D’Eon challenges the French ambassador—Institutes legal
proceedings against him—Strong appeal to the Count de
Broglio and indifference of the latter—De Guerchy _v._
De Vergy—De Vergy’s affidavits—Secret correspondence in
danger—Undignified conduct of Louis XV., who ‘feels he is in
a mess’—True bill against the French ambassador for inciting
to murder—D’Eon’s disregard of his King’s intervention—De
Guerchy applies for a _nolle prosequi_—Attorney-General refuses
a certificate—Miscarriage of justice, and state of public
feeling—Count de Broglio’s conciliatory proposals—A royal
pension conferred on D’Eon—De Broglio’s advice—D’Eon surrenders
his secret orders from the King.
Provided with de Vergy’s statement in writing and bearing his signature,
the first step taken by the Chevalier was to call upon de Guerchy to
settle their differences by recourse to arms, as became two soldiers.
The latter objected to draw swords with a fencing-master. The Chevalier
observed he was right, and proposed, to ensure perfect equality, that
the ambassador should choose his own fire-arms and they should fight
on horse-back, if he objected to do so on foot; and further intimated
to him, through his seconds, that if he promised to meet him on the
ground with a good grace, he gave his word of honour, privately, that
he should wound him only; whereas de Guerchy would be at liberty to do
his worst. The count’s reply to this was that D’Eon must be a fool to
suppose a general would agree to fight a simple captain of dragoons,
which persuaded the Chevalier that it would be as impossible for such
a man to perform an act of courage and of justice, as it is to extract
oil from stones. De Guerchy could not be prevailed upon to fight! Then,
‘out of consideration for the Court of France and for the count’s family,
D’Eon was careful to lay at the feet of his august master his private
wrongs on the subject of poisoning, assassination, kidnapping, and other
not generally known dark designs against his honour, his life, his
person, and his papers. This he did before appealing to the tribunals of
England for that liberty and the safety of his person and papers which
the law could ensure to him.’ It does not appear that Louis XV. took
any notice of these representations, and D’Eon determined on having de
Guerchy prosecuted for a craven-hearted criminal, and he took proceedings
accordingly.
[Sidenote: PROSECUTION OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.]
A copy of de Vergy’s deposition was sent to the Duke de Choiseul, and
another to the Count de Broglio under cover of one of the most pitiful of
appeals.
‘London, November 2, 1764.
‘Sir,—I have the honour to enclose for your sole information,
‘The[205] horrible plot is at last disclosed. I can
now say to M. de Guerchy what the Prince de
copy of my last letter to the Duke de Choiseul, and of that
Conti said to the Marshal de Luxembourg before the
battle of Steenkerque: “Sangaride! this is a great
of M. de Montmorin, Bishop of Langres, who is intimately
acquainted
day for you my cousin! You will be a fine fellow if
you get out of the mess!” None are more concerned
with my family, and has known me since childhood.
than you and the marshal, in employing all means for
protecting yourselves against the
He is good enough to employ his interest in my behalf with the
enemies of your house. The King cannot but be
persuaded now of the truth; it is as clear as
daylight.
Dauphin, who has great regard for him. I am aware that the
I am taking my own measures. I have informed the Duke
of York and his brothers of the
Bishop of Langres is a strong partisan of the marshal; you may
truth and atrociousness of the conspiracy against
you, the Marshal de Broglio, and myself. They will
therefore, sir, recommend my case to the Bishop with perfect
inform the King, the Queen, and the Princess of
Wales. M. de Guerchy, who has been unfavourably
safety, and he will be delighted to support your good-will in my
received since his return,[206] is disturbed beyond
conception, notwithstanding his audacity, and I know
behalf. I have the honour to be, with profound respect,
that the King of England is disposed to be just
towards the marshal and myself. Do your part, do
Sir,
something and do not desert me as you seem to be
doing. I will defend myself to the last drop of my
Your most humble,
blood, and fearlessly serve your house in spite of
you! You desert me! You send me no money,
and most obedient servant,
whereas I am struggling in your behalf. Do not desert
me and do not drive me to despair. Send me
D’EON.’
