The trial of Louis Capet (formerly Louis XVI)
November-December 1792
When he was charged, the King could have simply refused to participate on the grounds that the
extant Constitution promised his immunity. But this defense, he knew, was useless and he elected to
stand on his record. Among his attorneys was the distinguished and able old regime administrator
Chrétlen–Guillaume de Malesherbes. Yet in the end, political necessities and the King’s own actions
led to the inevitable results: guilty and execution.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Saint–Just (13 November 1792)
The first debate over the f ate of Louis XVI conc erned whether the Convention could try the
King at all, and if so, for what cri mes. The C onstitution of 1791 had pr omised Louis "invi olability,"
meani ng i mmunity from prosecution. One of the first speakers was Louis –Antoi ne Léon de Saint –
Just, a brilliant, i dealistic, and young Jac obi n deputy. He drew on Mont esquieu as well as Rousseau
to ar gue that t he l egisl atur e indeed had both t he polit ical authority under the constitution and the
moral j ustification t o judge the King.
I shall undertake, citizens, to prove that the King can be judged. . . .
I say that the King should be judged as an enemy a nd that even more than judge him, we
must fight him. Also, in that he was not a party to the contract that unites all French people, the
judicial procedure to follow is not to be found in Civil Law, but rather in Common Law.
. . . Perhaps one day, men as f ar removed from our prejudices as we are from those of
the Vandals will be astonished by the barbarity of an age in which the judging of a tyrant was
thought to be something sacred. W here the people, having a tyrant to judge, raised him to the
rank of citizen before investigating his crimes and were more concerned about what would be
1
said about them than about the task at hand. And where a guilty man who belonged to the class
of oppressors, the lowest class of humanity, became a martyr to their pride.
One day men will be astonished by the fact that humanity in the eighteenth century was
less advanced than in the time of Caesar. Then a tyrant was slain in the midst of the Senate
with no formalities but thirty blows of a dagger and with no other law save the l iberty of Rome.
And today we respectfully conduct a trial for a man who assassinated a people, caught in
flagrante delicto, his murderous hands soaked with blood!
These same men who are to judge Louis also have a Republic to create. Those who
attach any importance to the King receiving a fair punishment will never be able to create a
Republic. For us, the sensitivity of our minds and character is a great obstacle to liberty. W e
make all error seem more attractive and, more often than not, truth for us is on ly the seduction
of our tastes. . . .
W e must therefore courageously advance toward our goal, and if we desire a Republic,
we must be serious about it. W e judge ourselves severely, I would even say with rage. W e think
only of tempering the energy of the Pe ople and of liberty, whereas we hardly reproach our
common enemy. And everyone, either from weakness or because they stand with the accused,
look at each other before striking the first blow. W e seek liberty, and we are becoming each
other's slaves! W e seek nature, and live armed, like wild savages. W e desire a Republic,
independence, and unity, but we are divided and treat a tyrant with gentleness . . . .
Sourc e: M . J. M av idal and M. E. Laurent , eds. , Arc hiv es parlement aires de 1787 à 1860, prem ière s érie
(1787 à 1799), 2d ed. , 82 v ols. (Paris : Dupont , 1879 –1913), 53 –56: 390–93.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paine (21 November 1792)
An Englishman acclai med as a her o of t he American Revol uti on, Thomas Paine ha d been
elect ed t o the Conventi on by r adic als in Paris. However, his int ernati onal perspective and Anglo –
Americ an backgr ound (incl udi ng a Quaker upbringi ng) inclined him temper ament ally t o all y wit h the
Girondi ns, who were l ess radic ally r epublican and who looked more f avorabl y upon t he Ki ng as an
indi vi dual and an i nstitution, and who not coi ncidentally oft en s pok e some Engli sh. His speech was
written i n English and it was read t o the Convention (i n Fr enc h) the day aft er the discovery of the
letters in t he King’s "l ocked chest." Accordi ngly, it called f or a f ull investigati on and trial of the Ki ng,
bas ed on his policies rat her than his person. Nonet hel ess, compassion f or the indivi dual r emained a
possibilit y.
I think it necessary that Louis XVI should be tri ed; not that this advice is suggested by a
spirit of vengeance, but because this measure appears to me just, lawful, and conformable to
sound policy. If Louis is innocent, let us put him to prove his innocence; if he is guilty, let the
national will determ ine whether he shall be pardoned or punished. . . .
