mmmMim'msp^Mmmm^^^ 
 
 r-:*-r."^*-***'***-<w< 
 
 d
 
 ,VA^
 
 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES
 
 C. Z. OGDEN 
 
 FOUR FAMOUS 
 MYSTERIES 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR JOHN HALL 
 
 BART. 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE 
 
 BOUKBON KliSTORATION,' 'ENGLAND AND THE ORLEANS MONARCHY 
 
 'GENERAL PICHEGRU'S TREASON' 
 
 Xon&on 
 NISBET & GO. LTD. 
 
 22 BERNERS STREET W. 1
 
 First Published in rQ22
 
 H3 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE four stories contained in this volume are 
 an attempt to discover the truth in four 
 very different, but equally mysterious, 
 affairs. The Mystery of Tilsit is an account of the 
 secret agent from whom Canning almost certainly 
 derived the information which enabled him to upset 
 the scheme concerted by the two Emperors upon 
 the raft in the Niemen. A search at the Record 
 Office in the diplomatic correspondence with Prussia, 
 at the time when that Power was under the domina- 
 tion of Bonaparte, has made it possible for me to 
 put forward with some confidence an explanation of 
 the strange disappearance of Mr Bathurst, our Envoy 
 at the Court of Vienna. But, with regard to the 
 murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, I can make 
 no claim to have solved the mystery which surrounds 
 his death. All that I can aspire to do is to point 
 out the unconvincing character of certain theories 
 which have been advanced to explain his murder 
 and to suggest the direction in which the truth prob- 
 ably lies. The fourth study. The Murder of Paul- 
 Louis Courier, differs from the others in that it is 
 a murder mystery, purely and simply. Although he 
 played an important part in French politics, under 
 the Restoration, it is in his private, not in his pubhc.
 
 vi FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 life that the key to the mystery must be sought. 
 In the year preceding the outbreak of war, the 
 tragedy in the Foret de Lar9ay was made the subject 
 of an exhaustive study by M. Louis Andre, from 
 whose work I have quoted freely. Recently, also, 
 while on a visit to Tours I drove out to la Chavon- 
 niere, Paul-Louis' abode at the time of his murder, 
 and had the good fortune to find M. Habert Serrault, 
 its present proprietor, at home. Although he was 
 plainly engaged upon some business of importance, 
 this gentleman took me over the house and explained 
 how the various rooms had been apportioned in 
 Courier's time, besides imparting to me much in- 
 teresting local tradition about him. I take this 
 opportunity of thanking him and the other members 
 of his family for their courtesy and valuable assist- 
 ance on that occasion. 
 
 In conclusion I beg to thank the editor of the 
 Nineteenth Century and After for his kindness in 
 allowing me to reproduce The Mystery of Tilsit, 
 which appeared, in the first instance, in that maga- 
 zine, and at the same time I wish to convey my 
 thanks to Mr Francis Edwards for lending me several 
 contemporary pamphlets on the Edmund Berry 
 
 Godfrey case. 
 
 JOHN HALL 
 
 21 Dorset Square 
 N.W.I
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 9 
 
 II 
 
 THE STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST ... 34 
 
 III 
 THE MURDER OF SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY . 87 
 
 IV 
 THE MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER . . .137 
 
 INDEX 224 
 
 vu
 
 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 THE :^IYSTERY OF TILSIT 
 
 THE source from which Canning derived the 
 information which enabled him to render 
 nugatory the secret articles of the Treaty 
 of Tilsit has yet to be discovered. It will be re- 
 membered that, after the defeat of the Russians 
 at Friedland, a truce was proclaimed, and that the 
 two Emperors met, on the 25th of June 1807, and 
 conferred upon a raft moored in the Niemen. The 
 result of their interview was that the armistice was 
 converted into a definite treaty of peace and into 
 a treaty of alliance directed against this country. 
 No sooner, however, was it known in England that 
 peace had been, or was about to be, concluded, than 
 the Government determined upon instant action. 
 A large naval and military expedition was at once 
 despatched to Copenhagen to support the demands 
 which the British envoy was instructed to make to 
 the Danish Court. By the terms of the ultimatum 
 which he presented, the Danes were given the alterna- 
 tive of war or of handing over their fleet as "a 
 sacred pledge " to be held until the establishment 
 of a general peace. These conditions were dechned, 
 and Copenhagen was, in consequence, subjected to 
 so severe a bombardment that the Danes were forced 
 to capitulate and to surrender their fleet, which was 
 retained by England until the termination of the 
 European war in 1814.
 
 10 FOUR FAJVIOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Now that the provisions of the secret articles of 
 the Treaty of Tilsit are known, it is clear that the 
 prompt steps taken by the Government averted a 
 great peril, and that the circumstances of the case 
 justified a measure which could not, otherwise, but 
 be regarded as a gross violation of international 
 rights. The vindication of Canning's action is, how- 
 ever, outside the scope of this inquiry, which is 
 concerned only with the question as to how he ob- 
 tained his early intelhgence of Bonaparte's designs. 
 Whether in the House of Commons or out of it, he 
 himself always refused to throw the faintest light 
 upon the subject, and those of his colleagues in the 
 Government who were, presumably, initiated into 
 the secret appear to have maintained an equally 
 discreet silence. But their reticence only served 
 to whet the public curiosity. Innumerable legends 
 grew up of British spies concealed upon the raft 
 or present in disguise at the meeting of the two 
 Emperors. Sir Robert Wilson, dressed as a Cossack 
 and figuring as a member of the Imperial escort, 
 was generally the hero of this type of story. 
 
 Until comparatively recent years all those who 
 sought to unravel the mystery had necessarily to 
 depend upon rumour, gossip, and oral tradition. 
 But, when the archives of the Foreign Office were 
 opened and the despatches of Canning and of his 
 agents were made accessible to students, the investi- 
 gation of the affair entered upon a new phase. Seeing 
 that Canning had always guarded his secret so 
 jealously, it was not to be expected that the name 
 of his informant would be found in his diplomatic 
 correspondence. But there were grounds for hoping 
 that when these documents came to be examined by
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 11 
 
 historical experts some clue to the mystery would 
 be discovered. This expectation, however, has not 
 been fulfilled. The researches of Dr Holland Rose, 
 of Mr Temperley, and of other historians have thrown 
 much light upon the general situation and upon the 
 degree of knowledge which Canning possessed of 
 Bonaparte's plans, at the time when he suddenly 
 resolved that the Danes must be deprived of their 
 fleet. But no one has as yet succeeded in estab- 
 lishing the identity of the person who brought to 
 the Foreign Office the information upon which the 
 British Government decided to act. 
 
 In his Life of Cannings in the note entitled " Who 
 was it ? " Mr Temperley sums up his conclusions in 
 the following words : " There was a man on the raft 
 who communicated some intelHgence to the British 
 Government, but his information was supplemented 
 by the more valuable disclosures of a high official, 
 probably Talleyrand." Mr Temperley appears to 
 found his charge of treachery against Talleyrand 
 upon an episode related by Stapleton, Canning's 
 biographer, who, many years after Tilsit, was his 
 private secretary. Stapleton, it would seem, on some 
 occasion drew Canning's attention to a passage in 
 the spurious work styled Memoirs of Fouche, in which 
 it is stated that Talleyrand betrayed the secret^ 
 treaty of Tilsit to the British Government. Canning, 
 according to Stapleton, " smihngly accepted it as 
 a justification of his policy." In Mr Temperley 's 
 opinion " this is conclusive," and explains how 
 Canning " could be duped into believing the memoirs 
 to be authentic." But, with all respect to Mr 
 Temperley, a story of this kind cannot be regarded 
 as serious evidence, and, if no better case can be
 
 12 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 made out against Talleyrand, the charge against him 
 j^hould be dismissed. In the Edinburgh Review of 
 April 1906, in an article deahng with Mr Temperley's 
 work, the question of Talleyrand's guilt is examined. 
 Talleyrand, the reviewer holds, should be acquitted, 
 because he was at Konigsberg on the 25th of June, 
 the day on which the two Emperors met upon the 
 raft in the Niemen. It must be pointed out, how- 
 ever, that Konigsberg was only some fifty miles away, 
 and that, a few days later, Talleyrand arrived at 
 Tilsit in person. In these circumstances, assuming 
 that he possessed the necessary knowledge and 
 that he was desirous of playing traitor, it was well 
 within his power to have sent off a message which 
 could reach London by the 21st of July. But, as 
 neither Mr Temperley nor, seemingly, any other 
 person has been able to adduce anything deserving 
 of the name of evidence to connect him with the 
 business, it appears unnecessary further to pursue 
 the subject. 
 
 Dr Holland Rose's works on the Napoleonic period 
 are so well known that no enumeration of them 
 seems necessary. On the subject of Tilsit, while he 
 is concerned chiefly Avith broad questions of policy, 
 he has not disdained to seek to dispel the mystery 
 smrounding the identity of Canning's informant. In 
 the Napoleonic Studies a whole chapter is devoted to 
 elucidation of this particular point. Before pro- 
 pounding his own views, he examines the different 
 theories on the subject which have been formulated 
 from time to time. The story that a spy was con- 
 cealed upon the raft and overheard the conversation 
 of the two Emperors he rejects altogether. The 
 despatches, he considers, afford internal evidence
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT IS 
 
 that Malmesbury ^ was completely mistaken in saying 
 that the first news of the enemy's intentions reached 
 ministers from Lisbon. Nor does he think that any 
 grounds exist for supposing that Talleyrand betrayed 
 his master's plans. In his opinion Canning's in- 
 formant was a British officer, a certain Colin Mac- 
 Kenzie, who was attached to Lord Hutchinson's 
 military mission at the Russian headquarters. 
 
 It appears to be a cherished tradition of the 
 MacKenzies that their ancestor, disguised as a 
 Cossack, was present at the conference of the two 
 Emperors. The matter was, some years ago, the 
 subject of a controversy in the pages of Notes and 
 Queries between the Rev. E. MacKenzie and Sir 
 Harry Poland. As may be supposed, Dr Rose would 
 never consent to entertain the theory of MacKenzie's 
 presence upon the raft ; nevertheless, at the time 
 when he pubHshed his Life of Napoleon, and for some 
 years afterwards, he appears to have been confident 
 that it was from him that Canning derived his in- 
 formation. The document exists in which MacKenzie 
 informed the British Ambassador, Lord Granville 
 Leveson-Gower, that he had been introduced to 
 Bennigsen, the Russian Commander-in-Chief, and had 
 received from him " a general invitation to dinner." 
 On the strength of this statement, Dr Rose seems 
 to have made up his mind that Bennigsen, who was 
 displeased at the turn affairs were taking, let drop 
 certain hints which led MacKenzie to suspect the 
 truth. According to Dr Rose, he hurried off with 
 the news he had gleaned at the Russian headquarters, 
 and embarking at Memel on the 26th of June, 
 reached London on the 16th of July. 
 
 ^ Malmesbury, Diary and Correspondence, iv. 30!).
 
 14 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 But Dr Rose was mistaken in his dates. It was 
 pointed out in the Athenceum that the endorsement 
 on Leveson-Gower's despatch proved that MacKenzie 
 only arrived in England on the 23rd of July, while, 
 later on, a reviewer^ in the Quarterly quoted the 
 Stafford House Letters to show that on the 3rd of July 
 he was still at Memel. Now Canning's instructions 
 to Jackson, announcing his intention of applying 
 coercion to the Danes, were written on the 22nd of 
 July. It is manifest, therefore, that he must have 
 received the information, upon which he resolved to 
 act, either on that day or, as he says himself, on the 
 day before. Dr Rose appears to have admitted the 
 vahdity of these objections and, in consequence, to 
 have fallen back upon the theory that Leveson-Gower 
 himself discovered the true state of affairs and sent 
 off the news to his chief in London. His critics, 
 however, seem to have contended successfully that 
 this new suggestion could not be regarded as the true 
 solution of the riddle. It was demonstrated clearly 
 that, after the truth was known to Canning, Leveson- 
 Gower was still vainly endeavouring to discover the 
 poHtical significance which should be attached to 
 the conferences of Bonaparte and Alexander. ^ 
 
 Such is the history of the case up to date, and it 
 may be summed up shortly in the statement that 
 the investigations of recent years have dispelled 
 many legends and demolished many theories, but 
 that they have not lifted the veil of mystery which 
 still surrounds the source from which Canning 
 obtained his information. 
 
 1 This unsig'ned article was attributed to Mr Bodley, as it was said 
 at the time that no one but the author of France could have written it. 
 
 * Quarterly Review, April 1908 ; 2'Ae Athenceum, September 27th, 
 1902, June oth, 1907.
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 15 
 
 The new clue which it is proposed to consider in 
 this chapter is to be found in the recently pubHshed 
 Private Correspondence of Lord Granville Leveson- 
 Gower. In a letter to his intimate friend Leveson- 
 Gower, Canning, on Tuesday the 18th of August 1812, 
 wrote as follows : 
 
 " My meetings with Vansittart have been on the 
 subject of poor d'Antraigues' papers, which we have 
 been desired to look over. We shall finish, I hope, 
 on Friday morning. We have found nothing sus- 
 picious and nothing very important with which I 
 was not, and for the most part Vansitt. too, previously 
 acquainted. I have had the opportunity, however, 
 of destroying some papers of my time, which if they 
 had fallen into ill hands might have compromised 
 individuals very seriously." 
 
 The " poor d'Antraigues," to the perusal of whose 
 papers the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a former 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs were thus devoting their 
 careful attention, was a French emigre who, with his 
 wife, the Saint-Huberty, a once famous opera singer, 
 had, three weeks before, been murdered at Barnes. 
 It should at once be stated that no political signifi- 
 cance attaches to the tragic circumstances of their 
 death. The murderer, Lorenzo, their Itahan servant, 
 committed suicide immediately after the perpetration 
 of his crime, and, as at the inquest no motive for his 
 act could be discovered, it may be assumed that 
 he was a homicidal maniac. D'Antraigues' probable 
 connection with the mystery may be inferred, not 
 from the manner of his death, but from the history 
 of his life. 
 
 Emmanuel - Henri - Louis - Alexandre de Launay, 
 Comte d'Antraigues, notwithstanding his title and
 
 16 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 his aristocratic name, was a spy who had been in 
 the service of several Governments. In the last 
 years of the old regime^ he appears to have had a 
 recognised place in the literary and scientific society 
 of Paris, while in other circles he was known as a 
 man of pleasm-e, the favoured lover of a celebrated 
 singer, A sufficient fortune and the death of his 
 father, when he was still very young, seem to have 
 left him free to follow his own inchnations. The 
 dulness of garrison life at such places as Verdun and 
 Toulouse was probably the reason of his retirement 
 from the army, after a very brief experience of the 
 mihtary profession. Stories were current, however, 
 that his reluctance to afford a brother officer, whom 
 he had offended, the customary " satisfaction " was 
 the true cause of his resignation. Be that as it may, 
 after leaving the army he spent several years in 
 travelling. It was in the course of these wanderings 
 that he was for three months the guest of Voltaire 
 at Ferney and that he visited Rousseau, for whom 
 he always professed a profound admiration. Return- 
 ing to France about the year 1780, he seems to have 
 lived in Paris, and at his chateau in the Vivarais, 
 until the outbreak of the Revolution. But even at 
 this time, although he was justly regarded as a 
 brilliant talker and as a man of parts, he was neither 
 liked nor trusted. The taint of the adventurer clung 
 to him alwavs. 
 
 When the States- General were convened, d'An- 
 traigues threw himself with ardour into the con- 
 troversies of the time. It was an age of pamphlets, 
 and his pen made some notable contributions to the 
 number of political treatises with which France was 
 inundated. All through his life he had a passion for
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 17 
 
 writing, and, in addition to his printed works, in- 
 numerable manuscripts of which he was the author 
 are to be found in the archives of almost every 
 European capital. But as the Revolution developed, 
 his anxiety to see sweeping reforms effected diminished 
 rapidly. Possibly his change of sentiments should be 
 ascribed to the circumstance that his income was 
 derived from land, and that the peasants considered 
 that the estabhshment of popular institutions absolved 
 them from the necessity of paying their quit rent. 
 In any case, whatever the reason may be, he was 
 content in the Constituent Assembly to play an 
 obscure part and to be identified with the party 
 which called simply for the maintenance of the old 
 order tempered by the correction of certain abuses. 
 His former friends were indignant, and for good 
 reason, doubtless, he left France, early in 1790, and 
 betook himself to Switzerland. From Lausanne he 
 entered into relations w ith the exiled Bourbon princes, 
 and soon became an active agent of the counter- 
 revolutionary propaganda. There is little, however, 
 to record about his proceedings in Switzerland, 
 except that it was during his stay in that country 
 that he decided to marry the Saint-Huberty, who 
 had left Paris to share his exile. It was presumably 
 her small fortune which enabled them to hve in toler- 
 able comfort at this period. She is said to have 
 saved money in the course of her operatic career, 
 which was, moreover, varied by several adventures, 
 some of which were, without doubt, more profitable 
 than her connection with d'Antraigues. According 
 to his own account, it was out of consideration for 
 liis mother that he kept his marriage secret. Whether 
 or not that was his real motive, he only revealed the 
 
 B
 
 18 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 true state of affairs some years later, when he was 
 a prisoner at Trieste and the fear of death was upon 
 him. From Switzerland he moved on to Italy and, 
 in 1793, took up his residence at Venice. By that 
 time the general war had broken out and he had 
 found his vocation. 
 
 At Venice d'Antraigues, who had formed a useful 
 friendship with Las Casas, the diplomatist, was 
 attached to the Spanish legation. His activities, 
 however, were not confined to the services which he 
 rendered, or professed to render, to His Most Catholic 
 Majesty. While nominally a member of the Spanish 
 mission he was in reality one of the most zealous and, 
 at this time, the most trusted of the agents of Louis 
 the XVIIIth. Nor was it only with the exiled Court 
 at Verona that he corresponded. In defence of the 
 old order, and of the cause of Royalty generally, 
 his pen was never idle. Without doubt, some 
 measure of success attended these efforts to insinuate 
 himself into the confidence of reigning sovereigns. 
 Maria Carolina was impressed by him and, for a 
 time at least, allowed herself to be influenced by his 
 advice. Thus, on the one hand, through the corre- 
 spondence which, in his character of a Royahst agent, 
 he maintained with the interior of France, and, on 
 the other, by means of the trust reposed in him by 
 the Queen of Naples and possibly other sovereigns 
 and their ministers, he contrived to collect a consider- 
 able amount of information. Knowledge acquired 
 in this way could be turned to profitable use. As 
 a dealer in diplomatic intelhgence he was probably 
 without rival in an age when that kind of business 
 flourished exceedingly. 
 
 His most numerous and, without doubt, his most
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 19 
 
 profitable transactions were with Francis Drake, the 
 British Minister to the Repubhc of Genoa and the 
 Court of Milan. Drake is remembered chiefly because 
 of the artful manner in which at Munich, in 1804, 
 he was entrapped by Bonaparte into some compromis- 
 ing proceedings which put an end to his diplomatic 
 career. He has, however, some title to fame as 
 the agent who transmitted to Lord Grenville the 
 extremely interesting bulletins on the state of affairs 
 in France during the Reign of Terror. That it was 
 d'Antraigues who put him into communication with 
 his anonymous correspondent in Paris is highly 
 probable. In any case it was certainly owing to his 
 relations with him that, under the Directory, he was 
 enabled to send to London the reports of Gamon, 
 a member of the Council of the Five Hundred. 
 Again, during Bonaparte's Italian campaign, it was 
 d'Antraigues who established a correspondence be- 
 tween the British Minister and certain disaffected 
 officers in the French army. Lastly, it was d'An- 
 traigues who supplied him with inteUigence about 
 the policy of the Court of Naples, a subject which 
 was always of interest to the British Goverrmient.^ 
 
 The peace with the French Repubhc, which 
 Spain concluded in 1795, made little difference to 
 d'Antraigues, beyond compelling him to screen his 
 further operations under the flag of Russia. It was 
 while he was in the service of that Power that one of 
 the strangest and most mysterious of his adventures 
 befell him. The episode took place in the spring 
 of 1797, when Bonaparte, having signed the pre- 
 liminaries of a victorious peace with Austria, was 
 
 ^ Drake's reports are to be found in vol. ii., Fortescue Papers, and 
 in F. O. Genoa, 12, 13, 14, and 1.5.
 
 20 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 proceeding to the destruction of the RepubHc of 
 Venice. At the approach of the French army, 
 d'Antraigues quitted the city with the Russian 
 Minister and the members of his mission. But at 
 Trieste, which was still occupied by the enemy's 
 troops, the whole party was detained. Bernadotte, 
 who was in command, made, however, no difficulties 
 about allowing the Russians to continue their journey, 
 but d'Antraigues, he declared, was simply an emigre, 
 and he accordingly despatched him to headquarters 
 at Milan under close arrest. What passed between 
 Bonaparte and his prisoner will probably never be 
 known. Historians from time to time have in- 
 vestigated the question and have put forward various 
 conjectures. This much, however, is certain that, 
 after an interview with Bonaparte, the rigour of 
 d'Antraigues' confinement was greatly reduced, and 
 that some two months later he escaped, or was 
 allowed to escape, to Austrian territory. But mean- 
 while the cowp d'etat of the 18 fructidor had been 
 carried out successfully, and Barras and his colleagues 
 were enabled to justify their treatment of their 
 opponents by the production of evidence to prove 
 the treasonable relations of Pichegru with the 
 Royalists and the British Minister at Berne. The 
 incriminating document had, it was alleged, been 
 discovered at Milan by General Bonaparte among 
 d'Antraigues' papers. 
 
 D'Antraigues had not been concerned in Pichegru's 
 treason, but he had learnt all the particulars of it 
 from Montgaillard, a man of infamous reputation, 
 who had been engaged in the business. The account 
 of the affair transmitted by Bonaparte to the 
 Directory is now at the Archives Nationales in Paris
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 21 
 
 and is, unquestionably, in d'Antraigues' writing. It 
 would seem, therefore, that before leaving Venice he 
 must have committed Montgaillard's story to paper 
 and, for some ulterior reason, have placed it in the 
 despatch-box which he took away with him. It is 
 very possible, however, that, in order to save his 
 life, he may have written out a relation of the affair 
 at Bonaparte's dictation, while a prisoner at Milan. 
 But, whatever the true facts of the case may be, 
 his proceedings in this affair ruined his reputation 
 with Louis the XVIIIth and his principal advisers. 
 That he had been guilty of criminal negligence in 
 allowing so compromising a document to fall into 
 Bonaparte's hands, was the most charitable con- 
 struction placed upon his conduct, and it was decided 
 that never again could he be employed as a Royahst 
 agent. 
 
 D'Antraigues, however, quickly discovered that 
 the low opinion formed of him by his exiled 
 sovereign and his Royalist fellow-countrymen would 
 not seriously interfere with the kind of business he 
 had carried on so successfully in Italy. The Imperial 
 Chancellor, when he presented himself to him at 
 Vienna, readily agreed to provide him with congenial 
 occupation. A nice sense of honour can hardly be 
 expected of persons employed in the secret channels 
 of diplomacy, and Thugut, who had himself, in past 
 years, been engaged in some very dubious trans- 
 actions, was the last man to be over particular in 
 the choice of his agents. Nevertheless, d'Antraigues' 
 connection with the Austrian Foreign Office only 
 lasted for a period of about twelve months. Thugut, 
 when he dismissed him, had discovered that there 
 were drawbacks to the employment of an agent who
 
 22 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was in Russian pay at a time when the relations of 
 the Courts of Vienna and St Petersburg were strained 
 almost to breaking point. 
 
 D'Antraigues' proceedings during the next seven 
 years need only be alluded to briefly. Broadly 
 speaking, he appears to have carried on, on a larger 
 scale and with increased proficiency, the kind of 
 business which he had developed in Italy. For some 
 time after Thugut had dispensed with his services, 
 he appears to have remained at Vienna as a secret 
 Russian agent. In 1802, however, he was transferred 
 to Dresden, where he was officially attached to the 
 legation and where he was allowed to correspond 
 directly with Adam Czartoriski, the Russian Minister 
 for Foreign Affairs, who was then at the height of 
 his favour with the Tsar, Alexander. That d'An- 
 traigues often transmitted to St Petersburg valuable 
 information about the condition of affairs and the 
 trend of public opinion in France is not to be doubted. 
 His news was derived from correspondents in positions 
 very different from those with whom the ordinary 
 spy generally enters into relations. The identity of 
 these persons has never been established, but their 
 reports, many of which still exist, suggest that one 
 of them at least was a man of importance in the 
 financial world of Paris, while another was a woman 
 on terms of friendship with Josephine, Bonaparte's 
 wife. Much diplomatic correspondence in these days 
 passed through Dresden, and d'Antraigues, in addition 
 to his other work, was especially charged with the 
 subornation of Government messengers and with 
 the opening of their despatches, a task which he 
 appears constantly to have performed to the satis- 
 faction of his employers. But, in 1806, the entry
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 23 
 
 of Prussia into the war and a strategic movement of 
 French troops in dangerous proximity to Dresden 
 put an end to his activities on the Continent. Being 
 under no illusions as to the fate which was in store 
 for him should he fall a second time into Bonaparte's 
 hands, he hurriedly left Dresden and fled to England. 
 In London, where he arrived in September 1805, 
 d'Antraigues was employed at the Russian Embassy 
 in the same rank and at the same rate of pay as at 
 Dresden. But, unless compelled to by circumstances 
 beyond his control, it was never his practice to serve 
 one Government only. Accordingly, he lost no time 
 in proffering his services to the British Foreign Office, 
 and it is evident not only that his request was not 
 unheeded, but that he must have given satisfaction, 
 seeing that, in Jime 1807, before leaving office. Lord 
 Howick granted him a pension of £600 a year. A 
 few weeks later, Canning, Howick's successor, re- 
 ceived information about the nature of the agreement 
 arrived at upon the raft in the Niemen which enabled 
 him completely to forestall the plans of the two 
 Emperors. D'Antraigues not long afterwards was 
 dismissed from the Russian service, and, although no 
 charge of betraying the Tsar's secret seems to have 
 been brought against him, it is significant that the 
 arrears of his pay were withheld from him. But he 
 obtained compensation from Mr Canning, who in- 
 creased his already handsome pension by £400 a year. 
 This sum of £1000 he continued to draw yearly until, 
 in circumstances which have been described, he was 
 murdered on the 22nd of July 1812 at his villa at 
 Barnes.^ 
 
 ^ This account of d'Antraigues has been taken mainly from M. L. 
 Pingaud's biography, Le Comte d' Antraigues.
 
 24 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Among d'Antraigues' contemporaries the belief 
 appears to have been fairly general that it was he 
 who informed Canning about the Treaty of Tilsit. 
 In a paragraph relating to his murder, the Morning 
 Chronicle, of the 3rd of August 1812, expresses an 
 opinion to that effect, and adds that for this service 
 he received a pension of £3000 a year. Both 
 Alison and Hewson-Clarke refer to him in their 
 histories as the man from whom Canning derived his 
 intelligence. But in recent years in this country 
 that theory has gone completely out of fashion, and, 
 while French historians ^ have generally adhered to 
 it, modern writers in England have not even taken 
 the trouble to discuss it. Alone a contributor to 
 Notes and Queries, at the time of the controversy 
 between the Rev. E. MacKenzie and Sir Harry Poland, 
 points out that Ahson beheved that it was d'An- 
 traigues who brought the news to Downing Street. 
 But he mentions it only for the purpose of showing 
 that Alison was grievously mistaken. D'Antraigues, 
 he says, " was in England at the time of the treaty, 
 having left Russia in disgrace." ^ Now that is a very 
 loose statement. D'Antraigues was in England when 
 the Treaty of Tilsit was signed, but he came to this 
 comitry from Dresden, not from Russia, and, what 
 is far more important, his dismissal from the Russian 
 service took place after, not before, that compact 
 was concluded. Nor can it be admitted that, because 
 he was in this country, he was, therefore, unable to 
 obtain news about the purport of the conferences 
 of the two Emperors in East Prussia. His whole 
 
 ' M, L. Pingaud does not adopt this view. But he gives no reason 
 for his dissent except that d'Antraigues was in England at the time. 
 2 Xote* and Queries, 10th Series, vol. ix. p. 135.
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 25 
 
 life was spent in gathering intelligence of that kind, 
 and there is no conceivable reason why one of his 
 habitual correspondents should not have sent him a 
 message which he at once passed on to Canning. 
 The interview upon the raft in the Niemen took place 
 on the 25th of June, the treaty was signed at Tilsit 
 on the 7th of July, and Canning's instructions to his 
 agents show that the British Government only 
 decided to seize the Danish fleet on the 21st of July 
 or, at the latest, on the following day. There was, 
 therefore, ample time for d'Antraigues to have acted, 
 in consequence of a communication which he had 
 received from some person on the spot. 
 
 It is difficult to understand why modern searchers 
 for the truth should have overlooked the possibihty 
 that d'Antraigues might have been Mr Canning's 
 informant. Let the facts speak for themselves. In 
 September 1806, d'Antraigues, a man who for the 
 past fourteen years had been engaged in espionage, 
 arrives in this country and is attached in some 
 capacity or another to the Russian Embassy in 
 London. Very soon afterwards, however, he enters 
 the Enghsh secret service, in which it may be assumed 
 that his performances were highly satisfactory, be- 
 cause, in June 1807, Lord Ho wick, before quitting 
 the Foreign Office, accords him a pension of £600 
 a year. Six weeks later, the general nature of 
 the plans formulated by the two Emperors in East 
 Prussia is revealed to Mr Canning, who takes im- 
 mediate measures to render them abortive. The 
 seizure of the Danish fleet is followed by a rupture 
 of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and 
 Russia, and, about the same time, d'Antraigues is dis- 
 missed from the Russian service. Canning, thereupon,
 
 26 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 grants him an additional pension of £400 a year, 
 Avhich he continues to enjoy until his death, in 1812. 
 Moreover, there are grounds for thinking that he 
 received other rewards from the British Government. 
 In a paragraph headed " Murder of the Count and 
 Countess d'Antraigues," The Times, in its issue of 
 the 23rd of July 1812, favoured its readers with some 
 particulars of their mode of life. In addition to the 
 villa at Barnes, they had a house in Queen Anne 
 Street and " kept a carriage, a coachman, a footman 
 and a servant out of livery." In short, their general 
 style of living is quaintly described as " rather 
 bordering on high life than the contrary." Seeing 
 that, as far as can be judged, d'Antraigues was a 
 careful man and that he left no debts behind him, 
 it is a question whether the establishment described 
 in The Tiynes could, a hundred years ago, have been 
 maintained upon a pension of £1000 a year. 
 
 If the true reason of d'Antraigues' generous treat- 
 ment by the British Government could be ascertained, 
 there is little doubt that the mystery of Tilsit would 
 be solved. On that account, everything relating to 
 the money he received is of great importance, and it 
 happens that, in 1811, some correspondence took 
 place on the subject.^ In that year Lord Wellesley, 
 the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave instructions 
 that his pension, or, at any rate, that the additional 
 portion of it awarded him by Canning, should be 
 discontinued. As may be supposed, this decision 
 evoked indignant protestations from d'Antraigues, 
 who, finding that he could not obtain satisfaction, 
 appealed to Canning. Canning's reply, dated 
 Hinckley, the 25th of October 1811, is couched in 
 
 1 ¥. O. France 27/88.
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 27 
 
 sympathetic language. He assures d'Antraigues that 
 Wellesley must have overlooked the memorandum 
 regarding him, which he was careful to draw up 
 before leaving office. He then proceeds to repeat 
 the terms of that document, so far as he can re- 
 member them, giving d'Antraigues permission to 
 make what use he pleases of his letter. 
 
 " Your pension (he writes) was augmented by me 
 partly in consideration of services actually rendered 
 and partly in indemnification of losses achially 
 sustained by you." 
 
 Canning's explanation, which d'Antraigues at once 
 forwarded to Wellesley, achieved the desired result. 
 Canning's letter, however, is of great interest, because 
 it gives his ostensible reasons for conferring a pension 
 upon d'Antraigues. That he had rendered " actual 
 services " may be accepted as true without demur. 
 But why, because he had " actually sustained " 
 losses, which means presumably that he had been 
 dismissed from the Russian service, should the British 
 Government, which had already rewarded him hand- 
 somely, indemnify him ? To that question there 
 can be but one reply. He must have lost his Russian 
 employment because of some signal service which he 
 had rendered to this country, and, if dates and circum- 
 stances be taken into consideration, is not the con- 
 clusion inevitable that the service in question was 
 the revelation of the secret compact entered into by 
 the two Emperors at Tilsit ? 
 
 The letter in the Private Correspondence of Lord 
 Granville Leveson-Gower is an additional and a most 
 important hnk in the chain of circumstantial evidence 
 connecting d'Antraigues with the revelation to 
 Canning of the purport of the Treaty of Tilsit.
 
 28 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Leveson-Gower was on terms of intimacy with 
 Canning, but it is more pertinent to this inquiry 
 to remember that he had been ambassador to the 
 Court of the Tsar at the time of the treaty. Now, 
 in the extract of the letter quoted on a former page, 
 it will be observed that Canning wastes no time in 
 explaining who " poor d'Antraigues " was, or why 
 it was necessary that a close scrutiny of his papers 
 should be made. The whole tenor of the letter 
 suggests that that would have been superfluous, and 
 that Leveson-Gower fully understood the reason of 
 the precautions which had been taken. At this 
 period of his hfe, his embassy to St Petersburg, at 
 the time of Tilsit, was the only important mission 
 upon which he had been engaged. On account of 
 his official position, he was, doubtless, informed of 
 the manner in which Canning had discovered the 
 objects of the Imperial conference in East Prussia. 
 Tliat would explain why, after d'Antraigues' death, 
 Canning should write to assure the ex-ambassador 
 that measures had been taken to prevent the secret 
 from leaking out. The possibihty may be excluded 
 that Canning was referring to some business, other 
 than that of Tilsit, in which d'Antraigues had been 
 concerned. That affair, there can be no reasonable 
 doubt, was the only State secret of vital importance 
 with which Leveson-Gower was acquainted and about 
 which Canning would be likely to write to him. But 
 the most important passage in Canning's letter is 
 that in which he tells Leveson-Gower that he had 
 destroyed certain papers of d'Antraigues " which, if 
 they had fallen into ill hands, might have com- 
 promised individuals very seriously." It suggests 
 an answer to the most cogent objection which can
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 29 
 
 be raised to the theory that d'Antraigues was his 
 informant in the matter of the Tilsit Treaty. It 
 may reasonably be urged that, although circumstances 
 point to him almost irresistibly, no British Govern- 
 ment would have acted, in so momentous an affair 
 as the seizure of the Danish fleet, upon the informa- 
 tion of such a man. This contention, however, falls 
 to the ground if it can be shown that a strong prob- 
 abihty exists that d'Antraigues was able to present 
 himself at Downing Street as the envoy of some 
 Russian, or possibly of a group of Russians, of rank 
 and high official position. And Canning's words 
 unquestionably suggest that something of that kind 
 must have taken place. 
 
 The amount of time devoted by Canning and 
 Vansittart to the examination of d'Antraigues' papers 
 is a certain indication that they expected to find in 
 them references to some secret transaction of quite 
 unusual importance. Canning, writing on a Tuesday, 
 talks of previous meetings with Vansittart, and ex- 
 presses a hope that the following Friday will see 
 the termination of their labours. Seemingly, there- 
 fore, they were occupied at their task for perhaps a 
 week, and perhaps even for a longer period. But a 
 hundred years ago Ministers had private secretaries, 
 as they have to-day, to whom the tiresome business 
 of searching through a mass of even highly con- 
 fidential documents would ordinarily be delegated. 
 It is evident, however, that it was feared that 
 d'Antraigues' papers might contain revelations of 
 such a nature that nobody but Ministers themselves 
 must be allowed to see them. Is it conceivable for 
 a moment that a Chancellor of the Exchequer and 
 an ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs would have taken
 
 30 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 all this trouble had it been merely expected that 
 d'Antraigues' documents might compromise some 
 fellow-spy or lead to the detection of some secret 
 agent ? If nothing more than that was feared, 
 clearly they would have charged some subordinate 
 official with the labour of perusing them. 
 
 The new pohcy which was inaugurated upon the 
 raft in the Niemen was very unpopular with the 
 most influential members of the Russian aristocracy. 
 Savary, who, the moment the Treaty of Tilsit was 
 signed, was sent to represent his master at the Tsar's 
 Court, has left a plaintive record in his memoirs of 
 the difficulties he had to contend with and of the 
 slights which he had to bear. While Alexander 
 treated him with an affectionate cordiality and missed 
 no opportunity of displaying in pubhc the esteem 
 with which he regarded him, the doors of the fashion- 
 able world were resolutely closed against him. So 
 unfriendly was the attitude of certain great families, 
 headed by the Empress-Mother, to the Napoleonic 
 alliance, that it has from time to time been suggested 
 that it was from that quarter that the British Govern- 
 ment received its warning. 
 
 Canning's reference to his discovery of papers 
 which might have '* seriously compromised indi- 
 viduals " corroborates the suspicion that some Russian 
 grandee was concerned in the business. It is, how- 
 ever, quite impossible to fix upon any particular 
 person and point to him as the man who enabled 
 Canning to thwart the scheme which was to place 
 the naval power of Denmark at Bonaparte's dis- 
 posal. But certain names will occur to anyone who 
 is acquainted with the history of the time. Nicholas 
 Novosilzoff, who in 1805 had signed the treaty with
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 31 
 
 England, ventured, according to Savary, after the 
 conference at Tilsit, to remind Alexander of the fate 
 which had overtaken his father, the Tsar Paul. 
 Baron Alopaeus, one of the many Germans in the 
 Russian service, was actually in charge of the Russian 
 Embassy at the time of Tilsit, and it is well known 
 that he was a firm believer in the necessity of main- 
 taining the British alliance. Simon Woronzoff had 
 been for many years Ambassador to the Court of 
 Saint James's, and his devotion to this country was 
 almost fanatical. Within six months of the con- 
 clusion of the Treaty of Tilsit his daughter was 
 married to the Lord Pembroke of that day, notwith- 
 standing that by that time England and Russia 
 were in a state of war. Lastly, the German General, 
 Bennigsen, the assassin of the Tsar Paul, and the 
 defeated commander of the Russian armies at Fried- 
 land, resented the conclusion of peace with France 
 and was thoroughly discontented. With regard to 
 him, however, it should be noted that as a soldier 
 he may never have heard of d'Antraigues, and he 
 is, therefore, less hkely than the three diplomatists, 
 whose names have been mentioned, to have selected 
 him as the channel of any secret communication he 
 might desire to make to the British Government. 
 
 But why, it will be asked, should they or any other 
 persons, whether they were soldiers or whether they 
 were diplomatists, resort to d'Antraigues ? Assuming 
 that, from patriotic or less respectable motives, they 
 desired to make the Imperial plans impossible of 
 execution, why should they make d'Antraigues the 
 channel of their communications with the British 
 Government ? To this question it can only be rephed 
 that there were reasons which made the participation
 
 32 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of a man of that kind almost a matter of necessity. 
 Even if they had at hand some member of their staff 
 or some person in their employ who might be wilhng 
 to engage in the business, it was clearly very in- 
 expedient to make use of him. The movements of 
 their emissary might be traced, and the closer he 
 were connected with them the more perilous would 
 be their position. The action which England might 
 be expected to take would, doubtless, lead Alexander 
 to suspect that he had been betrayed, and it was 
 necessary to be prepared against the highly pro- 
 bable contingency that investigations would be made 
 to discover the guilty parties. Seeing that the 
 Imperial secrets would be known to very few, the 
 search might be confined to a very limited area, 
 and, if conducted rigorously, would achieve its pur- 
 pose. In that case, to denounce d'Antraigues might 
 be the most effective way of stopping further in- 
 quiries. He had long been in the Russian service, 
 and his dexterity in acquiring information v/as 
 notorious. It might not, therefore, be very difficult 
 to persuade Alexander that by some means or another 
 he had contrived to learn the nature of his agree- 
 ment with Bonaparte and had sold the secret to 
 England. It is 'even conceivable that these men 
 may have come to a sort of understanding with 
 d'Antraigues on the subject. They may have in- 
 timated to him that, by entrusting the business to 
 him, they had enabled him to secure whatever rewards 
 the British Government might be disposed to grant 
 to an agent who had rendered it a signal service. In 
 return, however, he must, should their safety demand 
 it, be prepared to hear that they had denounced him 
 to the Tsar as the person who had betrayed him.
 
 THE MYSTERY OF TILSIT 33 
 
 But all this is mere conjecture, and, for that 
 reason, it cannot be claimed that a complete solution 
 of the problem of Tilsit has been discovered. It is, 
 however, contended that one corner of the veil of 
 mystery surrounding the affair has been lifted. It 
 is certain that d'Antraigues was concerned in the 
 business, and there can be little doubt that it was 
 from him that Canning received his first intimation 
 of the Imperial designs. General circumstances, and 
 certain inferences which may fairly be drawn, point, 
 however, to the probability that, throughout the 
 affair, he was the agent of some Russians of high 
 position who, disliking the new policy of the Tsar, 
 wished to warn England of the danger with which 
 she was threatened. But there is no du-ect evidence 
 that that was the case. The real facts were known 
 to very few, and they have never been divulged. 
 Nor has any chance indiscretion assisted the task 
 of investigation. Moreover, nothing, it may safely 
 be asserted, has contributed more effectually to the 
 preservation of the secret than the care with which 
 Canning and Vansittart examined and, when neces- 
 sary, destroyed " poor d'Antraigues' papers."
 
 THE STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 
 
 BENJAMIN BATHURST, whose mysterious 
 disappearance forms the subject of this 
 chapter, was the third son of the Bishop of 
 Norwich. After leaving Oxford, he entered the 
 diplomatic service and, in 1809, held the position 
 of Secretary of Legation at Stockholm. Some four 
 years earlier, he had married Phyllida, daughter of 
 Sir John Call, Baronet, of Whiteford in Cornwall, 
 a lady ten years older than himself. When Austria 
 threw down the gauntlet to Bonaparte, Bathurst, 
 although he was but twenty-five years of age, was 
 directed to proceed as Envoy to the Court of Vienna. 
 His selection for so important a mission, at so critical 
 a time, was, doubtless, due in part to the influence 
 of his kinsman. Lord Bathurst, who was a member 
 of the Government. Nevertheless, it may reasonably 
 be supposed that he was regarded as a young man 
 of exceptional promise. He was not, however, 
 vouchsafed an opportunity of earning distinction. 
 Before he could reach his destination, the campaign 
 had been lost irretrievably. After the final defeat 
 at Wagram, Austria was forced to conclude the 
 humiliating peace of Schonbrunn, by one of the 
 provisions of which she was debarred from all inter- 
 course with England. Accordingly, in the second 
 week of November, Bathurst started upon his home- 
 ward journey, accompanied by his servant and by 
 the messenger of the British embassy at Vienna. 
 
 34
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 35 
 
 On the afternoon of the 25th, the party arrived at 
 the post house of the httle Prussian town of Perleberg, 
 on the banks of the Stepnitz, close to the confines of 
 Mecklenburg. It had been intended to resume the 
 journey about nine o'clock in the evening. But, 
 when the hour of departure arrived, Bathurst, who 
 had been engaged in writing letters, could not be 
 found. A fruitless search was made for him in 
 every direction. No news of him could be obtained. 
 So complete was his disappearance that, from that 
 time down to the present day, no clue to his fate 
 has ever been discovered. 
 
 Owing to Bonaparte's continental system, com- 
 munications between Prussia and this country were 
 greatly restricted. Early in January 1810, however, 
 rumours were current in London that some misfortune 
 had overtaken Bathurst. A paragraph had appeared 
 in a French newspaper, of November 10th, stating 
 that the late British Envoy to the Court of Austria 
 had gone mad and had committed suicide. The 
 Morning Post, however, made haste to contradict 
 this intelligence. In its issue of January 4th, it 
 informed its readers, " for the comfort and satis- 
 faction of the friends of that superior and excellent 
 young man, Mr Bathurst, our Minister at the Court 
 of Austria, that private letters have been received 
 from Berlin stating that, on November 13th, he was 
 there ' in the most perfect health and in the most 
 composed frame of mind.' " But, by the middle of 
 the month of January, the Government had received 
 definite information of the occurrences at Perleberg 
 from its agents in Berlin. " There is no account," 
 -wrote Lord Bathurst^ to the missing man's mother, 
 
 * Lord Bathurst had held the seals of the Foreign Office from
 
 36 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 on January 19th, " which makes it certain what has 
 become of Mr Bathurst. He has lost no monev at 
 play, nor has he in any way misconducted himself. 
 I am desirous of seeing the Bishop, to whom I will 
 communicate some accounts which I have received 
 from Berlin. It will be desirable not to make any 
 communication to Mrs B. Bathurst until the Bishop 
 arrives, as there is no certainty, though it would be 
 wrong if I were to disguise from you that the 
 accounts leave little to hope — except always that it 
 was not by his own hand." ^ 
 
 The Morning Post, on January 20th, announced 
 that " the hopes entertained of the safety of Mr 
 Bathurst have not been realised. It is generally 
 supposed that that gentleman was murdered by 
 the French at a town between Berlin and Hamburg. 
 Only a portion of his dress, in which was a letter to 
 his wife, has been found. The Prussian Government 
 upon receiving the intelligence evinced the deepest 
 regret and offered a large reward for the recovery 
 of the body. No success, however, has yet attended 
 the offer." On February 12th, both The Morning 
 Post and The T'imes reproduced an article from the 
 Moniteur, of January 29th, in which it was said that 
 all accounts received from Berlin agree that Mr 
 Bathurst was deranged in his mind. "It is the 
 custom of the British Cabinet to entrust diplomatic 
 missions to persons whom the whole nation knows 
 are half fools. It is only the English diplomatic 
 service which contains crazy people." The Europemi 
 Magazine, of January 1810, which devoted about 
 
 October 11th until December Htli, 1809. He was succeeded by Lord 
 ^Vellesley. 
 
