# An Examen of Witches/Chapter 49

Layout 2
Chapter XLIX.
Of Guillaume Vuillermoz known as le Baillu. Of his Confrontation with Pierre his Son, and the Causes of his Condemnation.
The next trial was that of Guillaume Vuillermoz known as le Baillu, who had been committed to prison on the accusation of Groz-Jacques, Françoise Secretain and Rollande du Vernois. Christofle of Aranthon also asserted that she had seen him at the Sabbat, and also his son Pierre Vuillermoz maintained that he had taken him to the witches’ assembly. He would never, however, confess: yet we would not have failed to condemn him, if he had not anticipated his sentence by dying in prison. The following were the reasons upon which we based his conviction.
1. The accusation of five of his accomplices.
2. The common report, attested by twenty-three witnesses, that he was a witch.
3. The fact that Clauda Gindre, his mother, was also suspect. This was deposed by the same witnesses, and was not denied by himself, or by one of his brothers who has since undergone torture at Dôle.
4. The fact that he was never seen to shed a single tear, however much he endeavoured to weep before the Judge.
5. That he had himself volunteered to be examined, so that we might see whether he had any mark upon him.
​6. The execrable imprecations which he commonly used in his answers.
7. His confrontations with his son Pierre Vuillermoz, which I will here set down in writing.
Since this man remained stubborn in his replies, and when confronted with Groz-Jacques, Françoise Secretain, Rollande du Vernois and Christofle of Aranthon, it was decided to confront him with his son, who was only twelve years old. When the boy had changed his coat in the prison, he was brought before his father, and the father was asked if he knew him. The man answered that he did not; whereupon the boy was brought nearer and was directed to speak, and said to his father that he knew him well. The man continued to deny it, and told the boy that he had changed his clothes. The boy was then stripped, but the father still had difficulty in recognising him. He was then asked if it was long since he had seen his son, and he answered that it was only four months, and that he had seen him on the very day of his arrest. The boy was then made to speak to him again; and at last, after having considered with himself for a long time, the father recognised him and said that it was his son Pierre. After this the son was asked whether his father had ever taken him to the Sabbat near the village of Coirieres; and the boy answered that he had, adding that all that he had told us was true. At this the father began to rage and shout and utter such words as: “Ah, my son, you will ruin us both,” and he suddenly threw himself face downward on to the ground, so that it was thought that he had killed himself. Yet he recovered, and declared that he had never been to the Sabbat, and still less had he taken his ​son there; but his words were always mingled with certain execrable imprecations, and at times he made as if to tear his lips and face with his nails. The son persisted in his statements, and calmly gave particulars of the time, place and manner of his being taken to the Sabbat by his father, who, he added, had promised him that they would thereby become rich, although he himself knew well that this was false. So much for the first confrontation of le Baillu with his son.
Afterwards the son was questioned separately as to whether he had not been suborned to say what he had said in front of his father; and he was remonstrated with, and given to understand that he would be the cause of his father being burned alive; he was even threatened with the lash. But he remained absolutely unshaken, and never varied in his statement. Therefore, a few days later, he was again brought before his father, to whom he maintained, as before, that he had twice taken him to the Sabbat near the village of Coirieres. The father denied this with his customary oaths. The boy added that, when at the Sabbat, his father had urged him to give himself to the Devil, but that he had refused to do so.
It was a strange and harrowing experience to witness these confrontations. For the father was emaciated through his imprisonment, he had fetters on his hands and feet, he wailed and shouted and threw himself to the ground. I remember too that, when he became calmer, he sometimes spoke kindly to his son, saying that whatever he did he would always own him as his child. And all the time the son never trembled in any way, but seemed as one ​insensible, so that it appeared that Nature had furnished him with weapons against herself, seeing that his own blood was in a way to bring to an ignominious death the man who had given him life. But assuredly I believe that in this was manifested a just and secret judgement of God, who would not allow so detestable a crime as witchcraft to remain hidden and not be brought to light. C. privilegium 11. q. 3. C. cum accessissent de constitut. etc.Also it is reasonable to believe that the son is not at that time pierced by the pangs of Nature, because his father had openly leagued himself against God and Nature.
From this I would conclude that, in a case of witchcraft, it is right to admit the evidence of a son against his father and of a father against his son; L. parentes de testib. C.and still more that kindred may testify one against the Other, although their evidence against other persons may rightly be inadmissible.
Another reason which I would add is that the father usually makes his son, and the mother her daughter, a witch; the brother so initiates his sister, and the aunt her niece or nephew. And they always commit their crimes and abominations in the night and in secret, so that it is only their own kindred who are able to give evidence against them. In such cases effect must be given to the law which admits the evidence of those who are otherwise inadmissible as witnesses, when the crime has been committed at night. D.D. in d. L. parentes. C. vergentis de hæret. L. fin. de malefic. C.And further, if, in a case of treason against man, a son may bear witness against his father, and a father against his son, why should not this be allowed also in the crime of witchcraft, which is treason against both God and man in the highest degree? In olden times God commanded the Levites to take up arms and kill, each his own ​brother and his kindred, because they had worshipped the golden calf. In short, if this practice were not allowed, this crime would for the most part remain unpunished, than which no greater misfortune could happen to the world, since God has so expressly commanded us to put witches to death.