oppressed, insulted, and beaten by the officers of justice, who compelled them to declare themselves guilty and consent to their own ruin and punishment. The general solemnly protests, that these imputations of fraud and violence are atrocious calumnies. The advocates of the two parties contradict each other, on all the facts, on all the inductions, and even on all the reasonings; their memorials are called tissues of falsehoods; and each treats the adverse party as inconsistent and absurd,—an invariable practice in every dispute. } short, the grandson and his mother have spontaneously confessed, and attested the written confession by their actual signatures, that they attempted to rob the general, and that he never received more than twelve hundred francs instead of three hundred thousand livres ;-in this case, is not the cause sufficiently cleared up? Is not the public sufficiently able to judge from these preliminaries? 2. I appeal to yourself, sir, whether it is probable that the poor widow of a person unknown in society, who is said to have been a petty stock jobber, and not a banker, could be in possession of so considerable a sum to lend, at an extreme risk, to an officer notoriously in debt? The general, in short, contends, that this jobber, the husband of the woman in question, died insolvent; that even his inventory was never paid for; that this pretended banker was originally a baker's boy in the household of M. the Duke of St. Aignan, the French ambassador in Spain; that he afterwards took up the When you have had the goodness, sir, to read their memorials, which I have now the honour of sending to you, you will, I trust, permit me to suggest the difficulties which I feel on the case; they are dictated by perfect impartiality. I know neither of the parties, and neither of the advocates; but having, in the course of four and twenty years seen calumny and injustice so often triumph, I may be permitted to endeavour to penetrate the labyrinth in which these mon-profession of a broker at Paris; and that sters unfortunately find shelter. Presumptions against the Perron family. I. In the first place, there are four bills, payable to order, for a hundred thousand crowns, drawn with perfect regularity by an officer otherwise deeply invoved in debt; they are payable for the benefit of a woman of the name of Perron, who called herself the widow of a banker. They are presented by her grandson, Du Jonquay, her heir, recently admitted a doctor of laws, although he is ignorant even of orthography. Is this enough? Yes, in an ordinary case it would be so : but if, in this very extraordinary case, there is an extreme probability that the doctor of laws never did and never could carry the money which he pretends to have delivered in his grandmother's name, if the grandmother, who maintained herself with difficulty in a garret, by the miserable occupation of pawnbroking, never could have been in the possession of the hundred thousand crowns; if, in he was compelled by M. Heraut, lieute{sory notes, or bills of exchange, which he nant of police, to restore certain promishad obtained from some young man by extortion;—such the fatality impending over this wretched family from bills of exchange! Should all these statements be proved, do you conceive it at all probable, that this family lent a hundred thousand crowns to an involved officer, with whom they were upon no terms of friendship or acquaintance? 3. Do you consider it probable, that the jobber's grandson, the doctor of laws, should have gone on foot no less than five leagues, have made twenty-six journeys, have mounted and descended three thousand steps, all in the space of five hours, without any stopping, to carry 'secretly twelve thousand four hundred and twenty five louis-d'or to a man to whom, on the following day, he publicly gives twelve hundred francs? Does not such an account appear to be invented with an utter deficiency of ingenuity, and even of com mon sense? they were to divide the fruit of their villany, encourage, and support them; and the attractions of the vast sum in their contemplation seduce, hurry, and urge Do those who believe it appear to be sages? What can you think, then, of those who solemnly affirm it without believing it? 4. Is it probable, that young Du Jon-them on to persevere in the original charge. quay, the doctor of laws, and his own They call in to their assistance all the dark mother, should have made and signed a frauds and pettifogging chicanery to which declaration upon oath, before a superior they can gain access, to clear them from judge, that this whole account was false, a crime which they had themselves actuthat they had never carried the gold, and ally admitted. They avail themselves that they were confessed rogues, if in fact with dexterity of the distresses to which they had not been such, and if grief and the involved officer was occasionally reremorse had not extorted this confession duced, to give a colour of probability to of their crime? And when they after- his attempting the re-establishment of his wards say, that they had made this con-affairs by the robbery or theft of a hunfession before the commissary, only be-dred thousand crown. They rouse the cause they had previously been assaulted and beaten at the house of a proctor, would such an excuse be deemed by you reasonable or absurd? Can anything be clearer, than that if this doctor of laws had really been assaulted and beaten, in any other house on account of this cause, he should have demanded justice of the commissary for this violence, instead of freely signing, together with his mother, that they were both guilty of a crime which they had not committed. commiseration of the populace, who at Paris are easily stimulated and frenzied. They appeal successfully for compassion to the members of the bar, who make it a point of indispensible duty to employ their eloquence in their behalf, and to support the weak against the powerful, the people against the nobility. The clearest case becomes in time the most obscure. A simple cause, which the police magistrate would have terminated in four days, goes on increasing for more than a whole year by the mire and filth introduced into it through the numberless Would it be admissible for them to say, We signed our condemnation be-channels of chicanery, interest, and party cause we thought that the general had bought over against us all the police-offi cers and all the chief judges? Can good sense