sufficient money to enable me to fight your battles
and mine, unless you wish to be crushed under the
weight of injustice. I have expended more than twelve
hundred pounds in carrying on my war, and you send me
nothing. It is abominable, and allow me to say that I
should never have believed it!’[207]
A long time had elapsed since the date of de Broglio’s last letter to
the Chevalier, and now his reply was laconic enough. He declined, in
the future, to submit to the King any of his letters in which allusion
was made to de Guerchy, but he would take extracts and show them to his
Majesty. D’Eon remained puzzled at this system of neutrality, having
noticed that the very dispatches which informed him that any reference
he might make to his squabbles with de Guerchy should not be seen by
the King, were approved with the own hand of the sovereign, who must
consequently have been aware of the correspondence on this particular
subject being concealed from him.
[Sidenote: QUALMS OF CONSCIENCE.]
The reports on the threatening attitude assumed by D’Eon and the probable
use he would make of de Vergy’s deposition, caused no little alarm in
the mind of de Guerchy and at the French Court. It became a matter of
greater moment than ever to the ambassador that he should rid himself
of the hateful Chevalier, and he urged upon Lord Halifax, in pressing
terms, that de Vergy, who was making common cause with D’Eon, should be
prosecuted as his lordship stated might be done. To his old friend de
Praslin he represented that nothing in D’Eon’s past villainous conduct
could be compared to his latest fabrications, which were enough to make
one shudder. De Praslin (?) and de Choiseul were so firmly persuaded of
de Vergy’s criminality, that they angrily complained to Lord Hertford of
the difficulty de Guerchy and they experienced in obtaining justice in
England; to which they received assurances that the measures pursued and
pursuing against D’Eon and de Vergy, were fully sufficient to repair the
insult offered to the King of France in the person of his representative;
but scarcely had this explanation been given than the impatient de
Guerchy, apprehensive and insecure, importuned the English minister
to take steps against de Vergy in accordance with the opinion of the
Attorney-General. This affair, however, eventually fell to the ground.
De Guerchy failed to make out his case, and was in the end informed by
Lord Halifax that the affidavits made did not suffice for entering an
action.[208]
De Vergy had, in the meantime, made other depositions upon oath, in which
he gave ‘a true and circumstantial account of the plot against the life
of the Chevalier D’Eon’—the one on November 12, before Judge Wilmot,
of the Court of King’s Bench; the other on November 27, before Judge
Yates, also of the Court of King’s Bench; and he sent a report of his
proceedings to the Duke de Choiseul, dated November 15.
‘... Last Monday, I made an affidavit at the King’s Bench
against M. de Guerchy, and proved by his words and certain
circumstances to which I swore, that he ordered me to
assassinate M. D’Eon, assuring me that the opium he had caused
to be given to him at dinner, on Friday, October 28, had had
no effect. This circumstance was made known at the time by M.
D’Eon’s complaint to his Excellency himself, that he had been
poisoned at his table. In meeting this charge by saying that
I am mad, that I have lost my senses, M. de Guerchy condemns
himself, and if I am flattered at the compliment, believe, sir,
in my regret at not being able to return it. I show myself in
London publicly. I am to be seen everywhere, at the promenades,
at the play, in coffee-houses; yet M. de Guerchy does not sue
me before the law. Do you know, sir, the reason why? Because
by the law of retaliation and English justice, M. de Guerchy
not having it by any means in his power to convict me of making
false statements, would have the honour of being sent to the
pillory and transported, were he to accuse me of perjury.’[209]
De Guerchy’s hour of retribution was at hand, and the Chevalier was
satisfied. Louis XV., ever selfish and unconcerned, but ill concealed
his uneasiness at the serious aspect of affairs, and gladly approved of
the Count de Broglio’s offer to proceed to London and bring D’Eon to his
senses, to arrange with him for the surrender of the compromising papers,
and mediate between him and his tormentor. One difficulty presented
itself to the King, who asked Tercier: ‘On what plea is the despatch of
the Count de Broglio to England to be proposed to M. de Praslin?’—but
ere this new design could be matured it had to be abandoned, an awkward
incident that had the effect of seriously disturbing the King’s
equanimity, having well-nigh led to disclosures which would certainly
have unravelled the mystery of the long- and well-maintained secret.
