The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-04 00:00:00

THE ROHAN NECKLACE.

The Civil Tribunal of the Seine has just been engaged
during six sittings in trying an action brought by the heirs
of M. Deville, a creditor of Cardinal de Rohan, against the
Princes de Rohan-Rochefort, as representatives of the
Princess Charlotte de Rohan-Rochefort, the Cardinal's re-
siduary legatee and executrix, for the recovery of sums
amounting, with interest, to above 2,000,000 f. The debts
in question originated in the purchase by the Cardinal of
the celebrated diamond necklace as a p-esent for Queen An-
toinette, which occasioned so much scandal in the latter
years of Louis XVl.'s reign. The circumstances are briefly
as follows :—Towards the close of 1784, Bcohmer and Boa-
sanges, jewellers to the King, made a magnificent necklace
of brilliants, estimated to be worth 1,600,000 f., which all the
great ladies of the Court were anxious to possess. The
necklace was offered to Queen Antoinette, who declined to
purchase it on account of its high price. At that time Car-
dinal de Rohan was in disgrace at Court, and the Countess
de Lamotte persuaded him that if he could purchase the
necklace for the Queen it would insure his return to favour,
and that the money would ultimately be refunded to him.
On the 24th of January, 1785, the Cardinal went to the
jewellers, examined the necklace, and said that he was autho-
rised to purchase it for a high personage whom he could not
then name. Some days later he returned and purchased the
necklace for 1,600,000 f. in the Queen's name, and arranged
the conditions of payment. He took the necklace away with
him, and on the Ist February gave it to the Countess de
Lamotte, who was to convey it to the Queen, but her Ma-
jesty never received it, and what became of it has ever since
remained a mystery. The fraud was discovered in the fol-
lowing August, and the Cardinal, the Countess de Lamotte,
Count Cagliostro, and others supposed to be accomplices,
were arrested and sent to the Bastille. The prisoners were
tried in December, and all acquitted except the Countess de
Lamotte, who was condemned to be flogged, branded with a
hot iron, and imprisoned for life. Meanwhile the Cardinal
had made arrangements to pay the jeweller from his own re-
sources by transferring to them the greater part of the in-
come of his ecclesiastical benefices, and especially of the ab-
bey of St. Waast, which produced 225,000 f. a year. Some
time after MM Bashmer and Bossanges,who owed M. Niche-
las-Deville, the king's secretary, 900,602 livres, asigned to
him the revenues of the above-named abbey for the extinc-
tion of their debt. But before any payment had been made
the French Revolution occurred, and all Church property
was transferred to the nation. the Cardinal, being forced to
leave France, went to Ettenheim, on the right bank of the
Rhine, a dependence of Lis bishopric of Strasburg, lying
beyond the French frontier. Owing to these events, and
the failure of MM. Boehmer and Bossanges, M. Deville
never received any part of his money. The Cardinal died
at Ettenheim, in the year 1803, leaving a will, in which he
made the Princess Charlotte de Rohan-Rochefcrt his resi-
duary legatee, and she accepted administration of the estate
on condition that she should not be held responsible to the
creditors for any deficiency that might exist. At the time
of his decease the Cardinal possess, s 1 landed property in
Baden, and personal property to a considerable amount, part
of which was money lent to his relatives, the Prince and
Princess de Guemenee, and the Duke de Montbazon,which
the Princess neglected to recover, and it was consequently
lost. The Princess sold the lands in Baden and divided
the proceeds among a few favoured creditors, but Deville
obtained little or nothing. Atter the Restoration, when the
property remaining unsold was returned to its former owners
or their heirs, and an indemnity was also granted for what
had been so.d, the Princess, according to the statement of
the plaintiff's cent; eel, neglected the interests of .the credi •
tors by omitting to recover the sums due to the Cardinal's
estate, especially those owing from the Guelinenee family.
For this neglect of her duty as executrix, the learned coun-
sel maintained that the Princess was responsible in the per-
sons of her heirs, notwithstanding the conditions under
which she had undertaken to administer to the Cardinal's
will. For the defence it was argued that the Cardinal's
estate had been properly administered by the Princess, that
the plaintiffs had received the same share as the other ere-
ditors, and that they had no claim on the defendants in the
present action. The tribunal took this view of the case,
and accordingly rejected the plaintiffs' demand with costs.

Accounts from Warsaw state that the harvest
this year is most abundant, but that the want of hands to
get it in is much felt. The produce of the crops will be
sufficient for every want until next year's crops.