Textbook Advanced Materials Proceedings of The International Conference On Physics and Mechanics of New Materials and Their Applications Phenma 2017 Ivan A Parinov Ebook All Chapter PDF
Textbook Advanced Materials Proceedings of The International Conference On Physics and Mechanics of New Materials and Their Applications Phenma 2017 Ivan A Parinov Ebook All Chapter PDF
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-materials-proceedings-
of-the-international-conference-on-physics-and-mechanics-of-new-
materials-and-their-applications-phenma-2019-ivan-a-parinov/
https://textbookfull.com/product/mechanics-of-structures-and-
materials-xxiv-proceedings-of-the-24th-australian-conference-on-
the-mechanics-of-structures-and-materials-1st-edition-hao/
https://textbookfull.com/product/physics-and-engineering-of-
metallic-materials-proceedings-of-chinese-materials-
conference-2018-yafang-han/
https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-the-4th-
international-symposium-on-materials-and-sustainable-development-
volume-1-nano-technology-and-advanced-materials-abdelbaki-
benmounah/
https://textbookfull.com/product/optical-properties-of-materials-
and-their-applications-second-edition-singh/
Springer Proceedings in Physics 207
Advanced
Materials
Proceedings of the International
Conference on “Physics and
Mechanics of New Materials and Their
Applications”, PHENMA 2017
Springer Proceedings in Physics
Volume 207
The series Springer Proceedings in Physics, founded in 1984, is devoted to timely
reports of state-of-the-art developments in physics and related sciences. Typically
based on material presented at conferences, workshops and similar scientific
meetings, volumes published in this series will constitute a comprehensive
up-to-date source of reference on a field or subfield of relevance in contemporary
physics. Proposals must include the following:
– name, place and date of the scientific meeting
– a link to the committees (local organization, international advisors etc.)
– scientific description of the meeting
– list of invited/plenary speakers
– an estimate of the planned proceedings book parameters (number of
pages/articles, requested number of bulk copies, submission deadline).
Vijay K. Gupta
Editors
Advanced Materials
Proceedings of the International Conference
on “Physics and Mechanics of New Materials
and Their Applications”, PHENMA 2017
123
Editors
Ivan A. Parinov Vijay K. Gupta
I. I. Vorovich Mathematics, Mechanics and Indian Institute of Information Technology,
Computer Sciences Institute Design and Manufacturing, Jabalpur
Southern Federal University Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
Rostov-on-Don India
Russia
Shun-Hsyung Chang
Department of Microelectronics
Engineering
National Kaohsiung University
of Science and Technology
Kaohsiung
Taiwan
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
v
vi Preface
ix
x Contents
xv
xvi Contributors
Abstract According to the results of the analysis of the solid solutions in the
multicomponent systems, based on lead titanate zirconate (PZT), there have been
defined the search stages for the new functional materials for various purposes. The
role of the number of components in the formation of the electrophysical properties
has been shown. It has been defined that the 5-component systems, based on the
PZT, provide the optimal combinations of basic electrical parameters. The phase
diagrams of the two-, three- and four-component systems, based on sodium niobate,
have been considered. The complexity of phase diagrams has been shown, which
are distinguished by a large number of structural transitions, and by a variety of
phase transformations in comparison with the systems, based on the PZT. It has
been defined that in niobate systems, a considerable growth of electrophysical
parameters during the transition to the four-component system was observed. The
1.1 Introduction
During the same years (at the end of the 1960s and at the beginning of the
1970s) the researches on three-component systems, based on the PZT [8], was
started in the Research Institute of Physics of the Rostov State University (RSU).
Almost immediately, it led to the intensive study of four-, five-component SSs, and
at the end 1990s to the study P of the based on PZT six-component systems of the
type: PbTiO3 PbZrO3 n1 PbB01a B00a O3 ðn ¼ 2; 3; 4Þ. Here there are 5-,
6-valence cations; 1-, 2-, 3-valence cations; a = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 depending on the
valence. The results of these studies are present in papers [9–25] and are gener-
alized in monographs [26–28].
It should be noted that with the increase in the number of the components, the
regions of compositions with the optimal combinations of parameters for various
fields expand, a variety of properties grows, the most important electrophysical
parameters [9, 10, 16, 17] increase. These results witness on the significant
advantages of multicomponent systems over the simpler systems, which serves the
base for them. These advantages will be reflected in detail below.