Louis XVI, considered as an individual, is an object beneath the notice of the Republic;
but when he is looked upon as a part of that band of conspirators, as an accused man whose
trial may lead all natio ns in the world to know and detest the disastrous system of monarchy
and the plots and intrigues of their own courts, he ought to be tried.
If the crimes for which Louis XVI is arraigned were absolutely personal to him, without
reference to general conspir acies and confined to the affairs of France, the plea of inviolability,
that folly of the moment, might have been urged in his behalf with some appearance of reason;
but he is arraigned not only for treasons against France, but for having conspired against all
Europe, and if France is to be just to all Europe we ought to use every means in our power to
discover the whole extent of that conspiracy. France is now a republic; she has completed her
revolution; but she cannot earn all its advantages so long as s he is surrounded with despotic
2
governments. Their armies and their marine oblige her also to keep troops and ships in
readiness. It is therefore her immediate interest that all nations shall be as free as herself; that
revolutions shall be universal; and s ince the trial of Louis XVI can serve to prove to the world
the flagitiousness of governments in general, and the necessity of revolutions, she ought not to
let slip so precious an opportunity.
The despots of Europe have formed alliances to preserve their respective authority and
to perpetuate the oppression of peoples. This is the end they proposed to themselves in their
invasion of French territory. They dread the effect of the French Revolution in the bosom of
their own countries; and in hopes of prevent ing it, they are come to attempt the destruction of
this revolution before it should attain its perfect maturity. Their attempt has not been attended
with success. France has already vanquished their armies; but it remains for her to sound the
particulars of the conspiracy, to discover, to expose to the eyes of the world, those despots
who had the infamy to take part in it; and the world expects from her that act of justice.
As to "inviolability," I would not have such a word mentioned. If, seeing in Louis XVI only
a weak and narrow-minded man, badly reared, like all his kind, given, as it is said, to frequent
excesses of drunkenness a man whom the National Assembly imprudently raised again on a
throne for which he was not made —he is shown hereafter some com passion, it shall be the
result of the national magnanimity, and not the burlesque notion of a pretended "inviolability."
Sourc e: Sourc e: M onc ure Daniel Con way, ed. , The W rit ings of Thomas Paine , v ol 3 (Ne w York : AM S
Pres s , 1967) 115 –118.
___________________________________________________________
Marat (3 December 1792)
As a journalist, Mar at had f or the first few years of the Revol uti on support ed t he monarchy as
an i nstituti on. Yet he opposed Louis personally; in t hi s text, published i n his newspaper, Journal of
the Republic (but not deliv ered bef ore t he Convention), he argued f or a trial of "Louis Capet," as a
man not the Ki ng.
If the Constitution was completed and liberty consolidated, if the wounds of the state
were healed, if peace reigned among us, i f abundance, flowing through its various channels,
had once again begun to bring life to the Empire, if the nation could rest at last in the shadow
of wise laws and look forward to happy times . . . perhaps then the scourge of the monarchy
would be nothing more than a painful memory. Perhaps then we might be able to abandon the
tyrant to his regrets, to the long punishment of life for the ills he has done us, or rather, for the
liberty which followed his attacks. But, gentlemen, if you were ever able to len d an ear to the
sophisms of those who wish to spare his life while yet subjecting him to the rule of law, concern
for the public safety alone should force you to reject any penalty short of death. For as long as
the former monarch draws breath and an unfor eseen event may free him, he will be the center
of all the conspiracies of France's enemies. And if his prison does not become the home of
their endless plots, it will become their rallying point. Consequently, unless the tyrant loses his
head, there will be no liberty, no security, no peace, no rest, no happiness for the French, and
no hope for other peoples of breaking their yokes.
Must I speak to you of the bloody scenes, the disasters, the dissolution of the state, the
slaughter of all the friends of li berty, of your own suffering, which would be the result of his
dreadful vengeance if he were ever to escape and place himself at the head of enemy armies
who even now ready themselves to return against us? W hat pen could describe them, what
heart so hard that it could bear the thought?
3
Gentlemen, Louis Capet was not alone in plotting the nation's ruin. Once on trial, he will
denounce his accomplices, his ministers, his agents, the people's disloyal deputies, the
administrators, the judges, and the generals who conspired with him against public safety. The
preparation of his case is therefore the surest means to finally deliver the nation from its most
formidable enemies, to strike fear into the traitors, to cut off their plots at the root, and finally,
to assure liberty, peace, and public bliss. W ithout these, your efforts to reestablish order and
prepare for the reign of law will be in vain.
