Trial of Louis XVI

After the events of the 10th of August 1792 the royal family found themselves imprisoned in the Temple.  Arguments raged in the National Convetion over what was to be done with the deposed monarch some such as the Girondins called for leniency a majority did not.  Unfortunately for the King it was at this point in November 1792 that an iron chest was found in the Tuileries Palace.  Inside were letters to his exiled brothers and the other monarchs of Europe as well as letters to Mirabeau.  It was now clear he had been conspiring against the the revolution.  On the 11th December 1792 he was put on trial in the National Convention.  He was defended by amongst others his former minister Malesherbes.  When on the 15th January 1793 the verdict came from the Convention it was not a surprise 693 found him guilty 23 abstained.  When it came to deciding his father the vote was far closer 288 of the deputies voted against death, 72 of the deputies voted for the death penalty, but sought some national referendum. 361 of the deputies voted for Louis's immediate execution (amongst them the former Duke D’Orleans).

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) reports on details of the King’s trial in December 1792 from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p83

The mayor told the king that he came to conduct him to the Convention, by virtue of a decree, which the Secretary to the Commune would read to him.  The import of the decree was, “that Louis Capet should be brought to the bar of the National Convention”. “Capet”, said the King, “is not my name: it is that of one of my Ancestors.”  He added, “I could have wished, Sir, that the Commissioners had left my son with me during the two hours that I have passed waiting for you: but this treatment is of a piece with the rest I have met with here for these four months.  I am ready to follow you, not in obedience to the Convention but because my enemies have the power, in their hands.”

Barère on the trial of Louis XVI at this point he was President of the National Convention.  Taken from Memoirs of BertrandBarère Volume 2, H. S. Nichols, London (1896) p50-52

Towards eleven o'clock I sent for M. Pouchard, commander of the Guard of the Convention, and M. Santerre, commander-in-chief of the Paris National Guard. I informed them of the reports which had just been handed to the secretaries and president concerning the safety of Louis XVI., and I gave them an express order to take all the measures in their power to answer for the life of the King, and to prevent his person from being insulted by the actions or words of any seditious persons. " Yon will answer for the King with your heads," I said to them ; "you, M. le Commandant of the Paris Guard, from the Temple to the door of the Assembly; and you, M. Ic Commandant of the Guard of the Convention, from the door of the Assembly until the return of the King to that door, and the handing of his person to the commander of the National Guard." The orders were very punctually carried out. Everything was quiet, and, about half-past twelve, the King appeared at the bar of the Convention. The officers of the staff and Commander Pouchard, as well as Commander Santerre, were behind him. Before his arrival, there were several noisy demonstrations of disapproval on several untimely and imprudent motions of order which had been made. Cheers were raised from some quarters, while the occupants of other parts of the House shouted. About noon I thought it expedient to direct the minds of those present in another direction and to induce a better disposition in the galleries. I rose, and, after a moment of silence, I called upon the numbers of citizens of all classes who filled the hall to be calm and silent. " You owe respect to august misfortune and to a prisoner descended from the throne ; the eyes of France are on you as well as the attention of Europe and the judgement of posterity. If, what I cannot expect or anticipate, signs of disapproval or murmurs are manifested or heard in the course of this long sitting, I shall be obliged to clear the galleries immediately. National justice must not be affected by any outside influence." The effect of my speech was as sudden as it was efficacious. The sitting lasted until seven o'clock in the evening, and in that space of time not a murmur, not a movement was noticeable in the entire hail. Several persons of various political opinions, and even several royalists whom I knew, complimented me that evening and the next day on the energy and wisdom which I had displayed, as well as on my manner of presiding…

Republican as I was, I nevertheless found it very unbecoming, and even painful to support, to see Louis XVI., who had convened the States-General, and doubled the number of deputies of the Commons, brought thus before those same Commons, there to be questioned as a prisoner. This feeling oppressed me several times, and, although I was well aware that I was severely observed by the Spartan deputies of the Left, who asked for nothing better than to see me at fault to do me the injury of demanding that I should be superseded as president, I nevertheless ordered two attendants, who were near me, to carry an armchair to Louis XVI at the bar. The order was immediately carried out. Louis XVI seemed sensible of it, and his eyes looking towards me thanked me a hundredfold for a just action and a delicate attention, which I included in the scope of my duties. Nevertheless, the King remained standing with noble self-possession. He did not for one instant lose the dignity of the throne, and at the same time did not seem to remember his power.

