XXXIII. 1786. May 31. DEBATE IN THE COURT OF PARLIAMENT.—THE SENTENCES.
Reading edition
From half-past four in the morning of the 31st of May all the members of the cardinal’s family, women as well as men, were assembled at the door of the parliament chamber, in order to be in the way of the judges as they passed into the hall. “They employed,” we are told, “no other means of solicitation beyond preserving a mournful silence, in which might be discerned alike their grief, their firmness, and their respect for the throne and for the laws. This mode of solicitation, so noble, so worthy of the illustrious houses of Rohan, Soubise, Guéménée, and Lorraine, and at the same time so perfectly conformable to the nature of the affair in which the cardinal was implicated, made a more profound impression upon his judges than all the eloquence which was exercised in his behalf.”[327]
If the members of the cardinal’s family did not, on this occasion, publicly appeal to his judges in his favour, it is certain that during the course of the proceedings every effort had been made by the grand almoner’s relatives and friends to increase the number of his adherents among the councillors who had to judge the case. Mesdames de Marsan and de Brionne, and the Prince de Soubise, visited all the members of the Grand Chamber in turn, and solicited them in the cardinal’s behalf;[328] besides which, on the very morning of the trial, Madame de Brionne, dissatisfied with the attitude of the first president, did not scruple to reproach him in his own house with his partiality and bad faith, and to plainly tell him that it was well known he had sold himself to the Court.[329] We know that the prime minister, the Count de Vergennes, was a secret partisan of the grand almoner’s, and we know also, that M. de Laurencel, the procureur-général’s deputy, drew up a list of names of members of the Great Chamber, wherein he set forth against each the means that had been employed to gain that particular councillor’s vote. This list was found in after years among the papers which Marie-Antoinette intrusted to M. Campan during the Revolution, and which his daughter-in-law, Madame Campan, afterwards had under her charge. From this document it would seem that ladies of the highest position did not scruple to accept large bribes to exercise their powers of seduction in the cardinal’s behalf, and it was by these means, we are told, that some of the most venerable and most respectable among the judges had been corrupted.[330]
Between five and six o’clock the Parliament, Grand Chamber, and Tournelle, had assembled. The number of members present amounted to sixty-two, which subsequently became reduced to forty-nine, when the loquacious clerical councillors had retired, as they were obliged to do, on its being found that the judgment involved afflictive punishments.[331]
The proceedings were opened by the procureur-général, M. Joly de Fleury, who, when contrôleur-général in former years, had experienced his share of persecution at the hands of Madame de la Motte, with whom he had now the opportunity of clearing off a few old scores. In a most able speech he submitted to the Parliament the following extremely fair proposition: First, that the Parliament should adjudge the “approuvés” and the pretended signature of the queen to be forgeries; secondly, that Count de la Motte should be sentenced to the galleys for life, by reason of his contumacy; thirdly, that Villette should undergo a similar sentence, and further, that he should be whipped and branded, and his effects be confiscated; fourthly, that Madame de la Motte should be confined for life in the prison of the Salpêtrière, after being whipped and branded, her effects to be likewise confiscated; fifthly, that the Cardinal de Rohan should ask pardon of the king and queen for having been wanting in respect towards their sacred persons; that he should be banished the precincts of the Court, and that, during a period to be fixed by the Parliament, he should be suspended from his office of grand almoner; that he should be sentenced to such alms-giving as the Parliament might direct; and, finally, that he should be kept in confinement until he had obeyed and satisfied the judgment now given. Sixthly, that D’Oliva be put out of court. Seventhly, that Cagliostro be acquitted.[332]
The party opposed to the queen at once rejected these proposals. No sooner had M. Joly de Fleury done speaking, than M. de Barillon, a partisan of the cardinal’s, started up and exclaimed that the conclusions to which they had just listened were not those of a procureur-général, but rather those of a minister whom it was not difficult to recognize; alluding, of course, to the Baron de Breteuil. The advocate-general, M. Séguier, to the surprise of the excited councillors, joined in this attack upon his colleague, whom he personally denounced.[333] Hereupon quite a scene ensued and accusations were bandied backwards and forwards between the legal officers of the crown. M. de Fleury reproached M. Séguier with his loose and disorderly life, with his nightly rambles in the Palais Royal, and the money that these cost him. “It may be so,” replied the other, “out of my house I do what I please, but no one has known me to sell my opinion basely to fortune.” The procureur-général made no reply to this insinuation but remained stupefied as it were with his mouth open.[334]