 ^ Mrs Thistlethwayte, Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr Henrtf 
 Bathurst, p. 180.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 37 
 
 half a column to Batliurst's mysterious affair, emitted 
 the opinion that he was probably carried off by a 
 party of French soldiers stationed at Lenzen. But, 
 beyond those quoted, there are very few references 
 to Bathurst's strange disappearance in the con- 
 temporary press, which appears to have displayed an 
 unwonted restraint in commenting upon this extra- 
 ordinary incident. Such as they are, however, they 
 doubtless reflect the popular belief at the time — that 
 Bonaparte's agents had murdered him, in order to 
 obtain possession of certain important pai)ers of which 
 he was the bearer. No pronouncement on the sub- 
 ject was ever issued by the Government. 
 
 In more recent years, several accounts of the 
 affair have been pubhshed. In 1853, Mrs Thistle- 
 thwayte, Bathurst's sister, in a memoir ^ of her father, 
 the Bishop, related all the circumstances, so far as 
 they were known to her, of her brother's disappear- 
 ance, and, in addition, reproduced many of his letters. 
 Furthermore, she caused to be translated a German 
 account of the event taken from the Neue Pitaval^ 
 which is to be found in the appendix of her book. 
 This is certainly the most detailed and probably the 
 most accurate account which exists of the events at 
 Perleberg. It has, evidently, been largely drawn 
 upon by Mr Baring- Gould in his article entitled The 
 Disappearance of Mr Bathurst, which appeared in the 
 Cmnhill of 1887.3 More recently still, in 1890, The 
 
 ^ Mrs. Thistletliwayte, Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr Henry 
 Bathurst. 
 
 ' A collectiou of criminal trials, etc.^ the first series of which 
 appeared between 1842 and I860. 
 
 ' Cornhill Magazine, 1887. This article has been reproduced by 
 Mr Baring-Ciould in the first series of his Historic Oddities and Strange 
 Events.
 
 38 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Search for the lost Mr Bathurst^ formed the subject 
 of an article by Mr W. M. Call, whose brother-in-law, 
 Mr George Cotsford Call, accompanied his sister to 
 Perleberg and to Paris, in 1810, in a vain attempt 
 to discover some trace of her missing husband. In 
 addition to these works in Enghsh and in German, 
 M. Desmarest, the chief of Bonaparte's secret police, 
 has devoted a chapter of his memoires,^ the first edition 
 of which appeared in 1833, to the elucidation of the 
 mystery. 
 
 On the main facts of the case these different wi'iters 
 are in substantial agreement. Bathurst, even before 
 he started from Buda, manifested the liveliest fear 
 that he might be waylaid on his homeward journey. 
 Accordingly, in order to conceal his identity, he 
 obtained a passport in the name of Koch, a merchant 
 proceeding to Hamburg. His only companions were 
 his valet and one Krause, the messenger of the 
 embassy. Mr Baring-Gould speaks of a secretary as 
 forming one of the party, but he is clearly mistaken 
 on that point. The exact date of Bathurst's de- 
 parture from Buda is not given in any of these 
 accounts, nor is any mention made of his stay in 
 Berlin. It is evident that none of the particulars 
 of his journey are known, and it is only on November 
 25th, when he reached Perleberg, that the story 
 begins. By that time, the fears which had disturbed 
 him before starting, had returned with redoubled 
 force. He was now in a very agitated condition, 
 and one of his first acts, after arriving at the post- 
 house, was to call on the town major. Captain von 
 
 ^ Westmhister Review, vol. 1.34. The Search for the lost Mr Bathurst, 
 from the uupublished diary of his brother-in-law, the late Mr George 
 Cotsford Call. 
 
 * P. M. Desmarest, Quinze Ans de Haute Police.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST S9 
 
 Klitzing, for protection. This officer complied with 
 his request and sent two troopers to guard him. 
 
 According to Mr Baring-Gould, it was not at the 
 post house, but at the Swan Inn close by, that 
 Bathurst ate his dinner and wrote his letters. He 
 and his party were not the only travellers at Perleberg 
 that day. Two Jewish merchants are said to have 
 driven up to the post-house, shortly after their 
 arrival. Mr Baring- Gould says that these men 
 departed before Bathurst was found to be missing. 
 Tliey were respectable persons and, when subsequently 
 examined, had no difficulty in clearing themselves 
 from any imputation of complicity in his disappear- 
 ance. On that point, however, the Neue Pitaval is 
 not so affirmative. Moreover, it is therein stated 
 that these men only drove away when the search for 
 Bathurst was actually in progress. Be that as it 
 may, all accounts agree that Bathurst more than 
 once ordered his carriage to be brought round and 
 then countermanded it. There is reason, also, to 
 think that he imprudently showed that he carried 
 on his person a considerable sum of money. About 
 an hour before the time finally fixed for departure, 
 he appears to have dismissed the two troopers. Ac- 
 cording to the version which Mr Baring- Gould adopts, 
 he was last seen standing in the street, while his 
 portmanteau and other effects were being placed in 
 his carriage. Other accounts, however, simpty say 
 that when everything was ready for departure he 
 could not be found. 
 
 Directly the matter was reported to him, Klitzing 
 ordered a strict search to be instituted, which was 
 continued throughout the night. At the same time, 
 he caused Krause, the messenger, who was travelling
 
 40 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 under the name of Fischer, and Ilbert, Bathurst's 
 Swiss servant, to be conducted to the Golden Crown, 
 an inn at the other end of the town, where he placed 
 them under a military guard. In the course of their 
 removal, a fur coat belonging to Bathurst was missed, 
 and, on the following day, which was a Sunday, 
 Klitzing impressed upon the civil authorities the 
 necessity of sparing no efforts to discover the thief. 
 After issuing these instructions, he himself drove 
 away in a post-chaise, and only returned to Perleberg 
 at a late hour the next day. All accounts agree that 
 it was for the purpose of consulting his superiors in 
 Berhn that he thus left his post. It may be assumed, 
 therefore, that he was, from the first, aware that the 
 missing man was a person of more importance than 
 Koch, the Hamburg merchant. But, throughout the 
 investigations, he studiously refrained from disclosing 
 this fact to the local magistrates and officials. No 
 sooner was he back at Perleberg than he found that 
 he had cause for grave displeasure with these people. 
 In his absence, they had taken upon themselves to 
 question the valet, Ilbert, and to take down his 
 answers in writing. He had no words strong enough 
 with which to express his indignation at their pre- 
 sumption, in thus interfering with a military prisoner, 
 and he insisted that their notes of his examination 
 must be at once given up to him. And he had yet 
 another subject of complaint against them. A man 
 named Schmidt was in charge of the stables at the 
 post house, and his son, who bore a most indifferent 
 character, was employed on odd jobs about the place. 
 It was not improbable that this man had appropriated 
 the fur coat, and the magistrates, accordingly, pro- 
 ceeded to interrogate the Schmidts' maid-servant.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 41 
 
 The method which they adopted for eHciting the 
 truth was not unusual in Prussia, although, under 
 the influence of Stein's recent reforms, it was, per- 
 haps, beginning to be regarded as somewhat old- 
 fashioned. They gave the girl the choice of receiving 
 a reward of five crowns for showing them where the 
 coat was hidden, or of being whipped for withholding 
 the information, and recourse was had, Klitzing 
 declared, to this last alternative. Professing his 
 horror of these arbitrary proceedings, he sent for the 
 young woman who, however, denied that she had 
 either received a reward or that she had been sub- 
 jected to corporal punishment. Thereupon, after 
 threatening to have her stripped in order to see 
 w^hether she spoke the truth, he warned her that 
 he would himself have her whipped, unless she would 
 consent to acknowledge that she had suffered punish- 
 ment by order of the civil authorities. ^ 
 
 It is unnecessary to pursue the subject any further. 
 Let it suffice that the fur coat was found concealed 
 in the Schmidts' wood-shed, and that the younger 
 Schmidt was in due course sent to prison for stealing 
 it. Inasmuch, however, as it was not suggested 
 that he had taken it from Bathurst's body, but had 
 simply found it lying about after his disappearance, 
 its recovery left the main question precisely where 
 it was. The episode and the circumstances con- 
 nected with it have been mentioned, only because 
 they help to explain why the investigation into 
 Bathurst's disappearance made no progress. So busy 
 were the burgomaster and the magistrates in justi- 
 fying their own conduct, and in drawing up and in 
 despatching to Berlin long memorials, complaining 
 
 * Neue Pitacul.
 
 42 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of Klitzing's behaviour towards them, that they had 
 httle time to spare for other matters. In the mean- 
 while, KHtzing ordered the river Stepnitz to be 
 drained and the neighbouring country to be searched 
 with bloodhounds. But, although several days were 
 devoted to these measures, no trace of Bathurst could 
 be found. 
 
 Klitzing's next move was of a different kind 
 altogether. On December 10th he furnished Krause, 
 who was still in strict seclusion at the Golden Crown, 
 with a passport in the name of Kruger, and a permit 
 to proceed to Berlin. The civil authorities, however, 
 were kept in complete ignorance of the man's depar- 
 ture. It was only by an accident, later on, that they 
 discovered that he had been released and had left 
 their town. So far as they were concerned, says the 
 Neiie Pitaval, Bathurst's companion vanished as 
 completely and as mysteriously as Bathurst himself. 
 
 But on December 16th a discovery of some import- 
 ance was made. Two women, who were gathering 
 sticks, found in a fir plantation, near Perleberg, a 
 pair of trousers turned inside out, in one of the pockets 
 of which was a paper with writing upon it. The 
 women hastened back to the town and handed over 
 to the burgomaster everything which they had found. 
 It was speedily ascertained, beyond the possibility of 
 doubt, that the trousers were those which Bathurst 
 had been wearing on the day of his disappearance. 
 The paper was a portion of a letter to his wife, in 
 which it is said that he spoke of the dangers by which 
 he was beset, and expressed a hope that she would 
 not remarry, should the worst befall him. Should 
 he be killed, his death would lie at Count d'Antraigues' 
 door. The civil authorities, calling upon the peasants
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 4S 
 
 to assist, and stimulating their zeal with a cask of 
 beer and ten quarts of brandy, ordered a strict search 
 to be made of the woods and all the neighbouring 
 fields. But their trouble was expended in vain. No 
 further trace of the missing man was ever discovered. 
 In the following month of July, Mrs Bathurst, who 
 had obtained a passport from Bonaparte, arrived at 
 Perleberg with her brother. Mr Call's diary describes 
 their journey through Sweden, and how, when they 
 reached Prussia, they had only to mention the magic 
 name of Napoleon for all difficulties to vanish. But, 
 although the French Ambassador, M. de Saint-Marsan, 
 was most sympathetic and obliging, their efforts to 
 clear up the mystery were unavaiHng. After wasting 
 about a month in following up false clues, Mrs Bathurst 
 returned to BerHn. In the absence of Saint-Marsan 
 she saw M. Caillard, the charge d'affaires, who had 
 nothing more to suggest, and who, as the diary puts 
 it, " shrugged his shoulders for an hour." She ob- 
 tained, however, permission to go on to Paris, where 
 she had interviews with Champagny, Due de Cadore, 
 the Foreign Minister, and with Savary, Due de 
 Rovigo, Fouche's successor as Minister of Police. 
 Champagny was courteous and pleasant, but Savary 
 was curt and somewhat disagreeable. She was not 
 admitted to see Bonaparte himself, but he sent her 
 a message, through Cambaceres,i that on his word of 
 honour he knew nothing about her husband's dis- 
 appearance. With this assurance she was fain to be 
 satisfied, and having, after some difficulty, obtained 
 a safe conduct for herself and her party, she returned 
 to England. 
 
 1 CambactTcs (Jean Jacques de, 1753-1824), Consul, Arch-chancellor 
 of the Empire.
 
 44 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 More than forty years afterwards, in 1852, Mrs 
 Thistlethwayte visited Perleberg. By a strange co- 
 incidence, about four months before her arrival, the 
 skeleton of a man had been discovered in an old house, 
 while it was in process of being pulled down. The 
 absence of clothes, and the fact that the skull had 
 been fractured by a hatchet, or some implement of 
 that kind, suggested that these remains were those 
 of a murdered man. Mrs Thistlethwayte examined 
 the skull, and was so satisfied that it was not her 
 brother's, that she readily gave the local authorities 
 a written assurance to that effect. Mr Baring-Gould, 
 however, considers that her opinion on that point 
 counts for very little. Goethe, he says, failed to 
 recognise the skull of Schiller, his intimate friend, 
 when it was shown him. The house in which this 
 skeleton was found belonged, he says, at the time of 
 Bathurst's disappearance, to a man named Mertens, 
 who was a waiter at the Swan. It is true that he 
 was always regarded as a respectable and honest 
 person. But it is, nevertheless, suspicious that, when 
 his two daughters married, he was in a position to 
 give each of them over £100 — a large sum for a waiter 
 at an inn, in an obscure Prussian town, to have saved. 
 Unfortunately, Mr Baring- Gould does not quote his 
 authority for this statement. Mrs Thistlethwayte 
 herself tells a different story altogether. The house 
 in which the skeleton was found belonged, according 
 to her, to a man who had been the porter at the inn 
 where Krause and the valet, Ilbert, had been con- 
 fined for a fortnight after her brother's disappearance. 
 
 Mrs Bathurst appears always to have considered 
 that her husband was made away with by Bonaparte's 
 orders. The assistance which she met with from his
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 45 
 
 agents in Prussia, and the liberty of movement which 
 was accorded her in Paris, served only to confirm her 
 in this opinion. Knowing that the truth would never 
 be discovered, he thought, she says, " to lull suspicion 
 by his apparent frankness." ^ Mr Call, however, 
 took a different view. His theory is that Bathurst, 
 thinking that his life was in danger at Perleberg, 
 shpped away, without the knowledge of his com- 
 panions, and made his way on foot to Konigsberg, 
 where he hoped to find a ship to take him to Stock- 
 holm. It was a stormy winter, in the course of which 
 there were several wrecks off the Baltic coast, and he 
 thinks it, therefore, very probable that his brother-in- 
 law was drowned at sea. Hence it was that his body 
 was never discovered. The fact that his trousers 
 were found in a fir-plantation near Perleberg presents 
 a difficulty. He overcomes it, however, by calling 
 them " overalls," meaning presumably some garment 
 drawn on over another. Bathurst, he conjectures, 
 on the first night of his flight, hid in this wood and 
 divested himself of these " overalls," before starting 
 on his long journey on foot, the next morning. But 
 is it conceivable that Bathurst, who spoke very little 
 German, can have traversed the country from Perle- 
 berg, which lies midway between Hamburg and 
 Berlin, to Konigsberg, close to the Russian frontier, 
 without leaving some trace of his passage behind him ? 
 And would any sane man, who believed that he was 
 in danger, thus separate himself from his travelhng 
 companions and confront alone the perils of the 
 roads, infested as they were with deserters and vaga- 
 bonds of every description ? It may be, however, 
 
 1 Mrs Thistlethvraite. Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr Balhnnf, 
 p. 18r..
 
 46 FOUR FAIVIOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 that Mr Call had some secret doubts as to whether 
 his brother-in-law was a perfectly sane man at this 
 time. In conclusion, he passes some very severe 
 strictures on the attitude of the Government. The 
 British authorities were guilty, he says, " of culpable 
 neglect in withholding instructions from their repre- 
 sentatives as well as of ingratitude in their treatment 
 of the widow." Their conduct throughout, he con- 
 siders, contrasts most unfavourably with that of the 
 French Government.^ 
 
 It would be absurd to expect of M. Desmarest that 
 he should tell the whole truth about the many dark 
 transactions which, presumably, came to his know- 
 ledge, while he was at the head of Bonaparte's secret 
 police. But, for reasons which will be discussed 
 at a later stage of this narrative, he is, doubtless, 
 fully justified in asserting that no French agents had 
 a hand in the kidnapping or in the murdering of 
 Bathurst. His account of the affair does not differ 
 materially from those of other writers on the subject. 
 He speaks more emphatically, than do the members 
 of his family, of Bathurst's alarm and of his agitation, 
 when he arrived at Perleberg. He describes liim as 
 teUing Khtzing that he would be prepared to pay 
 1000 guineas, which he carried on him, to anyone 
 who would see him safely through the dangers by 
 which he believed himself surrounded. Krause, the 
 messenger, Desmarest regards with great suspicion. 
 After these events, the man returned to Vienna, 
 where he afterwards lived, he asserts, in considerable 
 style. He does not, however, suggest that robbery 
 was the motive of the murder. Far be it from him, 
 he declares, to make any accusations against the 
 
 ^ Westminster Review, vol. 134. The Search /or the lost Mr Bathurst.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 47 
 
 Cabinets of Berlin or St Petersburg. It is not to be 
 denied, however, that it was a question of supreme 
 importance to both these Governments to learn 
 whether Austria meant to abide by the peace which 
 she had concluded at Schonbrunn. But, whatever 
 the truth of the matter may be, he is convinced that 
 it was known, if not at once, most certainly before 
 very long, to the British Government. For reasons 
 of state, however, it was decided to hush up the 
 affair. High personages were, perhaps, involved, and 
 d'Antraigues was, without doubt, mixed up in it. It 
 was on that account that, when he was killed, the 
 authorities in London at once took possession of his 
 papers.^ 
 
 Such are the principal accounts which have ap- 
 peared of this mysterious business. None of them, 
 it will be observed, contains any information derived 
 from the diplomatic correspondence of the period. 
 But, before entering upon that unexplored field of 
 research, it will be necessary shortly to describe the 
 condition of Prussia and to explain how some kind 
 of a political intercourse was maintained between 
 England and that country, in spite of the continental 
 system. At Tilsit, Prussia may be said to have 
 forfeited her place among the sovereign and inde- 
 pendent states of Europe. In addition to submitting 
 to loss of territory, she was under the necessity of 
 maintaining a French army of occupation, until she 
 could pay off the crushing indemnity imposed upon 
 her. Moreover, she was compelled to close her ports 
 to British ships and to discontinue all diplomatic 
 relations with this country. The treaty had already 
 
 ^ P. M. Desmarest, Quinze Ans de Haute Police, edition anotee par 
 Leonce Grasilier, pp. 211-218.
 
 48 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 been concluded when Mr Gailike, the newly appointed 
 British Minister, arrived at Memel, where Frederick 
 William's Court was, at the time, estabhshed. He 
 did not, immediately, return, but remained on, for 
 some few weeks, in a kind of semi-official position, 
 without presenting his letters of credence. Von Golz, 
 however, the Foreign Minister, was soon constrained 
 to inform him that the French would tolerate no eva- 
 sions of the treaty. This news came as no surprise to 
 him, and he made his arrangements accordingly. " I 
 have taken leave," he reported on November 28th, 
 " as it were accidentally in a public walk.''^ 
 
 Before departing, Mr Garlike arranged that his 
 duties should be carried on, so far as circumstances 
 would permit, by a certain Mr Lewis de Drusina, 
 a merchant, who for many years had acted as British 
 consul at Konigsberg and Memel. This gentleman, 
 a British subject apparently, contrived, during the 
 whole time the Court was at Konigsberg, to keep 
 Canning fairly well informed about events in Prussia. 
 He laboured, however, under great difficulties. The 
 utmost secrecy had to be observed in all his relations 
 with the Prussian ministers. Nor was it always an 
 easy matter to send such news, as he could gather, 
 to the British fleet in the Baltic for transmission to 
 this country. As time went on, however, a regular 
 system of communication appears to have been 
 established with Heligoland. But Konigsberg itself 
 was so infested with French spies that, before long, 
 Drusina adopted the precaution of signing all hi& 
 despatches in the name of '' Heinrich Hahn." ^ 
 
 ^ F.0. 64/70. Garlike to Canning'^ November 16th, 1807, November 
 28tb, 1807. 
 
 2 Ihid. Drusina to Canning, November 14tb, loO}!.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 49 
 
 In 1808, the rising of the Spanish people against the 
 French invaders, and the success which crowned their 
 first endeavours, awoke new hopes in Prussia. When 
 it was evident that Austria meant to take advantage 
 of Bonaparte's embarrassments, the patriotic party, 
 headed by the famous Stein,i urged upon the King 
 that Prussia must take part in the great struggle 
 which was impending. But Frederick William, cowed 
 by the misfortunes and the humiliations of the past 
 two years, could not bring himself to listen to these 
 bold counsels. And he was soon to be deprived of 
 the services of the minister whose advice he now 
 rejected. Stein's attitude was quickly known to 
 Bonaparte. A letter, in which he imprudently 
 alluded to Spanish affairs and talked of insurrection- 
 ary movements in Northern Germany, was seized by 
 the French military authorities. Before the end of 
 the year, a decree of proscription had been launched 
 against him, his estates in Westphalia had been con- 
 fiscated, and he himself was a fugitive on Austrian 
 territory. He was well advised thus to place himself 
 in safety. Bonaparte had given instructions that, if 
 captured, he was to be shot.-^ 
 
 Meanwhile, the King had ratified a new convention 
 which, while it imposed fresh burdens upon his 
 country, provided for its so-called evacuation. But 
 this concession was of a very limited character. 
 French garrisons were still to be retained at strategic 
 points — at Magdeburg and at the fortresses upon the 
 Oder. The King's action aroused much bitterness 
 
 ^ Henry Frederick Charles, Barou vom und zum Stein. Prussian 
 statesman born at Nassau 1757. His reforms, which included the 
 abolition of serfdom and of caste privileges, laid the foundations of 
 the modern Prussian State. 
 
 ^ L. Lecestre, Lettres Inedites de Napoleon ler., i. p. 259. 
 
 D
 
 50 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 m patriotic circles. It required no great discernment 
 to perceive that Bonaparte's need for troops was 
 such, that he must, in any case, have reduced the 
 strength of his army of occupation. When, in the 
 early spring of 1809, Austria began hostilities, many 
 of the most enlightened officers in Prussia were of 
 opinion that, even should the King refuse to sanction 
 it, an attempt must be made to shake off the foreign 
 yoke. 
 
 At the time when the Austrian war broke out, a 
 Prussian officer, Colonel von Kleist,i presented him- 
 self at the Foreign Office and laid before Canning the 
 scheme of an insurrectionary movement in Northern 
 Germany. The party which he represented proposed 
 to base their operations upon a British fleet which, 
 it was suggested, should be stationed at the mouth of 
 the Elbe. The plan provided for the establishment 
 of depots of arms, clothing and equipment at Heligo- 
 land, and £50,000 w^as named as the sum which would 
 be needed to meet immediate requirements. The 
 British Government was under a pledge to create a 
 powerful diversion in favour of Austria, and this took 
 the form of the ill-starred expedition to Walcheren, 
 preparations for which were already being made. 
 But, although the Cabinet had refused to entertain 
 the Austrian proposal that British troops should be 
 landed on the coast of Germany, a movement in that 
 country against the common enemy must, necessarily, 
 add to his difficulties and was, consequently, to be 
 encouraged. Most of Kleist's demands were, accord- 
 ingly, agreed to, but only £30,000 was granted as 
 
 ^ Friedrich Heinrich Ferdinand, Count Kleist von NoUendorf, 
 frreatly distinguished himself in War of Liberation. Member of an 
 old military family in Prussia.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 51 
 
 pecuniary assistance. Matters having thus been 
 settled, Kleist himself suggested that some person, 
 in whom the Government had confidence, should be 
 sent to Prussia to act as the intermediary between 
 his party and the Foreign Office in London.^ 
 
 The man selected to proceed, under these conditions, 
 to Berlin was a German, probably a Prussian, of 
 the name of Maimburg. All that it is possible to 
 say about him is that some of his letters are signed 
 " A. Maimburg, Captain 1st Light Battalion, King's 
 German Legion." - His instructions for the mission 
 he was now invited to undertake, prescribed that he 
 was to inquire into, and report upon, the general 
 disposition of the people in Prussia, while devoting 
 special attention to ascertaining whether the projects 
 of Kleist and his friends had the approval of the 
 supreme authority. Should this not be the case, 
 he was to hold out no hopes of encouragement in the 
 name of the British Government. But, should it 
 prove that their plans had been laid " with the entire 
 knowledge and consent of the Court of Berhn," he 
 was empowered to give them " every assurance of 
 good will and assistance." ^ Maimburg, however, 
 required more precise information on three points, 
 and as, in the original document. Canning's answers 
 appear in pencil in the margin, it is evident that they 
 went through his instructions together. 
 
 ^ F.O. 64/80. Kleist to Canning, April 1809. 
 
 * In the list of officers given in the second volume, page 607, of 
 Beamish's History of the King's German Legion, Augustus Maimburg 
 is shown at the time of the disbandment of the Legion in 1816 as a 
 <:aptain in the Foreign Veteran Battalion. He appears to have served 
 in the Peninsula and in the Netherlands in 1814-1815 and to have 
 died at Paris, January 5th, 183G. 
 
 ' F.O. 04/80. Canning to Maimburg, April 24th, 181'J.
 
 52 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 In the question of the King's approval, was he to 
 insist upon a written assurance to that effect from 
 one of the ministers ? No. 
 
 Might he be satisfied with an indirect intimation 
 that he secretly agrees ? Yes. 
 
 If the heads of the insurrection be men of the first 
 respectability, might he not conclude that the King 
 approves ? Yes, unless any circumstances come to 
 his knowledge to the contrary. Before he embarked, 
 it had been arranged that he should sign his reports 
 alternately in the names of " William Fahle," " John 
 Dewit," and " Karl Schaedler." i 
 
 While these matters had been under discussion in 
 London, risings against the French had taken place 
 in Northern Germany. In Hesse, Baron von Dorn- 
 berg's insurrection was suppressed without difficulty. 
 But, in the first instance, some measure of success 
 attended the more ambitious attempts of the Duke 
 of Brunswick-Oels - and the Prussian major. Von 
 Schill. Eventually, however, Brunswick and his 
 followers were driven to seek refuge on board some 
 British ships at the mouth of the Weser, while, on 
 May 31st, Schill's force was obliged to surrender at 
 Stralsund. He himself was killed in action, blit 
 those of his officers who were taken alive were 
 arraigned before a French Court Martial and shot 
 at Wesel. Maimburg's first report was, consequently, 
 made under the combined influence of these depress- 
 ing events and of the ill success which had attended 
 the Austrian arms. " The unfortunate issue of 
 Schill's croisade,'" he wrote on September 22nd, 
 
 1 F.O. 64/80. iMaimburg to Canning, August 5th, 1809. 
 
 2 Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Oels, killed at Quatra 
 Bras, June] 16th, 1815.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 53 
 
 *' and the frequent fuzillades of the French have 
 greatly damped the effervescence of a nation naturally 
 little inclined to patriotic or any other enthusiasm." 
 But, as regards Kleist's party, or committee as he 
 described it, it undoubtedly fulfilled those conditions 
 which Canning had laid down as essential. Officers 
 of the highest reputation, such as Bliicher,^ Gneisnau,^ 
 and Chasot,^ were members of it, and the King un- 
 questionably " was secretly in touch with it." To 
 his regret, however, he was forced to admit that he 
 was grievously disappointed in Kleist. Not only 
 was he vain, indiscreet and quarrelsome, but Bliicher 
 warned him that he was a gambler and a man of 
 desperate fortunes.* Some three weeks later came 
 the news that Austria had made peace, and he con- 
 ceived, in consequence, that it was both " unnecessary 
 and undesirable " that he should stay any longer in 
 Prussia. In these circumstances, as some time must 
 elapse before he could receive instructions from 
 London, he had ventured to apply to Mr Bathurst 
 for directions. " From Kleist's correspondence he 
 perceived that that gentleman was aware of his 
 mission to Berhn, and was fully informed of what 
 
 1 Gebhardt Lebrecht von Bliicher^ afterwards Prince and Field- 
 Marshal, commanded in War of Liberation and at VVaterloo. 
 
 * Augustus Neidhardt von Gneisnau, Chief of the Staff to Bliicher 
 in War of Liberation and at Waterloo. One of the chief founders of 
 the Prussian military system which was put an end to by the Treaty 
 of Versailles. 
 
 ^ Chasot, Count Louis (1763-1813), exchanged from French Regi- 
 ment Royal Allemand into Prussian service in 1780. His father had 
 been a friend of Frederick the Great. He himself was on terms of 
 friendship with Stein. 
 
 * F.O. 64/80. Maimburg to Canning, September 22nd, 1809. 
 Bliicher might have been expected to have had a fellow feeling for 
 Kleist's love of gambling.
 
 54 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was intended." He had entrusted this letter to a 
 messenger who had set out for Buda with despatches.^ 
 While he was awaiting Bathurst's instructions, 
 Maimburg drew Mr Canning's attention to an EngKsh- 
 man, residing in Berlin, who was anxious to be of 
 service to His Majesty's Government. He enclosed 
 a letter from him and begged to recommend him 
 most strongly. " He is," he wrote, " personally 
 acquainted with, and, I may say, caressed by, the 
 principal people on the continent, not exclusive of 
 royalty. His political principles and personal char- 
 acter are so well known that they need not be 
 mentioned. He signs himself ' Gotlieb Muller,' but 
 I shall cipher his real name upon the subjoining 
 page." - The gentleman in question was Mr George 
 Galway Mills of Thoby Priory,^ Essex, who, for some 
 years, had sat in the House of Commons as one of 
 the members for the borough of Michael in Cornwall. 
 Having resigned his seat, early in 1808, he appears 
 to have lived, since that time, continuously abroad. 
 In the letter, forwarded by Maimburg, in which he 
 tendered his services, he thus describes his qualifica- 
 tions : "I have intimate relations with Hungary, 
 Austria, Saxony, Russia and Switzerland. . . . 
 Furnished with American and other papers I can 
 travel through the greater part of the continent 
 without risk. As I have always been accustomed 
 to mix in the great world I can continue so to do, 
 without giving umbrage or creating the least sus- 
 picion, or, under the plea of delicate health, I can 
 
 1 F.O. 04/80. Maimburg to Canning, Octo1)er 19th, 1809. 
 
 * Ibid. Maimburg to Canning, November 7th, 1809. 
 
 * He is so described in the list of members of Parliament. But I 
 think he can only have leased Thoby Priory, which is near Ingatestone : 
 it would never appear to have belonged to him.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 55 
 
 live in the most retired manner." He made no 
 stipulations about salar}^ that being a matter which 
 he left to His Majesty's Government. But, should 
 his offer be accepted, he requested that a note might 
 be sent him saying " that his orders should be attended 
 to forthwith, signed John Smith & Son, Tower Street, 
 London." This communication was to be addressed 
 to— 
 
 M. George Mills, 
 
 Negociant Americain, 
 
 Messrs Shickler, banquiers,^ 
 a Berlin. 
 
 Seeing that he, henceforward, replaced Drusina as 
 the agent of the British Government in Prussia, it 
 must be assumed that Mr Mills duly received the note 
 from '• John Smith & Son," couched in the terms 
 which he had suggested. But it is a most significant 
 fact that the whole of the correspondence with Berlin 
 is missing, from early in December 1809 until the 
 beginning of the following January, that is for the 
 month in which inquiries were being made into the 
 fate of the missing Bathurst. In this same montli 
 the Prussian Court returned to Berlin, which the 
 King had not visited since he fled from it at the 
 approach of the French, in 1806. Drusina, writing 
 from Konigsberg, on December 18th, announces its 
 departure and expresses his intention of following it 
 to Berlin, " as soon as he can without exciting sus- 
 picion." He proposes to make the journey " by 
 way of Pomerania and Hamburg, and to be very 
 cautious." He is advised, however, that he must 
 expect that " those to whom he had free access here 
 
 * F.O. 64/80. Mills to Hammond, October 20tb, 180!>.
 
 56 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 will be very backward to see him there." ^ It is 
 impossible to say whether he carried out his intention, 
 or whether, before he set out, he received an intima- 
 tion from London that his services would not be 
 required at Berlin. No letter to that effect appears 
 to exist. All that can be said about the matter is 
 that, towards the end of December 1809, his con- 
 nection with the Foreign Office seems to have ceased 
 altogether. 
 
 It is necessary at this stage to point out that, in 
 the last three months of the year 1809, there were 
 no less than three Secretaries of State for Foreign 
 Affairs. In consequence of his quarrel and his duel 
 with Castlereagh, Canning resigned, in October, and 
 was replaced by Lord Bathurst. Within less than 
 two months, however, he was transferred to another 
 post, and the seals of the Foreign Office passed, on 
 December 6th, to Lord Wellesley.^ A letter of MiUs ^ 
 contains internal evidence that the decision to em- 
 ploy him was taken in Lord Bathurst's time. But, 
 inasmuch as the news of Mr Bathurst's disappearance 
 only reached London in the middle of January 1810, 
 Lord Wellesley must clearly have been responsible 
 for the attitude which was adopted in regard to the 
 missing envoy. It is reasonable to suppose, however, 
 that all the facts of the case were disclosed to Lord 
 Bathiust, who, presumably, gave his approval to the 
 course which was pursued. 
 
 Although his most important letters relating to 
 Bathurst's disappearance have been suppressed, Mills' 
 
 ^ F.O. 64/80. Drusina to Lord Bathurst, December 18th, 1809. 
 * Richard Colley, Marquis Wellesley (1760-1842), elder brother of 
 first Duke of Wellington, Governor-General of India 1797-1805. 
 3 F.O. 64/82. Mills to Culling-Smith, February 20th, 1810.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 57 
 
 correspondence, as it exists, does throw additional 
 light upon the mystery. Bathurst, on his way to 
 Perleberg, spent, probably about November 20th, a 
 day or two in Berlin. No meeting, however, took 
 place between him and IVIills. Yet Mills was, un- 
 doubtedly, desirous of seeing him. In one of his 
 letters, signed " GottUeb Miiller," and dated 
 November 4th, he says that he is in possession of 
 some information of so important and delicate a 
 nature that he dare not commit it to paper, but, 
 should Mr Bathurst pass through Berlin, he proposes 
 " to communicate with that gentleman very fully 
 on the subject." ^ There is nothing to show how 
 Bathurst employed his time in Berlin, except that, 
 according to Maimburg, he went to the theatre, 
 where he talked so loudly in English that his friends 
 were constrained to warn him of the imprudence of 
 his conduct. Mrs Bathurst, however, says that the 
 Comte de Bombelle,^ and Krause, the messenger, 
 deny the truth of this story.^ In regard to Bathurst's 
 health and condition of mind Mills alleges " that he 
 had been fully led to believe that, for some time 
 previous to his reaching Perleberg, he had been in 
 a very alarming state." He adds, moreover, that 
 Dr Armstrong, an EngHsh doctor, who was staying 
 in Berhn, " received an account to the same effect 
 from the lips of Krause," and as he had the advantage 
 of seeing Mr Bathurst, he should be in a position " to 
 speak most fully on the subject. This gentleman 
 returned to England in June last.^ . . ." 
 
 Krause, the messenger, it will be remembered, 
 
 * F.O. 64/80. Mills to Lord Bathurst, November 4th, 1809. 
 ^ Secretary of the Austrian Embassy in Berlin. 
 
 * F.O. 64/82. Mrs Bathurst to Mills, July 28th, 1810. 
 
 * Ibid. Mills to Mrs Bathurst, August 10th, 1810.
 
 58 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 had been allowed by Klitzing to leave Perleberg 
 about December lOtli.^ When he arrived in Berlin, 
 he reported himself to Mills who, assisted by the 
 Hanoverian diplomatist, Baron Ompteda,-^ proceeded 
 to subject him to a searching examination. Having 
 extracted what information he could from him, he 
 set out himself for Perleberg, in order to continue 
 his inquiries on the spot. But he was back in Berlin, 
 before December 20th, seeing that, on that date, 
 he embodied the news which he had gathered in a 
 despatch which, with Krause's deposition, was carried 
 to England by Maimburg. The fact of Mills' visit 
 to Perleberg is disclosed in Maimburg's report, dated 
 January 15th, 1810, which he submitted to the Foreign 
 Office, immediately on his arrival in London. Speak- 
 ing of the £30,000, the expenditure of which it had 
 been his business to supervise, he mentions incident- 
 ally that the expenses of Mills' recent journey to 
 Perleberg had been defrayed from this fund.^ 
 
 As may be supposed, Mills' despatch of December 
 20th and Krause's deposition have both been sup- 
 pressed. But, in a letter dated August 12th, 1810, 
 which has been preserved, he makes a significant 
 disclosure concerning this last document. Referring 
 to a correspondence in which he was at the time 
 engaged with Mrs Bathurst, he writes as follows to 
 Lord Wellesley : " As I understand that His Majesty's 
 Government have not thought proper to communi- 
 
 1 Vide, p. 42. 
 
 * Baron Onipteda obtained some notoriety in 1821 in the course of 
 tlie Queen's trial. He had been employed to collect evidence against 
 her in Italy. His proceedings were denounced by Denman in his 
 speecli for the defence in very strong and, probably, in quite un- 
 justifiable terms. 
 
 » F.O. <;4/82. Maimburg to C. Smith, January loth, 1«10.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 59 
 
 cate to that lady the deposition made by K. before 
 Baron Ompteda and myself of which Dewitt (Maim- 
 bm'g) was the bearer, you will observe that I have 
 given no information on the subject." ^ 
 
 Mills' correspondence in February, 1810, includes 
 the following despatch : 
 
 " Berlin, Feiruary 17, 1810. 
 " My Lord, 
 
 The French Minister has this morning com- 
 municated to me a letter from Mrs Bathurst to 
 Bonaparte written under the full impression of her 
 husband being still alive and a prisoner. She asks 
 his liberty in the most emphatic terms, but, should 
 questions of state forbid his enlargement she then 
 entreats that she may be permitted to share his 
 captivity. This letter is dated London, January 27, 
 and was conveyed to France by Prince Starhemberg.- 
 M. de Champagny ^ informed M. de Saint-Marsan that 
 he is ordered to make every possible research and to 
 address Mrs Bathurst acquainting her with the com- 
 mands he has received. Saint-Marsan can unhappily 
 do no more than send copies of the fwces verbal and 
 of the protocol, for I grieve to inform your Lordship 
 that, although the research still continues without 
 the least relaxation, and, although I have promised 
 a more considerable sum than was mentioned in my 
 letter of December 20th, no intelligence whatever has 
 been obtained. Saint-Marsan has requested that I 
 would, also, write a few lines to that lady giving a 
 
 1 F.O. 64/82. Mills to Wellesley, August 12th, 1810. 
 
 - Austrian ambassador in London. Recalled in consequence of the 
 terms of the Peace of Schonbrunn, which debarred Austria from 
 diplomatic relations with England. 
 
 Champagny, Due de Cadore, French Foreign Minister.
 
 60 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 precis of the steps taken since that unhappy affair 
 was communicated to me by Comte de Golz, and 
 that he would forward them with his packet to 
 M. Bourrienne, at Hamburg. 
 
 '' V.S.— February 20, 1810 
 
 " As I understand that M. de Saint-Marsan has 
 refused a copy of Mrs Bathurst's letter to Comte de 
 Golz, I do not choose to excite suspicion by making 
 the intended request. On the other page, your 
 Lordship will find a copy of my letter to that lady, 
 which I this day dehvered into the hands of M. de 
 Saint-Marsan, of which, however, he did not ask to 
 have the smallest extract." 
 
 The body of this letter requires no comment. But, 
 in regard to the postscriptum, it is difficult to under- 
 stand why Mills should fear to excite suspicion by 
 asking for a copy of Mrs Bathurst's letter to 
 Bonaparte, because Saint-Marsan had dechned to 
 give one to Von Golz. Nor is it clear whether he 
 be afraid of arousing the suspicions of the Prussian 
 Foreign Minister or of Saint-Marsan ? Either con- 
 struction can, it seems, be placed upon his words. 
 The copy of his letter to Mrs Bathurst, which 
 he says will be found " on the other page," has 
 disappeared. 
 
 This despatch estabhshes the curious fact that 
 Mills was recognised by the French Minister as the 
 British representative at Berhn. Now, in all the 
 states upon which Bonaparte had succeeded in im- 
 posing his continental system, no agent of the Enghsh 
 Government was allowed to reside. It must be 
 assumed, therefore, that Mills contrived to pass him- 
 self off as an American citizen, who took charge of
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 61 
 
 the interests of any British subjects Uving in, or pass- 
 ing through, Prussia. It will be remembered that, 
 in his letter of October SOth,^ in which he proffered 
 his services to the Government, he mentions that he 
 was in possession of American papers and desired that 
 he should be addressed as a " negociant americain.^^ 
 That this is the true explanation of his position is 
 rendered the more probable by a partially ciphered 
 despatch, dated January 18th, and signed " Gottlieb 
 Miiller," in which he gives the result of a secret com- 
 munication, which he had opened up with the King, 
 through the intermediary of Baron Jacobi, the former 
 Prussian ambassador in London. The King, the 
 Baron was able to inform him, desired " to maintain 
 the most amicable relations with Great Britain, but 
 these relations must remain an impenetrable secret, 
 because at the least suspicion of their existence on 
 the part of the French his pohtical existence as 
 sovereign would be exposed to the greatest dangers. 
 . . . His Majesty would be always pleased to welcome 
 him at his Court as an American, but the greatest 
 care must be exercised against arousing the suspicions 
 of the French Legation." ^ 
 
 In addition to such inquiries into the fate of 
 Bathurst as Mills had instituted, a most diUgent 
 search for the missing man was at this time being 
 conducted by a Mr I. M. Johnson. This gentleman 
 had been employed on secret service in Austria and, 
 after the peace of Schonbrunn, had received the 
 following letter from Mr Hammond ^ addressed to 
 him under the name of " Mr G. A. Roemer " : 
 
 1 Vide, p. 54. 
 
 2 P\0. G4/82. Mills to Wellesley, January IStli, IHIO. 
 ^ Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
 
 62 FOUR FAiMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 " London, Novemher 6, 1809. 
 " Dear Sir, 
 
 You will probably have learnt before this 
 letter reaches you that the partnership under whose 
 flireetion you have been acting is dissolved and that 
 the business is now conducted by other persons con- 
 nected with the firm. . . . The most advisable course 
 for you to pursue is to return home immediately. . . . 
 
 I am, etc. etc. 
 
 Frederic Bensberg." ^ 
 
 Mr Johnson, accordingly, set out for England and 
 arrived at Hamburg about the end of the year. Here 
 he was apprised of Mr Bathurst's disappearance and, 
 immediately, abandoned his intention of proceeding 
 on his journey. In the course of the next few months, 
 he paid no less than three visits to Perleberg, where 
 he remained, on the last occasion, for a period of 
 six weeks. In prosecuting his inquiries he was acting, 
 apparently, without instructions and wholly upon his 
 own initiative. Presumably, he was impelled to take 
 this trouble by motives of friendship for Bathurst, 
 whose acquaintance he had, doubtless, made while 
 they had both been in Austria. Probably, also, he 
 was under the impression that his efforts to unravel 
 the mystery could not but meet with the warm 
 approval of His Majesty's Government. Be that as 
 it may, it is evident that Mills deprecated his pro- 
 longed visits to Perleberg as unlikely to be productive 
 of any useful result and as calculated to cause annoy- 
 ance to the Prussian authorities. Already he had 
 reason to fear " that Count von Golz was rather hurt 
 that he had never received any acknowledgment 
 
 1 F.O. 7/02. Hammond to Johnson, November 6tli, 1809.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 63 
 
 from jMr Bathurst's family for an attention on his 
 part that fully entitled him to the utmost considera- 
 tion." ^ Unfortunately, he omits to specify the 
 particular act of the Prussian Minister which had, 
 in his opinion, rendered him so deserving of the 
 Bathursts' gratitude. 
 
 It is impossible to doubt that Mr Johnson, on more 
 than one occasion, must have rendered some account 
 of his investigations to the Foreign Office. But no 
 reports of this nature can now be found. It is only 
 by the allusions to them in Mills' correspondence that 
 his visits to Perleberg are revealed. The draft of a 
 cu'cular, which Mills enclosed with his despatch of 
 March Gth,^ was, probably, composed by Johnson. 
 It is drawn up in French and is, apparently, in his 
 handwriting, and it is not unlikely that, on the 
 occasion of his last visit to Perleberg, he caused 
 copies of it to be distributed. It offers a reward for 
 information respecting " Vindividu qui a disjmni de 
 Perleberg le 25 du mois de Novembrey If he can be 
 found ahve 3000 crowns will be paid, and, if he be 
 dead, 500 crowns will be given to an3^one who can 
 discover his body. A reward is also promised for 
 information respecting anyone who may have changed 
 some ducats or offered an Enghsh watch for sale. 
 Four times the price given will be paid to any person 
 who may have bought such a watch. It will be 
 observed that, as late as March 1810, Bathurst is 
 not described by name, but merely as " the indi- 
 vidual who disappeared from Perleberg." 
 
 Of far greater importance, however, than this 
 
 ^ F.O. 64/82. Mills to ^\'ellesley, March 6th, 1810 ; March 17th, 
 1810 ; May .5th, 1810. 
 * Ibid. Mills to Wellesley, March 0th, 1810.
 
 64 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 circular are the copies of the proceedings, before the 
 civil authorities at Perleberg, which Johnson suc- 
 ceeded in procuring. They are not to be found with 
 the Berlin correspondence, but are among the des- 
 patches marked Austria, secret, Mr /. M, Johnson, 
 June 1808 to 'November 30, 1810. It is evident, 
 therefore, that they were sent by Johnson direct to 
 the Foreign Office, but his letter which must, as- 
 suredly, have accompanied them has, unfortunately, 
 been suppressed. It is probable that they are the 
 documents which Mills described in his despatch of 
 February 17th, as " the yroces verbal and the pro- 
 tocol." The depositions of Dr Benff and of the 
 postmaster Francke, who both had opportunities of 
 observing Bathurst at Perleberg, are of considerable 
 importance. 
 
