ng that wall nor breaking that
branch by any one. He had been taken with that branch (which the lawyer
preferred to call a bough) in his possession; but he said that he had
found it broken off and lying on the ground, and had picked it up.
Where was there any proof to the contrary? No doubt that branch had been
broken off and concealed after the scaling of the wall, then thrown away
by the alarmed marauder; there was no doubt that there had been a
thief in the case. But what proof was there that that thief had been
Champmathieu? One thing only. His character as an ex-convict. The
lawyer did not deny that that character appeared to be, unhappily,
well attested; the accused had resided at Faverolles; the accused had
exercised the calling of a tree-pruner there; the name of Champmathieu
might well have had its origin in Jean Mathieu; all that was true,--in
short, four witnesses recognize Champmathieu, positively and without
hesitation, as that convict, Jean Valjean; to these signs, to this
testimony, the counsel could oppose nothing but the denial of his
client, the denial of an interested party; but supposing that he was
the convict Jean Valjean, did that prove that he was the thief of the
apples? that was a presumption at the most, not a proof. The prisoner,
it was true, and his counsel, "in good faith," was obliged to admit it,
had adopted "a bad system of defence." He obstinately denied everything,
the theft and his character of convict. An admission upon this last
point would certainly have been better, and would have won for him the
indulgence of his judges; the counsel had advised him to do this; but
the accused had obstinately refused, thinking, no doubt, that he would
save everything by admitting nothing. It was an error; but ought not the
paucity of this intelligence to be taken into consideration? This man
was visibly stupid. Long-continued wretchedness in the galleys, long
misery outside the galleys, had brutalized him, etc. He defended himself
badly; was that a reason for condemning him? As for the affair with
Little Gervais, the counsel need not discuss it; it did not enter into
the case. The lawyer wound up by beseeching the jury and the court, if
the identity of Jean Valjean appeared to them to be evident, to apply
to him the police penalties which are provided for a criminal who has
broken his ban, and not the frightful chastisement which descends upon
the convict guilty of a second offence.

The district-