The incident having terminated, M. de Mineres passed in review all the various impostures of Madame de la Motte, maintained that the cardinal was not her only victim, that the jewellers had been equally deceived, for they loaded her with thanks for the exertions she had made in their behalf, and offered her presents, whereas, neither thanks nor presents were offered to the cardinal, whom the jewellers regarded simply as an instrument chosen by the countess to conduct the negotiation: other speakers instanced the letter of thanks which the cardinal had repeatedly advised the jewellers to send to the queen, as a convincing proof of his good faith. M. de Jonville, third master of requests, attributed the evidence which appeared to tell most against the cardinal entirely to the bad memory of Böhmer, of which he gave several proofs.[335]
The speeches of Councillors D’Epréménil and Fretteau, and the Abbé Sabattier, produced however the greatest effect. This celebrated trio showed the utmost boldness in attacking the court and braving its anger, and spoke vehemently in favour of the cardinal’s complete acquittal.[336] Singularly enough, it was these very same three men who, a year or two afterwards, stirred up the Parliament to refuse to register the royal edicts, and were among the first to demand the convocation of the States-general, for which acts of temerity the two last were packed off by lettres-de-cachet—the one to the Castle of Ham, the other to dreary Mont St.-Michel, and D’Epréménil, a few months later to the Isle of Sainte-Marguerite (Calypso’s enchanted island,) whence he returned—the Revolution having made rapid strides meanwhile—“a red-hot royalist,” to finish his career under the axe of the guillotine. M. Robert de St.-Vincent was another of those who spoke in favour of the Prince de Rohan, who, he maintained, had been deceived by the most plausible lies. He denied the legality of the procureur-général’s conclusions, and the power of the Parliament to incorporate them in its judgment, and asked for the cardinal’s acquittal. He condemned, too, the publicity given to the proceedings, and expressed his regret that the king and queen had not been advised by some wiser minister, who would have been more regardful of the dignity of the crown. The president, D’Ormesson—the same who sent the countess a few louis “by the hands of the police”—offered an amendment to the procureur-général’s proposition, to the effect that the cardinal should retain his offices and dignities, but that he should be required to ask pardon of the queen for the offence he had committed. There was no difference of opinion among the judges as to the measure of punishment to be meted out to Madame de la Motte, excepting that MM. Robert de Saint-Vincent and Dyonis du Séjour pressed the passing of sentence of death upon her. As her crime, however, had been unforeseen by the laws, this penalty could not be legally inflicted.[337]
The discussion, which was very animated, continued throughout the day. At two o’clock in the afternoon the sitting was suspended, in order that the judges might dine at a table which the first president had had set out for them in the hall of St.-Louis; the greater number, we are told, ate standing, and by half-past three the sitting was resumed. Between nine and ten o’clock at night, after the final voting had taken place, the following judgment was delivered.[338]
“The Court, the Great Chamber assembled, in the exercise of its jurisdiction and on the conclusions of the procureur-général of the king, declares that the words ‘approuvé’ and the signature, ‘Marie-Antoinette de France,’ have been fraudulently appended to the margin of the document, entitled, ‘Propositions and Conditions of Price and Payment’ for the Necklace brought in question at this trial, and which are falsely attributed to the queen; orders that the said words ‘approuvé,’ and the said signature, ‘Marie-Antoinette de France,’ shall be struck out and erased from the said document, and that mention shall be made of the present decree on the same, which will be and shall remain deposited in the criminal registry of the Court,[339] of all of which affirmation shall be made by the court registrar.
“Adjudging the consequences of the contumacy declared good and valid by the decree of the Court of the 10th of April, 1786, against Marc-Antoine-Nicolas de la Motte accused, absent—
“For the facts proved by the proceedings condemns the said Marc-Antoine-Nicolas de la Motte to be flogged and beaten naked with rods, and branded with a hot iron on the right shoulder with the letters ‘G. A. L.’ by the public executioner; this done to be led and conducted to the galleys of the king, there to be detained to serve our said king as convict for life.[340]
“Declares all the goods of the said Marc-Antoine-Nicolas de la Motte acquired and confiscated to the king, or whomsoever he may appoint, a fine of two hundred livres to the king being previously levied thereon: which sentence, by reason of the contumacy of the said De la Motte, shall be written upon a tablet, which shall be affixed to a post planted for this purpose in the Place de Grève (place of execution).
“Banishes Louis-Marc-Antoine Rétaux de Villette from the kingdom for life.
“Condemns Jeanne de Valois de Saint-Remi de Luz, wife of Marc-Antoine-Nicolas de la Motte, while having a halter round her neck, to be flogged and beaten naked with rods, and branded with a hot iron upon both shoulders with the letter ‘V,’ by the public executioner; this done, to be led and conducted to the prison of the Salpêtrière, there to be detained and confined for life.[341]
“Declares likewise all the goods of the said De la Motte, and the said Rétaux de Villette, acquired and confiscated to the king, or to whomsoever he may appoint; a fine of two hundred livres to the king being previously levied upon each.
