45 - SALADIN (Jean-Baptiste-Michel). Report on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-One, established by decree of the 7th Nivôse, Year III, to examine the conduct of the representatives of the people Billaud-Varennes, Collot-d’Herbois, and Barrère, members of the former Committee of Public Safety, and Vadier, a member of the former Committee of General Security, dated 12 Ventôse. Printed in accordance with Article XII of the Law of 8 Brumaire, Year III. Paris, Rondonneau and Baudouin, 28 Ventôse, Year III [March 18, 1795].

SALADIN (Jean-Baptiste-Michel). Report on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-One, established by decree of the 7th Nivôse, Year III, to examine the conduct of the representatives of the people Billaud-Varennes, Collot-d’Herbois, and Barrère, members of the former Committee of Public Safety, and Vadier, a member of the former Committee of General Security, dated 12 Ventôse. Printed in accordance with Article XII of the Law of 8 Brumaire, Year III. Paris, Rondonneau and Baudouin, 28 Ventôse, Year III [March 18, 1795]. In-8, [2]-260 pp., [1] f. of errata; modern Bradel binding. One leaf slightly torn, with slight damage to the text. First edition. (Martin and Walter 30835; Tourneux 4405 (does not mention the errata leaf).) Pages 1–104: report; pp. 105–260: supporting documents. Close to Philippe-Egalité, Saladin, a deputy from the Somme department to the National Convention, sat on the Mountain’s benches. After June 2, 1793, he moved closer to the right wing. Indicted on October 3, 1793, he was imprisoned at the Ecossais. “Reinstated to the Convention by the decree of 18 Frimaire, Year III (December 8, 1794), he immediately became one of the most virulent reactionaries; as a member of the Commission of Twenty-One tasked with examining the conduct of members of the former Committees of Public Safety and General Security, he served as its rapporteur (session of 12 Ventôse, Year III). This very long text constitutes his most famous speech: it served as the foundation for all the Thermidorian accusations against the regime of Year II, and the counterrevolutionary historiographical tradition continued to draw arguments from it well into the 20th century.” (Soboul, Dict. de la Révolution, p. 953).