All is over. and the municipality withdraw. They departed by the same gate of the cemetery, and entered the house opposite the church, to draw up the declaration of interment. It was nearly nine o'clock, and still daylight. The air was clear, and the aureola of luminous vapour that crowned that lovely evening, seemed delaying and prolonging the farewell of the sun. Two sentinels were posted, one in the cemetery, and one at the entrance-gate, to prevent any person from attempting to carry off the body of Louis XVII. This precaution was taken for two or three nights. BOOK EIGHTEENTH. THE CEMETERY OF SAINTE-MARGUERITE. FRIDAY, 10TH MARCH, 1837. Site of the Dauphin's grave: disputes on that subject-Letter of Abbé Raynaud-Law of the 17th and 18th January, 1816-Royal edictLetter from the minister of general police-Letter from the prefect of police-Deposition of the gardener at the Luxembourg-Differences of opinion; doubt: the royal edict is not carried out-Pilgrimage to the cemetery of Sainte-Marguerite-Reflections. FOR twenty years we have been making constant inquiry into everything that related to the life and death of the Dauphin, son of Louis XVI. Providence vouchsafed to preserve the lives of two old men, who have thrown a great deal of light on our investigations, and who have furnished us, as it were, with hourly bulletins of his last illness. We would wish to be enabled to point out, with equal precision, the turf that now covers his mortal remains. Unfortunately, however, the intelligence which was our guide in the Temple tower fails us when we come to the cemetery Almost all the accounts hitherto considered as genuine, assert that the remains of the young Prince were interred in the common trench. Yet Lasne always affirmed the contrary to me, with the emphasis of an honest man, who has very distinctly seen all that he has seen, and feels himself entitled to correct an erroneous assertion. He has assured me that the coffin of Louis-Charles was laid in a grave by itself, at a distance of eight or nine feet from the inclosure and from the school-house. In whatever way he was buried, however,-by himself, or in The Abbé Raynaud. the common grave,—the spot at least is exactly and indisputably known. But has it always inclosed the burden intrusted to it? This is the question that arises, and we cannot answer it with certainty. In this trying perplexity, it becomes our duty simply to place before our readers the various information we have received on the subject, and in the order in which it was collected. The first document that reached us contradicting the declaration of Lasne, that the young King had been buried in a grave by himself, was the following letter, addressed to us in the year 1837, by the Abbé Raynaud, who had been curate of SainteMarguerite ever since 1803: "Paris, 7th November, 1837. “You do me the honour of applying to me for information concerning the interment of Louis XVII. in the cemetery of Sainte-Marguerite. Having been appointed curate of this parish,-which I have never quitted since,-in the year 1803, I then became acquainted with Pierre Bétrancourt, commonly called Valentin, who had been sexton here from twenty to thirty years, and with the herein named Decouflet, for a long time beadle of the Quinze-Vingts. The details which I am about to transmit to you, were given me by these two persons, whose testimony deserves credit on account of their known probity and piety. They both declared to me, that the Dauphin was buried in the common trench,* that for one or two nights, the cemetery was watched by the police and by the military; but that, on the third night, being relieved from their presence, they had made search for the coffin, and easily recognised it by a mark they had made on it with chalk; but that, in order *The large grave into which the victims of the Revolution were cast. Abbé Raynaud is mistaken in making Decouflet a fellow-workman of Valentin's. It will be seen later that Decouflet was not present at it the interment. + Decouflet's widow said to me, that, in order to find the coffin more easily, Valentin perhaps had left some space between those which had been laid there before and those which followed it. (Might it not have been this precaution that gave rise to the idea of a separate grave ?) Locality of the grave. to make still more sure, they had raised one of the boards which had been badly nailed down, and had seen a child's head, the skull of which had been opened ;* that they had dug another grave beneath the cemetery gate that looks upon the chapel of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, and had there deposited the young Prince's coffin, after having made a Maltese cross with laths of wood on the upper plank of the said coffin. "I repeat that I was well acquainted with these two persons for many years, and never entertained a doubt of their account being perfectly true; it was given, besides, at a period when they could have no interested motive for mis-tatement. “Decouflet, beadle of the Quinze-Vingts, died on the 4th October, 1824. I remember that, seven or eight years before, when there was some talk of digging up the cemetery to search, M. Quinet, the worthy vicar of Quinze-Vingts, who died some years ago vicar of Saint-Ambroise, had Decouflet called to him, and said, gravely and solemnly: 'Well now, Decouflet, it is no jesting matter; mind what testimony you give, for you will certainly be thrown into a dungeon if you do not speak the truth.' "I have said it for these twenty years, M. le Curé, and the search they are going to make will prove it.' "As to Valentin, he died before the Restoration,† but he was so firmly convinced that a time would come when a search would be made for the remains of the royal child, that, some hours before his death, he said to his wife: One day you will * I remarked to Decouflet's widow, that, after the dissection, the child's head had been covered up with bandages, which reached below the chin, and that, therefore, it could not have been possible to see that the skull had been opened. "Oh! sir,” replied she, "the cloth must have been stained with blood; besides, perhaps Valentin lifted it off." It will be observed that Decouflet's widow always said perhaps she knew nothing except from Decouflet, who had heard nothing except from Valentin. On the 4th June, 1809, the body of Pierre Bétrancourt, aged sixtytwo years, of No. 37 Rue Saint-Bernard, was brought to the church of Sainte-Marguerite. Locality of the grave. receive something handsome, and be happy; when they find the Dauphin again, they will reward me in you!" This, sir, is the information I have received from the fountain-head. I hasten to transmit it to you, because you take an interest in it; but I also transmit it with confidence, because, in my opinion, it is of unimpeachable veracity. "With respect to the measure which at the time prevented the search ordered by Louis XVIII., I am not aware of the motive which prompted it. It was, I believe, in March or April, 1816; M. Decazes, minister of police, had directed M. Anglès, prefect of police, to institute an inquest, in order to discover the remains of the young King. The day had been fixed for that ceremony, and notice had been given to M. Dubois, vicar of Sainte-Marguerite. We were all there at the appointed hour, with alb, and stole, and surplice, and the cross at our head, waiting for the delegate of the minister of police, who was to preside over this inquest. He never came. After several hours' waiting, we received a message from M. Anglès, stating that it was expedient to defer this operation. We were vexed at the order; poor Decouflet himself was much disappointed, for the moment was just approaching when he was to see his assertions verified, and his zeal rewarded. It appears that some witnesses of the burial did not exactly agree as to the spot where it occurred, and perhaps the decision which nullified the effect of the royal order is to be attributed entirely to their contradictory opinions. But no one could have been better informed on this subject than Valentin and Decouflet, who had never left the place, and their testimony ought to have been listened to. Prior to the royal order mentioned by M. Raynaud, the two Chambers had, on the motion of Châteaubriand, inserted, on the 17th and 18th January, 1816, a clause in the following terms, in a law relating to the expiatory measures of the 21st January:--- |