Production Note
Cornell University Library produced
this volume to replace the
irreparably deteriorated original. It
was scanned using Xerox software and
equipment at 600 dots per inch
resolution and compressed prior to
storage using CCITT Group 4
compression. The digital data were
used to create Cornell's replacement
volume on paper that meets the ANSI
Standard Z39.48-1984. The production
of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of
Library Research Materials and the
Xerox Corporation.	Digital	file
copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.The Mystery of the Muller Mansion.
BY ROBERT J. HUBBARD,
of Cazenovia~N. Y.
Delivered Before the Oneida Historical Society, October ioth, 1893.
Prefatory.
The ancient mansion of which I write, is situated in the southern part
of Madison County, State of New York, and was built in 1808, by a
French refugee, of supposed noble blood, who lived there some six
years, under the assumed name of Louis Anathe Muller.
For the purpose of following out our conjectures as to his real name
and title, and his purpose in coming to this country, it is necessary to
examine some portions of French history.
Robert J. Hubbard.
Cazenovia, N. Y., 1892,
Europe at the Beginning of this Century.
At the beginning of the present century, Europe was
distracted with devastating wars. The cannons of Napo-
leon Bonaparte were thundering at the gates of nearly
every capitol, and with bayonets dipped in blood, he was
marking out anew the map of Europe. The fear of him
extended everywhere, his successes were so rapid, continu-
ous and irresistible that he seemed almost omnipresent.
The princes of the Bourbon family in exile, anxiously
watched his progress, in the hope that his sure defeat
would recall them to their lost power. Possibly they lis-
tened to, if they did not encourage, plots for the under-
mining and assassination of the Emperor. We are told
that advances were made to the Prince of Conde, January
24, 1802, by an unknown person, to rid them of the
usurper, which was rejected with scorn. This person
afterwards proved to be an agent of Bonaparte’s, dispatched
to sound the opinion of the Bourbon princes.2
The Due d’ Enghien.
The Due d’ Enghien was one of the most active and de-
termined of the exiled princes. He was born in 1772,
entered the Corps of the Emigres, assembled by his grand-
father, the Prince of Conde, on the Rhine, and commanded
the vanguard from 1796 to 1799. In this organization,
the Due de Berri was to make a descent on the coast of
Picardi, while the Due d’ Enghien was to put himself at the
head of the forces of the Royalists in the East of France.
At the peace of Luneville, in 1801, he went to Ettenheim,
an old chateau on the German side of the Rhine, where he
was residing when arrested by Napoleon.
Irritated by several attempts against his life, Napoleon
chose to believe that the Due d’ Enghien was privy to them.
He sent across the German border, in violation of treaty
rights, on the 15th of March, 1804, seized the Due and
conveyed him to French territory. A mock trial, before a
military commission, was conducted in the dead of night,
and although not a tittle of evidence was brought against
him, he was summarily condemned, and at once executed.
This murder filled all Europe with horror. Napoleon
failed in endeavoring to explain it away, making various
inconsistent and lame attempts to shift the responsibility
from himself upon others. In his more deliberate moments,
however, he acknowledged that the execution was
made by his orders. In his last will and testament, he re-
ferred to it as a necessity of self-protection.
This execution was considered worse than a moral crime,
it was a political blunder. Napoleon said of it, “I was
assailed on all hands by the enemies whom the Bourbons
raised up against me ; threatening with air-guns, infernal
machines, and deadly stratagems of every kind. I had no
tribunal on earth I could appeal to for protection, there-
fore I had a right to protect myself, and by putting to
death one of those whose followers threatened my life, I
Zifas entitled to strike a salutary terror into the others.”
Offers were made to Bonaparte to rid him of the remain-3
ing Bourbons, for a money consideration ; but with better
judgment, he rejected the proposals.
The assassination of the Due d’Enghien, however,
caused a profound sensation and alarm among the remain-
ing princes and followers of the Prince of Conde, and there
was a scattering of them to various asylums of safety.
England harbored them, but even in that country, there
was no assurance of safety, as Napoleon threatened an
invasion of England in 1797 ; and upon the latter declaring
war in 1803, the invasion was imminent, and numbers came
to America, and hiding under assumed names, their identity
lost, built, some of them, mansions as permanent homes.
Among the refugees who landed at New York was the
subject of this paper, Louis Anathe Muller.
