An Incontestable Principle—Title and Fief of Joinville—Travels
under that Name—The Comte’s Titles—His Description—His
Character—Deposition of the Signora Galuppi-Toschi—Certificate
of the Conte Falopio—That of the Priest Carlo Brunone—Letter
from Baron Vincy—Attestation of M. D.—Summary.
Identity of name, title, description, character, position, time and
place, are doubtless enough to establish identity of person, or nothing
would be able to prove it.
Let us apply this clear principle to the matter in hand, and it will end
in proof.
1st. _The name._ Let us remember that the chief agent of the hateful
substitution was a Frenchman called Louis, Comte de Joinville. Now, as
history and the whole of the aristocracy are silent on the matter, we
cannot even imagine that this title in 1773 belonged to any one not of
the Orleans family. Let us see if it could then be found _in_ that family.
The Fief of Joinville, raised to a barony at the beginning of the
eleventh century, and to a principality under Henri II, after passing
successively to several lords, had at last fallen into the female line by
the death, on March 16, 1675, of the Duc de Guiche, Prince de Joinville;
and _Mademoiselle_, the daughter of Gaston de France, having inherited
it in her own right from her maternal grandmother, Catherine-Henriette
de Joyeuse, Duchesse de Guise, left it by will to her cousin-german,
Philippe de France, _Monsieur_, only brother of Louis XIV, and head of
the Orleans branch. Whence it follows that this principality is actually
patrimonial in that family, and that the Duc de Chartres, son of its
chief, had the right to call himself by that name.
I say more: open the books written about him, and the frontispiece will
show that he was not only Duc de Valois, de Nemours, de Montpensier,
d’Etampes, but also Comte de Beaujolais, de _Joinville_, de Vermandois,
and de Soïssons.[22]
I say still more: that is precisely the name under which he and his wife
were accustomed to travel.
In 1778 she assumed it to go to Holland; he had taken it in 1777 to
visit the Netherlands; the year before it was the title borne by the
Duchess during the whole of her tour in Italy;[23] and to speak only of
the year of the exchange, the newspapers of the day forbid any doubt
that, under that name, and in the summer, the Duke had made a pretty
long journey.[24] And worthy witnesses, whose valuable evidence we shall
presently quote, declare that the august couple bore that title precisely
at the time of the exchange and in the very districts where this horrible
agreement was made.[25]
2nd. _The Rank._ According to the decree of Faenza, the Comte de
Joinville was a French nobleman; almost all the witnesses testified to
his being rich and powerful, and if we may believe the evidence of one
who ought to have known more than any one else, since he had it direct
from the man who no doubt had categorically interrogated the Comte
after his arrest at Brisighella—he was nothing less than a _prince in
disguise_.[26]
It will be remembered, too, that having been led before the
Cardinal-Legate at Ravenna, the Cardinal, on recognizing him, welcomed
him warmly, affectionately embraced him, and at once set him entirely at
liberty.
Now, it must be pointed out that the etiquette of the Roman Church is
that Cardinals must embrace only the members of reigning houses, and it
could have been only the consideration due to so august a rank that could
have cut short the prosecution already set on foot by the inexorable
agents of the Inquisition.
Now, supposing the titles of _Comte de Joinville, a great French nobleman
belonging in 1773 to a reigning family_ to be united in a single person,
who would not at once recognize Louis-Philippe-Joseph?
3rd. _The Description._ The Comte de Joinville, the Italian witnesses
tell us, had a fine figure; he was rather stout, had a brownish
complexion, a red and pimply nose, and splendid legs.
But is not this the exact description of the Duc de Chartres as given me
by the Abbé de Saint-Fare, who was his natural brother? A description
agreeing completely with that of all who knew him. Here is one among many
written by a man who had, so to speak, always lived with him—
“Louis-Philippe-Joseph was a fine man in every sense of the word. His
figure, of more than middle height, was gracefully and faultlessly
proportioned. The lower part of his body, from the waist downwards, could
not have been better made; the rest was rather heavy, but this stoutness
was not ungraceful.
