[39] Letter from Baron d’Auerweck, December 17, 1792. It is addressed to Peltier under the name of Jonathan Williams.--_Unpublished Papers of Lady Atkyns._ [40] Letter from d’Auerweck to Peltier, Paris, Hotel Coq-Héron, No. 16 December 25, 1792.--_Unpublished Papers of Lady Atkyns._ [41] Letter from Peltier to Lady Atkyns, London, December 7, 1792.--_Ibid._ [42] Narrative of the Municipal, Charles Goret, in G. Lenôtre’s book, _La Captivité et la Mort de Marie-Antoinette_, Paris, 1902, 8vo, p. 147. [43] February 1, 1793. [44] On this plot, see Paul Gaulot, _Un Complot sous la Terreur_, Paris, 1902, duodecimo. [45] These are the Chevalier de Frotté and the Countess MacNamara. [46] In the narrative of the Chevalier de Frotté, who mentions the Temple Prison (published by L. de la Sicotière, _Louis de Frotté et les Insurrections Normandes_, vol. i. p. 429), we consider that a somewhat natural confusion has arisen. It is, in fact, very difficult to assign any date earlier than August 6 for an attempt at the Temple; for on that date there is a letter from Peltier addressed to Lady Atkyns at Ketteringham, and there can be no doubt that if the lady had already left England, Peltier would have been aware of it. On the other hand, the letter published by V. Delaporte (p. 256), and given as written at the end of July, 1793, _must be subsequent to August 2_. These phrases: “They will not promise for more than the King and the two female prisoners of the Temple; they will do what is possible for the Queen; _but everything is changed_, and they cannot answer for anything, and, as to the Queen, they can say nothing as yet, for they have tried the Temple Prison only”--these phrases plainly show that the Queen was no longer at the Temple then. Finally, since in his letter at the beginning of August Peltier once more tried to dissuade Lady Atkyns from coming to Paris, it seems rational to conclude that the lady had not yet carried out her plan. [47] The testimony of the Countess MacNamara was obtained by Le Normant des Varannes, _Histoire de Louis XVII._, Orleans, 1890, 8vo, pp. 10-14, and he had it from the Viscount d’Orcet, who had known the Countess. Although we cannot associate ourselves with the writer’s conclusions, we must acknowledge that whenever we have been able to examine comparatively the statements of Viscount d’Orcet relating to Lady Atkyns we have always found them verified by our documents.