Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

first seat to the left of His Majesty, he heard at a short distance the report of two shots, the direction of which he was not able to judge. His first movement was to look at the King, and then at the Queen, and the persons of the royal family. At that moment the Queen showed him the wadding of a gun, which Her Majesty had picked up between the King and him. His Majesty with the greatest calmness, told the postilions, who appeared to hesitate, Go on, go on, and shortly afterwards the royal party re-entered the palace. The moment the King had alighted, Count de Montalivet examined the charà-bancs with the greatest care, and perceived in the roof of the carriage, above the seat the King had occupied, a certain number of holes made by bullets or buck shot. The wadding he had deposited in the hands of M. Desaix, King's attorney, at Fontainbleau.

66

M. Hebert, the Attorney-General, asked M. de Montalivet if the King had not visited Fontainbleau in May, 1844?

M. de Montalivet replied that His Majesty had visited Fontainbleau in that month.

M. Hebert next inquired if the King was not to have gone to that residence in November, 1845 ?

M. de Montalivet replied that preparations had been made in October for that journey, which, however, had not taken place. He afterwards informed the court of the motives that had induced him to dismiss Lecomte from the King's service, the principal of which was his insolence twards his superiors, and his overbearing tyranny towards his inferiors.

Lecomte, who had listened with particular attention to that part of M. de Montalivet's deposition, re

pelled those charges, and declared that if he had treated his inferiors with rigour, it was because his superiors and M. de Montalivet himself had recommended him to be severe.

M. Duvergier, the counsel of Lecomte, asked M. de Montalivet if he knew any thing against the moral character of his client in the discharge of his duties.

M. de Montalivet replied that no complaint against his morality had ever been made to him.

Gonian, the second witness, a piqueur, was riding at some distance before the royal carriage, when, on reaching close to the wall of the Petit Parquet, he heard the report of a shot, and, turning round, he saw Captain Brahaut, whose horse had taken fright, close by him. His first thought was that an accident had occurred, and that one of the captain's pistols had gone off. He rode towards the carriage, when he heard a second shot, and the Queen cried out to him,

66

Gonian, en avant! That order was repeated by Milet to the postilion Lecoute. He then galloped off, followed by Milet and several officers of hussars, and, having opened the gate of the parquet, he posted himself with the officers, so as to watch all the avenues.

M. Borel, Lieutenant of hussars, the third witness, accompanied the King in his promenade, through the forest, on the 6th of April, and had seen the individual who fired upon His Majesty.

M. Gournay, Captain of Gendarmerie, was riding behind the King's carriage at the moment when Lecomte fired upon His Majesty. On being apprehended, Lecomte exclaimed, "The King is not wounded, so much the better for him; he is more fortunate than I am."

Milet, a piqueur, the eighth witness, deposed that he was riding behind the royal carriage, when the shots were fired, and looking up he saw a man, placed on the other side of the wall, whose head was covered with a blouse, and the lower part of the face concealed by a handkerchief. He rode towards the spot, stood erect on his horse, and, leaping over the wall, saw Lecomte on a heap of faggots, ready to scale the wall, when he rushed upon him, seized his gun, disarmed and arrested him. Lecomte offered no resistance, and appeared surprised. Lieutenant Deflandre having joined him, they secured his person, and found in his pockets a small phial, a looking-glass, and some powder and bullets. The lieutenant having asked one of his gens d'armes, named Trantmann, if he had not seen another individual running away. Lecomte said to him, "You know me well; my name is Lecomte. I am alone. I played a dangerous game; I have lost. The shots were fired by me.

[ocr errors]

M. Deflandre, a lieutenant of the gendarmerie, who was expecting the arrival of the king at the Porte Dorée; saw Lecomte leaping down from the wall after he had fired. He rode to the gate of the parquet, which was unfortunately locked, but Milet, having climbed over the wall arrested the accused. The gate having been opened, he entered the parquet, followed by the lieutenant of hussars, Morel, and others who assisted in apprehending the assassin, who exclaimed, "I am taken; it was I who fired upon the King. You know me, lieutenant, my name is Lecomte.

[ocr errors]

M. de Monicault, Prefect of the Department of Seine and Marne, who was seated in the second carriage, deposed to a similar effect. VOL. LXXXVIII.

M. Berryer, Colonel of the 1st regiment of Hussars, in garrison at Fontainbleau, gave an account of a conversation he had had with Lecomte after his arrest. Lecomte said, that having vainly remonstrated with the administration of the civil list, he had applied to the King personally. Not obtaining redress, he had resolved to avenge himself upon His Majesty. "I have missed him," he said; " people will blame me, but I have as much heart as those who blame me.

