Chapter XX: Appendix

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DIAMOND NECKLACE, WITH ITS “ESCLAVAGE” AND TASSELS;

Based on the description given in the “Pièces Justificatives pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” corrected by careful comparison with a _facsimile_ of the drawing of the Necklace prepared by the crown jewellers.

1. The _fil autour_ (the row of diamonds encircling the neck), composed of seventeen brilliants, weighing from 18 to 33 grains each.

Count de la Motte says thirteen of these stones were bought by
Gray (see _ante_, p. 146), but the latter states that he only
purchased eight. Two were set by Regnier as rings (see _ante_,
p. 140).

2. Forty-one brilliants, forming the three festoons suspended from the _fil autour_ above, weighing from 12 to 20 grains each, estimating one with another.

Twenty-two of these were set by Gray, as a necklace for the
countess (see _ante_, p. 147); two were exchanged with Furet;
one was set as a ring for the count; the remainder were sold to
Paris (see _ante_, p. 148).

3. Two pendant brilliants hanging within the side festoons, each weighing 50 grains.

The count says these were bought by Gray. Together with the
other pendant brilliants, they formed part of the eighteen oval
stones (see _ante_, p. 144).

4. Two pendant brilliants hanging between the large and smaller festoons.

The count says these were also bought by Gray (see _ante_, p.
144).

5. Six small stones supporting the above.

These were among the diamonds delivered by the count to Regnier
(see _ante_, p. 148).

6. A pendant brilliant, suspended from the _fil autour_ above by a trefoil, and weighing 34 grains. A stone of superb quality.

The count says this was bought by Gray (see _ante_, p. 144).

7. Fourteen brilliants surrounding the above, weighing 7⅝ carats.

Delivered by the count to Regnier (see _ante_, p. 148).

8. Three brilliants, forming the trefoil, each weighing 13 grains.

These with the stones of the second trefoil, must have been the
six diamonds which the count speaks of as forming the rose of
two oval ones, and which he says he exchanged with Gray (see
_ante_, p. 146).

9. A pendant brilliant, at the lower part of the centre festoon, hanging from a trefoil, and weighing 45 grains.

Bought by Gray (see _ante_, p. 144).

10. Fourteen brilliants, surrounding the above, weighing 10 carats.

Delivered by the count to Regnier (see _ante_, p. 148).

11. Three brilliants, forming the trefoil, weighing from 17 to 20 grains. Stones of extreme beauty.

Exchanged by the count with Gray (see _ante_, p. 146).

12. One hundred and twenty-eight fine brilliants, forming the _esclavage_ from the _fil_ above to the knots of the two centre tassels; the stones all matching, and weighing 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 grains each.

Gray bought eighty of these.

13. Sixty-two small brilliants, inserted in the _esclavage_, weighing 3 and 4 grains each.

14. A brilliant, forming the centre of the rose in the middle of the _esclavage_. A very handsome stone, without the slightest flaw, weighing 45 grains.

This was the button stone valued at one thousand guineas, which
Gray set for the count as a ring (see _ante_, p. 147).

15. Eight brilliants surrounding the above, weighing 12 and 13 grains each.

Retained by the count.

16. Ninety-six brilliants, forming the two side bands: the stones assorted, and weighing 6, 7, 8, and 9 grains each.

Half, or thereabouts, of these stones, were bought by Gray;
twelve were delivered by the count to Regnier (see _ante_, p.
148).

17. Forty-six small brilliants, inserted in the said bands, weighing 2 and 3 grains each.

These must have been the stones intrusted to Villette to
dispose of.

18. Eight brilliants, at the heads of the tassels. Superb stones matching with each other, and weighing 14 and 15 grains each.

Four of these were bought by Gray.

19. Twelve pendant brilliants, hanging at the bottom of the tassels, remarkable for their whiteness, and weighing from 16 to 26 grains each.

Bought by Gray. They formed part of the eighteen oval stones
(see _ante_, p. 144).

20. Twenty-four very small stones at the sides of the above.

Delivered by the count to Regnier (see _ante_, p. 148).

21. Sixteen round-shaped brilliants in the tassels, weighing from 11 to 14 grains each.

Delivered by the count to Regnier (see _ante_, p. 148).

