era of defeats and not of victories ; the truth is that their alleged clemency was inspired by private interests of the least respectable order ; the truth is that, if the convention had listened to them, it would have hurled France into the abyss.

It is a well-known fact that the revolutionary government, in other words the centralisation of all services in the hand of the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security, was only instituted by the law of 14 Frimaire Year II (4 December 1793), voted following the report of Billaud-Varenne. Through this law, which was a veritable wartime constitution, as one said, the different measures, whose ensemble constituted the regime of the Terror, were defined and coordinated in detail. Henceforth, instead of a chaotic and vague system, there was a government that was highly organised with rigorously defined organs.

The law was not yet promulgated that Camille Desmoulins launched his Vieux Cordelier, whose first issue appeared exactly on 15 Frimaire, against the Terror.

Economic centralisation accompanied political centralisation, but it was even slower to be organised. In order to nourish the armies and the cities, the terrorists continued to resort to requisition and taxes, in other words to the maximum. Well, the general maximum, voted on 29 September 1793, was only applied slowly. The central commission des subsistances, which was then still the ministère de ravitaillement, was only created on 22 October, and it was only on 3 Ventôse (21 February 1794) that Barère presented the tables of the maximum, which this committee had prepared, to the Convention. The Dantonist offensive against the Committee of Public Safety occurred during the economic reorganisation, and this is not surprising if one considers that the Dantonists had directly or indirectly fought the taxes and requisitions and defended freedom of trade.

The first effort of the Dantonists to overthrow the Committee dates 25 September, at a time where the Law of Suspects, a feature of the regime, had hardly become effective, at a time where the military situation caused the sharpest apprehensions inside and outside of the Republic. Let us recall some dates. It was on 17 October that Saint-Just and Lebas were sent to the army of the Rhine in order to save Strasbourg, in danger since the loss of the lines of Wissembourg. It was on 2 November (12 Brumaire Year II) that Hoche took command of the Army of the Moselle. He began with failures. On 8, 9, 10 Frimaire, he was pushed back to Kaiserslautern. This was the moment that Danton chose, returning from Arcis-sur-Aube, in order to openly assume leadership of the campaign for clemency. He demanded, on 2 Frimaire, « the economy of the blood of men » at the Convention, and, on 6 Frimaire, he declared that the Terror had to be « taken back to its true goal ».

Whereas Lyon had been taken back on 9 October, after a long siege, Toulon, having been delivered to the English by the royalists, always resisted. The Vendée extended to the north of the Loire, and, on 10 Frimaire (30 November), the Committee was obliged to withdraw a division of 10,000 men from the army of the Western Pyrenees in order to send them to the East.

The Dantonists blamed the slowness of the siege of Toulon, the failures of the Armies of the Rhine and of the Vendée, to the incapacity of the minister of war and of the generals, and on 22 Frimaire, they directed a successful parliamentary assault against the Committee of Public Safety, responsible for their choices. Fortunately, the Convention, which had firstly voted the renewal of the Committee, corrected itself on the following day and retained them in power. The good news which reached Paris in rapid succession shattered the Dantonist effort.

On 4 Nivôse (24 December 1793), Barère announced the recapture of Toulon by reading a letter of Dugommier dated 29 Frimaire, and, on the same day, the minister of war Bouchotte conveyed the letter of Hoche, dated 2 Nivôse, to the Assembly, which announced the victory of Geisberg. The Vendéans had already been defeated at Le Mans on 22 Frimaire.

But let us remember that the opposition of the Indulgents preceded these victories and that this opposition profited from the anxiety and from the uncertainty which lingered over these events. On the same day where they had attempted to overthrow the Committee of Public Safety, on 22 Frimaire, they made a deputation of women appear at the bar of the Assembly which came to demand the opening of the prisons.

Robespierre could say with credibility that the capture of Toulon was « a personal setback » for the Dantonists and that « the triumph of the Republic will disconcert their projects ».

I believe to have demonstrated, in my book Danton et la paix, that the Indulgents did not believe in victory and that they would have desired an immediate peace with the enemy, a peace which they would have paid for, outside of France, with the abandonment of the reunited peoples who had believed our promises, and, within France, with the amnesty, with the return of the émigrés and even with a restoration. The clemency which they aligned themselves with, the end of the Terror which they demanded, were only the preface and the condition for their policy of peace.

But it was not only because they did not believe in victory that the Indulgents wanted to halt the Terror, they had motives of another kind, personal motives, as Saint-Just brutally summarised in this sentence: « They want to shatter the scaffolds because they are afraid of walking onto them! » Men of pleasure for the most part, they were compromised in dirty businesses, among which the scandal of the liquidation of the East India Company is the most famous. Danton was directly involved in the latter affair, and it was on the day after it broke out that he suddenly returned from Arcis-sur-Aube in order to begin the campaign for clemency. He already felt the cold of the national razor on his neck.

