Lèse-nation

Lèse-nation, also lèze-nation, was a crime defined in France in connection with the French Revolution. It means an offence or defamation against the dignity of the nation. Both, the name as well as the corresponding law regarding the crime of lèse-nation, go back to the law relating to the crime of lèse-majesté. Both were adapted by the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, so that the focus was no longer on the monarch but on the nation. The English name for lèse-majesté is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the term means a crime against The Crown. In classical Latin ''laesa māiestās'' means hurt or violated majesty. In the context of the term lèse-nation, it means a crime against the nation in the sense of harming the nation.

The law regarding the crime of lèse-nation was in force between 1789 and 1791. It was immediately after the proclamation of the sovereignty of the nation, in the aftermath of the Tennis Court Oath from 20 June 1789, that the foundation for the law regarding the crime of lèse-nation was laid. On 23 June 1789, the National Assembly announced that it will prosecute as criminals all those who, individuals or bodies, ''attack its existence or the freedom of its members.''

Almost over night a new crime was invented. Or as Charles-Élie, Marquis de Ferrières, put it:

The events surrounding the Storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 played an important role in the development and implementation of the law. Since the Storming of the Bastille, many denunciations and the ghost of the complot obliged the National Assembly to face the problem of the political incrimination. Quick action was required.Jean-Christophe Gaven: ''Le Crime de lèse-nation. Histoire d'une invention juridique et politique (1789–1791),'' Association des Professeurs d'Histoire et de Géographie (APHG), compte-rendu de lecture / Révolution française, dimanche 14 mai 2017, en ligne, consulté le 30 janvier 2024

Protection for the Revolution

The law regarding the crime of lèse-nation was introduced in the early days of the French Revolution. It came into force on 23 July 1789 by decree of the National Assembly. It describes intentions that harm the nation and was modelled on the traditional crime of
lèse-majesté as if to better illustrate the transfer of sovereignty. The law was introduced to protect the Revolution and its values. It also defined what the nation is. By taking into account the emerging regime's increasing fears of a counter-revolution, it became one of the most important legal measures at the beginning of the Revolution. In the long term, however, not. The weak judicial effectiveness of the law regarding the crime of lèse-nation contrasted with its political ambition. It explains its brief existence since, from 1791, the term ''crime contre la chose publique (crime against public affairs)'' was preferred, a criterion of all political justice.Sciences Po – Les Presses: ''Jean-Christophe Gaven, Le crime de lèse-nation – Histoire d'une invention juridique et politique (1789-1791),'' en ligne, consulté le 30 janvier 2024

What is a crime of lèse-nation?

A crime of lèse-nation is to disregard, by will and by fact, the inviolable rights of the nation. Or in short, according to the revolutionaries: The criminals guilty of the crime of lèse-nation are those who want to maintain the old despotism and aristocracy. And Maximilien Robespierre reminded his fellow revolutionaries in a speech on 25 October 1790 when it came to introducing new laws and establishing the judiciary for the young nation: ''"The tribunal that you have formed must be endowed with courage and armed forces, because it will have to fight against the great ones, who are enemies of the people."'' L'Assemblée du District des Cordeliers: ''Extrait des registres des Délibérations de l'Assemblée du District des Cordeliers,'' 20 avril 1790, de l'imprimerie de Momoro, Paris, 1790, pp. 12–13Maximilien Robespierre: ''Opinion à la séance du 25 octobre 1790,'' Moniteur, op. cit. (7), t. VI, p. 211

Physical or moral attack against the nation

It was defined that crimes of lèse-nation are attacks committed directly against the rights of society. There are two types: Those who attack the physical existence of the nation and those who seek to harm its moral existence. The latter are as guilty as the first. Crimes of lèse-nation are rare when the constitution of the state is strengthened and the government established, that is, if the government is able to enforce the state's monopoly on the use of force. At this point, however, the young nation was still in the process to form up. Under the constitution of 1791, the crime had to be judged by the '' Haute Cour Nationale.''Roberto Martucci: ''Qu'est-ce que la lèse-nation ? A propos du problème de l'infraction politique sous la constituante (1789–1791),'' Déviance et Société, Vol. 14, numéro 4, 2018, p. 390Dictionnaire de L'Académie française: ''Crime de lèse-nation,'' 5ème édition, en ligne, consulté le 30 janvier 2024

The who's who of the ''Ancien Régime'' in the dock

The most prominent personalities who were accused of the crime of lèse-nation were: Charles-Eugène de Lorraine, Prince de Lambesc; Charles Marie Auguste Joseph de Beaumont, Comte d'Autichamp; Victor François, Duc de Broglie; Charles Louis François de Paule de Barentin, Seigneur d'Hardivilliers and Louis Pierre de Chastenet de Puységur, Comte de Puységur.

