example how much better they manage these matters in ought
not to be stated till after the facts on which they rest. France, to find at this moment France in a state of excitement The Procurenr began by telling the jury that M. Armand was at the vices of their criminal procedure, and M. Prevost- very rich, very haughty, very brutal, very violent, and very Paradol exhausting all the resources of his incomparable style hard-hearted, and then went on to say that when enraged he have, however, reason on their side, for every profession has even attempt to prove. But when M. Fevre, the counsel a tendency to push the theory of its art to an extreme ; and for the defence, protested against this violent assumption of the theory of criminal trials in France and England being the prisoner's guilt, he was told by the judge that he "bad entirely different, the points in which the practice of the one no right to criticise the speech of the Procureur-General." country is defective are precisely those in which that of the Subsequently M. Rigaud warned M. Favre's junior against other is unassailable. An examination of the trial which making any comments on the witnesses. This would exactly has recently outraged the public opinion of our neighbours please Mr. Trollope ; but even he would think his favourite will bring this out more clearly, perhaps, than any systematic principle was carried to an excess if; as in this case, the wit- comparison of the one with the other. On the 7th of last July, ness reflected on was the prosecutor himself. Then the at Montpellier, Maurice Roux was found in the cellar of his judge's turn began. He examined M. Armand, who ad- master's house lying on his face, with a wound in the back of mitted that on the night Roux was found in the cellar he the head, his hands tied behind his back, a cord round his neck, went to bed at eleven and slept. The judge's comment andhis feet tied together with one of his master's handkerchiefs. on this was, that Armand could not have a good heart. Removed to the hospital in an apparently dying state, he If he had not slept, we suppose the comment would accused his master, M. Armand, a wealthy merchant, of have been that his conscience would not let him. In attempting to murder him • but the only motive he could the same spirit M. Rigaud allowed Roux to speak of M. suggest for the commission Of the crime was that he had been Atmand as this wretch, this ruffian, this blackguard—told Dr. occasionally guilty of insolence of speech. Now, there can be Tardieu, the great Parisian authority, when he gave evidence no doubt about what would have happened in England. A favourable to the prisoner, that other physicians, quite as magistrate would have taken Roux's deposition on oath, and honest, enlightened, and learned, did not agree with him—told M. Armand would have been arrested. As there was a clear the prisoner that in judging very badly of him, he only judged prima fade case, he would, even if the magistrate was dis- "as all the world judges of you"—snubbed every one who posed to think him innocent, have been committed for trial; spoke well of the accused—and when witnesses were called but, looking to the improbability of the charge, admitted to to show Roux to be a man of dissolute and immoral life, said bail. But whether at large or not, he would be treated as an they must not judge the lives of coachmen by their own. • innocent man until his trial, when the jury would decide In spite of all, however, the jury would not convict. The upon his guilt or innocence. In this case the defect of strongest medical evidence was given to show that Roux's our system would have been that Rens, being a poor symptoms and the marvellous celerity of his recovery were man, the case for the prosecution would have been left only consistent with a simulated insensibility, and witnesses to take its chance. The witnesses examined before the actually demonstrated in open court that he might have tied magistrates would be examined again, but no fresh evidence his hands behind his back himself in the way in which they would be even sought for. M. Armand, on the other were tied. Moreover, it seems strange that a man should murder hand, being rich, would, of course, enjoy every advantage his servant for a few insolent words, or should leave the body that money could procure, the most astute and eloquent counsel, for the maid-servant to discover the next time she went and Montpellier would have been ransacked for evidence on to the cellar. And if it is rare in this country to gratify his behalf. It is, of course, obvious that if Roux had been a grudge by bringing a false accusation, in the East rich, and Armand poor, the advantage would have been the it is the very commonest form of revenge,—and Roux, other way. Thus the event of the trial to a great extent even as it