In the above-mentioned periods of time, studies of another group of materials
were carried out, namely, SSs, based on alkali metal niobates (AMN). The latter
possess unique combinations of parameters (low specific gravity, high sound
velocity, wide range of permittivity and mechanical Q values at sufficiently high
values of piezoelectric parameters) that cannot be implemented in SSs, based on PZT
[4, 29–44]. However, they have not been widely used in technology for a long time
because of the difficulties in obtaining them by traditional methods, which is due to
the complexity of their crystal structure, the presence of a large number of phase
transitions and due to the strong dependence of the properties on the conditions of
structure formation. Intensive research of these SSs has been carried out after the
European Union adopted the Legislative Initiative [45], limiting the use of lead
containing materials in electronic and electrical equipment, which, being a toxic and
volatile element, poses a threat to the environment and to human health [46–54].
In Russia, the ecological situation is characterized by both a high level of current
anthropogenic impact on the environment and a significant amount of accumulated
environmental damage. In this regard, the adoption of a number of laws in Russia,
based on the paradigm of the best available technologies [55] and a genuine
breakthrough on the environmental legislative front, make it necessary to perform
the transition in all electrotechnical sectors to non-toxic (first of all, lead-free)
intellectual materials. The only alternative to already existing materials science
brands are ferroactive compositions and their solid solutions (SSs), based on alkali
and alkaline earth metal niobates (NAM, NAEM).
In the result of researches, about 200 types of functional materials and methods
for their production were created in the Research Institute of Physics of the SFedU
(RSU), protected by more than 250 security documents: author’s certificates,
Russian and foreign patents, and know-how. These materials belong to the fol-
lowing 10 groups, which differ in the totality of their electrophysical parameters
and, as consequence, in the fields of application that “cover” practically all known
piezo-technical areas:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Robespierre has triumphed over the others, and he has
had Hébert, Vincent, etc., arrested and guillotined.
Robespierre had declared himself anxious to stop the flow of
blood ...; he had spoken up for the prisoners in the Temple.
Fresh letters are arriving here. It is certain, I think, that my
wife has not yet been charged with anything, or even
suspected of anything in regard to the prisoners.”
The event was inopportune. Cormier had just decided to leave
London for the coast, where he was to receive certain information
and to take counsel with his agents. Now his plans were all upset.
He would have to postpone the journey and redouble his
precautions.
At the end of five days there was ground for taking a hopeful view
of things. There was every reason to believe that Mme. Cormier’s
arrest would not have any grave results.
“What annoys me most,” writes Cormier to Lady Atkyns on
March 28, “is the fact that the news had got back to Paris,
with commentaries which may do harm both to my wife and to
our affairs.”
As a matter of fact, Peltier and d’Auerweck hastened, on hearing
of what had happened, to convey their sympathy to their friend, and,
like true journalists, spread the tidings in every direction, thus
intensifying Cormier’s uneasiness.
“But I must only try and put aside this anxiety,” he
continues, “as I have so many others. I have not yet started; I
shall not start before Monday or Tuesday, because I must wait
for replies from Dieppe, which cannot arrive before Sunday or
Monday. Have no fears; my courage will not fail me—indeed,
at present it is taking the shape of a feeling of rage, which I
am trying to keep down. You will have learnt from the public
prints that the statement has gone out that the King has been
carried off to the army of the Prince of Saxe-Coburg. This
false report has troubled me a good deal. I don’t want
attention to be directed that way just now, especially as
something has happened which would increase our
confidence—something which I cannot at present confide to
paper. Do not exert yourself too much, madame; do not
measure your efforts by your courage. Your friends beg this of
you.”
In all these letters of the Breton magistrate there is a real ring of
sincerity. The admiration he feels for this interesting woman resolves
itself into a whole-hearted devotion to her cause, and if, later, her
large fortune and her generosity seem to have too large a part in
Cormier’s thoughts and too great an influence upon his actions, at
least he must be credited with absolute frankness throughout.
The death of Sir Edward Atkyns on March 27, 1794, gave Cormier
an opportunity for expressing his sympathy with the widow, and of
enlarging still further upon his feelings. The scant mention made of
Sir Edward, indeed, in the correspondence of this little circle
suggests that the relations between husband and wife must have
become perceptibly colder of late. It is probable that the baronet
looked with disfavour upon his wife’s schemes and the heavy outlay
they entailed.