[Sidenote: THE SECRET CORRESPONDENCE IN DANGER.]
D’Eon’s valet, a man named Hugonnet, had been for some time employed
carrying despatches on the King’s secret service between the two
countries. Long suspected of being engaged in this duty, orders were
issued by the ministry to the police at Calais to watch for him, and
arrest him if they at any time found sufficient cause. On January 10,
as he was preparing to return to England, he was taken up, and in his
possession was found a letter in the handwriting of M. Drouet, private
secretary to the Count de Broglio. It was intended, ostensibly, for
D’Eon de Mouloise in London, bore no signature, but contained the names
of Tercier and Durand, and allusions to the Counsellor, the deputy,
&c. Drouet was in consequence also arrested and his papers seized, and
the two were lodged in the Bastille. Being kept promptly informed by
de Broglio of what was passing, and fearing that all was surely about
to be discovered, Louis XV. resorted to the only expedient left to
him—to secure the co-operation in his cause of the officials in charge
of the prisoners. He immediately sent for M. de Sartines,[210] officer
of police, and had to endure the humiliation of admitting him into his
confidence, and asking him to lay hold of all such papers as were likely
to compromise, in the sight of his ministers, those of his secret agents
he named.
‘I have unburdened myself and confided in him (de Sartines).
He seemed pleased, and we must hope that his discretion and
this mark of confidence will guide him aright. If we are
disappointed, we will see what is to be done, and write to de
Guerchy. Have your mind at ease.’
So wrote Louis XV. to Tercier; and again, in a day or two:—
‘I am afraid that we are getting into a mess. I have instructed
M. de Sartines to send for you and see you secretly, and
that you will give him the fullest particulars.... You cannot
possibly be present at the investigation and the patching up
of this business, but tell de Sartines everything, arrange
matters with him, and let him make his report to me.... At the
preliminary inquiry M. de Praslin said he treated them with
contempt, but what passed between him and de Sartines should
suffice to tranquillise you.... I am quite sure that Drouet is
in a mess, but he will get out of it (I rather feel that I am
getting somewhat into a mess).’[211]
[Sidenote: A PLAY AT THE BASTILLE!]
De Sartines found himself painfully embarrassed at the peculiar position
into which he was forced by the King, and showed no little diffidence and
hesitation in his action. ‘I find him a very timid man,’ was de Broglio’s
remark to the sovereign, ‘and yet I do not see what he has to fear,
having received his master’s orders.’ Louis XV. was little apprehensive
that the police officer would fail in his duty towards himself, for he
had already received from him a bundle of recovered papers. Fortunately
for the royal schemes in hand, de Praslin was at Versailles with the
Court, and although he had announced his intention of being present at
the examination of the prisoners, the day was not fixed. Advantage was
taken of this respite by the sneaking monarch to corrupt yet another of
his officials, so urgent was he in seeking to lift, at least his own
self, out of the mire. His Majesty authorised M. Jumilhac, Governor of
the Bastille, to admit Tercier to a conference with Drouet and Hugonnet,
thereby requiring him to violate his trust! Every precaution was to be
taken that Tercier might enter and leave the prison unnoticed, for fear
that some busybody should carry the tale to the ministers. De Broglio was
to appoint to each actor in the farce about to be played his part for
misleading de Praslin. Drouet was to declare that he had been acting
on his own responsibility and to oblige a friend; Hugonnet would insist
that he was employed by Drouet, and by him alone, without reference to
any other person; the titles had reference to certain friends of D’Eon;
and, finally, de Sartines was to countenance these fanciful declarations
and not conduct too searching an interrogatory. ‘I have been at work for
fifteen hours consecutively, wrote de Broglio to the King, ‘preparing
material for the investigation, the replies to be given by the Sieur
Drouet, the depositions to be made by Hugonnet, all of which will be in
keeping with what has already transpired, and I have prepared a sort of
interrogatory for M. de Sartines.’
‘They are playing the fool with me!’ said de Praslin to de Sartines,
peevishly, as he went away at the close of the investigation, and on
making his report the following day, Sunday, at a Cabinet Council, he
insisted that Drouet had not been telling the whole truth.
