the princess was responsible in the persons of her heirs, notwithstanding
the conditions under which she had undertaken to administer the
cardinal’s will. In accordance with this view, so recently as the year
1864 an action was brought before the Civil Tribunal of the Seine by
the heirs of M. Deville against the Princes de Rohan-Rochefort, as
representatives of the Princess Charlotte de Rohan-Rochefort, to recover
the principal sum for which the assignment of the Saint Waast revenues
had been given, together with cumulative interest, amounting in the whole
to upwards of 2,000,000 francs; but it was argued for the defence that
the cardinal’s estate had been properly administered by the princess,
that the plaintiffs had received the same share as the other creditors,
and that they had no legal claim on the defendants. The tribunal took
this view of the case, and accordingly rejected the plaintiff’s demand
with costs. Such was the end, after the lapse of nearly four score years,
of perhaps the most famous _cause célèbre_ of all time, known in the
annals of French jurisprudence as the _Affaire du Collier_.
Just as the Countess de la Motte was, to some extent, the imitator of
certain female swindlers of her own era, so has she found imitators in
this our own time. Almost at the moment we are writing[465] Paris is
talking about an act of swindling which bears a certain resemblance to
the Diamond Necklace fraud. It seems that, in the month of February,
1866, a jeweller in Paris, M. Cramer, received a letter sealed with the
Prussian arms, and signed “Comte de Schaffgotsch,” chamberlain of her
majesty the Queen of Prussia, in which he was asked if he was willing to
undertake the execution of some models, in brilliants, of a new order
which the Queen of Prussia intended to create. The jeweller immediately
accepted the commission, and several days afterwards there arrived some
drawings understood to have been executed by the queen herself. The
jeweller set to work forthwith, and in the course of a few weeks he
transmitted to Berlin a magnificent cross surrounded with diamonds. In
reply, he received a letter of congratulation accompanied by an order
for a dozen more diamond crosses, with a further promise of an order for
the crown of the Prince of Hohenzollern as sovereign of the Danubian
Principalities. The jeweller was the happiest of men. His fortune was
evidently made; but when and how was he to forward the crosses? The count
replied that he was just then charged with a diplomatic mission, and
would be at Cologne on a particular day, when the decorations could be
awaiting him at the chief banker’s in that town.
The jeweller accordingly sends the crosses to the house of Oppenheim and
Co., informing them that they were to be delivered to the chamberlain
of the Queen of Prussia. Some days afterwards the count informed the
bankers by letter that he would pass through the town at a certain hour,
and begged of them to forward to him the jeweller’s parcel by the hands
of one of their clerks. This was accordingly done, and the jeweller is
subsequently informed by letter that the Queen of Prussia is delighted
with the crosses, some more of which her majesty requires.
But nothing was said as to payment, and the jeweller, uneasy in mind, did
at last what he should have done at first. He called upon the Prussian
ambassador at Paris, who informed him that he had been dealing with a
knave, and that the letters were all forged. The jeweller, in a state of
great consternation, sets out, under the advice of the ambassador, for
Baden, where the Queen of Prussia then is, and obtains an audience of
her majesty, by whom he is assured that she is an entire stranger to the
whole story of the diamond crosses.
On his return to Paris M. Cramer receives another letter from the
pretended count, who insinuates this time that he might himself be
decorated with the order of the Red Eagle. The jeweller, however, was
now on his guard. The police were communicated with, and they managed to
draw the fox into the trap. He was found to be a man of good family,
the son of an old general, and holding rank and title at the Prussian
court, but whom a passion for gambling had ruined. The police seized,
at the hotel where he put up in Paris, all the jeweller’s letters, some
diamonds detached from the crosses, with several visiting cards, having
the name of the Count von Schaffgotsch on them, together with a blank
stamp bearing the arms of the Queen of Prussia. Owing possibly to the
high connections of the culprit, the case would appear to have been
compromised, for nothing more was heard of this last Diamond swindle.
XLV.
SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MARIE-ANTOINETTE.