“A score of times,” writes Cormier, “I have taken pen in
hand this morning to express to you the intense interest with
which I have learnt of the sad event which occurred, and as
often my courage has failed me. Truly you have been the
victim of many misfortunes. Will the Fates never have done
pursuing you? You must only make use of the great qualities
Providence has given you to bear up against what has
befallen. Your courage is exceptional. Make the most of a
quality which is rare with men, but rarer still in women. As for
me, I vow I shall not give in under my misfortune, and shall
not be put off by any perils.... I have not started yet, and shall
not start to-morrow, not having yet received the letters I was
expecting. If they come to-morrow, I shall start on Thursday.
So that this delay may not cause you anxiety, I may mention
that in the last letters which have come to me, he who left last
... asks me not to start until I heard again from him. He has
not been beyond D(ieppe), and the others have returned from
P(aris) to take counsel with him—I don’t know on what.”
These last words show that something was already happening on
the Breton coast, and that it was desired to send news of interest to
Cormier. But the departure postponed so often was still
impracticable, and Cormier began to lose patience.
“I am still kept here,” he writes. “It is becoming incensing. I
feel as though I were being chained up, but prudence and
common sense keep me quiet. I get news regularly from
D(ieppe). I have just received a third letter enjoining me to
make no movement until they give me the word, and insisting
that the success of our project and the safety of him who is so
precious to us depend upon this. I don’t understand, however,
their not telling us why and how.... I have lost patience, and
have sent one of these gentlemen.[72] (That is not the same
as myself.) I am afraid that Hamelin may really have been
killed; I can’t make it out at all.”
Who was Hamelin? It is difficult to guess. It is difficult to identify a
great many of the individuals of whom there is question in these
letters, and who are designated by borrowed names. The most
elementary prudence called for absolute secrecy concerning the
names of the agents who were working for our committee, and
although the messages were carried by the most trustworthy
emissaries, it was always possible that one of them might be
arrested en route. This doubles our difficulty in clearing up the
imbroglio, and enhances a mystery already sufficiently troublesome.
Failing Mme. Cormier, who was still under arrest, and whose
absence had been making itself felt more and more, another
arrangement had been made for securing news from Paris. At what
expense? Heaven knows! But once again money had set tongues
going and procured the needed help. Cormier, coming back to the
question of his departure, writes again (April 14, 1794) to his friend
to tell her of the messages he has sent from England:—
“I shall not start until this evening,” he tells her. “You can
guess why. I have just despatched two messengers. Things
are moving, but very slowly. However, let us not lose heart. If
we go slowly we go all the more surely, and every day
achieve something which helps to advance our schemes and
to keep us in security. Therefore do not be impatient.”
The weeks passed by, and that fateful day “9th Thermidor,” which
was to bring with it such a bouleversement in Paris, was drawing
nigh. At the Temple there had been no change—the Dauphin was
still sequestrated from the outside world.
On May 11, 1794, Robespierre visited the prison, and had a brief
interview with Marie-Therèse, but we have no information as to what
happened.
The 9th Thermidor arrives and throws the dictator down from his
pedestal, thereby proclaiming the end of his reign of terror. General
Barras, invested with the command of the armed forces within the
city, begins to take an important part in the management of affairs.
One of his first acts, it will be remembered, after he had triumphed
over Robespierre’s party, was to go to the prison of the Temple, on
July the 28th, accompanied by his brilliant staff, bedecked with gold.
The miserable aspect of the child after being shut up for months
caused the general to take immediate steps, and by his order of July
29, 1794, a special guardian, chosen by himself, named Laurent, a
native of Martinique, was brought to the prison, there to be entrusted
with the sole care for nearly five months of the young Capet.
A careful study of the documents bearing upon this period of the
captivity of the Dauphin makes it quite clear that in the hands of his
new guardian he was looked after in a fashion which contrasted
strongly with the previous neglect, and that he soon became
attached to Laurent, who proved himself good-natured, kind, and
even affectionate in his attitude towards his charge. If strange things
came about in the Temple at that time, we may be certain that
Laurent knew about them, and we may assume that Barras was the
prime mover in all that happened.