Robespierre’s speeches for the Festival of the Supreme Being

Today is the anniversary of the Festival of the Supreme Being, which was celebrated on 20 Prairial Year II (8 June 1794). To find out more about it, take a look at Albert Mathiez’ excellent article, “Robespierre & Religion”. Have a nice day, citizens!

First speech to the reunited people for the Festival of the Supreme Being

The day forever fortunate has arrived, which the French people have consecrated to the Supreme Being. Never has the world which He created offered to Him a spectacle so worthy of His notice. He has seen reigning on the earth tyranny, crime, and imposture. He sees at this moment a whole nation, grappling with all the oppressions of the human race, suspend the course of its heroic labors to elevate its thoughts and vows toward the great Being who has given it the mission it has undertaken and the strength to accomplish it.

Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice?

He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.

It is He who implanted in the breast of the triumphant oppressor remorse and terror, and in the heart of the oppressed and innocent calmness and fortitude. It is He who impels the just man to hate the evil one, and the evil man to respect the just one. It is He who adorns with modesty the brow of beauty, to make it yet more beautiful. It is He who makes the mother's heart beat with tenderness and joy. It is He who bathes with delicious tears the eyes of the son pressed to the bosom of his mother. It is He who silences the most imperious and tender passions before the sublime love of the fatherland. It is He who has covered nature with charms, riches, and majesty. All that is good is His work, or is Himself. Evil belongs to the depraved man who oppresses his fellow man or suffers him to be oppressed.

The Author of Nature has bound all mortals by a boundless chain of love and happiness. Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!

Republican Frenchmen, it is yours to purify the earth which they have soiled, and to recall to it the justice that they have banished! Liberty and virtue together came from the breast of Divinity. Neither can abide with mankind without the other.

O generous People, would you triumph over all your enemies? Practice justice, and render the Divinity the only worship worthy of Him. O People, let us deliver ourselves today, under His auspices, to the just transports of a pure festivity. Tomorrow we shall return to the combat with vice and tyrants. We shall give to the world the example of republican virtues. And that will be to honor Him still !

Second speech of the president of the Convention, in the moment where atheism, consumed by the flames, has disappeared, and where wisdom appeared in its place in the eyes of the people

The monster which the genius of kings had vomited over France has gone back into nothingness. May all the crimes and all the misfortunes of the world disappear with it! Armed in turn with the daggers of fanaticism and the poisons of atheism, kings have always conspired to assassinate humanity. If they are able no longer to disfigure Divinity by superstition, to associate it with their crimes, they try to banish it from the earth, so that they may reign there alone with crime.

O People, fear no more their sacrilegious plots! They can no more snatch the world from the breast of its Author than remorse from their own hearts. Unfortunate ones, uplift your eyes toward heaven! Heroes of the fatherland, your generous devotion is not a brilliant madness. If the satellites of tyranny can assassinate you, it is not in their power entirely to destroy you. Man, whoever thou mayest be, thou canst still conceive high thoughts for thyself. Thou canst bind thy fleeting life to God, and to immortality. Let nature seize again all her splendor, and wisdom all her empire! The Supreme Being has not been annihilated.

It is wisdom above all that our guilty enemies would drive from the republic. To wisdom alone it is given to strengthen the prosperity of empires. It is for her to guarantee to us the rewards of our courage. Let us associate wisdom, then, with all our enterprises. Let us be grave and discreet in all our deliberations, as men who are providing for the interests of the world. Let us be ardent and obstinate in our anger against conspiring tyrants, imperturbable in dangers, patient in labors, terrible in striking back, modest and vigilant in successes. Let us be generous toward the good, compassionate with the unfortunate, inexorable with the evil, just toward every one. Let us not count on an unmixed prosperity, and on triumphs without attacks, nor on all that depends on fortune or the perversity of others. Sole, but infallible guarantors of our independence, let us crush the impious league of kings by the grandeur of our character, even more than by the strength of our arms.

Frenchmen, you war against kings; you are therefore worthy to honor Divinity. Being of Beings, Author of Nature, the brutalized slave, the vile instrument of despotism, the perfidious and cruel aristocrat, outrages Thee by his very invocation of Thy name. But the defenders of liberty can give themselves up to Thee, and rest with confidence upon Thy paternal bosom. Being of Beings, we need not offer to Thee unjust prayers. Thou knowest Thy creatures, proceeding from Thy hands. Their needs do not escape Thy notice, more than their secret thoughts. Hatred of bad faith and tyranny burns in our hearts, with love of justice and the fatherland. Our blood flows for the cause of humanity. Behold our prayer. Behold our sacrifices. Behold the worship we offer Thee!