is, has succeeded in obtaining large civil depends on the means of the litigants. The French system damages from his wealthy master. Oa the other hand, Is quite different. An official, the Judge d'Instraction, sends the false alibi is a most suspicious circumstance—though in for the accused and examines him. Then he examines every- France, where the accused is questioned, it is far more likely body who can throw any light on the matter, makes up his than in England to be the result of fear depriving a man of mind who is the criminal, and throws him into prison. We all dignity of feeling . as well as of his presence of mind. So are bound, however, to say that M. Armand has only himself also the waylaying of Roux on his way to the court at Mont- t° thank if the Judge d'Instruction formed a strong opinion pellier can hardly, one would think, have been simulated by against him, for he was insane enough to set up a false alibi, Roux, as was contended at the trial; bat then this was no evi- and in every country if an accused person gives a clearly false dence against M. Armand, as he was not proved to have been account of his conduct it is regarded as evidence of guilt, in any way connected with it. On the whole, the conclusion it is essential that the minority should no longer regard them- that the accused is guilty. He is kept in prison, examined selves as legally bound or justified by that majority's will. again and again, and perhaps confronted from time to time Then Congress will for the future control a great army and a with the witnesses, of whose evidence he is nevertheless kept large navy, and will be compelled to raise a very con- in ignorance. All these attempts to entrap Or torture siderable revenue. People are certain to interest them- him into a confession (and why should we pity a selves much more in the action of those who tax them guilty man ?) are perpetrated with the assent of not only than in the discussions of those who do not, and as the procureur, but of the chambre de la mise en accusa- America begins a career abroad her interest in those who tion, and we believe that we are accurate in saying that from guide that career must rapidly increase, local dignities the members of that chamber is selected the judge who is to will seem as poor as they do in England, and all the try him. Thus, when M. Armand was placed at the bar he Republic has of energy, or ambition, or statesmanship will. found himself in the presence of a judge who had already gravitate to the centre. The policy announced by the Fre- decided on his guilt. Then a strange incident occurred.
mont Club only. formulates the policy already imposed by Rumours had been afloat that M. Armand had committed events, and it may, after some strife and much heartburning, many murders, and that the soil beneath his cellar was a sort find acceptance. If it does, America will emerge from this war of churchyard. The Judge d'Instruction had actually had a democracy instead of a federation, With a strong and the cellar-floor dug up, and though no bodies were found ambitious executive, aftd with a policy which is at root one of public feeling ran high at Montpellier. Then came the news conquest, but steadied by heavy taxation, by a knowledge of that Roux on his way to court had been waylaid and so what war means, and by the government of statesmen beaten that he would be unable to attend. The trial was of instead of mere politicians. Great governments train states- necessity adjourned, and subsequently, in consequence of the men, and the rule of Atatesmen at Washington would be a state of feeling at Montpellier, it was ordered to be held at compensation to Europe for all it has suffered and yet may Aix.
suffer from this war. The judge was M. Rigaud. The Procureur opened the case. That this last officer should be anxious to convict is CRIMINAL LAW.—ENGLAND v. FRANCE. right enough, and of course if he has a strong opinion of the IT is not a little amusing when law reformers of all sorts, prisoner's guilt the prosecuting counsel in every country is from briefless Queen's Counsel down to popular novelists, bound to press his evidence the more the weaker it is ; but are always singing the praises of the systems of jurisprudence clearly he ought to abstain scrupulously from saying a sylla- founded on the civil law, and pointing out to us by way of ble which he cannot prove, and conclusions from the facts his innocence in spite of his own imprudence. Not so, how- ever, thought M. Rigaud, for the next day, when Roux's civil action for damages came on for trial, he declared that though the verdict of the jury proved that Armand did not wilfully or criminally wound Roux, yet that he remained convinced that Armand had inadvertently wounded him, and must, there- fore, pay him 800/. We fear M. Roux will be wanting to be beaten again.
