living nobly and on his own resources, as he described himself as
doing, was an adventurer of the worst kind; his name was only Bette,
and it was from pure fancy that he had made the fantastic addition of
‘d’Étienville;’ he was not a bourgeois of Saint-Omer, but simply a
surgical _student_ of Lille; neither did he live nobly and on his own
resources, since his father was only a workman, a stone-quarrier, in
fact; and with regard to himself, he had espoused at Lille, against the
wish of his family, an old maid sixty years of age, whose property he
wasted in a very short space of time, when he abandoned her, and repaired
to Paris to solicit the privilege _des almanachs chantants_. Such were
the antecedents of this individual, who made before the examining
magistrates a declaration of which the following is the substance; and
which gave an entirely new interest to the Necklace affair, producing, as
it did, almost a score of declarations in reply, and numerous memorials
drawn up with the view of confuting it. On a very slight substratum of
fact Bette d’Étienville managed to raise a pile of falsehood which served
to complicate for a time in the eyes of the bewildered public the already
sufficiently intricate affair of the Necklace.
About the 8th of February, 1785, Bette made the acquaintance, at the
café de Valois, of a Sieur Augeard, who called himself the steward of a
Dame de Courville. This Augeard proposed to him to mix himself up with
a marriage; he spoke to him of a lady who had formerly had a child by a
very great lord, and who desired to give a position to her offspring. The
lady wished to marry a gentleman of title. Bette refused at first to have
anything to do with the business, but the steward having promised him
numerous advantages, he eventually consented, and set forth in search of
a husband. He first addressed himself to the Count Xavier de Vinesacq,
captain of infantry, and chevalier of the order of Saint-Louis, to whom
he was in the habit of selling _eau de Cologne_; but this individual,
distrusting the morality of the intermediary, gave an absolute refusal to
the proposition made to him.
On the Monday in Holy Week of the same year, a certain Baron de Fages,
belonging to the body-guard of the Count de Provence, sought out Bette,
and proposed himself for the marriage in question; he added that he
was a real gentleman, and that his titles to that rank had been left
by him with the Abbé Mulot, Grand Prior of Saint-Victor. D’Étienville
went to the abbé, received from him the titles in question, and gave
them to Augeard, that he might show them to the lady of quality; she was
satisfied with them, and some days afterwards intimated that she accepted
the Baron de Fages for her future husband, and that the union should take
place after Quasimodo (the Sunday after Easter).
When this epoch had arrived, Augeard told Bette that, owing to various
circumstances, the marriage must be delayed; but as Bette did not appear
to believe what he said, Augeard proposed to take him to the lady,
exacting from him, however, a promise of the most profound secrecy.
Three days before Quasimodo, Augeard conducted him to a house, where he
saw a lady about thirty-four years old, of a fine figure, but inclined
to embonpoint, and having black eyes. This lady confirmed what Augeard
had said, and after having required secrecy from him, confided to him
that the child’s father was, after the princes of the blood, one of the
greatest lords in the kingdom, and that this affair would be the means
of making Bette’s fortune. The next day Bette went again to the lady’s,
accompanied by Augeard, and found there a person, whom he did not know,
who was sometimes called Marsilly, and sometimes Councillor, and who
had directed the affair throughout its entire course. Marsilly made
inquiries of him respecting the Baron de Fages, his conduct, manners,
&c., and then went out. The lady now showed d’Étienville her jewels and
unmounted diamonds, which belonged, she told him, to a _rivière_ of
diamonds which she used formerly to wear, and which had been valued at
432,000 livres (francs). She added that she wished to sell them before
her marriage, but had reasons for not disposing of them in Paris, and
proposed to him to go to Holland with some one she would name, and to
sell them there; from the proceeds of this sale 100,000 livres were to be
given as a bridal present to the Baron de Fages. But Bette, fearful of
arrest for being found in possession of such valuable property, refused,
and communicated all these details to the Baron de Fages, on the part of
Madame Méla de Courville, as the lady styled herself. Bette, who felt
disquieted at the mystery which seemed to overhang these interviews, took
particular notice of the house and street to which Augeard conducted
him, and on going there alone, discovered that the house was Madame de
la Motte’s, and that the Cardinal de Rohan was in the frequent habit of
going there. Feeling at that time persuaded that Madame de la Motte and
the Dame de Courville were one and the same person, and being unaware
that Madame de la Motte was married, he remained quiet; but events soon
undeceived him, since the public prints apprised him of Madame de la
Motte’s arrest at Bar-sur-Aube, on the very day that he was at Arras with
the Dame de Courville.