A bit of French history may make clearer the situation
of affairs :
After the fall of the Bastile in the revolution of 1789,
many of the nobility emigrated to the Rhine and there
organized under the lead of the Prince of Conti. Among
them was the Comte d*’ Artois, brother of the King, (Louis
XVI.,) Dukes of Bourbon and Berri, and others of illus-
trious names. The legislative assembly in October, 1791,
occupied itself in relation to these emigrants, who were
intriguing with ceaseless activity to bring about a counter
revolution. After a long and stormy discussion, two de-
crees were passed. The first requiring the Count of Prov-
ince, (afterwards Louis XVIII.,) to return to France with-
in two months, under the penalty of forfeiting his eventual
rights to the regency of the kingdom. The second, de-
claring the emigrants in general suspected of conspiring
against France, and enacting that if still found assembled
in arms on the 1st January, 1792, they should be punish-
able with confiscation and death. The former of these
measures, the king (Louis XVI.,) assented to, but upon
the latter he imposed his veto. This greatly offended and
irritated the assembly, and although Louis immediately
afterwards issued a proclamation to the emigrants, urging4
their return, and threatening severe treatment, in case of
refusal, his sincerity was loudly called in question, and he
was denounced as implicated in all the criminal schemes of
the refugees against the country. He was executed Janu-
ary 21, 1793.1
His son Charles, nominally succeeded as Louis XVII.,
and by the emigrant army the Count of Province assumed
the title of Regent. The Republic, with Napoleon Bona-
parte and his career, followed.
Mr. Muller’s American Purchase.
In the year 1808, Mr. Muller purchased from Mr. Daniel
Ludlow, of New York City, his interest in lots of land,
Township No. 6, in Madison county, but recently set off
from Chenango county. It was a wild, uncultivated tract
of some twenty-seven hundred acres, high up among the
hills, with Hamilton, as the nearest village, some eight
' miles distant.
My father, the Hon. Thomas H. Hubbard, commenced
his professional life there in 1803, as a young man just ad-
mitted to the bar.
Mr. Muller came to Hamilton with a letter of introduc-
tion from Mr. Ludlow to him, and he remained there the
first year, or until the house upon his own tract was ready
for occupancy, my father appearing as his friend and at-
torney in numerous suits that were brought or defended by
him.
It is stated that, ‘ ‘Mr. Muller came into possession of this
Georgetown estate m a manner not agreeable to his sense
of justice and honor—that Mr. Ludlow had made friends
with him when he first came to America, and that to se-
cure some $30,000 loaned to Mr. Ludlow by Mr. Muller,
the latter had been induced to accept this tract of wild
land in payment.” The spirit, however, with which Mr.
Muller entered into the plan of developing and improving
1. Mrs. Hammond suggests, that Mr. Muller assumed the name of Anathe,”
from anathema, in consequence of compunctions of conscience in having, while
with the army of the Emigres, fought against France; abandoning his relative,
the ill-fated Louis XVI., in his struggles with the Revolutionists.s
his property, erecting his village, effecting exchanges of
distant lots for those nearer at hand, and contracting for
the sale and clearance of the land, does not indicate other
than a settled and resolute purpose to carry out his well
considered plan of building up an industrial community.
A refugee in hiding, he was free to occupy his mind in a
useful and pleasing pursuit. This sterile region furnished
that isolated seclusion he desired, with abundant oppor-
tunity to exercise his manly experience and taste.
The object in selecting this inaccessible situation for his
future abode, was a premeditated one, and gave color to
the general supposition that he sought safety in his retire-
ment from the wrath of Napoleon. While never revealing
his title or individual interest in Bonaparte’s defeat, he on
more than one unguarded occasion, gave expression to his
relentless hatred of that man.
Mr. Muller was a quiet gentleman of culture and refine-
ment, high-born and well-bred. Though small of stature,
there was about him a commanding presence, evincing
authority. His imperious manner commanded prompt obe-
dience. He is described as apparently fifty years of age,
five feet five inches in height, well proportioned, with a
dark complexion, black piercing eyes, features sharply de-
fined, the forehead denoting a practical intellect, perfectly
in keeping with a fine face.
He brought with him to his wild home, it is said, some
$150,000, much of which was expended in building and car-
rying out his purposes. A retinue of French servants ac-
companied him. He made few acquaintances, and when
he rode abroad was accompanied by armed and liveried
servants. He paid his laborers in gold and silver, and
gave employment to the inhabitants in all the country
round. Inducements were offered to artizans and me-
chanics to settle in his new-born village ; and to farmers
to clear the land and cultivate the soil. He was a man of
warm heart and large benevolence, a helpful friend to the
sick and needy. His nature could not brook laziness and6
inattention on the part of his employees, and prompt dis-
missals often took place. As a natural consequence, with
such traits of character transplanted to American soil, he
could not come in contact with the rough natures of our
pioneer men, without great friction, and he was constantly
embroiled in law suits, in which my father, as his legal
adviser, appeared for him. I find among my father’s pa-
pers, memoranda showing the frequency of such suits.
As for instance :
“ Muller vs. Clark. The latter agreed to build a mill-
dam. It was not done according to contract, but in so
unskillful, negligent, imperfect and unworkmanlike a man-
ner, as to fall completely into decay, requiring constant
repairs, and obliging Muller to lay out large expense upon
it, losing also the use of the mill during reconstruction.”
“ Chandler vs. Muller. Chandler agreeing to work
faithfully and without interruption for Muller from April
to November, 1810, and board himself. Payment was
to be made in fifty acres of wild land, at five dollars per
acre, and seventy dollars in money. Chandler worked but
part, of the time, was boarded by Muller, who paid him
$85.75, being an over-payment. Chandler refused to take
the land, and claimed cash for the entire time of contract. ”
In various legal ways my father appeared for Mr. Muller
during 1809-10-11-12, and as late as September 30, 1813.
