phraseology of the _ancien régime_, and abounds not only in the
tautological repetition and iteration in which lawyers have ever
delighted, but in queer sounding scraps of the obsolete jargon of
eighteenth century procedure.
It commences by setting forth that in the year 1785 on Friday the 9th
September at three in the afternoon, Jean Baptiste Maximilien Pierre
Titon, king’s councillor in his High Court of Parliament, commissioner
in the present case, assisted by Maître Etienne Fremyn, barrister of
the court, and one of the chief clerks of the criminal registry of the
said court, was applied to by Maître Pierre de Laurencel, one of the
deputies of the king’s procureur-général. The latter stated, with the
customary prolixity of gentlemen of the long robe, that by virtue of
royal letters patent, issued at St. Cloud on September 5th, empowering
the High Court to take cognizance of the facts therein set forth and all
matters appertaining thereto, and in accordance with a decree pronounced
by the said High Court on September 7th, empowering the procureur-général
to proceed “against the authors, abettors, participators, accomplices
and adherents as well of the transaction itself as of the forgery of
the queen’s handwriting and signature,” it had been ordered that the
documents tending to prove criminality or to throw light on the case
which should be produced by the king’s procureur-général, should be
deposited at the criminal registry of the court, and should there remain,
and that a _procès-verbal_ descriptive of the said documents should be
drawn up in presence of the deputies of the king’s procureur-général.
Both classes of documents had been duly deposited by the king’s
procureur-général at the criminal registry of the court on the 7th
September. Consequently he (Maître de Laurencel) now appeared to assist
in drawing up the descriptive _procès-verbal_ of the documents tending to
prove criminality _only_.
Titon, having duly certified this application, gives orders to Maître
Fremyn to at once produce the said documents tending to prove criminality.
Here follows a minute description of each of the bundle of fifteen
documents produced. The size of the paper, the number of pages written
on, the number of lines on each page, the words with which each page
begins and finishes, the style of the signatures, the fact whether or not
there were any interlineations, or words struck out or underlined; all
these particulars are minutely recorded in every instance.
The first document, entitled “Mémoire instructif,” written on two sheets
of paper _à la Tellière_, contains four full pages and three lines and
three words on the fifth page, all apparently written by the same hand,
and is signed “Bohmer, Bassenge, le Card. de Rhoan,” (_sic_). It is noted
that there is nothing scratched out or written over, but that on the
twenty-eighth line of the second page, are added in parentheses and in a
smaller hand the words “which was the 1st February.”
The second document is “a declaration made to the king by Mgr. the
Cardinal de Rohan” consisting of fifteen lines written on one side of
a large sheet of letter paper, beginning with the words, “A woman whom
I have believed” and terminating “Md. la Mothe d. Vallois.” This must
be the statement written by the cardinal at the suggestion of the king
immediately prior to his arrest.
The third is a receipt dated the 30th July 1785, for the sum of 30,000
livres, written on half a sheet of letter paper folded in two, and signed
Bôhmer & Company.
The fourth is an envelope, consisting of a large sheet of letter paper,
outside of which is written “This paper, in case of my death, belongs and
must be handed to M. Bôhmer, jeweller to the Queen ... this 18th February
1785.”
The next document which is worthy of a more detailed notice is described
in the following minute terms in the _procès-verbal_.
“The fifth document, inclosed in the said envelope and headed
‘_Propositions and conditions of price and payment_,’ is written half
way across the front and the back of the first leaf of a sheet of letter
paper. The first page on the front side containing eighteen lines, the
first of which consists of the word ‘_Proposals_’ and the eighteenth of
the words ‘_4th, one might facilitate_,’ remarking that below the third
line of the said first front page, is a flourish and that at the margin
of the said page, which is left blank, is written three times the word
‘_approved_’ in a very fine handwriting, differing from that filling the
page; namely, the first time in front of the sixth line, the second time
in front of the eleventh line, and the third and last time in front of
the sixteenth line. The second page on the back containing twelve lines,
the first of which consists of these words ‘_calm in the matter_,’ and
the twelfth line of these ‘_later on_,’ remarking likewise that on the
marginal half of the said back page is written twice in a very fine
handwriting the word ‘_approved_,’ the first time in front of the third
line, and the second in front of the tenth: remarking likewise that at
the side of the said writing, written in three lines on half the right
hand margin, are these words, ‘_Accepted the above arrangements, the
29th January 1785_,’ and below the signature, ‘Böhmer & Company,’ and
still lower down a flourish: remarking besides that on the half margin
to the left in front of the word ‘_accepted_’ are written these words,
‘_Approved, Marie-Antoinette de France_,’ in a very fine handwriting,
apparently similar to the other words ‘_approved_’ contained in the said
document, and below a dash of the pen, and still lower down a flourish;
that besides there is no erasure, interlineation, or word written above
another in the said document.”