Germaine De Staël on Louis XVI’s trial .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p337-338

The want of respect shown to Louis XVI during his trial is more striking than even his condemnation.  When the President of the Convention said to him who was his King: “Louis you may sit down!” we feel more indignation even than when he is accused of crimes which he had never committed.  One must have sprung from the very dust not to respect past obligations, particularly when misfortune has rendered them sacred; and vulgarity joined to crime inspires us with as much contempt as horror.  No man of real superiority has been remarked amongst those who incited the convention to condemn the King; the popular tide rose and fell at certain words and certain phrases, while the talent of so eloquent an orator as Vergniaud could not influence the public mind.  It is true that the greater part of the deputies who defended the King took a detestable ground.  They began by declaring that he was guilty; and one among them said at the tribune that Louis XVI was a traitor, but the nation ought to pardon him; and this they called the tactics of the Assembly!  They pretended that it was necessary to humour the reigning opinion, that they might moderate it at a proper time.  With such cautious prudence as this, how could they resist their enemies, who sprang with all their force upon the victim?  In France, they always capitulate with the majority, even when they wish to oppose it; and this miserable finesse assuredly diminishes the means instead of increasing them.  The power of the minority can consist only in the energy of the conviction.  What are the weak in numbers if they are also weak in sentiment?

Charles-François-Gabriel Morrison speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  13th November 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p120

Whereas it would be strict justice to cause Louis XVI to expiate his crimes on the scaffold; but if the French Nation wishes to show him mercy, it has the incontestable right to keep him imprisoned as an enemy conquered and taken while armed, and it could equally exile him from its territory, as a vicious and dangerous man, unworthy of partaking in the advantages of the social contract.

Whereas a penalty, however just, should be applied only when it serves the interest of society, and as the death of Louis XVI can of be no public utility, as France is too strong, both in principle and in the infinite resources of its territory, ever to be enslaved by Louis XVI and all the despots of the world.

Article I.  Louis XVI is forever banished from the soil of the French Republic

Article II.  If after his expulsion from France, Louis XVI should ever return, he will be punished by death.  In this case all citizens are enjoined to attack him as an enemy, and a reward of 500,000 pounds will be paid to anyone who can furnish proof of having taken and slain him on French soil.

Gouverneur Morris comments on Louis XVI trial and his probable fate in December 1792.  Taken from Witnesses to the Revolution American and British Commentators in France 1788-1794, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1989) p179

It would seem strange that the mildest monarch who ever filled the French throne, one who is precipitated from it precisely because he would not adopt the harsh measures of his predecessors, a man whom none could charge with a criminal act, should be prosecuted as one of the most nefarious tyrants that ever disgraced the annals of human nature….. I think it highly probable that he may suffer (execution), and that for the following causes: The majority of the Assembly found it necessary to raise against this unhappy prince the national odium, in order to justify dethroning him… and to induce the ready adoption of a republican form of government…. The rage which has been excited was terrible; and, although it begins to subside, the Convention are still in great straits-fearing to acquit, fearing to condemn, and yet urged to destroy their captive monarch.

Saint-Just speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  13th November 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York  (1992)  p124

He oppressed a free nation; he declared himself its enemy; he abused its laws; he must die to assure the tranquillity of the people, since to assure his own, he intended that the people be crushed.  Did he not review the troops before combat? Did he not take flight rather than halt their fire?  What steps did he take to quell the fury of the soldiers? The suggestion is made that you judge him as a citizen, whereas you recognise that he was not a citizen, and that, far from protecting the people, he had them sacrificed to people.

I will say more: a Constitution accepted by a king did not bind citizens; they had, even before his crime, the right to proscribe him and to send him into exile.  To judge a king as a citizen, that will astound a dispassionate posterity.  To judge is to apply the law; law supposes a common share in justice; and what justice can be common to humanity and kings? What has Louis in common with the French people that they should treat him well after he betrayed them?

A man of great spirit might say, in another age, that a king should be accused, not for the crimes of his administration, but for the crime of having been king, as that is an usurpation which nothing on earth can justify.  With whatever illusions, whatever conventions, monarchy cloaks itself, it remains an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise and to arm himself.  Monarchy is an outrage which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify; the people, by the example it gave, is guilty before nature, and all men hold from nature the secret mission to destroy such domination wherever it may be found.

No man can reign innocently.  The folly is all too evident.  Every king is a rebel and an usurper.

