Chapter VII: DEGREE. Procreating. Jacques de Saint-Remi de Valois, born (1)

February 25, 1755, and baptized the same day in the parochial church of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the city of Langres; acknowledged and baptized by his father and mother in the act of their espousals of the 14th of August, of the same year.[481]

Jeanne de Saint-Remi de Valois, born at Fontette, July 22, 1756.

Marianne de Saint-Remi de Valois, born also at Fontette, October 2, 1757.

We, Antoine Marie d’Hozier de Sérigny, Knight, Judge at Arms of the Nobility of France, Knight Honorary Grand Cross of the Royal Order of St. Maurice of Sardinia, do certify unto the King, the truth of the facts certified in the above Memorial drawn up by us from authentic records.

In witness thereof we have signed the present certificate, and caused it to be countersigned by our Secretary, who has put to it the seal of our arms.

Done at Paris, on Monday, the 6th day of the month of May, in the year 1776:

_Signed_ D’HOZIER DE SÉRIGNY:

By Monsieur the Judge at Arms of the Nobility of France.

_Signed_ DUPLESIS.

We, the undersigned Judge at Arms of the Nobility of France, &c., do certify that this copy of the present Memorial is conformable to the record preserved in our repository of Nobility; in witness whereof we have signed it, and caused it to be countersigned by our secretary, who has affixed to it the seal of our arms.

Done at Paris, on Thursday, the 13th day of the month of October, in the year 1785,

_Signed_ D’HOZIER DE SÉRIGNY:

By Monsieur the Judge at Arms of the Nobility of France.

_Signed_ DUPLESIS.

ABSTRACT OF THE DECLARATION MADE BY BETTE D’ÉTIENVILLE IN THE NECKLACE AFFAIR.

When the examination of the parties accused of being concerned in the Necklace fraud had terminated, an individual calling himself Bette d’Étienville, detained for debt in the prison of the Châtelet, wrote to the Procureur-Général to announce that he had revelations to make in connection with the affair whereby a new inquiry on the part of this official became necessary.

Jean-Charles-Vincent de Bette d’Étienville, bourgeois of Saint-Omer, living nobly and on his own resources, as he described himself as doing, was an adventurer of the worst kind; his name was only Bette, and it was from pure fancy that he had made the fantastic addition of ‘d’Étienville;’ he was not a bourgeois of Saint-Omer, but simply a surgical _student_ of Lille; neither did he live nobly and on his own resources, since his father was only a workman, a stone-quarrier, in fact; and with regard to himself, he had espoused at Lille, against the wish of his family, an old maid sixty years of age, whose property he wasted in a very short space of time, when he abandoned her, and repaired to Paris to solicit the privilege _des almanachs chantants_. Such were the antecedents of this individual, who made before the examining magistrates a declaration of which the following is the substance; and which gave an entirely new interest to the Necklace affair, producing, as it did, almost a score of declarations in reply, and numerous memorials drawn up with the view of confuting it. On a very slight substratum of fact Bette d’Étienville managed to raise a pile of falsehood which served to complicate for a time in the eyes of the bewildered public the already sufficiently intricate affair of the Necklace.

About the 8th of February, 1785, Bette made the acquaintance, at the café de Valois, of a Sieur Augeard, who called himself the steward of a Dame de Courville. This Augeard proposed to him to mix himself up with a marriage; he spoke to him of a lady who had formerly had a child by a very great lord, and who desired to give a position to her offspring. The lady wished to marry a gentleman of title. Bette refused at first to have anything to do with the business, but the steward having promised him numerous advantages, he eventually consented, and set forth in search of a husband. He first addressed himself to the Count Xavier de Vinesacq, captain of infantry, and chevalier of the order of Saint-Louis, to whom he was in the habit of selling _eau de Cologne_; but this individual, distrusting the morality of the intermediary, gave an absolute refusal to the proposition made to him.

On the Monday in Holy Week of the same year, a certain Baron de Fages, belonging to the body-guard of the Count de Provence, sought out Bette, and proposed himself for the marriage in question; he added that he was a real gentleman, and that his titles to that rank had been left by him with the Abbé Mulot, Grand Prior of Saint-Victor. D’Étienville went to the abbé, received from him the titles in question, and gave them to Augeard, that he might show them to the lady of quality; she was satisfied with them, and some days afterwards intimated that she accepted the Baron de Fages for her future husband, and that the union should take place after Quasimodo (the Sunday after Easter).

When this epoch had arrived, Augeard told Bette that, owing to various circumstances, the marriage must be delayed; but as Bette did not appear to believe what he said, Augeard proposed to take him to the lady, exacting from him, however, a promise of the most profound secrecy. Three days before Quasimodo, Augeard conducted him to a house, where he saw a lady about thirty-four years old, of a fine figure, but inclined to embonpoint, and having black eyes. This lady confirmed what Augeard had said, and after having required secrecy from him, confided to him that the child’s father was, after the princes of the blood, one of the greatest lords in the kingdom, and that this affair would be the means of making Bette’s fortune. The next day Bette went again to the lady’s, accompanied by Augeard, and found there a person, whom he did not know, who was sometimes called Marsilly, and sometimes Councillor, and who had directed the affair throughout its entire course. Marsilly made inquiries of him respecting the Baron de Fages, his conduct, manners, &c., and then went out. The lady now showed d’Étienville her jewels and unmounted diamonds, which belonged, she told him, to a _rivière_ of diamonds which she used formerly to wear, and which had been valued at 432,000 livres (francs). She added that she wished to sell them before her marriage, but had reasons for not disposing of them in Paris, and proposed to him to go to Holland with some one she would name, and to sell them there; from the proceeds of this sale 100,000 livres were to be given as a bridal present to the Baron de Fages. But Bette, fearful of arrest for being found in possession of such valuable property, refused, and communicated all these details to the Baron de Fages, on the part of Madame Méla de Courville, as the lady styled herself. Bette, who felt disquieted at the mystery which seemed to overhang these interviews, took particular notice of the house and street to which Augeard conducted him, and on going there alone, discovered that the house was Madame de la Motte’s, and that the Cardinal de Rohan was in the frequent habit of going there. Feeling at that time persuaded that Madame de la Motte and the Dame de Courville were one and the same person, and being unaware that Madame de la Motte was married, he remained quiet; but events soon undeceived him, since the public prints apprised him of Madame de la Motte’s arrest at Bar-sur-Aube, on the very day that he was at Arras with the Dame de Courville.