« By completely refusing this calumny, we believe to have also brought our stone to the monument which Paris prepares to Danton. »

A. Aulard, 14 January 1889.

One has accused the financial administration of Danton at the Ministry of Justice frequently and very sharply at the time. One said that he had filled his pockets and the ones of his friends. The accusers are not only [writers] of memoirs, but colleagues of Danton, men whom he encountered at the Executive Council or the Convention, members of his own party. They have not expressed their accusations behind the back of the accused and afterwards. They have put him on trial at the tribune, and, [even] if the Convention, after various opposing debates, after having heard the accused in his defence, refused to condemn [him], it also refused to absolve [him].

At the dawn of the parliamentary system, the ministerial responsibility was not yet an empty word. The Constitution of 1791 had stipulated that the ministers were responsible « for any dissipation of the funds [that were] intended for the spendings of their department » (Section IV, art. 5) and that they were required « to give a report on their use » (art. 6). The first Assemblies have required from all ministers, [when laying down their office], a moral and financial account of their administration. The Legislative Assembly had fixed the process to follow by the decree of 26 March 1792 which only leaves fifteen days to the minister [who laid down his office] for presenting his account.

The reddition des comptes of the ministers was no simple formality. Their memoirs were examined carefully on documentary evidence. Thus, at the session of 24 October 1792, Borie made a report on accounts of Beaulieu, who had been Minister of Public Contributions before 10 August. The Convention refused to approve these accounts and adjourned their examination.

Danton resigned from the Ministry of Justice on 21 September 1792, on the same day where the Convention assembled. However, he remained in office until the nomination of his successor and he continued, a few more days, to sit at the Council.

On 6 October, he addressed at the Convention the account of his administration. It was an account [that was] both moral and financial. In the first part, he presented how he [oversaw the implementation of] the decrees that were within his remit and, in the second [part], he presented the use of a sum of one hundred thousand livres which he had received for extraordinary expenses. One read there among other things:

« Delivered to M. Santerre in order to pay for the pikes [that were] made in the sections, thirty thousand livres...

Paid as extraordinary gratification of function at the end of each quarter to all the employees in the offices of the Ministry of Justice, [6,590] livres...

Price of the furniture [which was] bought for the apartment [that was] occupied by M. Robert, head of private secretaries, according to the estimation given by an upholsterer, 2,400 livres...

For costs of circulars and posters in Paris, fifteen hundred livres, etc. »

The total of the sums [that were] spent by Danton on the funds of extraordinary spendings amounted to 68,684 livres. He had received 100,000 livres in this domain. He declared to have 31,316 livres of the fund [left].

After having heard the reading of this account, the Convention sent it to the examination of its Committee of Finances.

On October 10, that is only four days later, Mallarmé gave a report in the name of the Committee of Finances and recalled that, on the previous 28 August, upon the news of the taking of Longwy, the Legislative Assembly had put at the disposal of the ministers a total sum of two million [livres], of which a million [livres were] for extraordinary spendings and a million [livres were] for secret spendings. He then exposed that the sums had to be provided [partly] by the Caisse de l'extraordinaire and [partly] by the National Treasury, which caused « a division in the accounting [that was] contrary to the clarity and to the supervision which have to predominate there ». And he concludes that in the future only the National Treasury was responsible for the accounting of the two million [livres] of extraordinary and secret spendings.

Mallarmé had spoken in general terms, the severe Cambon did not have the same hesitation. He spoke in in very strong terms with regard to the Executive Council and the Ministry of Justice : « In order to enlighten the Assembly, it will not be useless to give a report of the use of these two million [livres] to it. The Executive Council had received them in order to use them en masse. But, by an subsequent order, this sum has been divided between five ministers in equal shares of 400,000 livres. Nothing has been assigned to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because one considered the funds that remained to him sufficient. By thereby dividing the responsibility, one reduced the confidence of the Nation. I then observed at the Legislative body that it was useless to give funds for secret spendings to the Ministers of Justice, of the Interior, of the Navy and of Public Contributions. My reasons did not prevail then. I wanted to know if these two million [livres] were spent. I found that the Minister of Justice had almost spent his 400,000 livres. I was told that a part of this sum of 300,000 livres had been used for the purchase of pikes; but I observe that the minister of Justice could have avoided making this expenditure, because the National Assembly had intended two million [livres] for the fabrication of pikes.