The reader who has accompanied us step by step in our narrative, who has
weighed our statements one by one, and noted the authorities on which
these are based, is perhaps already satisfied of Marie-Antoinette’s
complete innocence of any kind of participation in the great fraud of the
Diamond Necklace, and is convinced of the falsity of the charges brought
against her with regard to her presumed intercourse with the Cardinal
de Rohan. Should any doubt still linger in his mind, this will be
removed, we imagine, on an examination of the annexed summary of facts.
If we prove two things, that the queen was in no degree mixed up in the
Necklace affair, and that she held no kind of intercourse with Madame
de la Motte, then the whole of the countess’s calumnies respecting the
correspondence carried on between the queen and the cardinal, and their
secret meetings at the Little Trianon, necessarily fall to the ground.
Whatever may have been the follies, or say the crimes even, if you
please, of which Marie-Antoinette was guilty, and which she more than
expiated by her cruel death, complicity in any shape in this contemptible
Diamond Necklace fraud is most certainly not one of them.
In the first place, if the Countess de la Motte had been that intimate
confidant of the queen which she pretended she was, however secret their
relations may have been, she would still have been able to have brought
forward some shadow of proof of their existence, some trifling souvenir,
for instance, the former possession of which might have been traced to
Marie-Antoinette, some little scrap of her handwriting, even though
undated and unsigned, some single witness who had once seen her in the
queen’s presence, or in the queen’s apartments, even though this had been
a discarded servant, such as the “_bonne citoyenne_,” the “_excellente
patriote_,” Reine Millot, who deposed against her royal mistress at her
trial.[466] Evidence directly compromising the queen in the Necklace
affair would perhaps not have been forthcoming at the time of the trial
before the Court of Parliament, even if it had been the interest of
either party to have produced it; but during the long years of the
Revolution, when the name and memory of Marie-Antoinette were objects
of the bitterest hate and scorn, some one among the many individuals
acquainted with the intrigues of the court might have been expected to
have broken this forced silence, if from no other motive than personal
vanity.
And yet not a scintilla of evidence, true or false, against the queen has
come to light. In none of the memoirs or letters of the time, written by
those who had opportunities of knowing something of the facts, do we find
the slightest accusation against the queen with regard to the Diamond
Necklace. No one has stated that she was ever seen either with the
Necklace itself, or any of the loose diamonds composing part of it, in
her possession. No one connected with the court, neither Besenval nor De
Lauzun, both on terms of closest intimacy with, and both, to some extent,
detractors of the queen, has stated that Madame de la Motte was ever
once seen in the queen’s company, but all who have made allusion to her,
like Lacretelle, Besenval, and Madame Campan, have stated precisely the
reverse.[467] If she was in almost daily communication with the queen, as
she pretended was the case, she must have been constantly seen by some of
the inferior servants; her friend the gatekeeper of the Little Trianon,
for instance, or the _valet de chambre_, Desclaux, who, when the queen
had perished by the guillotine, and there was no longer any motive for
preserving silence, would have talked of the affair for talking’s sake.
What, we may ask, could have been the motive that instigated
Marie-Antoinette to obtain possession of the Necklace? It was certainly
not for the purpose of wearing it, for no one ever pretended to have seen
it on her person. It was not with the object of selling it piecemeal, to
stave off some pressing pecuniary difficulty, for the De la Mottes had
the whole of the proceeds; and in none of the contradictory statements
made by them did they ever pretend they were selling the diamonds on the
queen’s behalf. The statement the count made to the jewellers was, that
he inherited the diamonds from his mother; then their joint statement
was, that they sold them on behalf of the cardinal; while their final
statement was, that they were a present to the countess from the queen,
the wage in fact for the dishonourable service which she so unblushingly
asserts she rendered to Marie-Antoinette. Supposing the queen to have
had some motive for possessing the Necklace which we cannot penetrate,
would she have purchased it through such a doubtful pair of agencies as
the Countess de la Motte and the Cardinal de Rohan? The French court’s
resources may have been impoverished, still the royal credit was not yet
at a discount, and even if the queen could not have acquired the Necklace
on her own terms of credit, yet, considering the readiness with which
_fermier-général_ Béranger parted with his two hundred thousand livres,
she would have had no difficulty in raising whatever amount she required
among men of his stamp, such as Baudard de Saint-James and others.
