from Paris he said, I am master now, I will turn you all out of doors.' Denis being recalled, attempted by his effrontery to put this witness down, but he failed. The witness also declared that he had found a packet of white powder in a foot-warmer belonging to Madame Lafarge (the mother).

During the absence of Lafarge, Denis, pretending to go to Guéret, went to Paris-for what purpose none could discover. But this additional circumstance came to light without being explained. Lafarge borrowed a large sum of money, 25,000 francs; but his mother asserted, that on his return she found only 3900. This,' said M. Paillet, is again one of the mysteries of this trial; in the mean time, thanks to the sig'natures which Madame Lafarge gave to her husband, her patrimony has been spent.'

If, then, we follow the clue afforded by our hypothesis, every thing is clear; Denis first creates suspicion; he tells the mother her son is poisoned; he has access to the mother's apartment, to that of the sick man, to every part of the house, in short; and his hand might have strewed the poison where it was afterwards found; and one very remarkable circumstance throws a strong light upon this part of the case. The broth above-mentioned, of which there was a residue, and into which Madame Marie was said to have put some white powder, was a long time in the sick man's room; the residue was then taken possession of by the mother. It was afterwards sent to M. Eyssartier-by whom does not appear. But this much is certain, it was exposed during a long period; so that any one who desired, might deal with it as he pleased. If there was any one desirous of putting poison into it, he was able with ease to do so. Now Madlle. le Brun speaks of a small quantity of power; but the chemists, when they come to analyze the sediment, declare, that it contained enough arsenic to poison ten persons. This is explicable if we suppose that some wicked hand had put arsenic into the cup afterwards; but utterly inexplicable upon the supposition that it was poisoned by the wife-the cup emptied by throwing away the broth-for that is the phrase used; and that there remained a sediment which was twice examined,

first at Brives, and next during the trial, and yet that there remained enough to poison ten persons. So much then for the sediment.

All the same remarks apply to the small pot found in the commode, with this additional observation-the cup did contain powdered gum, and a small portion of arsenic-but the train of powder from the cup, was pure arsenic. If into a cup containing powdered gum, any one had shaken a small quantity of arsenic, and then shook a train of it along the inside of the commode, such would be the exact state of the case-in the case there would be gum and arsenic-out of it arsenic alone.

But then comes the enquiry, did the small agate box carried by the wife in the pocket of her apron, contain arsenic? Out of this there was a small quantity taken by Emma Ponthier, and given to her uncle; and it is a very extraordinary circumstance, that in this powder, when first examined, no arsenic was found, and this examination was made by the chemists who found arsenic in almost every thing else. When this same powder underwent a second examination at the time of the trial, then a small quantity of arsenic was found therein. The agate box given by Clementine to Emma, was from the first said to contain some arsenic. This box is proved to be at times out of the possession of Madame Lafarge; for Emma unseen, takes some powder out of it, and Clementine finds it on Emma's request. It is not to be supposed that Madame Lafarge, knowing it to contain arsenic, would give it to her. Afterwards, indeed, she learned that the child had the box, and bade her give it to the officers of justice-a conduct wholly at variance with the supposition that she knew it contained the poison of which there was so much discussion. How are these things to be explained? Without any very great difficulty of keeping our hypothesis in view, we look to the mode in which the suspected substances were dealt with.

The paper given by Emma to her uucle was beyond the reach of Denis, and it was found pure; afterwards it was sent to the office of the court, (the greffe,) and the exposure which took place on the trial, of the mode in which these fatal sub

stances were dealt with, created universal astonishment, even among an audience who did not seem very scrupulous in their manner of eliciting or dealing with evidence.

The officers of justice came to the house of the deceased on the 15th. Every part of the house was open to Denis. The suspected substances were taken possession of. They had been collected by the mother, and put into a wrapper. It is clear that every one of these might have been tampered with; and, according to our hypothesis, they were utterly worthless as evidence against the accused, who was already under the surveillance of justice, and in reality a prisoner.