 Dr Benff deposed as follows : 
 
 " As I was staying on the 25th of last month in 
 the afternoon, in the post house here, on account of 
 my own business, I met there a stranger, of good 
 appearance, of middle age, tall, and very decently 
 dressed, who was walking both in the post house and 
 in the open street with Major von KUtzing, the 
 commandant here, in conversation mth him. As I 
 was desirous of talking to Major von Klitzing, and 
 had waited, vainly, a quarter of an hour, for the 
 conversation of the two gentlemen to cease, I had 
 time and opportunity enough to remark the anxious, 
 uneasy and shy look of the stranger which, when I, 
 at last, accosted Major von KHtzing and, thereby 
 stood a moment with both the said gentlemen, struck 
 me as still gloomier and more apprehensive. Al- 
 though I had no further knowledge of this strange
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 65 
 
 man, his mad look was so present in my mind, that 
 I remember, the same evening, in company with 
 Major von Klitzing, I asked him, ' What has become 
 of your mad friend of to-day ? ' Whereto I could 
 not of course expect an answer. Nevertheless, I am 
 fully conscious that I put that question with the 
 thought and opinion that the stranger I had seen that 
 afternoon in conversation with Major von KHtzing 
 was an anxious, ill, hypochondriacal or even mad man, 
 for which, however, I had no other ground than the 
 practical glance which a doctor acquires in a twenty 
 years' practice. 
 
 (Signed) O. Benff, 
 
 Dr of Medicine and Surgery. 
 " Perleberg, 18 December 1809. 
 
 (Endorsed) Herr Hauptmann von Klitzing." 
 
 On this same day, December 18th. " the King's Post 
 Secretary Francke was at the requisition of the town 
 major. Major von KHtzing, examined about the 
 stranger, presumed to be named Koch, who arrived, 
 in the evening of November 25th, by extra-post and 
 disappeared from the post house here." The said 
 Francke having been sworn deposed as follows : 
 
 " The man who has disappeared arrived on the 
 said day in company with another and with a 
 servant by extra-post from Kletzeke, but I did not 
 even see him get out of the carriage. However, 
 about two hours later, I saw him with Major von 
 Klitzing coming to the post-house. He was, accord- 
 ing to my estimation, about six feet in height, of 
 slender build, had short hair, a smooth face, a well- 
 shaped nose, small mouth, wore a small moustache, 
 and had a very healthy complexion, a very friendly 
 
 £
 
 66 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 appearance, and in my opinion was a handsome man. 
 I did not notice the colour of his hair and of his 
 eyes. 
 
 *' He wore a fur with white border, which pre- 
 vented me from observing his other clothes, but I 
 noticed that he wore long trousers of a dark colour 
 over his boots. 
 
 '' When he came with Herr von Khtzing he went 
 straight into the travellers' room (coffee room ?) 
 Between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening, on the said 
 day, I went to him in the travellers' room and told 
 him that he could not lodge as he had intended in 
 the post-house, but I said that I could recommend 
 him a good inn. He answered me, however, that he 
 could not leave the post-house as he had unpacked 
 all his papers and had still to write. As a fact I 
 found him writing at the table and the whole table 
 was covered with papers. 
 
 " His companion sat beside him at the table and 
 translated the above given answer of the stranger 
 into German, of which the latter was not completely 
 master. 
 
 *' As he was desirous of remaining at the post-house, 
 I asked him whether he could manage with one 
 room, and he answered that he would be content 
 with the travellers' room only. 
 
 " I, thereupon, left him, but soon returned and 
 told him that a room for him and his companion had 
 been prepared. 
 
 " He answered, still sitting at the table writing, 
 ' That is good, I have still to write,' and begged me 
 to have some supper got ready for him. During 
 this conversation his companion still sat at the table, 
 and here I left the travellers' room.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 67 
 
 " I thereupon went to my office, and at 8 o'clock 
 left the post-house to visit a friend without having 
 seen him again. 
 
 " Towards 9 o'clock of the evening of the same 
 day, I heard from the wife of the wagenmeister 
 Schmidt, who came to me to the house of Burgo- 
 master Meincke, where I then happened to be, that 
 the stranger was being sought for, and came to ask 
 me whether he was perhaps here in the Burgomaster 
 Meincke's house. I answered her query in the nega- 
 tive, and the seeking of the stranger in Meincke's 
 house seemed to me strange and even ridiculous. I 
 told her, however, to go to Major von Khtzing, where 
 she would perhaps find him. 
 
 " I remained with the Burgomaster Meincke, tell- 
 ing Mrs Schmidt as she left that, if she learnt any- 
 thing about the stranger, to come and tell me. Hear- 
 ing nothing, however, I left and went, just after 
 10 o'clock the same evening, to the post-house and 
 made inquiries as to the stranger's whereabouts, and 
 learnt that he was still being sought, and that mes- 
 sengers had been sent to all parts of the town and 
 €ven the country round to find him. 
 
 " While making these inquiries, I heard from the 
 maid-servant in the post-house that the companion 
 of the vanished stranger had burnt that evening in 
 the kitchen, on the stove, many papers, and especially 
 a bundle of letters sealed with many seals, without 
 either the stranger or the man-servant being present. 
 That is all I can depose about the stranger. 
 
 " Read, ratified and signed, 
 
 V. Klitzing. a. Francke, 
 
 T. Daumann, 
 Prot. Jurat."
 
 68 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 " The post secretary Francke has further deposed : 
 
 " It has further occurred to me that, according to 
 the accounts of the maid-servant in the post-house, 
 the companion of the stranger came, not once but 
 three times, on the aforesaid evening and burnt papers- 
 and letters sealed with many seals in the stove, also, 
 I remember too that the said companion on burning 
 some letters the first time left ' a pompadour ' lying 
 on the stove and, according to the remembrance of 
 the maid-servant, took this bag with him after he had 
 come the second time and burnt some letters. 
 
 " All this I only heard from the girl in the post- 
 house, but thought myself called upon to notify the 
 same, as I did not remember this exactly at my 
 deposition to-day, and, therefore, had to consider it 
 and make inquiries. 
 
 " Read, ratified and signed. 
 
 A. Francke, 
 T. Daumann, 
 Prot. Jurat." 
 
 " That the foregoing copies were found to be 
 identical with the original protocols at to-day's close 
 examination is attested by us. 
 
 Perleberg, 18 December 1809. 
 
 The Court of Law of the Town. 
 Seal of 
 the Court of Perleberg." 
 
 The depositions of the two women Wiede and 
 Grundmann who discovered Bathurst's trousers in 
 the wood need not be quoted. All that they had to- 
 say has been given at an earlier stage of this narrative.^ 
 
 1 Vide p. 42.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 69 
 
 They describe the half -finished letter as a paper mth 
 writing upon it, found in the watch-pocket of the 
 trousers. Apparently, they could neither read nor 
 write, and could not, therefore, of their own knowledge 
 .speak of its contents. 
 
 Nothing further in regard to the matter was, seem- 
 ingly, allowed to transpire. In addition to the sworn 
 statements of these four persons, Dr Benff, the post- 
 master, and the two women, the documents contain 
 an enumeration of the various measures, — the search- 
 ing of suspicious houses and the draining of the river 
 Stepnitz, undertaken for the purpose of discovering 
 some trace of the missing stranger. They also in- 
 clude a copy of a notice " handed in duplicate to the 
 two district messengers Peters and Deich, for circula- 
 tion in the open country." It runs as follows : 
 
 " On the evening of November 25th, a stranger left 
 the post-house here, and, since that time, not the 
 smallest trace of him has been brought to light. On 
 the part of the family of the missing stranger, a 
 reward of 500 crowns is offered, which will be paid 
 in cash to whosoever can give certain and reliable 
 information of the life or death of this stranger. 
 
 '" If anyone has perhaps found him dead and out 
 of greed has taken possession of the money and other 
 effects of the missing man, but has secreted and made 
 away with the body, such a one, if he produces the 
 body, provided there is no suspicion that he murdered 
 him or took part in his murder, shall not only receive 
 a full pardon for the secreting of him, but shall also 
 receive the promised reward of 500 crowns without 
 deduction. 
 
 The missing man was tall and slender, had
 
 70 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 brown hair, was about 28 years of age, wore dark 
 grey long trousers, and probably a short grey coat 
 with braid and a fur cap. 
 
 " All villages, courts of law and communities are 
 asked most urgently, in the case of any news of 
 the stranger, or of his dead body, to communicate 
 promptly mth the Commandant here, Major von 
 KUtzing. 
 
 The Magistrate. 
 
 " Perleberg, December 18, 1809." 
 
 Lastly, there is a list of Bathurst's effects which, 
 beginning with his carriage, " a half -calash painted 
 green on the outside and lined with grey medley," 
 includes his tooth brushes and other minute articles 
 of toilet. These, after they had been checked by 
 KUtzing himself, were packed in two travelHng trunks, 
 sealed and placed in the carriage. This inventory 
 was taken on December 9th, and it is, therefore, not 
 improbable that all Bathurst's property was, the next 
 day, handed over to Krause who, doubtless, carried 
 it with him to Berlin. One point only in connection 
 with this matter seems to deserve special notice, — no 
 mention is made of any pistols. In view of the 
 dangerous condition of the roads, and of his state of 
 nervous apprehension, it is difficult to believe, however, 
 that Bathurst travelled unarmed. It would appear, 
 consequently, that, at the time when he disappeared, 
 he must have had his pistols about him. 
 
 Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the story 
 which these documents tell of the inquiry into the 
 fate of Mr Bathurst. It may be that the magistrates 
 prosecuted the search for his body with some degree 
 of vigour, but it is quite clear that they were not
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 71 
 
 allowed to carry out anything in the shape of a 
 thorough investigation into the circumstances in 
 which he disappeared. It is plain that they were 
 given no opportunity of examining Krause, and it 
 has been related how the vials of KUtzing's wrath 
 were poured out upon them because, in his absence, 
 they had ventured to interrogate the valet, liberty 
 No inquiry appears to have been directed to ascertain 
 whether any other strangers or travellers were pre- 
 sent at Perleberg on November 25th. The documents 
 make no mention of the theft of the fur coat nor of 
 the two troopers who, according to all accounts, were 
 sent to guard Bathurst, while he was engaged in 
 writing. No hint is to be found in them of what 
 passed between the missing man and KHtzing when, 
 as Dr Benff testified, they were conversing so earnestly 
 both in the street and at the post-house. Lastly, 
 no depositions were taken until December 18th, that 
 is until more than three weeks after Bathurst had 
 vanished. That date is very significant. Mills 
 visited Perleberg some time between December 15th 
 and 19th, and it may fairly, therefore, be suggested 
 that, but for that circumstance, they would never 
 have been taken at all. 
 
 Mr Johnson returned to England in June, accom- 
 panied by Dr Armstrong,^ who has already been 
 mentioned in connection with Bathurst's stay in 
 Berlin. But investigations were carried on by a 
 German, named Rontgen, who afterwards attained 
 some celebrity as an African explorer. " This person," 
 wrote Mills on May 6th, " has arrived at Perleberg, 
 commissioned by Mrs Bathurst to continue the re- 
 
 » Vide p. 40. 
 
 2 F.O. 64/82. Mills to Mrs Bathurst, August lOtb, 1810.
 
 2 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 searches for six months."^ His efforts, however, 
 were no more successful than those of Johnson. 
 
 In July, Mrs Bathurst, accompanied by her brother 
 Mr Call, paid her visit to Perleberg. Apparently, she 
 and IMills never met, but, on her return to Berlin, an 
 exchange of acrimonious letters took place between 
 them. Mrs Bathurst had, she considered, grave cause 
 to complain of the conduct of Maimburg, whom she 
 knew only by the name of " Rousseau." She had had 
 an interview with him in London, and she was now 
 satisfied that he had, on that occasion, told her 
 " many striking falsehoods." Not content with being 
 " at pains to prove that Mr Bathurst was mad," and 
 with telling the story about his conduct at the theatre, 
 the truth of which the Comte de Bombelle and 
 Krause denied, he had made another false statement. 
 With an impertinence particularly objectionable in 
 a person of his line of life, he had ventured to assert 
 that Mr Bathurst had not called upon Mr Mills, when 
 he was passing through Berlin, because Mr Charles 
 Mills, his brother, had formerly been her " lover." 
 But Krause, who was his authority for this story, 
 gave her a totally different version of the affair. Mr 
 Bathurst, it was true, had said to him, as they were 
 leaving Buda, " I once saw another Mr Mills who, I 
 have heard, was formerly an admirer of Mrs B.," 
 but it was certainly not on that account that he had 
 refrained from calling upon him. That was due, 
 according to Krause, " to langour and fatigue and 
 the necessity of seeing two other gentlemen to whom 
 he brought letters." Mr '' Rousseau " had asserted 
 that he himself had erased from the proces verbal 
 every allusion to this matter. She, therefore, begged 
 
 » F.O. 64/82. Mills to Wellesley, May 6th, 1810.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 73 
 
 Mr Mills to send her a copy of this document, and to 
 tell her whether the man bore her husband any ill- 
 will or nourished " any private enmity against him." 
 '' You have been so obliging," she wrote, " as to exert 
 yourself at first in endeavouring to discover the author 
 of my misfortunes, that I conclude you will have no 
 objection to reply to the questions / am under the 
 necessity of ashing^ ^ 
 
 Mrs Bathurst's request for a copy of the proces 
 verbal was apparently the first intimation which Mills 
 had received that His Majesty's Government had 
 not thought proper to communicate to her Krause's 
 depositions before Baron Ompteda and himself. But, 
 on realising the state of the case, he had been careful, 
 he assured Lord Wellesley, to avoid imparting to her 
 any information on the subject. Later on, in the 
 same letter, he makes another interesting remark. 
 Mrs Bathurst talked of taking Krause to England with 
 her in order to confront him with Maimburg. It was 
 greatly to be hoped that she would carry out her 
 intention, because Krause's " conduct, assuredly, 
 merits the closest investigation." As regards the in- 
 sinuations against himself, contained in Mrs Bathurst's 
 letter, he is prepared, he says, " to treat them as the 
 effusions of a mind bewildered by misfortune." 
 Nevertheless, in replying he makes use of language 
 which is neither considerate nor conciliatory .'^ 
 
 " The anxious and distressed state of mind under 
 which you labour, seemingly, form an excuse for an 
 address so widely different from that which I was 
 so justly entitled to receive on the part of the nearest 
 connection of Mr B. Mr Rousseau, Madam, is well 
 
 ^ F.O. 64/82. Mrs Bathurst to Mills, July 28tb, 1810. 
 2 Ibid. Mills to Wellesley, August 12th, 1810.
 
 74 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 known and highly respected by persons of the first 
 consideration in England. He is a man of the 
 strictest honour and incapable of deviating from the 
 truth. You have observed. Madam, that liis im- 
 perfect knowledge of the English language rendered 
 many of his expressions Hable to misconstruction. I 
 am well satisfied that this is the case now. . . . It is 
 impossible that he can have had any grudge against 
 Mr B., with whom he never had the shghtest intercourse, 
 and if he does not judge most favourably of K.'s 
 (Krause's) conduct you will find, Madam, that he is by 
 no means single in his judgment. ..." 
 
 The remainder of the letter, which is of considerable 
 length, is chiefly concerned with the question as to 
 whether his brother's name was mentioned, in con- 
 nection with Mr Bathurst's disincHnation to call 
 upon him in Berlin. He is not, he says, prepared to 
 charge his memory with Cause's exact words on the 
 subject. The matter after all was only of minor 
 importance, and it is, therefore, very possible that, 
 if any allusion to it found its way into the minutes, 
 it was, subsequently, erased as Mr Rousseau 
 asserted. As he does not possess a copy of Krause's 
 deposition, he regrets that he cannot comply with her 
 request to send her one. Lastly, in regard to Mr 
 Bathurst's state of health, he begs leave to inform her 
 that everything which has come to his knowledge 
 bears out what Mr Rousseau had told her in 
 London.^ 
 
 Mrs Bathurst, who had already set out for France 
 when she received Mills' letter, would not appear to 
 have continued the correspondence. That that gentle- 
 
 1 F.O. 64/82. Mills to Mrs Bathurst, August 10th, 1810.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 75 
 
 man's irritation at her insinuations did not subside 
 quickly is evident from the tone of a communication 
 which he made to the Foreign Office, on September 
 16th. " I understand from Comte de Bombelle," he 
 wrote, " that Madame B., highly flattered by a more 
 favourable answer from Napoleon, has repaired with 
 her brother to Paris." i His last allusion to the 
 Bathurst affair is to be found in his despatch of 
 September 29th, in which he states that he has heard 
 that the brothers Krause have embarked at Colbers 
 for England.2 It is impossible to say whether this 
 news were correct. No reference to the presence of 
 these men in this country is, apparently, to be found 
 either in the Foreign Office records or in the accounts 
 of the case which the Bathurst family have pubHshed. 
 So far as they can be ascertained, the whole of the 
 facts connected with this strange business have 
 now been set forth, and it remains only to see 
 whether any solution of the mystery can be evolved 
 from them. 
 
 It is clear that the Prussian Government was from 
 the first determined that no real attempt should be 
 made to clear up the Bathurst mystery. KHtzing's 
 obstructive proceedings were conducted, if not under 
 the immediate direction, most certainly with the 
 complete approval of his superiors in BerHn. The 
 magistrates, w^hen they complained about him, could 
 obtain no redress, but were informed that their 
 jurisdiction over Krause and the valet ceased from 
 the moment that the military authorities took charge 
 of them. The only satisfaction granted them was, 
 that a warning was conveyed to KUtzing that, in 
 
 1 F.O. 64/82. Mills to \V'ellesley, September IGth, 1810. 
 - Ibid. Mills to AN^ellesley, September 2i)tli, 1810.
 
 76 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 addressing them in the future, he was to be more 
 <;hoice in his expressions.^ This attitude on the part 
 of the BerHn authorities evoked no protests from 
 the British Government, which appears to have been 
 equally desirous of conceahng the truth. Krause's 
 deposition was withheld from the missing man's -wife 
 and, apparently, from the members of his family, 
 many of Mills' and Johnson's reports were suppressed, 
 and only the scantiest information was given to the 
 press which, not improbably, received a hint that the 
 less said about the affair the better. It must be 
 assumed, in consequence, that there were circum- 
 stances connected with Mr Bathurst's disappearance 
 which both Governments had a common interest in 
 conceahng. This fact, therefore, must be made the 
 starting point of all attempts to unravel the mystery, 
 and no theory regarding it can be considered satis- 
 factory, wliich does not explain why this pohcy of 
 secresy came to be adopted both in London and in 
 Berlin. 
 
 Although it would be more satisfactory were it 
 known what Krause had to say on the subject, it 
 may be regarded as practically certain that Mr 
 Bathurst was in an abnormal state of mind, at the 
 time of his disappearance. Mr Mills did not actually 
 see him, while he was in Berlin, but he asserts most 
 positively that all the reports which reached him, 
 spoke of him as ha\ang been, for some weeks past, 
 in " an alarming condition." Dr Armstrong, who had 
 an opportunity of observing him, formed, apparently, 
 an unfavourable opinion of his mental state. Maim- 
 burg, on his arrival in London, expressed his convic- 
 tion that he was insane. Benff, the Prussian doctor, 
 
 ^ Xeue Pitaval.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 77 
 
 who watched him while he was conversing with 
 Klitzing at Perleberg, was struck by his hypochon- 
 driacal expression and, generally, mad appearance. 
 His family were naturally reluctant to admit that he 
 suffered from any malady of this description. Never- 
 theless, Mrs Bathurst acknowledged to her sister-in- 
 law that, from all she had "" picked up," her husband 
 was *' in a state of excitement " at Perleberg, — ^an 
 admission which she qualified by saying that he might 
 have had reason for it, and have received warnings of 
 danger.i Mrs Thistlethwayte, in her memoir of her 
 father, the Bishop, has pubHshed some ten or twelve 
 of her brother's letters, written at various times in his 
 life. A melancholy strain runs through them all, and 
 frequent references to his health occur in them. But 
 among them is one from a Mr Wolfe who was a sailor 
 on board H.M.S. Bustard,ihe sloop which conveyed him 
 to Trieste from Stockholm, after his appointment as 
 Envoy to the Court of x^ustria. This correspondent 
 speaks of his coolness and of his gallantry, when it 
 appeared probable that their ship would shortly be 
 engaged with an enemy vessel. He relates how he 
 refused to go below with the other passengers, but 
 insisted on being supplied with a musket and am- 
 munition, in order that he might take his share in 
 the action which was regarded as imminent. Yet, a 
 few months later, at Perleberg, this same man, 
 because he believed himself to be in danger, 
 displayed symptoms of alarm of so marked a 
 character that all those who came into contact 
 with him could not fail to observe them. Is not 
 the most reasonable explanation of his very 
 different behaviour, on this last occasion, that he 
 
 ^ Mrs Thistlethwayte, Memoirs of Dr Bathurst, p. 188.
 
 78 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was not in a normal state, but was suffering from 
 some form of mental disorder ? 
 
 It mil be remembered that in the watch-pocket of 
 Mr Bathurst's trousers, which were found in the wood 
 near Perleberg, was a letter to his wife in which some- 
 thing was said to the effect that his death or his 
 undoing would lie at Count d'Antraigues' door. The 
 exact terms of this letter would never appear to have 
 been disclosed, but it, unquestionably, contained an 
 allusion to this man. Now d'Antraigues, as has been 
 related in a former chapter, was at the time living 
 in London, in receipt of a handsome pension from 
 the British Government — a reward for the information 
 which he had rendered about the secret articles of 
 the Treaty of Tilsit. He was, consequently, bound 
 to this country by every consideration of personal 
 safety and of self-interest, and it is ridiculous to 
 suppose that he can have had any hand in the kid- 
 napping of a British envoy. But an explanation 
 suggests itself of why his name should have been 
 uppermost in poor Bathurst's thoughts at Perleberg. 
 While he was at Dresden, in the Russian service, 
 d'Antraigues had been very successful in intercepting 
 and in opening French despatches. Bathurst, without 
 doubt, had heard stories about the fury which the 
 mere mention of d'Antraigues' name evoked in 
 Bonaparte. To his disordered brain, it may have 
 seemed probable that he would seek to be revenged 
 on him, for the annoyance which he had suffered 
 through d'Antraigues' tricks and machinations, in 
 former days. 
 
 The conclusion that Bathurst was not in the full 
 possession of his faculties leads naturally to the 
 question of whether he may not have committed
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 79 
 
 suicide. There are two considerations, however, 
 which render this solution of the riddle inadmissible. 
 In the first place, had he killed himself, his body 
 would assuredly have been discovered, and, in the 
 second, it is inconceivable that the Prussian and the 
 British Governments should have acted in the 
 mysterious manner in which they did, had the affair 
 lent itself to the simple explanation that, in a fit of 
 temporary insanity, Mr Bathurst had taken his own 
 life. And this remark applies equally to the hypo- 
 thesis that he was robbed and murdered. Had there 
 been reasonable grounds for supposing that he had 
 fallen a victim to the thieves who infested the country- 
 side, why should not the fact have been admitted ? 
 The belief, which was very general at the time, that he 
 was made away with by Bonaparte's agents requires 
 to be considered carefully. It is a theory which is 
 consistent with the course which the Prussian author- 
 ities pursued, but it is one which cannot be recon- 
 ciled with the attitude adopted in London. It is 
 unthinkable that, out of consideration for the diffi- 
 culties of Prussia's position, the English Government 
 should have assisted her to hush up the affair. Would 
 it not, on the contrary, have proclaimed the infamy 
 of Bonaparte's proceedings far and wide and used 
 the attack on Mr Bathurst as an excellent subject for 
 propaganda ? 
 
 It is important to remember that no grounds exist 
 for supposing that, after his disappearance, any 
 portion of Mr Bathurst 's correspondence was found 
 to be missing. But, apart from this consideration, 
 the affair at Perleberg does not bear the appearance 
 of having been the work of government agents. 
 Bathurst was either murdered at the post-house itself
 
 80 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 or he was decoyed into some neighbouring house, 
 where the deed was perpetrated. Now, had the 
 crime been instigated by the French or any other 
 government, it could only have been for the purpose 
 of forcibly seizing some despatches of which he was, 
 or was supposed to be, the bearer. But unless he 
 carried them on his person, his murder would not 
 have placed his assailants in possession of the coveted 
 documents. If they decided to make their attempt 
 at Perleberg, and not upon the highway, Krause, who 
 presumably had the official correspondence in his 
 charge, would surely have been the object of their 
 attack. It would appear, therefore, that Mr Bathurst 
 was made away with for some personal reason, and 
 not because he was the bearer of important papers 
 of state. 
 
 It is altogether beyond the bounds of probabihty 
 that the Prussian Government itself can have had a 
 hand in the spiriting away of Mr Bathurst. Highly 
 suspicious as their conduct, undoubtedly, was, neither 
 the King nor his ministers had any conceivable reason 
 for interfering with him. They had, moreover, too 
 many troubles of their own to run the risk of increas- 
 ing them by an outrage of that description. But, as 
 has been shown, there existed a secret mihtary 
 association in Prussia which aimed at shaking off the 
 French yoke. Through the intermediary of Maim- 
 burg, this party was in touch with, and had received 
 assistance from, the British Government. Bathurst 
 had been in correspondence with Colonel von Kleist, 
 one of its leading members, and, in the words of 
 Maimburg, was in the secret of " all that was in- 
 tended." While he was in Berhn, on his way to 
 Perleberg, it is very probable that he saw some of
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 81 
 
 these officers and, possibly, may have attended one 
 of their committee meetings. It is hardly necessary 
 to point out that, had Bonaparte discovered the 
 existence of such a society, he would have shown 
 no mercy to its members. In the abnormal condition 
 of mind in which he, unquestionably, was at this 
 time, Bathurst may very well have committed some 
 imprudence. It would account for much, if any of 
 these officers came to the conclusion that their 
 lives and liberties were at the mercy of a man who 
 could not be trusted with their secrets. 
 
 Assuming that the Prussian authorities received 
 information from Khtzing, or from some other source, 
 that Bathurst's disappearance was to be ascribed to 
 this society, their conduct becomes intelligible. To 
 investigate the affair thoroughly and institute pro- 
 ceedings against the guilty parties was to disclose 
 to Bonaparte the true state of affairs. Without 
 doubt, it would not have disturbed him greatly to 
 hear that an English diplomatist had been made away 
 with by some Prussian officers. But his wrath would 
 have known no bounds, had he learnt, as he would 
 have assuredly, that they were the members of a 
 patriotic association formed for the purpose of ex- 
 tricating their country from his grasp. Not content 
 with dealing in ruthless fashion with the offending 
 society, he would have visited his displeasure upon 
 the King and upon the Government which had 
 allowed the association to come into existence. 
 Fresh exactions and heavier burdens upon the country 
 were but some of the evils certain to follow Bona- 
 parte's discovery of a widespread military conspiracy 
 against him. In such circumstances, it can hardly 
 excite surprise that the authorities in Berlin should
 
 82 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 have decided that no effort must be spared to prevent 
 the true facts from transpiring. 
 
 If the theory be correct that Bathurst met his fate 
 under some such conditions as these, the British 
 Government was placed in a very awkward position. 
 It is probable that von Golz who was, apparently, 
 in charge of the case, saw Maimburg before he left 
 for England. It is unUkely that he took Mills, whose 
 official connection with the British Government was 
 only just beginning, into his confidence. Maimburg 
 was not only a Prussian, but he was the intermediary 
 between the Foreign Office in London and the in- 
 criminated society. Von Golz, it may be presumed, 
 impressed upon him the necessity of urging the 
 British Government to acquiesce in the course of 
 conduct which he had been forced to pursue. With- 
 out doubt, when he arrived in London this man had 
 an interview with Lord Wellesley or with some high 
 official at the Foreign Office and disclosed the facts 
 to him. It may be assumed that it was only with 
 great reluctance that it was resolved to comply with 
 the urgent request of the Prussian minister. The 
 position, it must be remembered, was altogether 
 abnormal. The continental system had put an end 
 to ordinary diplomatic intercourse between the two 
 countries. Situated as Prussia was, it w^as useless to 
 endeavour to prevail upon her to alter her decision. 
 It was clear that in Mr Bathurst's affair she could 
 never be induced to consent to let justice take its 
 course, seeing that by so doing she would incur the 
 risk of revealing to Bonaparte the real aim and object 
 of Kleist's and Chasot's committee. It is true that 
 it was open to the Government to disregard von Golz's 
 plea for silence and make pubhc the news contained
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 83 
 
 in Mills' despatch and Krause's deposition. It may 
 be inferred, from the care with which it was 
 suppressed, that Krause's statement contained some 
 important clue to the mystery of Mr Bathurst's 
 disappearance. Were it not kept secret, therefore, 
 it might enable the French agents to discover the 
 truth. In such circumstances, to disclose his evidence 
 Avas to render an invaluable service to Bonaparte by 
 drawing his attention to the existence of a society in 
 Prussia, composed of officers, who were only waiting 
 for an opportunity of raising their country against 
 him. Such action on the part of the British Govern- 
 ment would not only expose these men, the majority 
 of whom were innocent of Bathurst's murder, to his 
 vengeance, but must greatly diminish the chance that 
 Prussia might, some day, strike a blow against the 
 common enemy. 
 
 This solution of the mystery is propounded mth 
 some confidence, although it is based upon no direct 
 evidence. After a careful study of the case it is the 
 only theory which can be suggested to explain the 
 anxiety of the Prussian and the British Govern- 
 ments to stifle all inquiry. Nevertheless, there 
 are many doubtful points which still require to be 
 elucidated. Mills, unquestionably, considered that 
 the part played by Krause should be further in- 
 vestigated. Maimburg, also, appears to have ex- 
 pressed to Mrs Bathurst his doubts about his good 
 faith. It is possible, however, that he was seeking 
 merely to sow distrust of him in her mind, in order 
 to lead her thoughts into a channel away from the 
 real culprits. It seems doubtful whether Mills, in 
 the first instance, knew the whole truth. It is 
 probable that, until his services were accepted by
 
 84 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 the British Government, he was ignorant of the 
 existence of Kleist's and Chasot's secret committee. 
 His subsequent despatches prove, however, that, at 
 a later date, under the pseudonym of " Hammel- 
 keuJe '* he was in correspondence with its members. 
 Nevertheless, it is most unlikely that the dark secret 
 of Bathurst's disappearance was ever confided to him. 
 Be that as it may, it is clear that he very soon reaHsed 
 that his Government wished the matter to sink into 
 oblivion and he shaped his conduct accordingly. As 
 time went on, it may be assumed that he was en- 
 abled to draw his own conclusions about the business, 
 Mrs Bathurst's letter to him suggests that she was 
 not a very judicious person. But she, probably,, 
 described his attitude correctly, when she insinuated 
 that the zeal to discover her husband's fate, which 
 he had displayed '' at first,''' had sensibly diminished. 
 And her woman's intuition was, doubtless, not at 
 fault in distrusting Maimburg. Whether or not he 
 told her " the many striking falsehoods " of which 
 she accuses him, she probably rightly divined that 
 " Mr Rousseau " was in some way or another an 
 obstacle to the elucidation of the mystery which 
 concerned her so closely. 
 
 There are some interesting details about Captain 
 von Klitzing in the Neue Pitaval. In the opinion 
 of the author, " while showing an ostensible zeal," 
 Klitzing in effect " worked hard to bury the case in 
 darkness." But the fact is merely stated and no 
 attempt is made to explain the motives of his conduct. 
 The account goes on to say that, in later life, any 
 reference to Mr Bathurst's disappearance seemed to 
 evoke painful recollections and was plainly most 
 distasteful to him. If the subject were mentioned,.
 
 STRANGE STORY OF MR BATHURST 85 
 
 he would never discuss it, but would seek to turn 
 the conversation into other channels. His friends 
 never doubted that he knew more about the affair 
 than anyone, and believed that he was under a 
 solemn oath never to divulge the truth. " From 
 verbal communications we ascertain," continues the 
 writer, '' that he was not a mere military machine, 
 but a man of elevated mind Avho was interested in 
 poHtical movements and a member of the Tugend- 
 bundy This last statement is highly suggestive. 
 
 The Tugendhund was a league founded at Koenigs- 
 berg, in 1808, for the promotion of educational and 
 social reforms. But, although its organisers aimed 
 at fostering a spirit of patriotism, it had no militant 
 policy. The name of Tugendhund, however, came to 
 be applied to other societies and associations whicli 
 grew up in Prussia, under the French occupation, and 
 it is very likely in its wider and more general sense 
 that the word is employed in the Neiie Pitaval. 
 Klitzing, if he joined a secret society, probably en- 
 rolled himself in that party which has been described 
 in these pages as Kleist's and Chasot's committee. 
 He was a general staff officer ^ and Gneisenau and 
 many members of that body belonged to it. It 
 admits of no argument that he used his position 
 as town-major to obstruct the investigations into 
 Mr Bathurst's disappearance. But a still more ugly 
 construction may be placed upon his conduct, if it 
 be true that he was actually affiliated to the society 
 by some of the members of which that unfortunate 
 gentleman was, probably, done to death. 
 
 It is unlikely that any further information about 
 
 ^ The list of Mr Bathurst's eifects is endorsed " V. Klitzing, Captain, 
 •General Staff."
 
 86 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 this mysterious affair will be forthcoming in this 
 country. The missing despatches and documents 
 have, without doubt, been destroyed. But, accord- 
 ing to the Neue Pitaval, Klit zing's secret reports are 
 buried in the government archives at Berlin. So 
 long as the system of unhmited autocracy endured 
 in Prussia, the Censor would never allow the least 
 allusion to Mr Bathurst's affair to appear in the press. 
 But, says the author of the Neue Pitaval, who 
 probably wrote not long after the revolution of 
 '48, times are changed and the public should now 
 be placed in possession of the true facts of this strange 
 case. If this appeal were ever considered by the 
 authorities, it is evident that thev decided that it 
 was not to be entertained. The constitutional 
 monarchy which was set up at the revolution of '48 
 was a more liberal regime than the one Avhich preceded 
 it. But all its tendencies were militaristic, and it is 
 not surprising that it should have been unwilHng to 
 reveal a secret which might prejudicially affect the 
 reputations of some of the heroes of the War of 
 Liberation. In its turn it has now been swept away 
 and it remains to be seen whether, under a Social- 
 Democratic Repubhc, those documents, if they exist,, 
 will ever see the light of day. 
 
 Mr Bathurst's ill fortune descended to his children. 
 His son, when scarcely more than tw^enty years of age, 
 was killed in a race at Rome, and his daughter, not 
 long afterwards, was carried by a runaway horse into 
 the Tiber and drowned.
 
 THE MURDER OF SIR EDMUND BERRY 
 
 GODFREY 
 
 THE episode which it is proposed to discuss 
 is puzzhng and mysterious in the highest 
 degree. It is a problem which remains 
 unsolved, notwithstanding the light which modern 
 research has throw^n upon the secret history of the 
 time. Within the last twenty years, several attempts 
 have been made to elucidate the mystery. Much 
 labour has been expended and ingenious theories have 
 been propounded. But no really satisfactory ex- 
 planation of the circumstances in which Sir Edmund 
 Berry Godfrey met his death has yet been forthcoming. 
 On one point alone do the various searchers for the 
 truth appear to be agreed — the three men, who were 
 tried and hanged for his murder, were innocent of 
 the crime. 
 
 The year 1678 was the year of the Treaty of 
 Nymegen. Louis XIV. was at the height of his power 
 and the arbiter of Europe. This state of affairs was 
 viewed with the deepest alarm in England. Not only 
 was the dominating position, to which the King of 
 France had attained, a cause for grave misgivings, 
 but, in addition, an uneasy feeling prevailed that 
 some secret understanding existed between the Courts 
 of Whitehall and of Versailles. Charles' popularity 
 had of late years diminished greatly. The scandals of 
 his private life might be forgiven. But it was a very 
 different matter should the suspicion prove justified 
 
 87
 
 88 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 that he was plotting with Louis against the Church, 
 which EngHshmen regarded as the safeguard of their 
 rights and institutions. 
 
 To-day it is a commonplace of history that there 
 were good grounds for these fears which were enter- 
 tained so widely. The true aim and object of such 
 compacts as the Treaty of Dover are no longer a 
 secret. The designs which they were to forward 
 were precisely those which the majority of Englishmen 
 most dreaded. While seemingly absorbed in his love 
 affairs and his pleasures, Charles was engaged upon 
 schemes, which, had they been known, would either 
 have sent him once more " upon his travels," or, 
 possibly even, have brought down upon him the fate 
 which had befallen his father. 
 
 Under the date of October 1st, 1678, Evelyn records 
 in his diary the general consternation which prevailed, 
 when the news of the great Popish plot, " discovered 
 by one Oates and Dr Tongue," was made pubhc.^ 
 Tonge had already achieved some notoriety by his 
 violent pamphlets against the CathoUcs. He was 
 neither a truthful nor an over-scrupulous man. 
 Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to place him in 
 the same category as Oates and his imitators. As 
 far as can be judged, he was an unbalanced enthusiast, 
 always ready to accept as true any story which 
 supported his views and accorded with his preposses- 
 sions. As a contemporary writer has quaintly ex- 
 pressed it, " he was hardly ever without a plot in 
 his head and a pen in his hand. The one held the 
 maggots and the other vented them." "^ His con- 
 
 ^ The Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, with Life, by H. B, 
 Wheatley, ii. pp. 843-344. 
 
 2 L'Estrange^ Brief Narrative^ iii. p. 3.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 89 
 
 nection with Oates appears to have begun about two 
 years earher, at a time when that worthy was in very 
 needy circumstances, having lately been deprived, 
 for gross immorahty, of the post of chaplain on board 
 one of His Majesty's ships.^ It was probably by 
 Tonge's advice that Oates, professing that he was a 
 convert to Catholicism, obtained admission to the 
 Jesuit Colleges of Valladolid and Saint-Omer, in order 
 to learn and betray the secrets of the Society. But, 
 after a few months' stay at each institution, he was 
 expelled for misconduct. It is ridiculous, therefore, 
 to suppose that he can ever have been initiated into 
 any real secret. Without doubt, however, he con- 
 trived to pick up a certain amount of gossip. His 
 revelations are so well known that it seems un- 
 necessary to refer to them at any length. Armed 
 rebellion, the calling in of a French army of invasion, 
 the murder of the King, were some of the crimes 
 which he alleged that the CathoHcs were preparing 
 to carry out. The details of the business, he declared, 
 had been settled, on April 24th, at a " consult " of 
 the Jesuits at the White Horse Tavern, in the Strand, 
 at which he pretended that he himself had been 
 present. Denouncing a number of the principal con- 
 spirators by name, he assigned to each the part he 
 was to play. In this list, which included five Roman 
 Catholic peers, a prominent role was ascribed to 
 Edward Coleman, a former secretary to the Duchess 
 of York, who, it was hardly a secret, had been em- 
 ployed on confidential missions by the Duke.^ 
 
 The Duke of York and his brother, the King, were 
 
 * There is a j^ood account of Titus Oates iu Lives 0/ Twelve Bad Men, 
 edited by Thomas Seccombe, 
 
 * G. Burnet, Uistonj, ii. p. 104.
 
 90 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 men of very different characters. Charles, so far as 
 he had any reHgious beHef at all, adhered, doubtless, 
 to the Roman Catholic faith. But with him the re- 
 establishment of that religion was the means whereby 
 he hoped to free himself from parliamentary control. 
 He could laugh at the doctrine of Divine Right and, 
 unHke his father, had no wish to assume the burdens 
 of personal government, but, says Burnet, " he could 
 not think himself a King, so long as a company of 
 fellows were looking into his actions and examining 
 his ministers as well as his accounts." He was far 
 too astute, however, not to reahse that he was helpless 
 without money and without an armed force at his 
 disposal. It was to obtain money in the present and 
 the promise of French military support, should he 
 require it, that he had entered into his secret compacts 
 with Louis. To such arrangements the re-estabhsh- 
 ment of the Roman Catholic religion was a necessary 
 corollary. There is good reason to beUeve, however, 
 that, in the years which immediately preceded the 
 great plot, Charles had been inclined to devise other 
 and less direct means of achieving his purpose. He 
 appears to have entertained serious doubts whether 
 any scheme, which involved the restoration of the 
 Catholic religion, were practicable. The Declaration 
 of Indulgence, his first overt move in that direction, 
 had raised so formidable an opposition that he had 
 seen the wisdom of withdrawing it without further 
 contest. 
 
 James, as he was to prove when he succeeded to 
 the throne, disliked parliamentary interference no 
 less, and was by nature far more of an autocrat, than 
 his brother. At the same time, he was a convinced and 
 bigoted Roman Catholic, largely under the influence
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 91 
 
 of the priests. While Charles only declared himself 
 a CathoHc upon his deathbed, James, ever since 1676, 
 had ceased to attend the Royal Chapel, thereby 
 openly avowing himself a Papist. Moreover, rather 
 than subscribe to the conditions of the Test Act he 
 had resigned the office of Lord High Admiral. In 
 these circumstances, it is not surprising that the more 
 ardent Roman Catholics should begin to place their 
 hopes far more in James than in Charles, while 
 in Whig circles the project of excluding the Duke 
 from the Royal succession was, doubtless, already 
 mooted. 
 
 At the adjourned meeting of the Privy Council, at 
 which Oates made his " discoveries," it was directed 
 that Mr Coleman and several priests should be taken 
 into custody. When the messengers presented them- 
 selves at Coleman's house, they were informed that 
 he was away from home. But, being furnished with 
 a search warrant, they proceeded to carry out that 
 part of their mission. In a receptacle behind the 
 chimney a box was discovered containing papers. 
 When these were examined by a Committee of the 
 Privy Council, they were found to consist of about 
 200 letters, among them being some which had passed 
 between Coleman, the Pere la Chaise, the confessor 
 of Louis XIV., and Cardinal Albani, the papal 
 Internuncio. All of them, however, were anterior 
 to the year 1676 ; the later correspondence, it was 
 evident, had been either removed or destroyed. 
 Questions dealing with the best means of advancing 
 the Cathohc cause were the chief subject of discussion. 
 But politics were not neglected, stress being laid on 
 the importance of procuring the dissolution of the 
 existing House of Commons, a consummation for
 
 92 FOUR FAMOUS j\IYSTERIES 
 
 which much French gold would be required.^ Coleman, 
 who had surrendered to the warrant out against liim, 
 on October 1st, was, the same evening, consigned to 
 Newgate. 
 
 The discovery of Coleman's letters necessarily 
 enhanced Oates' credit and made a profound impres- 
 sion upon the public. The fact that the greater part 
 of the correspondence was missing was regarded as 
 most significant. It was a general comment that, if 
 letters so incriminating could be left behind, black, 
 indeed, must be the treason contained in those which 
 he had destroyed or removed. Less than a fortnight 
 later, however, an event took place which, by the 
 extraordinary excitement it caused, threw Coleman's 
 affair completely into the background. 
 
 In the first instance, Oates' discoveries had been 
 revealed by Tonge to the King himself, through the 
 intermediary of one Kirby, who had, occasionally, 
 carried out some chemical experiments in the royal 
 laboratory for His Majesty's amusement. Charles, 
 although his own assassination was in question, 
 treated the matter very lightly and was plainly 
 disposed to disbeheve the w^hole story. Contenting 
 himself with leaving the matter in the hands of Danby, 
 the Lord High Treasurer, upon whom he enjoined 
 strict secrecy, he left London for Windsor. That 
 statesman, after further communication with Tonge, 
 came to the opinion that the matter should be brought 
 to the knowledge of the Council. Charles, however, 
 was reluctant to act upon tliis advice. Strange to 
 say, it appears to have been the Duke of York's 
 intervention which caused him to change his mind. 
 Bedingfield, the Duke's confessor, had been the 
 
 1 state Trials, vii. pp. 35-65.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 93 
 
 recipient of some forged letters which it was suspected 
 were the work of Tonge and Oates. A thorough 
 investigation, His Royal Highness was convinced, 
 could only lead to the exposure of the baselessness 
 of Oates' charges. The opportunity was too good 
 to be missed of laying bare a clumsy fraud and of 
 confounding the traducers of his rehgion.^ 
 
 Tonge and Oates, it may be supposed, were 
 grievously disappointed at the indifference with which 
 their story was received. Probably, because they 
 thought that it was Charles' intention to allow the 
 matter to drop, they went, as early as September 
 6th, to a magistrate, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, 
 before whom Oates swore to the truth of certain 
 information which he had committed to writing. 
 It was not read over, however, Godfrey being satisfied 
 with the assertion that it concerned an affair of High 
 Treason and that the King knew all about it. On 
 September 28th, having received their summons to 
 appear before the Council, they paid Godfrey a second 
 visit. On this occasion, they arrived provided with 
 two copies of a portentous document, setting forth 
 the famous '' discoveries," one of which they left 
 in the hands of the magistrate, after Oates had 
 sworn to the truth of its contents. 
 