As there is no direct evidence of the queen’s having ever had the
Necklace, or any of the diamonds belonging to it, let us see what
indirect evidence there is that they were never in her possession.
On the 1st of February, 1785, Böhmer and Bassenge deliver the Necklace to
the cardinal, who states that it was handed over the same evening to some
man professing to be the bearer of a note from the queen, by Madame de la
Motte in his presence. The cardinal asserts the man to have been Rétaux
de Villette, and the countess’s maid-servant deposes to having admitted
him to her mistress’s apartment just about the hour named. On the 8th of
February, within the week, the negotiation with Bette d’Étienville is
opened, and he is soon after applied to to go to Holland, and dispose of
a large quantity of diamonds. On February 12, the countess commissions
Villette to sell some of the diamonds which belonged to the Necklace,
and on the 15th he is found offering them for sale. Early in March the
count gives Furet, the clockmaker, two diamonds, on account of some
clocks he purchased of him; and shortly afterwards the countess is found
selling diamonds to both Paris and Regnier, the jewellers, and leaving
other diamonds with the latter to have reset. On the 10th of April the
count goes to London, having with him, according to Gray, _fully half_
of the diamonds belonging to the Necklace, and among them _all the more
valuable ones_. Of this half, Gray states that he bought upwards of
two-thirds.
Count de la Motte, in his narrative, admits having sold to Gray what
he calls the eighteen oval stones, also thirteen stones of the first
quality, six stones forming the two trefoils, four stones between the
rose and tassels, sixteen stones from the tassels, in all fifty-seven
stones. But Gray, in his declaration, states that he bought eight stones
from the _fil autour_ (the row of diamonds that encircled the neck), the
large pendant brilliant suspended to the centre festoon, eighty of the
stones forming the _esclavage_, some (say one-half) of the brilliants
forming the two bands at the sides, namely, forty-eight; also four stones
at the heads of the tassels, twelve stones from the lower part of the
tassels, and thirty smaller stones also belonging to the tassels, in all
one hundred and eighty-three stones (instead of fifty-seven according
to the count’s version), and for which Count de la Motte received in
money and goods about two hundred and sixty thousand livres. The count
admits having given to Gray twenty-eight stones to set as drop earrings,
twenty-two stones from the festoons to make into a necklace, and the
button stone to set as a ring, in all fifty-one stones. Gray however
declared that he received sixty-one stones for these various purposes.
Madame de la Motte admits having sold to Paris first twenty-two and
then sixteen stones, in all thirty-eight stones, for which she received
thirty-one thousand livres. She moreover exchanged one stone with a Jew
for some china pomade pots and gave Regnier a couple of large stones
to mount in rings. The count admits having changed with Furet two of
the festoon stones, for which he was allowed two thousand seven hundred
livres, having sold or given to Regnier to mount sixteen stones from
the tassels, twenty-four very small stones from the sides of the oval
stones at the bottom of the tassels, twenty-eight stones encircling the
oval pendants, two small stones on each side of the button, six small
stones supporting the oval stones between the festoons, and twelve small
stones immediately adjoining the ribbon at the top, in all eighty-eight
stones. The eight stones encircling the button, and the four stones which
supported the tassels, the count admits having in his possession, but
they were not at this time unmounted.[468] In addition to the foregoing
we must not omit to note the forty small stones which were intrusted to
Rétaux de Villette to sell, and for which, no doubt, a market had been
long since found in Paris.
The diamonds, therefore, which the De la Mottes themselves admitted the
possession of, and those which were proved to have been in their hands,
seem to have been as follows:
Sold to Gray 183
Mounted by Gray 61
Sold to Paris 38
Exchanged with Furet 2
Exchanged with a Jew 1
Mounted by Regnier in rings 2
Sold to, and mounted by Regnier 88
Remaining in Count de la Motte’s possession 12
Intrusted to Villette to sell 40
-----
427
=====
As the Necklace contained six hundred and twenty-nine stones, and four
hundred and twenty-seven of these were traceable to the De la Mottes,
leaving simply two hundred and two, or less than one-third to be
accounted for, it follows that Count de la Motte’s statement, to the
effect that the queen, or say anybody else even, had “kept two hundred
and fifty-six diamonds, comprising the most beautiful part of the
Necklace, with ninety-eight small diamonds, and the two finest diamonds
of the first size,”[469] in all three hundred and fifty-six diamonds,
was, like the generality of his statements respecting the Necklace, a
gross lie.
