Even Mrs Walker and her daughter, and the Miss Prettymans, had so far given way that they had ceased to asseverate their belief in Mr Crawley’s innocence.  They contented themselves with simply expressing a hope that he would be acquitted by a jury, and that when he should be so acquitted the thing might be allowed to rest.  If he had sinned, no doubt he had repented.  And then there were serious debates whether he might not have stolen the money without much sin, being mad or half-mad—­touched with madness when he took it; and whether he might not, in spite of such temporary touch of madness, be well fitted for his parish duties.  Sorrow had afflicted him grievously; but that sorrow, though it had incapacitated him for the management of his own affairs, had not rendered him unfit for the ministration of his parish.  Such were the arguments now used in his favour by the women around him; and the men were not keen to contradict them.  The wish that he should be acquitted and allowed to remain in his parsonage was very general.

When therefore it became known that the bishop had decided to put on foot another investigation, with the view of bringing Mr Crawley’s conduct under ecclesiastical condemnation, almost everybody accused the bishop of persecution.  The world of the diocese declared that Mrs Proudie was at work, and that the bishop himself was no better than a puppet.  It was in vain that certain clear headed men among the clergy, of whom Dr Tempest himself was one, pointed out that the bishop after all might perhaps be right;—­that if Mr Crawley were guilty, and if he should be found to have been so by a jury, it might be absolutely necessary that an ecclesiastical court should take some cognizance of the crime beyond that of taken by the civil law.  ‘The jury,’ said Dr Tempest, discussing the case with Mr Robarts and other clerical neighbours—­’the jury may probably find him guilty and recommend to him mercy.  The judge will have heard his character, and will have been made acquainted with the manner of his life, and will deal as lightly with the case as the law will allow him.  For aught I know he may be imprisoned for a month.  I wish it might be for no more than a day—­or an hour.  But when he comes out from his month’s imprisonment—­how then?  Surely it should be a case for ecclesiastical inquiry, whether a clergyman who has committed a theft should be allowed to go into his pulpit directly he comes out of prison?’ But the answer to this was that Mr Crawley had always been a good clergyman, was a good clergyman at this moment, and would be a good clergyman when he did come out of prison.