listen for a moment to such arguments? Would any one have spirit. You will perceive that the whole of this statement is a summary of memorials or documents that appeared in this celebrated cause. dared to suggest such even in the days of Presumptions in favour of the Perron our barbarism, when we had neither laws nor manners, nor cultivated reason? family. We shall here consider the defence of the grandmother, the mother, and the grandson (the doctor of laws), against these strong presumptions. If I may credit the very circumstantial memorials of the general, the Perrons, when put in prison upon his accusation, at first persisted in the confession of their 1. The hundred thousand crowns (or crime. They wrote two letters to the very nearly that sum) which it is preperson whom they had made the deposi-tended the widow Perron never was postory of the bills extorted from the general; sessed of, were formerly made over to they were terrified at the contemplation her by her husband, in trust, together of their guilt, which they saw might con- with the silver plate. This deposit was duct them to the galleys or to the gibbet.secretly' brought to her six months after They afterwards gain more firmness, and her husband's death, by a man of the confidence. The persons with whom name of Chotard. She placed them out, and always 'secretly,' witha notary called Gilet, who restored them to her, still 'secretly,' in 1760. She had, therefore, in fact, the hundred thousand crowns which her adversary pretends she never possessed. Paris, has generously taken our side, and his voice has obtained for us that of the public. This defence appears, in some part of it, plausible. Their adversary refutes it in the following manner :— Arguments of the Major-General against those of the Perron Family. 1. The story of the deposit must be 2. She died in extreme old age, while the cause was going on, protesting, after receiving the sacrament, that these hundred thousand crowns were carried in gold to the general officer by her grand-considered by every man of sense as son, in twenty-six journeys on foot, on the twenty-third of September, in 1771. 3. It is not at all probable, that an officer accustomed to borrowing, and broken down in circumstances, should have given bills payable to order for the sum of three thousand livres, to a person unknown to him, unless he had actually received that sum. equally false and ridiculous with that of the six and twenty journies on foot. If the poor jobber, the husband of the old woman, had intended to give at his death so much money to his wife, he might have done it in a direct way, from hand to hand, without the intervention of a third person. If he had been possessed of the pre4 There are witnesses who saw counted {tended silver plate, one half of it must out and ranged in order the bags filled have belonged to the wife, as equal owner with this gold, and who saw the doctor of their united goods. She would not of laws carry it to the general on foot, have remained quiet for the space of six under his great coat, in twenty-six jour- months, in a paltry lodging of two hunnies, occupying the space of five hours. dred francs a-year, without reclaiming And he made these twenty-six astonish-her plate, and exerting her utmost efforts ing journies merely to satisfy the general, to obtain her right. Chotard, also, the who had particularly requested secrecy.alleged friend of her husband and her5. The doctor of law adds:-Our self, would not have suffered her to regrandmother and ourselves lived, it is main for six long months in a state of true, in a garret, and we lent a little money such great indigence and anxiety. upon pledges; but we lived so merely There was in reality a person of the upon a principle of judicious economy; name of Chotard; but he was a man the object was to buy for me the office of ruined by debts and debauchery, a fraua councillor of parliament, at a time when dulent bankrupt, who embezzled forty the magistracy was purchaseable. It is thousand crowns from the tax-office of true that my three sisters gain their sub-the farmers-general, in which he held a sistence by needlework and embroidery; situation, and who is not likely to have the reason of which was, that my grand-given up a hundred thousand crowns to mother kept all her property for me. It the grandmother of the doctor in laws. is true, that I have kept company only The widow Perron pretends, that she with procuresses, coachmen, and lac-employed her money at interest, always quays; I acknowledge that I speak and it appears in secrecy, with a notary of the that I write in their style; but I might name of Gilet, but no trace of this fact not on that account be less worthy of be- can be found in the office of that notary. coming a magistrate, by making, after all, a good use of my time. She declares, that this notary returned her the money, still secretly, in the year 6. All worthy persons have commise-1760; he was at that time dead. rated our misfortunes. M. Auburg, a If all these facts be true, it must be farmer-general, as respectable as any in 'admitted that the cause of Du Jonquay and La Perron, built on a foundation of such ridiculous lies, must inevitably fall to the ground. crowns. Here is the knot and difficulty of the cause. We must strictly examine whether it be probable, that a man, who is admitted to have received nearly a hundred thousand crowns in gold, should on the very morning after come in great sion, to the man who the evening before had advanced him twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-five louis-d'or. There is not the slightest probability of his doing so. 2. The will of La Perron, made half an hour before her death, when God and death were at the same instant on her lips, is, to all appearance. in itself a respecta-haste, as for a most indispensible occable and even pious document. But if it be really in the number of those pious things which are every day observed to be merely instrumental to crime-if this lender upon pledges, be recommending her soul to God, manifestedly lied to God, what importance or weight can the document bring with it? Is it not rather the strongest proof of inposture and vil-mily, in return for the invaluable and lany? It is still less probable, as we have al{ready observed, that a man of distinction, a general officer, and the father of a fa almost unprecedented kindness of lending him a hundred thousand crowns, should, instead of the sincerest