‘There is some truth in this!’ observed the King, in
communicating de Praslin’s impressions to Tercier. ‘Drouet is
to undergo another examination, and will be discharged from
prison towards the end of this week. Hugonnet will be detained
a little longer, but I hope we see the end. Everything went off
well at the council, and there was no distrust. I did not think
it desirable to order Drouet’s liberation, so as not to excite
any suspicion.’[212]
Drouet did get away, having threatened to disclose everything if detained
in durance, and so he had nothing for which to thank the King whom, as
was the case with others, he was serving but too faithfully. Hugonnet’s
detention was a cruelly long one.
‘Could there be a greater act of despotism than that of
detaining at the Bastille, for over a twelvemonth, the valet of
the Chevalier D’Eon?... Guerchy had written to ask his friend
Praslin to arrest Hugonnet; he distrained the effects the
man had left behind, and refused to give them back until one
hundred guineas had been paid to L’Escallier, his secretary;
and further gave orders, that neither Hugonnet nor his wife
should be allowed to attend the services at the chapel in the
Embassy.’[213]
I have said that D’Eon was about to institute proceedings against the
French ambassador on a criminal charge. Those proceedings had commenced
and followed their course. De Guerchy was indicted on February 12, and on
March 1, following, a true bill was found against him by the grand jury
of Middlesex, at Hick’s Hall, for a conspiracy against the life of the
Chevalier D’Eon—a verdict that greatly perplexed the ministry; for, by
the law of England, a person accused upon oath of any criminal offence
must take his trial for the same when the bill of indictment is found
against him by a grand jury; but by the law of nations, ambassadors are
exempted from the ordinary forms of law in the countries where they are
resident. The most eminent lawyers had been consulted, but the decision
was left to the wisdom of the two courts.[214]
The Duke de Broglie asserts that ‘this audacious verdict was received
in London with a sort of stupor;’ but if the English papers of the day
are consulted, this will scarcely be found to have been the case, for
de Guerchy was by no means a favourite with the general public. At
Versailles, on the contrary, the sensation caused was immense. The Count
de Broglio and M. de Beauvau talked themselves hoarse one evening in
trying to make Hume[215] feel that, independently of the quality of the
accusers, and the little similarity in the depositions they had made,
it was inconceivable that an ambassador could be subjected to any other
jurisdiction than that of his own master. Hume kept repeating in reply
that the laws of England in this respect were immutable, and that the
authority of the King would not suffice to effect any alteration.[216]
[Sidenote: TRUE BILL AGAINST THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.]
The Chevalier sought to improve the occasion by sending what may be
regarded as a note of intimidation:—
‘Considering the actual state of affairs, it is absolutely
necessary that the arrangement[217] proposed by you should be
at once concluded, and that you should be here without loss of
time, say by the 20th of this month. This is the last letter
I shall have the honour of writing to you on the subject of
the poisoner, the villain Guerchy, who would have been broken
alive on the wheel in France, did he meet with his deserts.
But, thanks be to God, he will only be hanged in England, as
was the case with Count de Sea in Cromwell’s time.... All the
intriguing powers of France will not prevail in favour of
Guerchy against the power of the laws of England, when their
execution is confided to independent arbiters. I give you my
word of honour, that very shortly Guerchy will be arrested as
he leaves court, and taken to the prison for criminals in the
city of London. His friend Praslin will come to deliver him, if
he can; it is more likely that the friend to deliver him will
be the executioner.’[218]
D’Eon was satisfied that his bitter enemy was in his power, and had made
up his mind that nothing should induce him to alter his determination
to run him to earth. ‘He should either triumph through the evidence in
favour of his innocence and the strength of the laws, or know how to bear
himself nobly on the scaffold.’