The sixth is a short letter of three lines and two words, apparently from
the cardinal to Böhmer, as it commences, “I should like, M. Bohmer,” and
bears a memorandum in another hand, beginning, “Received this letter
from monseigneur.” It is addressed to “Monsieur, Monsieur Bemer (_sic_),
jeweller to the Queen, Rue de Vendosme, near the Tennis Court at Paris,”
and is countersigned “Card. de Rohan,” and to it is attached a seal
unbroken, and apparently bearing the arms of a cardinal.
The seventh is a letter of ten lines dated Paris the 1st February, 1785,
commencing, “Monsieur Bôhmer, her Majesty,” and signed by the cardinal.
The eighth is a more lengthy document, filling three and a half pages of
paper _à la Tellière_. It is a memorandum dated Paris, August 17th, 1785,
signed Ste. James (who thus spells his name), and appears to explain his
financial transactions with Böhmer. It is carefully noted with regard to
this document that although there are neither erasures, interlineations,
nor words written over others, that certain specified portions are
underlined.
The ninth, enclosed in the former, is a copy of Böhmer’s acknowledgment
of his debt to Saint James, and is dated the 16th March, 1785.
It being now nine in the evening, the completion of the _procès-verbal_
was adjourned to the following day, when, with the same formality and a
due amount of signing and countersigning Maître de Laurencel renewed his
application, and Councillor Commissioner Titon ordered that Maître Fremyn
should comply with it. Whereupon the last named at once produced
The tenth document, filling four full pages of paper _à la Tellière_,
containing a statement of the cardinal’s examination in the Bastille,
dated the 18th August, and conjointly signed “Le Card. de Rohan, Thiroux
de Crosne, Delauney and Delachapelle.” The _procès-verbal_, which gives
as usual the words at the beginning and end of every page and the number
of lines, notes that the two first words of the sixth line of the first
page and sixth word of the seventh line of the third page are struck out,
and that the sixth word of the thirteenth line of the fourth page is
underlined.
The eleventh “is a document on a sheet of large letter paper containing
three pages, the first of which of twenty-three lines begins with these
words ‘_Confidential Declaration of Monseigneur the Cardinal de Rohan_,’
and finishes at the twenty-third line by these, ‘_in the month of July
1784, I._’ The second page is of twenty-five lines, the first beginning
with these words, ‘_met in effect at the hour appointed_,’ and the
twenty-fifth ending with these, ‘_that they have even wished_.’ We have
remarked that the seventh word which seems to be the word ‘_woman_,’
is struck out, and there has been substituted for it above, the word
‘_person_.’ We have also remarked in the fourth line, between the word
‘_this_’ and the word ‘_person_,’ is written by way of insertion and
above, the word ‘_same_.’ We have further remarked that between the
eighteenth and the nineteenth line are written as an interlineation the
words, ‘_my absurd_,’ and that in the nineteenth line the fifth word is
struck out. The third and last page is of twenty-one lines, the first
beginning with these words ‘_to refuse and that I have forced them to
accept_,’ and the twenty-first line ending with these, the ‘_Sieurs
Bôhmer_.’ We have remarked that in the tenth line, the ninth word is
written over, that in the eleventh (line) the third and fourth words
are likewise written over, that the last word of the sixteenth line is
also written over, that in the seventeenth line the first and the third
words are also written over. We have further remarked that under the
twenty-first line of the said third page are three lines, and the date
of the year 1785, forming the fourth line, in a different handwriting
from that comprising the above written document, the first of which lines
begins by these words, ‘_I approve the writing_,’ and the third line ends
with these, ‘_done at the Bastille this 20th August_,’ and below the
signature ‘Le Card. de Rohan,’ with flourish.”