It is impossible, as we have said before, to recapitulate all the
arguments which tend to bring home to the general some complicity
in the fate of Louis XVII., and which implicate a large number of
persons, most of them people of influence in the world of the
Convention. Other writers, notably M. Henri Provins,[73] have done
this so conscientiously and thoroughly that there is no need for us to
attempt it. We may content ourselves with making public a series of
documents and newly ascertained matters, the gist of which bears
out exactly all that we knew already of Laurent’s conduct at the
Temple. Lady Atkyns and her friends could not have done without
him. It is true that his name never appears in their communications,
for reasons already given, but the striking connection between the
events within the prison walls and their effects in London upon the
Royalist Committee proves beyond doubt the relations subsisting
between them. Between the lines of these documents we get to
understand what Cormier meant by “new combinations.” Lady
Atkyns has been at pains to say it herself in one of her notes which
she used to make upon her correspondence, and which often serve
to explain her actions.
In his anxiety about the future, did Cormier entertain fears lest all
remembrance of his heroine’s devotion would vanish with her if by
some mischance her enterprise should fail, or if she herself should
lose her life? Who knows? However that may be, it is the case that
on August 1, 1794, he had two statements drawn up (the text of
which, unluckily, is not forthcoming), in which Lady Atkyns recorded
all that she had achieved down to that date for the safety of those
who were so dear to her.
“These records are to my knowledge the absolute truth,”
attested Cormier at the foot of the deposition, “and I declare
that ever since I first knew Lady Atkyns, she has always
shown the same purity of principles, and that all she has here
stated is true in every particular.”
These documents were to have been handed over for
preservation, with a number of others, to a solicitor or some
trustworthy person in London.
Meanwhile, renewed efforts were being made to bring about a
good service of news to the Continent and Paris. As time passed,
Lady Atkyns’ friends realized more and more that it would have been
madness to proceed with a regular attempt at a sudden rescue in the
actual conditions of things. In truth, the calm which had followed the
9th Thermidor, and which gave Paris time to take breath, was
making itself felt within the Temple. Laurent’s nomination was
evidence of this. Any attempt to act at once would have been sheer
folly. What was to be done was to “get at” those who had any kind of
influence within the Temple or without, whilst taking care not to let
too many people into the secret of the enterprise. Here, again,
unluckily, the wise secretiveness of all their papers prevents us from
ascertaining any names. Those who were tempted by Lady Atkyns’
gold to compromise themselves in any way, took too many
precautions against being found out.
Lady Atkyns, however, was not idle. Two sailing vessels were
continually plying between different points on the French coast. A
third, which she had recently purchased, had orders to keep close to
land between Nantes and La Rochelle, ready at any moment to
receive the Dauphin.[74]
The cost of keeping these three ships was considerable, and Lady
Atkyns had great difficulty in providing the money. She was in the
hands of agents whose services, indispensable to her, could be
depended upon only so long as the sums they demanded were
forthcoming. We can imagine the feelings of anxiety and
despondency with which she must have read the following letter from
Cormier. What answer was she to make to him? (The person to
whom she had applied for financial help appears on several
occasions in their correspondence under the designation of “le diable
noir.”)
“Your diable noir’s reply is very little consolation to me,”
writes Cormier; “he has promised and postponed so often.
For Heaven’s sake, see to it that he does not promise us this
time also to no purpose!... I gather that you were to have two
definite replies to-day—I shall be in Purgatory until five
o’clock. Mon Dieu! Mon Dieu! I wonder what you will send me,
or rather what you will be able to send me? Our own courage
alone does not suffice—we have to keep up the courage of
others, and they are losing heart. Worst of all, there is that
avaricious Jew of a captain! We are absolutely dependent
upon him. If we lost him where should we get another to take
his place? I beg of you, in the name of the one you know, to
do all you possibly can, to exert all your resources, to prevent
his having to leave me empty-handed.”
And to excuse the ultimatum-like tone of his letter, Cormier adds—
“Forgive the urgent persistent style in which I write! But
when one is writing about business matters and matters of
this importance, one has to forget one is writing to a woman—
especially when it is a question of a Lady Atkyns, who is
different from the rest of her sex.”
The occasions for entering into communication with their agents
on the Continent are more propitious now than ever, but many efforts
are frustrated owing to the sharp watch which is kept along the
coast.
“They have tried eleven times to land since Saturday last,”
writes Cormier, “and failed every time. There were always
either people in sight or else there were transports sailing
from Havre to Dieppe or from Dieppe to Saint-Valery, etc., etc.