Mr. Muller was often imposed upon, through his want of
experience in farming matters. It is told of him, that de-
siring to sow an acre of turnips, he enquired as to the
amount of seed required, and was told “a bushel.” So
much seed could not be procured in that whole region of
country. By sending far and near, be obtained some three
pecks. A neighbor asked him what he was going to do
with so much seed; to which he replied—“ sow an acre of
turnips. ”	‘ ‘ An acre of turnips ! Why, sir, you have enough
for a township. ”
Description of the Mansion and Grounds.
The quaint mansion Mr. Muller built on the summit of
one of the high Georgetown hills, and about which there7
has been so much romantic speculation, was quite in the
wilds, far away from any main road, and is so to this day,
with no near town of importance.
On the highest of the surrounding hills, a clearing was
made of several hundred acres and the house was erected
in the open, away from the thick tangled forest, that
crowded up from the valleys on all sides. Two streams,
rising in the wood behind, crossed this open plateau quite
near the house. One supplied an artifical pond, which
was well stocked with fish, the other ran down the valley,
in a rocky brook, and below, where his villlage was built,
was dammed for grist and saw mills. Not far from the
house a large park was inclosed, abounding in deer, rabbits
and other game. Hunting was a past-time of which he
was fond, and he was an expert in the use of the gun.
The building he erected for his home, was seventy feet front
by thirty feet deep, facing the south, constructed of wild
cherry timber, probably cut upon the place in making the
clearing—for this tree grows abundantly at this day in the
forest near at hand. The other materials were brought
from Hamilton.
This structure is quite remarkable and noteworthy. The
heavy sills rested on solid masonry, and upon them, stand-
ing on end, were cherry timbers, some ten or twelve inches
thick and twelve or eighteen inches broad. In the sides of
each were corresponding grooves, and into these planks
were fitted, forming a perfect joint, to effectually cover
shrinkage and openings between the timbers. They stand
eleven feet high. This stockade or fortress-like structure,
shows the military precision of the builder. Outside are
clapboards, and lath and plaster within. The interior was
handsomely and appropriately finished. The faces of the
fire-places, it is claimed, were of black marble.
The building was but one story high. A wide hall, ten
by thirty feet, ran through the centre. On the right, were
four rooms, thirteen by fourteen feet each, opening into
each other, and on the left of the hall was a large kitchen,8
pantries, a bed or dining room, and stairways leading to
the loft above and the cellar beneath. The garret was left
unfinished. It is some four feet high at the eaves, where
the massive timbers are still to be seen. It is lighted from
two windows at each end. Much of the furniture for this
house, Mr. Muller brought with him from abroad ; some
of it was costly and rare.
It is said that statuary embellished his grounds, which
were tastefully laid out with walks and shrubbery. His
immediate family consisted of his wife and two children,
one it is said, was born during his residence in George-
town.
He was reticent regarding his personal affairs. If he
had a confidant, he was not allowed to divulge his secret.
On one occasion, when all citizens were ordered out for
“general training,” the law did not overlook Mr. Louis
Anathe Muller. He, however, considered it a personal
insult, and to one of his retainers said, ‘ ‘ Mr. Bierce, it is
too bad—too bad ! Captain Hurd sends his corporal to
warn me out to train. He ought to be ashamed ! I have
been General of a Division five years ; I have signed three
treaties ; I ---” here checking himself, he suppressed his
feelings and simply added, “ Bierce, it is too bad !” The
matter was satisfactorily adjusted and Mr. Muller did not
“ train,” and was never annoyed in like manner again.
While Mr. Muller labored with a contented mind in de-
veloping the resources of his sterile region; while his family
and his well-stocked library made even his plain abode a
place of rest and happiness; his foreign correspondents
kept him advised as to the state of affairs in Europe; of
the career of Bonaparte, which filled his mind with the
gravest apprehensions. He feared lest all Europe should
lie at his feet, and that his advancing legions might pene-
trate even to America. Napoleon himself declaring that
America could not stand neutral, she must be either his
ally or his enemy.
When, however, Bonaparte advanced upon Russia in9
1812, with an army of 450,000 men (scarcely 100,000 return-
ing) he anticipated his defeat, and exclaimed— ‘ ‘ He shall
be whipped; he shall be driven back!” Possessed with
this conviction, and with the assurance which his private cor-
respondence conveyed, he at once prepared to retire to
France. This he did, late in 1813 or early in 1814, leav-
ing his property in the hands of an agent, and his wife and
children in New York.
He returned in 1816 to this country—finding that dur-
ing his absence, the agent had stripped the house of its
furniture, disposed of all the movable property, and de-
camped with the proceeds, leaving behind him desolation
and rum. Dismayed with the air of wanton destruction,
which’ pervaded his deserted village, and the cherished ob-
jects which were gathered in the house of his exile; he sold
the estate, April 9, 1816, to Abijah Weston, a merchant
of New York City, for the sum of $10, 500, and repaired to
France, never more to return. ”
Mr. Weston does not appear to have become the owner
for the purpose of restoring the place to its former attrac-
tiveness; but suffered it, and the village, to fall into decay,
until little remained to indicate that here existed a mag-
nificent ducal residence.