The day of Quasimodo having passed, the marriage was fixed for the 10th
or 12th of April. At this period Augeard told Bette that the Cardinal de
Rohan wished to see him. Bette betook himself to the Dame de Courville’s
where he found Marsilly and the Cardinal; the latter attired in a grey
frock-coat, and a round hat with gold tassels. The Cardinal expressed
to him his satisfaction at the zeal he had shown, and assured him that
he would charge himself with his future fortune. After having spoken
to Marsilly and the Dame de Courville in private, he came back to him
and told him that, for reasons of the highest importance, the marriage
could only take place from the 1st to the 15th of July. He charged Bette
to inform the Baron de Fages of this; whereupon a letter was written
immediately, according to Marsilly’s dictation. The Baron de Fages
accepted the delay, and it was agreed that, in order to compensate him,
in case the marriage should not take place, the Dame de Courville should
bind herself to pay him 30,000 livres, in three separate sums: the first
on the 15th of August; the second on the 15th of October; and the third
on the 15th of December. The bond was given to Bette, sealed with the
Dame de Courville’s seal; he, afraid of losing it, gave it to the Abbé
Mulot, who was perfectly willing to take charge of it. It was at this
period that the Dame de Courville told him in confidence that she was a
baroness, and of high birth, and ex-canoness of a chapter in Germany,
where she first became acquainted with the Cardinal, who had seduced her;
that she had afterwards lived with him, and had a child by him; that
she had followed the Grand Almoner to Paris, Strasbourg, into Germany,
to Vienna, and elsewhere; and lastly, that she was the Baroness de
Sollebercg, or Salleberg. The Baroness spoke German, Italian, and French
well. In the month of May, 1785, she made fresh proposals to Bette to
go and sell her diamonds in Holland; but on his refusing, she no longer
insisted. Some time after she told him she had sold a part of them, and
had had the others mounted; she also showed him a snuff-box, with her
portrait surrounded with brilliants, a watch and chain set with diamonds,
a ring, and a solitaire, begging him to speak of them to the Baron de
Fages, for whom they were intended. On the 1st of July, Bette asked
Madame de Courville if she thought the marriage would take place on the
15th; she replied in the affirmative, and added that the Cardinal would
remain in Paris for the purpose. Nevertheless, the 15th went by, and
Madame de Courville, observing Bette’s inquietude, promised to procure
him a new interview with the Cardinal. On the 18th or 20th of July, about
eleven o’clock at night, he met the Cardinal at Madame de Courville’s,
dressed this time in a short violet frock-coat. He told Bette not to
blame him if the marriage did not take place, since it would be entirely
Madame de Courville’s fault. Then this lady assured him that the Cardinal
had promised her 500,000 livres (francs) on her marriage, and that until
the 500,000 livres were counted down, she would proceed no further in
the matter. Bette took care to inform the Baron de Fages of all that
transpired at this interview.
About this time, Madame de Courville went to pass a few days in the
country, and invited Bette, as well as the Abbé Mulot and the Baron de
Fages, to visit her. The marriage ought to have taken place on the 12th
of August, the day appointed for the payment of the 500,000 livres.
On the 7th, Bette returned from Chantilly, where the Baron de Fages
then was, when he received a note requesting him to go to Madame de
Courville’s. Arrived there, he found her in tears, when she asked him to
return the bond for 30,000 livres signed by her. Bette thereupon withdrew
it from the Abbé Mulot’s possession, and returned it to her. Madame de
Courville immediately tore it up and burnt it, adding, that if she did
not leave Paris she was lost; she begged him to go with her, promising
that her absence should not be long. Overcome by her entreaties, he
agreed. Madame de Courville then sent him to engage a place in the
diligence for Saint-Omer, in the name of Wanin, this being the name he
passed under in her house. She observed to him that it would not be
prudent for them to leave together; that she would travel in her chaise,
and would stop at Arras, where she would await him. Arrived there, she
told him that she was going to leave France, and that, if he was prudent,
he would do the same, because he was mixed up in a grave business, the
Cardinal having been arrested the previous evening and conducted to the
Bastille; she even offered to take him with her to London. Bette then
inquired the causes of the Cardinal’s detention, and learnt from Madame
de Courville that he had bought a Diamond Necklace, and had introduced
into the negotiation for the purchase the name of the Queen, and that his
aim was to procure the 500,000 livres necessary for her marriage portion,
and to put himself in funds, and that the diamonds she had shown him,
and was showing then at that very moment in a box, formed part of the
Necklace in question.