‘When my good Louis XV. asked me not to hunt his ambassador to
death, and that, for the honour of France, he should not be
hanged in London, I replied to my august master: “I am ready
to obey you in all things but this, for I am bound, before God
and man, to have him hanged for the salvation of France, and
it would be the duty of a most Christian King to assist me to
hook on, and not unhook off, the forked gibbet, a notorious
poisoner. If, Sire, you had had the courage to hang those
who poisoned the Dauphin and Dauphiness,[219] I should not
have been poisoned in London, nor would many others have been
poisoned at Versailles, Paris, and elsewhere.”’[220]
Writing to his son, in allusion to the subject that was engrossing the
mind of the public throughout the kingdom, the Earl of Chesterfield[221]
says:—
‘You inquire about M. de Guerchy’s affair, and I will give
you as succinct an account as I can of so extraordinary and
perplexed a transaction; but without giving you my opinion of
it by the common post. You know what passed at first between
M. de Guerchy and M. D’Eon, in which both our ministers and
M. de Guerchy, from utter inexperience in business, puzzled
themselves into disagreeable difficulties. About three or four
months ago, M. de Vergy published in a _brochure_ a parcel
of letters from himself to the Duke de Choiseul, in which
he positively asserts that M. de Guerchy prevailed with him
(Vergy) to come over into England to assassinate D’Eon. The
words are, as well as I remember: ‘Que ce n’était pas pour se
servir de sa Plume, mais de son Epée, qu’on le demandait en
Angleterre.’[222]
Lord Chesterfield was wrong. De Vergy went to London to be secretary to
de Guerchy, and was desired, solicited, commanded to assassinate D’Eon,
not hired to do so, as the price for the appointment he coveted.
[Sidenote: FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF ENGLISH LAWS.]
The indictment against de Guerchy was afterwards, in Easter term, at the
instance of the Attorney-General, removed from the Old Bailey by writ of
_certiorari_ into the Court of King’s Bench. The ambassador applied to
the King for a _nolle prosequi_, and an order of reference was made to
the Attorney-General, Sir Fletcher Norton, and the Solicitor-General,
William de Grey, Esq., who issued summons on April 26, to the prosecutor
and his witnesses, to attend at Lincoln’s Inn at eight o’clock in the
evening of the following Tuesday, the 30th, to show cause why the _nolle
prosequi_ should not be granted; and upon hearing counsel on both
sides and witnesses, the proofs appeared so clear against de Guerchy,
that the Attorney-General refused to certify to the King in favour of
the ambassador or of a _nolle prosequi_, so that the indictment for
the intended murder of the Chevalier D’Eon, minister plenipotentiary,
undefended, undischarged, and open to further proceedings, remained on
record among the archives as a lasting monument of the villainous designs
of the French ambassador. A correspondent in a newspaper of the day
observed that the verdict ‘was a remarkable instance of the spirit of a
grand jury of the city of London, as well as of fair administration of
our laws.’[223]
‘Such a fact suffices of itself to characterise the justice and
virtue of the young monarch and of his magistrates. No less
honour is due to him than was due of old to Philip of Macedon,
who, being besought by a courtier that his case should not
be tried, very pertinently replied, that it was better the
courtier should lose his suit than the King his reputation....
Tiberius declared before the Senate one day, during the first
ten years that he reigned with justice, and not with tyranny:
_Nec utendum imperio, ubi legibus agi posset_—and that the
pardon of great criminals was more insupportable than their
crimes. Salvien declares that the punishment of persons of
distinction should be the more severe, inasmuch that besides
being criminals, they dishonour their blood. The code of
Westphalia expressly decrees that persons enjoying dignities,
or who have been raised to the magistracy, should be executed
on a gibbet seven feet higher than others.’[224]
[Sidenote: THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR MOBBED.]
The London papers testify to the public discontent at this miscarriage of
justice, and when it became generally known that Chazal, the ambassador’s
butler, suspected by D’Eon of having administered opium to him by
direction of de Guerchy, at the Embassy dinner, had fled, leaving behind
him his youthful wife to whom he had just been married, the people no
longer hesitated to resort to violence. De Guerchy was mobbed whilst
out driving, and owed his safety simply to the declaration that he was
not indeed the French ambassador but only his secretary; the crowd
nevertheless followed the coach, and would have entered the court-yard
of the Embassy had not the iron gates been immediately closed. Failing
to reach his Excellency, the people somewhat relieved their feelings by
breaking every window they were able to reach with missiles from the
street.