There has been a lot going on evidently, for signals have
been given on fifteen or twenty different occasions. That
shows how important it is to effect a landing. They returned
simply to make this fact known to me, and went back again
without coming on shore—except the captain, who came for
an hour and who is positive they have something to hand over
to him. I believe this myself, for I learn also this morning that
the Government boat which plies along the coast of Brittany
has made thirty vain attempts during the last three weeks.”
We can imagine the mental condition of poor Lady Atkyns on
receiving letter after letter in this strain. She no longer goes away
from London at this period, feeling too remote in the country from the
centre of news. She stays either at the Royal Hotel or else with
friends at 17, Park Lane. Here it is that she receives Cormier, Frotté,
Peltier. When there is a long interval between their visits her fears
grow apace. What would she not give to take an active part herself in
the enterprise! “No messenger arrived—no news, therefore, from
France,” that is the message that comes to her only too often. And
Cormier writes, full of excuses for his persistent appeals—
“Forgive my tone,” he writes. “I apologize a thousand times
for being such a worry to you, but I can’t help it in regard to so
important a matter, calling for so much energy and hurry. You
have voluntarily abandoned the position ensured you by your
sex and great advantages in order to play the rôle of a great
and high-minded statesman. There are discomforts and
disadvantages attached to this new estate, and it is my
misfortune to have to bring this home to you. I can but
console myself with the thought of your goodness and of the
great cause which we have embraced and which is the
subject of all our anxieties. May God prosper it, and may it
bring you glory and me happiness!”
In the mouth of any one but Cormier these protestations would
arouse one’s distrust; but what we already know of him, and what we
are to learn presently of his later conduct, serve to reassure us in
regard to him.
In spite of all his good will, however, Cormier is constantly being
interrupted in his work. Now it is the health of his son, Achille, which
disquiets him, now he is a prey to terrible attacks of gout which will
give him no rest.
“I have been bent double for two nights and a day,” he
writes to his friend on September 1, 1794, “without being able
to change my position. It takes four persons to move this
great body of mine. I am a little more free from pain at
present, and I take up my pen at the earliest possible moment
to send you this explanation of my silence.”
It is at this moment that Louis de Frotté, who has been a little in
the background, comes again to the front of the stage. Since his
arrival in London, the young officer, without neglecting the society of
the Royalist Committee, has been spending most of his time in the
offices of the English Government, endeavouring to impress upon
Windham “the desirability of carrying out his ideas, and the ease with
which they may be brought to fruit, as he has made up his mind to
devote himself to them.” One project he has specially at heart, that of
receiving some kind of official mission from the Government which
will enable him to land in Normandy with adequate powers and to
give new life there to the Royalist insurrection. Should he succeed,
the help he “would thus obtain would lead to the execution of our
cherished plans,” he writes to Lady Atkyns, and she will reap at last
“all the honour that will be due to the generous sacrifices that she
has made.”
But in his interview with the Minister he does not think it necessary
to speak of their relations with the Temple. This secret is too
important for him to confide it to any one. “Too many people know it
already.” These words, hinting a delicate reproach, are meant,
perhaps, to put his fair friend upon her guard. Perhaps they mean
more than that. Read in the light of subsequent letters from the
young émigré, they serve as a key to his private feelings—to his
dislike at having to share her confidence with so many others, and to
his jealousy later of the man who has so large a place in her heart.
These feelings, still slight, soon become more marked, and presently
we find that they are reciprocated.
For the time being, however, both Frotté and Cormier worked with
the same ardour at their allotted tasks. Frotté, proceeding with his
negotiation with Windham, counted now upon support from Puisaye,
his famous compatriot recently come to England. Cormier writes to
her to report that, despite apparent dilatoriness, their agents have
not been inactive.
“I have received letters through the captain,” he tells her on
October 1, 1794, “which satisfy me, brief as they are. Here is
what they have to tell me: ‘Be at ease in your mind; they
imagine they are working for themselves, and really they are
working for us, and we shall have the profit. Be patient and
don’t lose trust.’ The captain had orders to return at once to-
day, but he will not start until to-night or to-morrow morning,
and we have news by the packet-boats meanwhile that order
reigns in Paris.”
Day after day passed by, bringing new reports, none of them
positive, of the death of the little Dauphin. Lady Atkyns knew not
what to make of the situation. Presently—eight days after the last—
there came another letter from Cormier, to reassure her.