22. Twelve round-shaped brilliants in the tassels, weighing from 8 to 10 grains each.

23. Thirty round-shaped brilliants in the tassels, weighing from 6 to 8 grains each.

Gray states that he bought the whole of these. The count says
he only parted with sixteen (see _ante_, p. 147).

24. Thirty round-shaped brilliants in the tassels, weighing from 4 to 6 grains each.

Twenty-eight of these were given to Gray, to mount as drop
earrings (see _ante_, p. 147).

25. Fifty-two small round-shaped brilliants in the tassels.

Twenty-two of the largest of these were sold to Paris; others
the count had mounted for a watch-chain (see _ante_, p. 148).

A SELECTION FROM THE LETTERS WHICH THE COUNTESS DE LA MOTTE PRETENDED HAD PASSED BETWEEN THE QUEEN AND THE CARDINAL DE ROHAN.

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_April 28, 1784._

“I read with indignation the manner in which you have been
deceived by your niece. I never had any knowledge of the
letters you mention to me, and I question whether they
ever existed. The persons you complain of have in reality
contributed to your disgrace, but the methods they used to
effect it were very different from those you suppose. I have
forgotten all, and require of you never to speak to me of
anything that has reference to what is past. The account which
the countess has given me of your behaviour towards her has
made a stronger impression on me than all you have written to
me. I hope you will never forget that it is to her you are
indebted for your pardon, as also for the letter I write to you.

“I have always looked upon you as a very inconsistent and
indiscreet man, which opinion necessarily obliges me to
great reservedness; and I own to you, that nothing but a
conduct quite the reverse of that you have held can regain my
confidence and merit my esteem.”

FROM THE CARDINAL TO THE QUEEN.

_May 6, 1784._

“Yes; I am the happiest mortal breathing! My _master_ pardons
me: he grants me his confidence; and, to complete my happiness,
he has the goodness to smile upon his _slave_, and to give
him public signals of a right understanding. Such unexpected
favours caused in me so great an emotion, that I for a moment
was apprehensive lest the motive should be suspected by the
extraordinary answers which I made. But I soon recovered when
I saw my absence of mind was attributed to quite another
motive; upon which, I assumed an air of approbation, in order
to divert observation from the real object. This circumstance
is a warning to me, to direct henceforth my words and actions
in a more prudential manner.

“I know how to appreciate all the obligations I am under to
the charming countess. In whatever situation I may chance to
be, I shall be gratefully mindful of all that she has done in
my behalf. So much for that. All depends on my _master_. The
facility he has of making beings happy, makes his _slave_ wish
for the means of following his footsteps and being the echo of
his good pleasure.”

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_May 15, 1784._

“I cannot disapprove of the desire you have of seeing me. I
could wish, in order to facilitate you the means, to remove
all obstacles that oppose it; but you would not have me act
imprudently, to bring about more compendiously a thing which
you must be persuaded you will shortly obtain.

“You have enemies who have done you much disservice with the
_minister_[478] (the countess will tell you the meaning of
that word, which you must use for the future). The turning of
them out cannot but be advantageous to you. I know the changes
and revolutions that are to happen, and have calculated all
the circumstances which will infallibly bring forward the
opportunities which I desire. In the interim be very cautious,
above all, discreet; and, as there is no foreseeing what
may happen, be reserved, and greatly perplexed in what you
hereafter write to me.”

FROM THE CARDINAL TO THE QUEEN.

_July 29, 1784._

“My adorable _master_, permit your _slave_ to express his joy
for the favours you have conferred upon him. That charming
_rose_ lies upon my heart. I will preserve it to my latest
breath. It will incessantly recall to me the first instant of
my happiness.

“In parting from the countess, I was so transported, that I
found myself imperceptibly brought to the charming spot which
you had made choice of. After having crossed the shrubbery,
I almost despaired of knowing again the place where your
beloved _slave_ threw himself at your feet. Destined, no doubt,
to experience during that delightful night none but happy
sensations, I found again the pleasing turf, gently pressed by
those pretty little feet. I rushed upon it as if you had still
been there, and kissed with as much ardour your grassy seat,
as that fair hand which was yielded to me with a grace and
kindness that belong to none but my dear _master_. Enchanted,
as it were, to that bewitching spot, I found the greatest
difficulty in quitting it; and I should certainly have spent
the night there, had I not been apprehensive of making my
attendants uneasy, who knew of my being out.