 Assuming that their purpose was to render it 
 difficult for the King or the Council to dismiss the 
 affair, it was an astute move thus to bring Godfrey 
 into the business. Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was 
 a coal and timber merchant and a citizen of some note, 
 bearing a high reputation for the integrity and zeal 
 ^vith wliich he discharged his magisterial duties. At 
 the time of the plague, when so many of his brother 
 
 1 G. Burnet, Hu/tory, ii. pp. 156-158.
 
 94 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 justices fled from the town, he stayed in London and 
 took active measures for the preservation of order. 
 His services were brought to the King's notice, who 
 rewarded them with a Knighthood. More recentlj^ 
 however, he incurred Charles' grave displeasure by 
 causing a wiit to be served on his physician at his 
 lodgings in the palace at Whitehall. The King, 
 who was deeply incensed, caused the baihffs to be 
 flogged and imprisoned the magistrate in the Gate- 
 House at Westminster. But Godfrey, maintaining 
 stoutly that his action was perfectly legal, refused 
 to take food, in fact went on " hunger strike," and was 
 released after six days' confinement.^ His attitude, 
 on that occasion, showed that he was little amenable 
 to Court influence and won for him much popular 
 applause. It msij be imagined, therefore, ^\ith what 
 indignation and alarm the news was received that he 
 was missing from his home and that his brothers 
 believed that he had been murdered by the Papists. 
 On October 17th, five days after his disappearance, 
 his dead body, transfixed with a sword, was found 
 in a ditch at the foot of Primrose Hill. 
 
 No event of a similar kind has ever created the 
 same excitement or had more fatal consequences. 
 So great was the general alarm that many citizens 
 went to their beds, night after night, in dreadful 
 expectation that their throats would be cut before 
 morning. Lady Shaftesbury, whose Lord was 
 making great poHtical capital out of the business, 
 had a pair of pistols specially constructed to carry 
 in her muff. The mihtia was called out and posts 
 and chains were held in readiness to bar the streets. 
 The most sceptical were now convinced of the existence 
 
 1 The Diary of S. Pepys, edited by H. B. Wheatley, viii. p. 310.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 95 
 
 of a far reaching plot. The harshest measures against 
 the Cathohcs were demanded on all sides. Oates 
 was hailed as the saviour of the nation and found 
 himself, in a moment, the most popular man in 
 England. He was awarded a liberal allowance 
 and lodged in Whitehall, where a military guard 
 was detailed to watch over the safety of his 
 person.! 
 
 Meanwhile, some curious facts had been ehcited 
 at the inquest, which was immediately held at the 
 White House Tavern, which stood on the site of the 
 present Chalk Farm Tavern, and was, at the time of 
 the murder, completely in the country. It is not 
 quite clear when, and by whom, the first news that 
 the dead body of a gentleman was lying in a ditch 
 close by was brought to the White House. There 
 can be no doubt, however, that the fact was known 
 in the afternoon of October 17th. But no one appears 
 to have been at all anxious to go to the spot ^ and, 
 after some consultation between the landlord and 
 the yokels who frequented the place, it was decided 
 that a constable should be summoned. This entailed 
 a walk to the neighbourhood of the present Tottenham 
 Court Road. Moreover, a heavy shower of rain came 
 on which caused further delay and it was, consequently, 
 not until after darkness had set in that Constable 
 Brown, followed by a number of persons on foot 
 and on horseback, reached the place where the body 
 was known to be. The murdered man was found 
 lying face downwards in a ditch, covered over with 
 
 1 R. North, Examen, pp. 201-20o. 
 
 * Their reluctance can be understood. Two men who brought the 
 news to the ^Vhite House were kept for about two months in Newgate 
 in irons.
 
 96 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 brambles, the point of the sword, with which he was 
 transfixed, protruding about six inches beyond his 
 back. His rings were on his fingers and a consider- 
 able sum of money was found in his pockets. His 
 hat and wig lay at the bottom of the ditch and his 
 scabbard, stick, and gloves on the bank beside him. 
 Brown, after warning the spectators to take careful 
 note of the position in which they had found it, caused 
 the body to be lifted out of the ditch. When that 
 had been done, he himself drew out the sword, an 
 operation which necessitated the exercise of consider- 
 able force. Such a proceeding, in these days, would 
 certainly bring down severe censure on the policeman 
 responsible for it. Brown appears to have acted as 
 he did, in order to facihtate the transport of the 
 corpse to the White House, where he himself was 
 able to identify the dead man as the missing 
 magistrate, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.^ 
 
 The next day, at the inquest, several surgeons 
 were present for the purpose of making a professional 
 inspection of the body. It was at once apparent that 
 life had been extinct for some four or five days, at 
 the least, signs of decomposition being already 
 visible. The sword, which Brown extracted, was 
 ascertained to be the dead man's own weapon. But, 
 as the examination proceeded, it was made abundantly 
 evident that it was not with it that the deceased had 
 been killed. His chest was found to be deeply 
 discoloured, was in fact a mass of bruises, while, 
 all round his neck, which was dislocated, were purple 
 marks, suggesting, beyond the possibihty of doubt, 
 that he had been strangled with a cloth or handker- 
 
 ^ state Trials, vii. pp. 184-185. L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, uL 
 pp. 212-216. Home of Lordft MSS., No. 5.
 
 IVIURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 97 
 
 chief. Nor was the wound, from which the sword 
 had been drawn out, the only wound of that nature. 
 A second one, sUghtly below the other, was dis- 
 covered which, when the surgeons probed it, was found 
 to extend as far as the ribs, against one of the bones 
 of which the point of the sword had come into contact. 
 The absence of blood was another strange feature 
 of the case. A small quantity of blood and serum 
 had flowed from the back, when Brown dragged out 
 the sword. Effusions of a similar nature had taken 
 place, when the men carrjdng the body to the White 
 House stumbled over some stumps ; again, when they 
 accidentally allowed it to strike against the door 
 post ; and again, when they laid it down on the inn 
 table. But, and on that point the evidence was 
 quite clear and conclusive, there were no stains of 
 blood whatever on the shirt and clothes in front. 
 In the ditch, when it was carefully examined by 
 daylight, no signs of blood were discovered. Farm 
 labourers and other persons of that description 
 testified to the impossibility of the body having been 
 longer than twenty-four hours in the place where it 
 was found.i Further evidence on that highly im- 
 portant point was given, four years later, at the trial 
 of three men for libellously printing and pubhshing 
 a statement to the effect that Godfrey had died by 
 his own hand. On that occasion, a Mr Forest, the 
 master of a pack of harriers, put in an affidavit, in 
 which he swore that, on each of the two days preceding 
 the finding of Godfrey's body, his hounds had hunted 
 along the very ditch in which the corpse was dis- 
 covered, without finding any trace of the presence 
 
 ^ State Trials, vii. p. 185 ; viii. pp. 1379-1381. House of Lords 
 MSS., No. 5. L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. pp. 234-268. 
 6
 
 98 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of a dead man.^ After sitting all through Friday and 
 Saturday, October 18th and 19th, the jury brought 
 in their verdict. Couched in the clumsy and involved 
 language habitual to legal findings of the day, it was 
 to the effect that Godfrey had been strangled, but 
 that there was no evidence to show by whom the deed 
 had been committed. 
 
 In order to avoid returning to the matter later on, 
 it will be convenient, at this stage of the narrative, 
 to consider carefully some of the facts established 
 by the evidence given before the Coroner. Several 
 writers, on the subject of Godfrey's death, have 
 expressed the opinion that he committed suicide. 
 Among his contemporaries the Tory pubHcist, Sir 
 Roger L'Estrange, was the chief exponent of what 
 may be termed the felo-de-se theory, while, in recent 
 years. Sir George Sitwell ^ and Mr Alfred Marks ^ 
 have adopted the same view. Not content with 
 expressing his own opinion, Mr Marks has sought 
 the assistance of a medical expert, whose conclusions 
 are a feature of his book. Fortunately, it will not 
 be necessary to enter into the question as to whether 
 the bruises on the chest and the marks on the neck 
 can rightly be attributed to post-mortem hypostasis. 
 Nor is it necessary to discuss whether, if a man were 
 to run himself through with a sword, the fact that 
 it remained in the body could prevent the effusion 
 of any blood, at the point where the blade went in.* 
 It will not have been forgotten that, at the inquest, 
 the surgeons discovered the existence of another 
 and smaller wound, lower down than the larger one, 
 
 1 state Trials, viii. pp. 1394-1395. 
 
 2 Sir Georg-e Sitwell, The First Whig, p. 41. 
 
 3 A. Marks, Who Killed Sir E. B. Godfrey f « Ibid.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 99 
 
 extending as far as the ribs. Now, it is almost 
 superfluous to point out that, if Godfrey took his own 
 hfe, he must have inflicted this lesser injury on 
 himself, before he finally impaled himself upon his 
 sword and fell face downwards into the bramble- 
 covered ditch. Consequently, as he was alive at 
 the time, blood must have flown freely from the first 
 wound, his shirt and clothes must have been soaked 
 mth it. There was no weapon left in it to stop the 
 natural effusion of blood. Mr Marks and his medical 
 expert ignore this fact completely, and thus overcome 
 the difficulty of reconciling it with their theory. 
 Yet, it is so decisive a factor in the case, that it appears 
 quite permissible to rule out, once and for all, the 
 hypothesis of suicide. 
 
 In the days of the Stuarts, and for long afterwards, 
 the machinery for the detection of crime was so im- 
 perfect, that there was small chance of bringing to 
 justice the guilty parties in a mysterious case, unless 
 one of them could be induced to turn King's evidence. 
 A reward of £500, a very large sum in those times, 
 was, accordingly, offered with a promise of pardon 
 and protection to any person who might come forward 
 with information.! The danger of such methods 
 of procedure is obvious. In the words of Macaulay, 
 " from all the brothels, gambhng houses, and spunging 
 houses in London false witnesses poured forth to swear 
 away the lives of Roman Cathohcs." ^ A few days 
 after the proclamations had been issued, one Charles 
 
 1 London Gazette, October 20th, 1678.— " And if any of the 
 murtherers shall discover the rest, whereby they or any of them 
 shall be apprehended such discoverer shall not only be pardoned, 
 but shall in like manner receive the said reward of £500." 
 
 2 The History of England, by 'J'. B. Macaulay, 4th edition, i. p. 237.
 
 100 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Atkins, a person of disreputable antecedents, styling 
 himself Captain, trumped up a charge against a 
 namesake, Samuel Atkins, clerk to Mr Pepys, who 
 had for so long worked under the Duke of York, at 
 the Admiralty. The unfortunate young man was 
 arrested, cast into Newgate and, on several occasions, 
 sharply examined by the Lords Committee. Although 
 it will be necessary again to refer to him, it is needless 
 to say more about him than that, after suffering 
 an imprisonment of three months' duration, during 
 part of which time he was kept in irons, he succeeded 
 in clearing himself completely.^ But meanwhile a 
 more ambitious rogue than " Captain " Atkins had 
 entered upon the scene. 
 
 On November 2nd, Mr Secretary Coventry received 
 a letter from Bristol, from a person named William 
 Bedloe, stating that he had been concerned in the 
 murder and was prepared to make revelations. He 
 was, accordingly, brought up to London from Bristol, 
 where he had constituted himself a prisoner, and was 
 examined, on November 7th, by the Privy Council 
 in the King's presence, and, on the following day, by 
 the Lords Committee.^ The nefarious practices of 
 such men as Oates and Bedloe were greatly facilitated 
 by the fact that the authorities had no ready 
 means of inquiring into their antecedents. It was 
 only slowly and, general^, owing to some chance 
 recognition or other fortuitous circumstance that the 
 particulars of their past history were brought to 
 light. This Bedloe had served as a lieutenant in a 
 
 * Mr Samuel Atkins' Account of his examination, etc., is to be found 
 in State Trials, vol. vi. p. 1473-1492. The original manuscript is ia 
 the Pepysian library at Magdalen College, Cambridge. 
 
 * L'Estrauge, Brief Narrative, iii. p. 7- G. Burnet, History, ii. 
 p. 168.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 101 
 
 regiment of foot and, on the strength of that, like 
 Atkins, now arrogated to himself the title of Captain. 
 Ever since his military days, however, he had led the 
 life of a dishonest adventurer and, both in France and 
 Spain, where he passed himself off as a man of quahty, 
 he had been in prison for swindling. During his 
 sojourn abroad it is highly probable that he had met 
 with Oates. But, when my Lords put it to him, he 
 denied it flatly.^ 
 
 The tale which he now unfolded was most extra- 
 ordinary. At his different examinations, he made 
 some suspicious alterations in matters of detail, but 
 he always adhered to the main points of his story, 
 which was to this effect. Some time early in October, 
 two Jesuits of his acquaintance, attached to the 
 Queen's Chapel at Somerset House, the one named 
 Le Fevre and the other Walsh, endeavoured to secure 
 his co-operation in an affair which entailed the 
 *' putting away " ^ of some one who " was a great 
 obstacle to their design." ^ Some four or six persons 
 were to be engaged in it and no less than £4000 was 
 to be their reward, should they carry it out success- 
 fully. Bedloe made no pretence that, in principle, 
 he had any objection to participate in so remunerative 
 an affair. Nevertheless, after the time and place of 
 meeting had been settled, his courage gave way and 
 he failed to keep his appointment. On Sunday, 
 October 13th, he met Le Fevre in Fleet Street by 
 chance and, by his direction, went to see him at 
 Somerest House, on the following evening. His 
 friend, after reproaching him for breaking his promise, 
 took him into the middle of the courtyard, where no 
 
 ^ House of Lords Journal fs, xiii. p. 843. 
 
 * State Trials, vii. p. 180. ^ Ibid., vi. p. 1486. 
 
 TTTJ-O AT>-W
 
 102 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 one could overhear their talk, and told him that they 
 had done the business without him. Nor did his 
 confidences stop at this disclosure. Leading him 
 into a small, dark room in the corner of the building, 
 he showed him the dead body of Sir Edmund Berry 
 Godfrey. Walsh, a man whom he described as Lord 
 Bellasis' gentleman, another person who, he believed, 
 was a verger or attendant in the Queen's Chapel, 
 and Atkins, Mr Pepys' clerk, were all present in the 
 room with the corpse. Clearly, it could not remain 
 where it was for long, and Bedloe promised to return, 
 later on in the evening, and assist in removing it. 
 But, on this occasion, also, he broke his word. The 
 next day, he again chanced to meet Le Fevre, this 
 time in Lincoln's Inn Fields. As before, the Jesuit 
 rebuked him for his lack of good faith. Nevertheless, 
 after solemnly swearing him to secrecy, he told him 
 all the circumstances of the murder. He, Walsh 
 and Lord Bellasis' gentleman, having succeeded in 
 decoying Godfrey into Somerset House, on the pre- 
 text of making disclosures about the plot, induced 
 him to enter the small, dark room in the corner of 
 the building, where they placed a pistol at his head 
 and demanded the return of all the depositions he 
 had taken. On his refusing to comply, they stifled 
 him with a pillow and then strangled him with a long 
 cravat. On the night of Monday, October 14th, 
 after Bedloe had left them, they carried the body into 
 the fields and placed it, where it was found, having 
 thrust a sword through it, to make it appear that it 
 was a case of suicide.^ 
 
 On November 12th, Bedloe was confronted with 
 Samuel Atkins before the Lords Committee. Pre- 
 
 ^ House of Lords Journals, xiii. pp. 343-345.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 103 
 
 sumably, all he knew about Atkins was the fact that 
 he had been arrested in connection with the murder. 
 It might very well be in his power to prove, on un- 
 impeachable evidence, that he could not have been 
 at Somerset House on the evening of October 14th. 
 Were Bedloe to swear to him, and he be able to 
 establish an alibi, his credit, as an informer, might be 
 destroyed for ever. He was, therefore, very careful 
 not to commit himself too deeply. When brought 
 face to face with Atkins, he declared that he thought 
 that he was one of the men he had seen round 
 the corpse, but he could not be positive. A man's 
 life was at stake and it behoved him to be very 
 cautious.^ 
 
 Bedloe's revelations, however, were not confined 
 exclusively to Godfrey's murder. He had been, he 
 asserted, an agent of the Jesuits and it was their 
 business which had taken him abroad so constantly. 
 He had much to say about the plot in general, indeed 
 at each of his successive examinations his knowledge 
 of the subject showed a suspicious tendency to in- 
 crease. But, as all he said corroborated Oates' 
 stories, he was called as one of the witnesses for the 
 Crown at Coleman's trial. Coleman's letters alone 
 would have sufficed to hang him, without the addi- 
 tional charges trumped up against him by Oates 
 and Bedloe. Of all those who suffered on account 
 of the plot he was one of the few, possibly the only 
 one, whose death cannot fairly be described as a 
 judicial murder. On December 3rd, he was drawn to 
 Tyburn, where he met his fate with dignity and 
 composure. It was generally beheved, however, 
 that he had received an assurance from the Duke of 
 
 1 state Trials, vi. pp. 1484-1485.
 
 104 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 York that his life would be spared and that he had 
 expected a reprieve up to the very last moment. 
 As the cart moved away from under him his words 
 were said to have been " There is no faith in 
 man." ^ 
 
 The search for the three Jesuits, Le Fevre, Pritchard, 
 and Walsh, whom Bedloe had denounced, led to no 
 result. All of them had taken to flight and no trace 
 of their subsequent movements appears ever to have 
 been discovered. This circumstance, however, should 
 not be regarded as constituting a presumption of 
 guilt. It is very possible that they fled, early in 
 October, when Oates' " discoveries " led to the arrest 
 of so many of their co-religionists. Unfortunately, 
 no report from the officers charged with the duty 
 of apprehending them, or other document of that 
 natm-e, has yet been found to throw any light upon 
 the date of their first disappearance. On December 
 21st, however, an arrest was effected in another 
 quarter which was to have important consequences. 
 A man named Miles Prance, a silversmith of Prince's 
 Street, Covent Garden, appears to have fallen under 
 suspicion on account of some ill-considered remarks 
 in favour of the Jesuits.- Inquiries at his house 
 eUcited from a lodger, who, as it subsequently tran- 
 spired, owed him money for his rent, the information 
 that he had been away from home at the time of 
 Godfrey's murder.^ This, coupled with the fact 
 that he worked for the Queen's Chapel at Somerset 
 House and did business chiefly with the Cathohcs, 
 was considered amply sufficient to justify the lodging 
 
 » state Trials, vii. p. 78. 
 
 2 The Narrative of Mr William Boys, pp. 2, 8. 
 
 3 L' Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. pp. 51-52.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 105 
 
 of an information against him.^ Prance was promptly 
 arrested and brought before the Lords Committee. 
 Either in some lobby, or, according to another account, 
 in an eating-house, to which he had been conducted 
 by the constables in charge of him, Bedloe caught 
 sight of him and cried out, " ^Vhy, here is one of the 
 rogues whom I saw with the dark lanthorn about 
 the body of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, but he was 
 then in a perimg." After a short examination by 
 the Lords, Prance, who denied all knowledge of the 
 murder, was conveyed to Newgate, loaded with the 
 heaviest irons, and thrust into the condemned hold, 
 where he was chained to the floor and left, in bitterly 
 cold weather, without either bed or covering.^ 
 
 It was in keeping with the callous spirit of the day 
 to subject prisoners, even those whose guilt had not 
 yet been established, to harsh usage. It is certain, 
 nevertheless, that Prance was treated wdth unusual 
 barbarity. It is possible that Captain Richardson, 
 the Keeper of Newgate, may never have received 
 definite instructions on the subject. But he and his 
 myrmidons were, doubtless, well aware that the Lords 
 were very desirous of obtaining revelations about the 
 murder and they, accordingly, resorted to those 
 measures which, their experience taught them, would 
 most likely prove effectual. Nor were they disap- 
 pointed. After enduring forty-eight hours of intense 
 misery. Prance intimated that, if he were promised a 
 free pardon, he w^ould confess all. On receipt of this 
 news, the Lords Committee at once dispatched four 
 of their number, the Duke of Buckingham and Lords 
 
 ^ G. Burnet^ History, ii. p. 191. 
 
 ^ L'Estrauge, Brief Narrative, iii. p. 50. Lords MSS., December 
 21st.
 
 106 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Shaftesbury, Grey of Werk, and Winchester to the gaol 
 to examine the prisoner and give him the required 
 assurance. On the following day, December 24th, 
 he was taken before the Privy Council, to which body, 
 in the King's presence, he made his statement. 
 
 It seems desirable at this point to say a few words 
 about the place to which, henceforward, it will be 
 necessary frequently to refer. Somerset House was 
 the residence of Catherine of Braganza, Charles' 
 Queen. Here she had her own chapel and, for the 
 services and duties in connection with it, she was 
 privileged to maintain a large staff of priests, the 
 majority of whom, however, were Portuguese. The 
 building, which, to-day, bears the name of Somerset 
 House was only erected in 1775. The old Somerset 
 House, as it existed in the time of Charles II., covered 
 even more ground than the present one. Its gardens 
 extended to the water's edge, while on its western 
 side it abutted upon the Savoy. It was built round 
 several courts, connected with each other by spacious 
 stairs of freestone, descending towards the river. 
 On the western side was a large court, known as 
 Somerset Yard, in which were situated the stables, 
 store houses and coach houses. Here also many 
 of the minor officials and dependents of the palace 
 were lodged. A large gate, called the Water Gate, 
 in which was a wicket, gave admittance to it from 
 the Strand.^ The Savoy,^ which was only separated 
 from this yard by a narrow lane, was, at this time, a 
 waste of dilapidated buildings, the inhabitants of 
 which bore a very evil reputation. About a quarter 
 
 1 A. Marks, Who Killed Sir E. B. Godfrey? p. 32. 
 * There is a description of the Savoy at this time in Peveril of the 
 Peak, by Sir Walter Scott.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 107 
 
 of a mile further west again, Godfrey himself lived in 
 a house in Hartshorne Lane, on the site of the present 
 Northumberland Street, which, in comparatively 
 recent years, has had a tragedy of its own.^ 
 
 It was a priest named Girald or Gerald, attached to 
 the Venetian embassy, who, according to Prance's 
 confession, had first suggested to him that he should 
 take part in Godfrey's murder. The reason assigned 
 for killing him was " that he was a great enemy to 
 the Queen and her servants and had used some 
 Irishmen ill." Prance consented, the more readily 
 because he was an Irishman and, moreover, nursed 
 a private grudge against Godfrey, on account of a 
 magisterial decision which he had given against him. 
 No specific sum was named as the price of his assistance, 
 but he was given to understand that Lord Bellasis ^ 
 would reward him generously. Two other men were 
 to be concerned in the business, Green, a cushion- 
 layer in the Chapel at Somerset House, and Hill, a 
 servant of Dr Gauden, the treasurer of the Chapel. 
 For a week Gerald, Green, and Hill kept Godfrey 
 under close observation and, on Saturday, October 
 12th, followed him from the time he left his home, 
 until, in the evening, he entered a house near St 
 Clement Danes. A message was then sent to Prance 
 
 1 On July 12th, 18G1, Major Murray, wlio had been decoyed to the 
 chambers of a solicitor in Northumberland Street, was the victim of a 
 murderous assault. After a desperate struggle, in which he sustained 
 severe injuries. Major Murray killed his assailant. The affair was 
 known as the " Northumberland Street Tragedy." 
 
 ^ The five "Popish Lords" denounced by Oates and committed to 
 the Tower were Stafford, Bellasis, Powis, Petre, and Arundel of 
 Wardour. Stafford alone was brought to trial and executed. He is 
 believed to have been selected because he was old and feeble and 
 therefore the less able to defend himself against Oates and other 
 perjured witnesses.
 
 108 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 to come with all speed to Somerset House, a summons 
 with which he complied. About nine o'clock, 
 Godfrey came out into the Strand and walked west- 
 wards in the direction of his house, with Gerald and 
 Green at his heels. When opposite the Water Gate, 
 Hill accosted him and begged him to enter the yard 
 in order to put a stop to a fight. Godfrey demurred, 
 but finally consented to go in through the wicket. 
 France himself remained behind at the gate to keep 
 watch, but the others directed the magistrate across 
 the yard towards the stables, near the lower end of 
 which Berrj^ the porter of the Water Gate, and another 
 man whose name Prance did not know, were waiting 
 seated on a bench. On arriving opposite them. 
 Green sprang upon Godfrey from behind and drew 
 a twisted handkerchief round his throat, w^hile the 
 others fell upon and bore him to the ground. Green 
 then knelt upon his chest, pounded him and finally 
 wrung his neck until it was broken. When hfe was 
 extinct, they carried the body up a short flight of 
 stairs and along a gallery into a small room, used by 
 Hill, in Dr Gauden's lodgings. There it was allowed 
 to remain for two days, when they removed it to 
 another room " looking towards the garden." After 
 lying there for twenty-four hours, it was again carried 
 back to Hill's lodgings and then moved, finally, into 
 the room in which it had been taken in the first 
 instance. On that night, Wednesday, October 16th, 
 a sedan chair was procured, the corpse was placed in 
 it and Prance, Gerald, Green, and the man whose 
 name he did not know, bore it, about midnight, as 
 far as Soho Church. Here Hill awaited them with a 
 horse, upon which they placed the body astride, 
 while Hill mounted behind to hold it up. In this
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 109 
 
 fashion, accompanied by Gerald and Green, Hill 
 took it to Primrose Hill, Prance, who was a family 
 man, having, in the meantime, retmned home.^ 
 
 After listening to Prance's statement, the Council 
 directed that he should be taken to Somerset House 
 in order that he might point out to the Duke of 
 Monmouth and Lord Ossory the different places he 
 had mentioned. From this test Prance emerged 
 successfully. The two peers, on their return, reported 
 that he had guided them without hesitation to the 
 bench, behind which the murder had been committed. 
 With equal certainty he had led them to the little 
 room in Dr Gauden's lodgings. He had not, it was 
 true, been able to take them to the other room, 
 " towards the garden," in which the body had been 
 deposited. But his explanation that it was dark, 
 at the time of its removal, appeared to them quite 
 reasonable. In short, they were considerably im- 
 pressed and felt little doubt that his story was true, 
 in all essential particulars. That same afternoon. 
 Prance was confronted with Green, Berry, and Hill, 
 . who denied their guilt with the utmost energy. Their 
 protestations, however, availed them nothing. All 
 three were ordered off into close confinement in 
 Newgate. But the search for Gerald, the priest, was 
 ineffectual. He appears to have disappeared as 
 completely as those whom Bedloe had denounced. 
 
 Prance, however, had not been long in the better 
 quarters in Newgate, to which he was removed, before 
 he recanted his confession. On December 29th, on 
 which day he was again to be examined by the Lords 
 Committee, he begged that he might be allowed to 
 see the King. His wish was gratified. Charles saw 
 
 1 House of Lords Journals, xiii. pp. 4.36, 437-
 
 110 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 him in the presence of Richardson, the Keeper of 
 Newgate, and of his closet-keeper, the notorious 
 Will Chiffinch, whose services to his royal master 
 were not confined, according to the gossip of the day, 
 to his official duties. ^ Prance, when he was brought 
 before the King, fell upon his knees and declared 
 that he had never been concerned in Godfrey's murder. 
 As he hoped for salvation, he now declared that every 
 word he had told the Council was untrue. Before 
 the Lords Committee he repeated his recantation 
 and was, in consequence, sent back to the condemned 
 hold in Newgate.2 
 
 This new turn which events had taken was extremely 
 displeasing to Lord Shaftesbury, the most active 
 member of the Committee. It is not to be supposed 
 that Oates, before he made his " discoveries," was in 
 communication with Shaftesbury and his political 
 friends. But, when the particulars of the supposed 
 plot were made known, the Whigs perceived at once 
 that it could be made to serve their plans against the 
 Court.^ While in public they loudly proclaimed their 
 implicit belief in Oates' revelations, it is more than 
 probable that, in secret, they sent him advice as to 
 how he should proceed. Strong as was the popular 
 sentiment against the Catholics, it is difficult to believe 
 that his campaign of lies could have been carried on 
 successfully, for so long a period, had he not been 
 
 ^ It happened in the twilight of the day 
 As England's monarch in his closet lay 
 And Chiffinch stept to fetch the female prey 
 The bloody shape of Godfrey did appear. 
 
 Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Ghost, 1678 ; a " libel " of the 
 period J reprinted in Poems of Affairs of State, 1G97. 
 ^ L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. p. 62. 
 
 ^ Lord Acton's opinion on this subject. See Lectures on Modern 
 History, p. 213.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 111 
 
 \inder the protection of one of the great poHtical 
 parties in the State. Prance's confession, which 
 impHcated the Cathohcs in the crime and laid the 
 scene of the murder in the Queen's palace, accorded 
 so thoroughly with the schemes of the Whigs that 
 they were determined to make him adhere to it. At 
 the time, it was widely beheved that torture was 
 actually apphed to him.^ The rumour on that point 
 was false. But the late Mr Andrew Lang ^ discovered 
 a document showing that there was a good founda- 
 tion for the story. The question of reviving this 
 obsolete practice, which even in remote ages was 
 seldom resorted to in this country, was seriously 
 considered. Nottingham, the Lord Chancellor, 
 appears to have been in favour of it. But milder 
 counsels prevailed. Mr Boyce, a maker of glass eyes, 
 an old friend and a fellow countryman of Prance, 
 was sent to Newgate, in the hope that he might be 
 able to induce him to adopt a more reasonable attitude. 
 The issue was terribly simple. If he would abide by 
 his confession a free pardon and protection were 
 assured to him. If he should persist in declaring 
 himself innocent, Bedloe's evidence would amply 
 suffice to hang him. Boyce,^ in his narrative, describes 
 the agonising phases of doubt and the paroxysms of 
 terror which Prance went through. And the task 
 of bringing him into the desired frame of mind was 
 not entrusted to Boyce alone. Dr Lloyd, the Dean 
 of Bangor, was, according to Burnet,'* " a most zealous 
 
 1 State Trials, vii. p. 210. L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. pp. 76, 
 77, 78. 
 
 2 A. Lang, The Vakt's Tragedy, etc., p. 90. 
 
 ^ The Narrative of Mr William Boys, pp. .5 and G. 
 * G. Burnet, History, i. p. 3o7.
 
 112 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 man against Popery." He had preached a famous 
 sermon at Godfrey's funeral and had taken an active 
 interest in the discovery of his murderers. The 
 Committee now desired him to proceed to Newgate 
 " to discourse with Prance in order to settle his 
 mind." 1 
 
 The Dean found the unhappy wretch in a very low 
 condition. He was almost dead with cold and his 
 pulse was very feeble. At first, he could make but 
 little impression upon him. Nevertheless, he spoke 
 to him kindly and, before leaving, gave directions 
 that he should be put to bed in a warm room. The 
 next morning he was in a much more yielding mood 
 and, when the astute Dean showed him his warrant 
 of pardon fully made out, he gave way completely. 
 On, or about January 11th, he declared that his first 
 confession was true and to this statement he, hence- 
 forward, adhered constantly. Indeed, so thoroughly 
 did he enter into the part of the informer that he soon 
 began to display a general knowledge of the plot. 
 Some eight years later, Dr Lloyd, in a letter to 
 L'Estrange, described Prance as " a white livered 
 fellow of loose principles " and asserted that he had 
 never believed that his confession " could stand." ^ 
 But, when he gave vent to these sentiments James II. 
 was King, the Tories were in power, Oates had been 
 convicted of perjury, and Prance himself was about 
 to be tried for the same offence. At the time of 
 his visits to Newgate, he expressed himself very 
 differently to Dr Burnet,^ assuring him that the 
 sincerity of the man's avowals admitted of no doubt. 
 It is not improbable that attempts were also made to- 
 
 ^ L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. p. 67. ^ Ibid., iii. pp. 84-85. 
 
 =* G. Burnet, History, ii. p. 194.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 113 
 
 extract confessions from Green, Berry, and Hill. In 
 the book, in which the examinations by the Lords 
 Committee are recorded, the following entry appears 
 under the date of December 27th and is significant.^ 
 " Captain Richardson acquaints the Committee that 
 Hill is kept in the dungeon which the Committee 
 approve of." But if he, or either of his two com- 
 panions in misfortune, had to undergo unusual ill- 
 treatment, they persisted, none the less, in resolutely 
 asserting their innocence and, in due course, were 
 committed to stand their trial at the next gaol 
 delivery. If it be true that Primiose Hill, where 
 Godfrey's body was found, had formerly been known 
 as Greenberry Hill, it is a curious coincidence that 
 Green, Berry, and Hill should be the names of the 
 alleged murderers.^ 
 
 History has been very severe upon Sir WilHam 
 Scroggs, the Lord Chief Justice, the presiding judge 
 at most of the trials connected with the Popish Plot. 
 His partiality, his brutality and his fierce denuncia- 
 tions of the Roman Catholics have earned for him a 
 reputation almost as evil as that of Jeffreys. It 
 must be remembered, however, that, in his lifetime, 
 he was driven from office for reasons very different 
 from those which now cause him to be remembered 
 with so much abhorrence. Not improbably he was 
 actuated by no higher motive than a desire to please 
 the King, but it is, none the less, true that the Whig 
 faction encompassed his downfall, because he threw 
 doubts upon the truthfulness of the Crown witnesses 
 
 1 Lords MSS., December 27th. 
 
 2 I have not been able to verify the truth of this story. It excited 
 much interest at the time. It looks to me, however, suspiciously like 
 ^\'hig anti-Catholic propaganda. 
 
 H
 
 114 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 and allowed Wakeman to be acquitted. But, in these 
 early days, he was still a staunch upholder of Oates 
 and the other informers. Nevertheless, it is doubtful 
 whether the three men, accused of Godfrey's murder, 
 would have fared any better at the hands of another 
 judge. It was to the trials of this period that Sir 
 James Stephen referred, when he says, in his History 
 of the Criminal Law, that neither judges nor counsel 
 had " any conception of the true nature of judicial 
 evidence." Hearsay was admitted and the uncor- 
 roborated testimony of an accomplice was accepted. 
 The value of cross-examination, as a means of testing 
 the truthfulness of a witness, was not yet reahsed.^ 
 Any cross-examination, in the modern sense of the 
 word, which took place, was generally undertaken by 
 the judge himself. The skilful manner in which, 
 some years later, Jeffreys dragged the truth from an 
 unwilling witness, at the trial of Mrs., or, as she is 
 improperly, but more generally, styled, Lady Alice 
 Lisle, will always rank as a masterpiece of the 
 art.2 
 
 In the 17th century the prisoner at the bar started 
 upon his struggle for life at a terrible disadvantage. 
 He was not allowed the assistance of counsel and, 
 although he might call witnesses in his defence, the 
 law did not permit them to be sworn. But, perhaps the 
 most serious difficulty with which he had to contend, 
 was that he entered the Court in complete ignorance 
 of the evidence the Crown proposed to call against 
 him. A trained barrister, so circumstanced, would 
 have found it difficult to prepare a suitable defence. 
 The plight of an uneducated man, under such con- 
 
 1 Sir James Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i. pp. 399-402. 
 
 2 State Trials, xi. pp. 326-S59.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 115 
 
 ditions, is awful to contemplate. And in the trials 
 for the Popish Plot the horror of the situation was 
 aggravated by the hostile attitude of the audience 
 towards the prisoners. Readers of the State Trials 
 can picture to themselves the scene, when they come 
 to the ominous words " the people sent up a great 
 Hum." In Wakeman's case, directly the jury 
 brought in their verdict of " Not Guilty," the Keeper 
 of Newgate, who had the accused in his charge, bade 
 him fall upon his knees. ^ And well he might. If 
 €ver a man had cause to offer thanks on bended knees, 
 it was the State prisoner who, when public feeling 
 was running strong against him, was placed upon his 
 trial and granted " a good deliverance." 
 
 On February 5th, 1679, Robert Green, Henry Berry, 
 and Laurence Hill, labourers, were arraigned at the 
 bar of the Court of the King's Bench for the wilful 
 murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. The names 
 of Girald, clerk, Dominic Kelly, clerk, and Philibert 
 Vernatt, labourer " who are withdrawn " were in- 
 cluded in the indictment. Kelly was supposed to be 
 the man whom Prance had declared had taken part 
 in the murder, but whose name he did not know. 
 Vernatt' s connection with the case will be shown in 
 due course. Efforts to arrest these men had been 
 made, but, as the indictment stated, they had " with- 
 drawn " in time. After the three prisoners at the bar 
 had pleaded " Not Guilty," further proceedings 
 were postponed, at the request of Sir Wilham Jones, 
 the Attorney-General, in order " that the King's 
 evidence might be the more ready." It was not, 
 consequently, until February 10th that the trial 
 began. So great was the throng in Court, that the 
 
 1 state Trials, vii, p. 688.
 
 116 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 crier was ordered to make proclamation that al! 
 persons were to withdraw from the place set aside 
 for the jury, under penalty of £100 a man.^ The 
 Lord Chief Justice, Sir William Scroggs, assisted by 
 Mr Justice Dolben, Mr Justice Wild, Mr Justice 
 Jones, and by the Recorder, Sir George Jeffreys^ 
 presided. In his opening speech, Sir William Jones 
 made it clear that the case for the Crown rested 
 entirely upon Prance's evidence of which, however, 
 Mr Attorney-General had the hardihood to declare 
 that " he proposed to fortify every particular with 
 concurrent proof of other testimony." - 
 
 Oates was the first witness. He told the story 
 of how, on September 28th, he had sworn to his 
 depositions before Godfrey. Further, he related that 
 in a conversation, shortly before the murder, the 
 deceased magistrate had said to him that " he went 
 in fear of his life by the Popish party." Mr Robinson, 
 Chief Protonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, 
 an old friend and former schoolfellow of Godfrey, 
 deposed that he had expressed the same fears to him.^ 
 Prance was called next, and Mr Attorney-General, 
 by a series of questions, many of which would now be 
 objected to as " leading," proceeded to draw from 
 him the particulars of the different incidents which 
 he had described in his confession. As the story 
 which he told the Court w^as substantially the same 
 as the account he gave the Privy Council, it need 
 not be recapitulated. One episode, however, which 
 he related must be mentioned, because it explains 
 why Vernatt's name came to be in the indictment 
 and because it is tj^^pical of the kind of evidence 
 
 1 state Trials, vii. pp. 159-162. * Ibid., p. 167. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 168.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 117 
 
 which was admitted against the prisoners. Soon 
 ^fter the murder, on a Friday, Prance and some of 
 his Roman Cathohc friends had a httle dinner, con- 
 sisting of " a barrel of oysters and a dish of fish," 
 in a private room at the Queen's Head at Bow. 
 During the meal the crime was discussed and Vernatt, 
 who was of the party, expressed regret that he had 
 not taken part in it. While they were talking in 
 this strain, Prance went to the door and discovered 
 the drawer listening at the keyhole. He ordered 
 him away, adding that he had it in his " heart to kick 
 him downstairs." ^ This young man was called and 
 corroborated Prance's story, stating that, while 
 he had been eavesdropping, he had heard the name 
 of Godfrey mentioned. ^ Clearly, however, as none 
 of the three men at the bar had been present at this 
 entertainment, nothing that Prance and his friends 
 may have said should have been used as evidence 
 against them. 
 
 When Mr Attorney- General had finished with 
 Prance, the accused appealed to Scroggs to rule out 
 his evidence on the ground that it was perjured. But 
 to this he would not consent. Prance, it was true, 
 had gone back upon his confession, but his recanta- 
 tion had not been given on oath and he had not, 
 therefore, committed perjury. " Try if you can 
 trap him in any question," ^ said Mr Justice Dolben. 
 Without doubt, this was very sound advice. Un- 
 fortunately, the three poor prisoners at the bar were 
 quite incapable of acting upon it. Green could neither 
 read nor write. Berry and Hill were merely respect- 
 able men of the labouring class. The few, rather 
 
 1 state Trials, p. 174. * Ibid., vii. p. 190. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 175-176.
 
 118 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 futile questions, which they put to him, were not of 
 a nature to place him in any difficulty. Bedloe was 
 the next witness. 
 
 It is truly extraordinary that the Crown should 
 have called this person. As far as it went, his account 
 of the murder tended to exculpate, not to incriminate, 
 the prisoners. His story, as will be remembered, 
 was that the Jesuit, Lefevre, had told him that 
 he had killed Godfrey with the assistance of some 
 men other than the accused. The only direct know- 
 ledge of the crime, which Bedloe professed to have, 
 was that he had seen Godfrey's body in a room 
 at Somerset House and that some persons, presum- 
 ably the murderers, were standing round the corpse. 
 One of them was a man who, at the time, he thought 
 was an attendant or verger at the Queen's Chapel, 
 but whom he now knew to be Prance. Neither 
 in nor out of Court, however, had Bedloe ever pre- 
 tended that Green, Berry, or Hill had been present 
 on that occasion. All that he could now say against 
 them was that " they," meaning Lefevre and his 
 accomplices, had told him, when he asked them 
 how the body was to be moved from Somerset 
 House, that " the porter would sit up to let them 
 out." 
 
 Recorder (Jeffreys). What porter ? 
 
 Bedloe. The porter of the house. 
 
 Recorder. Who, Berry ? 
 
 Bedloe. Yes : As for that Hill and the old man 
 (Green, who was fifty-four) I do not know that I 
 have any particular knowledge of them, but only I 
 looked upon them as ill-designing men, seeing them 
 in the chapel." ^ It is hardly necessary to point 
 
 1 state Trials, vii. p. 182.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 119 
 
 out that, ^vith respect to Berry, this was hearsay 
 evidence which would to-day be ruled out and that, 
 with regard to the other two, it was a mere expres- 
 sion of opinion and as such inadmissible. 
 
 The evidence of the constable who had found, 
 and of the surgeons who had examined, Godfrey's 
 body need not be repeated. The landlord and pot- 
 boy of the Plough in the Strand deposed that the 
 three prisoners. Prance, and Gerald had all been 
 drinking together shortly before the murder. ^ This 
 the accused did not deny. Of far more weight, 
 however, as corroborating Prance's story in an 
 important particular, was the evidence of one of 
 Godfrey's servants. Prance had stated that, on the 
 day of the murder, Godfrey had been followed 
 wherever he went, and that Hill had called at his 
 house, on some pretext or another, for the purpose 
 of finding out whether he were at home. 
 
 Elizabeth Curtis now swore that she recognised 
 Hill as a man who had come to see her master, 
 early in the morning of the fatal day. He was 
 wearing, she declared, " the same clothes in Court " 
 as he had on on that occasion. Hill, who denied 
 absolutely that he had ever been to the house in 
 Hartshorne Lane, admitted, however, that, at the 
 date of the murder, he must have been dressed in 
 the clothes which he was now wearing.'- In these 
 days, it is recognised that the identification of an 
 accused person by a witness, to whom he is a stranger, 
 is a class of evidence which must be accepted with 
 a certain degree of caution. Such value as attaches 
 to it depends wholly on the manner in which the 
 process of identification is carried out. In this 
 
 ' state Trials, pp. 188-189. ^ Hid., pp. 186-187.
 
 no FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 instance, according to Dr Burnett, matters were con- 
 ducted very much as they would be to-day. The 
 woman was taken to Newgate, where she picked 
 out Hill among '' a crowd of prisoners." ^ Her 
 recognition of him was the one piece of really 
 corroborative evidence which the prosecution was 
 able to produce. 
 
 At the close of the case for the Crown, none 
 of the prisoners addressed the Court, but con- 
 tented themselves with calling their ^vitnesses. On 
 behalf of Hill, Miss Tilden, Dr Gauden's niece, and 
 Mrs Broadstreet, his housekeeper, testified that he 
 was always at home by eight o'clock in the evening 
 and could not have gone out later, without their 
 knowledge. Further, they declared that it was 
 out of the question that, unknown to them, the dead 
 body could have lain for two days in the little room 
 or pantry in their lodgings, as Prance had asserted 
 it had. It is impossible to read their evidence with- 
 out feeling that both were convinced of the poor 
 man's innocence and were desperately anxious to 
 save him. Tliey were, in consequence, subjected 
 to much brow-beating and interruptions from the 
 bench. When Miss Tilden was speaking of Hill's 
 whereabouts, Jeffreys observed that he hoped she 
 had not kept him " company all night," ^ while 
 Mrs Broadstreet was warned that she might consider 
 herself lucky that she was " not in the indictment." ^ 
 Scroggs ehcited that both women were Roman 
 Cathohcs and that Mrs Broadstreet's brother was 
 a priest. In the interests of a co-religionist, com- 
 mented his lordship, it was always lawful for a papist 
 
 1 G. Burnett, History, ii. p. 192. » State Trials, vii. p. 196. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 199.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 121 
 
 to say anything to a heretic.^ Well might Mrs Hill, 
 who was assisting her husband in his defence, 
 protest that her witnesses had never been given a fair 
 chance, " they were modest and the Com-t laughed at 
 them." 2 
 
 Green's landlord and his wife gave evidence to 
 the effect that he had been at home at the time 
 when the murder was alleged to have been com- 
 mitted.^ On behalf of Berry, a corporal and two 
 men of the Guards, who had been on duty at the 
 Water Gate, on the night when the body was 
 supposed to have been carried through it, stated 
 positively that no sedan-chair had gone out, 
 although they remembered that one had come in. 
 The night in question was clearly impressed upon 
 their memories by the fact that it was the night 
 on which the Queen had gone from Somerset House 
 to Whitehall to greet the King on his return 
 from Newmarket. The Bench put it to both 
 these men that, while they had been on sentry, 
 they had entered Berry's house to obtain a drink 
 and that the chair might have passed out unper- 
 ceived by them. But this they denied absolutely. 
 He had not been " a pike's length off the place of 
 sentry," declared Trollop, and his comrade was 
 no less emphatic.^ Had the defence been conducted 
 as it would be under modern conditions, a witness 
 would have been called who would have thrown still 
 more discredit upon Prance's story of the removal 
 of the body. It has already been mentioned that, 
 some four years later, three men were indicted for 
 printing and publishing a libel to the effect that 
 
 1 state Triala, p. liJ7. - ll>id., 210. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 203-205. " Ibid., pp. 207-209.
 
