tribune, demanded
the positive forfeiture of the throne (_la decheance_), and the
nomination of a council of regency. "Your king," he said, "is an idiot,
or a criminal. It would be a horrid spectacle to present to the world,
if, having the option of declaring a king criminal or idiotic, you did
not prefer the latter alternative."

On the 27th, Girey Dupre, a young writer who awaited the Gironde,
mooted the judgment of Louis XVI. "We can punish a perjured king, and we
ought;" such was the text of his discourse. Brissot opened the question
as Petion had done at the preceding sitting, "_Can a perjured king be
brought to trial_ (_juge_)?

"Why," asked Brissot "should we divide ourselves into dangerous
denominations? we are all of one opinion. What do they want who are here
hostile to the republicans? They detest the turbulent assemblies of
Athens and Rome; they fear the division of France into isolated
federations. They only want the representative constitution, and they
are right. What do they want who boast of the name of republicans? They
fear, they abhor equally, the turbulent assemblies of Rome and Athens,
and equally dread a federated republic. They desire a representative
constitution--nothing more, nothing less--and thus, we all concur. The
head of the executive power has betrayed his oath,--must we bring him to
judgment? This is the only point on which we differ. Inviolability will
else be impunity to all crimes, an encouragement for all treason--common
sense demands that the punishment should follow the offence. I do not
see an inviolable man governing the people, but a _God_ and 25,000,000
of _brutes!_ If the king had on his return entered France at the head of
foreign forces, if he had ravaged our fairest provinces, and if, checked
in his career, you had made him prisoner, what would you then have done
with him? Would you have allowed his inviolability to have saved him?
Foreign powers are held up before you as a threat; do not fear them:
Europe in arms is impotent against a people who will be free."

In the National Assembly Muguer, in the name of the joint committees,
brought up the report on the king's flight; he maintained the
inviolability of Louis XVI. and the accusation of his accomplices.
ROBESPIERRE opposed the inviolability; he avoided all show of
anger in his language; and was careful to veil all his conclusions
beneath the cover of mildness and humanity. "I will not pause to
inquire," he said, "wh