Occasionally, they affect to say, or say it in good faith, Let them (the extravagant) keep on, they will find each other out and use themselves up."-- Frequently, the motives alleged are scandalous or grotesque.

According to Barbaroux, immediate execution must be voted, because that is the best way to exculpate the Gironde and shut the mouths of their Jacobin calumniators.[3447] According to Berlier, it is essential to vote death for, why vote for exile?
Louis XVI.

would be torn to pieces before reaching the frontier.[3448]--On the eve of the verdict, Vergniaud says to M.de Segur: "I vote Death?
It is an insult to suppose me capable of such a disgraceful act!" And, "he sets forth the frightful iniquity of such a course, its uselessness, and even its danger." "I would rather stand alone in my opinion than vote Death!"[3449] The next day, having voted Death, he excuses himself by saying "that he did not think he ought to put the life of one man in the scale against the public welfare."[3450] Fifteen or twenty deputies, influenced by his example, voted as he did, which was enough to turn the majority.[3451] The same weakness is found at other decisive moments.
Charged with the denunciation of the conspiracy of the 10th of March, Vergniaud attributes it to the aristocrats, and admits to Louvet that "he did not wish to name the real conspirators for fear of embittering violent men already pushing things to excess."[3452] The truth is, the Girondists, as formerly the Constitutionalists, are too civilized for their adversaries, and submit to force for lack of resolution to employ it themselves.
"To put down the faction," says one of them,[3453] "can be done only by cutting its throat, which, perhaps, would not be difficult to do.

All Paris is as weary as we are of its yoke, and if we had any liking for or knowledge how to deal with insurrections, we could soon throw it off.
But how can we make men adopt such necessary atrocious measures when they are criticizing their adversaries for taking these?
And yet they would have saved the country." Consequently, incapable of action, able only to talk, reduced to protests, to barring the way to revolutionary decrees, to making appeals to the department against Paris, they stand as an obstacle to all the practical people who are heartily engaged in the brunt of the action.--"There is no doubt that Carnot is as honest as they are, as honest as a fanatic spectator can be."[3454] Cambon, undoubtedly with as much integrity as Roland, spoke as loudly up as he against the 2nd of September, the Commune, and anarchy.[3455]--But, to Carnot and Cambon, who pass their nights, one in establishing his budgets, and the other in studying his military maps, they require, first of all, a government which will provide them with money and with soldiers, and, therefore, an unscrupulous and unanimous Convention; that is to say, there being no other expedient, a Convention under compulsion, i.e.a Convention purged of troublesome some, dissentient speakers;[3456] in other words, the dictatorship of the Parisian proletariat.

After the 15th of December, 1792, Cambon completely accepts this, and even erects the dictatorship of the proletariat into an European system.