despotism, took particular care to subject those crimes,
which he dreaded might arise out of the feelings of the public, to the
cognisance of special tribunals. All trials originating out of the
conscription, are placed under the care of a special court, composed of
a certain number of the criminal judges and military officers. In
France, there is no grand jury; but its place is supplied by that which
they have denominated the _Jure d'Accusation_. This is a court composed
of a few members amongst the civil judges, assisted by the
Procureur-General or Attorney-General. Their juries for the trial of
criminals are selected from much higher classes in society than with us
in England; a circumstance the effect of absolute necessity, owing to
the extreme ignorance of the middling ranks and the lower classes. In
the conducting of criminal trials, the manner of procedure is in a great
measure different from our English form. A criminal, when first
apprehended, is carried, before the magistrate of the town, generally
the Mayor. He there undergoes repeated examinations; all the witnesses,
are summoned and examined, in a manner similar to the precognitions
taken before the Sheriff of Scotland, and the whole process is nearly as
tedious as upon the trial. All the papers and declarations are then sent
with the accused, to the _Jure d'Accusation_, who also thoroughly
examine the prisoner and the witnesses; if grounds are found for the
trial, the papers are immediately laid before the "_Cour d'Assize_."
Before this court, the prisoner is again specially examined by its
president. His former declarations are compared and confronted with his
present answers, and the strongest evidence against him, is often in
this manner extracted from his own story. It might certainly be
imagined, that with all these precautions, it would be scarcely possible
that the guilty should escape. The very contrary is the case, and I have
been informed by some of the ablest lawyers in the courts here, that out
of ten prisoners, really guilty, six haves good chance of getting clear
off. They ascribe this to two principal causes, 1st, That the
proceedings become so extremely tedious and intricate, that it is
impossible for the jury to keep them all in their recollection, and
that, forgetting the general tenor of the evidence, they suffer the
last impressions, those made by the counsel for the prisoner, to bias
their judgment, and to regulate their verdict. In the