“Upon the complaint and accusation brought at the request of the procureur-général of the king against Marie-Nicole Le Guay, alias d’Oliva or Dessigny, puts the parties out of court and discharges the process.
“Discharges Alexandre de Cagliostro and Louis-René-Édouard de Rohan from the complaint and accusation brought against them at the request of the procureur-général of the king.
“Orders, that the memorials printed for Jeanne de Saint-Remi de Valois de la Motte shall be and shall continue to be suppressed, as containing false statements, injurious and calumnious alike against the said Cardinal de Rohan and the said De Cagliostro.
“Upon the remainder of the request of the said De Cagliostro, alike against Commissary Chénon and De Launay, governor of the Bastille, puts it out of court, without prejudice to his appeal when and how he may be advised; upon the rest of the demands, requests, and conclusions of the parties puts these out of court.
“Gives permission to the Cardinal de Rohan and the said De Cagliostro to cause the present judgment to be printed and posted up wheresoever it may seem good to them.”[342]
Contemporary accounts agree in stating that something like ten thousand people were assembled in the courts and passages of the palace and in the neighbourhood of their approaches, all anxious to learn the judgment of the Parliament.[343] Crowds streamed across the Pont Neuf, the Pont Saint-Michel, the Pont-au-Change, and the Ponts Notre-Dame, coming from all parts of Paris. There were courtiers, men of letters, financiers, abbés, avocats, avoués, shopkeepers and their wives, students, working men, soldiers, police agents, men and women from the halles, and idlers of every description. “About nine o’clock at night,” says Madame de la Motte, “I heard a report like that of acclamation in the courtyard. I ran to look out of one of the windows which commanded a view of the court, and saw crowds of people running very fast by the great staircase. I could not distinctly understand what they said, except that one of them, who was very near the window, cried out, ‘Bravo! bravo! Upon my word, it is very fortunate for the cardinal; but what will become of poor Madame de la Motte?’ The moment these words vibrated in my ear, they were like an electric shock. Unable to sustain myself, my legs bent under me: I tottered and sank into a chair. When I was a little recovered, the keeper of the Conciergerie, assisted by his son, conducted me to my apartment, where having left me for a few minutes, with a view of gaining authentic information of the definitive sentence of the court, they soon after returned. ‘The cardinal,’ said they, ‘is put out of court, and delivered from further process; Cagliostro and D’Oliva are the same; Villette, madame, is banished, as well as you.’ ‘For how long?’ ‘I believe, for three years; but everybody blames the judges. We think there will be some alteration.’”[344]
It is likely enough that, out of consideration for the countess and her well-known violent temper, the foregoing innocent piece of deception was practised upon her by the keeper of the Conciergerie, who soon afterwards prevailed upon her to retire to rest. Meanwhile the judges were leaving the palace, pressed upon by an immense crowd of people, who made the walls of the old building ring again with their acclamations. A thousand voices shouted out, “Vive le Parlement!” “Vive le Cardinal!” The market women, throwing themselves in the way of the departing councillors, vociferated their applause, and offered them bouquets of flowers. M. Titon, one of the reporters of the case, who, with his fellow-reporter, Dupuis de Marcé, had adopted the conclusions of the procureur-général, threw the flowers back again with marked ill-humour, to let the people see that he merited no share of this popular ovation. Something, however, more substantial than flowers were in store for M. Titon, for the king conferred on him the post of civil lieutenant in reward for his zeal.[345]
When MM. Target and De Bonnières, the advocates who had advised the cardinal to take his trial before the Parliament, sought to enter the record office to communicate the judgment to their client, curt old De Launay, governor of the Bastille, who had the Prince de Rohan in his charge, informed them that he had received specific orders from the Baron de Breteuil not to allow any one to speak to his prisoner. On its being represented to him that the cardinal was no longer in legal custody, since he had been formally discharged of the accusation against him by the judgment of the Parliament just rendered, and on the bystanders expressing their disapprobation by loud murmurs, he eventually permitted the two advocates to enter. “The cardinal, robed in the Roman purple,” says Cagliostro, “was carried off in triumph;”[346] and so he was, but to the Bastille. As soon as the interview between the grand almoner and his counsel had terminated, De Launay informed him that, the Parliament having separated, he would have to return to that gloomy state prison. Hearing this, the cardinal proceeded to follow his gaoler to the carriage, while the people rushed forward, and kissed both his hands and his garments. To impose upon the crowd De Launay gave orders for the vehicle to be driven “to the hôtel,”[347] and the people, imagining the Palais-Cardinal to be intended, ran beside the carriage, shouting their congratulations, and only quitted it when it disappeared within the walls of the grim old fortress, every stone of which was destined in little more than three short years to be razed to the ground.