To the storm succeeded a calm. De Guerchy, too glad to get out of the
way, proceeded on leave of absence, leaving in triumph the Chevalier, who
spent the summer at Byfleet[225] in Surrey, where he was a welcome guest
the chief part of the two succeeding years. When de Guerchy returned to
England in the autumn, he found his way to London without receiving any
of the honours that were strictly paid to the French King’s ambassadors.
Not a gun was fired, not a soldier was in attendance upon him, either at
Dover or at Canterbury.[226]
Meeting D’Eon one day, Lord Lincoln said to him: ‘How is it that
the Count de Guerchy has again returned to weary us with his sad
countenance?’ ‘Ma foi! my Lord, indeed I cannot say. He must be like a
top; the more it is whipped the better it goes!’[227]
At this juncture, de Broglio bethought him of making fresh proposals to
the Chevalier. He invited him to forget the past, to desist in the future
from all allusion to de Guerchy, whether for good or for evil—to forget
the action for libel—the trial for attempt to murder, &c. &c.; and upon
these conditions he should obtain the King’s sanction to entrust him
anew with the secret correspondence, whereby he would be required to
report on the state of public opinion in England, and what the members of
the opposition were about. This species of capitulation coming from no
less a person than the Count de Broglio, served to swell still more the
Chevalier’s sense of his own importance, and he replied:—
‘Your friendship for me is as great as my assurance in
maintaining a secret correspondence in the position in which I
happen to be. You risk nothing in enlisting my zeal, whereas I
risk a great deal in following the natural inclinations of my
inviolable fidelity to the sacred person of his Majesty. But it
is as sad, as it is inconceivable, that you should forbid me,
in the name of the King, to complain of having been poisoned.’
D’Eon concluded by insisting that de Guerchy should be permanently
recalled, and that in his stead should be appointed an ambassador to
whose hands he might confidingly entrust what he still held in his
charge.[228]
[Sidenote: TARDY JUSTICE.]
But even before de Broglio’s, had come a letter from Louis XV. D’Eon,
ever generous towards the shortcomings of the monarch he adored, thus
accounts for the King’s having refrained from any kind of interference or
expression of opinion during the period of his own grave strife with the
ambassador:—
‘I knew the man, and was not deceived in attributing this
affected reserve to approbation that was not to be denied to
me, but which was not either to be accorded to me. Louis XV.
liked that his thoughts should be guessed. His silence was
speech, it was necessary to know how to take it, and I was
not long in finding out that I had conjectured rightly. On
June 25, 1765, that is to say, some weeks after I had covered
his ambassador in London with shame and infamy, his Majesty
abruptly broke the silence he had been pleased to maintain for
a time, and wrote to tell me that “he approved of my resuming
and continuing with him my secret correspondence.” On November
9 he sent word that he was “well pleased with me,” and on
December 4 that I was “an instrument useful to my country.”
These expressions of manifest satisfaction drew on one side, at
last, the curtain that had so long concealed the royal thought.
His Majesty crowned them with the greatest and most genuine
testimony of his approbation, by sending to me soon afterwards
the subjoined certificate, written entirely and signed with
his own hand, and which will be for me and my family the most
eloquent and precious memorial of my innocence and loyalty.’
* * * * *
‘As a reward for the services rendered to me by M. D’Eon in
Russia, in my army, and in the execution of other trusts, I
am pleased to bestow upon him a yearly allowance of twelve
thousand livres, which I shall cause to be paid to him
punctually at the expiration of every six months, wherever he
may be, except in a country with which I am at war; and this
until such time as I may think proper to nominate him to some
post, the emoluments of which will greatly exceed the present
allowance.
‘LOUIS.’
‘Versailles, April 1, 1766.’
‘I, the undersigned, Minister Plenipotentiary of the King at
this Court, hereby certify upon my honour and upon oath, that
the above promise is really written and signed with the own
hand of the King my master, whose orders I have received to
deliver it to M. D’Eon.
‘DURAND.’
‘London, July 11, 1766.’
