218 CONDORCET: A BIOGRAPHY. 



of judgment liave been regulated before the time of tbe offense or 

 crime *? Was it to be hoped that a fallen sovereign might find impar- 

 tial judges among those he once called his subjects'? If Louis XVI had 

 not counted upon absolute inviolability, are we sure that he would have 

 accepted the crown ? 



Behold the series of questions, assuredly very natural, which Condor-: 

 cet presented to the tribune of the convention, and which he submitted 

 to a severe discussion before the commencement of the trial of Louis 

 XVL I ought to enumerate them if only to show to what extent they 

 may deceive themselves to whom the history of our revolution is known 

 only by a sort of oral tradition, which represents all the members of 

 the convention as tigers, thirsty for blood, taking no care to cover 

 their fury with even the appearance of right and legality. Condorcet 

 admitted that the King was inviolable, that the constitutional compact 

 justified all the acts of power which were delegated to him. He did 

 not believe that the same rule should be extended to personal derelic- 

 tions, if they were without necessary connection with the functions of 

 royalty. Tbe most perfect codes, said Condorcet, contain defects. That 

 of Solon, for example, makes no mention of the parricide. The monster 

 guilty of such a crime, should he therefore remain unpunished'? No, 

 certainly; to him was applied the penalty of the murderer. 



In admitting condemnations by analogy, Condorcet desired at least 

 that the tribunal, constituted with unusual prerogatives, should be based 

 upon dispositions favorable to the accused; he desired the right of re- 

 cusation more extended ; the necessity of a larger majority for the con- 

 demnation, &c. According to his views, the judgment of the King 

 should have been confided to a special jury, chosen from the whole 

 country by means of electoral colleges. 



The right to i)unish the King did not seem to our confrere so incontest- 

 able as the right to judge him. The idea of a sentence in some sort 

 moral might seem, perhaps, strange; Condorcet saw in it the occasion 

 of showing to Europe, by a legal discussion, that the change of the 

 French constitution had not been the effect of the simple caprice of 

 some individuals. 



After having developed the opinions, true, false, or questionable, that 

 have just been presented to you, Condorcet declared, with no less sincer- 

 ity, that, without violating the first principles of jurisprudence, the con- 

 vention could not judge the King. A legislative judiciary was in his 

 eyes a veritable chimera. Such an assembl}', at once legislator, im- 

 l^eacher, and judge, seemed to him a monstrosity, an example the most 

 dangerous. In all times, he said, and in all countries, the judge has 

 been considered lawfully reprehensible who in advance manifests any 

 opinion of the culpability or the innocence of the accused. In fact, 

 justice cannot be expected from men who, forced to renounce an opin- 

 ion publicly exjiressed, must consequently incur at the least the 

 reproach of ficlileness. Now, said Condorcet, in a solemn declaration 