Of the 300,000 livres [that were] delivered to the Minister of Justice, 26,000 livres have been used to pay for the gratifications of the clerks and 34,000 livres remained in the fund. I observe that the way [that was] pursued my the Minister of Justice destroys every order of accounting , because the spendings [that are] made by the ministers have to be paid bit by bit and upon orders, and, therefore, there must never remain sums in the fund... ». After this harsh criticism of the accounts of the extraordinary spendings [that were] made by Danton, Cambon concludes : « I propose to revoke the decree which puts two million [livres] at the disposal of the Executive Council and to limit the sums [that are] destined for its expenditures to the 408,882 livres [that have] already [been] spent. I also propose to decree that the ministers will be required to count [their spendings], even their secret spendings . » The last sentence was obviously [addressed to] Danton who only had spoken in his account of his extraordinary spendings and not of his secret spendings. Cambon sat down [as he was] hailed by intense applause.

What was Danton going to do? Strengthened by his conscience, would he shout in indignation, repulse scornfully the insinuations that were thrown in his face ?

The man of audacity preferred the ingratiating way to indignation. He began by giving a beautiful eulogy of Cambon, as if he believed to disarm his severity thereby: « I do not have anything to object to the system of accounting [that has been] presented by Cambon. It is not [only] today that he successfully exercises the position of the Controller-General of the finances of the Republic ». [After taking] this precaution, Danton hid behind the Executive Council and he tried to justify himself:

« But what he demands has been made by the Executive Council. In my particular [case], I have to declare that I have been as much the adjutant of the Minister of War as the Minister of Justice. If it seemed surprising that the Ministry of Justice has used 200,000 livres [for] secret spendings and nearly [100,000] livres [for] extraordinary spendings, that one recalls that the patrie was in danger, that we were responsible for liberty. We have made our accounts. I have made mine particularly, I believe to have not deserved any reproach in my political conduct. Moreover, I support the proposition of Cambon. »

Danton descends the tribune amidst a icy silence.

The Convention endorses the propositions of Cambon and decreed « that the ministers who have provided orders on the fund of the caisse de l'extraordinaire for secret spendings will justify their use at the provisional Executive Council ». Now, Danton had just declared that he had already given a report of these secret spendings. The Convention thus regarded his declaration as void and inflicted on him the humiliation of having to justify once more at the Executive Council the funds [that were] put at his disposal for these secret spendings. But Danton was not at the end of his troubles.

On 18 October, the Minister of the Interior Roland, in order to submit to the decree of the Convention, took the floor : « I present to the Convention my account of the finances of the past month like I presented it every month. I put on the desk the account of the spendings which I have ordered on the two million [livres] which have been put at the disposal of the ministers, for both secret and extraordinary spendings. Since I know nothing secret and [since] I wish that my administration be brought to light, I pray the Assembly to have these accounts read ». Roland was applauded. He had put a kind of affectation to distinguish his methods from the ones of Danton. Lasource, Secretary of the Assembly, read out his account of secret spendings and extraordinary spendings, [an] account [that was] very detailed. The applause restarted more intensely.

Rebecquy, the fiery deputy of Marseille who had accompanied the fédérés on 10 August, yelled : « I demand that all the ministers give a report like Roland. » 

After Monge, Minister of the Navy, had declared that he did not make any extraordinary or secret spending, Danton, the proud Danton in turn mounted the tribune, but it was in order to take refuge in the distinguo and behind the Executive Council : « I have already told this to the Assembly, I have only acted by order of the Council during my ministry, and the Council though that, according to the decree of the Legislative Assembly, it was only countable en masse ; beside, it is a such spending that one cannot enunciate [it] here; it is a such envoy that it would be impolitic and unjust to reveal [it] ; is is a such revolutionary mission which liberty approves and which causes great financial sacrifices ». That was [the talk of a] true opportunist. The assembly applauded, but Danton had the he had the unfortunate inspiration to continue his explanations: « When the enemy took over Verdun, when la consternation spread even among the best and bravest citizens, The Legislative Assembly tells us : Spare nothing, lavish money, if necessary, in order to revive the confidence and give impetus to all of France. We have done this, we have been pushed to extraordinary spendings ; and for most of these expenses, I confess that we do not have any properly legal quittances. Everything was pushed, everything was made precipitately : you have wished that the ministers act together, he have done this and this is our account ». At these words, the Moniteur notes that murmurs broke out. So Danton sort of asked the question of confidence and he again confessed that his accounts were not in order : « One had to attach a moral confidence to those who have been chosen for making the Revolution ; and it would be very hard, very debasing for patriotic ministers to force them to deliver all the papers which record these extraordinary operations. It is true that Roland had not witnessed the report which the ministers made to each other, but he could help there. Finishing [this speech], I will notice that, if the Council had spent ten million [livres] more, not a single enemy would have left the earth which they have invaded. Moreover, I ask you to only say that the ministers will collectively give account of what they have done together ».