Bette refused to accompany Madame de Courville to London, for fear lest
this journey might compromise him. He asked her for payment of the 30,000
livres; she replied that the demand was a just one, and that she would
satisfy it at Saint-Omer, if he did not consent to follow her. But one
time when they had stopped to change horses, he all at once saw Madame
de Courville returning towards Paris, in company of a man clad in a
blue frock-coat. He believed she was arrested, and on his arrival at
Saint-Omer the truth of the Cardinal’s misadventure was confirmed to
him. He, for his part, betook himself to Dunkerque, where he remained
till the 16th of September, 1785.
The bourgeois of Saint-Omer, living nobly and on his own resources,
having made the aforesaid deposition, estimated it at the price of three
livres, and was re-conducted to the prison of the Châtelet.[482]
FOOTNOTES
[1] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot, ancien Ministre,” (Paris, 1866,) vol. i.
p. 7.
[2] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” (London, 1791,) vol.
i. p. 7.
[3] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 41.
[4] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 47.
[5] See Appendix.
[6] Roman Catholic ecclesiastics not being permitted to marry, the title
of course could not have been transmitted by descent.
[7] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 87.
[8] Now the Messageries in the Rue Notre Dame des Victoires.
[9] “Never was there a more aristocratic, or, if the _chronique
scandaleuse_ is to be believed, a naughtier nunnery than that of
Longchamp. It was Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélèma, with additions and
emendations, and ‘Fay ce que vouldras’ might have been written over the
conventual gates. The excellent St. Vincent de Paul was in a terrible
way about the ‘goings-on’ among these exceptionally vivacious nuns, and
in a letter to Cardinal Mazarin indignantly denounced the irregularities
which had become habitual in the establishment. The Archbishop of Paris
remonstrated with the naughty nuns; but they snapped their fingers
metaphorically in the archiepiscopal face, and continued their fandangos.
But they were eventually punished for their peccadillos. The pious world
ceased in disgust to make pilgrimages to the tomb of Ste. Isabelle de
Longchamp, and to deposit rich offerings on her shrine. At the beginning
of the eighteenth century the convent had grown comparatively poor,
when, in 1727, a renowned opera singer, Mademoiselle le Maure, having
taken the veil at Longchamp, the happy thought occurred to the abbess of
giving concerts of sacred music on the three last days of Lent. These
concerts were a prodigious success. The Parisian world, fashionable and
frivolous as well as devout, flocked, as fast as their coaches-and-six
could carry them, to hear the Longchamp oratorios; and these concerts
remained in vogue for nearly fifty years. It came at last to the ears of
another Archbishop of Paris, Monsigneur Christophe de Beaumont—a prelate
celebrated for his enmity to theatrical entertainments, and his quarrel
with Jean Jacques Rousseau—that the attractions of the choir at the Abbey
of Longchamp were enhanced by the voices of a number of artistes from
the opera who had _not_ taken the veil. So the church was closed to the
public. There was an end of the cause, but the effect remained.
“Out of the fashionable pilgrimages grew the world-famous Promenade de
Longchamp, which began in the Champs Élysées, and wound its course right
athwart the Bois de Boulogne to the gates of the Abbey itself. It was
found that the setting-in of the spring fashions might be fitly made
to coincide with the eve of Easter; and every year during three days
in Passion-week there was an incessant cavalcade of princes, nobles,
bankers, _fermiers-généraux_, strangers of distinction, and the ladies
then known as _ruineuses_, to Longchamp. It became not a Ladies’ Mile,
but a Ladies’ League. The equipages of the grandest dames of the Court of
Versailles locked wheels with the chariots of La Duthé and La Guimard;
and the legends whisper that the _ruineuses_ made, as a rule, a much more
splendid appearance than the _grandes dames_ did.”—“Paris Herself Again,”
by George Augustus Sala, vol. ii. p. 253, _et seq._
[10] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 9.
[11] See Extract from the Countess’s Life on page xvi. of the present
volume.
[12] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 9.
See also Appendix to the present work for a more minute and technical
description of the famous Necklace.
[13] “Histoire de la Décadence de la Monarchie Française,” par l’Abbé
Soulavie, vol. iii. p 330.