“Soon after my return home, I went to bed, but pressed for a
considerable time a restless pillow. My imagination, struck
with your adorable person, was filled during my slumbers with
the most delightful sensations. Happy night! that proved the
brightest day in my life! Adorable _master_, your _slave_
cannot find expressions to describe his felicity! You yesterday
witnessed his embarrassment, his bashfulness, his silence,
the natural effects of the most genuine love! You alone in
the universe could produce what he never before experienced.
Enveloped in these pleasing sensations, I sometimes imagine
it to be only a visionary felicity, and that I am still under
the influence of a dream; but, combining all the circumstances
of my happiness, recalling to mind the enchanting sound of
that voice which pronounced my pardon, I give way to an excess
of joy, accompanied with exclamations, which, if they were
overheard, would argue distraction. Such is my condition,
which I deem supremely happy, and wish for its continuance the
remainder of my life.

“I shall not depart till I have heard from you.”

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_August 16, 1784._

“An observation made to me yesterday, with an air of curiosity
and suspicion, will prevent my going to-day to T—— (Trianon),
but will not, for all that, deprive me of seeing my amiable
_slave_. The _minister_ sets out at eleven, to go a-hunting at
R—— (Rambouillet): his return will be very late, or, to speak
more properly, next morning. I hope, during his absence, to
make myself amends for the tediousness and contradiction I
have experienced for these two days past. Imprudent conduct has
brought me to that pass, that I cannot, without danger, remove
objects that are displeasing to me, and who haunt me. They
have so thoroughly studied me, and know so little how to feign
and dissemble, that they attribute my change to nothing but a
discretion, which to them appears blameworthy; it is therefore
very essential to be on one’s guard, to avoid all surprise.

“The daring question put to me, persuades me that my confidence
has been abused, as well as my good-nature, and that advantage
has been taken of circumstances to fetter my will. I have a
way of coming at information concerning it, but I will first
consult thee. As thou wilt play the principal part in the
scheme I have devised, we must needs agree as well on this
point as we did last Friday on the S——. This comparison will
make thee laugh, no doubt; but, as it is a just one, and I
desire to give thee a proof of it to-night, before we talk of
serious matters, observe exactly what follows: Do thou assume
the garb of a messenger, and, with a parcel in thy hand, be
walking about at half-past eleven under the porch of the
chapel: I will send the countess, who shall serve thee for
a guide, and conduct thee up a little back staircase to an
apartment, where thou wilt find the object of thy desires.”

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_January 15, 1785._

“If it had not been my intention there should be a mystery in
the purchase of the jewel, I certainly should not have employed
you to procure it for me. I am not accustomed to enter thus
into treaty with my jewellers, and this way of proceeding is so
much the more contrary to what I owe to myself, as two words
were sufficient to put me in possession of that object. I am
surprised that you dare to propose to me such an arrangement;
but let there be no more said about it. It is a trifle that has
occasioned me to make a few reflections, which I will impart to
you when opportunity offers. The countess will deliver to you
your paper. I am sorry you have given yourself so much trouble
to no purpose.”

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_January 29, 1785._

“How is this? Affectation with me? Why, my friend, ought people
in our predicament to act under restraint, to seek for shifts,
and deal with insincerity? Dost thou know that thy reserve, and
thy false pride, drew upon thee the letter thou hast received;
and that but for the countess, who has told me all, I should
have attributed that pretended arrangement to quite a different
motive. Fortunately, all is cleared up. The countess will
deliver thee the writing, and explain the motives by which I
have been actuated in this matter. As I am supposed ignorant
of the confidence thou hast shewn her, as also of the token
of trust that thou wilt give her, by laying before her our
particular engagements, that is a more than sufficient reason
to make thee secure, and remove all difficulties. Thou wilt
keep the writing, and deliver it to none but me.

“I hope, notwithstanding my disorder, to see thee before the
holiday. I expect the countess to-morrow. I will tell her
whether I shall be able to receive from my _slave_ the object
which had nearly set us at variance.”

FROM THE QUEEN TO THE CARDINAL.