Whether the candour of these confessions touched him, or whether he was responsive to the eulogy which Danton had adressed to him previosuly, or whether he feared that the prolongation of the debate would harm the the Republic, Cambon admitted that one could not require from the ministers a public account of their secret spendings, but he concludes that these accounts should be verified by all ministers [that were] assembled in council and he invited Roland to attend these reports and to then come before the Convention [in order to] reveal the result of its examination.

Interpellated by Cambon, Roland explained once again : « I am very far from blaming the secret spendings [that have been] made by my colleagues in order to carry out the salvation of the res publica, on the contrary, I approve their object ; but I had to declare that I don't know how these spendings had been made and what one has used the funds for [that were] taken from the two million [livres]. I could not know this, it is true, since I have not attended the council where the reports have been given ; but I have searched for their traces in the records of the Council and I have not found them... » That is to say, in terms [that are] as clear as possible, that the accounts which Danton had supposedly given at the Council were fictitious accounts since no written and authentic trace of it remained.

A member cried: « I demand that the record of the Council be verified ».

Danton interrupted [him] : « I observe that the account of the secret spendings does not bear on the record of the Council ». This observation, said the Moniteur, was met by murmurings and sharp interruptions.

Lidon, expressing the thinking of the Girondins, summarized and concludes : « I demand that all ministers be summoned in order to certify whether or not the report had been made and in order to know what is [the account] of Danton or of Roland disguises the truth ».

The Montagnards demanded the order of the day.

The president who was Delacroix, a friend of Danton, put the order of the day to the vote. He proclaimed that the order of the day was adopted. Then there was vehement protest on the Girondin benches. Henry Larivière asked to speak. Lidon proposed a roll call. « We can not move to the order of the day, cried Larivière, when it is about defending the interests of the people and preventing the squandering of its treasures. » Amidst the applause and murmurings that crossed, Camus came to offer to Danton's opponents the support of his high moral authority : « I vote for the décret d'accusation against the ministers that have squandered the finances of the State, unless one proves to me, by presenting the record of the Council, [unless] the report of all expenses whatsoever has been approved. » Camus was applauded. After some moments of tumult, Lasource made decide that a new discussion should start on how the ministers would prove that they have made their reports at the Executive Council properly.

Henry Larivière declared that the intention of the Legislative had been « that every minister would give a report to his colleagues on the sums [that have been] spent by him and that a statement would be made of [all of the spendings] ».

« Thus, he concludes, it is not about requiring today from each minister an individual and public account, but [about] the representation of the general order which they had to make among them, [an] order [that is] all the more necessary since it is the single base of the moral responsibility to which the Executive Council was submitted. » Amidst intense applause, Larivière's proposition was adopted and twenty-four hours [were] given to the Executive Council to prove the deliberation which it had to take in order to prevent the account of the sums [that had been] put at its disposal for secret spendings.

For the second time, the Convention demonstrated [towards] Danton an [evident] hostility, an evident mistrust.

The new decree of the Convention placed the Executive Council in a very awkward situation. It could not prove the deliberation which it was ordered to present within 24 hours since, as Roland had said, this deliberation did not exist. It could not, on the other hand, ask Danton to come into its centre once again and to present his accounts for the second time. It decided to do nothing by simply opposing the force of inertia [to it].

Unfortunately, Danton made the mistake, a few days later, to reawaken the prejudices whose object he was by interfering at the tribune in a financial affair, the affair of Guillaume, director of the maison de secours, [a] bank that had issued billets de confiance and that went bankrupt due to maladministration.

Since the holders of the bills of the maison de secours were common people, the Commune of Paris persistently appealed to the National Assembly in order to obtain the funds [that were] necessary for the reimbursement of the creditors. On 28 September, it demanded two million [livres]. Cambon opposed this demand and rose vigorously against the horde of speculators that had issued billets de confiance in order to steal from the people. Danton, on the contrary, tried to defend the demand of the Commune : « The Assembly will not wish, he said, that the indigent citizen would be victim of the defect of laws in order to repress speculation. »

This was only a skirmish. A new and great debate began on 25 and 26 October and, once again, Danton and Cambon clashed.

On this date, the affair Guillaume was complicated. On 24 October, the banker had taken flight, taking abroad with him the two municipal officers that were charged with guarding him.

