incurred by the necessity of
bringing so many people such a distance; but the lust of vengeance proved
stronger than the lust of gold; the subscription expected from each being
estimated according to his fortune, each paid without a murmur, and at
the end of two months the case was concluded.

In spite of the evident pains taken by the prosecution to strain the
evidence against the defendant, the principal charge could not be
sustained, which was that he had led astray many wives and daughters in
Loudun. No one woman came forward to complain of her ruin by Grandier;
the name of no single victim of his alleged immorality was given. The
conduct of the case was the most extraordinary ever seen; it was evident
that the accusations were founded on hearsay and not on fact, and yet a
decision and sentence against Grandier were pronounced on January 3rd,
1630. The sentence was as follows: For three months to fast each Friday
on bread and water by way of penance; to be inhibited from the
performance of clerical functions in the diocese of Poitiers for five
years, and in the town of Loudun for ever.

Both parties appealed from this decision: Grandier to the Archbishop of
Bordeaux, and his adversaries, on the advice of the attorney to the
diocese, pleading a miscarriage of justice, to the Parliament of Paris;
this last appeal being made in order to overwhelm Grandier and break his
spirit. But Grandier's resolution enabled him to face this attack
boldly: he engaged counsel to defend his case before the Parliament,
while he himself conducted his appeal to the Archbishop of Bordeaux. But
as there were many necessary witnesses, and it was almost impossible to
bring them all such a great distance, the archiepiscopal court sent the
appeal to the presidial court of Poitiers. The public prosecutor of
Poitiers began a fresh investigation, which being conducted with
impartiality was not encouraging to Grandier's accusers. There had been
many conflicting statements made by the witnesses, and these were now
repeated: other witnesses had declared quite openly that they had been
bribed; others again stated that their depositions had been tampered
with; and amongst these latter was a certain priest named Mechin, and
also that Ishmael Boulieau whom Barot had been in such a hurry to select
as candidate for the reversion of Grandier's preferments. Boulieau's
deposition has been lost, but we can lay Mechin's before the reader, for
the origi