[14] “Mémoires Historiques et Politiques du règne de Louis XVI.” par
l’Abbé Soulavie, vol. iii. p. 71.
[15] Misspelt “Bassange” in all the Mémoires both written and printed,
and in most of the official records of the “Affaire du Collier.” Such,
however, of the latter, as were signed by the individual in question, are
invariably signed “Bassenge.” There is some doubt as to whether Böhmer
and Bassenge were crown jewellers at this period. One or two contemporary
writers who are regarded as authorities say they were; but the writer of
the letters published under the title of “Correspondance Secrète Inédite
sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette, la Cour et la Ville,” says (vol. i.
p. 548) that Böhmer was jeweller to Stanislaus, king of Poland, Louis
XV.’s, father-in-law, and also to Madame Dubarry, and that it was owing
to his holding this latter appointment that the order for the Diamond
Necklace was confided to him. The same writer asserts that it was not
until early in the year 1785, shortly after the perpetration of the
Necklace fraud, that Böhmer was appointed, through the instrumentality of
Marie-Antoinette, jeweller to the French crown. Although Böhmer may not
have been officially appointed until this date, it is quite certain he
had been employed by the queen almost from the very moment she ascended
the throne of France.
[16] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 8.
[17] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 6.
[18] In the _livre rouge_ of Louis XVI., under the date December, 1776,
there is an entry, in the king’s own hand, “Given to the queen 25,000
livres, the first payment of a sum of 300,000 livres which I have engaged
to pay with interest to Böhmer in six years.”—See Archives of the
Republic.
[19] “Correspondance Secrète de la Cour de Louis XVI.”
[20] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 9.
[21] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 146, _et
seq._
[22] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 10, _et seq._
[23] M. Beugnot says Mademoiselle de Saint-Remi was a fat, handsome girl,
extremely fair, and very dull and stupid, with just sufficient instinct
to divine that she was a great lady.
[24] Acquired it rather by the accident of being born bastard offspring
of a king.
[25] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 151, _et
seq._ The reader must take this glowing description of the wedding and
what transpired subsequently at Fontette, subject to large allowances for
Madame de la Motte’s habitual exaggeration, to make use of no stronger
term.
[26] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 16.
[27] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 11-14.
[28] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 13. Rétaux de Villette,
one of the countess’s many lovers, and of whom we shall by-and-by have
occasion to speak, professes to have heard the story of the countess’s
numerous _liaisons_ from her own lips. He says that the reprobate
Marquis de Boulainvilliers succeeded in seducing both the countess and
her sister, and that the former was moreover _enceinte_ by the Bishop
of Langres at the time of her marriage with M. de la Motte, which is
the reason why this “worthy prelate,” as the countess styles him,
interested himself in hastening forward the ceremony. This may seem a
startling statement, but those who are aware of the extreme immorality
which pervaded the upper classes of French society at this period,
and especially the clerical section of it, will have no difficulty in
believing it. If such things were done in the green wood, what might we
not look for in the dry?—See “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la
Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de Villette, p. 4, _et seq._, also _post_, p. 35.
[29] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de
Villette, p. 5. Villette was in the same corps as Count de la Motte, and
on duty at Lunéville at the time we are speaking of.
[30] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”
[31] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 17, 19.
[32] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 18.
[33] Ibid, vol. i. p. 20.
[34] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. pp. 189,
191, 204.
[35] “Mémoire pour Bette d’Étienville.”
[36] “Mémoires de la Baronne d’Oberkirche,” vol. i. p. 127.
[37] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 21, 22.
[38] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de
Villette, p. 10.
[39] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. pp. 25, 26.
[40] “Histoire anecdotique des Rues de Versailles,” par J. A. Le Roi.
[41] “Premier Interrogatoire du Cardinal de Rohan.”
[42] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 9.
[43] Ibid., p. 10.
[44] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”
[45] Unpublished Autograph Letter of the Countess de la Motte in the
collection of M. Feuillet de Conches. This letter is endorsed “M.
Lenoir. The concession asked is impossible. Can they obtain other help?
18th May, 1783.” M. Lenoir was lieutenant-general of police at this
period, but—owing, it is said, to the despotic way in which he acted
while occupying this position, coupled with his abject devotion to the
resentments of the great, which induced the Duke de Nivernois to style
him the first slave in the kingdom—he was subsequently rewarded with the
post of president of the administration of finances, and eventually with
the more lucrative one of librarian to the king, a position for which it
may be supposed his antecedents had hardly qualified him.