_July 19, 1785._

“I believe I have informed you of the disposal of the sum
which I destined for the object in question, and that probably
I should not fulfil the engagements till my return from
Fontainebleau. The countess will remit to you thirty thousand
livres, to pay the interest. The privation of the capital is to
be taken into consideration, and this compensation will make
them easy.

“You complain, and I say not a word: a very extraordinary
circumstance; time will, perhaps, acquaint you with the motive
of my silence. I do not love suspicious people, especially
when there is so little reason for it. I possess a principle I
never will recede from. Your last conversation is very opposite
to what you related to me at a preceding period. Reflect upon
it, and if your memory serves you faithfully, by comparing
the eras, you will judge what I am to think of your pressing
solicitations.”

AN EPITOME OF THE “FIRST PROCÈS-VERBAL DESCRIPTIVE OF THE DOCUMENTS TENDING TO ESTABLISH CRIMINALITY. SEP. 9, 10, 11, 1785.”[479]

(_Preserved in the National Archives—Section, Procès du Collier, Series X², No. 18,576._)

The _procès verbal_ in question is drawn up in the quaint legal phraseology of the _ancien régime_, and abounds not only in the tautological repetition and iteration in which lawyers have ever delighted, but in queer sounding scraps of the obsolete jargon of eighteenth century procedure.

It commences by setting forth that in the year 1785 on Friday the 9th September at three in the afternoon, Jean Baptiste Maximilien Pierre Titon, king’s councillor in his High Court of Parliament, commissioner in the present case, assisted by Maître Etienne Fremyn, barrister of the court, and one of the chief clerks of the criminal registry of the said court, was applied to by Maître Pierre de Laurencel, one of the deputies of the king’s procureur-général. The latter stated, with the customary prolixity of gentlemen of the long robe, that by virtue of royal letters patent, issued at St. Cloud on September 5th, empowering the High Court to take cognizance of the facts therein set forth and all matters appertaining thereto, and in accordance with a decree pronounced by the said High Court on September 7th, empowering the procureur-général to proceed “against the authors, abettors, participators, accomplices and adherents as well of the transaction itself as of the forgery of the queen’s handwriting and signature,” it had been ordered that the documents tending to prove criminality or to throw light on the case which should be produced by the king’s procureur-général, should be deposited at the criminal registry of the court, and should there remain, and that a _procès-verbal_ descriptive of the said documents should be drawn up in presence of the deputies of the king’s procureur-général. Both classes of documents had been duly deposited by the king’s procureur-général at the criminal registry of the court on the 7th September. Consequently he (Maître de Laurencel) now appeared to assist in drawing up the descriptive _procès-verbal_ of the documents tending to prove criminality _only_.

Titon, having duly certified this application, gives orders to Maître Fremyn to at once produce the said documents tending to prove criminality.

Here follows a minute description of each of the bundle of fifteen documents produced. The size of the paper, the number of pages written on, the number of lines on each page, the words with which each page begins and finishes, the style of the signatures, the fact whether or not there were any interlineations, or words struck out or underlined; all these particulars are minutely recorded in every instance.

The first document, entitled “Mémoire instructif,” written on two sheets of paper _à la Tellière_, contains four full pages and three lines and three words on the fifth page, all apparently written by the same hand, and is signed “Bohmer, Bassenge, le Card. de Rhoan,” (_sic_). It is noted that there is nothing scratched out or written over, but that on the twenty-eighth line of the second page, are added in parentheses and in a smaller hand the words “which was the 1st February.”

The second document is “a declaration made to the king by Mgr. the Cardinal de Rohan” consisting of fifteen lines written on one side of a large sheet of letter paper, beginning with the words, “A woman whom I have believed” and terminating “Md. la Mothe d. Vallois.” This must be the statement written by the cardinal at the suggestion of the king immediately prior to his arrest.

The third is a receipt dated the 30th July 1785, for the sum of 30,000 livres, written on half a sheet of letter paper folded in two, and signed Bôhmer & Company.

The fourth is an envelope, consisting of a large sheet of letter paper, outside of which is written “This paper, in case of my death, belongs and must be handed to M. Bôhmer, jeweller to the Queen ... this 18th February 1785.”

The next document which is worthy of a more detailed notice is described in the following minute terms in the _procès-verbal_.