The only death sentence

The only death sentence passed under the law of lèse-nation was that of Thomas de Mahy, Marquis de Favras. The Marquis de Favras was sentenced to death on 18 February 1790. He was hanged the next day on the Place de Grève in Paris. The execution of this judgement was seen by the revolutionaries as the ''first experience of political justice of the French Revolution.''Ugo Bellagamba: ''Jean-Christophe Gaven, Le Crime de lèse-nation. Histoire d'une invention juridique et politique (1789–1791),'' Criminocorpus, Comptes rendus, mis en ligne le 13 février 2018, consulté le 30 janvier 2024

A Swiss baron in the dock

However, the most famous person accused of the crime of lèse-nation was Pierre Victor, Baron de Besenval de Brunstatt, a Swiss military officer in French service. His trial in connection with the Storming of the Bastille began on 21 November 1789. The baron's case became exemplary. Not only because he was a foreigner, a close friend of Queen Marie Antoinette and one of the first accused of the crime of lèse-nation, but also because of his fame and his famous friends who campaigned for his release, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, Jacques Necker and the Comte de Mirabeau. What was ultimately important for the baron's survival: These gentlemen also enjoyed respect among the revolutionaries. Furthermore, the baron was represented in court by the best and most prominent French lawyer at the time: Raymond Desèze. He later also defended King Louis XVI in court. The court was deeply impressed by Desèze's '' plaidoyer.'' This ''plaidoyer'' was even published and was considered a reference in court cases regarding the crime of lèse-nation.Raymond Desèze: ''Plaidoyer prononcé à l'audience du Châtelet de Paris, tous les services assemblés, du Lundi 1er mars 1790, par M. Desèze, avocat au Parlement, pour M. Le Baron de Besenval, accusé ccusé du crime de lèse-nation contre M. Le Procureur du Roi au Châtelet, accusateur,'' chez Prault, Imprimeur du Roi, Quai des Augustins, Paris, 1790Journal de Paris: ''L'affaire de Besenval,'' Numéro 225, supplément au Journal de Paris, Vendredi, 13 août 1790, de la Lune le 4, de l'imprimerie de Quillau, rue Plâtrière, 11, Paris, supplément (no. 59)Journal de Paris: ''L'affaire de Besenval,'' Numéro 343, Mercredi, 9 décembre 1789, de la Lune 23, de l'imprimerie de Quillau, rue Plâtrière, 11, Paris, p. 1607Jean-Philippe-Gui Le Gentil, Marquis de Paroy (1750–1824): ''Mémoires du Comte de Paroy – Souvenirs d'un défenseur de la Famille Royale pendant la Révolution (1789–1797),'' publiés par Étienne Charavay, Archiviste Paléographe, Librairie Plon, E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie, Imprimeurs-Éditeurs, 10, rue Garancière, Paris, 1895, pp. 74–75Journal de Paris: ''Jeudi, 30 juillet 1789: M. Necker à l'Hôtel de Ville de Paris – Discours en faveur de M. de Besenval,'' Numéro 212, Vendredi, 31 juillet 1789, de la Lune le 10, de l'imprimerie de Quillau, rue du Fouare, 3, Paris, p. 952François-René de Chateaubriand: ''Mémoires d'Outre-Tombe'', tome premier, Nouvelle édition avec une introduction, des notes et des appendices par Edmond Biré (1829–1907), Garniers Frères, libraires-éditeurs, 6, rue des Saints-Pères, Paris, 1849, p. 302

In addition, as early as October 1789, the report of the Commission of Inquiry revealed that the only document currently in existence that could convict the Baron de Besenval of a crime of lèse-nation is a copy of an order written to the Governor of the Bastille, Bernard-René Jourdan, Marquis de Launay, in which the baron wrote: ''"Monsieur de Launay will hold out until the last extremity; I have sent him sufficient forces."'' The original of this document no longer existed and the copy was not sufficient for a conviction in court, at least that's what was officially claimed.Journal de Paris: ''Assemblée Nationale, Versailles, Mercredi, 14 octobre 1789,'' Numéro 289, Vendredi, 16 octobre 1789, de la Lune le 28, de l'imprimerie de Quillau, rue Plâtrière, 11, Paris, p. 1324Révolutions de Paris, dédiées à la nation: ''Affaire de M. de Besenval. Arrêté de la chambre des vacations du parlement de Rouen,'' Numéro XVIII. Imprimerie de Laporte, rue des Noyers, Paris, 1789, p. 25