The day of Quasimodo having passed, the marriage was fixed for the 10th or 12th of April. At this period Augeard told Bette that the Cardinal de Rohan wished to see him. Bette betook himself to the Dame de Courville’s where he found Marsilly and the Cardinal; the latter attired in a grey frock-coat, and a round hat with gold tassels. The Cardinal expressed to him his satisfaction at the zeal he had shown, and assured him that he would charge himself with his future fortune. After having spoken to Marsilly and the Dame de Courville in private, he came back to him and told him that, for reasons of the highest importance, the marriage could only take place from the 1st to the 15th of July. He charged Bette to inform the Baron de Fages of this; whereupon a letter was written immediately, according to Marsilly’s dictation. The Baron de Fages accepted the delay, and it was agreed that, in order to compensate him, in case the marriage should not take place, the Dame de Courville should bind herself to pay him 30,000 livres, in three separate sums: the first on the 15th of August; the second on the 15th of October; and the third on the 15th of December. The bond was given to Bette, sealed with the Dame de Courville’s seal; he, afraid of losing it, gave it to the Abbé Mulot, who was perfectly willing to take charge of it. It was at this period that the Dame de Courville told him in confidence that she was a baroness, and of high birth, and ex-canoness of a chapter in Germany, where she first became acquainted with the Cardinal, who had seduced her; that she had afterwards lived with him, and had a child by him; that she had followed the Grand Almoner to Paris, Strasbourg, into Germany, to Vienna, and elsewhere; and lastly, that she was the Baroness de Sollebercg, or Salleberg. The Baroness spoke German, Italian, and French well. In the month of May, 1785, she made fresh proposals to Bette to go and sell her diamonds in Holland; but on his refusing, she no longer insisted. Some time after she told him she had sold a part of them, and had had the others mounted; she also showed him a snuff-box, with her portrait surrounded with brilliants, a watch and chain set with diamonds, a ring, and a solitaire, begging him to speak of them to the Baron de Fages, for whom they were intended. On the 1st of July, Bette asked Madame de Courville if she thought the marriage would take place on the 15th; she replied in the affirmative, and added that the Cardinal would remain in Paris for the purpose. Nevertheless, the 15th went by, and Madame de Courville, observing Bette’s inquietude, promised to procure him a new interview with the Cardinal. On the 18th or 20th of July, about eleven o’clock at night, he met the Cardinal at Madame de Courville’s, dressed this time in a short violet frock-coat. He told Bette not to blame him if the marriage did not take place, since it would be entirely Madame de Courville’s fault. Then this lady assured him that the Cardinal had promised her 500,000 livres (francs) on her marriage, and that until the 500,000 livres were counted down, she would proceed no further in the matter. Bette took care to inform the Baron de Fages of all that transpired at this interview.

About this time, Madame de Courville went to pass a few days in the country, and invited Bette, as well as the Abbé Mulot and the Baron de Fages, to visit her. The marriage ought to have taken place on the 12th of August, the day appointed for the payment of the 500,000 livres. On the 7th, Bette returned from Chantilly, where the Baron de Fages then was, when he received a note requesting him to go to Madame de Courville’s. Arrived there, he found her in tears, when she asked him to return the bond for 30,000 livres signed by her. Bette thereupon withdrew it from the Abbé Mulot’s possession, and returned it to her. Madame de Courville immediately tore it up and burnt it, adding, that if she did not leave Paris she was lost; she begged him to go with her, promising that her absence should not be long. Overcome by her entreaties, he agreed. Madame de Courville then sent him to engage a place in the diligence for Saint-Omer, in the name of Wanin, this being the name he passed under in her house. She observed to him that it would not be prudent for them to leave together; that she would travel in her chaise, and would stop at Arras, where she would await him. Arrived there, she told him that she was going to leave France, and that, if he was prudent, he would do the same, because he was mixed up in a grave business, the Cardinal having been arrested the previous evening and conducted to the Bastille; she even offered to take him with her to London. Bette then inquired the causes of the Cardinal’s detention, and learnt from Madame de Courville that he had bought a Diamond Necklace, and had introduced into the negotiation for the purchase the name of the Queen, and that his aim was to procure the 500,000 livres necessary for her marriage portion, and to put himself in funds, and that the diamonds she had shown him, and was showing then at that very moment in a box, formed part of the Necklace in question.