The twelfth consists of fourteen lines written on the first page of a
sheet of paper _à la Tellière_ beginning “I the undersigned confess,”
and ending “of diamonds,” beneath which is the signature, “Louis Jean
Marie Desclaux.” This is the Lesclos or Desclos, belonging to the queen’s
household, to whom Madame de la Motte pretended she handed the casket
containing the Necklace.
The thirteenth, filling two and a half pages of paper _à la Tellière_ and
commencing, “To-day the seventeenth August,” appears from words referring
to drawers and articles of furniture, quoted as commencing and ending the
second page, as those of “_procès-verbal_,” with which it concludes to
have been a _procès-verbal_ of the search made at the Palais-Cardinal,
for the grand almoner’s papers. It bears the signature of the Cardinal
de Rohan, the Marshal de Castries, the Count de Vergennes, the Baron de
Breteuil, and the lieutenant of police, Thiroux de Crosne.
The fourteenth, closed and fastened to the preceding with a blue ribbon,
fills two pages of a small sheet of letter paper, and commences, “Send
for B. this morning,” but the few words quoted afford no clue as to what
it refers to. It is merely signed with a flourish, and headed on the
first page “No. 1.”
The fifteenth, also closed and fastened to the two preceding ones with
blue ribbons, is likewise written on a small sheet of letter paper. It
is headed “No. 2,” and the words quoted—“The last price shall be fixed,”
“in six months,” “shall be carried to,” and “in the afternoon,”—seem
to indicate some note referring to the purchase and delivery of the
Necklace, found in all probability amongst the cardinal’s papers.
These documents being thus described were numbered in succession,
initialled and deposited in the criminal registry at nine in the evening,
the _procès-verbal_ being again signed by Titon, De Laurencel and Fremyn.
On the following day, the 11th, the commissioners again met to examine
three documents which Titon had previously weeded out from a bundle of
papers already classed as merely tending to throw light on the case, in
order that they might be added to those tending to prove criminality.
“The first,” written on two sheets of paper _à la Tellière_, which we
have fastened together with red thread, contains six pages and six lines.
It commences with the words, “Observations to the Court by M. de la Csse
de Valois,” and the sentences preserved are “to go into Champagne,”
“the Prince raised alarms,” “to calm his agents,” “like madmen and that
he would take us as far as the gate of Meaux,” “they do not serve to
make the king believe all that I wish,” “and have begged the Prince to
tell him,” “I have never shown any one,” “my pension,” “and perhaps my
unhappy husband despairing at having wedded,” “if I have wrongs, his
Majesty.” Every word altered, struck out or inserted, is noted by the
commissioners, and attention is called to the fact, “that in the date of
the year, 1776, the second 7 seems to have been written over the figure
6,” and that at the bottom of the seventh page are written the following
words, “Jeanne Marie De Valois de St. Remy, ensuite de Caze Csse de la
Motte, de la pénicière,” and lower down, “at the Bastille, Saturday, 29th
August, 1785.”
The second, written on a sheet of paper _à la Tellière_, and containing a
page and a half, is the letter which we have quoted on page 187 _et seq._
The third and last “is a note which seems to us to have been written by
the hand of the said De la Motte, at the back of the list of linen given
by her to her washerwoman, the twenty-fifth August, which note has been
initialled and signed by the said De la Motte, and by the Commissioner
Chénon, and runs as follows, ‘M. Filliau of Bar sur Aube, being at my
house four months ago, sold for me to a large jeweller, his cousin, to
the amount of 30 thousand livres, which I also handed to Monseigneur.
There were 22 small ones at 500 livres a-piece, ... then 52 at 400
livres a-piece, which I begged M. Filliau to sell for me, unknown to my
husband.’ To which last document we have pasted a piece of white paper to
inscribe the number of the said document, and to append our signature and
that of the said Maître de Laurencel, as well as those that may have to
be appended in course of the instruction.”
