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.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

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.”

II. Degree. Fourth Progenitor.] Henri de Saint-Remi, called Henri Monsieur, is styled High and Puissant Lord, Knight, Lord of the Manors and Baron du Chatellier, Fontette, Noez and Beauvoir, Knight of the King’s Order, Gentleman of the Bedchamber in Ordinary, Colonel of a regiment of horse, and of foot, and Governor of Château-Villain; married by contract October 31, 1592, articled at Essoyes, in Champagne, Dame Christiana de Luz, styled High and Puissant Lady, relict of Claude de Fresnay, Lord of Loupy, Knight of the King’s Order, and daughter of the Hon. Jacques de Luz, also Knight of the King’s Order, and of Lady Michelle du Fay, Lord and Lady of Bazoilles; died at Paris on the 14th of February, 1621, and had of his marriage the son who follows:

III. Degree. Third Progenitor.] Renatus de Saint-Remi, styled High and Puissant Lord, Knight, Lord and Baron de Fontette, Gentleman in Ordinary to the King’s Bedchamber, Captain of a hundred men-at-arms, died March 11, 1663, and had married, by articles entered into April 25, 1646, at Essoyes, Jacquette Brevau, by whom, amongst others, he had the following son:

IV. Degree. Great Grandfather.] Pierre Jean de Saint-Remi de Valois, styled High and Puissant Lord, Knight, Lord of Fontette, Major of the regiment of Bachevilliers’ horse, was born September 9, 1649, and baptized at Fontette, October 12, 1653; married first to Demoiselle Reine Marguerite de Courtois, and a second time by articles passed on January 18, 1673, at St. Aubin, in the Bishopric of Toul, to Demoiselle Marie de Mullot, daughter of Messire Paul de Mullot, and of Dame Charlotte de Chaslus, died before the 14th of March, 1714; and of his second marriage had a son, who follows:

V. Degree. Grandfather.] Nicolas Renatus de Saint-Remi de Valois, styled Knight, Baron de Saint-Remi, and Lord of Luz, was baptized at Saint Aubin-aux-Auges, in the Bishopric of Toul, the 12th of April, 1678, served the King during ten years, as garde-du-corps to his majesty, in the Duke de Charost’s company, quitted the service to marry by articles of the 14th of March, 1714, Demoiselle Marie Elisabeth de Vienne, daughter of Nicolas François de Vienne, Knight, Lord and Baron de Fontette, Noez, &c., counsellor to the King, president, Lieutenant-general in matters both civil and criminal, in the royal Bailiwick of Bar-sur-Seine, and of Dame Elisabeth de Merille, died at Fontette, on the 3rd of October, 1759; and of his marriage had two sons: first, Pierre Nicolas Renatus de Saint-Remi de Fontette, born at Fontette, June 3, 1716, received in 1744, a Gentleman cadet in the regiment of Grassin, where it is assured he was killed in an engagement against the king’s enemies; and second, Jacques, who follows:

VI. Degree. Father.] Jacques de Saint-Remi de Valois, first called de Luz, and afterwards de Valois, styled Knight, Baron de Saint-Remi, was born at Fontette, December 22, 1717, and baptized January 1, 1718. In his baptismal attestation which contains his name and condition, his father, thereat present, is called and styled, “Messire Nicolas Renatus de Saint-Remi de Valois, Baron de Saint-Remi;” and his aunt, who was one of the sponsors, is therein called “Demoiselle Barbe Thérèse, daughter of the late Messire Pierre Jean de Saint-Remi de Valois.” Both of them signed their names to it, Saint-Remi de Valois. He espoused, in the parish church of St. Martin, at Langres, on the 14th of August, 1755, Marie Jossel, by whom he already had a son, who follows: and died at the Hôtel Dieu, in Paris, February 16, 1762, according to the register of his death, in which he is called and styled, “Jacques de Valois, Knight, Baron de Saint-Remi.”

VII. Degree. Procreating.] Jacques de Saint-Remi de Valois, born 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]⁠