M. Cante, the gunmaker who sold the gun, stated that, when Lecomte presented himself in his establishment, he told him he had been appointed Keeper General of the forest of Compiegne. It was on the 6th of May, 1844, and he perfectly recognized the gun, which was placed in his hands, as the one he had sold.

Several witnesses deposed to having seen Lecomte hanging about the Tuileries, and afterwards loitering in the forest of Fontainbleau.

Gard, an upholsterer at Fontainbleau, who had served with Lecomte in the Chasseurs of the Royal Guard, mentioned several acts of brutality committed by the accused during the campaign of 1823.

Marrier de Bois d'Hyver, Legriel, and Savoye, inspectors of the forest, bore testimony to the zeal and good conduct of Lecomte whilst he served under their orders.

FRIDAY, June 5.

The prisoner being again brought in, the President invited the Attorney-General to develop his accusation.

M. Hebert said, that his task was easy in presence of an accused who confessed his crime. Since his arrest, Lecomte had sedulously endeavoured to impress on the

minds of the magistrates that he had not been inspired by any political resentment, and the minute investigation which had been instituted into all the circumstances of the case had not elicited any proof to show that the accused had been influenced by political motives. The Attorney-General then proceeded to contend that the crime had been long premeditated by the assassin. On the 15th January, 1844, he had tendered his resignation, which was accepted on the 26th of that month. On the 16th February he ceased his functions; he sold his horse in April, and on the 6th of May he came in from Fontainbleau to purchase the double barrelled gun which he had subsequently used for the commission of his crime. In the evening he returned to Fontainbleau, where his absence had not even been remarked. What was his intention in purchasing that gun? It was because he had heard that the King was to arrive at Fontainbleau on the following day, and that he already meditated his assassination. It is to be supposed that no opportunity offered itself to him to execute that resolution. Lecomte shortly afterwards left Fontainbleau and took up his residence in Paris; but in the autumn of 1845 he again repaired to that town, where he was seen by several persons, because no doubt he was informed of the King's intention to spend a week in that royal residence. M. Hebert maintained that Lecomte evidently contemplated to assassinate the King at that period, and that no credit should be attached to his allegation that the first idea of that crime had originated in his mind two or three months previous to its commission. M. Hebert then proceeded to examine the grievances of Lecomte

against the administration of the civil list, read the letters he had written to the Conservator of the Forests of the Crown, the Intendant of the Civil List, and to the King, and showed that the ill treatment he complained of was merely imaginary. The silence of the Administration, the alleged disdain evinced by it with regard to his claims, and to the demand of the capitalization of his pension, which he knew could not be accorded, did not exist on the 6th of May, 1844, when he purchased a gun to kill the King. At that time he had not even written to His Majesty. M. Hebert then entered into a variety of other considerations to demonstrate the premeditation on the part of Lecomte. Reports had been circulated some days previous to the attempt that the King had been murdered. The investigations, instituted wherever those rumours had been current, had convinced the instructing magistrates that they had no connection whatsoever with the crime, and that Lecomte alone was guilty. The AttorneyGeneral then presented a requisitory to the Court to the effect of declaring Lecomte culpable of an attempt against the King's life, and condemning him to death.

M. Duvergier then rose to present the defence of Lecomte. He might, he said, confine himself to imploring the mercy of the Court in his favour, but he had other considerations to advise. He had studied the character of Lecomte in the long conference he had had with him, and he rested convinced that, at the moment he committed the crime, he was not in the full enjoyment of his faculties. He then recounted the military life of the accused, which must have been highly honourable, since he had

been decorated with the order of the Legion of Honour. In the discharge of his duties, whilst in the service of the civil list, he had been constantly remarked for his zeal and good conduct. He had resigned his functions because he had considered himself aggrieved. His resentment alone had blinded him, and, as he declared himself, he had not been influenced by bad advisers or accomplices. Lecomte had never belonged to any particular political party. The owner of the circulating library which he frequented declared that the only journal he read was the Petites Affiches, and the motive of his preference for that journal was, that he expected to find in it a situation. He saw that, in order to obtain an honourable situation, a certain sum was required as a security, and this had been his reason for demanding the capitalization of his pension. M. Duvergier then undertook to prove that Lecomte could not have contemplated the murder of the King as far back as May 1844, or October 1845; and, to substantiate his opinion, he read the letters he had written to His Majesty since that period, and which were full of expressions of respect and affection. Reverting to his military career, he read a number of documents describing him as a good and brave soldier. The colonel of the regiment of Chasseurs of the Royal Guard, in which he had served, had addressed to him (M. Duvergier) a certificate highly honourable to his client. At the battle of Carolina, Lecomte had so distinguished himself, taking prisoner a superior officer of the Spanish cavalry, that having been allowed five crosses of the Legion of Honour for his regiment, he did not hesitate to bestow one on Lecomte. In Greece he

