intermediary between the minister and the woman; but the inventor of the
stratagem is unknown. A simple recital of the facts will show that all
three of those named are worthy to have combined in it.

Public rumour asserts that Mme. de Vaubadon had been d'Ache's mistress,
but she did not now know where he was hidden. In the latter part of
August, 1809, she went to Bayeux to find out from her friend Mlle.
Duquesnay de Montfiquet if d'Ache was in the neighbourhood, and if so,
with whom. Mlle. de Montfiquet, knowing Mme. de Vaubadon to be one of
the outlaw's most intimate friends, told her that he had been living in
the town for a long time, and that she went to see him every week. The
matter ended there, and after paying some visits, Mme. de Vaubadon
returned by coach the same evening to Caen.

It became known later that she had a long interview with Pontecoulant
the next day, during which it was agreed that she should deliver up
d'Ache, in return for which Fouche would pay her debts and give her a
pension. But she attached a strange condition to the bargain; she
refused "to act with the authorities, and only undertook to keep her
promise if they put at her disposal, while leaving her completely
independent, a non-commissioned officer of gendarmerie, whom she was to
choose herself, and who would blindly obey her orders, without having to
report to his chiefs." Perhaps the unfortunate woman hoped to retain
d'Ache's life in her keeping, and save him by some subterfuge, but she
had to deal with Pontecoulant, Real and Fouche, three experienced
players whom it was difficult to deceive. They accepted her conditions,
only desiring to get hold of d'Ache, and determined to do away with him
as soon as they should know where to catch him.

On Thursday, September 5th, Mme. de Vaubadon reappeared in Bayeux, and
went to Mlle. Duquesnay de Montfiquet to tell her of the imminent danger
d'Ache was in, and to beg her to ensure his safety by putting her in
communication with him. We now follow the story of a friend of Mme. de
Vaubadon's family who tried to prove her innocent, if not of treachery,
at least of the crime that was the result of it. Mlle. de Montfiquet had
great confidence in her friend's loyalty, but not in her discretion, and
obstinately refused to take Mme. de Vaubadon to d'Ache. The former,
fearing that action would be taken without her, returned to the charge,
but encountered a firm determination to be silent that render