D’Eon continues in the royal confidence—Secret correspondence
again in peril—D’Eon’s mother persecuted—De Guerchy’s
death—D’Eon’s last letter to him—De Vergy’s dying
deposition—His will—D’Eon as secret correspondent—His public
protest—The Musgrave scandal.
Once again was D’Eon admitted into the royal confidence—he had never
lost the royal favour—without any knowledge thereof on the part of the
King’s ministers, and this by means of the very representative they had
themselves nominated to the Court of Great Britain! A few weeks elapsed,
and there occurred an incident which seemed pregnant of import to the
Duke de Praslin, who put his whole heart into any action that had for
its object the pursuit of those rash enough to resist his authority. The
event proved to be of passing moment only, but merits notice as receiving
importance from the Chevalier’s subsequent history.
It was brought to the knowledge of the duke by a French woman named
Dufour who kept furnished apartments in London, that the Chevalier D’Eon
had been concealed for some days in her house, disguised as a female;
that he had been in the habit of corresponding with the Count and the
Marshal de Broglio, and receiving money from them. Upon being informed by
Tercier, in behalf of the King, of these fresh indications of a possible
exposure of their secret transactions, the Count de Broglio flew into a
violent passion, and was well-nigh making a clean breast of the matter
and admitting his share in them, regardless of all consequences. He
wrote to Tercier on October 22:—
‘It must be confessed that in executing the orders which it
is the King’s pleasure to convey to us, we encounter the most
unforeseen and embarrassing difficulties, but the secret we are
keeping is his Majesty’s, and nothing is easier than to make it
known, should he desire to do so. One word from him will put an
end to the inquisitiveness of his ministers, inquisitiveness
of which he not only knows the particulars, but also the
motives. Well! supposing M. de Choiseul were to know to-morrow
that we are in correspondence with D’Eon! Supposing he were to
know that I have elaborated, by order of the King, a plan for
the invasion of England, what else could happen but that his
Majesty would forbid all reference to the subject? They would
no doubt be jealous and uneasy at the confidence with which he
would appear to honour us, but I see no harm in this.’
De Sartines had been directed by de Praslin to inquire into the
statements made by Dufour, saying, ‘Nothing essential is to be omitted
this time!’ The officer of police insisted that the woman was of very
doubtful reputation; no evidence, therefore, she was able to adduce could
be accepted, and before involving persons of so high consideration, as
were the de Broglios, in an affair of this kind, it would be necessary
to obtain a written order from the King that he himself, at least, might
be protected against all responsibility. Such pleas were worthy of a
poor perplexed detective, for since the Hugonnet business, de Sartines
felt himself bound, whatever his proper sense of duty, to consult, in
the first place, the sovereign’s private interests and obey his secret
commands, and he discerned, plainly enough, that the present was an
instance which called for the exercise of his utmost discretion and
prudence. Too well persuaded, on his part, of the futility of applying to
the King for the order suggested by the officer of police, de Praslin
had to content himself with a simple re-examination of Dufour, from
whom nothing more was to be learnt, and the summoning of Hugonnet, who
declared his incompetence to supply any kind of information, as the woman
was entirely unknown to him, nor had he ever heard of her. At the close
of the inquiry, de Praslin said: ‘I am not being duped, because, as a
fact, this affair causes me very little anxiety. It is not D’Eon who will
ruin the State.’[234]
[Sidenote: DEATH OF THE COUNT DE GUERCHY.]
Although de Guerchy and D’Eon had become separated never again to meet
on this earth; although their unprofitable bickerings had come to an
end and the time for recriminations was over, to cast each other into
oblivion was too impossible a task for either. Upon his return to France,
de Guerchy entered on a course of persecution, selecting for his victim
D’Eon’s aged mother, who was suddenly deprived of the enjoyment of
certain free tenures, while the taxes on her little estate at Tonnerre
where she was living in quiet retirement, were inordinately increased.
The poor lady was in fact hunted to misery and despair.
‘De Guerchy died at Paris in September 1767 in great anguish of
body and mind. May our merciful God spare his soul in heaven,
as I spared his body on earth!’[235]
D’Eon had sent the count a final challenge in the form of a letter, dated
August 5, 1767, which reached him a few weeks only before his death, when
his youthful son swore that he would some day avenge his father. This
letter, in which all the events of the past were recapitulated, covered
copies of the indictment, of the writ of _certiorari_, and of other
documents connected with his trial in London, and called upon de Guerchy
to justify himself.