Robespierre speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  3rd December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p138

The death penalty in general is a crime since, following the unchanging principles of nature, it can be justified only in those cases where it is vital to the safety of private citizens or of the public.  Public safety never calls for the death penalty against ordinary crimes because society can always prevent them by other means and render the guilty man incapable of doing further harm.  But a deposed king, in the midst of a revolution as yet unsupported by just laws; a king whose very name draws the scourge of war on the restless nation: neither prison or exile can render his existence indifferent to the public welfare.  And that cruel exception to the laws ordinarily accepted by justice can be imputed to the nature of his crimes alone.

Regretfully I speak the fatal truth- Louis must die because the nation must live.  Among a peaceful people free and respected both within and without their country, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you are given.  But a people which is still struggling for its liberty after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people among whom the laws are not yet inexorable save for the unfortunate; a people among whom the crimes of tyranny are a subject of dispute, such a people must wish to be avenged; and the generosity with which you are flattered would resemble more closely that of a troop of brigands dividing their spoils.

Concordet speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  27th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p156

The question here, without doubt, is whether society has the right to sentence a man to death; whether such a penalty maybe so necessary as ever to render it just.  But the nature of this general question is such that, once it has been raised, there is an obligation to express an opinion.  I believe a capital sentence to be unjust whenever it is applied to a guilty man who can be imprisoned without danger to society; and this truth is subject to rigorous demonstration.  I believe that, with the exception of this case alone, which should not occur under a truly free constitution once it is well established, the absolute suppression of the capital penalty is one of the most efficacious means for the perfection of the human species, by destroying that penchant to ferocity which has too long been a dishonour to man.  

Saint-Just speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 27th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p176

Some will say that the Revolution is over, that we have nothing more to fear from the tyrant, and that henceforth the law would decree the death of a usurper.  But, citizens tyranny is like a reed which bends with the wind and which rises again.  What do you call a Revolution? The fall of a throne, a few blows levied at a few abuses?  The moral order is like the physical; abuses disappear for an instant, as the dew dries in the morning, and as it falls again with the night, so the abuses will reappear.  The Revolution begins when the tyrant ends.

Robespierre speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 28th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p194

Citizens’ whoever you are, set up a watch around the Temple; arrest, if it is necessary, perfidious malevolence, even deceived patriotism, and confound the plots of our enemies.  Fateful place! Was it not enough that the despotism of the tyrant weighed so long on this immortal city? Must his very safekeeping be a new calamity for it? Is the trial to be eternal so as to perpetuate the means of slandering the people who took him from the throne?

I have proven that the proposal to submit the question of Louis to the primary assemblies would lead to civil war.  If I cannot contribute to the salvation of my country, I wish at least to be recorded, at this moment for the attempt I have made you warn you of the calamities which threaten it.  I ask that the National Convention declare Louis guilty and worthy of death.

Vergniaud speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 31st December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p208

Any act emanating from the representatives of the people is an attempt against their sovereignty if it is not submitted for formal or tacit ratification.  The people alone, who promised inviolability to Louis, can declare that they wish to make use of the right to punish, which formerly they had renounced.  Powerful considerations should hold you to these principles; if you are faithful to them, you run no risk of reproach.  If the people desire the death of Louis, they will command it; if, on the contrary, you take their power from them, you will incur at least the reproach of having strayed from your duty; and what a terrifying responsibility such a deviation will bring upon your heads… I have no more to say.

Marat speaking at the trial of the king.  Taken from Jean Paul Marat: The People’s Friend by Ernest Belfort Bax, Grant Richards, London (1901) p246

In the firm conviction that Louis is the principal author of the crimes which caused the blood of the loth of August to flow, and of all the massacres which have stained France since the Revolution, I vote for the death of the tyrant within the twenty-four hours.

Thomas Paine speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 7th January 1793.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p212

Let then those United States be the safeguard and asylum of Louis Capet.  There, hereafter, far removed from the miseries and crimes of royalty, he may learn, from the constant aspect of public prosperity that the true system of government consists not in kings, but in fair, equal, and honourable representation.

In relating this circumstance, and in submitting this proposition, I consider myself as a citizen of both countries.  I submit it as a citizen of America, who feels the debt of gratitude which he owes to every Frenchman.  IU submit it also as a man who, although the enemy of kings, cannot forget that they are subject to human frailties.  I support my proposition as a citizen of the French republic, because it appears to me the best, the most politic measure that can be adopted.