Bette refused to accompany Madame de Courville to London, for fear lest this journey might compromise him. He asked her for payment of the 30,000 livres; she replied that the demand was a just one, and that she would satisfy it at Saint-Omer, if he did not consent to follow her. But one time when they had stopped to change horses, he all at once saw Madame de Courville returning towards Paris, in company of a man clad in a blue frock-coat. He believed she was arrested, and on his arrival at Saint-Omer the truth of the Cardinal’s misadventure was confirmed to him. He, for his part, betook himself to Dunkerque, where he remained till the 16th of September, 1785.

The bourgeois of Saint-Omer, living nobly and on his own resources, having made the aforesaid deposition, estimated it at the price of three livres, and was re-conducted to the prison of the Châtelet.[482]

FOOTNOTES

[1] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot, ancien Ministre,” (Paris, 1866,) vol. i. p. 7.

[2] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” (London, 1791,) vol. i. p. 7.

[3] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 41.

[4] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 47.

[5] See Appendix.

[6] Roman Catholic ecclesiastics not being permitted to marry, the title of course could not have been transmitted by descent.

[7] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 87.

[8] Now the Messageries in the Rue Notre Dame des Victoires.

[9] “Never was there a more aristocratic, or, if the _chronique scandaleuse_ is to be believed, a naughtier nunnery than that of Longchamp. It was Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélèma, with additions and emendations, and ‘Fay ce que vouldras’ might have been written over the conventual gates. The excellent St. Vincent de Paul was in a terrible way about the ‘goings-on’ among these exceptionally vivacious nuns, and in a letter to Cardinal Mazarin indignantly denounced the irregularities which had become habitual in the establishment. The Archbishop of Paris remonstrated with the naughty nuns; but they snapped their fingers metaphorically in the archiepiscopal face, and continued their fandangos. But they were eventually punished for their peccadillos. The pious world ceased in disgust to make pilgrimages to the tomb of Ste. Isabelle de Longchamp, and to deposit rich offerings on her shrine. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the convent had grown comparatively poor, when, in 1727, a renowned opera singer, Mademoiselle le Maure, having taken the veil at Longchamp, the happy thought occurred to the abbess of giving concerts of sacred music on the three last days of Lent. These concerts were a prodigious success. The Parisian world, fashionable and frivolous as well as devout, flocked, as fast as their coaches-and-six could carry them, to hear the Longchamp oratorios; and these concerts remained in vogue for nearly fifty years. It came at last to the ears of another Archbishop of Paris, Monsigneur Christophe de Beaumont—a prelate celebrated for his enmity to theatrical entertainments, and his quarrel with Jean Jacques Rousseau—that the attractions of the choir at the Abbey of Longchamp were enhanced by the voices of a number of artistes from the opera who had _not_ taken the veil. So the church was closed to the public. There was an end of the cause, but the effect remained.

“Out of the fashionable pilgrimages grew the world-famous Promenade de Longchamp, which began in the Champs Élysées, and wound its course right athwart the Bois de Boulogne to the gates of the Abbey itself. It was found that the setting-in of the spring fashions might be fitly made to coincide with the eve of Easter; and every year during three days in Passion-week there was an incessant cavalcade of princes, nobles, bankers, _fermiers-généraux_, strangers of distinction, and the ladies then known as _ruineuses_, to Longchamp. It became not a Ladies’ Mile, but a Ladies’ League. The equipages of the grandest dames of the Court of Versailles locked wheels with the chariots of La Duthé and La Guimard; and the legends whisper that the _ruineuses_ made, as a rule, a much more splendid appearance than the _grandes dames_ did.”—“Paris Herself Again,” by George Augustus Sala, vol. ii. p. 253, _et seq._

[10] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 9.

[11] See Extract from the Countess’s Life on page xvi. of the present volume.

[12] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 9. See also Appendix to the present work for a more minute and technical description of the famous Necklace.

[13] “Histoire de la Décadence de la Monarchie Française,” par l’Abbé Soulavie, vol. iii. p 330.

[14] “Mémoires Historiques et Politiques du règne de Louis XVI.” par l’Abbé Soulavie, vol. iii. p. 71.

[15] Misspelt “Bassange” in all the Mémoires both written and printed, and in most of the official records of the “Affaire du Collier.” Such, however, of the latter, as were signed by the individual in question, are invariably signed “Bassenge.” There is some doubt as to whether Böhmer and Bassenge were crown jewellers at this period. One or two contemporary writers who are regarded as authorities say they were; but the writer of the letters published under the title of “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette, la Cour et la Ville,” says (vol. i. p. 548) that Böhmer was jeweller to Stanislaus, king of Poland, Louis XV.’s, father-in-law, and also to Madame Dubarry, and that it was owing to his holding this latter appointment that the order for the Diamond Necklace was confided to him. The same writer asserts that it was not until early in the year 1785, shortly after the perpetration of the Necklace fraud, that Böhmer was appointed, through the instrumentality of Marie-Antoinette, jeweller to the French crown. Although Böhmer may not have been officially appointed until this date, it is quite certain he had been employed by the queen almost from the very moment she ascended the throne of France.

[16] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 8.

[17] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 6.

[18] In the _livre rouge_ of Louis XVI., under the date December, 1776, there is an entry, in the king’s own hand, “Given to the queen 25,000 livres, the first payment of a sum of 300,000 livres which I have engaged to pay with interest to Böhmer in six years.”—See Archives of the Republic.

[19] “Correspondance Secrète de la Cour de Louis XVI.”

[20] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 9.