“The fifth document, inclosed in the said envelope and headed ‘_Propositions and conditions of price and payment_,’ is written half way across the front and the back of the first leaf of a sheet of letter paper. The first page on the front side containing eighteen lines, the first of which consists of the word ‘_Proposals_’ and the eighteenth of the words ‘_4th, one might facilitate_,’ remarking that below the third line of the said first front page, is a flourish and that at the margin of the said page, which is left blank, is written three times the word ‘_approved_’ in a very fine handwriting, differing from that filling the page; namely, the first time in front of the sixth line, the second time in front of the eleventh line, and the third and last time in front of the sixteenth line. The second page on the back containing twelve lines, the first of which consists of these words ‘_calm in the matter_,’ and the twelfth line of these ‘_later on_,’ remarking likewise that on the marginal half of the said back page is written twice in a very fine handwriting the word ‘_approved_,’ the first time in front of the third line, and the second in front of the tenth: remarking likewise that at the side of the said writing, written in three lines on half the right hand margin, are these words, ‘_Accepted the above arrangements, the 29th January 1785_,’ and below the signature, ‘Böhmer & Company,’ and still lower down a flourish: remarking besides that on the half margin to the left in front of the word ‘_accepted_’ are written these words, ‘_Approved, Marie-Antoinette de France_,’ in a very fine handwriting, apparently similar to the other words ‘_approved_’ contained in the said document, and below a dash of the pen, and still lower down a flourish; that besides there is no erasure, interlineation, or word written above another in the said document.”

The sixth is a short letter of three lines and two words, apparently from the cardinal to Böhmer, as it commences, “I should like, M. Bohmer,” and bears a memorandum in another hand, beginning, “Received this letter from monseigneur.” It is addressed to “Monsieur, Monsieur Bemer (_sic_), jeweller to the Queen, Rue de Vendosme, near the Tennis Court at Paris,” and is countersigned “Card. de Rohan,” and to it is attached a seal unbroken, and apparently bearing the arms of a cardinal.

The seventh is a letter of ten lines dated Paris the 1st February, 1785, commencing, “Monsieur Bôhmer, her Majesty,” and signed by the cardinal.

The eighth is a more lengthy document, filling three and a half pages of paper _à la Tellière_. It is a memorandum dated Paris, August 17th, 1785, signed Ste. James (who thus spells his name), and appears to explain his financial transactions with Böhmer. It is carefully noted with regard to this document that although there are neither erasures, interlineations, nor words written over others, that certain specified portions are underlined.

The ninth, enclosed in the former, is a copy of Böhmer’s acknowledgment of his debt to Saint James, and is dated the 16th March, 1785.

It being now nine in the evening, the completion of the _procès-verbal_ was adjourned to the following day, when, with the same formality and a due amount of signing and countersigning Maître de Laurencel renewed his application, and Councillor Commissioner Titon ordered that Maître Fremyn should comply with it. Whereupon the last named at once produced

The tenth document, filling four full pages of paper _à la Tellière_, containing a statement of the cardinal’s examination in the Bastille, dated the 18th August, and conjointly signed “Le Card. de Rohan, Thiroux de Crosne, Delauney and Delachapelle.” The _procès-verbal_, which gives as usual the words at the beginning and end of every page and the number of lines, notes that the two first words of the sixth line of the first page and sixth word of the seventh line of the third page are struck out, and that the sixth word of the thirteenth line of the fourth page is underlined.

The eleventh “is a document on a sheet of large letter paper containing three pages, the first of which of twenty-three lines begins with these words ‘_Confidential Declaration of Monseigneur the Cardinal de Rohan_,’ and finishes at the twenty-third line by these, ‘_in the month of July 1784, I._’ The second page is of twenty-five lines, the first beginning with these words, ‘_met in effect at the hour appointed_,’ and the twenty-fifth ending with these, ‘_that they have even wished_.’ We have remarked that the seventh word which seems to be the word ‘_woman_,’ is struck out, and there has been substituted for it above, the word ‘_person_.’ We have also remarked in the fourth line, between the word ‘_this_’ and the word ‘_person_,’ is written by way of insertion and above, the word ‘_same_.’ We have further remarked that between the eighteenth and the nineteenth line are written as an interlineation the words, ‘_my absurd_,’ and that in the nineteenth line the fifth word is struck out. The third and last page is of twenty-one lines, the first beginning with these words ‘_to refuse and that I have forced them to accept_,’ and the twenty-first line ending with these, the ‘_Sieurs Bôhmer_.’ We have remarked that in the tenth line, the ninth word is written over, that in the eleventh (line) the third and fourth words are likewise written over, that the last word of the sixteenth line is also written over, that in the seventeenth line the first and the third words are also written over. We have further remarked that under the twenty-first line of the said third page are three lines, and the date of the year 1785, forming the fourth line, in a different handwriting from that comprising the above written document, the first of which lines begins by these words, ‘_I approve the writing_,’ and the third line ends with these, ‘_done at the Bastille this 20th August_,’ and below the signature ‘Le Card. de Rohan,’ with flourish.”