‘Three weeks or one month from the date hereof should suffice
to enable you to determine upon the line of conduct it is your
intention to pursue. There are but two courses—justice, or an
appeal to arms. Failing a reply at the expiration of the time
stated, I will be persuaded of the hardness of your heart, and
conclude that the world is to judge between us.’
No answer came, and D’Eon sent his letter to Amsterdam to be printed in
the form of a pamphlet by his friend Wan, the publisher. Whilst it was in
the press, Wan heard of de Guerchy’s death, and wrote (September 23) to
ask the Chevalier whether the publication was still to be proceeded with.
The reply was in the affirmative, because he owed a full and complete
justification to the King his master, to his country, to himself, to his
family, to his protectors, and to the position he had held in England.
‘The ashes of a dead man should not be disturbed, and I am
aware that to recall him to memory for the sake of retracing
his ignominy is the measure of barbarism; but if the evil he
wrought has influenced to such an extent the misfortunes of one
who has survived him, as to make it appear that his parched
bones perpetuate them even out of the depths of the tomb,
personal interest, which is the first law of nature, requires,
however reluctantly, that the corpse should be summoned to
appear before the tribunal of mankind, not for the purpose
of being defamed, but that the survivor may justify himself
against the reproach cast upon him. Did not the Egyptians, so
reverential towards their dead, summon, judge, and condemn the
manes even of their monarchs? Let the inevitable therefore be
answerable for whatever is done against M. de Guerchy, though
he be dead. Even in his grave he is guilty of the ills that are
being endured. Had he made any reparation his death would have
been respectfully considered, although his acts would have been
abhorred.’[236]
_Hatred usually ends with the death of the one hated_, says Boccaccio;
it was not so, however, with D’Eon, who to the close of his days never
forgot, though he had long forgiven, the enemy that had been the cause of
all his troubles.
[Sidenote: AN UNWAVERING WITNESS.]
Treyssac de Vergy died at Blackheath in October 1774.[237] Two
magistrates, at the request of Sir John Fielding, attended to receive his
dying statements, when, after confirming the depositions he had made upon
oath, he said that being benevolently forgiven by the Chevalier D’Eon,
who was present, for all the injury he had done to him, he met death with
great pleasure. In his will, dated July 21 of the same year, and proved
at Doctors’ Commons on October 10, we find him strictly adhering to the
substance of the evidence he had given ten years previously.
‘... I declare that all which I have wrote and had printed
at London in 1763 against the Chevalier D’Eon, then Minister
Plenipotentiary of France to this court, I said it, wrote it,
and had it printed only in consequence of the orders and
money that were given to me by the Count de Guerchy, and in
consequence of the plot formed at Paris in July 1763 between
the Count de Guerchy and the Count d’Argental, and into which
plot the said Count d’Argental drew me at Paris, and the
above-said Count de Guerchy on his arrival at London. I declare
and protest that I persist, and always will persist, in the
truth of two depositions upon oath which I made and swore to,
November 12, 1764, before Mr. Justice Wilmot, judge of the
Court of King’s Bench of England, and November 27, 1764, before
Mr. Justice Yates, also judge of the Court of King’s Bench
of England, in which I have given a true and circumstantial
account of the said plot. In consequence of which I earnestly
beg the Chevalier D’Eon to forget, and to pardon me all the
wrong which I have done to him, to his fortune, to himself,
and to all his family, by being concerned in designs which
were so hurtful to him—designs whose blackness I was ignorant
of till the moment when the Count de Guerchy thought that the
destruction of the Chevalier D’Eon ought not to be retarded any
longer. The knowledge of this struck me with horror, restored
me to myself, and made me undertake my defence and that of the
Chevalier D’Eon....’
The Chevalier was firmly established as secret correspondent in London,
performing his duty loyally and competently, even though frequently
suffering from absolute want in consequence of his pension never being
paid with regularity, and always in arrears; and had it not been for the
hospitality of some of his English friends, foremost amongst whom was
the Marquis of Tavistock,[238] he would have had to endure many a sad
privation. The Duke de Broglie admits that D’Eon accomplished his task
as correspondent and newsmonger with considerable ability, and that he
was the precursor, if not actually the first of political reporters,
and the most trustworthy and wittiest, if not the most useful, of
correspondents. The contents of his letters, of which we give an example,
verified as they may be by the history of the times, testify clearly
enough to his qualities as a shrewd and correct observer, to the facility
with which he obtained information and the unlimited sphere of his
operations, and are probably unique, regard being had to the times in
which he lived, in their resemblance to the efficient productions of our
own modern newspaper reporters.
