The Express.
London, England, 1851-09-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 11, 1851

from the Minting, and to form little drops. He applied his
handkerchief to the painting, and it became stained. He
repeated the same operation with the same result. His
comrades saw that the stains were of blood. He could not
produce the pocket-handkerchief, having sent it to his mo-
ther. The witness complained of the ridicule which had
been thrown on him for his connexion with the affair.
Some other witnesses were then examined, but they merely
deposed to the Sowing of the blood from the picture, after
the prayers of Rose. The father of Josephine Imbcrt ad-
mitted that Rose had given lessons in writing to her daugh-
ter during three weeks; and Josephine herself, on being
called, retracted all that she had said, as to the power of
writing having been miraculously conferred on her, stating
that she had long practised writing in secret.
The President of the tribunal then interrogated Rose,
and she said in reply to his question—" 1 never took any-
thing from the tabernacle. I admit having communicated
supernaturally, sometimes in the presence of witnesses,
sometimes alone; but that did not depend on me. I felt a
movement of fervour—my mouth opened—and I found the
consecrated wafer on my tongue. I only once heard the
tabernacle open, and that was the day on which the candles
became lighted by enchantment. I never had a false key
or any instrument for opening locks. I had the key of the
vestry, but gave it up when rumours unfavourable to me
began to spread. The number of supernatural communims
I have made is six ; three of them after I gave up the key
of the vestry. These communions, with one exception,
rook place in the church. The exception was when Madame
Jean brought me the half of the consecrated wafer on her
league from mass, and placed it in my mouth: the wafer
was quite hard. I considered that a communion, u I
was in a state of grace, having confessed the previous
day. I did not prepare the affair with Madame Jean;
God permitted it That was after the conversion of
Madame Jean. Never in my life did I place blood on the
picture ; I would sooner have my head cut off a hundred
times than be guilty of such hypocrisy. lam ready to be-
come o martyr to the truth. I went to the chapel with
Josephine. We prayed together, and when I felt my
visions coming on I told her ; we then saw the blood on
the picture, and she went to bring in people. Josephine
never locked me in the church ; she has, however, left me
alone in prayer, but that was not to enable me to place
blood on the picture. I had marks on my breast ; the cure
Dr. Bernard, and some other persons saw them. The
linen produced bears the stains caused by those marks.
The handkerchief produced contains the stains caused by
the blood on the miraculous picture on the 10th Decem-
ber. I intended to do nothing with the pocket handker-
chief, and asked Madame Jean to wash it. I did not
think that that was irreverent to such precious
blood, as I intended to purify it before the washing.
I had the same vision as M. Chavard. Ido not wish to
know whether he laid a snare for me in telling me that he
bad a vision. I never gave lessons in writing to Josephine.
I merely told her that she would be able to answer my
letter, and she did so. It is not true that I ever made
coarse jokes with Madame Jean with respect to the persons
who came to see the miracle. As to the buttons for the
repair of a curie coat they were sent to me miraculously.
With respect to the awakening of the AbbeSabon early
one morning, I sent my guardian angel to do it, and the
angel struck the three blows ou the table. My reason for
wishing to go into the chapel before the archbishop
was, that the crowd might not prevent me from
entering into prayer. I never entered the church
in the night in the month of December. When I
came to Saint Saturnia I was not aware that miracles were '
to take place; I have not had communication with a per-
. .

son connrccted with the sect of Michael Vintras ; I only: re-
cognise the catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion."
On being taken back to prison Rose was hooted by the
crowd. In the sitting of the 3rd M. Barret, advocate, pre-
sented the defence of the accused. Ho began by reading
testimonials to her piety. Ile declared that ho believed
the marks on her breast were not intentionally caused ; if
they had been they would have endangered her life. He
could not explain how they came there, but, according to
some writers, they mi.ht have been caused by the force of
imagination. lie denied that Rose belonged to the sect of
Vintras. That sect had only existed for a few years, and
for upwards of twenty years Rose had borne mysterious
marks an her person. She was accused of having outraged
the catholic religion ; but, if such had been her intention,
why should she have subjected herself to punishment by
relatiug what had been done ? Was it likely, besides,
that a girl so pious would have dared to open the
tabernacle ? As to the affair of the picture, there were
circumstances difficult to explain. Credible witnesses had
declared that, after wiping the blood away, they had seen
new drops form themselves. lie could nut say that there
had been a miracle, but no natural explanation had been
given of it; the persons who made experiments could not
reproduce exactly the same circumstances. Rose had offered
to be bound, and to repeat the miracle ; but that had not
been accepted. He then at some length contended that
if even all the facts alleged against the accused were ad-
mitted, they did not amount to a violation of the penal
code. A crime consisted in the intention, and Rose had
never had any intention of outraging religion.
The l'rocurcur of the Republic then presented his requisi-
tory. Ile entered into an elaborate examination of all the
circumstances, and contended that they clearly proved the
guilt of Rose. The profanation of the sacred wafer, he ob-
served, was formerly punish...l with death; but since the re-
peal of the law of sacrilege. in October, 1830, imprisonment
only was inflicted. Ile demanded that, iu virtue of Article
262 of the Penal Code, she should ho condemned to six
months' inspriswarnent, the maximum of the punishment.
The tribunal then retired to deliberate, and in half an '
hour returnee, with this judgment :—" Considering the
facts charged against lime Tamisier do not constitute the
offence forest en by Article 262 of the Penal Code, but that
foreseen by Article 1 of the law of the 2.lth of March,
1822, the t,ibunal declares itself incompetent." The judg-
ment dr.:.•v furth marks of astonishment from the advocates
and suds tory. Rose famisior remained perfectly calm, so
she had done during the whole trial.