"The former monarch must be judged; that is beyond doubt; but by whom shall he be
judged?" I would reply: by an ordinary state tribunal, composed of the people's direct
delegates—if one could confide so important a case to an ordinary tribunal and if a prompt
decision were not so important for the public safety. Let there be no more doubt: Louis Capet is
still the rallying point for the enemies of liberty, just as he is the source of their hopes.
Therefore, he can only be judged by the National Convention which represents the nation itself.
Let no one object, in order to invoke for the accused the title of born -representative of the
people, that this convention will not have jurisdiction; it is a false and misleading title conferred
upon him by baseness, shrewdness, and treachery in order to raise him above the law. The
monarch was merely the highest public official, and fo r that title he can claim no prerogative.
A final question remains to be examined. How should the former monarch be judged?
W ith pomp and with severity. W e are far from those mistaken ideas of clemency and generosity
by which the national vanity is flatter ed! How could they listen to us without laying upon us the
blame of the nation and all the ills which would befall the land if we left the former monarch the
possibility of plotting again? To grant a pardon would therefore not be merely weakness, but
treason, villainy, and treachery.
Gentlemen, France's safety and the establishment of the Republic depends on the
course you choose. I conclude that the tyrant be judged by the Convention and that his
punishment be death.
Sourc e: M . J. M av idal and M. E. Laurent , eds. , Arc hiv es parlem ent aires de 1787 à 1860, prem ière s érie
(1787 à 1799), 2d ed. , 82 v ols. (Paris : Dupont , 1879 –1913), 53 –56: 246–49.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Robespierre (3 December 1792)
Maxi millien Robes pierr e, a leadi ng Jac obi n deputy in t he Convention, had ori gi nally opposed
the tri al, believi ng t hat t o t ry the Ki ng was t o i mply t he possibility of his innocence. Nev ertheless,
onc e it was under way, Robes pierr e took the lead i n arguing t hat o n tri al was not "the man Louis
Capet " but the i nstitution of the monarchy . He ar gued that sinc e the Revol ution essenti ally
concer ned t he sov erei gnty of the peopl e, a Rev oluti on coul d not coexist wit h a ki ng, and t hus, he
reached his fa mous conclusion that Louis must die, s o that the Revol ution coul d live.
Citizens, without realizing it the Assembly has been lead far from the true question.
There is no trial to be conducted here. Louis is not accused and you are not judges. You are,
as you can only be, the nation's statesmen and representatives. No verdict is required, either
for or against a man. Rather, a step aimed at the public safety needs to be taken, an act of
salvation for the nation. In a Republic a deposed king is good for only one of two things: H e
either disrupts the peace of the state and weakens its freedom, or he strengthens both
simultaneously. I assert that the nature of the deliberations to date are directly at odds with
this latter goal. In fact, what rational course of action is called for to solidify a newborn
Republic? Is it not to etch an eternal contempt for royalty into everyone's soul and mute the
King's supporters? . . .
Louis was the King, and the Republic is established. The vital question that occupies you
here is resolved by thes e few words: Louis has been deposed by his crimes. He denounced the
4
French people as rebels, and to punish them he called upon the arms of his fellow tyrants.
Victory and the people have decided that he alone was the rebel. Consequently, Louis cannot
be judged. Either he is already condemned, or else the Republic is not absolved. To suggest
that Louis XVI be tried in any way whatsoever is to regress toward royal and constitutional
despotism. A proposal such as this, since it would question the legitimacy of the Revolution
itself, is counterrevolutionary. In actuality, if Louis can still be brought to trial, he might yet be
acquitted. In truth, he is presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. If Louis is acquitted,
what then becomes of the Revolution? If Louis is innocent, all defenders of liberty are then
slanderers. . . .
Citizens, defend yourselves against [tyranny]! False ideas have deceived you. . . . You
are confusing the state of a people in the midst of a revolution with the state of a people wh ose
government is firmly established. You are confusing a nation that punishes a public official
while maintaining its form of government with a nation that destroys the government itself. . . .
W hen a nation has been forced to resort to its right of insur rection, its relationship with
the tyrant is then determined by the law of nature. By what right does the tyrant invoke the
social contract? He abolished it! The nation, if it deems proper, may preserve the contract
insofar as it concerns the relations bet ween citizens. But the end result of tyranny and
insurrection is to completely break all ties with the tyrant and to reestablish the state of war
between the tyrant and the people. Tribunals and judiciary procedure are designed only for
citizens. . . .
Insurrection is the real trial of a tyrant. His sentence is the end of his power, and his
sentence is whatever the People's liberty requires.