That Louis Anathe Muller was the assumed name of a
French nobleman, fleeing from the vengeance of Napoleon
Bonaparte, cannot be doubted.
His family physician of the name of Pietrow, who came
to Georgetown with him, once said that Mr. Muller was
‘ ‘ cousin german to the Duke of Angoulime, ” but he never
divulged his real name or station.* By others he was be-
lieved to be the Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe, who was
known to have come to this country about this time.
That he was a military officer of high attainments and ability
is undoubted, and at least leads to the supposition that he
* The Duke of Angoulime was the elder brother of the Duke of Berri. He mar-
ried his own cousin, Madame Royal, daughter of Louis XVI., and Marie Antoinette.
It might be said, therefore, by one desiring to mystify the truth, that the Duke of
Berri was cousin (by marriage) to the Duke of Angoulime.IO
was one of the celebrated French generals, loyal to the
Bourbons, who escaped to America to avoid the impending
doom of the guillotine. Again, it is not improbable that
this distinguished refugee was the Duke of Berri.* +
In the year 1871 I visited this desolate spot. Nature
was largely reclaiming her own, and where was grassy
slopes, blooming flowers and winding walks, is now the
tangled growth of an ill-kept farm. The village the owner
endeavored to foster into life, with its cottages, store-
houses and mills, has completely gone. Even places
where buildings stood are no longer discernable. The
well graded roads are roughened by the winter’s storms of
three generations. The artificial lake is drained, and noth-
ing remains to indicate where its sparkling waters played
in the breeze. The owl hoots in the hollow trees and the
hawk soars aloft in security, free from the range of the
hunter. The old mansion stands dismal, desolate and
weather-stained.
A farmer was the occupant, and the occasion of my visit
was especially felicitous. The owner was absent, and the
only human being on the premises was an old crone, who*
sat rocking by the kitchen fire, smoking her pipe. She
bade me welcome, invited me to a seat and a talk.
“I was young,” she said, “when the Frenchman lived
here. They called him Mr. Muller; some called him
Phillips, and said he was a king, or would be in his own
country. But I don’t believe he was no king. He kept
up, however, a great deal of fuss, and always went out
riding with servants about him, and they had loaded pistols,
too. He brought his servants with him from France.
He had heaps of money, gold and silver, and kept it in a
secret place, possibly down cellar; the place can’t be found
* Mr James H. Smith, in his history of Madison county, names him positively,
as the Duke of Berri. That “ as such, he was known to Rev. Matthias Cazier, a
highly educated French gentleman, who resided in Lebanon, a town a few miles
away, with whom he became intimate, and in whom he confided.”
t Mr. H. C. Maine, of Rochester, N. Y., in a recent interesting article in “ The
Magazine of American History,” with much plausibility, endeavors to establish an
identity between Mr. Muller and the Count of Artois.now. He was a severe and haughty man, passionate at
times and he used to flog his servants. Once he became
so angry that he flogged a man to death and threw his
body down the well, then had it filled up. The well was
therejust«outsidethe kitchen door.” “But,” I said “how do
you know .this?” “Because my husband (the man I after-
wards married, he’s dead now) was a hired man on the
place, and had to help fill the well.” “Why, aunty,” I said,
“the place must be haunted, ar’n’t you afraid to live here
in a haunted house?” “Oh, laws, no ! I didn’t do nothing to
him, why should he spook me.” I will not ask you to
believe the old woman’s story about the murder, but will
not take from you the pleasure of believing the place
haunted and that untold riches still lie buried in the cellar
or elsewhere.
Seriously, we may consider who this gentleman was ;
who came so unannounced, labored so earnestly, disap-
peared so suddenly, and /passed from our knowledge and
following.
Was he in verity Louis Philippe ?
Let us briefly trace so much of the career of the Duke
of Orleans as leads to the conjecture that he might be
identical with Mr. Muller.
The Duke of Orleans disappeared from French politics
after the execution of Louis XVI., in 1793 ; that stormy
time of the Girondins and Terrorists, which was succeeded
by the Directory, Consulate and Empire. He did not
appear again in France until after his return from America
and the great Napoleon had run his course. In escaping
from France, after disposing of his personal effects, he
retained but one horse and about four hundred dollars in
money. His faithful servant, Bandoin, being the only one
who followed him into exile. His haps and mishaps in
Switzerland were romantic in the extreme. In October of
1793, we find him filling a Professorship of Mathematics
and the French Language in the College of Reichenan, ob-
tained for him under the assumed name of M. Chaband.12
This position he held acceptably for eight months. His
father having died he repaired to Hungary to visit his
sister, residing there with her aunt the Princess of
Conti. He then passed under the name of Corby. Here
he intrigued for the establishment of a constitutional mon-
archy at Paris. But suspicion being aroused, he deter-
mined to sail for America. His slender means, however,
were inadequate for so distant a journey. In Hamburg he
found many Royalist refugees, who recognized him. On
one occasion he was accosted and insulted by one in the
public street, and stepping back with dignity, he said,
4‘Sir, if I have either offended or injured you, I am pre-
pared to give you satisfaction ; but I have done neither.