The diamonds parted with seem to have realized the following amounts:
Gray 260,000 livres or francs.
Paris 31,000 ”
Furet 2,700 ”
Regnier 27,000 ”
-------
320,700 livres, or about £12,800.
=======
Madame de la Motte, in her second memorial, puts down the amount
received from Paris at 38,000 livres and from Regnier, in money and
goods, 58,000 livres, equivalent to an increase of 38,000 livres or
upwards of £1,500 to the foregoing amount, bringing up the sum total
to £14,300 sterling. If to this we add the value of what the count
calls the button stone, for which one thousand guineas were offered him
in England, and of the two large brilliants set by Regnier as rings,
and valued by him at twenty-five thousand livres, together with the
value of the necklace and earrings set by Gray, of the diamond-mounted
_bonbonnière_,[470] of the pair of drop earrings set by Regnier, of the
eight diamonds encircling the button, and the four others which supported
the tassels, together with the forty small stones which Villette tried to
sell, we shall arrive at a gross total little short of £20,000.
The Countess de la Motte states that, during one of her confrontations
with the Cardinal de Rohan, she said out loud to him, in presence of the
judges: “Ever since these gentlemen have been putting interrogatories
to us, you know that neither you nor I have told them a word of
truth:”[471] so far as she was concerned, possibly about the truest
thing she ever said. To show how unworthy of credit the generality
of her statements at the trial were, we will run rapidly through
her examinations, and pick out simply such of her assertions as are
contradicted by independent testimony, or which she subsequently
contradicted herself. Of those numerous statements made by her which the
cardinal maintained to be false, we shall say nothing.
Lie 1. That she had never represented she had access to the queen (p.
220).[472] She told Grenier that she had reinstated the cardinal in the
good graces of the queen, who dared refuse her nothing (p. 237).
2. That she had never shown any letters purporting to be from the queen,
for she had never been honoured with any such letters (p. 220). Putting
aside D’Oliva’s evidence on this subject (p. 237), we have that of
Grenier, who expressly states that she showed him a letter which she said
had been written to her by the queen, but would not allow him to read it
(p. 237).
3. That all she knew of D’Oliva was from casually meeting her in the
Palais Royal (p. 220). She never met her in the Palais Royal, as she
herself subsequently admitted.
4. That she had never told D’Oliva she was a lady of the court, on terms
of intimacy with the queen (p. 221).
5. That she had never shown D’Oliva letters purporting to have been
written by the queen (p. 221). If not, why, at the confrontation, did she
wink at D’Oliva, and make signs to her, at this part of her evidence? (p.
237).
6. That the entire story of dressing up D’Oliva to personate the queen,
and of the midnight meeting in the park, was a foolish and incredible
fable, most wretchedly concocted by the cardinal (p. 221). Subsequently
she admits its truth, but pretends the meeting was a mere pleasantry
got up to quiet the cardinal (p. 245). Afterwards, in her “Mémoires
Justificatifs,” she says it was all arranged at the suggestion of the
queen (p. 87).
7. That she never gave one thousand or three thousand livres, or
any money whatever, to D’Oliva (p. 221). Putting aside D’Oliva’s
circumstantial statement, with dates and figures (p. 95), Villette
admitted having taken her three hundred livres on behalf of the countess,
and Father Loth proved having taken another four hundred livres to her
for her upholsterer.
8. That she never received either the fifty thousand or the hundred
thousand livres which the Baron de Planta conveyed to her from the
cardinal (p. 221). The Baron de Planta swore that he handed her both
these amounts (p. 236). If she did not receive them, how else did she
support her extravagant expenditure at this period of her career? Her
stories about the liberal gifts she had received from distinguished
persons were one by one proved to be false.
