The Convention talk of the King’s trial as a decided measure; yet no one seems to admit even the possibility that such an act can be ever intended.  A few believe him culpable, many think him misled, and many acquit him totally:  but all agree, that any violation of his person would be an atrocity disgraceful to the nation at large.—­The fate of Princes is often disastrous in proportion to their virtues.  The vanity, selfishness, and bigotry of Louis the Fourteenth were flattered while he lived, and procured him the appellation of Great after his death.  The greatest military talents that France has given birth to seemed created to earn laurels, not for themselves, but for the brow of that vain-glorious Monarch.  Industry and Science toiled but for his gratification, and Genius, forgetting its dignity, willingly received from his award the same it has since bestowed.

Louis the Fifteenth, who corrupted the people by his example, and ruined them by his expence, knew no diminution of the loyalty, whatever he might of the affection, of his people, and ended his days in the practice of the same vices, and surrounded by the same luxury, in which he had passed them.

Louis the Sixteenth, to whom scarcely his enemies ascribe any vices, for its outrages against whom faction finds no excuse but in the facility of his nature—­whose devotion is at once exemplary and tolerant—­who, in an age of licentiousness, is remarkable for the simplicity of his manners—­ whose amusements were liberal or inoffensive—­and whose concessions to his people form a striking contrast with the exactions of his predecessors.—­Yes, the Monarch I have been describing, and, I think, not partially, has been overwhelmed with sorrow and indignities—­his person has been degraded, that he might be despoiled of his crown, and perhaps the sacrifice of his crown may be followed by that of his life.  When we thus see the punishment of guilt accumulated on the head of him who has not participated in it, and vice triumph in the security that should seem the lot of innocence, we can only adduce new motives to fortify ourselves in this great truth of our religion—­that the chastisement of the one, and reward of the other, must be looked for beyond the inflictions or enjoyments of our present existence.

I do not often moralize on paper, but there are moments when one derives one’s best consolation from so moralizing; and this easy and simple justification of Providence, which refers all that appears inconsistent here to the retribution of a future state, is pointed out less as the duty than the happiness of mankind.  This single argument of religion solves every difficulty, and leaves the mind in fortitude and peace; whilst the pride of sceptical philosophy traces whole volumes, only to establish the doubts, and nourish the despair, of its disciples.

Adieu.  I cannot conclude better than with these reflections, at a time when disbelief is something too fashionable even amongst our countrymen.—­Yours, &c.