of them immediately took to flight, amongs
whom was D'Etalonde, who contrived to put
himself under the protection of the Abbot of
Lieu-Dieu. This generous prelate, whose
conduct forms a noble contrast with the intolerance
of the other priests, concealed the fugitive in
the depths of his convent, and provided him
with means of escape through the assistance of
the Abbot of Tréport, his excellent and worthy
friend. De la Barre, relying too confidently on
the influence and credit of his relations, the
D'Ormessons, who occupied distinguished positions
in the parliament and the council, refused
to leave France. He was arrested on the first
of October in the Abbey of Longvilliers, near
Montreuil, and brought the very same day to
Abbeville. Moisnel was seized the day following.
De la Barre was nineteen years of age;
Moisnel only fourteen.

Not a single creature in the whole town had
witnessed the commission of the mutilation. De
la Barre was only strongly suspected of having
taken part in it. The legislation of every
country maintains the principle that, before it
can be punished, a crime must be proved to have
been committed. But even if it had been proved
that the Chevalier de la Barre had injured and
defiled crucifixes, no law then existed in France
punishing with death either the breaking of
images or other similar blasphemous conduct.
The edict of 1666 merely ordains that
blasphemers, after repeating their offence a certain
number of times, shall have their tongue cut out,
leaving to theologians the task of defining what
amount of sacrilege is deserving of death. A
decision of the Sorbonne was requisite to
pronounce judgment on the theological points. In
default of law, it appears that they disinterred
an "Edict of Pacification," given by the
Chancellor de l'Hôpital under Charles the Ninth,
and revoked soon afterwards.

However that may be, De la Barre and D'Eta-
londe were condemned to a terrible death. The
latter, a refugee in Prussia, was out of the reach
of the tormentors; but the poor unhappy boy,
Moisnel, transferred from dungeon to dungeon,
following the Chevalier wherever he was dragged,
narrowly escaped from sharing his fate. Whilst
Madame de Willancourt hastened to Versailles
in search of succour and support, the wretched
lads were deprived of every means of defence.
The younger one, terror-struck, and throwing
himself in tears at his accusers' feet, confessed
to whatever they chose to put into his mouth.
De la Barre, gifted with greater strength of
mind, admitting trifling peccadilloes, vehemently
protested his innocence of the graver charges.
It may even be added that the noble fellow well
knew who was the real culprit, but would not
name him. An honourable magistrate, the
oldest and the most intimate friend'of one of the
two co-accused, has stated that the veritable
perpetrator of the mutilation was a hare-brained
lad,—-, who was frequently with De la Barre
and his other companions. But the dastardly
wretch, instead of leaving France and then avowing
his culpability in the face of Europe, took
good care not to reveal his secret; whilst his
heroic friend, firmly determined to betray no
clue, was devoting, by his silence, his own head
to the executioner. On the 28th of February,
1766, a horrible sentence was pronounced whose
memory will ever weigh as a great crime, both
on the tribunal which decreed it and the town
where the victim was sacrificed.

And who were the judges? In the first
place, Duval de Soicourt, whom we already
know. Secondly, one Broustelles, whose
principal profession was to deal in pigs and cattle,
and who was utterly unfit for the office; seeing
that he had sentences recorded against him, that
he had been declared incapable of holding any
municipal oflice in the kingdom, and that the
advocates of Abbeville, by a formal deed, had
refused to admit him into their body. The
third judge, intimidated, it is said, by the other
two, had the weakness to sign the sentence, and
was afterwards tormented by poignant though
ineffectual remorse. His act is the more
inexcusable, from his having one day said, during
the trial, " We ought not to torment the poor
innocents in this way."

The Court of Abbeville was subordinate of
the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Paris.
Thither, consequently, De la Barre was
transferred, and confined in the Montgomery tower.
Eight of the most celebrated advocates in Paris
signed a consultation, in which they demonstrated
the illegality of the proceedings and the
absurd barbarity of the three Abbeville judges,
"who deserved," said Voltaire, " to be skinned
alive on their fleur-de-lys-covered benches, and
to have their skins used as a covering for the
flowers." The attorney-general in vain gave
his opinion that their execrable sentence should
be quashed. It was confirmed on the 5th of
June, 1766, by a majority of two votes. The
real fact is, that De la Barre, whose cause was
espoused by the " philosophers," was sacrificed
as a sop thrown out to stop the mouths of the
Jesuits, who, though suffering from a defeat, had
still sufficient influence to excite wretched quarrels,
and to make themselves dreaded as
dangerous enemies.

It is related that the Bishop of Amiens,
tormented by severe remorse, and bitterly deploring
the consequences of his imprudent zeal,
solicited the aid of clergy in order to obtain
letters of grace. It is even added, that the parliament
delayed the signing of the decree for six
days, in the hope that Louis the Fifteenth would
prove not inflexible. But the sultan of the Parc-
aux-Cerfs sanctioned the infamy of the condemnation.

De la Barre was brought to Abbeville by way
of Rouen, a circuitous route, as if his persecuors
feared a rescue. He entered the town by
the Hocquet Gate, in a post-chaise, between two
police officers, and escorted by archers disguised
as couriers. At six in the morning of the first
of August he was put to the rack in the
presence of a justly respected medical man, M.
Gatte, who saved him from a great part of the
horrors of torture by telling the executioners