On 25 October, the Commune demanded from the Convention a subsidy of six million [livres] in order to end the liquidation of the bills of the maison de secours. Cambon got angry and made decree, after a vehement speech, that the municipality of Paris be required to provide the status report and the accounts of the maison de secours on the next day at noon and that it would justify the measures which it had to take with regard to the flight of Guillaume and the two commissioners which had accompanied him.

On the next day, the Commune came to fulfil the decree. But, in the moment when its speaker asked the administrator Bidermann to read out the accounts of the maison de secours, one realized that Bidermann was absent. The Convention believed [to have been] fooled. It imagined that this absence was a comedy [that had been] fixed beforehand.

It was then that a very brisk incident occurred when the question of Danton's accounts was brought up.

As the orator of the Commune was interrupted, Danton wanted to support him : « One does not even interrupt a criminal and here one dares to... » Danton could not finish his sentence. Violent murmurs drowned his speech. One demanded that he be called to order and the president, who was Guadet, inflicted this punishment on him. Then the Girondin Lidon yelled: « I demand that the executive power be required to declare, in execution of the decree [that had been] pronounced in a previous session, if every minister has given an account of the use of the sums [that had been] destined for secret and extraordinary spendings. » That was to reopen the whole question of Danton's accounts and it was to reopen it during a debate [that had been] caused by the flight of a bankrupt [person] whose protector Danton was justly suspected to be!

Danton tried to take a risk : « I support this proposition and I will give an account, if it is necessary, of my entire life. But I see that one fiercely prosecutes the good citizens...». Murmurs drowned his voice. Supported by some applause of the tribunes, he wanted to continue. But the Assembly refused to hear him. It proceeded to the order of the day

This serious incident shows well what opinion the majority of the deputies held on Danton's probity. He evidently had the reputation of a politicien d'affaires.

The  Executive Council, in other words the Council of Ministers, at last came out of its torpor and made an effort to seek a solution to the still pending question of the account of the secret spendings. Roland, this is apparent, had wanted to force Danton to present himself once more in front of the council. On 19 October, he had himself registered on the record of the account of his secret spendings which amounted to 51,200 livres and the account of his extraordinary spendings which amounted to 38,425 livres. Lebrun, after him, had ordered to write on the record that he had not decreed any secret or extraordinary spending on the special fund of two million [livres that had been] put at the disposal of the Council after 10 August. But if Lebrun had not touched these two million [livres], it is [the case] that he had much greater resources at disposal for his own ministry. At the moment of the declaration of war, the Legislative had voted a sum of six million [livres] for the secret spendings only of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The six million [livres] of the Foreign Affairs were not only used for diplomatic purposes. The were used for supplying the political police force of the government.

M. Frédéric Masson has set up, in his book The department of foreign affairs during the Revolution, a record of the main beneficiaries of the secret funds [that had been]  distributed by Lebrun. I thank him here for having wished to inform me of this record which does not lack eloquence.

« One paid for the secret police of Paris. Pourvoyeur, the famous agent, received 3,050 livres per month. La Gazette nationale was expensive, as well as the employees of the ministry [that were] paid specially for writing it: Noël, Rosenstiel and Hernandez, one paid Champfort (600 livres per month), Fréron (1,500 livres), then Koch and Fabre d'Églantine; then, there were the apostles which Roland sent to all corners of France, twenty-four commissioners [that were] sent, on 3 September, by the Commune of Paris, in order to preach slaughter (40,000 livres) ; there were the fifty small balloons [that were] fabricated on the order of Dumouriez, by the lord Lallemand de Saint-Charles, in order to spread political writings outside the borders. That was a mission [that was] given to Brune for the army of Dumouriez, on request of Danton. One knows that Camille Desmoulins was close to Danton and that he was linked closely with Brune. There, one finds this series of pamphlets of Condorcet [that were] printed at 3,400 copies : Letter of Condorcet, Unveiled crimes, [a] pamphlet in German, printed at 9,000 [copies] ; Letters of Marval, Notice to the Spanish by Condorcet, the Indépendant issues 1 and 2, Address to the Batavians by Condorcet. There were still agents in London, like Du Roveray, the Genevois, former collaborator of Mirabeau (16,800 livres in September). It was mainly Danton, the minister of massacres. Here, the numbers and dates have their eloquence :

Advances [that were] made to M. Danton.