What will you one day think of yourself for having insulted
in a foreign land a prince of fallen fortunes, and an honest
and independent young man ?”
Scandinavia seemed to be the most desirable retreat, as
being out of the way of French refugees. Procuring a
Danish passport under the name of M. Corby, he left for
Copenhagen. From there, in 1795, he visited the coast of
Norway, Iceland and the North Cape.
While at Bodse, in Norway, he traveled under the name
of Muller. A room in the house he occupied still bears
his name. This was in 1796, and returning to Stockholm,
he sailed thence to America. Thus just before coming to this
country, he passed under the assumed name of Muller or
Muller! This is a strange coincidence, and doubtless led
to the supposition that Louis Anathe Muller, was none
other than the future king of the French. Further dates
in his history demolish this conjecture, as, while Mr. Muller
was busy with his estate in Georgetown, Louis Philippe
was in Europe, where, in November, 1809, he was married
to Maria Amelia, the second daughter of the king of
Naples. Aside from that, the following letter is conclu-
sive, admitting of no doubt, that while in America, Louis
Philippe was known by no other than his own name.
The letter is in reply to one written to the king, by Mr.13
John E. Rodman, of Philadelphia, in relation to the king’s
residence in the United States during his exile. The fol-
lowing is its text:
“St. Cloud, 26th of August, 1837.
“Sir:
“I have received your kind letter of the 16th of
June last, and I readily comply with your request to answer
in my own hand your obliging enquiries.
“During my residence in the United States, I never
went by any other name than my own, of Orleans. I
have known Mr. Peter Guerrier, of Philadelphia, and later
in the Havanas ; but since that time, in 1799, I never
heard of him and am totally ignorant of what may have
been his fate. I cannot believe that he ever attempted to
pass himself off for me, but of this I am certain, that I
never assumed his name, nor ever attempted to pass my-
self for him.
4 ‘ I believe I never went to Haddonfield, but I am posi-
tive that I never lodged or boarded there at your father’s
house or at any other. It is now so long, about forty
years, since I was in Philadelphia, that my recollections
are confused, but I believe I dined there since, in company
with a member of the Society of Friends, whose name was
Rodman, at the house of another member of the same
society, whose name was, I believe, John Elliott, and to
whom I had been introduced by Mr. Guerrier.
‘ ‘ I regret, sir, to be unable to give more complete infor-
mation in answer to your inquiries, and I must add, that
I highly esteem the favorable opinion entertained of me in
the United States, and I thank you for having expressed
it in a manner so gratifying to my feelings.
‘ ‘ I remain sir,
“ Your sincere friend,
‘ ‘ Louis Philippe. ”
The Duke of Berri.
Louis XV. of France, died May 10, 1774, after a reign
of fifty-two years.
His son, the Dauphin, was born in 1731, and died in
December, 1765. The Dauphinesse, died in 1767. She
was a Saxon lady of high birth, and was the mother of the14
three sons who survived her, and all of whom, at intermit-
tent periods, were kings of France—the last of the Bour-
bon Kings.
Louis XVI.,born August 24,1754, inherited many of the
high principles attributed to his father, the Dauphin. He
struggled in vain against the changing political elements of
his country. He lacked firmness and energy, but was ani-
mated by the best intentions. They, however, were use-
less, merely paving the way to his own destruction.
Louis XVIII., Comte de Province, was born November
17, 1755. At the downfall of Napoleon, and when he was
sent to Elba, was proclaimed King ; making his public
entry into Paris, May 3, 1814, accompanied by the Comte
d’ Artois and his son the Due de Berri, and his niece the
Duchess d’ Angoulime, amid the enthusiasm of the royal-
ists, but wondering silence of the people ! The King left
France on the return of Bonaparte from Elba, the Due de
Berri following him to Ghent, but the defeat of Napoleon
at Waterloo, brought him back again !* Louis XVIII.,
died September 16, 1824, and was immediately succeeded
by Charles X., the Comte d’ Artois, the father of the Due
de Berri. He reigned from 1824 to 1830, when he was de-
throned, after “the three days of July revolution,” and
retired to Holyrood Castle, Edinburgh.
The Due de Berri, was born at Versaille, January 24,
1778, and was a possible occupant of the throne after the
reign of his father, but he was assassinated as he was en-
tering a carriage with the Duchess, February 13, 1820.
The fanatic who committed this deed confessed that it was
done to avenge Napoleon, and to end the race of the House
of Bourbon.