9. That the contract was never given to her to obtain the queen’s
approval and signature to it (p. 222).
10. That the said approval and signature were not written by any person
she knew (p. 222). Villette confessed to having written them by her
direction (p. 244), and thereby admitted he had been guilty of forgery,
which he would hardly have done had it not been the truth. Although
Madame de la Motte adhered to her denial of these facts at all her
examinations, in her “Life” (vol. i. p. 345) she admits that Villette
forged both signature and _approuvés_ in her presence.
11. That the story about the cardinal bringing the Necklace to her house,
and the casket containing it being handed over to a person who came
with a note professing to be from the queen, was absolutely false from
beginning to end (p. 223). She subsequently admits the truth of all this
in her “Mémoires Justificatifs.” (See p. 127.)
12. That she received two boxes of diamonds from the cardinal in the
presence of Cagliostro (p. 226). Cagliostro denied this, and Villette
emphatically stated that Cagliostro was entirely innocent of any
complicity in the Necklace affair (p. 245).
13. That the Count de la Motte went to England to sell the diamonds on
behalf of the cardinal, and having done so, handed the cardinal on his
return drafts for one hundred and twenty-one thousand livres and various
articles of jewellery received in exchange (pp. 226-7). The countess
in her “Life” says not a word of this, but asserts (vol. i. p. 355 _et
seq._) that she received the diamonds as a present from the queen, and
showed them to the cardinal, by whose advice she sent her husband abroad
to sell them on her own, certainly not on the cardinal’s account.
14. That she neither knew nor suspected that any of the diamonds sold by
her and her husband formed portions of the Necklace (p. 228). She had
previously stated the diamonds sold did belong to the Necklace.
15. That she never gave thirty thousand livres to the cardinal to be
handed to the jewellers (p. 228). For what purpose, then, did she borrow
thirty-five thousand livres from her notary on the very day? It is true
she states that she borrowed this amount to lend to Madame de Crussol,
but why did she not call Madame de Crussol to prove the fact?
16. That she had no such transactions with Regnier as those deposed
to by him (p. 236). When Regnier produces his books in support of his
statement, she admits the whole of them, and attributes her former denial
to her bad memory.
17. That Villette did not write any letters to the cardinal in the name
of the queen (p. 245). Villette himself confessed to having written a
considerable number (p. 244).
18. That she had previously deposed to having seen a letter in the hands
of the cardinal, purporting to be from the queen, and saying, “The jewel
is superb” (p. 259). She had never deposed to anything of the kind.
19. That Laporte deposed she had told him a hundred times she would have
nothing to do with the sale of the Necklace (p. 260). No such assertion
as this is to be found in Laporte’s deposition.
Of recent writers on the subject of the Diamond Necklace whose versions
of the affair are considered damaging to the reputation of the queen, M.
Louis Blanc,[473] is the one to whom the most frequent reference is made.
But M. Louis Blanc, no matter in whatever direction his sympathies may
lie, is too honest a writer to wilfully misrepresent the truth. He does
not assert, therefore, that the queen was a party to the fraud, although
he insinuates that there are certain grounds for believing she was mixed
up with the transaction. We propose, therefore, to examine the arguments
which he brings forward inculpatory of the queen, and to see how far
these are capable of being refuted.
In the arguments which M. Louis Blanc advances to prove that an intimacy
subsisted between Madame de la Motte and the queen, and that the latter
carried on an intrigue with the Cardinal de Rohan, and was a party to
the purchase of the Necklace, although he does not exactly maintain
the genuineness of the letters said to have passed between the queen
and the cardinal, he insinuates as much, and entirely ignores the fact
of Villette’s confession that these letters were written by him. The
same may be said with regard to Madame de la Motte’s presumed intimacy
with Marie-Antoinette. She boasted, observes M. Louis Blanc, of her
relations with the queen, which she would not have done had there been no
foundation for them, for fear of the imposture being discovered; which is
equivalent to saying that people will not tell lies for fear they should
be found out, a proposition which the amount of falsehood current in the
world proves to be untenable.