27 August 1792: 40,000 livres

28 August 1792, to Fabre d'Églantine, secretary-general of the Ministry of Justice one behalf of Danton: 3,050 livres

29 August 1792, to Fabre for the Minister of Justice: 27,000 livres

29 August 1792, to Danton: 30,000 livres

2 September 1792, to the same: 20,000 livres

2 September 1792, to the same: 3,000 livres

8 September 1792, to the same: 7,625 livres

15 September 1792, to the same: 18,000 livres

27 September 1792, to the same: 7,235 livres »

If we add up these sums [that had been] put by Lebrun at the disposal of Danton in the interval of a month, we arrive at the respectable sum of 147,910 livres. One has to add this sum to the 268,684 livres which Danton spent on the funds that were particularly assigned to him for secret and extraordinary spendings. The extraordinary spendings, the only ones of which he gave a written and detailed account, amounted to 68,684 livres, the secret spendings of Danton thus amounted to 200,000 + 147,910 = 347,910 livres.

We understand then in front of this pretty number that the emotion which was apparent at the Convention was no artificial emotion, caused solely by party interest.

The record [that was] set up by M. Frédéric Masson has been established by him on the accounting records themselves. Its authenticity cannot be questionable.

In order to be perfectly sure, I have written to M. Frédéric Masson in order to ask him [if he was willing] to tell me the shelf numbers of the cartons of [the ministry of] foreign affairs where I could turn to in order to verify and complete the intriguing [facts that are] given by his book, He replied immediately: « At the time when I was at the [ministry of] foreign affairs, I have explored in my service, with the permission of the minister, a number of cartons which have never been conveyed and which are the cartons of the finances. They did not even have numbers and have never been opened, I believe. They have not been [opened] since and maybe they have been destroyed. »

I hope that the eventuality [that is] considered in this last line did not occur and that these precious cartons, whose interest M. Frédéric Masson thereby reveals to us, still exist, for the joy of historians and the rights to the historical truth, which is truly on its way and which no general staff will stop.

Anyway, on 19 October, when he countersigned the account after Roland, Lebrun was very careful not to record the use which he had made of the special funds which were granted to him. The other ministers abstained.

But, on 30 October, the deputy Borie had a decree voted which got him with his back on the wall : « The ministers will be required to state in their account every expense item, the decree which authorized this. — They will remember the amount of the funds [that were] granted for every kind of expenditure and [the amount of the funds] which has been used by their predecessors. — They will explain the motives which have led to to every order and [they will] show corroborative deals, statements and items that can certify the necessity of the expenditure, etc. »

This time, there was no longer a way to beat about the bush. On 4 November, Clavière, minister of public contributions, in turn imitated Roland and Lebrun and wrote his accounts on the record. Then, on 7 November, the three ministers Monge, Clavière and Lebrun resigned themselves to shielding Danton and submitting tardily to the decree of 18 October. They exposed that, in the session of 6 October, Danton and Servan, both of them outgoing employees, had informed in detail about the use of funds [of the secret spendings which had been granted to them], accompanying their report of the presentation by different quittances and documentary evidence which each of the present members was free to read », that the Council, after having deliberated about it, had not believed to have to keep records of this reddition de comptes, since it was a matter of secret spendings.

One would have thought that the Convention would declare [to be] satisfied by these explanations. However, several members observed that the ministers had not submitted completely to the decree, and this was true, since they had not deliberated once more and jointly over the accounts [that had] already [been] made and since they had not made a decision in order to settle and audit these accounts. Murmurs rose. But Brissot resumed : « Since one murmurs, I demand that Danton gives his account publicly ». Cambon in turn refused to give up : « Danton still has 30,000 livres [that are] at the disposal of the nation; but it is a matter of knowing if the redditions de comptes that are not written on the records have to suffice. There is also an article of 16,000 livres for gratification of the clerks ». Once more the Convention refused to discharge Danton. The letter of the ministers was sent to the Committee of Examination of Accounts. This time, Danton did not [even] flinch.

Over and over again, there was talk of the accounts of Danton at the tribune of the Convention, but in an episodic way.

Thus, on 30 March 1793, Lauze Deperret, in the course of a lively discussion, cried for shutting Danton's mouth : « I demand that Danton gives his accounts » and Cambon added : « That he tells us what he used the 4 million [livres] (sic) of secret spendings for. » Danton answered that he had given his accounts, but that, if one desired « iterative accounts », that is his expression, he was ready to provide them. The debate strayed and the Convention did not take any decision.

Madame Roland wrote in her Memoirs : « Never has Danton given a report at the Assembly. He contented himself with certifying to it that he had given [a report] at the Council and, at this Council, he simply said, in a session where Roland wasn't [present], because of indisposition, that he had given 20,000 francs to such, 10 to such other, and as for the rest, [he had used it] for the Revolution, because of patriotism, etc. Servan repeated it to me like this. The Council, interrogated by the Assembly on the question of knowing if Danton had given his accounts, simply replied Yes. But Danton had gained so much power that these timid men feared to offend him. » If one makes clear that by [her] account, Mme Roland intended to speak of the account of the secret spendings, this passage of the Memoirs of Mme Roland seems to contain the truth to me. Had Danton not confessed himself that he did not have properly legal quittances ? He had given a verbal account to his colleagues of the Ministry. These were satisfied by it and by camaraderie, have covered him afterwards, but they have covered him tardily and almost grudgingly. As to the Convention, it always refused to follow the ministers, as if it was not fooled by the sentiment of solidarity to which they obeyed.