[21] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 146, _et seq._

[22] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 10, _et seq._

[23] M. Beugnot says Mademoiselle de Saint-Remi was a fat, handsome girl, extremely fair, and very dull and stupid, with just sufficient instinct to divine that she was a great lady.

[24] Acquired it rather by the accident of being born bastard offspring of a king.

[25] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 151, _et seq._ The reader must take this glowing description of the wedding and what transpired subsequently at Fontette, subject to large allowances for Madame de la Motte’s habitual exaggeration, to make use of no stronger term.

[26] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 16.

[27] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 11-14.

[28] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 13. Rétaux de Villette, one of the countess’s many lovers, and of whom we shall by-and-by have occasion to speak, professes to have heard the story of the countess’s numerous _liaisons_ from her own lips. He says that the reprobate Marquis de Boulainvilliers succeeded in seducing both the countess and her sister, and that the former was moreover _enceinte_ by the Bishop of Langres at the time of her marriage with M. de la Motte, which is the reason why this “worthy prelate,” as the countess styles him, interested himself in hastening forward the ceremony. This may seem a startling statement, but those who are aware of the extreme immorality which pervaded the upper classes of French society at this period, and especially the clerical section of it, will have no difficulty in believing it. If such things were done in the green wood, what might we not look for in the dry?—See “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 4, _et seq._, also _post_, p. 35.

[29] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 5. Villette was in the same corps as Count de la Motte, and on duty at Lunéville at the time we are speaking of.

[30] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[31] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 17, 19.

[32] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 18.

[33] Ibid, vol. i. p. 20.

[34] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. pp. 189, 191, 204.

[35] “Mémoire pour Bette d’Étienville.”

[36] “Mémoires de la Baronne d’Oberkirche,” vol. i. p. 127.

[37] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 21, 22.

[38] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 10.

[39] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 25, 26.

[40] “Histoire anecdotique des Rues de Versailles,” par J. A. Le Roi.

[41] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[42] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 9.

[43] Ibid., p. 10.

[44] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[45] Unpublished Autograph Letter of the Countess de la Motte in the collection of M. Feuillet de Conches. This letter is endorsed “M. Lenoir. The concession asked is impossible. Can they obtain other help? 18th May, 1783.” M. Lenoir was lieutenant-general of police at this period, but—owing, it is said, to the despotic way in which he acted while occupying this position, coupled with his abject devotion to the resentments of the great, which induced the Duke de Nivernois to style him the first slave in the kingdom—he was subsequently rewarded with the post of president of the administration of finances, and eventually with the more lucrative one of librarian to the king, a position for which it may be supposed his antecedents had hardly qualified him.

[46] “Confrontations du Cardinal avec Madame de la Motte.”

[47] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 8, and “Anecdotes du Règne de Louis XVI.” vol. i. p. 367.

[48] “Confrontations du Cardinal avec Madame de la Motte.”

[49] See _post_, p. 47.

[50] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[51] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 21.

[52] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. p. 17.

[53] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 261.

[54] Déposition de la Comtesse du Barry.

[55] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 265, _et seq._

[56] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 275.

[57] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 11.

[58] “Mémoires de Mdlle. Bertin,” p. 92.

[59] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6.

[60] “Mémoires de Mdlle. Bertin,” p. 99, _et seq._ Certain French bibliographers have pronounced these memoirs to be forged. In quoting from them, however, we are only following in the steps of M. Louis Blanc, who we presume considers them authentic. From the “Mémoire” forwarded to the queen by the crown jewellers on August 12, 1785, it would appear that negotiations for the sale of the Necklace had been opened with the Court of Spain and not the Court of Portugal, as stated in the Bertin “Mémoires,” which circumstance certainly goes a good way to impugn the authenticity of the latter.

This celebrated milliner, whose name and fame have become historic, was, it seems, employed by the Spanish court, and went to Madrid in performance of her duties as milliner to the Spanish crown. When, preparatory to her return to France, she presented her account to the Minister of Finance for settlement, that functionary, who had not the slightest knowledge of the details of her important art, strongly objected to the amount which she claimed—some 8000_l._ The king, equally astonished with his minister, proceeded to settle with the indignant milliner, by giving orders to his _chargé-d’affaires_ in Paris to have the account taxed. Mdlle. Bertin protested that her account would not admit of reduction, and said that Spain was very far from being civilized, since there was all this cavilling about such an essential matter as articles of feminine attire. Marie-Antoinette, it seems, interfered in her milliner’s favour, and eventually the account was settled without abatement.—See “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc. vol. ii. p. 21.

[61] “Louis XVI.” par Alexandre Dumas, vol. iii. p. 1, _et seq._

[62] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 11; and Déposition de Grenier.

[63] Déposition du Père Loth.

[64] “Marie-Antoinette et le Procès du Collier,” par E. Campardon, p. 44.

[65] _Vide_ “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot” and Villette’s “Mémoire Historique.”

[66] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” pp. 11, 13.

[67] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 291.

[68] “L’Histoire de France pendant le XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par C. Lacretelle, vol. vi. pp. 114, 120.

[69] “Mémoires du Baron de Besenval,” vol. iii. p. 122.

[70] His depositions are signed “Desclaux.”

[71] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 17, 19, 291.

[72] “Correspondance Inédite de Marie-Antoinette,” par Comte P. Vogt d’Hunolstein, p. 141.

[73] “Procès de Marie-Antoinette,” Paris, 1865, pp. 40, 64, 65.

[74] “Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire des Événements de la fin du XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 220.

[75] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. p. 42.