[Sidenote: WHAT WAS PASSING IN LONDON.]
_The Chevalier D’Eon to the Count de Broglio._
‘London, March 15, 1766.
‘Sir,—You are perhaps astonished at my not having acknowledged
the receipt of your letter of the 4th inst. Let me give you my
reasons; I hope you will find them legitimate, and that you
will consider my silence to be the effect of my prudence.
‘The notorious question of _General Warrants_ for the arrest
of persons and seizure of their papers, has at last been
determined, and it is decided that in scarcely any instance
may a person and his papers be seized, except for high treason
against the king and country. But it has also been decided
that unauthorised persons, convicted of corresponding in
cypher with foreign countries, are liable to arrest and to
have their papers seized, and to be judged according to the
nature of their correspondence. This decision, which I cannot
but admit as being very just and very reasonable, has checked
my zeal, and has even caused me some alarm, and especially
since the rupture between Messieurs Pitt and Temple. The one
may, ere long, be called to the ministry, suspect me, and
cause me to be arrested for the sake of vexing the other;
add to this, that as Messieurs Pitt and Temple do not at any
time spare the ministers in office, I am equally liable to
being suspected and inconvenienced by the latter. You must be
aware of the evil results were I arrested with all the old
secret correspondence!... Under these circumstances I deemed
it wiser to keep still and thus remove the slightest cause
for suspicion.... What will most astonish is this, that the
ministers actually in office, in their anxiety for popularity,
have acted against the opinion, the wishes, and the orders of
the King, in causing the repeal, by the House of Commons, of
the Acts of Parliament whereby fresh taxes have been imposed
in America, the people having rebelled to a degree without
parallel in history; and they have had the assurance to make
use of their resources and favour at Court for the purpose of
securing votes! In this remarkable business they have made so
sorrowful a personage as his Britannic Majesty play a part
similar to that assigned in Virgil’s Æneid to King Latinus.
Truly, they treat the King as if he were a silly child,
incapable of discerning what is of advantage to the State, and
they do not in the least conceal their views in the matter....
The King is incensed against his mother (the Princess of
Wales), and his favourite (Lord Bute); but they do not know
how to form a new ministry that will be well considered and
durable. The King will have nothing to do with Mr. Pitt just
now, and is even very angry with him in consequence of what he
has dared to say and substantiate in the House of Commons—that
the Americans were not rebels, seeing that the King, or the
late ministry and parliament, had broken faith with them; that
it was common justice to repeal the Acts of Parliament, which
he could not consider otherwise than as acts of fraud on the
Americans. At first every member in the House felt indignant
at these sentiments, and it was thought that his popularity
was gone; being henceforth no longer feared, he will no longer
be necessary. He was supported by four or five members only,
and his opponents expressed the opinion, in a full House, that
Mr. Pitt deserved to be sent to the Tower. He retired to the
country for eight days, and then returned to declaim before
the House more emphatically than ever, supporting his opinions
by all manner of arguments founded on natural, civil, and
political laws, even quoting the Holy Scriptures frequently,
that he might the more ably imitate the great seer, Cromwell.
He also pretended to be suffering from gout, that he might
enjoy the privilege of assisting at the deliberations at his
ease, holding forth, at one moment seated, at another standing,
wrapped up in a blanket; he would then fall into a swoon, or
sink into deep meditations. During this time, his friends and
a large number of city merchants having property in America or
interested in its trade, won over a crowd of partisans from
amongst the people, and proceeded to the House to sing aloud
the praises of Mr. Pitt. This political and periodical gout,
and all this _charlatanerie_, which does not fail to excite the
people, had so great an effect on the House of Commons that
nearly all the members have sided with Mr. Pitt, and the repeal
of the Act has already passed the House. Thus has the fault
strenuously charged against the distinguished patriot served to
crown him with glory, at least in the eyes of the people.
