Monsieur de Grandville never argued but this one criminal case; and it made his reputation.  In the first place, he spoke with the same glowing eloquence which to-day we admire in Berryer.  He was profoundly convinced of the innocence of his clients, and that in itself is a most powerful auxiliary of speech.  The following are the chief points of his defence, which was reported in full by all the leading newspapers of the period.  In the first place he exhibited the character and life of Michu in its true light.  He made it a noble tale, ringing with lofty sentiments, and it awakened the sympathies of many.  When Michu heard himself vindicated by that eloquent voice, tears sprang from his yellow eyes and rolled down his terrible face.  He appeared then for what he really was,—­a man as simple and as wily as a child; a being whose whole existence had but one thought, one aim.  He was suddenly explained to the minds of all present, more especially by his tears, which produced a great effect upon the jury.  His able defender seized that moment of strong interest to enter upon a discussion of the charges:—­

“Where is the body of the person abducted?  Where is the senator?” he asked.  “You accuse us of walling him up with stones and plaster.  If so, we alone know where he is; you have kept us twenty-three days in prison, and the senator must be dead by this time for want of food.  We are therefore murderers, but you have not accused us of murder.  On the other hand, if he still lives, we must have accomplices.  If we have them, and if the senator is living, we should assuredly have set him at liberty.  The scheme in relation to Gondreville which you attribute to us is a failure, and only aggravates our position uselessly.  We might perhaps obtain a pardon for an abortive attempt by releasing our victim; instead of that we persist in detaining a man from whom we can obtain no benefit whatever.  It is absurd!  Take away your plaster; the effect is a failure,” he said, addressing the public prosecutor.  “We are either idiotic criminals (which you do not believe) or the innocent victims of circumstances as inexplicable to us as they are to you.  You ought rather to search for the mass of papers which were burned at Gondreville, which will reveal motives stronger far than yours or ours and put you on the track of the causes of this abduction.”

The speaker discussed these hypotheses with marvellous ability.  He dwelt on the moral character of the witnesses for the defence, whose religious faith was a living one, who believed in a future life and in eternal punishment.  He rose to grandeur in this part of his speech and moved his hearers deeply:—­

“Remember!” he said; “these criminals were tranquilly dining when told of the abduction of the senator.  When the officer of gendarmes intimated to them the best means of ending the whole affair by giving up the senator, they refused, for they did not understand what was asked of them!”