had similarly distinguished himself. On one occasion, the corps to which he belonged having been obliged to retrograde, Lecomte, then aide-decamp of General Church, being stationed in the rear-guard, saw a young English officer on the point of falling into the hands of the Turks. He gave spur to his horse, charged the enemy, and was fortunate enough to rescue the officer from their hands. Lecomte had fought several duels, in every one of which he had behaved with the greatest generosity, receiving the fire of his opponent and discharg ing his pistol in the air. When in the service of the administration of the civil list, he had deported himself with zeal, honour, and irreproachable probity, according to the statement of all his superiors. M. Duvergier then read a letter which Lecomte wrote, in January 1835, to his sister, on the occasion of the death of his mother, and which breathed the utmost tenderness for his parent. (The accused appeared greatly affected whilst his counsel was reading that letter.) M. Duvergier contended that Lecomte was to the present hour fully convinced of having been the victim of an unpardonable injustice. It was a real monomania, a mental aberration, a fixed idea. Borrowing an expression of Sir Robert Peel, he declared Lecomte to labour under a morbid vanity. He then explained what would be the course pursued in England with respect to his client; and stated, that when an attempt directed against the person of the Sovereign. was not inspired by political passions, the culprit was only sentenced to transportation. Of the three individuals lately tried in England for a similar crime, not one had been convicted of high

treason. In conclusion, M. Duvergier, repeated his conviction that his client did not enjoy the use of his faculties, that his will was not free at the moment he committed his crime, and implored in his favour the commiseration and clemency of the Court.

M. Hebert, the Attorney-General, having risen, said that he should not have again addressed the Court, if the counsel of the accused had confined himself to recommend him to the commiseration of his judges, but he combated the plea of insanity as completely misplaced.

M. Duvergier replied in a few words; and the accused having declared that he had nothing to add to his defence, the President announced the close of the trial. Lecomte was then removed from the dock.

A few minutes before 6 o'clock the Chancellor and Peers re-entered the Court. According to the custom of the Court, the accused was not present. In the midst of a profound silence, the Chancellor then read the sentence of the Court, which was as follows:

"Whereas Pierre Lecomte, a Guard General of the forest of Fontainbleau, was guilty, on the 16th of April last, of an attempt on the King's person and life, by the use of a fire-arm:

"The Court, in virtue of the articles 86, 88, and 302 of the Penal Code, condemns the said Pierre Lecomte to the punishment applied to parricides. The sentence of the Court therefore is, that the prisoner shall be taken to the place of execution in his shirt, and barefooted; and there, his head covered with a black veil, he shall remain exposed on the scaffold whilst a huissier reads to the people

the sentence of the Court, and he shall immediately afterwards be beheaded."

The Peers were unanimous in finding the prisoner guilty, but divided as to his punishment. It is said that 196 voted for his being executed as a parricide, 36 voted simply for the punishment of death, and three voted for perpetual imprisonment.

On Friday evening, shortly after 6 o'clock, M. Cauchy, the principal Registrar of the Court of Peers, accompanied by a huissier, went to the prison of the Luxembourg, and read to Lecomte the sentence which the Court of Peers had just passed upon him. The regicide listened with the utmost composure to the reading of the fatal decree, and at its conclusion said, "It is well. I now only ask but one favour, and that is, to see the Abbé Grivel." The Abbé, who for several days past had had several conversations with Lecomte, immediately visited the prisoner. When the chaplain had retired, a strait waistcoat was, as is the custom, put on him, and Lecomte, far from showing any unwillingness, actually assisted the gaolers during the execution of this formality. The only words which he addressed to the persons present, were those in which he expressed a desire to see again the chaplain of the prison. Lecomte was executed on the 8th of June.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. Liverpool, December 11th, 1846.

(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

The following prosecution is said to have been instituted for the purpose of trying the legality of marriage with the sister of a deceased

« EdellinenJatka »