million of roubles. For
money she procured impunity for crime, and brought upon innocence the
punishment merited by guilt. The scaffolds of Russia were bleeding, and
the roads to Siberia crowded with the victims of the avarice of this
female demon, who often promised what she was unable to perform, and, to
silence complaint, added cruelty to fraud, and, after pocketing the
bribe, resorted to the executioner to remove those whom she had duped.
The shocking anecdote of the Sardinian secretary, whom she swindled out
of nearly a hundred thousand roubles, and on whom she afterwards
persuaded her Imperial lover to inflict capital punishment, is too recent
and too public to be unknown or forgotten. A Russian nobleman has
assured me that the number of unfortunate individuals whom her and her
husband's intrigues have caused to suffer capitally during 1800 and 1801
was forty-six; and that nearly three hundred persons besides, who could
not or would not pay their extortionate demands, were exiled to Siberia
during the same period of time.

You may, perhaps, think that a low woman who could produce such great and
terrible events, must be mistress of natural charms, as well as of
acquired accomplishments. As I have already stated, she can have no
pretensions to either, but she is extremely insinuating, sings tolerably
well, has a fresh and healthy look, and possesses an unusually good share
of cunning, presumption, and duplicity. Her husband, also, everywhere
took care to make her fashionable; and the vanity of the first of their
dupes increased the number of her admirers and engaged the vanity of
others in their turn to sacrifice themselves at her shrine.

The immorality of our age, also, often procured her popularity for what
deserved, and in better times would have encountered, the severest
reprobation. In 1797, an emigrant lodged at an inn at Hamburg where
another traveller was robbed of a large sum in ready money and jewels.
The unfortunate is always suspected; and in the visit made to his room by
the magistrates was found a key that opened the door of the apartment
where the theft had been committed. In vain did he represent that had he
been the thief he should not have kept an instrument which was, or might
be, construed into an argument of guilt; he was carried to prison, and,
though none of the property was discovered in his possession, would have
been condemned, had he not produced Madame Chevalier, who avowed that