It would be most unjust to believe that the conduct of IL Rigaud has been a fair specimen of that of French judges. The indignation of Frenchmen proves the contrary. But it may serve as a warning to us not to be in too great a hurry to abandon our own theory—the litigious theory as it is called —of criminal procedure. In our courts prosecutions are often got up in a rather slovenly way, and a witness occasionally gets rather unfairly mauled. But the first of these evils might be remedied by a little more liberality in the allowance to the clerk of the magistrates for prosecuting where the in- jured person either cannot or will not ; and the second may be kept under, as indeed it is, by firmness in the judges. Mean- while, we at least have fair play—the prosecuting counsel admits the possibility of the prisoner's innocence, his guilt is decided on by the jury, and the judge sees that the question which they have to try is fairly submitted to them. The French theory is a far loftier one. " Authority " does not sit languidly by, holding the scales of justice—it singles out the malefactor and provides for his punishment. At the trial " authority " is not investigating the facts to see whether the accused is guilty, but making his guilt manifest to man- kind in the persons of the jury. Judge, procureur, and juge-d'instruction (who figures as a witness) are all in a league—animated by a common purpose—determined to show that they have not blundered in selecting the culprit —and it accordance with that unhappy bureaucratic system which makes the magistracy a separate profession from that of advocacy, seeing in every acquittal an obstacle to their own professional promotion. While men remain men, French trials will not be fairly conducted, and the jury will remain an inconvenient innovation, an excrescence on the fair visage of their system. Our theory is not a lofty one, but it is adapted to the frailties of human nature, and its spirit is essentially the spirit of justice. The foreign or inquisitorial theory is the delight of jurists, but unhappily it needs to be administered by beings who do not share the weaknesses of man.
On the other hand, let us recognize that the French system secures, if not fair play, yet what Frenchmen above all things demand, equality. The wealthy M. Armand is treated like the poorest peasant. His money cannot even liberate him on bail. The cause of Roux is pressed as fiercely as that of the most wealthy and malevolent of English prosecutors. In England sometimes, when the culprit is from the higher classes, as in the case of Townley, the lameness of justice becomes terribly apparent. Neither does this trial at Aix prove anything as to the pro- priety of examining the prisoner. To refuse to do so is to shut out one source of knowledge. The power may be abused, no doubt, but in this country the notion of fair play, which is the leading notion of our criminal jurisprudence, would tend to prevent it, and the examination would naturally be entrusted to the prosecuting counsel, who would be at once checked in any impropriety by the judge. In France the judge must examine because he examines all the witnesses, and is, in fact, the pro- secutor. He is "authority" making manifest the prisoner's guilt. How the system works let this trial show, where Roux escaped all cross-examination, an ordeal which would not im- probably have made his untruthfulness manifest, while on the other hand the demeanour of the prisoner under a regular brow-beating cross-examination from the judge told powerfully in his favour.
The animus of M. Rigaud—if that were of much import- ance—is proved still more conclusively by the award of 800/. damages to Roux. There are cases in which such an award is reasonable enough. A man wounds another with a pistol. It is not denied that he fired the shot, but he contends that it was a mere accident. He is acquitted of the criminal charge of attempting to murder or wound, but he may very well have shown such excessive negligence as to make it quite right that he should compensate the wounded man. But in this case negligence is an absurd theory. You cannot tie a man's legs together, put a rope round his neck, and tie his hands behind his back inadvertently. It is true no doubt, that in all systems of j urisprudence the verdict of "Not Guilty" only establishes the absence of criminal intention, but that surely must include the truth of every fact neceseasy to nega- instinct, and the presumption in favour of instincts is almost always great. Yet it is very hard to prove that there is any moral or social reason against the use of cosmetics, or any reason at all tive the criminality. Either the jury must be supposed to stronger than the disrepute brought on the practice by its have arrived at a ridiculous conclusion or else M. Rigaud. It will be for the Court of Cessation 'to decide whether a. judge is or is not entitled to assume the ineptitude of a jury, and if he is, whether the facts justified him in doing so in this particular ease. By way of crowning the bizarre inci- dents of this singular trial, the populace of Aix are giving M. Armand an ovation, and the populace of Montpellier are ill-treating the witnesses on his behalf and destroying his property. The rioters should pray that they may be tried by M. Rigaud.
Previous page