[76] “Mémoires Historiques et Politiques du règne de Louis XVI.,” par l’Abbé Soulavie, vol. iii. p. 277, _et seq._

[77] “Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire des Événements de la fin du XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par l’Abbé Georgel, vol i. p. 269, _et seq._

[78] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. i. p. 65.

[79] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. pp. 229, 591.

[80] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 294.

[81] She had informed the cardinal that the queen had deigned to accept of a white Spanish dog which the cardinal had offered to her through the princess. Of course Marie-Antoinette had done nothing of the kind.

[82] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 12, Appendix.

[83] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 17, Appendix.

[84] A few of these letters are given in the Appendix to the present work.

[85] “Confrontation du Cardinal avec le Père Loth.” The latter described the paper on which Villette wrote as being bordered with “_vignettes bleues_,” and in M. Feuillet de Conches’ unique collection of autographs of Marie-Antoinette are several notes written by the queen on paper with coloured borders.

[86] “Mémoires de la Baronne d’Oberkirche,” vol. i.

[87] “Saverne et ses environs,” par C. G. Klein.

[88] This refers to the year 1866. What changes the former palace may have undergone since Saverne has been under German domination I am unable to say.

[89] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 24.

[90] The Rue du Jour is a narrow street close to the “Halles Centrales,” and at the western end of the church of St. Eustache. It contains at the present day several _Hôtels meublés_ of a seedy kind, but the “petit hôtel Lambesc,” where Mdlle. Leguay Designy had her small apartment on the _premier étage_, no longer exists under its original name.

[91] The count being, according to Rétaux de Villette, a notorious gambler, the Palais Royal, where the _salons de jeu_ most abounded, would naturally have been one of his accustomed haunts.

[92] More probably towards the end of July.

[93] “Mémoire pour la Demoiselle Leguay d’Oliva,” p. 8, _et seq._

[94] “Histoire anecdotique des Rues de Versailles,” par J. A. Le Roi.

[95] “Deuxième Mémoire pour le Sieur Bette d’Étienville,” p. 17.

[96] “Mémoire pour la Demoiselle Leguay d’Oliva,” p. 16.

[97] “Mémoire pour la Demoiselle Leguay d’Oliva,” p. 16, _et seq._

[98] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 52, _et seq._

[99] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan.”

[100] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i p. 67, _et seq._

[101] In the cardinal’s first “Mémoire” he states the sum to have been sixty thousand livres, but at his examination he fixed it at fifty thousand.

[102] “Histoire de Marie-Antoinette,” par E. et J. de Goncourt, p. 202.

[103] “Mémoire pour la Demoiselle Leguay d’Oliva,” p. 34.

[104] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 33, 34.

[105] “Essais Historiques sur la Ville de Bar-sur-Aube,” etc., par J. F. G., and “Histoire de Bar-sur-Aube,” par L. Chevalier.

[106] An evident allusion to the ancient Roman triumphs.

[107] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 35, _et seq._

[108] A pun upon _La Motte_.

[109] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 41, _et seq._

[110] There were twenty-four livres or francs in the louis of those days.

[111] This letter of Mademoiselle de Saint-Remi’s has obtained the honour of being preserved among the historical autographs in the National Archives.

[112] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 45, _et seq._, 259, 260, 262.

[113] “Compte rendu de ce qui s’est passé au Parlement,” etc., p. 92.

[114] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 75, _et seq._

[115] This and similar allusions to localities connected with our narrative refer to the year 1866.

[116] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[117] Déposition de Bassenge.

[118] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. pp. 340, 341.

[119] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 93, _et seq._, and “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol i. p. 344 _et seq._

[120] Madame Campan states that “_Vu bon.—Marie-Antoinette_” was the form in which the queen certified the accuracy of an account.

[121] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 47, _et seq._

[122] See _post_, p. 120.

[123] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 50.

[124] “Cagliostro’s Stammbaum” von Wolfgang von Goethe.

[125] “Louis XVI.,” par Alexandre Dumas, vol. iii. p. 154.

[126] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[127] “Mémoires de la Baronne d’Oberkirche,” vol. i. pp. 129, 144.

[128] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 59.

[129] See _post_, p. 230.

[130] It is the corner house looking on to the Boulevard Beaumarchais.

[131] “Histoire de la Révolution Française,” par Louis Blanc, vol. ii. p. 82.

[132] “Réponse pour la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 27.

[133] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 59, _et seq._

Cagliostro laid claim to being possessed of the power not only of transmuting metals and curing all diseases, but of calling up spirits from the other world. His evocations were certainly not without an element of art. On one occasion the spirit the company desired to commune with was that of D’Alembert, and from notes furnished by an eye-witness, Lady Mantz, the actor Fleury gives the following account of the ceremony in his _Mémoires_:—

“The spectators or, as Cagliostro preferred to call them, guests sat in arm-chairs along the wall on the east side of the apartment. Before these chairs was drawn an iron chain,” lest some foolish person should be impelled by curiosity to rush upon destruction. “On the other side was placed the chair intended for the reception of the apparition. The Grand Koptha—the name assumed by Cagliostro on such occasions—chose the unusual hour of 3 a.m. for his evocations. Shortly before that time a voice was heard to order the removal from the scene of cats, dogs, horses, birds, and all reptiles, should any be near. Then came a command that none but free men should remain in the apartment; the servants were accordingly dismissed. A deep silence followed, and the lights were suddenly extinguished. The same voice, now assuming a louder and more authoritative tone, requested the guests to shake the iron chain; they obeyed, and an indescribable thrill ran through their frames. The clock at length struck three—slowly, and with a prolonged vibration of the bell. At each stroke a flash, as sudden and transitory as lightning, illumined the apartment, and the words ‘Philosophy,’ ‘Nature,’ and ‘Truth’ successively appeared in legible characters above the empty arm chair. The last word was more brilliant than the others. The lustres were suddenly relighted, how no one could tell. Stifled cries were heard as from a man whose mouth was gagged—a noise like that of a man struggling to break loose from persons detaining him;—and Cagliostro appeared.