* * * * *
‘With reference to this royal avowal,’ continues D’Eon, ‘the
Count de Broglio wrote to me: “Your stay in England rendered
necessary an extension of the King’s generosity. But you will
perceive that the proof he has himself been pleased to give
you, and which remains in your keeping, will for ever be to
you a glorious title-deed.... When your mind is at rest, and
the noise you have made and are still making in the world will
have subsided, we will see to arranging some plan whereby your
services may prove still more useful to your country and to the
best of masters. Conduct yourself prudently and wisely; win
over the prejudiced; do not be minister or captain of dragoons
any longer; give up the romantic; assume the attitude and
speech of a quiet and sensible man—thus, and in course of time,
your talents will be remembered, your old friends will return
to you, your enemies will forget you, and your master will find
a subject worthy of serving him, and worthy of the benefits he
has already conferred upon him. Like yourself, and even more
than yourself, I have experienced reverses; I have felt that it
was quite possible for a private individual to be sacrificed
in the general vortex; I have never supposed that this would
entail the principal misfortune, that of incurring the just
displeasure of his Majesty. I have ever had confidence in his
justice and goodness, and I am fortunate enough to experience
the effects of this at present.... With an honest heart and a
spirit a little daring, but not fierce or violent, one may hope
to overcome the hatred and envy of the whole universe.”’[229]
D’Eon thanked the count for his friendly advice and good wishes, and took
occasion to remind him of the undertaking that the stipulated pension
should be paid with regularity; then, making up a sealed packet of the
papers in his possession, he entrusted them to the custody of his friend,
Mr. Cotes,[230] who unceasingly urged him to become a British subject,
and give up France, a country in which nobody was certain of sleeping in
his own bed.
Testimonials such as that received from the King, and his continued
employment in matters necessitating the greatest tact and circumspection,
should suffice to acquit the Chevalier of having been a half-witted
adventurer, as we find asserted by some writers. However impetuous, and
of almost ungovernable passions, D’Eon was not a fool, nor, in the course
of his history does it appear that any of his contemporaries seriously
thought him one, if we except the exasperated de Guerchy, who thus sought
to brand him, after having failed in his ‘blind authority,’ to ‘beat with
a staff the child that might have led him.’
Whilst D’Eon was receiving from the King of France the highest marks of
his royal confidence and favour, ministers at Versailles were officially,
but clandestinely, seeking to secure his person; and so late as November
1765, de Praslin, in conversation with the Duke of Richmond, the British
ambassador, remonstrated upon England not surrendering the Chevalier to
whom the Christian King had a hundred times a greater right, than had
England to John Rice, ‘a thief of the Publics,’[231] who was given up
by France. Ever watchful, D’Eon was perfectly conscious of all that was
passing.
‘These poor ministers have read somewhere, and have heard
it said, that Cardinal Richelieu had caused several members
of his ministry to be assassinated and poisoned, and yet,
notwithstanding, posterity considered him a great man. They
have imagined they might do likewise, and also be taken for
great men, but one cannot deceive one’s self, there being
nothing in common between them but the dagger and poison?’[232]
[Sidenote: A GRUMBLING FRENCH MINISTER.]
De Guerchy having quitted England ‘on leave,’ Durand succeeded him as
minister plenipotentiary, by royal warrant dated June 8. One of the
King’s old correspondents on secret service, Durand was well known to
D’Eon, with whom he had had frequent intercourse in former days. Recalled
from Poland by the Duke de Choiseul, who suspected him of being upon
intimate terms with the Count de Broglio, we now see him minister in
England, specially charged, though secretly, by the King, as had been de
la Rosière, Nardin, and Nort, to watch over and protect D’Eon. De Guerchy
was virtually superseded.
Durand was not long in coming to terms with D’Eon, upon whom he prevailed
to give up that most compromising of all papers, so far as the King
was personally concerned—His Majesty’s secret instructions of June 3,
1763,[233] and for which the Chevalier received, in exchange, the royal
warrant granting him an annual pension. Durand’s written report was as
follows:—
‘In compliance with the orders of the King, which I hold,
M. D’Eon, late minister plenipotentiary from France at this
court, has this day delivered into my own hands the private
and secret order of the King, written and signed with his own
hand, and dated June 3, 1763, addressed to the Sieur D’Eon. I
further certify that the said order has been given to me in
good condition, folded in a parchment cover addressed to his
Majesty, and that it was shown to me enclosed and cemented
within a brick adapted for the purpose, removed from the walls
of the cellar and afterwards replaced.’