“As a result of his debauches, his nose and the lower part of his
forehead were covered with small red pimples; and this sort of mask,
which in fact disfigured him, but which he owed to his dissolute life
and not to nature, made many people say that his face was hideous.”[27]
4th. _Character._ The Comte de Joinville’s habits led him to extreme
familiarity with people of low condition, and to great generosity where
the success of his ambitious projects was concerned; the positive
evidence of witnesses, his sudden intimacy with the jailer, and the
presents he made him, leave no room for doubt on that question. But by
these signs how can we do anything but believe in the portrait drawn by
all historians alike of the Duc de Chartres?
“He loved,” they say, “to mix with the crowd, and was never so happy as
when he was able to cast off restraint and etiquette; he had a lively and
caustic wit, liked to banter his inferiors, and showed no displeasure
at their bantering him. Despite the avarice of which he gave so many
proofs, which went so far as to make him say that ‘a crown in his pocket
was worth more to him than all public esteem,’ he made no difficulty in
scattering his sordid gains with profusion, either to obtain nominations
to the States-General or to gain the affection of the great nation he
wished to captivate.”[28]
5th. _The Circumstances._ We have seen that the Comte de Joinville had
some reason to fear that his wife would never give him a male child,
and that, in that case, he was afraid of losing a great inheritance
absolutely depending on the birth of a son.
Now all the world knows that, in 1773, the Duchesse de Chartres, though
in the full bloom of her radiant youth, had, in the four years of her
marriage, borne only one daughter, who died at birth on the 10th of
October, 1771.[29]
Her ambitious and covetous husband must therefore have greatly dreaded
not only the fading away of his flattering hope of winning for his line
the good graces of his compatriots, so as to obtain from them the _happy
transference_ of that crown of France, the object of so many longings,
so many intrigues, so many secret manœuvres—it may be obscure crimes—but
also to fail in concentrating on his family the whole affection of
his father-in-law, the richest of princes, who, still only forty-eight
years old, had, since the death of his wife,[30] pretty often shown his
intention of contracting a second alliance.[31]
Here again, one feels, the identity is absolute. Finally, let us come
to the point which seems to us to sum up everything, and is the most
important and the best proved of all.
6th. _The Time and Place._ It was in the spring of the year 1773 that on
the heights of the Apennines and in a diocese under the rule of the Papal
States, the Comte de Joinville, by means of a most atrocious agreement,
succeeded in securing an heir to his name and his lofty hopes.
Can it be true that Louis-Philippe-Joseph and his wife were actually in
those districts at that time?
Let us boldly declare that there is no doubt about it.
During my stay at Genoa I learnt that at Reggio there lived a lady
formerly in the service of the d’Este family, and who had heard the
mysterious journey spoken of.
It will be easily believed that I lost no time in writing to her, and in
her turn she made no delay in answering my questions, and assured me she
would willingly testify, in a Court of Law if necessary, to everything
she had told me.
Delighted at this promise, I gave my orders so as to make sure of a
properly drawn-up document.
I chose my lawyer; a proxy was appointed for the Comte and Comtesse de
Joinville and any other person absent interested in the case.
In a word, all preliminary formalities having been duly performed, the
interrogation was carried out, _in consideration of her circumstances_,
at the lady’s own house.
After having sworn to speak the whole truth, and being questioned as to
the reason of her appearance, her age, her domicile, and her memory, she
answered—
“It is in order to obey the command I have legally received from M. le
Président that I have consented to this examination. I am sixty-four
years old; I live at Reggio, my native town, and I was actually born in
the palace of S. A. S. the Duchess Maria-Teresa Cybo d’Este, where my
late father, Josophat Galuppi, held the post of auditor of accounts and
wardrobe keeper to the Duke Francesco.
“My memory is very good, and I have a clear recollection of things that
happened in my young days.”