“The Grand Koptha wore a costume to which it would be difficult to find anything analogous. Flowing drapery set off his figure to advantage, and the glow of enthusiasm in his face made him look really handsome. He delivered a short but comprehensive address, commenting on the words just seen over the chair. Then, turning successively to the four cardinal points, he uttered some cabalistic words, which returned as if from a distant echo. The lights having been extinguished, he commanded the guests again to shake the chain, and as they did so the strange feeling previously alluded to was renewed. The outline of the arm-chair now became gradually perceptible in the darkness, as though the lines had been traced on a black ground with phosphorus. The next moment, and as if by the same process, a winding sheet could be seen, with two fleshless hands resting upon the arm of the chair. The winding sheet, slowly opening, discovered an emaciated form; a short breathing was heard, and two brilliant piercing eyes were fixed upon the spectators.”

The illustrious philosopher, the author of the Preface to the “_Encyclopédie_,” had been called from the dead. He would answer questions put to him, but Cagliostro alone was privileged to hear him speak. “And what questions were put to him?” asked Fleury of Lady Mantz. “He was asked whether he had seen the other world.” “And what did he say?” “Ah, Monsieur Fleury, it was a terrible reply, especially to one who, like me, looks forward to a better future. He said, ‘There is no other world.’” “And did no one reply?” “Reply! who could venture to reply to the ghost of M. d’Alembert, returned from—ah, whence?” “That is precisely the thing. You should have said, ‘M. d’Alembert, if there is no other world, where may you happen to come from now?’”

[134] According to the official documents relating to the “Affaire du Collier” the correct name of this individual was Desclaux.

[135] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 99.

[136] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 39. All the persons concerned in the famous nocturnal meeting differed with regard to the date at which it took place. Madame de la Motte, as we have already stated, fixes it on the 28th of July.

[137] Miswritten “Regnier” in the official records. Regnier was another goldsmith with whom the De la Mottes had considerable dealings, bought their service of plate of, etc.

[138] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[139] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[140] “Histoire du Bois de Boulogne,” par J. Lobet, p. 141.

[141] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[142] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 350, and “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[143] Déposition de Bassenge.

[144] Madame Campan’s memory appears to have been at fault here.

[145] The reader will have observed that specific mention is not made in the jewellers’ letter of the Necklace itself, which Marie-Antoinette, in common with everybody else, had no doubt heard had been sold to the Sultan. Besides, only some two months previously the queen had purchased of Böhmer a magnificent pair of diamond earrings at the cost, it was reported, of 800,000 livres, and why might not this letter in the queen’s mind have borne reference to these rather than to the Diamond Necklace? See “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. p. 562.

[146] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. p. 227.

[147] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 92.

[148] See Appendix to the present work, p. 394.

[149] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[150] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 80.

[151] This, if true, was a piece of vain boasting on the cardinal’s part, for it is quite certain that he received the thirty thousand livres from Madame de la Motte, who professed to have brought them from the queen.

[152] “Deuxième Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[153] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii pp. 9, 12, 279.

[154] It is important that this date should be noted; for the circumstances which transpired on it, and which are chronicled in the police records, effectually dispose of the theory advanced by certain writers—such as M. Alexandre Dumas, in his “Louis XVI.” (vol. iii. p. 194, _et seq._)—who maintain that Marie-Antoinette really purchased the Necklace, through the instrumentality of the Cardinal de Rohan, and, after keeping it something like three months, returned it to the jewellers by the hands of Madame de la Motte, on finding that she was unable to raise the money to meet the first instalment. While asserting that Madame de la Motte was really the queen’s confidant, the writers referred to are forced to admit that she betrayed her trust, and converted the Necklace to her own use.

[155] See _ante_, p. 44.

[156] Déposition de Vidal, and Déposition de Brugnières, inspecteur de police. Brugnières was the police agent who arrested Mirabeau and Madame de Monnier in Holland, after their elopement from France.

[157] “Mémoire pour Bette d’Étienville,” and Déposition de Bette d’Étienville. See also Appendix, p. 409.

[158] Déposition de Furet.

[159] Déposition de Regnier.

[160] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.” Also _post_, p. 148.

[161] Déposition de Perregaux, banquier.

[162] Gray’s shop was No. 13, and the largest in New Bond Street. The house, which is within two doors of Long’s hotel, must have been quite a new building at the time the Count de la Motte had dealings with the crack London jeweller of that day.

[163] See _ante_, p. 140.

[164] Which in fact was _not_ a falsehood. See Jefferys’ deposition, given in the “Pièces Justificatives pour le Cardinal de Rohan.”

[165] Déposition de McDermott.

[166] There is evidently some blunder here. This must be the aigrette in the form of a rose, for which Gray charged £60. See _post_, p. 151.

[167] See _ante_, p. 147. The Count there says twenty-eight.

[168] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 194, _et seq._

[169] “Pièces Justificatives pour le Cardinal de Rohan.”