He had at that time no son, but September 29, 18207
shortly after the assassination, the Duchess gave birth to
* A biographer states, that on returning to France in 1814, “ the Due de Berri
landed at Cherbourg and at once produced.a favorable impression. The abrupt
frankness of his manners and his military habits, won the sympathies of the people
and were even welcome with the army. He had command of all the troops in and
nround Paris ; with the title of Colonel-General of dragoons.”i5
one. He was the Duke of Bordeaux, and next in succes-
sion to Charles X.; who abdicated the throne in his favor,
August 2, 1830. He was afterwards styled the Comte de
Chambord and designated Henry V. The crown was not
destined to descend to him, but was offered to his kins-
man, Louis Philippe. *
The Duchess, mother of the Duke of Bordeaux, was a
woman of great force of character and courage, and offer-
ed to place herself at the head of an army to enforce the
rights of her young son to the crown. She, however, fol-
lowed the dethroned King, Charles X., to Edinburgh. The
daughter of the Due de Berri who was born in 1819, was
“ Louise Maria Therise d’ Artois, Madamoisellede France. ”
But we will return to consider the personal history of the
Due de Berri.
What little can be gleaned of his movements during the
rising power of Napoleon is not minute or satisfactory.
History tells us that he passed ‘ ‘ thirteen years in Eng-
land, ” but gives little account of him while there. It does
not seem reasonable that after the plots against Bonaparte,
by members of the Bourbon family, for its restoration
(which culminated so tragically in the murder of the Due
d’ Enghein, and with whom the Due de Berri was so
closely connected), he would live openly in England.
Then the emissaries of Bonaparte were keeping a strict
watch of the actions and sayings of that family. There is
no doubt but plots were formed for ridding the world of
Napoleon ; that the latter knew of or suspected them, and
that the shooting of the Due d’ Enghein most thoroughly
alarmed and scattered their instigators !f
* The Comte de Chambord in 1847, married the eldest daughter of the Duke of
Modena, but like many of his race, he had no children. When he died in 1883, the
elder branch of the French Bourbons became extinct, and most of the French roy-
alists now look upon Philippe VII.—the Comte de Paris—as the legitimate successor
of Henry V.
t O’ M ear e in his “ Voice from St Helena,” quotes Napoleon as saying: “The
Due d’Enghein was to have come to Paris to assist the assassins.” The Due
de Berri also was to have landed at a certain place in Picardy, to have excited in-
surrection and assassination. I got information of this, and Savary was dispatch-
de to the spot to arrest him. If he had been taken he would have been instantly16
Why, therefore, should the Due de Berri remain in
England, his life being in evident danger and Napoleon’s
power at its height ? From what few expressions passed
the lips of Mr. Muller in America, we have no doubt that
he greatly feared the growing ascendency of Bonaparte and
that he might dominate Europe. America surely was a
safer place ; although we have no knowledge that either
he or the Comte d’ Artois ever came to this country.
Another less important reason why a residence in
England could not be agreeable, was the fact that while
at Holyrood Castle, in 1797, his father, the Comte d’
Artois was pursued by creditors. The law sheltered him
from legal process within the domain of the castle, but he
could not leave the limits except on Sunday, when no
arrests could be made. Again, Due de Berri had married
an English woman, and against the wishes of his friends.
It is possible, that by this marriage he may have acquired
the necessary means to purchase the estate we have under
consideration.
While my conclusions point to the Due de Berri as
probably identical with Mr. Muller, I cannot insist upon
the same as a matter of history until evidence presents
itself that he actually came to this country. If I have
succeeded in awakening interest in the subject, I shall
gladly welcome any positive information that may identify
the man be he whom he may.
M. Chateaubriand describes the Due de Berri as follows :
‘ ‘ His head was large, with tangled hair, a broad forehead,
a ruddy face, staring blue eyes and thick red lips. His
neck was short and his shoulders rather high, like those of
all great military families. He was of medium stature.
He looked brave and the expression of his face was candid
shot. * * * The place where they were to have landed was near Dieppe. * * *
The Comte d’------and the Due de B-----were always endeavoring- to
procure my assassination. Louis, I-believe, was not privy to it. They thought, I
suppose, that they were at liberty to make as many attempts to assassinate me as
they chose, with impunity. As head of the French Government; by the law of
politics and by the law of nature, I should have been justified in causing assassi-
nation in return; which it would have been most easy for me to have affected.”17
and clever. His gait was active, his action prompt, his
glance steady, intelligent and kindly, and his smile charming.
He expressed himself with elegance in ordinary conversa-
tion, with clearness when discussing public affairs, and with
eloquence when moved by passion. One saw in him the
prince, the soldier, the man who had suffered, and felt
drawn towards him by the mingled bluntness and good
grace pervading his whole person. Exiled from France
in 1789 at the age of eleven, he did not see his native land
again until 1814. At sixteen, he enlisted in Condes army
as a volunteer, winning advancement at the sword’s point.
He preferred camp life to any other. When not fighting
he traveled over Europe : visited Naples and Rome in 1800,
studying painting and music.	He sang well, drew well,
especially military subjects.	He was a gentleman, a
scholar, and an artist.”
It is stated in ‘ ‘ The History of Madison County, by Mrs.
L. M.. Hammond,” that Mr. Muller brought with him to
Georgetown an American wife by the name of Stuyvesant.