The twelfth consists of fourteen lines written on the first page of a sheet of paper _à la Tellière_ beginning “I the undersigned confess,” and ending “of diamonds,” beneath which is the signature, “Louis Jean Marie Desclaux.” This is the Lesclos or Desclos, belonging to the queen’s household, to whom Madame de la Motte pretended she handed the casket containing the Necklace.

The thirteenth, filling two and a half pages of paper _à la Tellière_ and commencing, “To-day the seventeenth August,” appears from words referring to drawers and articles of furniture, quoted as commencing and ending the second page, as those of “_procès-verbal_,” with which it concludes to have been a _procès-verbal_ of the search made at the Palais-Cardinal, for the grand almoner’s papers. It bears the signature of the Cardinal de Rohan, the Marshal de Castries, the Count de Vergennes, the Baron de Breteuil, and the lieutenant of police, Thiroux de Crosne.

The fourteenth, closed and fastened to the preceding with a blue ribbon, fills two pages of a small sheet of letter paper, and commences, “Send for B. this morning,” but the few words quoted afford no clue as to what it refers to. It is merely signed with a flourish, and headed on the first page “No. 1.”

The fifteenth, also closed and fastened to the two preceding ones with blue ribbons, is likewise written on a small sheet of letter paper. It is headed “No. 2,” and the words quoted—“The last price shall be fixed,” “in six months,” “shall be carried to,” and “in the afternoon,”—seem to indicate some note referring to the purchase and delivery of the Necklace, found in all probability amongst the cardinal’s papers.

These documents being thus described were numbered in succession, initialled and deposited in the criminal registry at nine in the evening, the _procès-verbal_ being again signed by Titon, De Laurencel and Fremyn.

On the following day, the 11th, the commissioners again met to examine three documents which Titon had previously weeded out from a bundle of papers already classed as merely tending to throw light on the case, in order that they might be added to those tending to prove criminality.

“The first,” written on two sheets of paper _à la Tellière_, which we have fastened together with red thread, contains six pages and six lines. It commences with the words, “Observations to the Court by M. de la Csse de Valois,” and the sentences preserved are “to go into Champagne,” “the Prince raised alarms,” “to calm his agents,” “like madmen and that he would take us as far as the gate of Meaux,” “they do not serve to make the king believe all that I wish,” “and have begged the Prince to tell him,” “I have never shown any one,” “my pension,” “and perhaps my unhappy husband despairing at having wedded,” “if I have wrongs, his Majesty.” Every word altered, struck out or inserted, is noted by the commissioners, and attention is called to the fact, “that in the date of the year, 1776, the second 7 seems to have been written over the figure 6,” and that at the bottom of the seventh page are written the following words, “Jeanne Marie De Valois de St. Remy, ensuite de Caze Csse de la Motte, de la pénicière,” and lower down, “at the Bastille, Saturday, 29th August, 1785.”

The second, written on a sheet of paper _à la Tellière_, and containing a page and a half, is the letter which we have quoted on page 187 _et seq._

The third and last “is a note which seems to us to have been written by the hand of the said De la Motte, at the back of the list of linen given by her to her washerwoman, the twenty-fifth August, which note has been initialled and signed by the said De la Motte, and by the Commissioner Chénon, and runs as follows, ‘M. Filliau of Bar sur Aube, being at my house four months ago, sold for me to a large jeweller, his cousin, to the amount of 30 thousand livres, which I also handed to Monseigneur. There were 22 small ones at 500 livres a-piece, ... then 52 at 400 livres a-piece, which I begged M. Filliau to sell for me, unknown to my husband.’ To which last document we have pasted a piece of white paper to inscribe the number of the said document, and to append our signature and that of the said Maître de Laurencel, as well as those that may have to be appended in course of the instruction.”

