ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Troelle, wife of René Troelle, a master carver in Paris. The one child was named Michel Brunot, and the other Bernard François Troelle.

The families of Brunot and Troelle were near neighbours, and lived on the most intimate terms; hence they were led to propose putting the children to nurse in the same place, and the place chosen was the village of Richeville, in Normandy-a district considered as peculiarly healthy and proper for such a purpose by the Parisian mothers. It was arranged that the same woman should take both children to their country abode. Accordingly, when this person came to the house of the Brunots, the infant of the Troelles was sent for, and brought to the conductress. The wife of Brunot took the precaution, though probably dreaming little of the issue, to mark the wrapper which was upon her child, by sewing to it a little piece of dressed leather from her husband's stores. It does not appear that the sculptor's wife thought of any precaution of the kind. Attired alike in all respects but the one mentioned, as infants commonly are, the two children were taken away by their conductress to Richeville.

Separate nurses had there been provided for the children. It was subsequently asserted by certain of the parties concerned, that at the time the children were handed over to their respective nurses, a mistake took place, and that the infants were confounded one with the other. It was said that the child of the Troelles was given to one nurse as that of the Brunots, the Troelle nurse, of course, getting the child of the other family. However this matter stood, it is certain that the child given out to nurse as that of the Troelles, lived only seventeen days, and was buried in the parish cemetery of Richeville. The mortuary extract upon the subject bore, that On the 2d of December 1722, died, and on the 3d was buried, Bernard François Troelle, son of M. Troelle, carver in Paris, which child was at nurse with Claude Lecercle, our parishioner.'

To the wife of Troelle was sent all the clothing of the

deceased infant, and here it was that the first idea of something wrong suggested itself. Among the linen sent to her, Madame Troelle found an old cap, marked with a G. This discovery startled her. The thought sprang up that her child was not dead; and she went directly to the house of the shoemaker Brunot, and told his wife that she did not believe her infant to be dead, shewing, at the same time, the strange cap which she had found. Brunot's wife declared that the cap was none of hers, and said that if Madame Troelle had any doubts upon the subject, the best way would be to go to the spot, and there endeavour to ascertain the truth. The carver's wife, however, appears to have had her hopes shaken by the cap being not that of her neighbour, and the matter fell aside for the time.

Four or five months afterwards, the Brunots changed the nurse of their boy, sending him to Boisemond, a place about a league from Richeville, where a curate, cousin to Brunot, had his residence. Under the eyes of this relative, the child remained for two years, after which it was taken home to the house of the Brunots in Paris. Some time after this event, Madame Troelle, who had brooded incessantly over the supposition, that not her child, but that of the shoemaker, had died, was roused by the sight of the returned infant to claim it openly. She went to the house of the Brunots, and in a state of great excitement, demanded the restoration of the boy. Her cries of Give me my child-give me my child!' attracted a crowd. Troelle's wife had already impressed some of the neighbours with a belief in the justice of her claim, and Brunot and his wife were greatly abused and insulted by the crowd. In consequence of this outrage, the Brunots appealed to the law, and the Troelles were ordered to keep the peace under heavy penalties, and to pay all expenses of appeal.

On the other hand, Troelle and his wife brought an action against the Brunots, to procure the restoration of the child, alleging it to be theirs. They actually got a decree in the first instance, ordering the delivery of the child to them by the shoemaker and his wife. But the

latter brought an appeal against this decision, and then the case was formally tried in court, the best advocates of the day being employed on both sides. The Troelles founded their claim on the following circumstances:— The child to which Madame Brunot gave birth was feeble and delicate, and even had a serious illness before being sent out to nurse; now, the child of the Troelles was remarkably strong and healthy, and was less likely to be the first to take a fatal illness. The child in dispute, also, was very healthy. Again, the Troelles averred that the two children, when first sent to nurse at Richeville, were laid in one bed by their conductress, and then were mistaken one for the other, and were given to the wrong nurses accordingly. Of this assertion, the only proof brought by them was, that a cap marked G, not belonging to Madame Troelle's child, but to Brunot's, was sent to her on the infant's asserted decease. The letter G was the first letter of M. Brunot's name-Guillaume. (Madame Troelle also averred, that the linen, marked by the Brunots with a piece of leather, came to her at the same time; but as she at first mentioned nothing but the cap, this second statement was not believed, and indeed greatly damaged her cause.) Again, the Troelles asserted, that the linens which the living child wore, on being taken from Richeville to Boisemont, were precisely those originally given by Madame Troelle to her child.. And, lastly, it was stated that the living child bore a strong resemblance to the other children of the Troelles, and none to Brunot's family.

Slight as these grounds appear to be, they formed the whole case of the Troelles, and were the foundation of a trial that greatly interested the public of France. The Brunots answered them chiefly by denying that the cap marked G ever belonged to them or their child; and by pointing to the register which contained the record of the infant Troelle's death. They shewed that no proof existed of any exchange of the children ever having taken place. As for the change of health in the child, such things were too common to excite the slightest

surprise. With regard to the resemblance of the disputed child to the Troelles, the wife of Brunot did not deny that there was a seeming likeness between them; and for this she could only account by the circumstance of her having been much struck, before the birth of the child, by seeing the corpse of another infant of the Troelles, and gazing on it long. The Brunots also dwelt on the fact of no claim having been made for two whole years. The court, after hearing long pleadings on both sides, came to the conclusion, that the children had never been exchanged that the dead child was that of the Troelles ; and, accordingly, the decree of the judges was, that the shoemaker Brunot and his wife should keep the infant.

To this case, the compiler of the Causes Célèbres adds an anecdote, which seems to have suggested the plot of Miss Edgeworth's excellent story entitled Ennui. A nurse, into whose charge was given the child of a rich noble, had an ambition to see her own son a lord. She accordingly exchanged the one infant for the other, and, in time, the changeling became inheritor of the wealth of his supposed ancestors. The real heir, having the claims of a foster-brother upon his substitute, went to him, and was taken into his service. Distinguishing himself highly by his probity and good conduct, the servant became his master's intimate friend, and was treated by him more as a real than as a foster-brother. In the course of time, the nurse was taken ill. She then sent for her real son, the seeming gentleman of birth, and disclosed the whole secret to him. Going home immediately afterwards, he there took an opportunity of telling the story, as if it had occurred to third parties, and concluded by asking his servant and foster-brother what he would have done had he been the true heir, and had learned the secret from the supposed one. "I would have halved my fortune with the other,' was the immediate answer. Then your

sincerity must now be tested. You and I are the true parties to whom I alluded.' The real heir did not shrink from his word, but shared his means fairly with his former master.

THE SHEPHERD'S DOG:

A TRUE STORY.

"TWAS in the flowery month of June,
When hill and valley glow
With purple heath and golden whin,
White thorn and crimson rose;

When balmy dews fall soft and sweet,
And linger half the day,
Until the sun, with all his heat,
Can scarce clear them away;

Amid the Grampian mountains dun,
A shepherd tended sheep,
And took with him his infant son,
Up to a craggy steep.

The sheep lay scattered far and wide;
The sky was high and clear;
The shepherd's dog pressed close beside
The child so fair and dear.

The father and his darling boy
Lay dreaming on the hill,
Above them, all was light and joy;

Around them, all was still.

When, hark! a low and distant bleat

Broke on the shepherd's ear, He quickly started to his feet

Dark mists were gathering near.

The shepherd knew the storm might last
Through all the day and night,
And feared his sheep, amid the blast,
Might stray far in their fright.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »