wise she was lost.

Laviolette, an archer, deposed that on the evening of the arrest. the
marquise had a long pin and tried to put it in her mouth; that he stopped
her, and told her that she was very wicked; that he perceived that people
said the truth and that she had poisoned all her family; to which she
replied, that if she had, it was only through following bad advice, and
that one could not always be good.

Antoine Barbier, an archer, said that the marquise at table took up a
glass as though to drink, and tried to swallow a piece of it; that he
prevented this, and she promised to make his fortune if only he would
save her; that she wrote several letters to Theria; that during the whole
journey she tried all she could to swallow pins, bits of glass, and
earth; that she had proposed that he should cut Desgrais' throat, and
kill the commissary's valet; that she had bidden him get the box and burn
it, and bring a lighted torch to burn everything; that she had written to
Penautier from the Conciergerie; that she gave him, the letter, and he
pretended to deliver it.

Finally, Francoise Roussel deposed that she had been in the service of
the marquise, and the lady had one day given her some preserved
gooseberries; that she had eaten some on the point of her knife, and at
once felt ill. She also gave her a slice of mutton, rather wet, which
she ate, afterwards suffering great pain in the stomach, feeling as
though she had been pricked in the heart, and for three years had felt
the same, believing herself poisoned.

It was difficult to continue a system of absolute denial in face of
proofs like these. The marquise persisted, all the same, that she was in
no way guilty; and Maitre Nivelle, one of the best lawyers of the period,
consented to defend her cause.

He combated one charge after another, in a remarkably clever way, owning
to the adulterous connection of the marquise with Sainte-Croix, but
denying her participation in the murders of the d'Aubrays, father and
sons: these he ascribed entirely to the vengeance desired by
Sainte-Croix. As to the confession, the strongest and, he maintained,
the only evidence against Madame de Brinvilliers, he attacked its
validity by bringing forward certain similar cases, where the evidence
supplied by the accused against themselves had not been admitted by
reason of the legal action: 'Non auditur perire volens'. He cited three
instances, and as they are themselves interesting,