At the revolutionary tribunal, the question of Danton's accounts was raised once again, but it was far from being clarified. Cambon, according to the Bulletin of the tribunal, declared that Danton had received 400,000 livres for secret and other spendings (in reality he had 200,000 livres at his disposal for secret spendings and 200,000 livres for extraordinary spendings). He added that Danton had returned 130,000 livres in cash, which suggested that he had spent 270,000 livres. Now, since Danton delivered an account of his extraordinary spendings which amounts to 68,684 livres, this would mean that he had spent the entirety of the sums [that have been] put at his disposal for secret spendings. Danton indeed responded: « I have only spent 200,000 livres in [my] outgoing office. These funds have been the levers with which I have electrified the departments. I have given 6,000 livres to Billaud-Varenne and relied on him. I have left to Fabre the arrangement of all sums which a secretary can need in order to unfold his soul and, therein, I have done nothing unlawful. »

According to the notes which the juror Topino-Lebrun wrote to the audience, Danton had specified a bit more. He had spent the 200,000 livres of secret spendings in front of Marat and Robespierre for all commissioners [that were] sent to the departments. The 6,000 livres which he had given to Billaud-Varenne had been intended for the mission with which he charged him beside Dumouriez the day after Valmy. He had left to Fabre the task of paying the commissioners because Billaud-Varenne had declined it.

What made Danton suspect, what gave rise to the persistent accusations of Cambon and of the Girondins, that are not only the irregularities which one can note in the his reddition de comptes and his own confessions, that is above all that one knew [that] Danton [kept] bad company, that one knew his closest collaborators and especially this Fabre d'Eglantine, to which, [as] he tells us himself, he handed over the use of his secret funds. M. Aulard acknowledged that it was Fabre who had, in fact, had supreme control over the affairs of the ministry of justice and M. Aulard regretted that Danton had given his confidence to him. He even regrets that Danton has adjoined Camille Desmoulins to him: « It was, says M. Aulard, an unforgivable weakness and a serious tactlessness to have allowed to impose as official colleagues precisely the two persons [that are] the most incapable of tenue and of caractère which he could meet in his entourage. The good Camille made the impression of a weathercock and it seemed that he had always been the minion of someone, the day before yesterday [he was the minion] of Mirabeau, yesterday [the one] of Robespierre. Both were vigorous, sensitive to excess and gossip. » If they had only these flaws ! But what M. Aulard does not say, what was even worse, that is that Fabre d'Eglantine was, in the worst sense of the word, a homme d'argent and a homme d'argent [who was] heavily in debt. At the same time when, in his words, Danton was the adjutant of the Minister of War, Fabre, his secretary, made a deal with Servan for the supply of shoes to the army.

It was to this strange supplier that Danton had handed over the sovereign provision of his secret funds. Under these circumstances, can we be surprised by the accusations which emerged ?

Let us still observe that it was at the same time that there have been signed between Servan and the famous brigand abbot d'Espagnac, ruinous bargains for the cartages of the armies, which only could be sustained so long because d'Espagnac knew [how to] get several distinguished parliamentarians interested in his affairs, like Julien de Toulouse. When d'Espagnac will be accused for the first time, he will invoke before the Convention, on 1 December 1792, the testimony of Danton, without Danton forbidding him to also abuse his name.

The same Cambon, who so severely criticized the accounts of Danton, ended up criticizing the bargains of Espagnac in the same way.

Danton thus appears invincibly like surrounded by hommes d'affaires. If one believes Roch Marcandier, the former secretary of Camille Desmoulins, he had protected the crook Godot, one of his relatives, [who had been] accused of the theft of 500,000 livres from the detriment of the ferme générale and he had saved him from the September Massacres, like he had protected the bankrupt Guillaume.

Is it allowed, under these conditions, to summarily treat as calumnies the various accusations of whose object the probity of Danton has been? When these accusations have been expressed publicly by people belonging to all shades of republican opinion from Brissot and Mme Roland to Saint-Just and Robespierre including Camus and Cambon, is it allowed to write, for us to stick to the account of his secret spendings, that Danton « emerges greater and stronger from the trial to which calumny subjected him » ?