“I have great faith in your judgment,” he declares, “and your
presentiments are almost always right, but I really do not think
that you have ground for disquiet now. Three agents of ours
at the Temple are either at work silently or else they are in
hiding. All we know for certain is that they have not been
guillotined, as they have not been mentioned in any of the
lists.”
His wife was still unfortunately detained, but there was prospect of
her being shortly at liberty, and then she would write to him. If the
agents had taken it upon themselves to modify their project—the one
thing that was to be feared—they could not possibly have succeeded
in sending particulars yet of this. But an explanation of the mystery
was soon to be forthcoming.
“The Dauphin is not to be got out by main force or in a balloon,”
Cormier had once written. Any attempt at carrying him off under the
very nose of his warders and of the delegates of the Commune
would have been madness. All idea of such a rescue had long been
put aside. How, then, was the matter to be dealt with? By such
means as circumstances might dictate—by finding a substitute for
the young prisoner, a mute who should play the rôle until an
occasion should offer for smuggling away the real Dauphin,
concealed meanwhile somewhere in the upper chambers of the
Tower. Mme. Atkyns did not herself approve of this plan.
“I was strongly opposed to it,” she notes at the foot of a
letter from Cormier dated June 3, 1795, “as I pointed out to
my friends that it might have an undesirable result, and that
those who were being entrusted with the carrying off of the
Dauphin, after getting the money, might declare afterwards
that he had not been got out of the Temple.”
She saw reason to fear that at the last moment she would be done
out of the recompense of all her efforts, and that the Royal child
would not be entrusted to her care.
However, it was clear that once the plan was agreed upon it was
necessary in order to carry it out to secure the help of the gaoler
Laurent, who had had the Dauphin under his charge during the last
four months. Laurent’s complicity may be traced through the
documents bearing upon the whole episode.
Let us examine first of all Laurent’s own famous letters, the first of
which, dated November 7, 1794, synchronizes with the events we
have been following.
It is well known that only copies of these letters are in existence—
the originals have never been discovered. They were published first
in a book which appeared in 1835, Le Véritable Duc de Normandie,
the work of an adherent of the pretender, Nauendorff, Bourbon-
Leblanc, whose real name was Gabriel de Bourbon-Russet, dit
Leblanc. From the fact of the originals being missing, the authenticity
of these letters has long been a matter for debate. A close
examination of them, side by side with all the other documents upon
which we have come in the course of our researches, results, we
think, in justifying our belief in their genuineness.
Cormier, then, was not mistaken in supposing that his agents had
modified their plan. The letter in which he confided his suspicion to
Lady Atkyns was dated October 8, 1794. On the last day of the same
month he wrote to her again:—
“I have to thank you cordially for your kind letter of
yesterday. I have had no time to answer it properly, not
because of the gout, for that has left me. In fact, my mind is
so fully occupied that I have no time to trouble about any kind
of malady, and am, in fact, at my wits’ end with excitement.
However, I must just send you this brief note in haste (for it is
just post time) to bid you not merely be at rest but to rejoice! I
am able to assure you positively that the Master and his
belongings are saved! There is no doubt about it. But say
nothing of this, keep it absolutely secret, do not let it be
suspected even by your bearing. Moreover, nothing will
happen to-day, or to-morrow, or the day after, nor for more
than a month, but I am quite sure of what I say, and I was
never more at my ease in my own mind. I can give you no
details now, and can only tell you all when we meet; but you
can share my feeling of security. I am glad to say I have good
news of my wife, but I must continue to keep a sharp look out
all round me.”
This letter evidently alludes to what had happened at the Temple.
The young Dauphin, we may conclude, was halfway on his road to
liberty. Lodged in the garrets of the Temple tower, and with the little
mute as his substitute down below, he was not yet out of peril. But
an important step had been taken towards the ultimate goal.
It seemed clear that Laurent, l’homme de Barras, was having a
share in this, and had at least rendered possible the execution of the
project. The letter which he wrote eight days later to a general,
whose identity has never been established, bore out exactly what
Cormier had said; here it is:—
“General,
“Your letter of the 6th came too late, for your first plan had
been carried out already—there was no time to lose. To-
morrow a new warder is to enter upon his duties—a
Republican named Gommier, a good fellow from what B——
tells me, but I have no confidence in such people. I shall find it
very difficult to convey food to our P——. But I shall take care
of him; you need not be anxious. The assassins have been
duped, and the new municipal people have no idea that the
little mute has been substituted for the Dauphin. The thing to
be done now is to get him out of this cursed tower—but how?