 122 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Godfrey had committed suicide. On that occasion, 
 the Crown called a certain Fisher,^ who had stripped 
 the body before the inquest, in order that he might 
 testify to the complete absence of blood on the 
 front part of Godfrey's clothes. But, in the course 
 of giving his evidence, this man disclosed the im- 
 portant fact that the dead man's arms were so stiff 
 that his shirt had to be torn off,^ The difficulty of 
 reconciling this circumstance with Prance's account 
 that the body had been placed in a sedan-chair 
 and, subsequently, astride a horse was realised at 
 the time, and this portion of Fisher's evidence was, 
 in consequence, not allowed to appear in the official 
 report of the trial. This question of the tampering 
 with the authorised accounts of the proceedings can, 
 however, be more conveniently discussed in con- 
 nection with the next episode of the trial. 
 
 When the soldiers had given their evidence, Mrs 
 Hill intimated that she had yet another witness, 
 Mr Chevins, to call. 
 
 L. C. J. Well, sir, what say you ? 
 
 Chevins. I have nothing to say, but that I heard 
 Mr Prance deny all. 
 
 L. C. J. Why, he does not deny that now. Well, 
 have you any more ? 
 
 Chevins, We have no more.^ 
 
 It will, doubtless, be wondered who Mr Chevins 
 was and why his singularly uninteresting evidence 
 has been given so minutely. 
 
 Mr Chevins * was no less a person than Mr William 
 
 1 state Trials, viii. p. 1380, 
 
 2 L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. pp. 270-271. 
 ^ State Trials, vii. p. 210. 
 
 * It should not be regarded as suspicious that Chiffiuch's name is 
 spelt in this way. Pepys always writes of him as Chevins.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 123 
 
 Chiffinch, the Keeper of the King's closet. Accord- 
 ing to the official report of the trial, it was in this 
 perfunctory manner that he saw fit to describe the 
 scene, in which Prance fell upon his knees before 
 Charles II. and, in answer to his adjuration to speak 
 the truth, declared, as he hoped for salvation, that 
 his story to the Privy Council was false from 
 beginning to end. L'Estrange, who some years later, 
 was appointed by James II. to inquire into the 
 proceedings connected with the Popish Plot, gives 
 this explanation of Chiffinch's inexphcable conduct. 
 In point of fact, says L'Estrange, Chiffinch, at the 
 trial, gave a full and perfectly truthful account of 
 what had passed. But the Whigs were resolved that 
 nothing must be allowed to appear which could 
 shake the popular belief in the genuineness of the 
 plot. Accordingly, in collusion presumably with 
 Scroggs, they arranged that only the above quoted 
 garbled and, wholly uninteUigible version of 
 Chiffinch's deposition should be published.^ It 
 should be explained that, in those days, after an 
 important trial, it was the practise of the presiding 
 judge to appoint some particular publisher to print 
 the official report of the proceedings. It was a 
 punishable offence for another firm to issue any 
 account whatsoever of the trial. Thus, in the 
 absence of newspaper reports, the public could 
 only learn what had taken place from the authorised 
 edition. Complete dependence should not, as a 
 rule, be placed on L'Estrange statements, especially 
 when his political opponents are in question. But, 
 in this instance, his explanation is, without doubt, 
 true. It is inconceivable that Chiffinch, if he came 
 
 ^ L'Estrange, Brief Xarrativp, iii. p. 100.
 
 124 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 forward at all, and it was not in the power of the 
 prisoners to compel him to give evidence, should 
 not have described faithfully the scene of which he 
 had been a witness. The only other alternative is 
 to suggest that he had a secret understanding with 
 the Whigs and that is unthinkable. 
 
 As soon as the defence was closed, Mr Attorney- 
 General addressed the Court, maintaining that the 
 prosecution had proved its case completely. Scroggs 
 then proceeded to charge the jury. It is needless to 
 say that his review of the evidence bore no resemblance 
 to the fair and impartial summing-up of a modern 
 judge. Bedloe's evidence, he declared, should be 
 regarded as a general corroboration of Prance's 
 account of the murder. Alone the recognition of 
 Hill by Godfrey's maidservant " half proved the 
 matter." As regards the defence, the attempt to 
 set up an alibi on behalf of Hill and Green had failed. 
 But, in the matter of the removal of the body, the 
 evidence of the sentries should be seriously con- 
 sidered. The night, however, was dark and it was 
 quite possible that the chair might have been carried 
 out unnoticed by them. The crime ^ had originated 
 in the devihsh minds of the priests and, after a fierce 
 outburst against their doctrines, he concluded by 
 bidding the jury ask themselves whether the evidence 
 did not satisfy their consciences that the prisoners 
 were guilty. He knew that '' they would do as 
 honest men on both sides." After a short absence, 
 the jury returned to Court with a verdict of " Guilty," 
 against all three accused. Scroggs lost no time in 
 assuring them that it was a finding in which he 
 thoroughly concurred. Had he been one of them, 
 
 1 state Trials, vii. pp. 213-220.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 125 
 
 and " had it been the last word he was to speak in 
 the world he would have pronounced them guilty." 
 This was a highly popular sentiment and " the whole 
 assembly gave a great shout of applause." ^ 
 
 On the following day, the prisoners were brought 
 back to Court and sentenced to death in the usual 
 manner. Green and Hill were hanged at Tyburn on 
 February 21st, 1679, but the execution of Berry, 
 because he was a protestant, was deferred until the 
 28th. All three of these unhappy men died with 
 the greatest courage, protesting their innocence with 
 their last breath. 
 
 A circumstance of great importance w^hich is, prob- 
 ably, the key to the mystery of Godfrey's death, 
 had not been disclosed at this trial. It was, ap- 
 parently, not until November 30th, 1680, at the 
 impeachment of Lord Stafford,^ that the public 
 learnt that Godfrey and Coleman had been on terms 
 of intimate relationship. Nevertheless, this fact 
 had been communicated to the Lords Committee 
 at an early stage of the investigations. Mr Tilden, 
 a common friend of Coleman and of Godfrey, stated 
 that, on September 28th, on the day on which Oates 
 had sworn to his depositions before Godfrey, the two 
 men met and conferred together at his house. This 
 gentleman's servant, Samuel Idells, deposed that 
 Coleman sent him to tell Godfrey " that one Clark 
 would speak with him." Godfrey, evidently, quite 
 understood what this message meant and came at 
 once to Tilden's house, where he and Coleman were 
 closeted together for a considerable time. Tilden, 
 w^hen he came into the room, described them as 
 engaged in reading papers. Now, it is impossible 
 
 1 State Trials, p. 221. « Ibid., p. 1311).
 
 126 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 to doubt that these papers contained the depositions. 
 Coleman, therefore, must have learnt from Godfrey 
 himself that he had been denounced by Oates and was 
 thus enabled to remove or to destroy a large part of 
 his correspondence. On receiving this information, 
 the Lords at once sent orders to Newgate that Coleman 
 must on no account be allowed to communicate with 
 any one and, at the same time, they appointed a sub- 
 committee consisting of the Bishop of London, 
 Lords Shaftesbury, Danby, Clarendon, and Essex, 
 or any three of them, to examine him touching 
 Godfrey's murder .^ But no report appears to exist of 
 their inquiry. The journals and MSS. of the House 
 of Lords make no further mention of it. 
 
 Coleman, it is to be presumed, asserted that he could 
 throw no light upon the m^atter. At Tyburn, under 
 the shadow of the gallows, in answer to a question 
 put to him by the sheriffs, he declared, as a dying man, 
 that he knew nothing of the murder " for that he was 
 a prisoner at that time." •^ Nevertheless, the apparent 
 suddenness with which the anxiety of the committee 
 to investigate the business was dissipated affords 
 food for serious reflection. Is it possible that 
 Shaftesbury may have dissuaded them from pushing 
 the matter too far ? Did he use some argument of 
 this kind ? The murdered man was regarded by the 
 public as an upright magistrate who, in the discharge 
 of his official duties, had incurred the hatred of the 
 papists and had been done to death by them. Why 
 shatter so healthy an illusion ? Would it serve any 
 good purpose to let it be known that he had been in 
 secret communication with Coleman, the conspirator ? 
 
 ^ House of Lords Journals, xiii. pp. 307, House of Lords MSS. (5). 
 * State Trials, vii. p. 78.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 127 
 
 Even before Charles' death, behef in the reahty of 
 the plot had greatly diminished and, when James II. 
 succeeded to the throne, a terrible retribution overtook 
 its chief contriver. About a year after Oates' con- 
 viction, Prance, on June 15th, 1686, pleaded guilty 
 to a charge of perjury in that same Court in which, 
 eight years earlier, he had sworn away the lives of 
 the three men whose trial has been related. The 
 Court, giving as the reason that he had acknowledged 
 his guilt, passed what was, in the circumstances, a 
 light sentence upon him. He was to be fined £100, 
 to stand in the pillory on three different occasions 
 and to be flogged from Newgate to Tyburn. Nor 
 was his punishment carried out in its entirety, His 
 Majesty being graciously pleased to remit the 
 whipping. 
 
 About this same time, L'Estrange was, by James' 
 orders, conducting an inquiry into the plot. 
 L'Estrange, a strong Tory, embarked upon his con- 
 genial task with the two-fold object of exposing 
 the intrigues of the Whigs and of proving that 
 Godfrey's murder was no murder at all, inasmuch as 
 he committed suicide. In pursuit of this purpose, 
 he collected some good and much bad evidence ^ which 
 he embodied in his Brief Narrative. Since his time 
 down to very recent years, no serious attempt appears 
 to have been made to unravel the mystery. In 1903, 
 however, Mr Pollock, who is now a recognised 
 authority on the Stuart period, pubhshed an ex- 
 haustive study of the Popish Plot. The appearance 
 
 ^ L'Estrange, -^r?>/"A''ar;-«^n>(^^ iii. p. 97. " Mary Gibbon senior de- 
 poseth that she had it from Judith I'amphlin that one Mr Parsons told 
 Sir Edmund Clark that he met Sir Edmund (Godfrey) the same 
 Saturday he went away and Sir Edmund asked him the way to Primrose 
 Hill." This is an example of some of the evidence.
 
 1S8 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of this book led to much controversy and to further 
 investigations on the part of Mr Marks, whose work 
 has ah-eady been referred to, Mr Andrew Lang and 
 Father Gerard. Mr Pollock does not pretend that 
 his theory of the murder rests upon a solid founda- 
 tion of proof, but he does contend that it is consistent 
 with estabhshed facts and that, to quote the words 
 of Dr Gardiner, it supplies " the key which fits the 
 lock." 1 
 
 Stated very shortly, Mr Pollock has come to the 
 conclusion that Godfrey was deliberately murdered 
 by Lefevre, the Queen's confessor, because he had 
 become possessed of a secret of vital importance. 
 On September 28th, on the day on which they met 
 at Mr Tilden's house, Coleman, he conjectures, 
 imparted to Godfrey the fact that the so-called Jesuit 
 " consult " had taken place not at The White Horse 
 in the Strand, as Oates had falsely stated, but at the 
 Duke of York's lodgings in St James's Palace. Should 
 this come out, the Duke's chance of succeeding his 
 brother would be ruined irretrievably. No Ex- 
 clusion Bill would be necessary. He could be im- 
 peached for High Treason and, if not sent to the 
 scaffold, could be driven into exile. Godfrey's fate 
 was sealed when the Jesuits learnt that Coleman had 
 divulged to him this momentous secret .- 
 
 It is e\ndent, however, that Mr Pollock greatly 
 over-estimated the importance of this secret. On 
 his own showing, James II. " let it out " in the course 
 of an ordinary conversation with Sir John Reresby, 
 some years later. It is true that, on that occasion, 
 he was King and had not the same reasons for main- 
 
 1 J. Pollock, The Popish Plot, pp. 86-87. 
 
 2 ihifi,^ pp. 1.52-1.53.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 129 
 
 taining silence, as he had when he was heir to the 
 throne and when the Whigs were seeking to exclude 
 him from the royal succession. Nevertheless, accord- 
 ing to Mr Pollock, its preservation had cost Godfrey 
 his life, three men had been hanged for his murder, 
 and the popular fury which the crime had evoked 
 had done immense harm to the Catholic party. 
 That would have been a terrible secret and one to 
 which it is difficult to believe that James, either as 
 King or Duke of York, would ever have alluded. 
 But there is yet a stronger objection which can be 
 urged against Mr Pollock's theory. Father Gerard 
 has shown conclusively that this secret was, in the 
 true sense of the word, no secret at all. The Jesuits, 
 he does not deny, did actually meet in the Duke's 
 house, on April 24, 1678, for the transaction of the 
 ordinary business of the Society.^ But that was 
 revealed in a pamphlet, published in 1680, entitled 
 A Vindication of the English Catholics, from which 
 he quotes the following passage. " I do not believe 
 the Jesuits will satisfy his curiosity [as to where ' the 
 consult ' was held]. It would be an ill requital 
 of the favour received from him who did not refuse 
 their meeting under his roof which would render him 
 hable to a violent mahcious faction." - Whatever 
 the reason of Godfrey's murder may have been, it 
 was clearly not to prevent him from revealing an open 
 secret of that kind. 
 
 Mr Pollock has much that is new and interesting 
 to say about Prance. Prance, he considers, " was 
 one of the most astute and audacious of the Jesuit 
 
 ^ Rev. J. Gerard, S.J., The Popish Plot and its newest Historian, 
 p. 5. 
 
 - Ibid., p. 7. 
 
 I
 
 130 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 agents,"* and was, undoubtedly, concerned in the 
 murder. When in Newgate and in peril of his hfe, 
 he made a truthful confession of the manner in 
 which the deed had been perpetrated, but, in order 
 to shield Lefevre, the Queen's confessor, he dehber- 
 ately accused three innocent men of the crime. 
 Now, for at least six weeks before Prance made his 
 statement to the Council, the authorities had been 
 in vain trying to lay hands on this man, whom 
 Bedloe had denounced, as early as November 7th. 
 Why, therefore, should Prance charge three men, 
 two of whom were his co-reHgionists, in order to 
 screen a priest who had presumably placed himself 
 out of danger in some other country ? For shielding 
 Lefevre, as Mr Pollock contends he did. Prance 
 earned his reward when he was brought to justice 
 eight years later. It was for good service rendered 
 to the CathoHc cause that James remitted the flogging 
 to which he was deservedly condemned.^ It must 
 be remembered, however, that Prance by the ill 
 treatment to which he was subjected in Newgate 
 was almost driven to commit perjury, whereas, 
 Oates and Dangerfield,^ to the severity of whose 
 
 1 J. Pollock, The Popish Plot, p. 166. 
 
 s Ibid., pp. 163-164. 
 
 3 Dangerfield was a Crown witness at many of the later trials of the 
 Popish Plot. In 1685, he was sentenced to be flogged from Newgate 
 to Tyburn, besides standing in the pillory, etc. After his whipping, as 
 he was being brought back in a coach to Newgate, a young barrister, 
 named Robert Francis, after some insulting words, struck him with a 
 cane and injured his eye severely. Soon after his return to prison 
 he died. It is doubtful whether his death was due to the severity of 
 his punishment or to Francis^ assault. Francis, however, was ti-ied 
 and hanged for his murder. 
 
 Bedloe was never brought to justice. He died at Bristol, in 1680, 
 solemnly asserting on his deathbed that everything was true which 
 he had sworn to at the various trials at which he had been a witness.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 131 
 
 punishments Mr Pollock draws attention, deliber- 
 ately embarked on their careers as false witnesses 
 for pecuniary gain. But it is a curious and signi- 
 ficant fact that, when the revolution broke out and 
 James was forced to fly. Prance, deeming it prudent 
 to leave this country, made the journey to the coast 
 in company with Warner, the Provincial of the 
 Jesuits. Both were detained for a time at Gravesend, 
 but both, subsequently, appear to have reached 
 France in safety. This is certainly a very mysterious 
 circumstance. Prance, who had appeared as a Crown 
 witness at so many of the trials of his co-rehgionists, 
 is a strange travelhng companion for Father Warner 
 to have chosen.^ 
 
 Before concluding this inquiry with a suggestion 
 as to the direction in which the truth probably lies, 
 there is one other theory to be considered. It has 
 been conjectured, notably by Sir James Stephen, 
 that Godfrey may have been murdered by Oates 
 himself.2 L'Estrange has declared that the Popish 
 Plot was " almost cold in the mouth " ^ at the time 
 of Godfrey's death. It was that event which gave 
 to Oates' allegations an appearance of reality and 
 enabled him and his Whig patrons to impose upon 
 the public credulity. It may be presumed that, if 
 Oates had thought that a murder was necessary 
 for the successful development of his plans, he would 
 not have hesitated to commit one. But the crime 
 bears no appearance of having been perpetrated by 
 him. The denunciations of the alleged murderers 
 did not emanate from him nor is there the smallest 
 
 1 J. Pollock, The Popish Plot, pp. 164-165. 
 
 * Sir J. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i. p. 393. 
 
 ^ L'Estrange, Brief Narrative, iii. p, 13.
 
 132 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 trace of his hand in any of the proceedings associated 
 with the affair. Moreover, if he or his myrmidons, 
 killed Godfrey, it could only have been for the pur- 
 pose of making it appear that he had been made 
 away with by the papists. In that case, after de- 
 positing the body in the ditch on Primrose Hill^ 
 would they not have left behind them some false 
 clue casting suspicion on the CathoHcs ? Oates,. 
 undoubtedly, derived the greatest benefit from 
 the crime, but it is in the highest degree im- 
 probable that he was in any way concerned in 
 it. 
 
 It is impossible to study the Godfrey case without 
 coming to the conclusion that the elucidation of the 
 affair was gravely impeded by the spirit in which 
 the inquiry was conducted. The Whigs, who were 
 in the majority on the parliamentary committees, 
 made all their investigations subservient to the 
 political objects which they had at heart. It has 
 been shown how the Lords, when they had extorted 
 a confession from Prance, greedily accepted his 
 story because it bore heavily upon the Jesuits. Once 
 the three poor wretches, whom he accused, had been 
 convicted, his account of the murder acquired the 
 sacredness of the chose jugee. Indeed, by the poHtical 
 and religious animosities which it evoked, and by 
 the awful miscarriages of justice to which it gave 
 rise, the Popish Plot has some striking points of re- 
 semblance with the Dreyfus case. Lord Shaftesbury 
 and his friends were quite as determined to convict 
 the Catholics of Godfrey's murder, as were the anti- 
 Dreyfusards in France to prove that the Jewish 
 officer had betrayed his country. The apparent 
 reluctance of the Lords to probe to the bottom of
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 133 
 
 the mystery of the relations between Godfrey and 
 Coleman is a case in point. 
 
 Godfrey's conduct strangely belied his public 
 reputation as an upright and conscientious magis- 
 trate. What did he do, when, in the discharge of 
 his official duties, he became acquainted with the 
 nature of Gates' accusations? He, immediately, 
 warned Coleman of his danger, and thus enabled him 
 to destroy a large part of his compromising corre- 
 spondence. From that moment, all his friends 
 observed that he was anxious and depressed, and, 
 to several of them, he intimated plainly enough that 
 some danger hung over him. The believers in the 
 theory of his suicide maintain that he was in terror 
 that his communications to Coleman should be 
 known and his conduct be called into question. 
 It is certain, however, that his fears were of a dif- 
 ferent character altogether. In conversation with 
 Dr Burnett, he spoke of " being knocked on the 
 head." But, when the doctor suggested that he 
 -should go about accompanied by a servant, he could 
 only talk of the demoralising effect on servants of 
 waiting about for their masters.^ To his old friend 
 and former schoolfellow, Mr Robinson, who, also, 
 tried to dissuade him from going out alone, he made 
 the objection that he disliked being followed by a 
 servant, it was " a clog to a man." It is seldom 
 that it is possible to quote Gates with approval, 
 but he seems, in connection with this matter, to 
 have given Godfrey some veiy sensible advice. If 
 his servant were " a poor weak " creature, " why 
 did he not get a good brisk fellow to attend him? " ^ 
 
 ^ G. Buruet, History, ii. p. KJo. 
 ^ State Trial.',; vii. p. 1G8.
 
 134 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Why, indeed ? And, be it remembered, that it was 
 unusual for a man, in the condition of Ufe to which 
 Godfrey belonged, to walk abroad unattended. It 
 may be that no significance should be attached to 
 the various reasons which he gave for desiring to 
 go about alone, notwithstanding the danger which 
 he apprehended. But it is plain that, if he had 
 some secret business to transact, it might be highly 
 inconvenient to have " a good brisk fellow '' at his 
 heels. 
 
 Coleman is generally described as a fanatical 
 pupil of the Jesuits, engaged in more or less visionary 
 schemes for the re-establishment of the Roman 
 Catholic religion in this country. But his activities 
 were by no means confined to the foreign corre- 
 spondence which brought him to the scaffold. The 
 standard of political morality was deplorably low 
 and the deaHngs of the French ambassador with 
 many members of the House of Commons are no 
 longer a secret. That Coleman was Barillon's agent 
 in many transactions of this kind admits of no doubt.^ 
 " He dealt much," says Burnett, " in the giving 
 and taking of bribes." ^ Godfrey was not a member 
 of Parliament, but he was a man of influence and 
 standing. If the austere republican, Algernon 
 Sidney,^ could sell his services for French gold, 
 may not Godfrey have concluded some equally 
 corrupt bargain with Coleman ? He was, apparently, 
 in prosperous circumstances and no reason exists 
 to suppose that he was in want of money. But 
 the true condition of his affairs cannot be ascer- 
 
 1 J. Pollock, Pophh Plot, p. 31. 
 
 * G. Buriiet, History, ii. p. 52. 
 
 ' JJict. National Biography : Sidney, Algernon.
 
 MURDER OF SIR EDMUND GODFREY 135 
 
 tained. In those times a man's heirs were not 
 called upon to render a return of their inherit- 
 ance, in order that the State might plunder it 
 scientifically. 
 
 It is clear that Godfrey's relations with Coleman 
 were not merely those of an ordinary friendship. 
 On that fateful day, September 28th, when he went 
 to meet him at Mr Tilden's house, it was on receipt 
 of a message " that one Clark would speak with 
 him." If he were his confederate or were bound 
 to him by some secret compact, many reasons may 
 be suggested for his murder. After Coleman's 
 arrest, he may have been called upon, and have 
 refused, to fulfil some promise or to redeem some 
 pledge. Coleman's friends may have threatened 
 him or he may have threatened them. In either 
 event, a furious altercation, followed by a murderous 
 assault, may have taken place. The signs of violence 
 found on him, the bruises and the marks of pum- 
 melling and pounding, are more suggestive of a 
 scene of that kind than of a cold-blooded murder. 
 Nor is the fact that it was not until, at least, four 
 days after his death that his body was placed in the 
 ditch, where it was found, inconsistent with this 
 theory. In a carefully premeditated murder, arrange- 
 ments would, presumably, be made for the imme- 
 diate disposal of the corpse. 
 
 In the preface to the book, in which he deals with 
 Godfrey's murder, Mr Andrew Lang mentions that 
 his attention was drawn to a letter, of the year 
 1744, which can be seen at the British Museum. In 
 it the writer, Mr Alexander Phare, speaks of the 
 existence of 104 private letters of Sir Edmund Berry 
 Godfrey containing " many remarkable things and
 
 136 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 the best and truest secret history of King Charles IPs 
 reign." ^ Should they ever be found, they may con- 
 ceivably throw some light upon a mystery which, 
 but for some fortuitous discovery, will, doubtless, 
 remain unravelled until the end of all time. 
 
 1 A. Lang, The ValeVs Tragedy, etc., pp. viii.-ix.
 
 THE MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 
 
 PAUL-LOUIS COURIER, a former battery 
 commander of the Imperial Wars, and one of 
 the most eminent scholars of his time, is re- 
 membered, to-day, chiefly as a political pamphleteer. 
 His attacks on the reactionary tendencies of the 
 restored monarchy were, a hundred years ago, the 
 delight of the Liberal party. It was his practice 
 to describe himself as a simple vine-grower, and to 
 contrast the virtues of the country labourer with the 
 vice and the corruption of Courts. His fame was at 
 its height, in the spring of 1825, when he was shot 
 in a wood on his own property in Touraine. So 
 generally was he regarded as a dangerous enemy of 
 " the altar and the throne," that the Liberals, with 
 one voice, declared that his murder must have been 
 contrived by the Jesuits. But the judicial investi- 
 gations, although they failed to unravel some of the 
 mysterious circumstances of the case, showed con- 
 clusively that the crime had no political character. 
 
 Courier was born in Paris in 1772, but his early 
 boyhood was spent chiefly in Touraine, where his 
 father owned an estate. The elder M. Courier was a 
 cultivated man in easy circumstances who, not- 
 withstanding that he was a landed proprietor, was 
 bitterly hostile to aristocratic privileges of all kind. 
 Holding such views he welcomed the revolution 
 with enthusiasm, and adhered firmly to the new 
 doctrines. Paul-Louis inherited both his father's 
 
 137
 
 138 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 scholarly tastes and his democratic principles. It 
 had been intended that he should quahfy for a com- 
 mission in the corps of engineers and, in 1785, his 
 parents took him to Paris, in order that he might 
 study under the best masters. But, when one of 
 his instructors was appointed to the artillery school 
 at Chalons, he pleaded successfully to be allowed 
 to accompany him. Accordingly, having completed 
 his miUtary education at that institution, he was 
 posted, in 1793, as a second lieutenant to a battery 
 stationed at Thionville. 
 
 The next sixteen years of Courier's life were spent 
 in the army. At a much later date, many of the 
 letters which he wrote to his family and to his friends, 
 during this period of his career, were pubUshed. 
 Unfortunately, they were not issued in their original 
 form, seeing that many of them, admittedly, under- 
 went considerable correction. Nevertheless, although 
 they lack the value of spontaneous productions they, 
 doubtless, reflect fairly accurately his ideas and views 
 on current events, and afford an insight into his 
 character and habits. Incidentally, they throw 
 much interesting light on the general conditions and 
 the state of discipline prevailing in the French army 
 during the Republican and Imperial wars. 
 
 The instinct and the spirit of the soldier were 
 entirely lacking in Courier. Even at Thionville, at 
 the outset of his career, he appears to have displayed 
 no desire to participate actively in the operations 
 which were in progress.^ His books, he wrote to his 
 mother, were his joy and almost his only companions.* 
 
 ^ R. Gaschetj La Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, p. 53. 
 2 Paul Louis Courier, Lettres ecrites de France et d'ltalie. Notices 
 et annotations par Louis Coquelin, p. 58.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 139 
 
 While war was raging all around him, he was quite 
 content to be left to pursue his classical studies 
 in the relative quiet of a frontier fortress. Eighteen 
 months later, however, he formed part of the army 
 investing Mainz, and experienced some of the horrors 
 of a winter campaign.^ It is not improbable that the 
 hardships which he endured laid the seeds of the 
 pulmonary complaint from which he suffered in later 
 life. But it was not on account of ill-health that he 
 severed his connection with the army on the Rhine. 
 His notions of discipline were always very loose, 
 and, in the summer of 1795, he simply left his battery, 
 without leave, and went home to his father's house 
 in Touraine. With the help of powerful influences, 
 of which he could dispose in Paris, he managed to 
 escape from the punishment which so grave an 
 irregularity deserved. Indeed, his offence was not 
 only condoned, but he was transferred to the more 
 congenial atmosphere of Toulouse. In after years, 
 he sought to excuse his conduct, on this occasion, 
 by alleging that it was the news of his father's death 
 which caused him to desert his post. But this story 
 was untrue. It was not until the following year 
 that his father died.'^ 
 
 It was not Courier's fate to take part in any great 
 campaign. It was on garrison duty at home and in 
 occupied towns abroad that his time was chiefly 
 spent. But. wherever he might be quartered, he 
 found little to interest him in his military work. 
 It was to his classical studies and his archaeological 
 researches that he devoted himself exclusively. 
 Thus, at Rome in 1799, when the Roman Republic 
 
 1 R. Gaschet, La Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, p. 65. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. G6-G7.
 
 140 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was overthrown and the French garrison was forced 
 to retire to the Castle of St Angelo, Courier, unmindful 
 of what was happening, was deep in his books in 
 the hbrary of the Vatican and narrowly escaped death 
 as a Jacobin at the hands of the infuriated populace.^ 
 Some four years later, by which time he had risen 
 to the rank of a battery commander, he was again 
 sent to Italy, on this occasion to Piacenza. His 
 stay there, although uneventful, is not without 
 interest, because Major Griois, one of his brother 
 officers, has recorded in his memoirs the impression 
 which he made upon him. It is not surprising to 
 iind that, so far as his professional attainments 
 are concerned, it is the reverse of flattering. To 
 personal comfort Courier was always most indif- 
 ferent, and his quarters at Piacenza presented no 
 exception to this rule. They are described as con- 
 sisting of an untidy filthy room in which a bundle of 
 straw and a rug did duty for a bed. An excessive 
 meanness in money matters was one of his most 
 marked peculiarities. It was characteristic of liim 
 that, in spite of the remonstrances of his brigade 
 commander, he always rode a troop-horse, yet, at 
 the same time, persisted in claiming forage allowance 
 for the two horses which he was supposed to, but did 
 not, possess. It was here that he began his trans- 
 lation of Xenophon's treatise on cavalry and miUtary 
 horsemanship, and it was, doubtless, on that account 
 that, regardless of regulations, he made a practice 
 of riding upon a saddle cloth without stirrups with a 
 plain snaffle bit in his horse's mouth.^ In his dress, 
 
 1 Leitres, p. 7o. 
 
 ^ R. Gaschet, Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, pp. 176-181. M. Gaschet 
 quotes Major Griois' references to Courier.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 141 
 
 says Major Griois, he was, generally, untidy and 
 dirty. 
 
 It was while he was still at Piacenza, shortly after 
 the proclamation of the Empire, that Courier was 
 decorated with the Legion of Honour. Seeing that, 
 throughout his life, he never failed to describe himself 
 as a member of this order, the contempt with which 
 he often referred to it in conversation, may be set 
 down as an affectation.^ In the following year, 
 1805, he took part in Gouvion-Saint-Cyr's operations 
 in Northern Italy, and was present at the brilliant 
 affair of Castel Franco, in which that general, whom 
 he regards as the " finest exponent of the art of 
 massacring,"^ annihilated an Austrian corps. A few 
 days later, the fate of the campaign w^as decided 
 upon the field of Austerlitz, whereupon the French 
 arms in Italy were turned upon Ferdinand, who, 
 from Schonbrunn, was decreed " to have ceased 
 to reign." Seeing that the Neapolitan regular 
 soldiers invariably dispersed as soon as contact was 
 established with them, the task of occupying Naples 
 proved easy of accomphshment. But the mountains 
 of Calabria were still infested with banditti, armed 
 peasants, and other partisans of the fallen king, 
 became, therefore, necessary to despatch an expedi- 
 tion, under General Reynier, to break up these bands 
 and pacif)^ the country. Courier, who had served 
 under his immediate command at Castel Franco, 
 asked for, and obtained, a post upon his staff. It 
 was his first experience of guerilla warfare, to the 
 savagery and cruelties of which he often refers in his 
 letters.^ Moreover, he had himself some unpleasant 
 
 ^ R. Gaschet, Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, p. 188 and note 2. 
 2 Lettres, p. 86. » Ibid., p. 100.
 
 U2 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 adventures. At sea he was nearly captured by the 
 British, while on land he fell into the hands of the 
 handitti, who stripped him of all he possessed and 
 would assuredly have shot him, but for the inter- 
 vention of a friendly mayor.* 
 
 In the course of this campaign he claims to have 
 lost no less than eight horses, besides his kit and 
 baggage. But it was the loss of his Homer, a present 
 from the Abbe Barthelemy,^ which troubled him 
 most. " To recover it," he wrote to his friend, the 
 learned Sainte-Croix, " I would willingly give the 
 only shirt which I possess. It was my companion 
 and my only solace. My brother officers laugh 
 at me. I should like to see their faces had they 
 lost their last pack of cards." ^ At the time when 
 he wrote these words, he was seriously thinking of 
 abandoning " his vile trade." * He had always felt 
 a kind of contemptuous indifference for the military 
 profession, and his last experiences had changed this 
 feeling into one of bitter dislike. This campaign 
 in Calabria was " the vilest of all wars." Yet it 
 is, he morahzes, from events such as those of which 
 he had been a witness that " that collection of foUies 
 and atrocities is made up which is called history." ^ 
 For the present, however, he would be content, could 
 he manage to escape from Italy, and he implored his 
 friends to seek to arrange his removal to the Grand 
 Army.^ But nearly two years, spent in garrison duty 
 at Naples, Verona, Florence, Leghorn, and Milan, were 
 to elapse before he finally decided to leave the service. 
 
 1 R. Gaschetj Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, pp. 231-233. 
 
 2 Barthelemy (Jean Jacques^ 1716-1795), author of The Voyage of 
 the Young Anacharsis. 
 
 3 Leitres, p. 119. * Ibid., p. 155. « Tbid., p. 118. 
 « Ibid., pp. 129-130.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 143 
 
 At last, when his repeated applications for leave or 
 even for transfer to Spain had been refused/ he 
 formally asked to be allowed to retire, and was in- 
 formed that his resignation would be accepted. On 
 April 14th, 1809, he arrived in Paris, a civihan and a 
 free man. 
 
 The war with Austria had just broken out, and 
 Bonaparte, the day before, had started to place 
 himself at the head of the Grand Army. In Paris 
 the news of victories was confidently awaited, and 
 this expectation was not disappointed. The brilhant 
 successes with which the operations opened evoked 
 a general enthusiasm which infected even Courier. 
 He had never taken part in a campaign under 
 the immediate command of his Emperor, and he 
 now begged to be allowed to return to the service 
 and to be sent to Austria. Leave was given him to 
 proceed to the headquarters of the Grand Army, 
 where he was to renew his appHcation in person. 
 After a hurried visit to his home at Luynes, he set 
 out and reached Vienna, on June 15th. The un- 
 interrupted train of successes which had marked the 
 early weeks of the war was, temporarily, at an end. 
 Severely checked in the fierce battle of Aspern, 
 Bonaparte was making tremendous preparations for 
 passing the Danube, and for renewing the struggle. 
 Courier, on his arrival, sought out his friend. General 
 de Lariboissiere, commanding the artillery of the 
 army, and asked him to support his application for 
 reinstatement. The general promised to do what 
 he could, and proved as good as his word. A few 
 days later. Courier was posted, provisionally, to a 
 battery of the 4th Army Corps. 
 
 1 Lettres, pp. 161, 162, and 182.
 
 144 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 From this moment, Courier's ardom' to serve 
 cooled rapidly. It may be regarded as certain 
 that he had hoped that Lariboissiere would attach 
 him to his own staff. His disappointment on that 
 score accounts for his spiteful allusions to that 
 officer, who belonged to the old noblesse, which he 
 disliked so cordially. " I had known him for long," 
 he told his Swedish friend, Akerlad, the orientalist, 
 " as a good fellow and a friend. But he had become 
 a count. What a change ! the good fellow dis- 
 appeared and there was no news of the friend. A 
 patron took his place." ^ Meanwhile, much as he 
 might dislike the necessity of doing so, he had to 
 join his battery, which was not on the Island of 
 Lobau, but on one of the smaller islands of the 
 Danube. The cold and the damp, he says, brought 
 on an attack of malaria, which was rendered worse 
 by heavy rain, during the night preceding the passage 
 of the river. On the morning of July 5th, he crossed 
 to the opposite bank with his battery, where he 
 was obliged to report himself sick. While the battle 
 raged at Wagram, he was in a field hospital on the 
 outskirts of Vienna. In a very short time, however^ 
 he recovered his health and, as he considered that 
 he had never been officially reinstated in it, he 
 maintained that he had a perfect right to leave 
 the army, whenever he pleased. Accordingly, 
 without further ceremony, he betook himself to 
 Strasburg, where he arrived on July 15th, and, 
 a few days later, continued his journey to Switzer- 
 land, thus ingloriously bringing his mihtary career 
 to a close. 
 
 Some charming letters, which he wrote to his 
 
 1 Lettres, p. 210.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 145 
 
 friends from Switzerland, show that Courier had a 
 keen eye for the beauties of nature. It had never 
 been his intention, however, to make a long stay in 
 that country, and, when the heat of summer began 
 to diminish, he set out for Italy. Surmounting the 
 St Gothard on foot, accompanied by a guide, carry- 
 ing his one portmanteau on his back,^ he made his 
 way, in the first place, to Milan and then to Florence, 
 where he arrived at the beginning of November 1809. 
 He had an especial reason for wishing to revisit 
 Florence. For long past, he had had it in his mind 
 that, some day, he would translate Longus' pastoral,^ 
 Daphnis and Chloe, and he had recently made a 
 valuable discovery. Some two years before, in the 
 library of the Benedictine monastery of La Badia, 
 he had come, unexpectedly, upon a thirteenth century 
 manuscript of the pastoral containing passages which 
 it was evident that Amyot had never seen.^ At the 
 time, Courier had not the leisure to embark upon 
 his projected work. He, therefore, contented him- 
 self with keeping the existence of the precious 
 manuscript a profound secret. But, soon after- 
 wards, the French authorities broke up the monastery 
 and removed all documents of interest and value 
 to the Laurentian library. Courier lost no time 
 in satisfying himself that the Longus was among 
 those manuscripts, which had been thus transported 
 to a place of safety. 
 
 He now presented himself to M. Del Furia, the 
 Curator, and told him of his discovery. This gentle- 
 
 1 Lettres, p. 202. 
 
 ■^ A Greek writer of the fourth century ahout whom very little is 
 known. 
 
 * Amyot (Jacques, 1513-1593), Bishop of Auxerre. Translated 
 Longus' Pastorals. 
 
 K
 
 146 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 man enjoyed some reputation as a scholar and a 
 Hellenist, and he had, moreover, been recently at 
 work upon the very manuscript which, Courier 
 informed him, contained the missing portions of the 
 pastoral. It may safely be supposed that it was 
 with keen mortification that he reahsed that he had 
 allowed a treasure of that description to pass through 
 his hands unnoticed. It is no less probable that 
 it gave Courier a malicious satisfaction to expatiate 
 upon the value of the document, which he had over- 
 looked. Nevertheless, caUing in Furia's assistant, 
 they set about the laborious and difficult task of 
 copying the manuscript, the ink of which was some- 
 what faded. M. Renouard, a scholarly Parisian 
 pubHsher, who happened to be visiting Florence, 
 took a keen interest in the business. He had 
 Courier's promise that, as soon as it was ready, 
 he should have the honour of publishing Daphnis 
 and Chloe translated, for the first time, from the 
 complete text. 
 
 Matters proceeded, to all appearance, with perfect 
 friendliness, for several days. One morning, how- 
 ever, Furia found a piece of paper covered with 
 ink sticking to one of the leaves of the manuscript. 
 Courier, when he arrived, admitted at once that 
 he was the guilty party. In order to mark the 
 place, he had inserted, he said, a sheet of paper 
 into the manuscript, without noticing that he 
 had, previously, used it, for the purpose of 
 wiping his pen, and that the back of it was, 
 in consequence, stained with ink. He proposed 
 that he should place in Furia's hands a signed 
 statement that he alone was to blame and, 
 furthermore, that he should give him the copy of
 
 ]\IURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 147 
 
 the blotted passage which they had transcribed 
 together. In the first heat of his indignation, Furia 
 dechned tliis last offer. 
 
 Considerations of space make it impossible to do 
 more than to refer, very shortly, to the various 
 incidents of the fierce quarrel which ensued. \\Tien 
 Courier, a few daj^s later, at the suggestion of M. 
 Renouard, was asked for the copy of the damaged 
 page, which he had offered to give up, he flatly 
 declined to part with it. Furia, thereupon, published 
 a violent denunciation of him in the newspapers, in 
 the course of which, however, he falsely ascribed 
 to himself a large share in the discovery of the 
 manuscript. The affair was now eagerly discussed 
 in literary circles, not only at Florence, but at Rome 
 and in Paris. It entered upon a new stage when 
 Courier, regardless of his promise to M. Renouard, 
 who had returned to Paris, published at Florence 
 a translation of the newly discovered passage. By 
 this time, the Minister of the Interior in Paris had 
 decided to interfere and had sent orders that an 
 inquiry was to be held into all the circumstances 
 of the case. The Prefefs investigations led to the 
 seizure by the police of the edition pubHshed at 
 Florence, and, later on, Courier was forced to sur- 
 render to the authorities his copy of the damaged 
 portion of the manuscript, which was by them 
 deposited in the Laurentian library. In the mean- 
 time, however, by entitling it A Letter to M. Renouard, 
 he had contrived to have printed his famous attack 
 upon M. Del Furia. It was the first of his pamphlets, 
 and in it he displays his wonderful power of over- 
 whelming an opponent with ridicule. But the 
 personal invective and the play with men's names.
 
 148 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 in which he indulges freely, detract from its merit 
 as an artistic production. 
 
 Such is shortly the history of the blotted manu- 
 script. It is, indeed, astonishing to find Courier, 
 the Hellenist and the man of letters, wilfully in- 
 juring a rare and precious document. Yet it is 
 impossible to accept his explanation that the damage 
 done to it was the result of an accident. His motives 
 for his monstrous act of vandaKsm would appear 
 to have been these. He, probably, suspected, not 
 altogether without reason, that Furia intended to 
 arrogate to himself the honour of having discovered 
 the Longus. Perhaps, even, he may have feared 
 that he was planning to publish the new passages, 
 under his own name at Florence, before Renouard 
 could bring out his edition in Paris. Consequently, 
 as soon as he obtained a complete copy of the 
 manuscript, he determined to damage a portion of 
 it, in such a way that no one else would be able 
 to procure a copy of the full text.^ In his Letter to 
 M. Renouard:, which constitutes his only defence, 
 he makes scarcely any allusion to the circum- 
 stances in which the manuscript was injured. It is 
 framed on the principle that the attack is the 
 best defence, and, to some extent, it fulfilled its 
 purpose. The question of Courier's own guilt dis- 
 appeared, amidst the flood of ridicule with which 
 he smothered the luckless Furia, and amidst 
 the blows which he dealt his reputation as a man 
 of learning. 
 
 The affair, however, had some unpleasant con- 
 sequences for Courier. It attracted the attention 
 of the War Office to him and he found himself called 
 
 1 R, Gaschet, Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, pp. 055-411.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 149 
 
 upon to explain why he had left the army, without 
 leave, at the time of Wagram. His justification 
 consisted in the contention that, inasmuch as he 
 had never been officially taken back into the service, 
 he was entitled to depart, whenever he might see 
 fit.i General Gassendi, who had the case in hand 
 at the War Office, was, apparently, very well disposed 
 towards him. Be his reasons what they may, he 
 registered his explanation without comment and 
 allowed the matter to sink into obhvion.^ It must 
 be admitted that Courier had, seldom, any cause 
 to complain of harshness on the part of the military 
 authorities. After the conclusion of this business, he 
 Ungered on in Italy, chiefly at Rome and at Naples, 
 for nearly two years. But his position was no 
 longer quite the same. Although there were coteries 
 in which he was still a welcome guest, the blotted 
 manuscript and the matters connected with it lost 
 him many friends, whose society and good opinion 
 he valued.^ Henceforward, librarians, custodians of 
 art treasures and all persons of that kind looked 
 upon him with the utmost suspicion. At Naples, 
 when he went to examine the papyri recently ex- 
 cavated at Herculaneum, he was told that, hke 
 the general pubHc, he could look, but that he must 
 not touch. It was a slight which he felt keenly, 
 all the more, perhaps, because it was well deserved.* 
 He was a disappointed and, to some extent, an 
 embittered man when, in the summer of 1812, he 
 returned to Paris. 
 
 Courier had intended, after seeing to his affairs 
 
 1 Lettres, pp. 230-232. 
 
 2 R. Gaschet, Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, p. 413. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 425-428. * Ibid., pp. 449-450.
 
 150 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 in Touraine, to visit Greece and, possibly, Egypt. 
 But the military situation, in 1813, compelled him to 
 abandon this last project. It was the physical 
 difficulties in the way of travelling, however, not 
 patriotic considerations, which deterred him from 
 leaving France. " I see people," he wrote to the 
 Princesse de Salm-Dyck, " following the march of 
 the armies on the map. Thank God, that is a matter 
 about wliich I am profoundly indifferent." ^ Much 
 of his time was, in consequence, spent in Paris and, 
 in Paris, his favourite resort was the house of his friend 
 M. Clavier, a professor of history at the College 
 de France and a member of the Institut, who was 
 reputed to be one of the best Greek scholars of the 
 day. Ten years earlier, he had been a judge in the 
 Court before which General Moreau and the Royalist 
 conspirators had been tried. An endeavour was said 
 to have been made to induce him and his brother 
 judges to pass a sentence of death upon Moreau who, 
 they were assured, would receive a free pardon from 
 Bonaparte. " And who will pardon us ? " ^ he is 
 said to have answered. The reply became famous 
 and was often quoted with approval, ^^^lile Courier 
 had been in Italy, he had kept up a regular corre- 
 spondence with Clavier who, in the unfortunate 
 business at Florence, had warmly espoused his cause 
 and had, constantly, proclaimed his conviction that 
 he had never intended to injure the much talked 
 of manuscript.^ M. Clavier, however, was a family 
 man with two daughters, the eldest of whom had 
 just attained her eighteenth birthday. She was 
 not beautiful nor, even, what is generally termed 
 
 ^ R. Gaschet, Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, p, 469. 
 
 2 Lettres, p. 20 (note). ^ Ibid., p. 227.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 151 
 
 pretty, and was slightly marked with smallpox. 
 But any defect of this kind was set off by her personal 
 charm and by a natural intelligence, which had been 
 quickened both by a good education and by contact 
 with the savants and literary men who came to her 
 father's house.^ Before the winter of 1813 was over, 
 it was evident that Courier was greatly attracted by 
 her, and that he was paying her the most serious 
 attentions. 
 