[170] “Confrontation du Cardinal de Rohan avec le Père Loth.”

[171] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[172] Déposition de Perregaux.

[173] See _ante_, p. 148.

[174] Déposition de Regnier.

[175] “Marie-Antoinette et le Procès du Collier,” par E. Campardon. Paris, 1858, p. 98.

[176] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 49.

[177] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”

[178] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 72.

[179] Déposition de Bassenge.

[180] See _ante_, p. 135.

[181] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 283-4. Madame Campan is the single authority for this reputed interview between Böhmer and the queen. Other accounts agree in stating that the queen invariably refused to see the crown jeweller, under the pretence that his threats of suicide alarmed her. Still, as Madame Campan was so intimately mixed up with the affair at this particular juncture, she could hardly be mistaken on so important a point as this interview. If it really did take place, Böhmer must have kept the cardinal in ignorance of it, for had he known of it he would hardly have counselled the jeweller to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the astute De Breteuil. See the next page.

[182] “Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 284.

[183] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 74.

[184] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 375, _et seq._, and “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[185] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 83. Villette evidently lingered for some time on French soil, for his passport for Italy was not dated until August 20, two days after the countess’s arrest.

[186] Déposition de Bassenge.

[187] Déposition du Père Loth.

[188] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 59.

[189] “Some of the De la Mottes’ fine furniture may still be seen at Bar-sur-Aube, in the _salon_ of the son of a former postmaster of the place, who subsequently bought the house itself of the count. To-day, improvements in the town of Bar-sur-Aube have necessitated the partial destruction of the De la Motte abode, fragments of which exist in no less than three separate streets.”—_Letter from the Curé of Bar-sur-Aube to the author_, 1866.

[190] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 70, 71.

[191] “Authentic Adventures of the Countess de la Motte,” p. 119.

[192] Ibid. p. 120. The author of this work states that he was at Bar-sur-Aube at this particular period, and saw the count riding about in the balloon-shaped carriage above mentioned. Balloons, it should be remembered, were then a recent invention, Montgolfier having made his first ascent in December, 1783, some twenty months previously.

[193] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol i. p. 71.

[194] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 71, _et seq._

[195] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 76-77.

[196] “Mémoires de la Baronne d’Oberkirche,” vol i. p. 127.

[197] See Georgel, who attributed this movement of the cardinal’s to his firm belief at the time that the queen had really employed Madame de la Motte as her intermediary in the Necklace affair.

[198] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14, 15, 286-7. Madame Campan has extracted the foregoing narrative, nearly word for word, from a newspaper of the time—the _Journal des Débats_. See the Abbé Soulavie’s “Mémoires Historiques et Politiques du règne de Louis XVI.,” vol. vi. p. 81, _et seq._, where the same account will be found quoted.

[199] “Mémoires du Baron de Besenval,” vol. iii. p. 127. The baron adds that he heard the whole of this detail told to the queen, but nothing was said of the contents of the paper written by the cardinal.

[200] It is No. 6 in the Rue des Réservoirs. _Vide_ “Histoire Anecdotique des Rues de Versailles,” par J. A. Le Roi.

[201] There are other versions of this incident: we have, however, preferred to follow the Abbé Georgel’s. See “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 103-4. Madame Campan says that the cardinal borrowed the pencil which he used from the sub-lieutenant into whose custody he was given, and who, when reprimanded for having permitted the cardinal to write, excused himself by saying that the orders he received did not forbid his doing so; and that, moreover, being himself in great pecuniary difficulties, he thought the unaccustomed summons, “In the king’s name, follow me,” addressed to him by the Baron de Breteuil, concerned him personally, which for the moment so unnerved him that he hardly knew what he was doing. See “Madame Campan’s Memoirs,” vol. ii. pp. 15, 16, 284.

[202] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 79.

[203] “Essais Historiques sur la ville de Bar-sur-Aube,” par J. G. F.

[204] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 79, 80.

[205] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol i. p. 80, _et seq._

[206] “Anecdotes du règne de Louis XVI.,” vol. i. p. 385.

[207] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[208] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 85, 86.

[209] “Mémoire pour le Comte de Cagliostro contre Maître Chesnon fils et le Sieur de Launay,” p. 4, _et seq._ In several of the earlier documents filed in the “Affaire du Collier,” the prefix “Count” has been marked through with a pen, both where it occurs in the body of the instrument and also as part of Cagliostro’s signature. After a time, the registrar or reporter seems to have grown tired of making this excision, and to have allowed the disputed title to pass unobliterated.

[210] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. pp. 49, 108.

[211] M. Feuillet de Conches has, among his curious collection of autographs relating to the affair of the Diamond Necklace, a series of reports from the Marquis de Launay to the Baron de Breteuil, which give, day by day, a list of the persons who visited the cardinal during his confinement in the Bastille.

[212] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. pp. 600, 616.

[213] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 389, _et seq._

[214] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 408.

[215] Ibid. vol. i. p. 416.

[216] Autograph letter of Madame de la Motte’s in the National Archives.

[217] Anonymous autograph letter of Madame de la Motte’s in the collection of M. Feuillet de Conches.

[218] M. F. Barrière.

[219] “Histoire de Marie-Antoinette,” par E. et J. de Goncourt, pp. 39, 102.

[220] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol i.

[221] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. p. 233.

[222] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. p. 339.

[223] “Les derniers jours de Trianon,” par M. Capefigue, p. 25.

[224] See _ante_, p. 50.