B—— tells me he cannot do anything on account of the way
he is watched. If there were to be a long delay I should be
uneasy about his health, for there is not much air in his
oubliette—the bon Dieu would not find him there if he were
not almighty! He has promised me to die rather than betray
himself, and I have reason to believe that he would. His sister
knows nothing; I thought it prudent to pass the little mute off
on her as her real brother. Meanwhile, this poor little fellow
seems quite happy, and plays his part so well, all
unconsciously, that the new guard is convinced that he is
merely refusing to speak. So there is no danger. Please send
back our faithful messenger to me, as I have need of your
help. Follow the advice he will convey to you orally, for that is
the only way to our success.
“The Temple Tower, November 7, 1794.”
The contents of this letter, taken together with its date, accord in a
remarkable way with Cormier’s communication to Lady Atkyns.
There is another striking argument in favour of the authenticity of
Laurent’s letters. When they were produced by the pretender
Nauendorff, they were for the most part in complete contradiction to
all that was known of the Dauphin’s captivity and the testimonies of
those connected with it. Certain facts to which they made allusion
were known to nobody. Thus Laurent states clearly on November 7
that a new warder—whom he calls Gommier instead of Gomin—is to
come to the Temple next day and to be associated with him. Now, in
1835, when this letter was published, what was known of Gomin?
Next to nothing, and the little that was known did not tally with
Laurent’s statements. Simeon Despreaux, author of a book entitled
“Louis XVIII.,” published in 1817, did not even know of Gomin’s
existence. Gomin himself made a formal declaration before the
magistrates that he entered the Temple about July 27, 1794, before
Laurent was there at all. Many years later it was found, on examining
all the documents referring to the Temple that were kept in the
National Archives, that Laurent’s statements were quite correct.
Some days after this letter to Lady Atkyns, Cormier informed
Frotté of the great news, in the course of a visit paid him by the
latter.
“I know all about it,” he said, according to Frotté’s account
of the interview afterwards in a letter to Lady Atkyns,
“because they could do nothing without me; but everything is
now ready, and I give you my word that the King and France
are saved. All the necessary steps have been taken. I can tell
you no more.... Do not question me, don’t try to go further into
the matter. Already I have told you more than I had any right
to, and from Mr. Pitt down to myself there is now no one who
knows more about it than you do. So I beg of you to keep it
absolutely to yourself.”
From November 8, then, Laurent is no longer sole guardian of the
young Prince. His duties are henceforth shared with Gomin. What
kind of relations subsisted between the two? It is hard to say, for it is
even more difficult to find out the truth about the Temple during the
subsequent months than during those which went before.
We find one innovation introduced during these months which is
worth noting. It is no longer the delegates of the Commune who have
to pay the daily visit to the prison, but the representatives of the
Comités Civils of the forty-eight divisions of Paris. Now, among all
those who visited the Dauphin none left any record, with one
exception, to which we shall come presently. All that we can learn
from Gomin’s own statements, so often contradictory, is that
throughout the period the child placed under his care uttered no
word. The warder takes no further notice of this strange conduct,
Laurent having satisfied him that if the Dauphin will not open his
mouth it is because of the infamous deposition against his mother
that he was made to sign. It is unnecessary to point out how
improbable was this explanation, the Dauphin’s examination having
taken place on October 6, 1793, and Laurent not having come to the
Temple until July 29, 1794. Gomin, however, asked no further
questions, and Laurent experiencing no further anxiety in regard to
him, sought what means he could of bringing about the desired end.
Six weeks pass, however, without further progress, and then on
November 5 Laurent hears, to his great satisfaction, that his master
has become a member of the Committee of Public Safety. This new
office would surely enable the general to carry out his plan and
relieve the anxious guardian from the heavy responsibility lying on
his shoulders.
It was, therefore, not without surprise that on December 19
Laurent and Gomin saw three Commissioners of the Committee of
Public Safety make their way into the prison and up the stairway of
the Tower to the Dauphin’s cell. These three visitors—Harmand la
Meuse, Matthieu, and Reverchon—asked to see the Dauphin, so
that they might question him and satisfy themselves as to the way in
which he was kept under supervision. At a time when there were so
many rumours current about the Temple, and when rescues were
openly talked about, when every day brought forth some new
sensational report, it was only natural that the Convention, in order to
silence these rumours and calm public opinion, should institute an
official inspection of the prison in this way.