Sourc e: M . J. M av idal and M. E. Laurent , eds. , Arc hiv es parlement aires de 1787 à 1860, prem ière s érie
(1787 à 1799), 2d ed. , 82 v ols. (Paris : Dupont , 18791913), 5356: 32426.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Condorcet (3 December 1792)
Jean–Ant oi ne Nicol as Condorcet, f or merly a mar quis, circulated a pa mphl et that was a
Girondi n response t o Saint –Just. Although he t oo endorsed a trial of the Ki ng, he emphasi zed t he
nec essity of following constitutional proc edur es, meaning t hat any trial had t o be hel d in accor dance
wit h the constituti on and pr oper legal for ms.
The question, then, has been reduced to an examination of whether the rule of justice,
which requires that a prior law determine the offense and the punishment, does not also require
a preexisting law in order to establish the procedure of judgment.
Now I do not believe th at justice demands this. . . .
Let me return to the subject of this discussion. Is the existence of Louis XVI favorable or
adverse to sincere or feigned supporters, to foreigners or Frenchmen, to constitutional or
hereditary monarchy? Does it benefit their plans that the throne which they wish to reinstate
may be occupied by a child or must necessarily be occupied by a man made vile by his conduct
and odious by his crimes? Is it in the interest of the French Republic to diminish the interval
which separates persons living in foreign lands from the throne, lands where they will long be
the active and docile instruments of all our enemies?
In a word, as the existence of these hereditary pretenders is a necessary evil, can the
conservation of our liberty be tru ly influenced by changes in the order of the claims, in the
interest, hopes, and means of the persons called to take part in this absurd substitution?
5
W ill our severity frighten or irritate the enemy kings and the devotees of monarchy? W ill
the still-wavering sentiments of several nations be alienated or encouraged? These are
questions to which it is difficult to reply without having been able to observe the effects of our
first resolution on France and on Europe. Such questions seem to demand that the Nati onal
Convention reserve the right to modify the sentence of the tribunal, or to submit it to the people
and tell them how to execute it.
If the judgment were favorable, would the nation have lost all rights over the man who
had been King? Let us suppose th at in the exercise of his usurped authority, a hereditary and
absolute monarch had committed no injustices, no violent acts. Let us suppose that, blinded by
his education, he honestly believed that his authority was legitimate. Let us admit that these
are two hypotheses which no king has ever realized. Can it not be said then that the
involuntary nature of the error absolves the penalty? But the right to be cautious concerning
the effects of this error nonetheless remains. One does not punish a madman, but one takes
the steps necessary to assure that he can cause no harm. And if the liberty of Louis XVI,
innocent, were dangerous for the safety of the nation, doubtless the nation would retain the
right to deprive him of that liberty.
Yet how could we, in all fairness, reserve the right to take precautions for our safety in
the case of an acquittal, without at the same time reserving for ourselves the right to modify the
penalty in the case of a conviction?
Thus, by giving political considerations all the weigh t which they might be expected to
have, we see that they are unrelated to the question of the judgement, and that they could only
influence the commutation of the pronounced penalty or the precautions which might be
required by the nation's interest. To ju dge an accused king is a duty; to pardon him can be an
act of prudence; to retain the possibility of such a course is an act of wisdom for those to whom
the political destiny of a nation has been confided.
I would therefore propose a postponement of the qu estion of whether and by whom the
judgment may be modified until the other questions have been decided, and just before the
tribunal is seated.
Such are my reflections on a subject that belongs to the order of human things, which
philosophy may treat, for once, according to the principles of justice and with a sense of cool
impartiality.
Kings have long been mere men in the eyes of reason; and the time approaches when
they will be so for politics as well. Yet at this moment, when the prejudices which surrou nd a
throne have disappeared at last but the influence of kings on the destiny of nations still
remains, is it only now that it is possible and useful to expand the people's rights of over these
beings beset by error and vileness, and over the ghosts of th eir superstitions.
W hen Europe has but one king to judge, then his trial, having become an ordinary case,
will no longer deserve the world's attention.
Sourc e: M . J. M av idal and M. E. Laurent , eds. , Arc hiv es parlement aires de 1787 à 1860, prem ière s érie
(1787 à 1799), 2d ed. , 82 v ols. (Paris : Dupont , 1879Ð1913), 53Ð56: 146Ð53.