‘A few days ago the King and Queen dined with the Princess of
Wales, who is unwell. The after-dinner conversation between
the august personages became so animated, that the servants
in the ante-room overheard the discussions which were being
conducted with warmth far from royal. Although the King enjoys
an income of 120,000_l._ sterling, I know from Temple, who has
learnt it from his brother, lately paymaster at the Treasury,
who has verified the fact, that his personal debts, contracted
since he ascended the throne, amount to upwards of half a
million sterling, and this in consequence of having followed
the advice of Lord Bute, and distributed sums of money for the
sake of securing votes in Parliament and establishing royal
authority, all of which has turned out very amiss. These debts,
the wish to bribe, as well as the economical education given
him by the Princess of Wales, oblige him to live in London and
at Richmond with a niggardliness unworthy of royalty. He never
has any kind of supplies, but sends for six bottles of wine at
a time, and for one bottle of rum with which to brew punch, so
that he is the laughing-stock of all the city dealers, who are
great feeders, heavy drinkers, and whose jokes are as light
as their roast-beef. Numerous pamphlets and prints have been
published on the subject, and the matter has been turned into
jest on the stage. In his almost daily drives between London
and Richmond, the King takes for his body-guard a detachment
of five-and-twenty light horse of the _élite_ or of the
_bourgeois_; it is only a few days since a whole detachment of
these supposed guards was placed under arrest for playing at
highway robbery, pistol in hand.
‘Just fancy into what hands the King and the royal family
have fallen! It is whispered by profound politicians or great
enemies to Lord Bute, that the latter, who is allied to the
house of Stuart, is, from the bottom of his heart, deeply
attached to the Pretender; that he very ably serves this old
master whilst shaping the conduct of the King of England as he
does, which may in the end result in the Crown being lost to
the House of Hanover. God alone is able to search the heart of
this Scotchman. I consider Lord Bute to be as clever as he is
shrewd; I certainly consider him even more shrewd than he is
clever; but, notwithstanding his skill at intrigue, which I
admit, I do not think he has a very bad heart—were it so, we
should be forced to acknowledge that there never existed a more
cunning rascal. It must, however, be admitted that we find,
especially in the history of Scotland, traits of character
still more odious. Ambition or religion is capable of the
greatest crimes, even more than of the greatest virtues. You
may make what reflections you please on the above, but I think
it my duty to communicate to you the opening before me, upon a
subject of such importance.
‘I am, &c.’
‘P.S.—A few evenings ago the Duke of York, not very particular
in his love affairs, was surprised with a lady by her husband,
a captain, who wounded him slightly on the shoulder with a
stroke of his sword, so that he has had to keep his room for
some days; but this affair was hushed up immediately. His
brother, the Duke of Gloucester, has fallen violently in love
with the young dowager Lady Waldegrave, and as it is feared he
might contract a secret marriage, it is arranged that he is
to travel abroad with the Duke of Brunswick, who will return
to England to conduct his consort to Germany. So far as this
duke is concerned, he does not live on good terms with the
Princess Augusta, his wife, who, however, is jealous of her
husband. Persons in the palace have assured my friend that the
prince’s love for his wife has cooled because he has discovered
that she has an issue on the leg, and that their two children
are already attacked with the King’s evil, that is to say,
scrofula, of which the King’s younger brother has lately died.’
De Broglio lost no time in replying. He desired D’Eon to seek to
discover, by diligent research, in which he was to observe the
greatest circumspection, what prospect there would be of success
were the restoration of the Stuarts to be attempted; and he further
wished to know whether it would be dangerous to sound Lord Bute as to
his secret intentions, or whether it would be better to watch and wait.
The Chevalier recommended the latter course, saying that according
to his judgment men and things were not sufficiently matured.[239]
[Sidenote: THE CHEVALIER SLANDERED.]
The number of D’Eon’s friends in every class of London society, clearly
exceeded that of his enemies who were seeking to discredit him in public
opinion, by resorting to the daily papers as a vehicle for their malice.
We may mention as an example, that in October of this year there appeared
in the ‘St. James’ Chronicle’[240] the announcement of a work preparing
for the press, and in due time to be published and _dedicated to
Parliament_, which would contain amongst other matter: ‘An Account of the
Chevalier D’Eon’s overtures to impeach three persons, by name, of SELLING
THE PEACE TO FRANCE—an Account of the Bill of Indictment found against a
great foreigner for a conspiracy to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon—an
Account of the _nolle prosequi_ granted to stop proceedings against the
said foreigner—an Account of the attempt made to seize the person and
papers of the Chevalier D’Eon, on November 20, 1764, by a warrant from
the then ministry—an Account of the pension granted to Count Viri for
_his services_ in making the Peace—Extract of a letter from the Duke of
N——s to the Duke de Praslin, dated London, February 20, 1763.’
