depositions of her daughter and the priests
were false.

The revelations of Filastre were still more
compromising. This woman, a worthy rival of
La Voisin, carried on a regular trade in poisons,
and was convicted, besides the most execrable
acts of wickedness, of having sacrificed one of
her own children to obtain its blood. One
witness declared to have seen a writing in which
she had made a formal compact with the devil
to ensure her all she desired to obtain from
people of quality; that the Duchess de Vivonne,
who sought to succeed her sister-in-law, Madame
de Montespan, in the king's favour, was named
in this paper; and that there was something in
it about Fouquet being re-established in the
place of Colbert, whose death was demanded.
According to the Abbé Lesage, Madame de Vivonne
had moreover signed a paper, in conjunction
with the Duchess d'Angoulême and Madame de
Vitry, by which it was formally agreed to
procure the death of Madame de Montespan.  Put
to the question, on the 30th of September, 1680,
La Filastre declared, amongst other things, that
the Abbé Guibourg had said mass in a cellar
over a compact between Madame de Montespan
and a person of quality, having for its object the
death of Colbert. Upon these and similar
revelations, however, no reliance could be placed, for,
in her last confession, shortly before her execution,
La Filastre told the priest that what she
had said of Madame de Montespan was not true,
being influenced to make them by the severity of
the torture, and the dread of its being re-applied.

There were discrepancies enough in these
accusations, but they produced a very painful
effect on Louis the Fourteenth's mind, as
appears from a voluminous series of extracts
from the examinations made by Colbert
himself; from the observations of Claude Duplessis,
a celebrated advocate of the time, to whom they
were submitted; and from the letters written
on the subject by Louvois to the king and the
lieutenant-general of police.

It did, however, plainly appear that the
highest personages at court, the king, the
queen, the dauphin, Colbert, the Duchess de
la Vallière, the Duchess de Fontanges, might
have been the objects of criminal attempts,
the presumed authors of which were the
Countess de Soissons, the Marchioness de
Montespan, the Duchess de Vivonne, and Fouquet
or his agants, while Madame de Montespan was
herself in danger from impatient rivals. The
situation of Colbert was quite peculiar,
numerous witnesses concurring in the assertion
that his life was threatened, and one of his own
letters has a tendency to confirm their declarations.
"As my stomach is ill at ease," he
wrote, on the 19th of November, 1672, "I have
for some time adopted a very careful regimen.
I dine alone, and take only a chicken and soup
at that meal. In the evening I eat a bit of
bread and some broth." This regimen, which
was communicated to La Reynie, made him
suspicious of the cause, and in one of his
instructions he directs attention to "the time
when M. Colbert was ill," and desires that
search may be made for "a servant who had
been tampered with." One thing is curious in
this business: Louvois never once mentions the
name of Madame de Montespan, though the
papers of Colbert and La Reynie sufficiently
fill up the gap, and in reading those of the
lieutenant-general of police, the fluctuating opinions
of the king respecting the accusations made
against his favourite mistress, may be traced
from day to day. Much that was alleged against
her was, without doubt, of too monstrous a
nature to be true, but La Reynie had too much
experience of criminal proceedings readily to
accept denials of former statements when the
facts were there to show that there was good
reason for having made them, and in one of his
papers he says: "The denial made by La Voisin
to the last, of having any knowledge of Mademoiselle
Desœillets, is rendered the more suspicious
by her obstinate persistence in it, because it has
been proved that there was intercourse between
them, and if Mademoiselle Desœillets herself
denies that intercourse, it appears that that
circumstance ought to increase our suspicion."

It is evident, indeed, from the whole of the
document, although he makes certain reserves
as to the veracity of the accused, that he inclines
to the belief that Madame de Montespan had
applied to La Voisin and La Filastre for powders
that might have endangered the king's life,
and that Madame de Vivonne, her own sister-in-
law, would not have shrunk from the employment
of poison to get rid of a rival. He also
seems to admit that the Duchess de Fontanges,
then a prey to an incurable malady, had been
poisoned. Rumours to this effect were, in fact,
in general circulation, and the Princess Palatine,
whose maid of honour De Fontanges had been,
did not hesitate to express the same opinion.
That the king himself had doubts, appears by
the following letter, written by him to the Duke
de Noailles, on receiving from him the news of
the young duchess's death on the 28th of June,
1681: "Saturday, ten o'clock. Although I
have for some time expected the news you send,
it has not the less surprised and made me sorry
(me fâcher). I see by your letter that you have
given all the necessary orders for executing what
I commanded. You have only to continue that
which you have begun. Remain as long as
your presence is necessary, and then come and
give me an account of everything. You tell me
nothing of Father Bourdaloue. As to the desire
to open the body, I think, if it can be avoided, it
will be better not to do so. Address a compliment
on my part to the brothers and sisters, and
assure them that they will always find me
disposed to give them marks of my protection.
Louis." As heartless a letter this as could
well be written, all the desire of the royal
writer being evidently to prevent further scandal:
the difficulties which surrounded the case
increasing with every fresh step taken to throw
light upon it. La Reynie appears to have felt
this, and to have become embarrassed as to the
way in which he should proceed. In a letter to