In a work which he published twenty years later, Harmand de la
Meuse tells us all that we know of this visit, and of the impression
made upon the delegates by the little mute ushered into their
presence. Suffice it here to record that this narrative (written with an
eye to the good graces of Louis XVIII.) makes it quite clear that it
was a mute whom they saw, and that all efforts to extract replies
were quite in vain.
Harmand repeats the explanation of this persistent silence which
had been furnished by Laurent. He ignores the fact that the Dauphin
had talked with the Simons, had been interviewed by Barras, and
had been heard to speak on several other occasions.
Assuredly, Harmand and his colleagues—his narrative allows it to
be seen on every page—very soon realized that they were not in the
presence of the Dauphin. This is proved by the fact that, despite the
very distinct terms of the resolution of the Committee entrusting them
with this mission, and the object of which was to dispel the rumours
current in Paris, “they decided they would make no public report, but
would confine themselves to a secret record of their experience to
the Committee itself.”
However natural and intelligible all this may have been to those
who knew what was in the mind of the Convention and the
exigencies of the situation at this period, to Laurent it was a matter of
stupefaction. Barras had sent him no warning, and his position was
getting more and more difficult, for his colleague, who had, of
course, to be taken into his confidence, was beginning to be nervous
about participating any further in the intrigue, and might betray him
any day. At last he loses patience, and expresses himself as follows
to his friend the unknown general:—
“I have just received your letter. Alas, your request is
impossible. It was easy enough to get the ‘victim’ upstairs, but
to get him down again is for the moment impossible, for so
sharp a watch is being kept and I am afraid of being betrayed.
The Committee of Public Safety sent those monsters Matthieu
and Reverchon, as you know, to establish the fact that our
mute is really the son of Louis XVI. General, what does it all
mean? I don’t know what to make of B——’s conduct. He
talks now of getting rid of our mute and replacing him by
another boy who is ill. Were you aware of this? Is it not a trap
of some kind. I am getting very much alarmed, for great care
is being taken not to let any one into the prison of our mute,
lest the substitution should become known, for if any one
examined him they would discover that he was deaf from
birth, and in consequence naturally mute. But to substitute
some one else for him! The new substitute will talk, and will
do both for our half-rescued P—— and for myself with him.
Please send back our messenger at once with your written
reply.
“The Temple Tower, February 5, 1795.”
Let us note the date of this letter—February 5. Therefore the visit
referred to must have taken place before February 5. Now, Eckard,
one of the earliest biographers of the Dauphin, having in the first
edition of his book made the date December 2, 1794, altered it
afterwards to February 13, 1795. De Beauchesne makes it February
27. Chantelauze, February 26.
On referring to the original documents at our disposal, however,
we find that Laurent’s letter is borne out. In his book, Le dernier roi
legitime de France, M. Provins shows that the visit must have taken
place between November 5, 1794, and January 4, 1795, as it was
only during this period that the three delegates were all members of
the Committee. A recent discovery of documents in the National
Archives establishes the fact that it took place on December 19,
1794.
FOOTNOTES:
[66] G. Lenôtre, Vielles Maisons, Vieux Papiers, 2nd series.
[67] A curious plan of this house is to be found at the
Bibliothèque Nationale, Print Department, Paris topography, the
Madeleine quarter.
[68] The decree of divorce of Marie-Anne-Suzanne-Rosalie
Butler, forty-nine years old, born at La Rochelle, resident in Paris,
Rue Basse, section des Piques, daughter of Jean-Baptiste Butler
and of Suzanne Bonfils; and Yves-Jean-François-Marie Cormier,
aged fifty-six, born at Rennes, department d’Ile-et-Vilaine, son of
the late Yves-Gilles Cormier and of Marie-Anne-Françoise
Egasse.
[69] V. Delaporte, article already quoted, Études, October,
1893, p. 265.
[70] Unpublished Papers of Lady Atkyns.
[71] Note in Lady Atkyns’ own handwriting at the end of a letter
of Cormier’s, dated March 24, 1794.
[72] M. M. de Corbin (note on the letter in Lady Atkyns’
handwriting).
[73] Henri Provins, Le dernier roi légitime de France, Paris,
1889, 2 vols.
[74] Note in Lady Atkyns’ handwriting at the foot of a letter from
Cormier, dated June 3, 1795.
CHAPTER V
THE MYSTERY OF THE TEMPLE (continued)