On the 16th the body was opened; its entrails were put into vases, ticketed, but not sealed. The whole was then placed on the back of a horse, and without further precaution taken to Brives. The officer thus describes the journey: We slept at Vigeors. On the 17th we arrived at Brives. 'I have heard that it was then that the stomach was put into a glass; it had before that been wrapped in a cloth. 'On the 18th the surgeons commenced their analysis, which lasted three days. During this time we returned to Glan'dier, and not till our return were there any seals placed upon the vases.' Such a declaration as this, upon a suggestion of our hypothesis, would have decided the case in an English court of justice. No human being could be safe in a society which could, on such evidence, condemn a fellow creature. The body all this time lay at Glandier, exposed to any who might desire to tamper with it; so that from it no evidence could be obtained on which the accused could be safely condemned (1).

But in addition to the suspicions thus cast upon any evidence to be obtained from these various suspected substances, there occurred a circumstance which not only throws doubt on the case before us, but which unhappily goes far to destroy our faith in all medical opinions on the subject of poisoning

(2) A curious question might have been suggested. Suppose that some wicked person had placed arsenic within the body after the death and the examination, would not this have affected every analysis made on the exhumation of the corpse? But who can possibly say that this was not done?

by arsenic. The chemists of Brives declared, without hesitation, that they had found arsenic in the stomach and its contents. They also declared, that a flannel which the wife had wished to apply to the throat of the deceased also contained arsenic. But on the trial, the chemists of Limoges, among the most celebrated in France, declared as positively, that these substances did not contain arsenic. After describing the process they adopted, M. Dupuytren (the brother, we believe, of the celebrated surgeon of that name) went on to say, We then introduced this residuum into the apparatus invented by Marsh, (l'appareil de Marsh,) and after many experiments (mainte expérience) we obtained no arsenical spots.' Even from the countenance of the poor prisoner there suddenly glanced a gleam of joy at this happy announcement; her Advocate burst into tears; and the audience giving way to a generous feeling towards the accused, and forgetting for the moment the respect due to a court of justice, vehemently applauded. On this the Avocat-Général rose in anger. He abused (there is no other word fit to describe his expressions) the audience generally. He picked out one young man, commanded him to stand up, threatened to commit him, and then he finished an apostrophe to the public thus-Since when has it happened, that the sanctuary of justice has become an arena for bad passions?' (The bad passions were evinced, not by the public who rejoiced at an aequittal, but by him who pressed a failing prosecution.) Do you think,' he continued, that there remain no further resources to the prosecution?' (sou des rumeurs.) Do you think that there does not remain a grand and solemn mission to fulfil?' And now comes the most extraordinary denunciation made on this extraordinary trial: Take care, lest the accused may have 'perhaps to accuse you with having so acted as to prolong her anxiety, and to retard the period for the determination of this enquiry.' The Avocat-Général was plainly fighting for victory, and not truth; his anger was an outbreak of wounded vanity; and the words he uttered were not the dignified language of a judicial officer, calmly rebuking a sudden but venial forgetfulness on the part of the public of the

VOL. III.

65

respect due to a court of justice, but a violent explosion of passion by a baffled prosecutor.

M. Dupuytren thus concluded his Report: 'Our conclu'sions unanimously agreed to are, that there is no arsenic in any of the animal substances submitted to our examination.' The consequence of this opinion was the sending for M. Orfila from Paris. A mystery attaches to the whole of this proceeding. Other celebrated chemists were proposed, and among them M. Raspail. From the letter written by this latter gentleman respecting his own exclusion from the enquiry, it would appear that some feelings were at work which certainly ought not to have been exhibited or acted on; but the whole matter eludes enquiry, and we are obliged to rest contented with mere suspicion.

The proceeding, nevertheless, does raise a question entirely unconnected with party feeling or momentary considerations; and herein we again perceive a great difference in the two systems of French and English judicature. By the law of England, when the prisoner stands upon his deliverance, and the jury is charged to decide upon his fate, the case must go on to its end, without interruption or delay, beyond that which it is physically impossible to avoid. The trial is one transaction, and cannot after its commencement be adjourned, except in cases in which the evidence cannot be all brought forward in one day. Rest and food being absolutely required, the jury and all others concerned on the trial must retire, but the jury must remain under strict watch no one is allowed to have communication with them, and the trial goes on the next day without further interruption than nature absolutely requires. But by the system of France, delay is permitted to obtain further evidence. This system seems to give a fearful power to a government over those which it desires to crush; and although, at the first announcement, it appears reasonable to wait for the requisite evidence if it be not forthcoming, yet, if we look further, we shall find much of reason and humanity in the rule which makes it imperative on the prosecution to be ready at once with the evidence needful to support it. This necessity renders it far more difficult to