Asked as to whether, while the aforesaid Duchess was living at Reggio, a
certain remarkable prince and princess had come there, she answered—
“During the year 1773, and, it seems to me, in the late spring, their
Royal Highnesses the Duc Louis-Philippe de Chartres and his wife, the
Duchesse Louise-Marie, passed through this town, on their way, I think,
from the Papal States.
“I know this because I was present when Count Manetti, the Duchess
Maria-Teresa Cybo’s major-domo, was sent to the hotel to welcome the
aforesaid Prince and Princess and invite them to the Court. I know it
also because I was in a back room when Count Manetti came back, and I
quite distinctly heard him say that their Highnesses sent their thanks,
but could not accept the invitation, partly because of the incognito
they wanted to preserve, as they were travelling under the name of the
_Comtes de Joinville, French_, and partly because of the short time they
were staying.”
Questioned as to whether she knew of any visit of this Prince and this
Princess of Chartres to the town at any other time than the above, she
answered—
“In 1776, just at the time of the fair in the month of May and when
several other princes were also at Reggio, this same Princesse
Louise-Marie de Chartres arrived in this town and stayed here till June.
She lived in the Giucciardi Palace which my father had got ready for her
by order of the Duke Francesco. This time I saw her come to the Court
where I was then living. When she came, every one told me she was the
Duchesse de Chartres, and it was as such that she was known and saluted
by all persons of distinction.”
After these questions the examination was gone over again in the order of
the records of the trial which the notary public read to this valuable
witness, who said—
On the first: “It is quite true that during the spring of the year
1773 their Serene Highnesses the Duc Louis-Philippe de Chartres and the
Duchesse Louise-Marie, his wife, passed through Reggio on their way from
the Papal States; and that the same Princess in 1776, with other Princes,
came to the fair being held at Reggio in the month of May.”
On the second: “It is equally true that the aforesaid Prince and Princess
were travelling _incognito_ and with a small suite, and called themselves
the _Comte and Comtesse de Joinville_.”
On the third: “It is also the absolute truth that at the news of their
arrival in Reggio, the Duchess Maria-Teresa Cybo d’Este sent her
major-domo, Count Manetti, to welcome these illustrious personages and
to ask them to come to Court. But they did not accept the invitation,
alleging the _strict incognito they were keeping_, and the preparations
already made for an early departure. And all this I know for the reasons
already given.”
Finally, to other minor questions put to her she gave pertinent answers:
that she professed the Catholic religion; that she married the noble
Signore Maria-Toschi of Reggio; that she was not a relation of mine, nor
connected with me in any way; that her statement had not been prompted
by any one, and that she had been guided solely by her love of right and
justice.
Her deposition having been read, she ratified it and confirmed it by her
signature.
In the letter she did me the honour of writing to me she mentions two
things omitted in the interrogatory: i.e. _that the answer given to the
Count Manetti had often since been repeated to her by the people about
the Court, and that the illustrious travellers, after spending the night
in the hotel they had come to, left very early the next morning_.
After such satisfactory evidence as this I sought further, and found
means for fully corroborating it.
First, this is the declaration of one who occupies a very distinguished
position—
“To give homage to truth, I testify to the whole world that
towards the spring or the beginning of summer, of either the
year 1772 or 1773—I am not sure which, but I am certain that it
was either one or the other—his Royal Highness, the Duke of
Orleans, passed through Reggio, where he slept one night, and
I remember his appearance perfectly. _Of middle height, rather
stout; a full face that looked as if it were pitted with the
small-pox, pimply; a red nose, and rings in his ears_:
“This highly respectable personage was travelling incognito
with a woman who was said to be his wife, and under the name
of the Comte _de Joinville_. I can all the better attest and
confirm this fact to any one, let him be who he may, because at
that time I was at the Court of Modena and in the service of
his Serene Highness, Ercole III of glorious memory.
“In testimony whereof I affix to my signature the arms of my
family.
“BERNADIN GRILENZONE-FALOPIO,
“Chamberlain to his Imperial Highness, the
Archduke of Austria, etc.”