 Courier was now in his forty- second year, and up 
 to this time no woman had played any part in his 
 life. There was nothing, however, of the ascetic 
 about him. At Toulouse, his relations with a ballet- 
 girl had been notorious, and at most of the towns 
 in which he had been quartered in Italy, he had 
 formed connections of that kind.'- At the same time, 
 he thoroughly enjoyed the company of women whom 
 he could meet on terms of social equality. Many 
 of the most delightful of his published letters from 
 France and Italy are addressed to ladies, some of 
 them of rank like the Princesse de Salm. But nothing 
 in the shape of a love affair had entered into his rela- 
 tions with any woman of his own class. Most certainly 
 he had never thought of matrimony, until he began 
 to pay his court to Mile Clavier. Her parents seem 
 to have contemplated the prospect that she might 
 marry him with some misgivings. M. Clavier was 
 afraid that there was too great a disparity in their 
 ages. His wife was of the same opinion, and, in 
 addition, was disposed to doubt whether Courier 
 would be likely to make her daughter happy. It 
 is impossible to say what the young lady herself 
 
 * L. Andre, L'Assan.finat de P. L. Courier, p. .5. 
 
 2 R, Gaschet, Jeutiesse de P. i. Courier, pp. 77-78 and -183-4:84.
 
 152 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 thought on the matter. No portrait nor contem- 
 porary description of Courier, at the time of his 
 courtship, seems to exist. But in the pohce archives, 
 under the date 1823, a note has been discovered in 
 which his appearance is set forth in the following 
 terms. " Complexion dark and bilious, face pitted 
 with smallpox, features harsh, lips thick and pro- 
 minent, stoops slightly when he walks, and, generally, 
 inclines his head to one side, dress dirty and untidy, 
 always wears a black neck cloth." ^ Even if allow- 
 ance be made for the fact that it was written when 
 he was ten years older, this is hardly the description 
 of a man who would be expected to capture a young 
 girl's fancy. It should be remembered that, as regards 
 the dirt and the slovenliness of his attire, it tallies 
 exactly with all that Major Griois relates of him 
 at Piacenza, in 1804.- At the time of his courtship, 
 it is possible that his complexion may have been 
 slightly less bilious and his features somewhat less 
 harsh, but, in other respects, it is probable that he 
 closely resembled the picture which the police drew 
 of him ten years later. Yet the man must have had 
 some power of attraction. His friend Akerblad, 
 as late as 1812, talks of the passion which he inspired 
 in a certain Rosa, who was, apparently, the mistress 
 of General de Miohs, the French governor of Rome. 
 He speaks of her " as fading away and likely to hang 
 herself or to die of consumption for love of him." ^ 
 This much, in any case, may be taken as certain. 
 Had Mile Clavier expressed any repugnance to 
 Courier, her parents, their feelings on the subject 
 
 1 R. Gaschet, La Vie etla Mort tragiquede P. L. Courier, pp. 211-212. 
 
 2 Vide p. 140. 
 
 3 (Euvrts completes de P. L. Courier, Bruxelles, 1828, iv. p. 398.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 153 
 
 being what they were, would never have pressed her 
 to marry him. 
 
 From a material point of view Courier was a good 
 match for a girl in Mile Clavier's rank of life. That 
 circumstance, doubtless, contributed to overcome any 
 objections which the Claviers may have had to offer. 
 In the early spring of 1814, while the allied armies 
 were converging on Paris, the engagement was 
 formally concluded. But, after a week, it was 
 broken off by Courier himself. Some of his cousins 
 appear to have urged him to draw back, before it 
 should be too late. At this eleventh hour, seemingly, 
 it dawned upon him that his relations were right in 
 saying that it was a dangerous experiment to embark 
 upon domestic life with a young woman more than 
 twenty years younger than himself. But he did not 
 remain in that frame of mind for long. After staying 
 away from the Claviers' house for a few days, he 
 committed the great mistake of his life. He wrote to 
 Mme Clavier, implored her forgiveness, and begged 
 that he might be allowed to return upon the same 
 footing as before.^ The Claviers were easily pacified, 
 and, on May 12th, 1814, the marriage took place. 
 Nine days earlier, Louis XVIII, the restored King, 
 had made his state entry into Paris. 
 
 Not very much is known about the first few years 
 of the Couriers' married life. From his letters, for 
 none of hers have been brought to light, it is clear 
 that they were a great deal apart. Only three months 
 after their marriage, he went off alone on a trip to 
 Normandy, and, while at Havre, seems to have thought 
 seriously of taking ship for Portugal. It is possible 
 that he may have had some slight misunderstanding 
 
 ^ (Euvres completes, iv. pp. 405-407.
 
 154 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 with his wife, but there is not a word in his letters 
 to suggest that anything which can be called a quarrel 
 had taken place.^ With the exception of this visit 
 to Normandy, it was invariably to Tours that he went, 
 when he absented himself from Paris. It had always 
 been his intention to make his home in the country. 
 But his own property at Luynes was situated on low- 
 lying ground, near the Loire, and was, he considered, 
 unhealthy .2 Before he could dispose of it, however, 
 there were many matters to settle. While he had 
 been abroad, his affairs had fallen into some disorder, 
 and his letters speak of lawsuits and actions for the 
 recovery of old debts, besides disputes with neigh- 
 bours and other troubles.^ These alone fully account 
 for his long absences. Moreover, towards the end 
 of 1815, he embarked upon a serious speculation, 
 the purchase of 100 acres of woodland known as 
 the Forest of Lar9ay, near Veretz, on the Cher. It 
 cost him some £4000, but the sale of the timber 
 was supposed to bring him in close on £500 a 
 year.* 
 
 Courier was at Tours during the Hundred Days, and 
 his letters to his wife contain some interesting par- 
 ticulars about the state of the country.^ He was again 
 there, at the beginning of 1816, when the Royalist 
 reaction was in full force. His anti-Bonapartist 
 sentiments were so notorious, that he found himself 
 in great favour with the authorities and the pro- 
 vincial aristocracy. He gives an amusing account 
 of a ball, for which the invitations were scrutinised 
 with the utmost care. " Would they," he asks, 
 
 1 (Euvre-s completes, iv. pp. 407-410. ^ [ind., iv. p. 415. 
 
 3 Ibid., iv. pp. 411, 413, 426. * Lettres, p. 21. 
 
 ^ (Euvres completes, iv. pp. 412-413.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 155 
 
 referring to M. Clavier's politics, " have looked upon 
 you as ' pure ' enough ? They would have admitted 
 you, because of me whom they regard as ' purity ' 
 itself. But," he adds, "the conclusion which I draw 
 from all this is that, when we are settled among 
 our woods on the banks of the Cher, we must keep 
 to ourselves and have nothing to do with anyone, 
 seeing our friends and acquaintances only in 
 Paris. ..." It might suit him very well thus to 
 shut himself up completely.^ But did it ever occur 
 to him that a young woman of twenty might think 
 differently about the isolation in which he proposed 
 that she should live ? 
 
 Towards the end of 1816, Courier published his 
 Petition aux deux ChainbreSy the first of his poHticai 
 pamphlets, and the Royalists discovered that they 
 had been nourishing a viper in their bosoms. Special 
 tribunals, known as Prevotal Courts, had been set 
 up in each department to deal with the revolutionary 
 spirit. The wide powers which had been conferred 
 upon them, however, were often abused. The 
 petition was drawn up in the form of an appeal from 
 an inhabitant of Luynes to the legislature to put a 
 stop to the persecution which was going on in the 
 district. It was widely read and had considerable 
 success. Its tone was comparatively moderate and, 
 although it gave deep offence to the " pure " 
 Royalists, some of the less extreme members of the 
 party had no great fault to find with it. 
 
 Courier would never allow his mfe to accompany 
 him on his visits to Tours. It is clear that she more 
 than once suggested she should join him, but he had 
 always some good reason for opposing her proposal.- 
 
 ^ Oiuvres completes, iv, pp. 424-42o. '- Ibid., iv. p. 415, 440.
 
 156 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Although he sometimes stayed at Luynes, he, generally, 
 seems to have found it more convenient to remain 
 at Tours itself. On these occasions, it was his practice 
 to put up at the Auherge du Cygne, a little inn in the 
 rue Chaude, now the rue Gambetta.^ The inn exists 
 no longer, but the old house, bearing the number " 14 " 
 can still be seen, with its yard and its well, even now 
 famous for the purity of its water. The porte cochere. 
 Hanked by two flights of steps leading up to the front 
 door, remains as it was in the days when Courier 
 was in the habit of driving through it. It was, 
 doubtless, a fair type of the small country inn which 
 Balzac has often described. Courier, it is true, makes 
 some uncomplimentary remarks about it,^ and, not 
 improbably, hardly liked to bring his wife to it. 
 It was only his extraordinary meanness which made 
 him go there himself. It was, doubtless, to avoid 
 the expense, which a stay at the Hotel du Faisan 
 would entail, that he always set his face against her 
 visiting Tours. 
 
 But, the following year, Mme Courier was obliged 
 to go to Tours on her husband's business, and to go 
 alone. Courier, whose chest had for long past been 
 dehcate, was incapacitated from travelhng by a 
 severe haemorrhage of the lungs. At the beginning 
 of 1818, when he was on the point of starting for 
 Tours, he had another, and yet more serious, attack 
 of his malady.^ He appears, however, to have 
 recovered completely and never again to have had 
 any repetition of this trouble. In the meantime, 
 by the death of his old friend and father-in-law, 
 M. Clavier, he sustained a loss which seems to have 
 
 * L. Andre'j Assassinat, p. 56 and note. 
 
 ^ (Euvres completes, iv. p. 413. ^ Ibid., iv. 441-442.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 157 
 
 affected him deeply. But he had, at last, found 
 the house for which he had been looking for so long. 
 In the spring of 1818, he concluded the purchase of 
 the farm of la Chavonniere, near Veretz on the Cher.^ 
 The house fulfilled the two conditions which he 
 regarded as essential. It was situated upon high 
 ground and was close to his wood at Largay. The 
 Couriers went to live there in the summer of the 
 same year. 
 
 La Chavonniere stands upon the northern edge 
 of the plateau, above the village of Veretz, from 
 which it is rather more than a mile distant. It is 
 a low, substantial building about 100 yards long, 
 extending from west to east. Along the whole of 
 the south side runs a wall about six feet high, the 
 space between it and the buildings forming a yard 
 to which access is obtained, at its western end, by 
 a gate. The house and the steading form a con- 
 tinuous building which can, however, for convenience 
 of description, be divided into three portions. 
 Counting from the main, the western entrance, first 
 come the horse and the cow stables, the cart-shed, 
 the harness room and the great wine-press. Next, 
 beyond these, are the kitchen and the dwelling-room 
 of the farmer and his family, as the farm, which dates 
 from the sixteenth century, was originally constituted. 
 Lastly, comes the new house which, in the time of 
 Louis XVI, was built on at right angles to the old 
 and thus closes the yard, at its eastern extremity. 
 It is somewhat in the style of a small country seat 
 of that period. Hence la Chavonniere was some- 
 times spoken of as " le Chateau " by the peasants. 
 
 ^ Veretz is on the left bank of the Cher, about seven miles from 
 Tours, on the road to Chenonceaux.
 
 158 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 On the wall of the house, facing the yard, the fact 
 is now inscribed in letters of gold that it was, once, 
 the abode of Paul-Louis Courier. It was M. Anatole 
 France, after a visit paid to the farm in 1918, who 
 obtained the owner's permission to put up this 
 announcement. 
 
 Courier himself lived in the old house which does 
 not communicate internally with the new. His 
 bedroom, a mere garret, the bare rafters of which 
 are hidden by no ceiling, was over the kitchen. It 
 was provided with an outer and an inner door and, 
 between them, can still be seen the bell, which he 
 would ring when he wanted something to eat. For 
 it was his practice to do much of his work in tliis 
 room, and, if especially busy, to have his food 
 brought up to him. It is not improbable that it 
 was he who put up the double doors, in order to 
 shut out the noise of his servants and labourers, 
 who took their meals in the kitchen. He, also, 
 appears to have had a study or, more properly, 
 an office on the ground floor which was not, however, 
 provided with a fireplace. The majority of his 
 books, some 2000 in number, were roughly arranged 
 in a library which he had improvised in a loft over 
 the wine-press. It is not surprising to learn that 
 they suffered considerable damage from the dust,^ 
 and, possibly, from the rats. 
 
 Mme Courier was lodged on the ground floor of 
 the new house, which consisted of three rooms. The 
 outer room was used as a dining-room and as a 
 drawing-room, should the occasion for one arise. 
 Leading out of it was another good room which 
 served her for a bed-chamber. Beyond this, again, 
 
 * L. Andre, Auastinut, p. 30.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 159 
 
 was a smaller room which was probably kept empty, 
 seeing that all the servants Hved in the garrets above. 
 As is, or perhaps rather, as was, the custom with 
 French women, Mme Courier, when in the house, 
 spent most of her time in her bedroom, which was 
 also her reception and sitting-room. Courier appears 
 to have allowed her to go to some expense in 
 furnishing and decorating it.^ It contains a black 
 marble mantelpiece which belongs, unmistakably, 
 to the restoration period and was, doubtless, put 
 in at this time. Judged by the standard then pre- 
 valent in France, she had no cause for complaint 
 on the score of personal comfort. Nevertheless, 
 she took up her abode at La Chavonniere with a 
 sinking heart. She had never lived in the country, 
 but always in Paris, among people of refinement. 
 Remembering that, can it be wondered that she 
 should be depressed, as she looked around her, in 
 her new home ? It is true that from her windows 
 she had a pleasant view towards the Loire and the 
 Forest of Amboise. But, in other directions, the 
 outlook was over a dreary, though closely cultivated 
 plain, the monotony of which was unreheved by 
 either trees or hedgerows. From her door she could 
 see only the manure heaps of an ill-kept yard, for 
 Courier was indifferent to cleanhness or tidiness.- 
 Nor could she expect distraction from visitors or 
 congenial company. Courier had laid it down that 
 they must have no intercourse with their neighbours. 
 And, had he been more sociably disposed, their 
 
 ' L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 24. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 21, note. Tliis description only applies to the yard as 
 it was in Courier's time. No one could find fault with its present 
 condition.
 
 160 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 friends, in winter time at least, would have found 
 it no easy matter to reach their house. It stood 
 remote from any road and, even to-day, can be 
 approached only by a cart-track. 
 
 It was Courier's wish that his wife should gradually 
 assume the whole management of the farm. From 
 all accounts she made no difficulties about complying, 
 and soon shook off the despondency which had over- 
 come her at first.^ Courier had not been long in 
 occupation of his new home, before he was involved 
 in Utigation in which he was uniformly unsuccessful. 
 There can be no doubt that he was generally disUked 
 in his own neighbourhood. By reason of his pohtical 
 opinions he was in very bad odour with the Prefet 
 and the Mayor. As may be supposed, the hostihty 
 of these officials did not help him in the disputes 
 in which he became involved, and, notwithstanding 
 that he spoke of himself as a peasant and pro- 
 fessed always to have the interests of the labouring 
 classes at heart, he was intensely unpopular with 
 the poorer members of the community. The 
 trouble arose, chiefly, from his determination to 
 prevent the old women from picking up sticks 
 in his woods. In revenge, some of his best trees 
 were wantonly injured and a situation was created 
 which developed into a veritable feud with the 
 peasants. A settlement, however, was brought 
 about by Mme Courier, who estabhshed a system, 
 whereby the old people could, for a nominal 
 charge, obtain cards which gave them the right 
 to gather sticks and to cut bracken in the forest. 
 This and other acts of kindness made her very 
 popular. In fact, by the peasants of Veretz and 
 
 1 L. Andre, Assassinat, p, 27.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 161 
 
 the neighbourhood she was soon as greatly Hked 
 as Courier himself was detested. 
 
 Courier's first poUtical pamphlet was soon followed 
 by others of a more aggressive character. His 
 rejection by the Academie des inscriptions et belles 
 Jettres was a severe disappointment to him. Nobody 
 could pretend that he was not fully entitled to be 
 admitted to that learned body. It was plain that 
 it was for personal and political reasons that he 
 was not elected. A man of good taste would, doubt- 
 less, have accepted the situation in silence, but 
 Courier gave vent to his annoyance in a pamphlet 
 of extreme bitterness.^ The fact that the Vicomte 
 Prevost d'Irai, a gentleman of the bed-chamber, 
 was preferred to him, enabled him to indulge in some 
 venomous allusions to aristocrats and courtiers. 
 Meanwhile, it was some compensation that his 
 poHtical writings were arousing the widest attention 
 and that he was treated with the greatest deference 
 by the leaders of the Liberal party. 
 
 Courier was not a deep political thinker. Indeed, 
 it would be impossible to say what, in his eyes, 
 constituted the ideal form of government. He never 
 suggested a policy nor attempted to do more than 
 to vilify and decry. He was a consummate master 
 of irony and, as such, must always have been 
 formidable as a destructive critic. But he was, 
 moreover, an exquisite writer of the French language. 
 He had a profound knowledge of classical literature 
 and had, in addition, closely studied the methods 
 of Amyot, Montaigne, and the great masters of the 
 sixteenth century. Nobody ever devoted more time 
 and trouble to his work. Every word which he 
 
 ^ Lettre a MM. de I' Academie dea inscriptions ^t belle* lettres. 
 L
 
 162 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 wrote was weighed and every sentence balanced. 
 It was said, and there is reason to beheve that it 
 was scarcely an exaggeration, that when he had 
 completed an article he could repeat it by heart 
 from beginning to end.^ 
 
 As soon as any work upon which he was engaged 
 was ready for his publisher. Courier made it a rule 
 himself to take it to Paris, remaining there to 
 correct the proofs and watch over the printers.^ 
 This entailed frequent and prolonged absences, 
 during which his wife reigned supreme at la Chavon- 
 niere. She had, speedily, developed a real aptitude 
 for farm management. It was she who now engaged 
 all the men and girls employed about the place. 
 It was she who went to market, where, on her bay 
 pony, she was soon a well-known figure.^ It was 
 she who, from dawn until sunset, personally directed 
 the work of the farm. Courier, who, not improbably, 
 had some misgivings as to whether she would take 
 kindly to her new life, was very pleased. He was 
 still more gratified to find, from his account book, 
 that, under the direction of his clever Minette,* 
 the farm was paying its way.^ On September 30th, 
 1820, she caused him satisfaction of a different kind 
 by giving birth to a boy, whom they named Paul. 
 
 The following year, Courier's offensive remarks 
 about royalty, in his celebrated simple discours,^ 
 
 ^ Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vi. pp. 352-353. 
 " (Euvres completes, iv. p. 491. 
 ' L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 27. 
 
 * Her name was Herminie. 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 28. 
 
 * It was to oppose the project of a national subscription to purchase 
 Chambord for the posthumous son of the Due de Berri, '^'^the 
 miraculous child/' as the Royalists called him, the Prince who, when 
 he died in 1883, was known as the Comte de Chambord.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 163 
 
 led to his prosecution and to his imprisonment, 
 for two months, at Sainte-Pelagie. He acknow- 
 ledged that he had nothing to complain of and was 
 as comfortable as it was possible to be in gaol. He 
 was well satisfied with his room, could see visitors 
 when he chose, and had good food supplied by a 
 restaurateur who, and that was, doubtless, an im- 
 mense relief to him, made no extra charge for the 
 trouble of sending it in.^ During his detention, 
 his letters to his wife are those of a loving husband 
 and of an affectionate father. Reading them, it 
 might be supposed that he was possessed of all 
 the domestic virtues and it may be inferred that 
 he had no fault to find with the warmth of her 
 repHes, seeing that he refers to " her divine letters." 
 Nevertheless, in one of them she deplored " her 
 buried and lost talents " so pathetically, that he 
 admits that he was moved to tears by her lament.^ 
 This raises a question, to which it is very difiicult 
 to return an answer — Was Mme Courier beginning 
 to rebel against the conditions of life to which she 
 had been condemned ? 
 
 Had the Couriers, hke ordinary folk, mixed with 
 their neighbours, it is probable that some one of 
 their friends would have had something to say 
 about Mme Courier's disposition, at this time. 
 But the rule against visitors, which Courier had 
 laid down at first, was adhered to always. His wife's 
 plaintive reference to her wasted talents might 
 draw tears from his eyes at Sainte-Pelagie without, 
 however, suggesting to him that he ought to give 
 her facilities for mixing with refined people of her 
 
 ' (Euvres completes, iv. p. 479. 
 
 » Ibid., iv. A Mme Courier, 31 Octobre 1821.
 
 164 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 own class. The village barber and Dr Herpin, 
 from Veretz,^ seem to have been the only persons 
 from outside who, occasionally, caught some glimpses 
 of their home life, and neither of them throw any 
 light upon the question. The barber was in the 
 habit of coming, on Sundays, to shave Courier who, 
 it must be supposed, went unshorn for the remainder 
 of the week. The man would relate, in after years, 
 how his client would often jump up, with his chin 
 all over soap, to note down some word or happily 
 turned sentence which had suddenlv occurred to 
 him. It was with pride that he remembered that 
 the famous M. Courier had always treated him 
 affably, and had, sometimes even, asked him to 
 partake of a meal. For all that, however, it was 
 his private opinion that he was " a little mad." ^ 
 But, if no information be obtainable about Mme 
 Courier, it is a different matter as regards Courier 
 himself. Among those who had opportunities 
 of observing him in Paris, two have recorded their 
 opinions of him. Armand Carrel,^ the editor of 
 his collected works, admits that, in the last years of 
 his life. Courier became very cantankerous and made 
 many enemies. M. Saint- Albin Berville, who acted 
 as his counsel in the proceedings instituted against 
 him by the Government, goes further. Many years 
 afterwards, it is true, he was in the habit of saying 
 that Mme Courier was a constant victim of her 
 husband's outbursts of ill temper.* 
 
 1 L. Andre, Assassinat, p. S'S. * Ibid., p. 34. 
 
 3 Armand Carrel, publicist, killed in a duel with Emile de Girardin, 
 another journalist, in 183fi. 
 
 * " Mme Courier etait le soufFre-douleur de son mari." L. Andre^ 
 Assassinat, p. 37.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 165 
 
 In the years 1822 and 1823, Courier published, 
 in addition to several pamphlets, a new edition 
 of the pastorals of Longus and a translation, with 
 a preface, of the third book of Herodotus. It was 
 about this time that he began to assume a strong 
 anti-clerical attitude and aroused deep indignation, 
 everywhere except in Liberal circles, by advocating 
 the marriage of priests and by adducing the case 
 of the Abbe Mingrat ^ in support of his contention. 
 The production of these different works caused him, 
 during these two years, to be frequently in Paris, for 
 long periods at a time. Meanwhile, it happened 
 in the spring of 1823, that a man named Pierre 
 Dubois was taken on, in the humble capacity of 
 a carter, at la Chavonniere. He was twenty-eight 
 years of age and married, but, when he was engaged 
 and came to lodge at the farm, his wife continued 
 to reside at Esvres, a village about six miles away. 
 Armand Carrel, who saw him, described him as " a 
 fine fellow, a remarkable and distinguished type 
 of peasant." Moreover, he was resolute, and in- 
 telligent, and, although indifferently educated, by 
 no means altogether illiterate. He had not been 
 long at la Chavionniere, before his relations with 
 Mme Courier were the common talk of the 
 place. 
 
 In her intercourse with her lover, IMme Courier 
 was restrained neither by considerations of decency 
 nor thoughts of consequences. Whether he were at 
 his work or at his meals, with his fellow-servants in 
 the kitchen, she seemed unable to tear herself from 
 him. The scandal reached its height, when she 
 
 ^ Who, in 1822, had raped aud murdered a young woman. 
   R. Gaschet, Jm Vie et la Mart de P. L. Courier, p. 214.
 
 166 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was seen in the harness-room sitting upon the bed 
 in which he was lying. And she was equally care- 
 less of her reputation, if away from home. At fairs 
 or at market she would show herself hanging upon 
 his arm, as though anxious to proclaim the intimacy 
 of their relations. ^ 
 
 It is difficult to realise that a cultivated woman 
 could sink to so low a depth of degradation. What- 
 ever provocation she had received from her husband, 
 it is hard to beUeve that Mme Courier can ever 
 have lowered herself to the extent of engaging in 
 an intrigue with one of her own labourers. It must 
 be remembered, however, that, for five years, she 
 had been cut off from any form of refined society. 
 During all that time she had consorted, almost 
 entirely, with peasants and servants. She had 
 listened to their troubles, entered into their amuse- 
 ments, laughed at their jokes. Without doubt, 
 she had grown accustomed to many things which 
 would have revolted her, when she first came to 
 la Chavonniere. M. Andre, however, makes another, 
 and a most disgusting, charge against her. Early 
 in 1824, Pierre Dubois' younger brother, Symphorien, 
 a strong good-looking man, who had just completed 
 his time in the army, was engaged as a labourer 
 at the farm. Hence forward, says M. Andre, " wliile 
 maintaining a preference for Pierre, she divided 
 her favours between the two brothers." ^ M. Andre 
 is, deservedly, regarded as the best authority on 
 everything connected with Courier's murder. Never- 
 theless, in this instance, it is impossible to adopt 
 his conclusions. His accusation appears to rest 
 
 ^ Le Andre, Assassinat, p. 47. 
 * Ibid., pp. 47-48.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 167 
 
 solely on her treatment of Symphorien, during his 
 life, and on an incident which occurred, at the time 
 of his death. This last episode will be related in 
 due course. But, it seems desirable to say, at once, 
 that it is capable of a different interpretation from 
 the one which M. Andre places upon it, and the 
 same remark appKes to the other reason which has 
 led him to formulate this charge. What can be 
 more natural, in the circumstances, than that this 
 man should occupy a privileged position in the 
 little community at La Chavonniere ? Would not 
 Mme Courier, who was, evidently, of a demon- 
 strative nature, be certain to treat her lover's brother 
 with an affectionate famiharity ? Assuredly, there 
 is nothing in that to justify the inference which 
 M. Andre has drawn from it. 
 
 It was, seemingly, about a year later, in the 
 summer of 1824, after his return from a long visit 
 to Paris, that Courier grew uneasy. It was char- 
 acteristic of him that his suspicions were aroused, 
 not by anything which he observed, but by a perusal 
 of the farm account books. These no longer afforded 
 him the same pleasurable reading as before. Sums 
 were expended for which no satisfactory explanation 
 was forthcoming, and it was plain that there was a 
 leakage somewhere. While he was in this per- 
 plexity, a bill for a gun for Pierre Dubois fell into 
 his hands and his eyes were opened. Instant action 
 he determined must be taken. He sent for the 
 fellow, insisted that the gun must be given up to 
 him, then and there, paid him his wages and bade 
 him begone. " Why am I to be sent away ? " the 
 man asked. " Because you are too much the 
 master here," was the significant reply. An angry
 
 168 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 altercation followed. But that night Pierre Dubois 
 quitted la Chavonniere.^ 
 
 Even before the man's dismissal, Courier had 
 taken back into his own hands the management 
 of the farm. Relations between husband and wife 
 were now terribly strained. They took their meals 
 apart and, when they met, the servants heard sounds 
 of quarrelling and fierce recriminations, for Mme 
 Courier, furious at the loss of her lover, no longer 
 hstened to hard words in silence. Then, suddenly, 
 one afternoon, she disappeared. Courier hunted for 
 her in all directions, but it was only on the fourth 
 day that the landlady of Le Cygrie, the inn at which 
 he always put up at Tours, was able to give him 
 some information about her. In point of fact, 
 Mme Courier was lodged on the outskirts of the 
 town at the house of a gardener named Arrault, 
 whose brother was a friend of Pierre Dubois. It 
 was presumably to meet him, for after his expulsion 
 from the farm he had remained in the district, that 
 she had left her home. Nevertheless, when Courier 
 discovered her retreat, she allowed him to drive her 
 back to la Chavonniere in his gig.^ 
 
 About this time Mme Clavier arrived at the farm. 
 Doubtless, she came in the hope of establishing 
 more harmonious relations between husband and 
 wife. But Mme Courier's approaching confinement 
 was, probably, the main reason of her visit. Both 
 mother and daughter were very anxious that it 
 should take place in Paris. Courier, however, would 
 not hear of it and they were obliged to submit. It 
 
 * L. Andre, Assastinat, pp. 50-54. 
 
 * A. Fouquiei", Cause* celebres, x. 22. L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 
 55-56.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 169 
 
 was, consequently, at la Chavonniere that, on 
 October 20th, 1824, Mme Courier gave birth to a 
 boy, who received the names of Esther-Louis. ^ 
 
 It would be interesting to know whether Courier 
 had any doubts about the paternity of this child. 
 It is difficult to believe that he can have felt very 
 comfortable on the subject. But, whatever sus- 
 picions he may have had, he appears to have kept 
 to himself. To judge by the conversation which 
 she had with the cure of Veretz, Mme Clavier's visit 
 did nothing to improve matters. Courier, she com- 
 plained, had now deprived her daughter of all control 
 over the household expenses, and so mean was he 
 that she had been obliged to buy wood for her o\vn 
 fire. 
 
 For some years past, a man named Louis Fremont 
 had been employed at la Chavonniere in the double 
 capacity of a gardener and a keeper or forester. 
 Although he was in the habit of drinking too much, 
 Courier must have had a fairly good opinion of him, 
 seeing that he, gradually, came to treat him as his 
 baihff. Moreover, when, in 1823, he dispensed with 
 a male servant, a luxury in which it is surprising 
 to find that he indulged, Fremont gave him such 
 personal attentions as he required. He is described 
 as a secretive httle man about forty, with a mean 
 cunning face set in a pair of red whiskers. ^ After 
 he had brought his wife back from Tours, Courier 
 instructed Fremont to keep a close watch upon 
 her.3 Not content with that, when she was once 
 
 * Mme Courier's names were Esther-Etienne-Herminie. She was 
 always called by the last. 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 49. 
 
 ' A. Fouquier, Causes celi'hres, x. p. 0.
 
 170 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 more about again, after her confinement, he told 
 him to hide her saddle and place the carriage harness 
 out of her reach, lest she should again take it into 
 her head to fly. This was a mission thoroughly 
 to his taste. Indeed, there is reason to think that, 
 some time before, when he had first noticed his 
 mistress' infatuation for Pierre Dubois, he had done 
 a little spying on his own account.^ Later on, 
 when these matters came to be inquired into, frag- 
 ments of letters were found suggesting that Fremont, 
 throughout, played a double game, while, ostensibly, 
 at least, following his master's instructions. There 
 were grounds for suspecting that he sought to worm 
 himself into Mme Courier's confidence, by pretending 
 that he was trying to serve her.- Be that as it may, 
 he, unquestionably, maintained friendly relations 
 with Pierre Dubois, who was living, in rather poor 
 circumstances, at Esvres, only six miles away. 
 Mme Courier, circumscribed as were her movements, 
 and watched as she, doubtless, knew herself to be, 
 may never have met her lover after her flight to 
 Tours. But she sent him books and newspapers, 
 and, it may be assumed with certainty, that she 
 wrote to him. It is impossible to say, however, 
 whether she entrusted her letters to the ordinary 
 post, or whether she confided them to a messenger. 
 She had always at hand, it must be remembered, 
 an intermediary in Symphorien who, after his 
 brother's dismissal, had remained on at the farm. 
 
 On the road from Tours to Loches, on the south 
 side of the Foret de Lar9ay, stood a lonely wine-shop 
 
 ^ L. Andrt', Assassinat, pp. 48 and 62. 
 
 - A. Fouquier, Causes celi-bres, x. p. 21. L. Andre, Assassinate 
 pp. 62-()4.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 171 
 
 known by the peasants as Le Chene Pendu. On 
 the front wall, facing the road, a rude picture of 
 an oak, with a halter dangling from it, explained 
 how it had acquired its name of evil omen. Doubt- 
 less, there was a tradition that, hereabouts, in former 
 days, a poacher or other miscreant had ended his 
 career. Some thirty years ago, the old house either 
 fell, or was pulled down, and was replaced by a 
 modern roadside cafe, the Cafe des Tilleuls, round 
 which a little hamlet has grown up. But, in Courier's 
 time, Le Ch^ne Pendu stood quite alone, surrounded 
 on all sides by woods. It was kept by one Tricot, 
 a garde-champetre, and was used chiefly by fagot- 
 makers and woodmen, a roughish set of people upon 
 whose company strangers were rather cautious of 
 intruding. Here, on the night of January 2nd, 1825, 
 Fremont and Pierre Dubois met and stayed drinking 
 with their friends, until about eleven o'clock. When 
 the party broke up, Pierre accompanied the keeper 
 back to la Chavonniere. The moon was shining 
 brightly, nevertheless it must have been close on 
 midnight, when they reached the farm. While 
 Pierre remained behind near the stables, Fremont 
 went upstairs to his sleeping quarters, which were 
 close to Courier's room. If the statement can be 
 believed which he subsequently made in Court, 
 he did not, at once, inform his master of Pierre's 
 return. Courier, however, had not yet gone to bed 
 and he, presently, came to inquire where he had been. 
 It was only then that he told him that the man was 
 somewhere about the place. According to his 
 account, Courier flew into a terrible rage, seized his 
 gun and rushed downstairs into the yard. But 
 Pierre Dubois, at the first sound of his approach.
 
 172 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIP^S 
 
 slipped away quietly. As he was hurrying towards 
 the entrance gate, Courier passed close to his wife, 
 who was making her way back to the house. She 
 was only half dressed. Not a Avord, however, was 
 exchanged between them.^ 
 
 This incident — the meeting of the lovers inter- 
 rupted by the sudden arrival of the irate husband — 
 would be altogether commonplace, were it not for 
 the circumstances in which it was brought about. 
 It is clear that Pierre Dubois' midnight visit to 
 la Chavonniere was facilitated, if it was not actuall)'^ 
 arranged, by Fremont. Now it w^as certainly not 
 Fremont's business to introduce this man into his 
 master's house. On the contrary, he had strict 
 orders to prevent him from holding any intercourse 
 with Mme Courier. How then did he justify his 
 conduct to Courier, and how did it come to pass 
 that Courier acquiesced, as he apparently did, in 
 his disobedience? The only answer which suggests 
 itself is that he approved of all that Fremont did, 
 on that night. In France, the right of the injured 
 husband to take the law into his own hands has 
 always been sanctioned by public opinion, and is, 
 more or less, recognised by the Code. Had Courier 
 come to the conclusion that the best solution of 
 an intolerable position was to surprise his wife in 
 a compromising situation and shoot her lover, he 
 was perfectly capable of resorting to any trick which 
 would enable him to effect his purpose. Nevertheless, 
 this theory that Courier, with Fremont's assistance, 
 
 ' A. Fouquier, Clauses ce/cbres. x. p. G. L. Andre, Asxatisinaf, pp* 
 <54-65. M. Andre says that the two men met^ not at Le Chi^ne rendu, 
 but at a wine shop in V^eretz. Fremont, however, in Court stated 
 distinctly that it was at the " Cabaret a Tricot," that is at Le f'hene 
 Pendu. I can see no reason why he should lie on that point.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 17S 
 
 deliberately laid a trap for Pierre Dubois is only 
 put forward tentatively. At the same time, it i? 
 impossible to think of any other which offers a 
 reasonable explanation of Fremont's strange con- 
 duet and of Courier's still stranger condonation 
 of it. 
 
 Although Courier, on the night of January 2nd, 
 had allowed his wife to pass unnoticed in the yard, 
 he, probably, had many stormy interviews with her, 
 in the course of the next few days. Hard as her 
 life had been for several months past, it, doubtless, 
 became intolerable after her lover's interrupted 
 visit. On January 6th, she resolved to fly. Accom- 
 companied by the boy, Paul, the younger child 
 being still away at nurse, she furtively left the farm 
 and, at Tours, took the diligence to Paris, where 
 she went to live with her mother. Courier followed 
 her, a few days later. Some time before these 
 events, he had arranged to rent a room of his friend, 
 M. Gasnault, and it was, probably, at his house 
 that he lodged, on this occasion. He certainly did 
 not stay under the same roof as his wife, but it is 
 impossible to say whether they saw each other 
 frequently, or whether any arrangements about the 
 future were discussed. Practically nothing is known 
 about their stay in Paris, at this time.^ On February 
 16th, 1825, Courier attended an evening party given 
 by the staff of the Globe which had just come into 
 existence. At this gathering, at which most of the 
 prominent literary men of the day were present, 
 Sainte-Beuve saw him for the first and only time 
 of his life. He has described how men crowded 
 round him and with what respect they listened to 
 
 * L. Andn', Assassviat, pp. 67-00.
 
 174 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 his words. ^ The next day, he left Paris and returned 
 alone to la Chavonniere. 
 
 Courier, by this time, appears to have made up 
 his mind to sell the whole of his property and to 
 sever his connection with Touraine. It is doubtful, 
 however, whether he had yet come to any determina- 
 tion about his wife. It is unlikely that he had ever 
 been deeply attached to her, but he very keenly 
 resented the scandal which her recent proceedings 
 had caused and the ridicule to which they had 
 exposed him. Meanwhile, at la Chavonniere and 
 in the neighbourhood it was rumoured that he 
 not only intended to dispose of the farm and of the 
 forest, but that he was resolved to force his wife to 
 retire to a convent.^ Among his own people the 
 greatest concern prevailed. Mme Courier had 
 always been a kind and indulgent mistress, who 
 shut her eyes to much of the pilfering in which 
 peasants so dearly love to indulge.^ And they had 
 now especial reason to regret her absence. In the 
 frame of mind in which he returned from Paris, 
 Courier was more than ever disposed to be harsh 
 and suspicious. With Fremont, more particularly, 
 he constantly found fault. Not only was he often 
 tipsy, but, in addition. Courier declared that he 
 systematically neglected his interests. It is very 
 possible that he gave him to understand that he 
 intended to send him about his business, directly 
 he could find someone to replace him.* 
 
 ^ Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vi. p, 322. 
 
 * L. Andrej Assassinat, pp. GQ, 1\, and 76. 
 
 * Balzac in Les Paysans refers constantly to this feature of the 
 peasant character. He refers more than once to the case of P. L. 
 Courier. It, undoubtedly, inspired many of the scenes of the novel. 
 
 * A. Fouquier, Causes celebres, x. pp. 3 and 6.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 175 
 
 If Pierre Dubois ever suspected that he had been 
 
 led into a trap, on the night of January 2nd, he, 
 
 certainly, showed no signs of resentment. He and 
 
 Fremont continued to meet and to drink together 
 
 with every appearance of friendhness. In M. Andre's 
 
 opinion. Cornier, at this time, was anxious to buy 
 
 back any letters, which his wife might have written 
 
 to her lover, and he had directed Fremont to 
 
 approach him on the subject.^ Now, no reference 
 
 to a transaction of this kind appears ever to have 
 
 been made in the course of the judicial proceedings. 
 
 M. Andre, however, has had access to private and 
 
 unofficial sources of information, and he may be 
 
 right in thinking that Fremont was conducting 
 
 some sort of a negotiation. Nevertheless, it must 
 
 be pointed out that, if Courier were dissatisfied with 
 
 him and were resolved to dismiss him from his 
 
 service, as M. Andre contends he was, it is strange 
 
 that he should trust him to that extent. Surely, 
 
 he would only confide the handhng of so dehcate 
 
 a business to some person, in whom he had the most 
 
 absolute confidence ? It can scarcely have been 
 
 in connection with the purchase of any letters that, 
 
 on March 14th, the two men met at Le Chene Pendu. 
 
 According to the evidence of Tricot, the landlord, 
 
 and another person present, Pierre Dubois greeted 
 
 Fremont effusively and overwhelmed him with 
 
 marks of affection. His attitude was that of one 
 
 seeking, by every means in his power, to overcome 
 
 the reluctance of another to accede to his wishes 
 
 in some matter of importance. Presently, they 
 
 were joined by two woodmen, Arrault and Boutet 
 
 by name, both friends of Pierre, and all four retired 
 
 * L. Andre'j Assassinat, pp. 72-73.
 
 176 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 into the landlord's private room. Here they re- 
 mained whispering together for some considerable 
 time.^ In view of what happened subsequently, 
 some significance attaches to the proceedings of 
 these men, on this occasion. 
 
 On Friday, April 8th, while Pierre Dubois was 
 at work in the Forest of Couzieres, near Montbazon, 
 he was joined by Fremont, who took him out of 
 earshot of his companions and talked to him earnestly, 
 for some little time.^ The following Sunday was 
 Low Sunday, commonly known in France as 
 Quasimodo Sunday.^ It was observed as a holiday 
 and was always the occasion of an event of some 
 importance in the district — the hiring-fair at Saint- 
 Avertin, a village about two miles from Tours. 
 The Dubois' father, who lived eighteen miles away 
 at Azay-le-Rideau, took this opportunity of paying 
 Pierre a visit. He is said to have been about fifty- 
 eight years of age and was, like his sons, a fine type 
 of peasant. At Esvres he lodged with a neighbour, 
 there being no room for him in Pierre's cottage. 
 On the Friday, Symphorien had sent word that he 
 proposed to take a holiday, on Sunday, and attend 
 the fair."* 
 
 As early as seven o'clock, on the morning of 
 Sunday, April 10th, Fremont met by appointment, 
 at Le Chene Pe7idu, a man who was desirous of 
 making a small purchase of timber from Courier. 
 They went into the woods to look at the proposed 
 cutting, and, on the way, the intending buyer re- 
 
 ' A. Fouquier, Causei cetebres, x. p. 20. 
 
 * L. Andre, Atmasinat, p. 75. 
 
 ^ Because the Mass that day begins " qtiaiimodo geniti in/antes ..." 
 Low Sunday is the first Sunday after Easter. 
 
 * L. Andre, Assansinat, p. 7(i.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 177 
 
 marked that he would gladly pay something to be 
 allowed to remove the dead leaves, lying thick upon 
 the ground, as they would be useful for litter. There- 
 upon, Fremont, unexpectedly, broke out into a 
 violent outburst against his master. He inveighed 
 against his avarice and his habit of fault-finding, 
 and, after calling him a scoundrel, a mean hound 
 and other names of that kind, concluded by muttering 
 some words to the effect that " before long he would 
 get what he deserved and, perhaps, sooner than 
 might be expected." Having received the man's 
 offer for the timber, he returned to la Chavonniere 
 to discuss it with his master. Courier was in the 
 little room near the kitchen, which he used as an 
 office. After hearing what his keeper had to say, 
 he told him to meet him, that afternoon, in the 
 forest, at a spot known as the Fosse-a-la-Lande. 
 Fremont then betook himself to the stables, where he 
 found Symphorien Dubois and a day-labourer named 
 Barrier. " M. Courier," said he to Symphorien, 
 " has arranged to be at the Fosse-a-la-Lande, half 
 an hour before sunset." " Good," replied the 
 other, " that will do for our business." Then, 
 noticing that Barrier was listening, he bade him 
 go to the loft to fetch the horses' feed. The man, 
 however, contrived to overhear Fremont ask 
 '• whether the others would be in it ? " " Yes," 
 answered Symphorien, " my father is at Esvi'es, 
 I shall go and join them there." ^ When Barrier 
 returned, Symphorien told him that he had given 
 up his idea of going to the fair. 
 
 After his keeper had gone, Courier worked hard 
 at his table for several hours. The only people 
 
 ' A. Fou(juier, Causes ccltbres, x. pp. 4, 22. 
 M
 
 178 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 left at the farm were the women servants and a 
 lad who had stayed to feed the horses. Soon after 
 four, the cook saw her master go out and set off 
 in the direction of the forest. He had on an old 
 black coat and yellow trousers, a greenish straw hat, 
 much the worse for wear, and a pair of house shoes^ 
 closely resembling sHppers. Later on, he was seen 
 by a shepherd-girl on the outskirts of the woods, 
 not far from Le CMne Pendu. She was struck by 
 his gloomy looks and noticed that he seemed to be 
 muttering to himself. Perhaps, as was his wont, 
 he was repeating passages from some work upon 
 which he was engaged. The girl watched him, 
 until she lost sight of him among the trees. Half 
 an hour later, a shot rang out from the direction of 
 the Fosse-a-la-Lande. Couples returning from the 
 fair at Saint-Avertin were startled by it. To some 
 of them it seemed as though the gun which fired it 
 had been overloaded. 
 
 Fremont was the first of the men to return to la 
 Chavonniere. About nine o'clock, he entered the 
 kitchen and, after depositing his gun in a corner, 
 prepared to eat his supper. The women, however, 
 who seem to have had an instinctive feeling that 
 something was wrong, told him that the master 
 had not come back. It was not his custom to stay 
 out late, and they were fearful that some harm had 
 befallen him. Fremont, at once, went out and 
 began calHng " Monsieur, Monsieur " all over the 
 place. But, receiving no reply, he returned and 
 ate a hearty meal. About ten, Symphorien ap- 
 peared and, there being still no news of Courier, it 
 was suggested that the men should make a search 
 
 1 L. Andre, Assasainat, pp. 82-84.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 179 
 
 for him. But the women begged that they might 
 not be left alone and it was, accordingly, settled 
 that Symphorien should stay with them, while 
 Fremont and Rene Saget, the youth who had re- 
 mained at home all day, should go out and endeavour 
 to gain some tidings of him. It now turned out 
 that only one barrel of Fremont's gun was loaded, 
 the other being choked with paper inserted, so he 
 said, a week ago, after he had shot a thrush. In 
 order to clear it, he proceeded to heat an iron rod, 
 which served him for a ramrod, and, having made 
 it red hot, pushed it down the barrel with the idea 
 of burning and reducing to ashes the paper by which 
 it was obstructed. As might be expected the charge 
 in the other barrel exploded, in the course of this 
 singular operation. The handsome fire-back, which 
 still adorns the kitchen fire-place at la Chavonniere, 
 is split in two, and it is believed that its damaged 
 condition is the result of the discharge of Fremont's 
 gun on this occasion. Seeing what had haiDpened, 
 Symphorien ran upstairs and, returning with Courier's 
 ramrod, soon cleared out the obstructed gun-barrel.^ 
 The paper which he thus extracted he was at pains 
 to collect and to throw into the fire. Fremont and 
 Rene Saget then started out, but their search proved 
 fruitless. No news of the missing man could be 
 obtained that night .^ 
 
 Early the next morning, while Symphorien set 
 out on horseback to make inquiries at Tours, all 
 the other men, in Courier's employ, started for the 
 
 * A properly equipped ramrod is furnished with an implement 
 known as a ''charge-drawer" or "worm" with which such an 
 obstruction as paper could easily be removed. 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 85-87.
 
