and her intrepidity in extreme cases.  She alleges that she was misled by her daughter, and believed that the plundered money belonged to the Sieur Bryond,—­a common excuse!  If the Sieur Bryond had possessed any property, he would not have left the department on account of his debts.  The woman Lechantre claims that she did not suspect a shameful theft, because she saw the proceedings approved by her ally, Boislaurier.  But how does she explain the presence of Rifoel (already executed) at Saint-Savin; the journeys to and fro; the relations of that young man with her daughter; the stay of the brigands at Saint-Savin, where they were served by her daughter and the girl Godard?  She alleges sleep; declares it to be her practice to go to bed at seven in the evening; and has no answer to make when the magistrate points out to her that if she rises, as she says she does, at dawn, she must have seen some signs of the plot, of the sojourn of so many persons, and of the nocturnal goings and comings of her daughter.  To this she replies that she was occupied in prayer.  This woman is a mass of hypocrisy.  Lastly, her journey on the day of the crime, the care she takes to carry her daughter to Mortagne, her conduct about the money, her precipitate flight when all is discovered, the pains she is at to conceal herself, even the circumstances of her arrest, all go to prove a long-existing complicity.  She has not acted like a mother who desires to save her daughter and withdraw her from danger, but like a trembling accomplice.  And her complicity is not that of a misguided tenderness; it is the fruit of party spirit, the inspiration of a well-known hatred against the government of His Imperial and Royal Majesty.  Misguided maternal tenderness, if that could be fairly alleged in her defence, would not, however, excuse it; and we must not forget that consentment, long-standing and premeditated, is the surest sign of guilt.

  Thus all the elements of the crime and the persons committing it
  are fully brought to light.

We see the madness of faction combining with pillage and greed; we see assassination advised by party spirit, under whose aegis these criminals attempt to justify themselves for the basest crimes.  The leaders give the signal for the pillage of the public money, which money is to be used for their ulterior crimes; vile stipendiaries do this work for a paltry price, not recoiling from murder; then the fomenters of rebellion, not less guilty because their own hands have neither robbed nor murdered, divide the booty and dispose of it.  What community can tolerate such outrages?  The law itself is scarcely rigorous enough to duly punish them.

It is upon the above facts that this Court of Criminal and Special Justice is called upon to decide whether the prisoners Herbomez, Hiley, Cibot, Grenier, Horeau, Cabot, Minard, Melin, Binet, Laraviniere, Rousseau, the woman Bryond, Leveille, the woman Bourget,