n bed, but by a ragged
curtain. In this melancholy abode Marie Antoinette had no other dress
than an old black gown, stockings with holes, which she was forced to mend
every day; and she was entirely destitute of shoes.--DU BROCA.]

Gendarmes were to mount guard incessantly at the door of her prison, and
they were expressly forbidden to answer anything that she might say to
them.

That wretch Hebert, the deputy of Chaumette, and editor of the disgusting
paper Pere Duchesne, a writer of the party of which Vincent, Ronsin,
Varlet, and Leclerc were the leaders--Hebert had made it his particular
business to torment the unfortunate remnant of the dethroned family. He
asserted that the family of the tyrant ought not to be better treated than
any sans-culotte family; and he had caused a resolution to be passed by
which the sort of luxury in which the prisoners in the Temple were
maintained was to be suppressed. They were no longer to be allowed either
poultry or pastry; they were reduced to one sort of aliment for breakfast,
and to soup or broth and a single dish for dinner, to two dishes for
supper, and half a bottle of wine apiece. Tallow candles were to be
furnished instead of wag, pewter instead of silver plate, and delft ware
instead of porcelain. The wood and water carriers alone were permitted to
enter their room, and that only accompanied by two commissioners. Their
food was to be introduced to them by means of a turning box. The numerous
establishment was reduced to a cook and an assistant, two men-servants,
and a woman-servant to attend to the linen.

As soon as this resolution was passed, Hebert had repaired to the Temple
and inhumanly taken away from the unfortunate prisoners even the most
trifling articles to which they attached a high value. Eighty Louis which
Madame Elisabeth had in reserve, and which she had received from Madame de
Lamballe, were also taken away. No one is more dangerous, more cruel,
than the man without acquirements, without education, clothed with a
recent authority. If, above all, he possess a base nature, if, like
Hebert, who was check-taker at the door of a theatre, and embezzled money
out of the receipts, he be destitute of natural morality, and if he leap
all at once from the mud of his condition into power, he is as mean as he
is atrocious. Such was Hebert in his conduct at the Temple. He did not
confine himself to the annoyances which we have mentioned. He and some
other