 180 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Foret de Lar9ay, under the leadership of Moreau, 
 the garde- champetre. Recent cuttmgs having taken 
 place in the southern portion of the forest, they began 
 their search on that side. As, extended like skir- 
 mishers, they drew near to the stagnant pool, known 
 as the Fosse-a-la-Lande, a shout from one of their 
 number announced that the object of their quest 
 was attained. Courier, shot through the back, was 
 lying dead in a cart-track. One of his shoes, which 
 had seemingly dropped off as he fell, was found about 
 a yard from him. Before they removed the body, 
 Moreau noticed and pointed out to his companions 
 marks of mud and dirt upon the front of it. Courier, 
 who had evidently fallen upon his face, must have 
 been turned over by his murderers, after death. 
 News of the discovery was at once dispatched to the 
 authorities at Tours. Some of the men had noticed 
 that Fremont had lagged behind, as they had ap- 
 proached the spot where the body was found. ^ 
 
 That same afternoon, Dr Mignot of Tours assisted 
 by Courier's friend, Dr Herpin of Veretz, made a 
 ■post-mortem examination of the body. The fatal 
 injury was at the back, on the right side, a little below 
 the ribs. The scorched condition of the clothes, 
 round the wound, showed that the shot must have 
 been fired at very close range, probably the muzzle 
 of the gun was almost touching the murdered man. 
 It had been loaded with three slugs, one of which 
 was found in the body, while the other two had 
 passed through it, emerging on the left side, about 
 the level of the chest. It was with surprise that 
 the doctors noted that these projectiles, in their 
 course through the body, had followed this upward 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes celebren, x. pp. 1 2.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 181 
 
 direction. In addition to the slug, some small pieces 
 of paper, which had been used as wadding, were 
 extracted from the wound. On one of them the 
 capital letters OUY could be made out distinctly. 
 The different pieces had been torn from the Feuilleton 
 litteraire, a newspaper which no one in the neighbour- 
 hood, except Courier, took in, a circumstance sug- 
 gesting strongly that the crime had been committed 
 by some person in his employ.^ 
 
 While the doctors were at work at Le Guessier, 
 the farm-house to which the body had been conveyed, 
 the police, under the direction of the magistrates,* 
 were conducting their inquiries at la Chavonniere. 
 Here they were completely baffled by the attitude 
 of blank ignorance assumed by everyone about the 
 place. No one had either information to give or 
 suggestion to make. Not a word was told them 
 about Pierre Dubois' dismissal, or about his relations 
 with Mme Courier, or about the recent quarrels 
 between the murdered man and his wife. But at 
 Veretz, and, possibly, at some of the adjoining farms, 
 they picked up a little gossip which directed their 
 attention to Pierre Dubois. Inquiries at Esvres 
 elicited that, immediately upon the arrival of the 
 police, his wife had given his gun, which had recently 
 been fitted with a new flint, to a neighbour to 
 conceal. Pierre was, in consequence, arrested and 
 taken off to Tours. Further investigations disclosed 
 the fact that the three Dubois had spent the fatal 
 Sunday together, and that none of them had attended 
 the fair. Two days later, on April 14th, old Dubois 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 94-95. 
 
 * The procureur da roi and the juge d'instruction, the investigating 
 magistrate.
 
 182 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 was taken into custody at Azay-le-Rideau and 
 Symphorien at la Chavonniere. The three men were 
 placed au secret,^ which means that they were kept 
 in solitary confinement and were debarred from 
 all communication either with their fellow-prisoners 
 or with the outside world. 
 
 Charles X had not yet been a year upon the 
 throne, and he and his minister, M. de Villele, were 
 preparing to initiate measures which were bound 
 to be strongly opposed by the Liberals. ^ It was, 
 doubtless, with feelings of relief that they learnt 
 that, in the coming struggle. Courier's pen would 
 not be at the service of their opponents. But, 
 inasmuch as it was certain to be insinuated that 
 their agents had been concerned in making away 
 with him, it was very necessary to spare no efforts 
 to bring the real criminals to a public trial. The 
 instructions sent from the Home Department to 
 the Prefet of Tours, on April 16th, 1825, create, 
 however, the impression that the Government was 
 somewhat apathetic in the matter. It had certainly 
 no desire to screen anyone or to impede the course 
 of justice, on the contrary, the Prefet was directed 
 to assist the law officers of the Court of Tours in their 
 efforts to discover the truth. ^ But he was not given 
 to understand that the Government was especially 
 interested in the affair, and that he was, in con- 
 sequence, expected to act with great energy. Mean- 
 while, the Moniteur, the official government organ^ 
 never alluded to the murder. Only, on April 18th, 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinut , pp. 103-105. 
 
 * Such as the law to indemaify the emigres and the law against 
 sacrilege. 
 
 * L. Andrt'j Assastinut, pp. 99-101.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 18S 
 
 after the news had been generally known for nearly 
 a week, was the fact announced in a paragraph, 
 which was so short as to be quite out of proportion 
 to the importance of the event. '' M. Paul Courier," 
 it ran, " a heretofore battery commander and a 
 landowner at Veretz was killed last Sunday in the 
 Foret de Laryay." ^ 
 
 Mme Courier, meanwhile, was informed of her 
 husband's death on April 12th. No account exists 
 which throws any light upon her behaviour, when 
 she first received the news. She would not appear to 
 have been in any hurry to return to la Chavonniere, 
 seeing that it was not until April 18th that she 
 arrived at Tours. She was accompanied by her 
 mother. General Haxo, and M. Victor Cousin, the 
 philosopher. These gentlemen were held in high 
 respect in Liberal circles and were, moreover, old 
 friends both of her family and of her dead husband. 
 The next day, a conseil de famille was convened, 
 at which she and General Haxo were appointed 
 guardians of the children. At last, in the afternoon 
 of the following day, she and her mother set out 
 for la Chavonniere. On the road they met Dr Herpin 
 and, stopping their carriage, had a long talk with 
 him. According to the doctor, Mme Courier made 
 little, if any, pretence that she was deeply distressed. 
 Nevertheless, she inquired anxiously whether Courier 
 had suffered much and seemed greatly reheved to 
 hear that his death had been instantaneous.^ 
 
 Hitherto, Mme Courier had always expressed the 
 behef that her husband had been murdered by the 
 Jesuits — an opinion widely entertained in Paris, 
 at the time when she had started for Tours. But, 
 
 1 L. Andre'j Assamnat, p. 98. - Ibid., p. 108,
 
 184 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 on the day after her return to la Chavonniere, she 
 confided to General Haxo that she was very suspicious 
 of the keeper, Louis Fremont, and begged that the 
 attention of the authorities might be drawn to him. 
 On hearing from the General, the Procureur du roi 
 and M. Aquilas Hainique, the investigating magis- 
 trate, accompanied by a force of gendarfnes and poUce, 
 lost no time in paying a second visit to la Chavonniere. 
 Mme Courier, thereupon, made a highly important 
 statement to M. Hainique. Her husband, she said, 
 had told Fremont to meet him in the forest, at half- 
 past five, about the hour at which he was murdered. 
 The magistrate naturally asked how she had obtained 
 her information. But she could return no satis- 
 factory answer to this simple question. Dr Herpin 
 and the youth, Rene Saget, both of whom, she 
 stated, had told her about the appointment made 
 with Fremont, denied absolutely that they had said 
 anything of the kind. Her untruthfulness in this 
 matter must have afforded M. Hainique food for 
 serious reflection. In any case, her inabihty to 
 point out the source from which she had derived 
 her information robbed it of any real value. Never- 
 theless, when the magistrates returned to Tours, 
 that evening, they took Fremont away with them 
 in handcuffs.^ 
 
 On the following day, April 23rd, Mme Courier 
 sent M. Hainique a detailed account of Fremont's 
 proceedings in the kitchen, on the night of the 
 murder, which she had obtained from the cook, 
 and, a day or two later, she furnished the authorities 
 with a far more important piece of evidence. In 
 a kind of tool- shed, of which Fremont had the key, 
 
 ^ L. Andre^ Assassinat, pp. 109-113.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 185 
 
 she pointed out to the pohce some old lead piping 
 from which a small portion had, recently, been cut 
 away. On examination, the piece thus removed, 
 was found to correspond exactly with the weight 
 of the slugs w4th which the murderer's gun had been 
 loaded. The finding of the lead piping led to another 
 and, almost equally, important discovery. It will 
 be remembered that on one of the fragments of 
 newspaper, found in Courier's wound, the capital 
 letters " OUY " were discernible. It had been 
 ascertained that, on August 13th, 1824, the Feuilleton 
 litteraire published a notice of the works of Etienne 
 de JOUY. The piece in question, therefore, un- 
 doubtedly formed a small part of the issue of that 
 date. Now Fremont had preserved in this tool 
 shed, to which it was said that he alone had access, 
 a quantity of copies of this paper which Courier 
 had given him. The numbers for August 12th, 14th, 
 and 15th were present, but the number for August 
 13th could not be found.^ 
 
 In order to discuss the question of Fremont's 
 motives, H. Hainique, on April 29th, summoned 
 Mme Courier to his room at the Palais de Justice. 
 Fremont, she maintained, was, to all intents and 
 purposes, under a notice of dismissal, and it was 
 to retain his place that he had committed the murder. 
 But M. Hainique raised this objection. " Why," 
 he asked, " should he expect that his services would 
 be more appreciated by you than by your husband ? " 
 And to that pertinent question Mme Courier could 
 only reply that she was convinced that the man 
 had nourished a " well grounded hope " that she 
 would retain him at la Chavonniere.^ Hitherto, 
 
 * L. Andrd, Assassinat, p. 123. * Ibid., p. 115.
 
 186 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Fremont himself had been content to deny that he 
 had had anything to do with the crime. But, when 
 he saw that Mme Courier was determined to leave no 
 stone unturned to secure his conviction, he began 
 to show his teeth. In charging him as she had 
 done, Mme Courier, he insinuated, was actuated by 
 feehngs of revenge. By order of M. Courier, he had 
 kept watch upon her and had stood between her 
 and her lover. Gradually, and with seeming re- 
 luctance, he allowed M. Hainique to draw from him 
 the full story of the scandals of the past two years. 
 But, when he was asked to account for his time 
 on the afternoon of the fatal Sunday, his replies 
 were most unsatisfactory. ^ He had been in the 
 forest, he admitted, not far from the place where 
 the murder was committed, without either seeing 
 or hearing anything. He had fallen into a drunken 
 sleep which, he persisted in asserting, had lasted 
 throughout the afternoon. ^ 
 
 In the meantime, Mme Courier's allegation, for 
 which she had been unable to give her authority, 
 that her husband had made an appointment with 
 Fremont, had been confirmed. Joseph Barrier who, 
 it will be remembered,"* had been present in the 
 stable, on the morning of the murder, came forward 
 and stated that he had heard Fremont tell Symphorien 
 that M. Courier was to meet him, that afternoon, in 
 the forest. He forbore, however, to mention the 
 ominous words exchanged between the two men, when 
 they thought that he was out of earshot." Without 
 doubt, his evidence, incomplete as it was, bore 
 
 1 L. Andre, Assasiinat, pp. 118-111). 
 
 * A. Fouquier, Causet celebrcs, x. p. 6. 
 
 3 j',dc p. 177. * ^" Andre, Assassinat, pp. 124-125.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 187 
 
 heavily upon Fremont, while, at the same time, 
 suggesting the possibility that the Dubois might 
 have been his accomplices. Now this was an aspect 
 of the case which, seemingly, did not accord with 
 M. Hainique's theory of the crime. Needless to say 
 that, when confronted with Barrier, Symphorien 
 emphatically denied that the alleged conversation 
 in the stables had taken place. Perhaps the sus- 
 picions of a more acute magistrate would have been 
 aroused by the man's intense anxiety to contradict 
 the witness in this matter. As will be shown, the 
 incident made a lasting impression upon M. de 
 Chancel, the Procureur du roi. Unlike Fremont, 
 the two brothers, for their father had been released 
 after a few days' detention, professed to be able 
 to account satisfactorily for all their movements 
 on the Sunday of the murder. Although they had 
 never been at any great distance from the forest, 
 they were able to show, assuming always that their 
 witnesses spoke the truth, that it was impossible 
 that they could have been at the Fosse-a-la-Lande 
 at six o'clock, the hour at which, according to the 
 prosecution, the crime had been committed. In 
 view of this and of the fact that nothing of importance 
 had been deponed against them, M, Hainique came 
 to the conclusion that they could no longer be 
 detained. Accordingly, on May 17th, they were set 
 at liberty. The successful estabhshment of their 
 alibi had turned mainly upon the evidence of Martin 
 Boutet,^ who, it will not have been forgotten, had 
 taken part in the mysterious conference, on March 
 14th, between Fremont and Pierre Dubois at Le 
 Chene Pendu. 
 
 ^ \j. Andre, As&attsinat, p. 121.
 
 188 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 While she had been seeking to convince M. Hainique 
 of Fremont's guilt, Mme Courier had never ceased 
 to plead the cause of the Dubois. And she was not 
 put out of countenance, when he let her understand 
 that he was aware of the reasons which underlay 
 Pierre's dismissal from the farm. She acknowledged 
 that her husband had entertained suspicions, but 
 she always forebore discussing whether they had been 
 justified. She simply proclaimed her behef in the 
 absolute innocence of the two brothers, and treated 
 all other questions as matters of secondary im- 
 portance. On one point there was a discrepancy 
 between her statements and those of Pierre. While 
 he, conceivably from chivalrous motives, always 
 denied that he had received any letters from her, 
 she admitted that she had several times written 
 to him from Paris. Indeed, her last letter, she 
 stated, had been addressed to him at the Poste 
 restante at Montbazon and had been sent off, on 
 April 9th, on the day before the murder .^ The police, 
 apparently, had evidence that such a letter had been 
 posted in Paris and, if Mme Courier were aware 
 that they possessed this knowledge, it is obvious 
 that her conduct is less ingenuous than it appears 
 at first sight. Now, there was reason to think that 
 Pierre had not called for this letter, on the 11th, 
 and, on the 12th, he could not have gone to Montbazon 
 seeing that he was practically under police super- 
 vision all day and that, in the evening, he was 
 arrested. They, accordingly, summoned the post- 
 mistress to hand over to them any letters awaiting 
 him at her office. The woman, however, dechned, 
 alleging that, without ministerial authority, she 
 
 * L. Audre, Assassinat, pp. 117-118.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 189 
 
 could not part with anything which was in her 
 official keeping. Before the necessary permission 
 was received, the Dubois were set at hberty and 
 it was, in consequence, held that it was no longer 
 permissible to impound their correspondence.^ It 
 will be necessary again to refer to this matter which, 
 later on, assumed considerable importance. 
 
 After the release of the Dubois, M. Hainique gave 
 his undivided attention to Fremont. In addition 
 to much worthless gossip, evidence was given of 
 the threatening language of which he had made 
 use in the forest, on the morning of the murder, 
 and of various more or less suspicious remarks let 
 drop by him on different occasions. But, at last, 
 on receipt of the report of the Procureur du roi, 
 at Tours, the superior Court at Orleans ^ declared 
 the prehminary proceedings at an end and committed 
 him to stand his trial, on a charge of wilful and 
 premeditated murder. 
 
 The trial of Louis Fremont began, on August 31st, 
 1825, in the Palais de Justice at Tours. M. Perrot 
 from Orleans presided over the Court, while M. 
 Faucheux of the Tours bar appeared for the prisoner, 
 and M. de Chancel, the Procureur du Roi, performed 
 the duties which in England would devolve upon 
 the counsel for the Crown. The case attracted great 
 pubhc interest, not only in Touraine, but through- 
 out the country. The trial lasted four days, in 
 the course of which the prosecution called fifty- 
 seven witnesses. The proceedings, however, proved 
 singularly dull and gave rise to none of those 
 dramatic incidents which are not uncommon in 
 
 ^ L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 121-122. 
 
 * La (Jhambre des mites en accusation de la (Jaw d'Orleans.
 
 190 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 French murder cases. Their monotony was only 
 reHeved by the several appearances of Mme Courier 
 in the witness box. She was dressed in the deepest 
 widow's mourning which, according to contemporary 
 reports, became her well. At first, she was a little 
 confused, but she quickly recovered her self-possession 
 and, availing herself to the full of the great latitude 
 allowed to witnesses in France, she explained how 
 she had gradually acquired her conviction of Fremont's 
 guilt. Marshalhng her facts with no little skill, she 
 sought to convince the Court that all the circum- 
 stances of the case pointed to that one conclusion. 
 During those four days, Fremont was never in 
 greater danger than when the mistress of la Chavon- 
 niere was deponing against Mm. To refute her 
 charges, he adopted the arguments which he had 
 used in the preliminary proceedings. Mme owed 
 him a deep grudge. She had had what he called 
 " des frequentations,''^ with which he had interfered, 
 and he went on to tell the story of Pierre Dubois' 
 midnight visit to the farm and of Courier's irruption 
 into the yard, gun in hand. When asked whether 
 she had any explanation to give of that incident, 
 Mme Courier treated it as a very trivial affair. 
 It was her custom to sit up until all her people had 
 returned home, and, on that particular night, hearing 
 a noise in the 3'ard, she had gone out and, seeing 
 Pierre Dubois near the stables, had talked to him 
 for, perhaps, ten minutes. As she was returning 
 to the house she had seen M. Courier, who had also 
 come out, but they had not spoken.^ Her account 
 of this episode was, apparently, allowed to go un- 
 challenged. In an English Court, in the same 
 
 * A. Fouquiei-j Cause* cetibres, x. p. (>.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 191 
 
 circumstances, she would have had to reply to the 
 searching questions of Fremont's counsel. But the 
 cross-examination of witnesses scarcely enters into 
 the French system. To the questions addressed to 
 him by the President, Fremont replied as he had 
 to M. Hainique. He knew nothing of the murder, 
 having been in a drunken stupor during the whole 
 afternoon of the fatal Sunday, and, as regards the 
 lead piping and the missing number of the Feuilleton 
 litteraire, other persons besides himself had access 
 to the tool-shed. 
 
 In the report rendered by M. de Chancel to the 
 Court of Orleans, at the close of the preliminary 
 proceedings, he had asked that Fremont should be 
 sent for trial, but he had never pretended that, in 
 his opinion, M. Hainique had probed to the bottom 
 of the mystery. He could not forget Barrier's 
 story of the conversation between Symphorien and 
 the prisoner in the stables, and the unnecessary 
 warmth with which Symphorien had denied that 
 it had taken place. He could, therefore, only ex- 
 press a pious wish that, when, at the trial, the 
 witnesses should be face to face with each other 
 and with the accused, " the clash of their conflicting 
 evidence might bring the truth to hght." ^ But 
 this hope had not been fulfilled, and, when he rose 
 to address the Court, on September 3rd, it was soon 
 plain to all that he did not intend to press for a 
 conviction. He frankly acknowledged that he was 
 not in a position to say whether the crime were 
 premeditated, or whether it were the act of the 
 prisoner alone. " Was it not," he asked, " very 
 possibly the outcome of some cowardly conspiracy ? 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 12G-127.
 
 192 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 It is a mystery and up to the present it has 
 proved insoluble." After such an admission as that, 
 Fremont's counsel had an easy task. The jury after 
 listening to the President's brief summary of the 
 case, brought in a unanimous verdict of "Not 
 Guilty." 1 Yet few if any of them can have felt 
 much doubt about his culpability. But, like M ^~ 
 Chancel, they probably thought that the stor^ ot 
 the murder, as told in the course of the proceedings, 
 was too incomplete to justify them in convicting 
 him. 
 
 After the trial, life was resumed at la Chavonniere, 
 imder the happy conditions which had prevailed 
 before Courier grew suspicious and took the manage- 
 ment of the farm out of his wife's hands. Some 
 changes there were, and some were significant. For 
 the post of keeper, in replacement of Fremont, who, 
 as may be supposed, did not return, Mme Courier 
 selected Martin Boutet, whose evidence had conduced 
 so materially to the establishment of the Dubois' 
 alibi. Wliile he had been in prison, Symphorien's 
 duties had been performed by Fran9ois Arrault, who 
 had both testified in favour of the Dubois and been 
 present, on March 14th, at the conference at Le 
 CkSne Pendu. After the release of the two brothers, 
 he was not dismissed, but was given permanent 
 employment on the farm. For Pierre Dubois, 
 Mme Courier appears to have created a post, that 
 of head-forester, which had not existed in the time 
 of her husband.2 Nevertheless Pierre, henceforward, 
 was seldom seen at la Chavonniere. He appears to 
 have lived at Esvres, and to have devoted himself 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes ceU-bres, x. p. (5. 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat , pp. 141-142.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 195 
 
 to his duties in the forest. It seems certain that 
 his intimate relations with Mme Courier were not 
 continued, after she became a widow. It may be 
 that he had expected to hve with her at the farm 
 and that he was disappointed to find that he was 
 merely to be a head servant. Be that as it may, 
 it is highly improbable that it was he who broke 
 off the connection. Four months spent in Paris had, 
 doubtless, cured Mme Courier of her infatuation. 
 Once the process of disillusionment had set in, she, 
 probably, realised that, unless she were prepared 
 to cut herself off for ever from decent society, she 
 must try to make people forget past scandals. That 
 may have been one of the reasons why, after the 
 trial, she spent most of her time in Paris and paid 
 only short visits to la Chavonniere. 
 
 The murder was a subject to which the peasants 
 seldom referred in pubHc. But, when they were at 
 home and when they felt sure of their company, 
 they would discuss it in whispers. There was a 
 general impression that the parties concerned in 
 the affair were men with whose business it were un- 
 wise to meddle. And, only a few months after the 
 trial, an event took place which greatly strengthened 
 this feeling. It will be remembered that Joseph 
 Barrier had stated that he had overheard Fremont, 
 on the morning of the murder, tell Symphorien that 
 it was M. Courier's intention to go, that afternoon, 
 to the forest. Now, this was a point on which 
 Symphorien was always very sensitive, and at Tours, 
 while the trial was proceeding, he had had a violent 
 altercation with Barrier, whom he had threatened 
 " to pay out should he say anything more." ^ At 
 
 1 L. Andre, Atsassmat, p. 1G4. 
 K
 
 194 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Christmas, Barrier was invited by some friends to 
 partake of a goose. After the party had sat down, 
 Symphorien, who had, apparently, not been bidden 
 to the feast, arrived. On seeing him. Barrier rose 
 and announced his intention of leaving. Symphorien, 
 however, slapped him on the back, and begging 
 him to let bygones be bygones, made him not only 
 remain at table, but sat down next to him. After a 
 convivial evening. Barrier returned home perfectly 
 sober. Nevertheless, before morning, he was taken 
 so ill that he died within two days. When the end 
 drew near, he was said to have uttered the words, 
 " I have been betrayed." ^ Every peasant about 
 the place was convinced that he had been poisoned. 
 Rumours on the subject reached Tours, and the 
 authorities caused the body, which had been under- 
 ground for twenty-one days, to be exhumed. But 
 the doctors could discover no trace of foul play. 
 A hundred years ago, however, scientific methods 
 for the detection of poison, three weeks after death, 
 were scarcely known. ^ 
 
 Whether or not Symphorien were responsible for 
 Barrier's death, he did not long survive him. In 
 August, 1827, he was watering some horses which 
 took fright, and, in his endeavour to restrain them, 
 he was thro^vn down and sustained a fatal injury. 
 At the news of his serious condition, Mme Courier, 
 who was staying in the neighbourhood, probably 
 at Tours, hastened to la Chavonniere. She found 
 him at the point of death in the harness-room which, 
 in the old days, had been the sleeping quarters of 
 his brother, Pierre. According to the old woman 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes celebres, x, p. 22. 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 144-145.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 195 
 
 who acted as his nurse, she sat by his bedside for 
 hours and watched over him until the end, wiping 
 the perspiration from his forehead with her own 
 handkerchief. The dying man was dehrious and 
 kept on calHng out, " Madame, Madame,'''' alter- 
 nating these words with others which were gross 
 and indecent.^ It is this episode which is the chief 
 foundation for the charge that Symphorien, Hke his 
 brother, had been her lover. But there can, surely, 
 be no grounds for such a suggestion in the fact that 
 this man who, doubtless, habitually indulged in 
 coarse language had in his dehrium used objection- 
 able expressions in her presence. There is one 
 question, however, which may fairly be asked. Was 
 her conduct, on this occasion, the conduct which 
 she would in all circumstances have observed towards 
 a servant, who had received a mortal hurt in her 
 service ? Does it not rather suggest the sohcitude, 
 which a woman might be expected to display, for 
 an inferior possessed of the secret of some dark 
 transaction, in which she had been involved ? 
 
 Careful as Courier always had been of money, he 
 was by no means a good man of business. When 
 his affairs were gone into, after his death, it was 
 found that there was a debt of £4000 upon his estate, 
 and Mme Courier, in order to clear it off, resolved 
 to dispose of la Chavonniere.^ When the sale had 
 been completed, she put up, in 1828, a memorial 
 to her husband in the forest, on the spot where 
 his body had been found. It is a grim, heavy block 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes celebres, x. p. 22. L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 
 146-147. 
 
 ' R. Gaschet, La Vie et la Mort tragique de P. L. Courier, pp. 
 213-214.
 
 196 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of stone, about seven feet high, entirely without 
 ornament of any kind, but with these words inscribed 
 upon it : 
 
 'I'O THK Me.AIORY 
 OK 
 
 PALL LOUIS COURIER 
 
 MLnDKRKl) IN THIS PLACF, APRIL lOfll, 182.") 
 
 HIS MORTAL REMAINS 
 
 REPOSE AT VERETZ 
 
 BIT ON THIS SPOT HIS LAST THOL'GHT REJOINED ETERNITY. 
 
 One day, in October 1829, more than four years 
 after Fremont's acquittal, a well to do peasant, 
 named Girault, who owned a small farm, on the 
 outskirts of the forest, told Silvine Grivault, a girl 
 in his employ, to fetch a sack of rye from Le Chene 
 Pendu. She jumped upon a horse and set out. 
 When she returned, she was in a state of great 
 excitement and alarm, and it was evident that some- 
 thing very unusual had happened. Girault inter- 
 rupted his dinner to inquire what the matter was. 
 " Your cursed horse," said the girl, " nearly threw 
 me off. He has had a great fright, almost as great 
 as mine, when they killed M. Courier." She ex- 
 plained that, in the forest on the way back from 
 Le Chene Pendu, she had, heedlessly, allowed the 
 horse to follow the track to the Fosse-a-la-Lande. 
 While thus unconscious of the direction in which 
 she was going, she was startled and nearly thrown 
 to the ground by the animal taking fright and shying 
 violently. Thoroughly aroused, she looked around 
 and perceived that she was opposite " M. Courier's 
 tomb," which she had always been careful to 
 avoid.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 197 
 
 " But," said her master, " you don't mean to tell 
 me that you yourself saw the murder of M. Courier." 
 " Yes," answered the girl, '' I saw it." In the 
 spring of 1825, she was in service at Village des Gues ^ 
 and, on the day of the murder, she was in the 
 forest helping a man to load a cart with faggots. 
 While they were thus occupied, they heard voices 
 raised in angry dispute and saw Sjnnphorien Dubois 
 and Fremont engaged in a quarrel with M. Courier. 
 Suddenly, Symphorien caught M. Courier by the 
 leg from behind and threw him upon his face, and, 
 at the same moment, Fremont discharged his gun 
 into his back. Scarcely had the shot been fired, 
 when Pierre Dubois, Martin Boutet and Fran9ois 
 Arrault appeared upon the scene. Girault's stomach ^ 
 was so upset by what he had heard that, instead of 
 returning to finish his dinner, he went to his barn, 
 where his men were threshing, to tell them about 
 it. All of them declared with one accord that it 
 was a nasty business and gave it, as their opinion, 
 that he had better say nothing about it.^ 
 
 Girault acted with so much circumspection, that 
 it was not until two months later that he communi- 
 cated Silvine's story to the Mayor of Veretz. M. de 
 Beaune, with whom, in former days, Courier had 
 often quarrelled, himself saw the girl, questioned 
 her closely and reported the matter to the authorities 
 at Tours. M. de Chancel, who still occupied the 
 post of Procureur du roi, at once issued warrants 
 
 ' About a mile north of Montbazon and about two and a half miles 
 from the place in the forest where the murder was committed. 
 
 * A. Fouquier, Causes celehres, x. p. 1(5. " Je fur .»? estomaqnr que 
 je ne pu< uckever mon diner." 
 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 1.55-1.57.
 
 198 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 for the arrest of Pierre Dubois, Boutet and Arrault 
 for murder. No action could be taken against 
 Fremont, who had been acquitted of this charge, 
 four years before. 
 
 It devolved upon the same juge dHnstrudiony 
 M. Hainique, to investigate the affair. Inquiries 
 into the character of Silvine Grivault ehcited that 
 she was a girl of very loose morals. But, although 
 she was absolutely iUiterate and very stupid, her 
 story, so far as the main fact was concerned, never 
 varied substantially. In matters of detail it, cer- 
 tainly, underwent considerable alterations, in the 
 course of her several examinations. Thus, she 
 acknowledged that, from motives of dehcacy, she 
 had assigned a false reason for her presence in the 
 forest, on the afternoon of the murder. In truth, 
 she was hiding in the heather with a lover whom 
 she had picked up at the fair at Saint-Avertin. Her 
 statement, thus amended and duly considered, was 
 as follows: "On Sunday, April 10th, 1825, the 
 young man with whom I had consented to enter the 
 Foret de Larcay and I had got nearly as far as the 
 Fosse- a-la-Lande, when we perceived Pierre Dubois, 
 Francois Arrault and Martin Boutet. We continued 
 to walk on through the wood, as far as a plantation 
 of young oak, where we lay down. The trees were 
 very young but the heather was very high, so that 
 two persons lying on the ground — desirous not to 
 be seen as we were — could escape observation even 
 from the road. We had been about half an hour 
 in this spot, when M. Courier appeared on the road, 
 walking as though he were coming from la Chavon- 
 niere. He was in the company of his keeper, Louis 
 Fremont, who had his gun under liis arm, and of
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 199 
 
 his servant, Symphorien Dubois. It was nearing 
 sunset. The three men were engaged in a violent 
 quarrel. Suddenly, Symphorien seized M. Courier 
 from behind by the leg, and pushing him forward 
 at the same time, threw him upon his face. 
 M. Courier exclaimed, " I am a dead man." At 
 that instant, while Symphorien held him down on 
 the ground, Fremont discharged his gun into his 
 right side. Symphorien turned him over on his 
 back and Fremont searched his pockets. At the 
 sound of the shot, we saw run up from different 
 directions Pierre Dubois, with a naked sword, Boutet, 
 Arrault and another individual, whom I did not 
 recognise. The last named had on a big hat, but 
 not so high as the hats which the bourgeois wear. 
 All four of them gathered round the murderers. 
 We heard these words — " As he is dead let us make 
 off, each his own way ! The six men then went away 
 separately." ^ 
 
 It was M. Hainique's theory that the stranger 
 was old Dubois. But Silvine, when he was shown 
 to her, could not identify him positively. She 
 thought that he was the man whom she had seen 
 with the others, she had, however, what she termed 
 a " doutance " ^ about him. Now, there was one 
 point about Silvine's story which had greatly im- 
 pressed the magistrates. Her description of the 
 way in which the murder had been committed ac- 
 counted for a circumstance, in connection with 
 Courier's death wouna, which the doctors had, 
 hitherto, been unable to explain. It will be re- 
 membered that the slugs, mth which he had been 
 
 1 L. Andre, Assafssiuat , pp. lGO-162. 
 - A. Fouquier, Causes celebres, x. p. 1(5.
 
 200 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 killed, had passed through his body, in an upward 
 direction, from right to left. According to Silvine, 
 the fatal shot had been fired from behind into his 
 right side, while he was lying face downwards upon 
 the ground. If that were true, the course which 
 the projectiles had followed was the one which they 
 would naturally take. And there was another, 
 although a less weighty, reason for thinking that 
 the girl's story was deserving of credence. One 
 of Courier's shoes, it has been related,^ had been 
 found lying close to his dead body. It was obvious 
 that if, as Silvine stated, Symphorien had seized 
 him by the ankle and had thrown him violently to 
 the earth, an easily-fitting shoe, such as he was 
 wearing, might very well fall off in the struggle. 
 Nevertheless, before complete confidence could be 
 placed in her, it was necessary to discover her com- 
 panion and hear what he had to say. 
 
 Silvine, unfortunately, was not good at names. 
 To the best of her knowledge her friend, on that 
 eventful occasion, was a man of the name of 
 Feuillaut. Several persons of that name, or with 
 names closely resembhng Feuillaut, were discovered, 
 but Silvine failed to identify any of them. At last, 
 in a certain Honore Veillaut she recognised her 
 companion of the forest. The man had recently 
 set up as a bootmaker at Reignac, some twelve miles 
 away, but, at the time of the murder, he had been 
 employed as an ostler at an inn, at Village des Gues, 
 the very village in which Silvine worked. Neverthe- 
 less, so far as he was concerned, he denied the truth 
 of her story in every particular. On the day in 
 question, he had not been at the fair at Saint- Avertin 
 
 1 Vide p. 180.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 201 
 
 nor had he been in the forest. He admitted that 
 he had a shght acquaintance with the girl. But, 
 at no time, whether in the forest or out of it, had 
 any love passages taken place between them. To 
 this statement he adhered firmly, in spite of all 
 M. Hainique's efforts to make him recant it.^ 
 
 At an early stage of the proceedings, M. Hainique 
 summoned Fremont before him, in order to make 
 the legal position clear to him. With regard to 
 M. Courier's murder, he told him that he was per- 
 fectly safe, but it was intended to call him as a 
 witness against Pierre Dubois and the other accused 
 persons and, should he testify falsely, he was hable 
 to be sent to the galleys for twenty years. It was 
 not, however, until M. Faucheux, his counsel at the 
 trial four years earher, had seen his wife and con- 
 firmed what M. Hainique had said, that he ceased 
 to protest his complete innocence. Very gradually 
 and very reluctantly he then began to confess the 
 truth. Not unnaturally, he wished to have it be- 
 lieved that his participation in the crime had been 
 quite unpremeditated. When, at last, he was 
 brought to admit that the murder was carried out 
 very much as Silvine Grivault had described, he 
 still declared that he had been merely an instru- 
 ment of the Dubois. He was so frightened by 
 their threats and so confused with drink that 
 he had almost unconsciously pulled the trigger. 
 He even went to the length of pretending that 
 Symphorien, at the last moment, in the actual 
 presence of M. Com-ier, drew from his gun the 
 innocent charge of shot, with which it was loaded, 
 and substituted for it three murderous slugs, wliich 
 
 ^ L. Andre, Aatassinat , pp. 169-171.
 
 202 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 he carried in his pocket.^ As confirming Silvine's 
 statement that several persons had been engaged 
 in the affair, as well as upon the question of pre- 
 meditation, the widow. Barrier, gave some important 
 evidence which, in an Enghsh Court, however, would 
 not be admissible. Her husband, she said, had not 
 told the whole truth about the incident in the stables, 
 on the morning of the murder.^ She then related 
 how, when Fremont and Symphorien thought that 
 he was in the loft and out of earshot, he had over- 
 heard Fremont's question as to " whether the others 
 would be in it ? " and Symphorien's reply, assuring 
 liim that he need be under no apprehensions on 
 that score.^ 
 
 About the motives of the murder and the events 
 which had immediately preceded it, Fremont talked 
 with less reluctance. It had been contrived by 
 Pierre Dubois who received, however, much assistance 
 from his brother Symphorien. They desired to kill 
 M. Courier, in order that his widow might be the 
 sole mistress of la Chavonniere. In that event, 
 Pierre assured him that he would be in a position 
 to make life very easy for anybody who had been 
 of service to him. The first serious attempt to 
 bring him into the plot was made, when he was asked 
 to meet Pierre and his friends at Le Chene Pendu, 
 on March 14th.^ Pierre on that, and on several 
 subsequent, occasions told him that he was in cor- 
 respondence with Mme Courier, who was kept fully 
 informed of their plans. The news that her husband 
 was dead would, Pierre declared, be most welcome 
 to her. In Fremont's opinion there could be no 
 
 1 L. Andre, Asi-assinat, pp. 1B3-1G8. - Vide p. 177. 
 
 * Firfe p. 177. * Vide I). 175.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 203 
 
 doubt that it was she who had instigated the 
 murder.i 
 
 Mme Courier, in 1829, was hving with her mother 
 in the rue du Sentier in Paris. She had, recently, 
 met a Swiss medical student, eleven years younger 
 than herself, with whom she had fallen deeply in 
 love. While she was absorbed in this new affair, 
 the newspapers began to hint that the police were 
 in possession of fresh information about M. Courier's 
 murder and that several arrests either had, or were 
 about to be made. On this occasion, however, she 
 made no attempt to enter into communication ^vith 
 the authorities. But on January 7th, 1830, she 
 was summoned to appear as a witness before M. 
 Hainique at Tours. Without doubt, she must have 
 learnt with dismay that the case was to be re-opened. 
 The prospect that unpleasant stories would be 
 revived must, in any circumstances, have been dis- 
 agreeable, it was particularly so, at the present time, 
 when she had just embarked upon a new attachment. 
 And it may be that she had reason to fear even 
 worse developments than the resuscitation of old 
 scandals. To these considerations and to the 
 painful necessity under which she was of parting 
 from her young lover, was added the physical 
 discomfort of a twenty-four hours' journey, by 
 diligence, in the depth of the intensely cold winter 
 of 1830. On arriving at Tours, she put up at the 
 Hotel du Faisan and, on January 11th, was once 
 more in M. Hainique's room at the Palais de 
 Justice.'^ 
 
 Both on this occasion and at her second attendance, 
 four days later, M. Hainique's attitude must have 
 
 » L. Andre, Assmsmat, pp. 177-178. ^ Ibid., pp. 181-182.
 
 204 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 left her in no doubt that her position was no longer 
 the same as it had been in 1825. It was rather 
 as an accused person than as a witness that he 
 addressed her. Reverting to the old question of 
 her mysterious knowledge of the meeting in the 
 forest, he questioned her about it sharply, pointing 
 out that it was a piece of information which, at 
 that time, could be known only to the persons who 
 had been concerned in the murder. She had never 
 been able to explain from what source she had 
 derived her knowledge,^ and, apparently, she could 
 not do so now. It was she again who had known 
 where to look for the lead piping, a small portion of 
 which had been converted into the slugs with which 
 the murderer's gun had been charged. How could 
 she account for it that she, who had been away in 
 Paris should, twenty-four hours after her arrival at 
 la Chavonniere, be in possession of so much special 
 information ? And it was, to say the least of it, 
 unfortunate that she should have taken into her em- 
 ployment the very three men who were now accused 
 of her husband's murder. On January 16th, an officer 
 of the Court presented himself at the hotel to summon 
 her again to attend upon M. Hainique. Immediately 
 upon their arrival at the Palais de Justice, he pro- 
 duced a warrant and took her into custody.^ 
 
 Although she was, in the first instance, placed au 
 secret, and rigorously cut off from any communica- 
 tions with her friends or legal advisers, Mme Courier 
 never lost courage. She appears to have had a 
 ready answer for M. Hainique, whether he were 
 interrogating her alone, or whether he were con- 
 fronting her with her fellow-prisoners, or with 
 
 1 Vide p. 184. » L. Andre, Aisan&mut, pp. 182-186.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 205 
 
 Fremont. And, when she was at a loss for a reply, 
 she was to prove very adroit in evading awkward 
 questions. The events she was expected to remember 
 had taken place nearly five years ago. How could 
 she, at that distance of time, recollect who had 
 said this or told her that ? Was it surprising that 
 she should have forgotten or have mixed up the 
 names of her informants ? ^ And, after all, had she 
 not been right. She had always maintained that 
 Fremont was guilty, and he now admitted that he 
 had fired the fatal shot. Nothing could exceed her 
 scorn for the servants' evidence about her relations 
 with Pierre Dubois or for Fremont's account of her 
 flight to Tours ^ and of the interrupted midnight 
 meeting in the farmyard.^ It was not for her, at 
 the present moment, she indignantly protested, to 
 discuss gossip, or to answer questions affecting her 
 private conduct as a woman. " She owed it to the 
 memory of M. Courier, to her own honour and to 
 that of her children to pass over certain imputations 
 with silent contempt." * How could she explain why 
 Pierre Dubois should deny that she had written to 
 him ? She could speak only for herseH and not for 
 another person.^ M. Hainique, having only suspicious 
 circumstances to go upon and having no direct evi- 
 dence to produce against her, seems, generally, to 
 have been worsted in these verbal duels. 
 
 He put it to her that her behaviour, at the bed- 
 side of the dying labourer Symphorien, was highly 
 suspicious. She would have shown, she maintained, 
 the same solicitude for any other man, in her employ, 
 who had met with so terrible an accident. He had 
 
 1 L. Andre, A.s-msfiiuat, pp. 181J-1U0. * Vide, p. 108. 
 
 » Vide, p. 171. * L. Andre, Asfmasmat, p. 1'I9. ^ Ibid., p. 200.
 
 206 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 been delirious, in his last hours, and had talked 
 incoherently. But she could not say whether he 
 had used any indecent expressions. If he had, she 
 had not heard them. It had been deponed that she 
 had placed a ring upon his finger, after death. She 
 recollected the circumstance perfectly. It was a 
 ring which had been given him, while he was in the 
 army, but she rather thought that it was his father 
 who had slipped it on his finger, just before the 
 funeral. 
 
 It was part of her ordeal that she should be con- 
 fronted with Pierre Dubois, under the inquisitive 
 eye of M. Hainique. But their meeting, under these 
 tragic conditions, led to none of those sensational 
 developments which constitute a triumph for the 
 investigating magistrate. On all essential points 
 they were in perfect agreement. Pierre totally 
 denied that he had told Fremont or anybody else 
 that she had hoped to hear of her husband's death. 
 He had never, he protested, incited him to commit 
 the murder. Both his story and that of Silvine 
 Grivault were totally untrue. Pierre's position was 
 in truth very critical. In the proceedings before 
 the first trial he had successfully established an 
 alibi. But it had depended, mainly, upon the 
 evidence of Martin Boutet and, in a lesser degree, 
 upon that of Fran9ois Arrault, and both of them, 
 Silvine swore, had been, at the time it was com- 
 mitted, themselves upon the scene of the murder. 
 Before the preliminary proceedings were closed that 
 young woman was taken into the forest together 
 with Fremont and Honore Veillaut, in order that 
 she might point out the exact place from which she 
 had witnessed the crime. Without the shghtest
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 207 
 
 hesitation, she walked to the plantation of young 
 trees, behind which she and her companion had 
 been ensconced in the heather.^ 
 
 In his report, M. de Chancel, the Procureur du roi, 
 asked that all four of the accused should be sent 
 for trial. Mme Courier he charged with having, 
 by " promises, machinations and culpable artifices," 
 incited her accomplices to commit murder and with 
 having " given them instructions to carry it out." 
 But, on March 16th, 1830, the Court decided that 
 the three men only should be indicted. Against 
 Mme Courier it was held that the evidence 
 was insufficient and she was, accordingly, released 
 from prison. Her detention had lasted for two 
 months. 2 
 
 The trial of Pierre Dubois, Martin Boutet, and 
 Fran9ois Arrault opened, on June 6th, 1830, in the 
 Palais de Justice at Tours, M. Perrot, once again, 
 presiding over the Court. It was a time of great 
 poUtical excitement. The country was on the eve 
 of a general election of momentous importance. 
 Should the issue prove unfavourable to the Govern- 
 ment, there was a widespread impression that, rather 
 than bow to the popular decision and part with 
 Pohgnac and his colleagues, Charles X would resort 
 to some unconstitutional measure.^ Nevertheless, 
 the second trial of Paul-Louis Courier's alleged 
 murderers aroused universal interest. The Court was 
 densely crowded, more than half of the spectators 
 
 ^ L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 207. • Ibid., pp. 211-214. 
 
 ' On July 26th the five ordinances, known as the " ordinances 
 of July/' appeared. The first abolished the liberty of the press 
 and the second annulled the elections. On the following day, a 
 revolution broke out in Paris and, before the end of the week, the 
 Bourbon monarchy had come to an end.
 