This, it seems to me, lacks evidence. When in England,
1806, as I have stated, he married a very lovely young
woman of the name of Amy Brown. She it was, doubtless,
whom he brought with him to America and installed mis-
tress of the Muller mansion. Two daughters, it is believed,
were the issue of this marriage : the elder born in England,
and the younger in Georgetown.
The romance which has been published as a “ Story of
the Muller House,” assumes that his 44 American wife,”
with the children, were left in this country, when he sailed
for France in 1814. It names her as of good family and
gives a harrowing picture of his adieus. This is probably
pure fiction. The account, too, of the subsequent sale of
the property to those of the name of Stuyvesant, seems to
have no connection with Mr. Muller, who sold the estate in
1816 to Abijah Weston. It afterwards passed through
several hands, and not until 1837 was it conveyed to par-
ties of the name of Stuyvesant.i8
It is probable that when Mr. Muller went to France in
1814 he left his wife and children in New York, and re-
turned for them in 1816.*
While we doubt not his attachment to his English wife,
we know that marriage has ever been considered a matter
of convenience with the Bourbon family, lightly made and
easily set aside.
Louis XVIII., directly after he became king, disapproved
his nephew’s marriage. One of his first acts was to have
it annulled. The Pope, Pius VII., who had obstinately
refused “to commit a crime before the tribunal of the Al-
mighty,” as to dissolve a similar marriage between Prince
Joseph Bonaparte and Betsey Patterson, invalidated the
union between the Due de Berri and Amy Brown, after
they had lived together for ten years. It should be added,
however, that the Pope insisted that the two daughters of
the duke, born after wedlock, should be regarded as legiti-
mate, and that they should incur no stigma, f
On being released from his first marriage the Due de
Berri, in 1816, married the granddaughter of the King of
Naples, Marie Caroline Ferdinande Louise the eldest
daughter of Francis, afterwards king of the two Sicilies.
She was born November 5, 1798. The marriage took
place by proxy at Naples, April 24th, 1816, and the relig-
ious ceremony in France, June 17, of the same year. By
this marriage he had a daughter and a son. The latter
born shortly after his assassination in 1820.$
Great was the grief and consternation caused by his dia-
* Sailing vessels crossed the ocean at this time in from 24 to 30 days to America,
and 18 to 24 to Europe.
t From “ The Marriage of the Bourbons,” by Hon. D. Bingham, London 1890.
+Ujune £3,1817, a daughter was born to the Duke and Duchess of Berri, who lived
one day; September 13, 1818, a son was born, living two hours. The following
epitaph was placed upon the coffin : ‘ Here lies the body of the very high and very
powerful Prince N — of Artois, grandson of France, a son of the very high and
very powerful Prince Charles Ferdinand of Artois, Duke of Berry, Son of France,
and of Caroline Ferdinande Louise, Princess of the Two Sicilies, who died at birth ,
September 13, 1818.’ September 21, 1819, a daughter was born, Princess Louise
Maria Theresa of Artois, Madamoiselle, grandaughter of France. September 29,,
1820, the young Prince, Henry Charles Ferdinand Dieredonne (God-given) Duke o
Bordeaux, was born.”19
bolical murder; for the Due de Berri was looked upon as
the last hope of the elder branch of the Bourbons. His
brother, the Due d’ Angoulime, having no children.
The Duchess of Berri was with her husband when he was
wounded. The surgeons summoned to attend the dying
man could do very little for him. His couch was soon
surrounded by members of his family. He asked to see
his little daughter, then five months old, and taking the
child in his arms, kissed her and said, ‘ ‘ May you be happier
than the rest of the family.” Then he asked to see his
children by his first wife, Madam Brown, and Charlotte
and Louise were brought just in time to receive his last
counsels and the blessing of their father, who spoke to
them in English. He asked his wife to look after the two
orphans. She replied by taking them in her arms, prom-
ising to be the best of mothers to them. This promise she
kept, bestowing upon them afterwards the tenderest and
most conscientious care. *
Louis XVIII. afterwards created Charlotte Comtesse d’
Issondun, and she married the Prince de Fancigny-Lucinge,
in 1823. The second daughter Louise, born in December,
1809, was created Comtesse de Vierzon, and she married
the General (Baron) de Charette, (Francois de Lorraine,)
nephew of the celebrated Vendean chief.
In 1876 Madam Brown died in France, and the certificate
of her death contains the following particulars :	“Amy
Brown, aged ninety-three years, born at Maidstone, in the
County of Kent, England, proprietor of the Chateau de la
Contrie, daughter of the defunct Joseph Brown and Mar)/
Ann Deacon, widow of Charles Ferdinand, died on the
6th of May, 1876.”