The _procès-verbal_ is then formally wound up and signed by Titon, De
Laurencel, and Fremyn.
SOME SATIRICAL VERSES, TO WHICH THE NECKLACE AFFAIR GAVE RISE.
(From “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,
la Cour et la Ville.”)
I.
Voici venir le temps pascal,
Que pensez-vous du cardinal?
Opinez-vous qu’il chantera
Alleluia?
Le Saint-Père l’avait rougi,
La cour de France l’a noirci,
Le Parlement le blanchira:
Alleluia!
Que Cagliostro ne soit rien,
Qu’il soit Maltais, Juif ou Chrétien,
A l’affaire que fait cela?
Alleluia!
De Versailles comme à Paris,
Tous les grands et tous les petits
Veulent élargir Oliva:
Alleluia!
Planta, du fond de sa prison,
Demande grâce au bon Baron,
Qui lui dit qu’il y restera:
Alleluia!
De Valois le conte insensé,
Par un Collier fut commencé,
Un Collier le finira:
Alleluia!
Survient Villette l’écrivain,
Confus d’avoir prêté sa main
Comme La Motte l’exigea:
Alleluia!
Pour d’Étienville au teint vermeil,
A la Grève un coup de soleil
Sur l’épaule le frappera:
Alleluia!
Voilà l’histoire du procès
Qui de Paris cause l’accès;
Nous dirons, quand il finira:
Alleluia!
II.
Illustre prisonnier, tirez-nous d’embarras:
Êtes-vous cardinal, ou ne l’êtes-vous pas?
Hélas! serait-ce vrai, que la cruelle Rome
Ait pu dans sa fureur dégrader un saint homme?
Un Rohan! Répondez. Vous détournez les yeux;
Ah! vous pleurez le sort de vos tristes cheveux.
Vous voilà donc réduit à la simple calotte!
Ce n’est pas le seul mal que vous ait fait La Motte.
III.
Target, dans un gros mémoire,
A traité tant bien que mal
La sotte et fâcheuse histoire
De ce pauvre cardinal,
Où sa verbeuse éloquence
Et son froid raisonnement
Prouvent jusqu’à l’indécence
Que c’est un grand innocent.
J’entends le sénat de France
Lui dire un de ces matins:
Ayez un peu de décence,
Et laissez là vos catins.
Mais le Pape, moins honnête;
Pourra dire à ce nigaud:
Prince, à qui n’a pas de tête,
Il ne faut pas de chapeau.
IV.
Cagliostro, homme savant,
Enseigne au Prince la magie.
Ils n’étaient que deux seulement,
Mais par tour de sorcellerie,
Les voilà trois: Qui l’eût prédit?
De surprise ôtant sa calotte,
Le bon cardinal vit La Motte,
Et La Motte le vit.
V.
Malgré ce gros factum si souvent refondu,
Et l’arrêt de la cour si lestement rendu,
L’innocente candeur du prélat de Saverne
Brille comme un étr... au fond d’une lanterne.
VI.
Des Valois La Motte est la fille,
On n’en peut douter:
Car un arrêt va lui faire porter
Les armes de sa famille.
MEMORIAL
CONCERNING THE HOUSE OF SAINT-REMI DE VALOIS, SPRUNG FROM THE NATURAL
SON WHOM HENRI II., KING OF FRANCE, HAD BY NICOLE DE SAVIGNY, LADY AND
BARONESS DE SAINT-REMI.
ARMS OF THE HOUSE DE SAINT-REMI DE VALOIS.
_Argent, a fess azure charged with three fleurs-de-luce or._
Henri the Second, King of France, had by Nicole de Savigny,[480] Henri
de Saint-Remi, who follows. The said Nicole de Savigny, styled High and
Puissant Lady, Lady of Saint-Remi, Fontette, du Chatellier and Noez,
married Jean de Ville, Knight of the King’s Order, and made her last will
on the 12th of January, 1590, in which she declared, “That the late King
Henri the Second had made a donation to Henri Monsieur, his son, the sum
of 30,000 crowns sol. which she had received in 1558.”
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.