gratitude to his benefactor, absolutely endeavour to get him hanged; and this on the part of a man who had nothing more to do than to await quietly the distant expirations of the periods of payment; who was under no temptation, in order to gain time, to commit such profligate and atrocious villany, and who had never in fact committed any villany at all. Surely it is more natural to think that the man, whose The old woman had always been made to state, while the suit was carried on in her name, that she possessed only this sum of one hundred thousand crowns which it was intended to rob her of; that she never had more than that sum; and yet, behold! in her will she mentions five hundred thousand livres of her property! Here are two hundred thousand francs more than any one expected, and here is the widow Perron convicted out of her own mouth. Thus, in this singular cause, does the at once atrocious and ri-grandfather was a pettifogging, paltry diculous imposture of the family break out on every side, during the woman's life, and even when she is within the grasp of death. jobber, aud whose grandmother was a wretched lender of small sums upon the pledges of absolute misery, should have availed himself of the blind confidence of an unsuspecting soldier, to extort from him a hundred thousand crowns, and that he promised to divide this sum with the depraved and abominable accomplices of his baseness. 4. There are witnesses who depose in favour of Du Jonquay and La Perron. Let us consider who those witnesses are, and what they depose. 3. It is probable, and it is even in evidence, that the general would not trust his bills for a hundred thousand crowns to a docter of whom he knew little or nothing, without having an acknowledgement from him. He did, however, commit this inadvertance, which is the fault of an unsuspecting and noble heart; he was led astray by the youth, by the candour, by the apparent generosity of a man not In the first place, there is a woman of more than twenty-seven years of age, who the name of Tourtera, a broker, who supwas on the point of being raised to the {ported La Perron in her peddling insigmagistracy, who actually, upon an urgentnificant concern of pawnbroking and who occasion, lent him twelve hundred francs, and who promised in the course of a few days to obtain for him, from an opulent company, the sum of a hundred thousand has been five times in the hospital in consequence of the scandalous impurities of her life; which can be proved with the utmost ease. There is a coachman called Gilbert, who, sometimes firm, at other times trembling in his wickedness, declared to a lady of the name of Petit, in the presence of six persons, that he had been suborned by Du Jonquay. He subsequently enquired of many other persons, whether he should yet be in time to retract, and reiterated expressions of this nature before witnesses. tongue hanging half out of his mouth. This was not precisely the moment for running into the street to see sights. Would his friend Du Jonquay have said to him-Come and risk your life, to see me traverse a distance of five leagues loaded with gold: I am going to deliver the whole fortune of my family, secretly, to a man overwhelmed with debts; I wish to have, privately, as a witness, a person of your character? This is not exceedingly probable. The surgeon who applied the medicine to the witness Aubriot on this occasion, states that he was by no means in a situation to go out; and the son of the surgeon, in his interrogatory, refers the case to the academy of Setting aside, however, what has been stated of Gilbert's disposition to retract, it is very possible that he might be deceived, and may not be chargeable with falsehood and perjury. It is possible, that he might see money at the pawnbroker's, and that he might be told, and might believe, that three hundred thou-surgery. sand livres were there. Nothing is more dangerous in many persons than a quick and heated imagination, which actually makes men think that they have seen what it was absolutely impossible they could see. But even admitting that a man of a particularly robust constitution could have gone out and taken some turns in the street in this disgraceful and dreadful situation, what could it have signified to the point in question? Did he see Du Jonquay make twenty-six journeys between his garret and the general's hotel? Did he see twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-five louis-d'or carried by him? Was any individual whatever a witness Then comes a man of the name of Aubriot, a godson of the procuress Tourtera, and completely under her guidance. He deposes, that he saw, in one of the streets of Paris, on the twenty-third of September, 1771, doctor du Junquay into this prodigy well worthy the Thousand his great coat, carrying bags. and One Nights? Most certainly not; no person whatever. What is the amount, then, of all his evidence on the subject? Surely there is here no decisive proof, that the doctor on that day made twentysix journies on foot, and travelled over 5. That the daughter of La Perron, in five leagues of ground, to deliver 'secretly' her garret, may have sometimes borrowed twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-small sums on pledges; that La Perron five louis-d'or, even admitting all that this evidence states to be true. It appears clear, that Du Jonquay went this journey to the general, and that he spoke to him, and it appears probable, that he deceived him; but it is not clear, that Aubriot saw } him go and return thirteen times in one morning. It is still less clear, that this witness could at that time see so many circumstances occurring in the street, as he was actually labouring under a disorder which there is no necessity to name, and on that very day underwent for it the severe operation of medicine, with his legs tottering, his head swelled, and his may have lent them, in order to obtain and save a profit, to make her grandson a counsellor of parliament, has nothing at all to do with the substance of the case in question. In defiance of all this, it will ever be evident, that this magistrate by anticipation did not traverse the five leagues to carry to the general the hundred thousand crowns, and that the ge{neral never received them. 6. A person named Aubourg comes forward, not merely as a witness, but as a protector and benefactor of oppressed innocence. The advocates of the Perron family extol this man as a citizen of rare |
