recognized in the fragments which remained their own work. It is
unquestionable that the Countess Lamotte-Valois, through her
intrigues and cunning, had been able to gain possession of the
necklace, and that she had appropriated it to her own use. The
countess is therefore guilty of theft and deception. She is,
moreover, guilty of forgery, for she has imitated the handwriting of
the queen, and subscribed it with the royal name. But the hand is
neither that of the queen, nor does the queen ever subscribe herself
'Marie Antoinette of France.' This makes Lamotte open to the charge
of both forgery and contempt of majesty, for she has even dared to
drag the sacred person of the Queen of France into her mesh of lies,
and to make her majesty the heroine of a dishonorable love-
adventure."

"My lord," cried Countess Lamotte, with a loud laugh, "you are not
driven to the necessity of involving the queen in dishonorable love-
adventures. The queen is in reality the heroine of so many
adventures of this character, that you can have your choice of them.
A queen who visits the opera-house balls incognito, drives thither
masked and in a fiacre, and who appears incognito on the terraces of
Versailles with strange soldiers, exchanging jocose words with them-
-a queen of the type of this Austrian may not wonder to find her
name identified with the heroine of a love-adventure. But we are
speaking now not of a romance, but of a reality, and I am not to be
accused of forgery and contempt of majesty without having the proofs
brought forward. This cannot, however, be done, for I have the
proofs of my innocence. The cardinal had an interview with the
queen, and she gave him a receipt for the diamonds. If she wrote her
signature differently from her usual manner, it is not my fault. It
only shows that the queen was cunning enough to secure an alibi, so