In the summer of 1891 I again visited the Muller man-
sion. From the beautiful village of Cazenovia, the course
* The Due de Berri was assassinated February 13,1820. Two eminent qualities
he possessed in a high degree-bravery and charity. He was a good husband,
a good friend, a good master. His body was taken to the Abbey St. Denis, the
funeral taking place March 14th. His epitaph is as follows : “The very high, very
powerful Prince Charles Ferdinand of Artois, Duke of Berri, Son of France, is
dead, Pray God for the repose of his soul.”20
is due south some twelve miles to the tract known as
Muller Hill. One ascends all the way, meeting sometimes
a wild neglected country, and again evidences of thrifty
culture. This region, however, as an attractive one to
agriculturists, has passed its prime. It is too true of
many a home here, as elsewhere, that the young
brood of children, ripening into manhood, have deserted
the old roof for the more tempting allurements of western
life, where land is cheap and yields an abundant return for
the labor of the husbandman. The parents grow old and die
and none returning to occupy the premises, and being unsale-
able, the place grows to weeds and wildness, and the
house to decay. Such is no fancy picture of many parts
of Madison county to-day.
As one nears the hills of Georgetown these evidences of
ruin are much more frequent. Prices of land are but
little more in dollars than they were in the early part of
the present century.
On our last turn from the traveled road < we ascend
sharply along the border of what is now dry, but where
formerly ran a considerable stream. It was along this
stream that Mr. Muller built his village. Store-houses,
mills, shops and farm houses, have disappeared, or mostly
so. Here and there only a remnant of auld-lang-syne ex-
ists in a tumbled-down affair and naught to help the imagin-
ation fill up the picture of former thrift. Some quarter of
a mile of toilsome ascent brings one to the summit of the
hill, some 2,000 feet above the sea. Here is a clearing of
several hundred acres, and in the centre stands the Muller
Mansion.
A private road winds from the one we have left.
There are no shade trees or shrubbery about, save some of
recent planting; while all around, in every direction, the
woods have thickened into their ancient glory.
Although this is a broad hill top, it is so shut in by the
surrounding woods, that there is no extended view. Open-
ings formerly existed, doubtless to command a wide range of21
country in various directions. We are pleasantly welcom-
ed by the present owner, who is making this a dairy farm,
has met with a reasonable amount of success, and the
good house-wife is to be commended for the neat condition
of the premises. We wandered about it at will—over the
plowed ground to the wood beyond, where yet stand in
stately majesty enormous wild cherry trees of native growth,
indicating that when the house was built and the clearing
made for it, the trees were felled on the spot and hewn
into the heavy timber that composes its frame-work.
The plan of the house must be now much as it was
originally built. The broad hall passes through the centre.
On the right are four rooms, which were occupied by the
owner for himself and family. One of these rooms, it is
said, he fitted as an oratory. On the left are the working
rooms of the establishment. The loft remains unfinished,
where can be seen the massive cherry timbers, standing on
end as built. They bear evidence of having been hewn by
a master hand.
No writing is visible on the beams or elsewhere, of the form-
er occupants of this loft.	Here we know the retainers of the
first owner were accustomed to sleep, and it is somewhat
surprising that they have left no record behind. The gar-
ret is open in one long room, with two windows at each end.
In the kitchen, the old fire place (as it existed some twenty
years ago,) has been remodeled to suit more modern ideas.
We descended into the cellar, and were astonished at the
smallness of it. The space occupied is only about two-
thirds the size of the kitchen above. It is lighted by one
small window, the sill of which, from the inner cellar wall
of stone, to the outer one of the building, is some seven
feet. There is apparently no reason for this, and evidently
between these two walls, is a space, some six by twenty
feet with no present access to it. The owner has never
gone so far as to wonder why this space exists; nor has his
curiosity tempted him to break through the wall to see
what is beyond. I endeavored to rouse him to search, by22
telling him that Mr. Muller had large holdings of gold and
silver, and that somewhere within these walls must have
existed a strong room for its keeping. Perhaps, others
have investigated it in times gone by. Doubtless the
tricky agent, who sold out (if reports be true) the property
of Mr. Muller during his absence in France, knew about it,
and left little behind to reward the searcher. Be that as
it may—it is now an inaccessible corner, that calls for the
pick and hammer of the curious.
Over the mantel in my own residence in Cazenovia,
hangs a mirror, round in form, the frame of wood, richly
carved and gilded. Above, with outstretched wings, is the
French eagle; below, are oak leaves with an acorn as
pendant, beautifully wrought. At each side is a cornucopia
inverted, displaying fruits that gracefully fall over the
outer rim, and two candelabra with cut glass bobaches and
brilliant drops.
The mirror, a convex glass, is set in a black rim. It
was formerly the property of Mr. Muller, from whom my
father purchased it, and it hung in the parlor of the old
Muller mansion.
There are also in my family two English mezzotint
prints, hand colored, most delicate and beautiful, which
also occupied a place in the same mansion.
Singularly in connection with this mirror, is a painting
of St. Cecelia, by Domenichino [about 1620] which I pur-
chased in 1875, in Florence, Italy. It is of rare beauty
and merit. At the time of purchase, its history was with-
held from me ; but a few years after, I learned that it was
from the gallery of the Duke of Modena. The Duke de
Chambord (son of the Duke de Berri) married a daughter
of the Duke of Modena.
So while the mirror has an interest in having been the
property of the supposed Due de Berri ; the picture was
f rom the gallery of the father of his son’s wife.