The _procès-verbal_ is then formally wound up and signed by Titon, De Laurencel, and Fremyn.

SOME SATIRICAL VERSES, TO WHICH THE NECKLACE AFFAIR GAVE RISE.

(From “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette, la Cour et la Ville.”)

I.

Voici venir le temps pascal,
Que pensez-vous du cardinal?
Opinez-vous qu’il chantera
Alleluia?

Le Saint-Père l’avait rougi,
La cour de France l’a noirci,
Le Parlement le blanchira:
Alleluia!

Que Cagliostro ne soit rien,
Qu’il soit Maltais, Juif ou Chrétien,
A l’affaire que fait cela?
Alleluia!

De Versailles comme à Paris,
Tous les grands et tous les petits
Veulent élargir Oliva:
Alleluia!

Planta, du fond de sa prison,
Demande grâce au bon Baron,
Qui lui dit qu’il y restera:
Alleluia!

De Valois le conte insensé,
Par un Collier fut commencé,
Un Collier le finira:
Alleluia!

Survient Villette l’écrivain,
Confus d’avoir prêté sa main
Comme La Motte l’exigea:
Alleluia!

Pour d’Étienville au teint vermeil,
A la Grève un coup de soleil
Sur l’épaule le frappera:
Alleluia!

Voilà l’histoire du procès
Qui de Paris cause l’accès;
Nous dirons, quand il finira:
Alleluia!

II.

Illustre prisonnier, tirez-nous d’embarras:
Êtes-vous cardinal, ou ne l’êtes-vous pas?
Hélas! serait-ce vrai, que la cruelle Rome
Ait pu dans sa fureur dégrader un saint homme?
Un Rohan! Répondez. Vous détournez les yeux;
Ah! vous pleurez le sort de vos tristes cheveux.
Vous voilà donc réduit à la simple calotte!
Ce n’est pas le seul mal que vous ait fait La Motte.

III.

Target, dans un gros mémoire,
A traité tant bien que mal
La sotte et fâcheuse histoire
De ce pauvre cardinal,
Où sa verbeuse éloquence
Et son froid raisonnement
Prouvent jusqu’à l’indécence
Que c’est un grand innocent.

J’entends le sénat de France
Lui dire un de ces matins:
Ayez un peu de décence,
Et laissez là vos catins.
Mais le Pape, moins honnête;
Pourra dire à ce nigaud:
Prince, à qui n’a pas de tête,
Il ne faut pas de chapeau.

IV.

Cagliostro, homme savant,
Enseigne au Prince la magie.
Ils n’étaient que deux seulement,
Mais par tour de sorcellerie,
Les voilà trois: Qui l’eût prédit?
De surprise ôtant sa calotte,
Le bon cardinal vit La Motte,
Et La Motte le vit.

V.

Malgré ce gros factum si souvent refondu,
Et l’arrêt de la cour si lestement rendu,
L’innocente candeur du prélat de Saverne
Brille comme un étr... au fond d’une lanterne.

VI.

Des Valois La Motte est la fille,
On n’en peut douter:
Car un arrêt va lui faire porter
Les armes de sa famille.

MEMORIAL

CONCERNING THE HOUSE OF SAINT-REMI DE VALOIS, SPRUNG FROM THE NATURAL SON WHOM HENRI II., KING OF FRANCE, HAD BY NICOLE DE SAVIGNY, LADY AND BARONESS DE SAINT-REMI.

ARMS OF THE HOUSE DE SAINT-REMI DE VALOIS.

_Argent, a fess azure charged with three fleurs-de-luce or._

Henri the Second, King of France, had by Nicole de Savigny,[480] Henri de Saint-Remi, who follows. The said Nicole de Savigny, styled High and Puissant Lady, Lady of Saint-Remi, Fontette, du Chatellier and Noez, married Jean de Ville, Knight of the King’s Order, and made her last will on the 12th of January, 1590, in which she declared, “That the late King Henri the Second had made a donation to Henri Monsieur, his son, the sum of 30,000 crowns sol. which she had received in 1558.”