D’Eon’s indignant notification and protest at the liberty taken with his
name, and disowning all participation in the forthcoming pamphlet, was
prompt and conclusive, and inserted in the same paper in French with an
English translation.
_To the Author of the ‘St. James’ Chronicle.’_
‘Sir,—I have seen with much surprise, in your paper of the 7th
inst., an advertisement of a work said to be preparing for the
press, dedicated to your Parliament, containing, amongst other
extraordinary pieces, _An account of the Chevalier D’Eon’s
overtures to impeach three persons, by name, of selling the
Peace to the French_, and other papers of that nature. If I had
been the author, I should not have had the impertinence to have
dedicated them to your Parliament, nor to have inserted names
so respectable as those in your said advertisement. I declare
to you, sir, as well as to your public, upon my honour, that I
have no concern, directly or indirectly, in the impression of
any such work, nor in any other which may be published in my
name, or in any way insinuating that I have had, or will have
any concern therein. And to authenticate as much as possible,
this my declaration, I beg you will immediately print the above
in your paper.[241]
‘I am, Sir,
‘Your humble servant,
‘The CHEVALIER D’EON.’
‘York, October 18, 1766.’
[Sidenote: DR. MUSGRAVE’S ADDRESS.]
The author of the notice publicly disavowed by D’Eon was believed by
some to be a Dr. Musgrave,[242] who, availing himself three years later
of a general election, issued an _Address to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and
Freeholders of the County of Devon_, under date, Plymouth, August 12,
1769, which he caused to be extensively circulated about the kingdom.
In this document, intended in reality for the people of England,
Dr. Musgrave represented that whilst residing in Paris, in 1764, he
discovered that the Peace signed the previous year had been sold to the
French by some persons of high rank. He had at different times been
informed by Sir George Younge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and other members of
Parliament, that overtures were made to them during the summer of 1764,
in the name of the Chevalier D’Eon, imputing that he, the Chevalier, was
ready to impeach three persons, two of whom were peers and members of the
Privy Council, for selling the Peace to the French, Sir George Younge
having in particular told him that he understood the charge could be
supported by written as well as by living evidence. By direction of Dr.
Blackstone[243] he waited, May 10, 1765, on Lord Halifax, Secretary of
State, and delivered to him an exact narrative of the intelligence he had
received at Paris, with copies of four letters to and from Lord Hertford;
seven days after which interview, he was informed by Mr. Fitzherbert that
overtures were then being made to the Chevalier D’Eon to get his papers
from him for a stipulated sum of money. When pressed by Dr. Musgrave, at
a second interview, to inquire into the truth of the charge, Lord Halifax
objected to all public steps that might cause alarm, and asked him to
point out a way of prosecuting the inquiry in secret, and whether, in
so doing, there was any probability of obtaining positive proof of the
alleged facts. The Doctor urged Lord Halifax to send for the Chevalier
D’Eon and examine him upon the subject, to peruse his papers, and then
proceed according to proofs, it being well known that the Chevalier
had the negotiations on the part of the French, also the despatches
of the Duke de Nivernois. This his lordship refused to do; the Doctor
therefore took it upon himself to accuse the Secretary of State of wilful
obstruction of national justice in delaying inquiry, such obstruction not
only giving a temporary impunity to offenders, but tending also to make
the impunity perpetual, seeing that living witnesses were exposed to the
chances of mortality, and written evidence to the not uncommon casualty
of fire. The Doctor went on to say that the papers upon which the whole
of the written evidence depended were anything but secure—they were not
in safety. Did it not stand upon record that the Count de Guerchy had
conspired to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon, a charge that had not been
either refuted or answered; which, not succeeding, a band of ruffians was
hired to kidnap that gentleman and carry off his papers! Lord Halifax’s
refusals did not deter him from carrying his own papers to the Speaker
to be laid before the late House of Commons. The Speaker was pleased to
justify his conduct by allowing that the affair ought to be inquired
into, although refusing to be instrumental in promoting the inquiry.
