has she ever complained that her lover shared his heart between her and another one.
Equally little disturbed was her relationship with Saint Croix by a close supervision. Her husband who himself lived in unceasing dissipations and who, because of his coldness toward her, gave her the first occasion to commit her errors; stood in the way of her relationship with Saint Croix as little as any totally indifferent human being. Her father, her brothers did not equally constitute any constraint for her. She was fine enough to curtail them; they died in full conviction that she has broken up already for long with Saint Croix. One cannot think of a unique motive for such a heart, soft and filled with the most tender feelings, to be at once dragged into such abomination.
Presumptions of such importance speak for the Marquess! To refute such enlightening grounds, people can rightfully demand proofs which must be as strong as the truth and reality of a miracle. What are they, however, but proofs which people presented against the Marquess to bring her on the scaffold? The most dangerous among all the testimonies against her is Cluet’s account. But he is alone, and a single witness is not sufficient to decide over a matter. In this regard, is it not improbable that a lady of such standing has made such an insignificant human being into her confidant? None of the other confidants appeared as eyewitness, none told anything about what he has seen; everything that they said, are mere presumptions.
The testimony which people have received from LaChaussée even before his execution, contained two pieces. First, he declares staunchly that Saint Croix has assured him that the Marquess not only had not any responsibility in the poisonings, but rather never knew anything about them. The second part of his acknowledgment, however, consisted of conjectures and suspicions from which this unworthy person sought to prove that this Saint Croix's statement was a lie.
That the Marquess has very often spoken with him about poisonings, proves nothing more that her whole imagination was filled with images of the crimes through which she has lost both her brothers so rapidly, one after the other. Everything reminded her of these terrible incidents; it was the usual subject which she talked about with all her relatives and friends. And then, precisely the fact that she spoke so often about poisonings, is an appropriate proof of her innocence. Criminals make of their gruesome acts certainly not into the usual subject of their conversations; anything that has only a remote relationship to their crimes, they rather keep away very carefully; their remorse grow with every mention of the crime which they are guilty of; they fear that each of their words, their looks, even each expression on their face, can betray them.
Far to the contrary, in all these repeated conversations about poisonings which the Marquess should have had, lead to the conclusion that she is not implicated in Saint Croix's crimes, people must rather more see them as proofs of her innocence. That she has enticed LaChaussée to leave Paris, can be explained very naturally from the circumstance that she wanted voluntarily to remove away a man whom Saint Croix has anointed into the most trusted secrets of their love. His presence was embarrassing for her, because she must have been ashamed of weaknesses from which witnesses are not voluntarily tolerated, and which are very unsafe if known by a servant.
All these details deserve not so much consideration. They are nothing more than testimonies of a calumniated villain who, as a proven enemy of the whole human race, cannot deserve any belief. If they were, however, true and if people were really justified to put them to the Marquess' disadvantage; yet they all remain but only presumptions. Can people, however, ground on such unsubstantiated facts the proof of crimes which contradict all natural sentiments and are impossible according to the Marquess' known mentality as well as her education?
However, did she not strive so pressingly to get hold of Saint Croix's small coffer, before it would be opened, and shows not her supplicating demand that she feared to be betrayed by what was contained in there? But people should only investigate what was in there to verify at once such supposition.
People found, first, a declaration stating that everything contained in the small coffer belonged to the Marquess of Brinvillier, that its content only has some interest for her alone and that people should hand it over to her, or in the case she were already dead, burn it. Then, people found the Marquess' love letters which Saint Croix kept very preciously, a silliness which lovers make very frequently and very often, has terrible consequences! Saint Croix was also seduced by this illusion, he kept each letter from the Marquess as an assurance of her tenderness; however, he wanted that these proofs of her love be returned into the hands from which he has received them. On these grounds, he has so expressly ordered that people give back to the Lady the small coffer, or in case she was deceased, burn it.
She, as a woman, was not any more interested in keeping for posterity any information about her past errors, had not kept any of the letters which she has received from him. Only that this precaution did not assure her about her secrets, as long as she knew that he kept her letters with him. She also shared her worry about these letters many times to her lover. But he assured her, finally, that he kept all her letters in a small coffer which can not fall in any human being's hands, and that he has protected the sanctity of her love from uninitiated hands which could take hold of it after his death, by adding a very solemn declaration in his last will. She first knew about the existence of this small coffer in this way; and this was a good enough reason for her to ask very pressingly for the same small coffer.
By the way, that the Marquess knew about the poisons found with her letters, we do not have the smallest clue. Saint Croix used to consider this small coffer in which he also kept his lover's letters, as the archive of his deepest secrets, and has also precisely chosen this same place to hide his murderous weapons. But the Marquess who had no idea that her lover was a professional poison maker, could really not think that the archive containing her secrets, at the same time, was the container of the most abominable poisons.
Regarding this point, people may only compare the information written on the parcels with the one contained in the last will, to be totally convinced that Saint Croix, while he bequeathed the small coffer to the Marquess, wanted not the poison to be included in there. There was information written on every parcel; all the information was, however, written later than the draft of this will. As he, however, bequeathed this small coffer to the Marquess, there could only be letters in it, which was the unique subject of the bequeath. The Marquess has, consequently, not any pretence to the poisons, and while she claimed the small coffer, she was not so much frightened by the horrible discovery which was recently made in the same small coffer.
Among the proofs against the Marquess, there is now nothing more left than this set of papers, which bears the mention “Confession” on it, and which contains the description of the most gruesome acts. This set of papers not only can not be used in the Marquess' trial, but rather it may also not have the least influence in it. Confessions, no matter verbal or in writing, are always an inviolable, sacred secret; and people cannot simply make any use of its content in normal, civil life. Natural and divine laws secure this inviolability of confession. Christ has not called the sinners into confession, so that they run the danger, through the recognition of their sins, to lose honour and life. How would people reconcile such sad consequences with God's mercy? This law of secrecy stretches itself, however, equally to written and verbal confessions, because the principles of discretion which underlie it, state that a confession is a sacrament; and that people are obliged to confession, is valid for the two kinds of confessions.
We cannot prevent ourselves, here, to differentiate between sacred and profane writings; confessions are considered sacred, they stay under the immediate protection of religion. Everything related to confessions, is gathered by Abbot Lenglet Dufresnoy in his essay about the inviolable secrecy of confession. We want, however, to take some examples from these books as proofs that in this matter, the Princes have always used all their powers to secure the decisions of the church which is so important for the citizens' peace and the believers' salvation.
A Catalan who has been condemned to death for a murder, did not simply want to go to confession before his execution and rejected with such stubbornness all exhortations to do so, without giving any reasonable ground, that people started to believe that fear of death has disturbed his mind. Saint Thomas of Villeneuve, Archbishop of Valencia, who found himself precisely at the place where the Catalan was tried, learned about this incident and went immediately