‘Weigh, at the same time, my lords, the misconduct of our adversary, and the innocence of the duke of Orleans, who may say with the Psalmist, ‘Os peccatoris et os dolosi super me apertum est, locuti sunt adversum me lingua dolosa, et sermonibus odii circumdederunt me.’ ‘The third charge of our adversary is, that my late lord of Orleans practised different means to cause the death of his prince and lord, the king of France: first, as it is said, by sorceries, witchcrafts and superstitions;—secondly, by poisons;—thirdly, by fire, water, or other violent injections, which consequently inculpates my lord of Orleans in the crime of human high treason, in the person of the king our lord. ‘In regard to the first part of the charge relative to poison, supposed to be administered by a monk under the forms of a sword, a buckler, a ring, or a wand,—and that, to accomplish this, my lord of Orleans had sent for this monk, a knight, an esquire and a varlet, to whom, our adversary says, he gave large sums of money,—all this I deny as absolute falsehoods, for my said lord of Orleans never consented to sorceries or such forbidden deeds. ‘Should this monk have done such sorceries, it was no way through the exhortation of my lord of Orleans, nor ought this to have been so lightly alledged against him,—for there was a long trial held of this monk before the ministers of the king, from whom the truth may be known. It was then discovered by the confession of the monk, that my lord had forbidden him to use any magic arts that would any way prove to the prejudice of the king’s person; and God knows, if there had been any truth in the charge, it would not have been concealed until after my lord’s death. ‘By this, the falsehood of the accusation is evident; and although my foresaid lord may have at times held some conversation with this monk, let it be remembered that he was then young, not more than eighteen years old, and that princes of that age are frequently deceived by artful talkers, to gain money from them. ‘With respect to the bone wrapped up in a small linen bag which he wore between his shirt and skin, as our adversary says, until it was torn from him by a knight, whom he hated ever after, and continued to persecute until he had ruined him in his fortune, and procured his banishment out of the realm,—this is most assuredly false; for the knight was banished the kingdom by sentence of the courts of justice for a very notorious cause, and this odious circumstance was never mentioned but by this knight who published it, and who, according to our adversary, was suspected of hatred to the duke of Orleans, and consequently not a competent witness to be admitted against the defunct.