Dr. Musgrave concluded his address by submitting the prosecution of the
affair to the judgment of those for whom his message was intended, in
full confidence that the result of their deliberations would do honour at
the same time to their prudence, candour, and patriotism.[244]
Dr. Musgrave’s paper was intended to persuade the people of England
that what many already believed was true—that the French Court had paid
immense sums of money to the Princess of Wales, Lord Bute, the Duke of
Richmond, Lords Egremont and Halifax, and Count Viri, towards bringing
about a general peace, a remonstrance which set the whole nation in a
flame. The Court of St. James, the Peace of 1763 and all who had a hand
in it, became the objects of universal hatred, and in 1770 Parliament was
obliged to take serious notice of the movement.[245] D’Eon, regardless
of expense, was not content to oppose Musgrave’s popular scandal and
that of a throng of writers, who, without any proof whatever, attempted
to support such rash and dishonourable reports, but he also, by his
depositions, in a great measure contributed to the discrediting of the
Doctor’s virulence, and the latter was reprimanded by the Speaker of
the House of Commons as the disturber of public tranquillity, D’Eon on
his part gaining the approbation of the two courts and of the people in
general.[246]
[Sidenote: D’EON’S LETTER TO DR. MUSGRAVE.]
_D’Eon’s letter to Dr. Musgrave._
‘Sir,—You will permit me to believe that you never knew any
more of me than I have the honour of knowing of you, and if
in your letter of August 12 you had not made a wrong use of
my name, I should not now find myself obliged to enter into
a correspondence with you. You pretend that in the summer
of 1764, overtures were made in my name to several members
of Parliament, importing that I was ready to impeach three
persons, two of whom were Peers and members of the Privy
Council, of having sold the Peace to the French, and you seem
to found thereupon the evidence of a charge which you say you
carried yourself to Lord Halifax. I declare, therefore, here,
that I never made or caused to be made, any such overture,
either in the winter or the summer of 1764, nor at any other
time. I am on one side too faithful to the office I filled, and
on the other too zealous a friend to truth.... I assure you I
do not know either Sir George Younge or Mr. Fitzherbert, and
never authorised any person whatever to make in my name such
overtures, which the abhorrence alone I have for calumny would
make me detest. I call upon you, therefore, to lay before the
public the name of the audacious person who has made use of
mine to discover his own odious offers. The gentlemen whom you
have given as your witnesses cannot deny you this justification
of their own veracity and yours.... It appears to me an act of
the last imprudence, in an affair of so much weight, to build
upon report for naming publicly a person of my character,
without having previously consulted him. If you had recollected
the contradictions I gave in ‘St. James’ Chronicle’ of October
25, 1760, No. 881, to an advertisement in the same paper,
No. 875, you had saved me the trouble of replying to you at
this time. What must be the result? The public will have read
greedily your letter; will have believed its contents because
you appeal therein to my testimony. But what will they think
now, when your own interest, my honour and truth oblige me to
deny all that you have advanced therein with respect to me.
It is the same with your pretence that about May 17, 1765,
Mr. Fitzherbert told you he knew that overtures had been made
to me, to sell for a sum of money the papers that were in my
hands.... I here certify to you, on my word of honour, and in
the face of the public, that I cannot be of any sort of use
to you, that I never entered into any treaty for the sale of
papers, and never either by myself, or any agent authorised on
my part, offered to make appear that the Peace had been sold
to France. If Lord Halifax or the Speaker had caused me to
be cited, he might have known by my answers what my thoughts
were, that England rather gave money to France than France to
England, to conclude the last Peace, and that the happiness
I had in concurring to the great work of peace, has inspired
me with sentiments of the justest veneration for the English
commissioners who had been employed in it, and with the most
lively esteem and sincerest admiration for the late Count Viri,
who, in his attachment to the welfare of the two nations then
at war, and thanks to his indefatigable zeal, had the glory
of bringing that peace to a happy conclusion.... In order to
enable you to be as prudent as patriotic, I sign this letter
and therein give you my address, that for the maintenance
of your own veracity you may furnish me with the means of
convicting publicly those slanderers who have dared to make use
of my name, in a manner still more repugnant to real facts than
the dignity with which I have ever supported my character.[247]
‘I have, &c.,
‘The CHEVALIER D’EON.’
‘In Petty France, Westminster.’