_______________________________________________________________________
Saint–Just’s Speech on the King’s Fate (27 December 1792)
By late Dec ember, the Conventi on was in t he pr ocess of trying t he King. Louis agreed to
testify in his own def ense. He j ustified t he decisions of 1789 –91 by poi nting out t hat he had still
been Ki ng and t hat he had consistently tried t o rul e wi thin t he paramet ers of the constituti on. The
next day, Saint –Just spoke for the second ti me, repr oachi ng t he deputies f or all owi ng the
6
proceedings to drag on dur ing t he war crisis. Finally he ur ged t hem t o act decisively for liberty and
agai nst tyranny by condemning Louis.
Today will decide the fate of the Republic. It is doomed if the tyrant goes unpunished.
The enemies of the common good will reappear, meet, and hope. The forces of tyranny will pick
up their pieces like a reptile renewing its lost tail. All evil men are for the King. W ho here then
can join him? False p ity is on the lips of some, anger on the lips of others. Everything serves to
either corrupt us or frighten us down to our souls. Be steadfast in your severity and rest
assured of the People's gratitude in time to come. Be more attuned to the true interest s of the
People than to the empty concerns and empty clamor by which the schemers seek to play upon
the respect you have for the rights of the People, the better to destroy those rights and deceive
the People. You called for war on all the tyrants of the w orld, and you would respect your own!
Are bloody laws enforced only against the oppressed, and is the oppressor to be spared? . . .
W e have shown an odd scorn towards the principles and character of this situation. Louis
wishes to be King, to speak as King even while denying it. But a man unjustly placed above the
law can present the judge only with his innocence or his guilt. Louis can only challenge us by
proving his innocence and innocence has no need to challenge its judges for it has nothing to
fear. Let Louis explain how the papers you have seen may favor liberty, let him show his
wounds, and let us judge the People.
Some will say that the Revolution is over, that we have nothing more to fear from the
tyrant, and that the law now calls for the death of a usurper. But, citizens, tyranny is like a reed
which bends with the wind and which rises again. W hat do you call a Revolution? The fall of a
throne, a few blows levied at a few abuses? Moral order is like physical order: abuses
disappear for an instant, just as the morning dew dries, and then just as it falls again with the
night, so the abuses reappear. The Revolution begins when the tyrant ends.
I have attempted to show the conduct of the King. It is now for you to be just. You must
put aside all consi derations but those of justice and the common good. Above all, you must not
compromise your liberty which was acquired at so high a price. You must pronounce a verdict
which allows for no appeal. If you do not, the greatest of criminals, and a King, will h ave been
the first to enjoy a right refused to citizens, and the tyrant will once again be above the law,
even after his trial. Nor should you permit the verdict to be challenged, for it reflects the wishes
and opinions of all. If those who spoke of the Ki ng are challenged, we will challenge, in the
name of France, those who said nothing for our country or those who deceived it.
France is amongst us; let each man choose between her and the King, between the
exercise of justice by the People and the exercise of your own weaknesses.
W eigh, if you will, the example which you owe the world, the impetus you owe liberty and
the unflagging justice you owe the People, against criminal pity for one who never felt such a
sentiment. Say to Europe as it bears witness: U nite your kings against us for we have rebelled
against kings. Have the courage to speak the truth, for it seems to me that there are those here
who fear sincerity. Truth burns silently in all hearts, like a lamp burning over a tomb. Yet if
there be someone among you unconcerned by the fate of the Republic, let him fall at the feet of
the tyrant, let him return the knife with which he slaughtered your fellow citizens, let him forget
all crimes of the King and tell the people that we have been corrupted, and that we have been
less interested in their well -being than in the fate of an assassin.
Sourc e: M . J. M av idal and M. E. Laurent , eds. , Arc hiv es parlement aires de 1787 à 1860, prem ière s érie
(1787 à 1799), 2d ed. , 82 v ols. (Paris : Dupont , 1879 –1913), 53 –56: 706–10.
________________________________________________________________________
7
"Louis ’s Separat ion f rom His Fam ily"
After hearing the ver dict, the King was all owed a fi nal evening wit h his family, whom he had
not seen for almost a mont h during t he t rial. Twic e on the evening of 20 January the King met wit h
his wife, his son, and a daught er. For about an hour and thr ee –quart ers all tol d, they visit ed. Onl y
at this time, three days aft er the verdict, was the fami ly tol d of t he Ki ng’s sentence. This l ed t o a
miserable scene with muc h weepi ng and kissing. The children wer e tot ally distraught when fi nall y
the f ather depart ed. Although t hey hoped f or a fi nal f arewell in t he mor ning, this was not to be.
8