 208 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 being, according to contemporary reports, fashionable 
 and gaily dressed women. But a disappointment 
 was in store for those who had hoped to enjoy 
 the spectacle of Mme Courier's confrontation with 
 Fremont. When her name was called out among 
 the other witnesses, there was no reply. The lady, 
 announced M. de Chancel, is believed to be in Italy 
 and, should the accused consider that their case 
 may suffer from her absence, they can ask for a 
 postponement of the trial. Pierre Dubois, however, 
 declaring that " he had been long enough in prison 
 already," begged that there should be no delay 
 and his fellow-prisoners made the same request. 
 Mme Courier's absence, it must be explained, should 
 not be attributed solely to a reluctance to appear 
 in Court. Her friendship with the young medical 
 student had not been of a platonic order and, at 
 the time of the trial, she was within a fortnight of 
 her confinement, which, in effect, took place in 
 Italy.i 
 
 In answer to the President's questions, Pierre 
 Dubois professed complete ignorance of the reasons 
 of his dismissal from la Chavonniere, nor had he 
 ever, he asserted, made use of threatening language 
 in regard to M. Courier. Both he and the other 
 two prisoners declared emphatically that they had 
 in no way been concerned in the murder and that 
 Silvine Grivault was a liar. But, when they were 
 asked to suggest why she should thus accuse them 
 falsely, they had no explanation to offer. Silvine, 
 " a strong, sunburnt girl, poorly dressed ^ and with 
 
 ' L. Andre, Assansinat, pp. 220-221. 
 
 ^ The wages of :\ farm girl in Touraine at this time were about 
 75 francs per annum and her working clothes.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 209 
 
 a somewhat animal expression of comitenance " ^ 
 was then called and repeated the story of the crime, 
 which she had told to the investigating magistrate.* 
 At the conclusion of her evidence, the President, 
 in order to test her veracity, put to her a number 
 of questions to all of which she returned satisfactory 
 answers.^ She did not disguise the fact that she 
 would never have said anything about the murder, 
 had it not been for the superstitious terror which 
 came over her in the forest, at, suddenly, finding 
 herself opposite " M. Courier's tomb." * Fremont, 
 when he entered the witness box, presented a pitiable 
 spectacle. Although he was but forty- five years 
 of age, he had the appearance of a broken-down 
 old man, and it was evident that, in addition, he 
 was very ill. Although he acknowledged that he 
 had fired the fatal shot, he still persisted, as he had 
 before M. Hainique, in maintaining that he had 
 been a reluctant and half unconscious instrument of 
 the Dubois. At the Fosse-a-la-Lande, just before 
 the murder, he had seen Pierre Dubois watcliing 
 him through the trees. The sight of the elder 
 brother filled him with terror and, when Symphorien 
 bade him fire, he dared not disobev. " How could 
 that be," objected the President, " you had a double- 
 barrelled gun in your hand and they were unarmed." 
 He had observed the prisoner, Arrault, loading a 
 cart close to the scene of the crime, but he had not 
 seen Martin Boutet anywhere in the neighbourhood. 
 It was put to him that, if he fired in these circum- 
 
 * A. Fouquier, Causes celcbrett, x. p. 12. * Vide p. 198. 
 ® A. Fouquier, Causes celebrea, x. pp. 12-13. 
 
 * The cenotaph in the forest was always known as " M. Courier's 
 tomb " by the peasants. 
 
 O
 
 210 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 stances, he must have been aware that Arrault 
 was a party to the crime. As he refused to admit 
 that he had searched M. Courier's body, after the 
 murder, Silvine was recalled and confronted with 
 him. She repeated her story, but he could not be 
 induced to acknowledge that it was true. He took 
 to flight, he declared, directly he had discharged 
 his gun.^ 
 
 It was the general opinion that the issue of the 
 trial would depend upon whether Honore Veillaut 
 could be brought to admit that he had been Silvine's 
 companion in the forest. Consequently, his appear- 
 ance in the witness box aroused the keenest interest. 
 
 President. Witness, on this Quasimodo Sunday 
 you were with the girl, Grivault, on the spot where 
 M. Courier was murdered. Now tell the truth and 
 keep back nothing. Although you are to-day 
 married, at that time you were a single man. Have 
 you had anything to do with this girl, Grivault ? 
 
 Veillaut (smihng). If I had I would walhngly say 
 so. But I never have. I know her only by sight. 
 I am aware that she is no better than she should 
 be. But I have never had anything to do with her, 
 either on Quasimodo Sunday or on any other day. 
 
 President. Yet she swears that she met you 
 returning from the fair at Saint-Avertin and that 
 you went into the woods together. 
 
 Veillaut. When I have had anything to do with 
 a woman, I have never been ashamed to admit it. 
 If I had been with her I should say so straight out. 
 But I have never said more than " Good-morning " 
 or " Good-night " to her. 
 
 As nothing but answers of this kind could be 
 
 A. Fouquier, Causes celcbre-s, x. pp. V^, \i, lo.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 211 
 
 extracted from him, Silvine was called into Court, 
 in the hope that, when brought face to face with 
 her, he would display less assurance. An unedifying 
 battle of words was, however, the only result of 
 this confrontation. To his accusation that she was 
 a liar, she retorted by taunting him with being 
 afraid to speak, because he was married. Further- 
 more, she stated that after the murder, he had said, 
 " we have witnessed a great crime, but we must 
 never say a word about it." The Court suggested 
 to him that he had been bribed to keep silence, and 
 that it was money, obtained in that manner, which 
 had enabled him to set up as a bootmaker. But 
 this he denied, and the prosecution had nothing 
 to bring forward to support such a contention.^ 
 The President summed up the situation with the 
 sapient remark that either he or the girl was a 
 liar. 
 
 On the question of Silvine's credibihty, her former 
 master, Girault, to whom she had made her first 
 statement, deposed that she was " a stupid sort of 
 girl without sufficient intelligence to invent a cir- 
 cumstantial story. ... It was the fright she had 
 had in the forest which had made her speak." - 
 Rondeau, another farmer, whose father had once 
 employed her, expressed the same opinion. To 
 evolve a story out of her own head was, he declared, 
 quite beyond her powers. " All she was fit for was 
 running after men." Four sittings of the Court 
 were devoted almost exclusively to the wretched 
 girl who, after repeated confrontations with witnesses 
 and interrogations by the President interspersed 
 with comments from counsel, became so addle- 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Cau^en celebres, x. p. 16. * Ibid., x. p. 17-
 
 212 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 headed that she would relapse at times into a sullen 
 silence, from which it was difficult to arouse her. 
 
 When the Court opened on June 12th, the 
 Procureur du roi invited Silvine to repeat what she 
 had said to the gendarme, who had accompanied her 
 back to her inn, the night before. She had, he 
 said, " told him something which was very remark- 
 able." This Silvine denied and the gendarme was, 
 accordingly, called. He related the substance of a 
 conversation, which he had had with her, in which 
 she had stated that she could, whenever she chose, 
 confound Veillaut by revealing the existence on 
 him of a scar. The man was, immediately, taken 
 out of Court and examined by Dr Herpin, who 
 presently returned and announced that he had 
 discovered upon his leg a scar about the size of a 
 franc. Silvine, in the meantime, however, had fallen 
 into one of her obstinate fits of silence and, when 
 at last she was induced to open her lips, it was to 
 say that she had not seen the scar herself, but had 
 been told about it by another girl.^ 
 
 On the question of motive, Fremont repeated 
 what he had told M. Hainique. The Dubois had 
 planned the murder, in order to place Mme Courier 
 in possession of la Chavonniere and to save her from 
 being immured in a convent. A long and angry 
 discussion took place between him and the three 
 prisoners on the subject of what had passed at 
 Le Chene Pendu, on March 14th. But Fremont's 
 account of Pierre's attitude towards him was con- 
 firmed by Tricot, the keeper of the wine shop, who, 
 also, deponed that Arrault and Boutet had accom- 
 panied the other two men, when they had retired 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes celcbres, x. p. 24.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 213 
 
 to whisper and confer in his private room.^ On 
 the subject of Mme Courier's letters, Pierre Dubois 
 still obstinately refused to admit that he had received 
 them. When reminded that she herself admitted 
 that she had written to him, he simply answered 
 that, possibly, she had, but all he could say was 
 that no letters from her had reached him. Questioned 
 particularly about the one posted in Paris, on April 
 9th, on the day before the murder, he asserted that 
 it had never come into his possession. It may be re- 
 membered that, in 1825, inquiries ^ were made into 
 this matter, and that they were discontinued when 
 the Dubois brothers were released from arrest. 
 Mme Definance, the postmistress, was now called 
 and asked whether she could say what had become 
 of the missing letter. But the woman pleaded that 
 her oath of secrecy made it impossible for her to 
 comply with such a demand. A heated argument 
 ensued, in the course of which, however, it transpired 
 that she had already made a declaration to the 
 Juge de Paix to the effect that she had handed 
 the letter over to a young woman, who had called for 
 it in Pierre Dubois' name. No attempt appears to 
 have been made to discover anything about this 
 person and, after the Court had decided that the 
 postmistress could not be punished for her behaviour, 
 this somewhat mysterious incident was not pursued 
 any further.^ Before bringing the proceedings to 
 a close, the President directed that Silvine and 
 Veillaut should again be confronted with each other. 
 But this last attempt to ehcit an admission from 
 Veillaut was unsuccessful. The wretched Fremont, 
 
 1 Vide p. 175. 2 Vide p. 189. 
 
 ^ A. Fouquier, Causes celebres, x. pp. 22-23.
 
 214 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 whose condition seemed to grow more pitiable every 
 day, was also recalled and solemnly adjured to 
 reveal all he knew. In a feeble voice he asserted 
 that he had told the whole truth and nothing but 
 the truth, and that he could add nothing to his 
 previous testimony. 
 
 The interests of Courier's children, of the ^jarti 
 civil, as it is termed, had been entrusted to M. Barthe. 
 This gentleman had acquired great popularity among 
 the Liberals as one of the defenders of the four 
 sergeants of La Rochelle,^ and he had been, in the 
 first instance, retained to defend Mme Courier her- 
 self. In a murder trial, counsel representing the 
 'parti civil, which in the event of a conviction can 
 obtain damages, takes up, in ordinary circumstances, 
 a very hostile attitude towards the accused. But 
 in this case the position was abnormal, inasmuch 
 as the chief witness for the prosecution had con- 
 fessed that he himself had committed the murder. 
 Counsel for the defence, accordingly, intimated to 
 M. Barthe that, should he press the case against 
 their clients, they would not hesitate to drag Mme 
 Courier's name into the proceedings and show up 
 her conduct in a very unfavourable light. M. Barthe, 
 under these conditions, was content to ask the 
 President formally to record the fact that Fremont 
 had acknowledged that he had fired the fatal shot, 
 and, when he rose to address the Court, said as little 
 as possible about the three men who were on trial. 
 The Procureur du roi, who, presumably, was no 
 party to any bargain of that kind, endeavoured in 
 
 ^ The four sergeants were iu a regiment stationed at La Rochelle, 
 and were affiliated to the Carbonari and engaged in a treasonable 
 conspiracy. They were executed September 21st, 1822.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 215 
 
 his speech to secure the conviction of Pierre Dubois, 
 but did not push matters against the other two 
 accused. He made only one allusion to Mme 
 Courier and then he said, merely, that it was, un- 
 fortunately, true that, at the time of the murder, 
 she and her husband were not on good terms. 
 
 The speeches on behalf of the three prisoners 
 call for no especial mention. But after M. Julien, 
 Pierre Dubois' counsel, had sat down, the proceed- 
 ings were interrupted by a dramatic incident. The 
 Procureur du roi announced that he was informed 
 that, on the previous day, Fremont had admitted 
 that every word uttered by Silvine Grivault was 
 true. The President, accordingly, directed that he 
 should be brought back into Court. The wretched 
 man was in so weak a condition that he had almost 
 to be hfted into the witness box. At first, he seemed 
 scarcely conscious of what was going on around 
 him, but he soon grew more collected and declared 
 that Silvine' s account of the murder itself and of 
 the events which had both preceded it and succeeded 
 it was strictly accurate. Withdrawing all those 
 reservations, to which he had, hitherto, clung so 
 tenaciously, he, at last, acknowledged the absolute 
 truth of her description of the crime. The jury, 
 when they retired, were not absent for long. At 
 the end of half an hour, they returned with a verdict 
 of " Not Guilty " in the case of all three prisoners. 
 Pierre Dubois, however, had had a narrow escape. 
 Six jurymen had voted for, and six against, finding 
 him guilty. But the verdict acquitting Arrault and 
 Boutet was given unanimously.^ Two days later, 
 the Court assessed the damages against Fremont 
 
 ' A. Fouquier, Causes celehres, x. p. 28.
 
 216 FOUR FMIOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 at 10,000 francs. This was in effect to sentence him 
 to perpetual confinement in a debtor's prison. But i 
 Fremont was beyond the reach of human justice. 
 On June 18th, four days after the acquittal of Pierre 
 Dubois and his companions, he died in hospital. 
 It was said that he had been given a dose of poison 
 on the night before the trial began. But the 
 doctors, as a result of their post-mortem examination 
 of him, decided that apoplexy was the cause of 
 death .1 
 
 The acquittal of the accused was due, partly, to 
 the natural disHke of the jury to convict on the 
 evidence of such a witness as Fremont and, partly, 
 to their reluctance to place complete faith in Silvine 
 Grivault. But they were, not improbably, influenced, 
 to some extent, by a feehng that certain matters had 
 been kept in the background, and that the proceed- 
 ings in Court had not completely dissipated the 
 atmosphere of mystery which still hung over the 
 case. And, since the day when Pierre Dubois and 
 his two companions were declared " Not Guilty," 
 no fresh disclosure nor new discovery has thrown 
 any hght upon those questions which the trial 
 left in doubt. Nevertheless, reviewing the case, 
 at the present time, it appears certain that 
 Silvine's description of the crime was true in all 
 essential particulars. The actual deed, it is im- 
 possible to doubt, was perpetrated by Symphorien 
 Dubois and Fremont, while Pierre Dubois, Arrault, 
 Boutet and, in all probability, old Dubois watched 
 the four cart-tracks which converged upon the scene 
 of the murder. 
 
 Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the 
 
 ^ L. Andre, Assassinat, pp. 297-299.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 217 
 
 affair was planned by Pierre Dubois, in order that 
 Mme Courier might reign supreme at la Chavonni^re. 
 It is possible, however, that he may have known, 
 or have suspected, that Courier had decoyed him 
 to the farm, on the night of January 2nd, with the 
 intention of shooting him. Be that as it may, it 
 is clear that he experienced no difficulty in enlisting 
 the assistance of his brother and, probably, of his 
 father. His friends Martin Boutet and Frangois 
 Arrault, to whom he could hold out the prospect of 
 employment at la Chavonniere, seem to have entered 
 into the plot with alacrity. And, as regards them, 
 he proved as good as his word. After the murder, 
 both were enabled to exchange their precarious 
 existence as woodmen for regular work on the 
 farm, under the kindly rule of Mme Courier. At 
 first sight, it is difficult to understand why he was 
 so anxious to bring Fremont, whom he must have 
 distrusted profoundly, into the business. But, on 
 consideration, it will be seen that this was a matter 
 of absolute necessity. Had the Dubois alone, or 
 in conjunction with Boutet and Arrault, committed 
 the murder, Fremont would have guessed, at once, 
 that they were the guilty parties. Knowing as 
 much as he did, he could, at any moment, have 
 set the police upon their track. In these circum- 
 stances, the only certain way of ensuring his silence 
 was to imphcate him in the crime, as deeply as 
 possible. By what means he was persuaded not 
 only to enter into the plot, but actually liimself 
 to fire the fatal shot must always be a matter of 
 some uncertainty. 
 
 Courier, says M. Gaschet, was resolved to dismiss 
 Fremont and had placed an advertisement for his
 
 218 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 successor in the Journal d'Indre et Loire. His fate 
 was sealed when, on the morning of April 10th, 
 Symphorien put a copy of this paper into Fremont's 
 hands .1 M. Gaschet is, doubtless, correct in saying 
 that Courier's advertisement appeared on the day on 
 which he was killed, although the circumstance, which 
 was certainly deserving of mention, does not seem 
 to have been brought to the notice of the Court, 
 either at the first, or at the second, trial. But, 
 important as it is, it does not explain why Fremont^ 
 unless he were actuated simply by feehngs of 
 vindictiveness, should have murdered his master. 
 What reason had he to suppose that Mme Courier 
 would revoke her dead husband's decision to dismiss 
 him ? According to the man's own statement, 
 Pierre Dubois, at his meeting with him, at Le Chene 
 Pendu and on other occasions, assured him that 
 Mme Courier was privy to his design of murdering 
 her husband and fully approved of it. Was it then 
 simply to earn her gratitude that he yielded to Pierre's 
 persuasions, or had he some other reason, which 
 the magistrates failed to discover, for participating 
 in the crime? M. Andre ^ inclines to think that 
 Courier's assignation with Fremont, on the afternoon 
 of the fatal Sunday, was connected with the purchase 
 of his wife's letters, and that the angry words, over- 
 heard by Silvine Grivault, had reference to that 
 matter. But it was Pierre, not Symphorien, who 
 possessed the letters. Had it been a question of 
 negotiating directly with Pierre, a dismissed servant, 
 it were easy to understand that Courier might prefer 
 to talk the business over in the forest. But, if 
 
 ^ R. Gaschet, La Vie et la Mort tragique de P. L. Courier, pp. 221-222. 
 * L. Andre, Assassinat, p. 83.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 219 
 
 Symphorien were empowered to act for his brother, 
 why should not Courier discuss the matter with him 
 and, if necessary, with Fremont, in his own room 
 at la Chavonniere? Why make an appointment, 
 for such a purpose, three miles away in the forest ? 
 It may be that M. Andre is right in thinking that 
 Fremont was engaged in some negotiation with the 
 Dubois for the restitution of Mme Courier's letters, 
 but it is impossible to believe that that matter had 
 anything to do with the murder. In the absence, 
 therefore, of any other explanation of his conduct 
 it must be supposed that the Dubois succeeded in 
 persuading him that, if he would help them, he 
 would earn the eternal gratitude of Mme Courier. 
 At the same time, they, doubtless, stimulated his 
 animosity against Courier and plied him freely 
 with drink, for several hours, before the assignation in 
 the forest. 
 
 In his lifetime. Courier had constantly inveighed 
 against the vices of Courts, while loudly extolling 
 the virtues of the country labourer. It was a strange 
 irony of fate that he should be the victim of a 
 conspiracy of peasants, whose plans were laid as 
 craftily as any conceived in the most corrupt of 
 Courts. When describing a palace revolution, in 
 which an obnoxious ruler has been done to death 
 by his own officers, the historian has sometimes 
 had to consider whether the consort of the murdered 
 potentate had a guilty knowledge of the plot. It is 
 a question which must be asked in regard to the 
 affair at la Chavonniere. Did Mme Courier tacitly 
 approve of the plans of the two Dubois, in the 
 same way that the Tsarina, Catherine II, is beheved 
 to have secretly connived at the murderous designs
 
 220 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 of her lover, Alexis Orloff, and his brother 
 Gregory. 
 
 There is not a shred of legal evidence to connect 
 her with the murder. But, if the facts be considered 
 dispassionately, it will be found that it is very 
 difficult to believe in her innocence. The crime 
 was committed with the object of placing her in 
 undisputed possession of la Chavonniere, at a time 
 when there are strong grounds for thinking that 
 her husband, who had discovered her intrigue with 
 Pierre Dubois, was preparing to institute proceedings 
 against her. It is true that she was absent in Paris 
 when the murder took place, but it was contrived 
 by her lover with whom she was, admittedly, in 
 correspondence. None of the letters, however, 
 which passed between them were produced, either 
 in Court, or before the investigating magistrate. 
 Is it fair to suggest that they would not have been 
 kept back, unless they had contained something 
 of an incriminating character ? Again, would Pierre 
 Dubois, bold and unscrupulous rascal as he was, 
 have dared to embark upon so criminal an adventure, 
 had he not felt assured of his mistress's approval ? 
 And her own proceedings, after the murder, greatly 
 strengthen the impression that she must have been 
 in communication with the guilty parties. When 
 she arrived at la Chavonniere, having been in Paris 
 for the past four months, she at once denounced 
 Fremont and was able to supply the magistrates 
 with the strongest proofs of his guilt. Who, but 
 some person who had taken part in the murder, 
 could have told her about the meeting in the forest 
 and have shown her where to find the lead piping 
 from which the slugs for Fremont's gun had been
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 221 
 
 cut ? The Dubois were in prison, but Arrault, 
 their accompHce, was actually living and working 
 on the farm. To accuse Fremont, if she were herself 
 a party to the conspiracy, may seem a singularly 
 dangerous step to take. Yet, in reality, it was 
 probably the safest course to pursue. She was far 
 too acute and intelligent not to have reahsed that, 
 for her own safety, she must procure the release 
 of the Dubois. Now unlike them, Fremont, what- 
 ever he might say, could bring forward no proofs 
 that she was privy to their criminal proceedings. 
 To draw the magistrates' attention to Fremont was, 
 she, doubtless, reckoned, the most effectual way of 
 bhnding them to the guilt of the two brothers. And 
 the event was to prove that she had calculated 
 correctly. Lastly, it must not be forgotten that, 
 at the earliest opportunity, she took into her 
 employment every one of the men, with the ex- 
 ception of Fremont, who had been concerned in 
 the murder. 
 
 The extraordinary lack of perspicacity displayed 
 by the magistrates and the police, throughout the 
 investigations, almost suggest that they had no 
 great desire to discover the whole truth. It is more 
 than probable that the acquittal, first of Fremont, 
 and, afterwards, of Pierre Dubois and his two com- 
 panions was largely due to the suspicion of the 
 jury that certain matters had not been inquired 
 into, as closely as their importance demanded. 
 Readers of Balzac may remember that, in one of 
 the most famous of his novels,^ he describes how the 
 Procnreur-general, in the interests of a great lady, 
 drops a gentle hint to M. Camusot, the juge 
 
 ^ Spltndeurs et miscres dea courtinanes.
 
 222 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 d' instruction, that he would be well advised not 
 to push his investigations too far, in a certain direc- 
 tion. Mme Courier was not a great lady, nor 
 was she the protegee of any member of the Govern- 
 ment. But she had many friends among the Liberals, 
 with whom the memory of her father was held in 
 the highest esteem. Was it due to their influence 
 with the magistrates of Tours that her proceedings, 
 before and after the murder, were never, thoroughly, 
 investigated ? To-day, all that can be said about 
 her connection with the tragedy of la Chavonniere 
 is that, were it a subject for historical inquiry, it 
 is highly improbable that she would be acquitted of 
 compKcity in the murder. 
 
 In 1834, Mme Courier was married to the young 
 Swiss, to whom she had become so greatly attached, 
 while he was pursuing his studies in Paris. With 
 him she went to reside at Geneva, where she led an 
 exemplary life, until her death, at the comparatively 
 earl)'^ age of forty-seven. In the year of her marriage, 
 the Foret de Lar9ay was sold, but Pierre Dubois, 
 under the new proprietor, continued to hold the 
 post of forester, to which Mme Courier had pro- 
 moted him, in 1825. By his neighbours he was 
 regarded, if not with respect, at least, with some 
 secret admiration as a man whose anger it were 
 dangerous to incur. It was not until 1877 that 
 he died at Veretz, at the goodly age of eighty-two,^ 
 a few months after the foundation-stone had been 
 laid of the statue of Paul-Louis Courier, " the 
 champion of commonsense and of liberty," which 
 now adorns the village street. It is said that he 
 never, in any circumstances, alluded to the tragic 
 
 1 L. Andre, A-smsxinat, pp. 299-o00.
 
 MURDER OF PAUL-LOUIS COURIER 223 
 
 •events in which he had been concerned. But, 
 sometimes, he would show his friends a handsome 
 silver watch, which had been sent him from Geneva 
 and, as he grew older, he did not object to hear it 
 said that he had once been the bon ami of the lady 
 of la Chavonniere.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Acton, Lord, 110 
 
 Akerblad, 144 
 
 Albani, Cardinal, 91 
 
 Alexander I, Emperor of Russia, 9, 
 14, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 
 
 Alison, Sir Archibald, 24 
 
 Alopaeus, Baron, 31 
 
 Amboise, Forest of, 159 
 
 Amyot, Jacciues, 145, 161 
 
 Andre, L., 151, 156, 158, 159, 1G2, 
 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 
 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 
 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 
 189, 191, 192. 193, 194, 197. 199, 
 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 
 210, 218, 222 
 
 Antraigues, Emmanuel de Launay, 
 Comte d', 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 
 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 26, 27, 28, 29. 
 30, 31, 32, 33, 42, 47, 48 
 
 — Comtesse d', see Saint-Huberty 
 Archives Nationales, 20 
 Armstrong, Dr, 57, 71, 76 
 Arrault, Fran9ois, 168, 175, 192, 
 
 197, 198, 199, 206, 207, 209, 
 210, 212, 215, 216, 217, 221 
 
 Arundel of Wardour, Lord, 107 
 
 Assassinat de P. L. Courier, 151, 156, 
 158, 159, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 
 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 
 179, 181, 182. 183, 184, 185, 186, 
 187, 188. 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 
 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 
 207, 208, 216, 218, 222 
 
 Athenceum, The, 14 
 
 Atkins, Charles, 100, 101 
 
 — Samuel, 100, 102, 103 
 Auberge du Cygne, 156, 168 
 Austerlitz, 141 
 Azay-le-Rideau, 176, 182 
 
 Balzac, Honore de, 174. 221 
 Baring-Gould, Mr, 37. 38, 39, 44 
 Bames, 15, 23, 26 
 Barras, Paul, 20, 
 
 Barrier, Joseph, 177, 186, 187, 191, 
 193, 194, 202 
 
 — Mme Joseph 202 
 Barthe, M., 214 
 
 224 
 
 Barth^lemy, Jean Jacques, 142 
 Bathurst, Benjamin, 34, et seqq. 
 —Mrs Benjamin, 34, 36, 43, 44, 45, 
 
 57, 59, 60, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 
 
 78, 83, 84 
 
 — Dr Henry, Bishop of Norwich, 34, 
 
 36,37 
 
 Memoirs and Corres'pondenee 
 
 of, 36, 37, 45, 77 
 
 — Mrs Henry, 35 
 
 — Lord, 34, 35, 56 
 Beaune, de, 197 
 Bedingfield, 92 
 
 Bedloe, WilUam, 100, 101, 102, 103, 
 
 105, 109, 111, 118, 124, 130 
 Bellasis, Lord, 102, 107 
 BenflF, Dr, 64, 65, 69, 71, 76 
 Bennigsen, General, 13, 31 
 Berlin, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 51, 
 
 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 71, 72, 
 
 74, 76, 80, 81, 86 
 Bomadotte, General, 20 
 Berrv, Henry, 108, 109, 113, 115, 117, 
 
 118, 119, 121, 125 
 Berville, Saint- Albin, 164 
 Bliicher. Prince, 53 
 Bodley, J. E. C, Mr, 14 
 Bombelle, Comte de, 57, 72, 75 
 Bourbon, family of, 17 
 Bourrienne, M. de, 60 
 Boutet, Martm, 175, 187, 192, 197, 
 
 198, 199, 206, 207, 20:5. 212. 215, 
 
 216, 217 
 Boyce, Mr, 111 
 Broadstreet, Mrs, 120 
 Brown, Constable, 95, 96, 97. 119 
 Brunswick- Oels, Frederick WilUam, 
 
 Duke of, 52 
 Buckingham, Duke of, 105 
 Budapest, 38, 54 
 
 Bumet, G., 93, 111, 112, 120, 133, 1S4 
 Bustard, H.M.S., 77 
 
 CaiUard, M., 43 
 
 Calabria, 141. 142 
 
 Call, George Cotsford, 38 
 
 — Phyllida, see Bathurst, Mrs Ben- 
 
 jamin I 'fh\ 
 
 — Sir John,"34
 
 INDEX 
 
 225 
 
 Call, W. M., 38, 43, 45, 46, 72, 7u 
 Cambaceres, Jean Jacques de, 43 
 Canning, George, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
 
 14, 15, 23-30, 33, 48, 50, 51, 53, 
 
 54, 56 
 Cariel, Armand, 164, 165 
 Castel Franco, 141 
 Castlereagh, Lord, 56 
 Catharine of Braganza, Queen of 
 
 England, 106, 107, 111, 121, 
 
 128 
 Causes celebres, 168, 169, 170, 172, 
 
 174, 176. 177, 180, 180, 190, 192, 
 
 194, 195, 197, 109, 209-213 
 Chalons, 138 
 
 Chambord, Comte de, 162 
 Champagny, Due de Cadore, 43, 59 
 Chancel, Edmond de, 187, 189, 191, 
 
 192, 197. 207, 208, 215 
 Charles II of England, 87-94, 100, 
 
 106, 109, 110, 113, 121, 123, 127. 
 
 136 
 Chailef) X, King of France. 182, 207 
 Chalet, Count Louis, 53, 82, 84, 85 
 C'fiene Pendu, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 
 
 187, 192, 196, 202, 212, 218 
 Chenonceaux, 157 
 Chei, River, 154, 155, 157 
 Chiffinch, William. 110, 122, 123 
 Clarendon, Earl of, 126 
 Clavier. Herminie, see Courier, Mme 
 Clavier, M., 150, 155. 156 
 
 — Mme, 168, 169, 173, 183, 203 
 Colberg, 75 
 
 Coleman, Edward, 89, 91, 92, 103, 
 
 125, 126, 128, 133-135 
 Copenhagen, 9 
 Coquelin, Louis, 138 
 Cornhill Magazine, 37 
 Council of the Five Hundred, 19 
 Courier, Esther-Louis, 169, 173 
 
 — Mme Herminie, 150 et seqq. 
 
 — Paul, 162, 173 
 
 — Paul- Louis, 137, et seqq. 
 Cousin, Victor, 183 
 Couaieres, Forest of, 176 
 Coventry, Mr, Secretary, 100 
 Curtis, Elizabeth, 119. 124 
 Czartoriski, Prince Adam, 22 
 
 Danby, Earl of, 92, 120 
 Dangerfield, 130. 131 
 Danube, River, 143, 144 
 Daphnis and Ckloe, 145, 140 
 Declaration of Indulgence, 90 
 Delijiance, Mme, 213 
 Denmark, 9. 11, 14, 29, 30 
 De^marcBt, P. M., 38, 46, 47 
 
 Dolben, Justice, 116, 117 
 
 Domberg, Baron von, 52 
 
 Dover, Treaty of, 88 
 
 Drake, FrancLs, British Minister in 
 
 Genoa, 19 
 Dresden, 22, 23, 24, 78 
 Drusina, Lewis de ^"Heinrich 
 
 Hahn,") 48, 55. 56 
 Dubois, Pere, 176, 177, 181, 187, 199, 
 
 206, 216 
 
 — Pierre, 165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 
 
 172, 173, 175, 176, 181, 187, 188, 
 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198, 
 
 199, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 
 209, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218. 
 220, 221, 222 
 
 — Symphorien, 166, 167, 170, 170, 
 
 177, 178, 179, 182, 186, 187, 189. 
 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 
 
 200, 201, 202, 205, 209, 216, 218, 
 219 
 
 Edinburgh Review, 12 
 
 Elbe, River, 50 
 
 Essex, Earl of, 126 
 
 Esvres, 165, 170, 176, 177, 181, 192 
 
 European Magazine, 36 
 
 Evelyn, John, Diary of, 88 
 
 Faucheui, IL, 189, 191, 201 
 
 Ferdiiaand I, King of Naples, 141 
 
 Femey, 16 
 
 Feuilleton Littiraire, 181, 185, 191 
 
 First Whig, The, 98 
 
 Fischer, see Krause 
 
 Fisher, 122 
 
 Florence, 142, 145, 146, 147. 148, 150 
 
 Foreign Ofifice, Austrian, 21 
 
 British, 10, 11, 23, 25, 26, 27, 
 
 32, 50, 51, 56, 58, 63, 64, 74, 75, 
 
 82 
 Russian, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 
 
 32 
 Forest, Mr, 97 
 For fescue Papers, 19 
 Fosse-a-la-Lande, 177, 178, 180, 187, 
 
 196, 198, 209 
 Fouchc, Joseph, Due d'Otranto, 43 
 Fouquier, A., 168, 169, 170, 172, 174, 
 
 176, 177, 180, 186, 190, 192, 194, 
 
 195, 197, 199, 209-213 
 France, 14 
 
 France, Anatole, 158 
 Francis, Robert, 130 
 Francke, A., 64-09 
 Frederick William III, King of 
 
 Prussia, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 
 
 61, 80, 81
 
 226 
 
 FOUR FAMOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 Fremont, Louis, 169-180, 184-193, 
 196-199, 201, 202, 205, 206, 208, 
 209, 212-221 
 
 French Revolution, 16, 17, 19 
 
 Friedland, 9 
 
 Furia, del, 145-148 
 
 Camon, 19 
 
 (Gardiner, Dr, 128 
 
 Warlike, Mr, 48 
 
 Gaschet, R., 138-142, 148-152, 165, 
 
 195, 217, 218 
 Gasnault, M., 173 
 Gassendi, General, 149 
 Gauden, Dr, 107, 108, 109, 120 
 Genoa, 19 
 
 Gerald (Girald), 107, 108, 109, 115 
 Gerard, Father, 128, 129 
 Girardin, Emile de, 164 
 Girault, 196, 197,211 
 Gneisnau, General, 53, 85 
 Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, 87, 
 
 et seqq. 
 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 44 
 €olz, Count von, 48, 60, 62, 82 
 Green, Robert, 107, 108, 109, 113, 
 
 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 
 
 125 
 Grenville, Lord, 19 
 Grey of Werk, Lord, 106 
 Griois, Major, 140, 141, 152 
 Grivault, Silvine, 196-202, 206-213, 
 
 215, 216,218 
 
 Hahn, Heinrich, see Drusina 
 Hainique, Aquilas, 184-189, 191, 198, 
 
 199, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 
 
 212 
 Hamburg, 36, 38, 45, 55, 60, 62 
 Hammond, Mr, 55, 61, 62 
 Havre, 153 
 
 Haxo, General, 183, 184 
 Heligoland, 48, 50 
 Herculaneum, 149 
 Herodotus, 165 
 
 Herpux, Dr, 164, 180, 183, 184, 212 
 TTgssg ^2 
 HiU, Laurence, 107, 108, 109, 113, 
 
 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125 
 — Mrs Laurence, 121, 122 
 Hinckley, 26 
 Historic Oddities, etc., 37 
 History of the Criminal Law, 114 
 Hotel du Faisan, 203 
 Howick, Lord, 23, 25 
 Hutchinson, Lord, 13 
 
 Idells, Samuel, 125 
 
 Ilbert, 40. 44, 71 
 
 Irai, Vicomte, Provost d', 161 
 
 Jacobi, Baron, 61 
 
 Jeffreys, Judge, 113, 114, 116. 118, 
 
 120 
 Jeunesse de P. L. Courier, 138-142, 
 
 148-151 
 Johnson, L M., 61-64. 71, 76 
 Jones, Sir WilUam, 115, 116, 117, 124 
 Josephine, Empress, 22 
 Jouy, Etienne de, 185 
 Julien, M., 215 
 
 Kelly, Dominic, 115 
 
 Kleist, Colonel von, 50, 51, 53, 80. 82 
 
 84,85 
 Kletzeke, 65 
 Klitzing, Captain von, 39-42, 46, 58, 
 
 64-67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 81, 84, 85, 
 
 86 
 Koch, 38, 40, 65 
 Konigsberg, 12, 45, 48, 55, 85 
 Krause (Fischer, Kruger), 38, 39, 40, 
 
 42, 44, 46, 57, 58, 59, 70-76, 80, 
 
 83 
 Kruger, see Krause 
 
 La Badia, 145 
 
 La Chaise, Pere, 91 
 
 Lang, Andrew, 111, 128, 135 
 
 Largay, Forest of, 154, 157, 170. 180, 
 
 183, 198, 222 
 Lariboissiere, General de, 143, 144 
 La Rochelle, 214 
 Las Casas, 18 
 Lausanne, 17 
 Lecestre, L., 49 
 
 Le Fevre, 101, 102, 104, 118, 128, 130 
 Leghorn, 142 
 Le Guessier, 181 
 Lenzen, 37 
 L'Estrange, Sir Roger, 98, 123, 127, 
 
 131 
 Letter to M. Renouard, 147, 148 
 Lettres ecriies de France, etc., 138, 
 
 140-145, 149, 150, 154 
 Lettres Inedites de NapoUon ler, 49 
 Leveson-Gower, Lord Granville. 13, 
 
 14, 15, 28 
 
 Private Correspondent, of, 
 
 15, 27 
 
 Life of Canning, 1 1 
 
 Life of Napoleon, 13 
 
 Lisbon, 13 
 
 Lisle, Lady Alice, 114 
 
 Lives of Twelve Bad Men, 89 
 
 Lloyd, Dr, Dean of Bangor, 111, 112
 
 INDEX 
 
 227 
 
 Lobau, Island of, 144 
 Loehes, 170 
 Loire, River, 154, 159 
 London, 13, 19, 23, 25, 35, 52, 56, 61, 
 72, 74, 76, 78 
 
 — Bishop of, 126 
 Longus, 145, 148, 165 
 Lorenzo, 15 
 
 Louis XIV of France, 87, 88, 90. 91 
 
 — XVIII of France, 18, 21, 153 
 Luynes, 143, 154, 155, 156 
 
 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 99 
 Mackenzie, Colin, 13, 14 
 
 — Rev. E., 13, 24 
 Magdeburg, 49 
 
 Maimburg, Augustus, 51, 52, 54, 58, 
 
 59, 72, 73, 76, 80, 82, 83, 84 
 Mainz, 139 
 
 Malmesbury, Earl of, 13 
 
 Marks, Alfred, 98, 99, 106, 128 
 
 Mecklenburg, 35 
 
 Meincke, Burgomeister, 67 
 
 Memel, 13, 14, 48 
 
 Memoirs of Fouchi, 11 
 
 Mertens, 44 
 
 Mignot, Dr, 180 
 
 Milan, 19, 20, 21, 142, 145 
 
 MiUs, Charles, 72 
 
 — George Galway ("Gotlieb Miiller") 
 
 54-64, 71-74, 76, 82, 83, 84 
 Mingrat, Abbe, 165 
 Miofis, General de, 152 
 Moniteur, Le, 36 
 Monmouth, Duke of, 109 
 Montaigne, Michel Sieur de, 161 
 Montbazon, 176, 188, 197 
 Montgaillard, 20, 21 
 Moreau, Garde Champitre, 180 
 
 — General, 150 
 Morning Ohronide, 24 
 Morning Post, 35, 36 
 
 Miiller, Gotlieb, see Mills, George 
 
 Galway 
 Munich, 19 
 Murray, Major, 107 
 
 Naples, 19, 141, 142, 149 
 
 — Queen of, 15 
 
 Napoleon I, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 23, 
 30, 32, 34, 35, 43, 44, 49, 50, 59, 
 
 60, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 143, 150 
 Napoleonic Studies, 12 
 
 Neue Pitaval, 37, 39, 41, 42, 76, 84, 
 
 85,86 
 Niemen, River, 9, 23, 25, 30 
 Norwich, Bishop of, see Bathurst, 
 
 Dr Henry 
 
 Notes and Queries, 13, 24 
 Nottingham, Earl of. 111 
 NovosUzoff, Nicholas, Count, 30 
 Nymegen, Treaty of, 87 
 
 Gates, Titus, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 
 100, 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 112, 
 114, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130- 
 133 
 
 Oder, River, 49 
 
 Ompteda, Baron, 58, 59, 73 
 
 Orleans, 189, 191 
 
 Ossory, Lord, 109 
 
 Oxford, 34 
 
 Paris, 16, 17, 38, 43, 45, 75, 138, 139, 
 
 143, 147, 149, 154, 159, 163, 165, 
 
 167, 168, 173, 174, 183, 188, 193, 
 
 204, 220 
 Paul I, Emperor of Russia, 31 
 Pembroke, Earl of, 31 
 Pepys, Samuel, 94, 100 
 Perleberg, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 
 
 45, 46, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 
 
 72, 77-SO 
 Perrot, M., 189, 207 
 Petition auz deux Ghambres, 155 
 Petre, Lord, 107 
 Peveril of the Peak, 106 
 Phare, Alexander, 135 
 Piacenza, 140, 141, 152 
 Pichegru, Charles, General, 20 
 Pingaud, M. L., 23, 24 
 Poland, Sir Harry, 13, 24 
 Pollock, J., 127-131 
 Pomerania, 55 
 Powis, Lord, 107 
 Prance, Miles, 104, 105, 108-112, 115, 
 
 124, 127, 129-132 
 Pritchard, 104 
 Prussia, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35, 45, 47, 48, 
 
 49, 51, 53, 55, 61, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86 
 
 Quarterli/ Review, 14 
 
 Quinze Ans de Haute Police, 38, 47 
 
 Reignac, 200 
 
 Renouard, M., 146, 147, 148 
 
 Reresby, Sir John, 128 
 
 Reynier, General, 141 
 
 Richardson, Captain, 105, 110, 113, 
 
 115 
 Robinson, Mr, 116, 133 
 Roemer, G. A., see Johnson, I. M. 
 Rome, 86, 139, 147, 149, 152 
 Rondeau, 211 
 Rontgen, 71 
 Rose, Dr Holland, 11-14
 
 228 
 
 FOUR FMIOUS MYSTERIES 
 
 RouBseau, J. J., 16 
 "Rousseau, Mr," see Maimburg 
 Russia, 19 
 
 Saget, Rene, 179, 184 
 
 Saint- Avertin, 176, 178, 198, 200, 210 
 
 Saint Cyr, Gouvion, General, 141 
 
 Sainte-Beuve, C. A., 162, 173, 174 
 
 Sainte-Croix, 142 
 
 Sainte-Pelagie, 163 
 
 Saint-Huberty, Mle, 15, 17, 26 
 
 Saint-Marsan, M. de, 43, 59, 60 
 
 St Petersburg, 22, 28 
 
 Salm-Dyok, Princesse de, 150, 151 
 
 Savary, Due de Rovigo, 30, 31. 43 
 
 Savoy, The, 106 
 
 Schill, Major von, 52 
 
 Schiller, Friedrich, 44 
 
 Schmidt, 40, 41 
 
 Schonbrunn. Peace of, 34. 47. 61,141 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter. 106 
 
 Scrogga, Sir William. 113, 116. 117, 
 
 120. 122, 123, 124 
 Seccombe, Thomas, 89 
 Shaftesbuiy, Lady, 94 
 — Lord, 94, 106, 110, 126, 132 
 Sidney, Algernon, 134 
 , Sitwell, Sir George, 98 
 Somerset House, 101, 102. 103, 104. 
 
 106, 107, 108, 118, 121 
 Spain, 19 
 
 Stafford, Viscount, 107, 125 
 Stafford House Letters, 14 
 Stahremberg, Prince, 59 
 Stapleton, A. G., 11 
 Stein, Baron vom und zum, 41, 49 
 Stephen, Sir James, 114, 131 
 Stepnitz, River. 35. 42, 69 
 Stockholm, 34, 45, 77 
 Stralsund, 52 
 Strasburg, 144 
 Sweden, 43 
 Switzerland, 17, 18, 144, 145 
 
 Talleyrand, Prince, 11, 12, 13 
 Temperley, Mr, 11, 12 
 Test Act, 91 
 Thionville, 138 
 
 Thistlethwayte, Mrs, 36, 37, 44. 45, 77 
 Thugut, Chancellor, 21, 22 
 Tiber, River, 86 
 Tilden, Miss, 120, 125, 128, 135 
 Tilsit, 12, 25. 27, 28, 31, 33. ' 
 — Treaty of, 9, 10, 11, 24, 25, 27, 29, 
 30, 47, 78 
 
 Times, The, 26, 36 
 Tonge, Dr, 88, 89, 92, 93 
 Toulouse, 16, 139, 151 
 Touraine, 137, 139, 150, 174, 189 
 Tours, 154-157, 168. 169, 170, 173, 
 
 179, 180, 181, 183. 189. 193. 194, 
 203, 205, 207 
 
 Tours, Prefet of, 182 
 Tricot, 171, 175. 212 
 Trieste. 18, 20, 77 
 Tugendbund, 85 
 Tyburn, 103, 125, 126 
 
 Vansittart, Nicholas. 15, 29, 33 
 
 Viellaut, Honore, 200, 206, 210, 212 
 
 Venice, 18, 20, 21 
 
 Verdun, 16 
 
 Veretz, 154, 157. 160. 164, 169, 172, 
 
 180, 181, 183, 197, 222 
 Vematt, Philibert. 115, 116 
 Verona, 18, 142 
 
 Vie et Mort tragique de P. L. Courier, 
 
 152, 165, 195, 218 
 Vienna, 21, 22, 34, 143, 144 
 Village des Gucs, 197, 200 
 Villele, Comte de, 182 
 Voltaire, Fran5ois Arouet de, 16 
 
 Wagram, 34, 144, 149 
 
 Wakeman, Sir G«orge, 114, 115 
 
 Walcheren, 50 
 
 Walsh, 101, 102, 104 
 
 Warner, Father, 131 
 
 Water Gate, The, 106, 108, 121 
 
 Wellesley, Richard CoUey, Marquis, 
 
 26, 27, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 72, 73, 
 
 75,82 
 Weser, River, 52 
 Westminster Bevicu; 38, 46 
 Westphalia, 49 
 Wheatley, H. B.. 88, 94 
 White House Tavern,. 95,. -96, .-97 
 Who Killed Sir E. B. Godfrey ?, 98, 106 
 Wild, Justice, 116 
 WUson, Sir Robert, 10 
 Winchester, Marquis of, 106 
 Wolfe, Mr, 77 
 Woronzoff, Count Simon, 31 
 
 Xenophon, 140 
 
 York, Duchess of, 89 
 
 York, James, Duke of, afterwards 
 James II, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 
 104, 112, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130 
 
 Printed in Great Britain 
 
 Jy TurnbuU &' S/ears, Edinhurgh
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 Goleta, California 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 20m-3,'59(A552s4)476
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 288 629 9