[225] “Weber’s Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” vol. ii. p. 263.

[226] “Lettres et Documenta Inédits de Louis XVI. et Marie-Antoinette,” par M. Feuillet de Conches, vol. iii. p. 318.

[227] “Souvenirs de la Marquise de Créqui,” par le Comte de Courchamps.

[228] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc. vol. i. p. 355.

[229] “Louis XVI.,” par Alexandre Dumas, vol. iii. p. 167.

[230] “Histoire de Marie-Antoinette,” par E. et J. de Goncourt. Most of the foregoing particulars respecting the queen’s society at the Little Trianon have been derived from this work.

[231] “Mémoires Posthumes du Feld-Maréchal Comte de Stedingk,” vol. iii. pp. 17, 74.

[232] “Life of the Countess de la Motte,” by herself, vol. i. p. 312, _et seq._

[233] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. i. p. 242.

[234] “Histoire de Marie-Antoinette,” par E. et J. de Goncourt, to which interesting work we are indebted for the larger portion of the present chapter.

[235] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. i. pp. 238, 330.

[236] Ibid. vol. i. p. 315.

[237] “Les derniers jours de Trianon,” par M. Capefigue p. 84.

[238] M. de Lescure, in his “La Vraie Marie-Antoinette,” brings forward evidence of the existence of a private printing press in the cellars of the Palais Royal, at which these foul libels were struck off.

[239] “Carlyle’s Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 36, _note_.

[240] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette, la Cour et la Ville,” vol. i. p. 587.

[241] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol, i. pp. 97-8.

[242] Unpublished autograph letter of Louis XVI. in the collection of M. Feuillet de Conches.

[243] “Souvenirs de M. Berryer, doyen des avocats de Paris, de 1774 à 1838,” vol. ii. p. 51.

[244] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 49.

[245] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 127.

[246] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 138, _et seq._

[247] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 143.

[248] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 145.

[249] “Correspondance Inédite de Marie-Antoinette,” par Comte P. Vogt d’Hunolstein, p. 133. It should be mentioned that the majority of the letters in this collection are considered to be of doubtful authenticity.

[250] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 426.

[251] In the French State paper office a minute description is preserved of the documents, put in on behalf of the prosecution in the “Procès du Collier.” An epitome of this will be found in the appendix to the present volume.

[252] This name occurs as Filliau in the written record of the proceedings, preserved in the National Archives.

[253] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”

[254] Cagliostro’s wife was known by this designation.

[255] This was an alias of Rétaux de Villette’s. See _post_, p. 243.

[256] “Interrogatoire du Sieur de Cagliostro.”

[257] “Correspondence Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette, la Cour et la Ville,” vol. i. p. 592.

[258] As an example of Cagliostro’s audacity in this respect, it may be mentioned that, when first questioned by the lieutenant of police, who, in allusion to the Necklace affair, inquired if he had nothing to reproach himself with—he coolly replied, Nothing but the death of Pompey, and that even with regard to this he acted under the orders of Ptolemy. The lieutenant of police, not taken in the least aback, quietly observed they would refrain from going into any matters that occurred under his predecessors in office. See “Correspondance Secrète Inédite,” etc., vol. ii. p. 18.

[259] We have been unable to fathom the meaning of this allusion. All we have succeeded in discovering about Madame Böhmer is, that she was the “famous Demoiselle Renaud,” but whence she derived her celebrity we are left in the dark.

[260] “Premier Mémoire pour la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 27, _et seq._

[261] Autograph Report of the Marquis de Launay, governor of the Bastille, in the collection of M. Feuillet de Conches.

[262] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. pp. 19, 20.

[263] Confrontations du Cardinal de Rohan avec Madame de la Motte.

[264] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 30.

[265] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 41.

[266] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 40.

[267] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 55.

[268] “Mémoires pour servir,” etc., par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 185.

[269] Confrontations de la Dame de la Motte avec les témoins.

[270] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 47.

[271] Confrontations de la Dame de la Motte avec les témoins.

[272] “Compte rendu de ce qui s’est passé au Parlement,” etc., pp. 75-6.

[273] Confrontations de la Dame de la Motte et du Cardinal.

[274] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 235.

[275] “Mémoire pour la Demoiselle Leguay d’Oliva,” p. 34.

[276] “Mémoire pour le Comte de Cagliostro,” p. 46.

[277] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 238.

[278] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” p. 241.

[279] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 50.

[280] Autograph Letter of the Abbé Georgel, in the collection of M. Feuillet de Conches.

[281] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. ii. p. 31.

[282] “Carlyle’s Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 57.

[283] “Requête pour le Sieur Marc-Antoine Rétaux de Villette,” p. 5. See also “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc., vol. ii. p. 26.

[284] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 60.

[285] Premier Interrogatoire de Rétaux de Villette.

[286] If this statement was true it is difficult to conceive how the cardinal and the jewellers could have been deceived by the signature affixed to the contract, for there is not the slightest resemblance between Villette’s bold upright style of penmanship as it appears in the numerous signatures appended to his depositions, etc., and the cramped, slanting, handwriting of Marie-Antoinette. Even if the cardinal was unacquainted with the precise character of the queen’s handwriting at this epoch, it is most improbable that Böhmer was in a like state of ignorance.

[287] “Compte rendu de ce qui s’est passé au Parlement,” etc., p. 103.

[288] Deuxième Interrogatoire de Rétaux de Villette.

[289] “Mémoire Historique,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, pp. 65-72.