[46] “Confrontations du Cardinal avec Madame de la Motte.”
[47] “Mémoire Historique des Intrigues de la Cour,” etc., par Rétaux de
Villette, p. 8, and “Anecdotes du Règne de Louis XVI.” vol. i. p. 367.
[48] “Confrontations du Cardinal avec Madame de la Motte.”
[49] See _post_, p. 47.
[50] “Premier Interrogatoire de Madame de la Motte.”
[51] “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot,” vol. i. p. 21.
[52] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. p. 17.
[53] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 261.
[54] Déposition de la Comtesse du Barry.
[55] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 265, _et
seq._
[56] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 275.
[57] Carlyle’s “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays,” vol. iv. p. 11.
[58] “Mémoires de Mdlle. Bertin,” p. 92.
[59] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6.
[60] “Mémoires de Mdlle. Bertin,” p. 99, _et seq._ Certain French
bibliographers have pronounced these memoirs to be forged. In quoting
from them, however, we are only following in the steps of M. Louis Blanc,
who we presume considers them authentic. From the “Mémoire” forwarded
to the queen by the crown jewellers on August 12, 1785, it would appear
that negotiations for the sale of the Necklace had been opened with the
Court of Spain and not the Court of Portugal, as stated in the Bertin
“Mémoires,” which circumstance certainly goes a good way to impugn the
authenticity of the latter.
This celebrated milliner, whose name and fame have become historic,
was, it seems, employed by the Spanish court, and went to Madrid in
performance of her duties as milliner to the Spanish crown. When,
preparatory to her return to France, she presented her account to the
Minister of Finance for settlement, that functionary, who had not the
slightest knowledge of the details of her important art, strongly
objected to the amount which she claimed—some 8000_l._ The king, equally
astonished with his minister, proceeded to settle with the indignant
milliner, by giving orders to his _chargé-d’affaires_ in Paris to have
the account taxed. Mdlle. Bertin protested that her account would
not admit of reduction, and said that Spain was very far from being
civilized, since there was all this cavilling about such an essential
matter as articles of feminine attire. Marie-Antoinette, it seems,
interfered in her milliner’s favour, and eventually the account was
settled without abatement.—See “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis
XVI., Marie-Antoinette,” etc. vol. ii. p. 21.
[61] “Louis XVI.” par Alexandre Dumas, vol. iii. p. 1, _et seq._
[62] “Mémoire pour le Cardinal de Rohan,” p. 11; and Déposition de
Grenier.
[63] Déposition du Père Loth.
[64] “Marie-Antoinette et le Procès du Collier,” par E. Campardon, p. 44.
[65] _Vide_ “Mémoires du Comte Beugnot” and Villette’s “Mémoire
Historique.”
[66] “Mémoires Justificatifs de la Comtesse de la Motte,” pp. 11, 13.
[67] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 291.
[68] “L’Histoire de France pendant le XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par C. Lacretelle,
vol. vi. pp. 114, 120.
[69] “Mémoires du Baron de Besenval,” vol. iii. p. 122.
[70] His depositions are signed “Desclaux.”
[71] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. pp. 17,
19, 291.
[72] “Correspondance Inédite de Marie-Antoinette,” par Comte P. Vogt
d’Hunolstein, p. 141.
[73] “Procès de Marie-Antoinette,” Paris, 1865, pp. 40, 64, 65.
[74] “Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire des Événements de la fin du
XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par l’Abbé Georgel, vol. ii. p. 220.
[75] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. ii. p. 42.
[76] “Mémoires Historiques et Politiques du règne de Louis XVI.,” par
l’Abbé Soulavie, vol. iii. p. 277, _et seq._
[77] “Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire des Événements de la fin du
XVIIIᵉ siècle,” par l’Abbé Georgel, vol i. p. 269, _et seq._
[78] “Memoirs of Marie-Antoinette,” by Madame Campan, vol. i. p. 65.
[79] “Correspondance Secrète Inédite sur Louis XVI., Marie-Antoinette,”
etc., vol. i. pp. 229, 591.
[80] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. i. p. 294.
[81] She had informed the cardinal that the queen had deigned to accept
of a white Spanish dog which the cardinal had offered to her through the
princess. Of course Marie-Antoinette had done nothing of the kind.
[82] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 12,
Appendix.
[83] “Life of the Countess de la Motte, by herself,” vol. ii. p. 17,
Appendix.
[84] A few of these letters are given in the Appendix to the present work.