The rescue of the Baron de Besenval

Of course, there were also doubts about this official theory that the document was just a copy or a fake. After all, the document was dated and signed ''le 14 juillet 1789, le B. de Besenval.'' Critics of the Baron de Besenval saw this as an attempt by the baron's influential friends to save his neck. Later the defense strategy was changed. And on 3 December 1789, Pierre Victor de Besenval admitted in court that the document was genuine. However, circumstances had obviously changed in the meantime and this document alone was no longer enough to convict the baron. Jean-Jacques Fiechter: ''Baron Peter Viktor von Besenval: Ein Solothurner am Hofe von Versailles,'' Rothus Verlag, Solothurn, 1994, Bildtafel 16 (Notiz des Baron de Besenval an den Marquis de Launay)

The trial of the Baron de Besenval was controversial. There were many rumours, intrigues and false reports surrounding the trial, to the detriment of the Baron de Besenval. A fictitious correspondence between the Baron de Besenval and the Marquis de Favras was even published in order to stir up sentiment against the baron. Accordingly, public opinion was largely against him. The people thirsted for revenge, whereby the people had less of an eye on individual personalities than on the nobility as a whole. A scapegoat was needed. Consequently, it is very likely that the court wanted to make an example regarding the crime of lèse-nation. Hence it was probably to the baron's advantage that the example demanded by the people was already made on the Marquis de Favras on 18 February 1790 and the people were therefore already satisfied when the baron's trial ended on 1 March 1790. Although most of the public still believed that the Baron de Besenval was guilty, calls for his execution diminished significantly after the execution of the Marquis de Favras on 19 February 1790. There was even the rumor that it was precisely for this reason that the end of the trial of the Baron de Besenval was postponed to a date after the execution of the Marquis de Favras.Jean-Jacques Fiechter: ''Baron Peter Viktor von Besenval: Ein Solothurner am Hofe von Versailles,'' Rothus Verlag, Solothurn, 1994, pp. 169 und 177Révolutions de Paris, dédiées à la nation: ''Affaire du Sieur Faveras,'' du 30 janvier au 6 février 1790, Prudhomme, Imprimerie de Révolutions de Paris, rue Jacob 28, et au mois de mars, rue des Marais 20, Faubourg Saint-Germain, Paris, 1790, pp. 20–24

On Monday, 1 March 1790, the Baron de Besenval was acquitted of the crime of lèse-nation. A verdict that was not without controversy. Quite a few saw this judgement as a courtesy judgement to the baron's influential friends.Pierre Victor, Baron de Besenval: ''Mémoires de M. Le Baron de Besenval,'' imprimerie de Jeunehomme, rue de Sorbonne no. 4, Paris, 1805 – chez F. Buisson, libraire, rue Hautefeuille no. 31, Paris, tome III, p. 434

References

{{Reflist

Further reading

in alphabetical order
* Anonyme: ''Dialogue entre un aristocrate et un Suisse,'' Publication anonyme sous la forme d'un dialogue fictif de critique sociale entre un duc français et un Suisse sur la culpabilité et l'innocence par Pierre Victor, Baron de Besenval. Publié pendant la Révolution française, 1790
*Pierre Victor, Baron de Besenval de Brunstatt: ''Réponse de M. Le Baron de Besenval à M. Le Marquis de Favras – ou doutes résolus sur la Jurisprudence Criminelle du Châtelet de Paris,'' de l'imprimerie du Grand-Pénitencier, dans les souterrains de l'Archevêche, Paris, 1790 et échange de lettres s'est avéré être un faux. Il s'agissait d'une propagande ciblée contre le Baron de Besenval.* Raymond Desèze: ''Plaidoyer prononcé à l'audience du Châtelet de Paris, tous les services assemblés, du Lundi 1er mars 1790, par M. Desèze, avocat au Parlement, pour M. Le Baron de Besenval, accusé, contre M. Le Procureur du Roi au Châtelet, accusateur,'' chez Prault, Imprimeur du Roi, Quai des Augustins, Paris, 1790
* Jean-Christophe Gaven: ''Le crime de lèse-nation – Histoire d'une invention juridique et politique (1789-1791),'' Sciences Po – Les Presses, Paris, 2016
* Roberto Martucci: ''Qu'est-ce que la lèse-nation ? A propos du problème de l'infraction politique sous la constituante (1789–1791),'' Déviance et Société, Vol. 14, numéro 4, 2018, pp. 377–393

1789
French Revolution
Lèse-majesté
Crimes
Government of France
National Assembly (France)