Louis XV., who had once more sacrificed his minister to his favourite,
no longer even bethought himself of making up, as formerly, for
his disgraceful surrenders by clandestine intrigues. The secret
correspondence, at which he had laboured every day for fifteen years, did
not interest him any more. The letters published by Boutaric testify to
the fact, barely including a few notes from the King for the years 1773
and 1774.
Such indifference on the part of the King continually exposed the
secret correspondence, formerly guarded so jealously, to the danger of
discovery. Moreover, the ministers had not been long in suspecting its
existence. The Duc d’Aiguillon, who had guessed the part played by the
Comte de Broglie, was now watching for an opportunity for detecting
the intrigue, and also for revenging himself on a hidden rival whose
arrogance had exasperated him. The still somewhat mysterious excursion
of two agents of the secret service, Favier and Dumouriez, who appear
to have attempted at that time to enter into a negotiation with Prussia
to the prejudice of Austria, supplied the long-sought means of putting
the Comte de Broglie in a false position. The duke caused a report to be
spread at Versailles that a conspiracy had lately been discovered, and
gave orders for the imprisonment in the Bastille of Favier and Dumouriez,
who had just been arrested—the former in Paris, and the latter at The
Hague, on his way to Germany. Failing to discover anything sufficiently
compromising on the persons of these two subordinate agents, he made
bold to suggest to the King that the Comte de Broglie’s papers should be
seized.
Louis XV. replied, with feigned indifference, that he saw no reason for
doing so; that the count, it was true, submitted to him, from time to
time, reports relating to foreign affairs; but that these were historical
matters, without any political tendency. D’Aiguillon was obliged to
content himself with this explanation, and knew how to make the best
of his ill success. Favier and Dumouriez appeared alone before three
commissioners, one of whom the King had taken the precaution of seeing
should be M. de Sartine, duly apprised as on a former occasion; they
were sentenced to a few months’ imprisonment, Favier being sent to the
fortress of Doullens, and Dumouriez to the castle of Caen.
As for the Comte de Broglie, whom the King had screened, guided by
selfish motives rather than by a sense of justice, he only escaped
imprisonment to be exiled. His arrogant character made it impossible
for him to endure the mistrust in which he was held at court since the
discovery of the intrigue. Conjecturing that the Duc d’Aiguillon was
responsible for his disgrace, he wrote to him so imprudent a letter
that, on its being communicated to the King, he was forthwith exiled to
Ruffec. Louis XV. was not sorry to find a pretext for ridding himself of
a devoted, but at times indiscreet, servant, whose zeal had become more
and more importunate. Consequently, he paid no heed to the submissive
and apologetic letters which the count sent to him from Ruffec, to the
entreaties of the countess, or even to the appeals of the marshal.
Nevertheless, he did not wish, or did not dare, entirely to withdraw
his confidence from the secret minister, who, exiled and disgraced
officially, continued to correspond clandestinely with the King’s private
agents from his remote provincial residence.
The Comte de Broglie’s occupation was not destined to last long. It was
now devoid of interest and utility, and was a mystery to nobody. The
agents of Austria had made the cabinet of Vienna acquainted with the
secret correspondence, and it kept the other courts of Germany punctually
informed. In France even the ministers were now aware of the intrigue,
and the court had had some inkling of it through the disclosures of the
Cardinal de Rohan, to whom a spy in the _cabinet noir_ had confided it.
When Louis XV. died his secret was common property, and the policy on
which he had vainly expended so much ingenuity, and sacrificed so much
devotion, ended in a scandal which the death of the King himself was
alone powerful enough to suppress. France did not lose a sovereign in
this worn-out old man, become the plaything of a worthless woman, and
even the agents of the secret service had no cause to regret a protector
who had never made demands on their devotion without sacrificing them
afterwards to his peace of mind. Consequently, they were not far from
joining in the general rejoicings. By way of funeral oration, d’Eon wrote
to the Comte de Broglie, only a few months after the King’s death:
It is time, after the cruel loss we have experienced of our
_Counsellor-in-Chief_ at Versailles, who, in the midst of
his own court, had less power than a king’s advocate at the
Châtelet, who, through incredible weakness ever suffered his
faithless servants to triumph over his faithful secret ones,
and favoured his avowed enemies rather than his real friends;
it is time, I say, that you should inform the new King (who
loves truth, and of whom it is said that he is as firm as his
illustrious grandfather was weak) of your having been the
secret minister of Louis XV. for upwards of twenty years, and
of my having been under-minister, under his orders and yours.
D’Eon, whose estimation of his services, and the functions which had been
entrusted to him, was far from modest, then recapitulated his claims and
grievances, compared himself with La Chalotais and expressed his hopes of
a similar reinstatement, concluding as follows:—
As for you, Monsieur le Comte, you will know better than I
how to represent by what jealousy, treachery, baseness, and
foul vengeance the Duc d’Aiguillon keeps you still an exile
at Ruffec, without your having ceased to be the friend and
secret minister of the late King, until his death. Posterity
could never believe in these facts, had not you and I all the
necessary documents to establish them, together with others
still more incredible. Had the late good King not expelled the
Jesuits from his kingdom, and had he had a Malagrida for his
confessor, nobody would then have wondered; but, by the grace
of God, I hope the new King will soon deliver you and me out
of our embarrassments. I trust that no Jesuit will ever be his
confessor, friend, or minister, whether he be disguised as
priest, chancellor, duke, peer, courtier, or courtesan.
Louis XV.’s secret minister had not waited for that letter before
attempting to regain favour with the new monarch. He was obliged to
present his defence in writing, being still in exile at Ruffec, and
feeling the burden of the suspicions aroused by Louis XV.’s obstinacy in
keeping so compromising a collaborator at a distance. He had to contend
with all those who had formerly envied him; and Marie Antoinette’s
influence on her husband, and her intention of participating in the
administration of public affairs, did not improve the case of the man who
had secretly attacked the Austrian alliance.
He therefore sent, on May 13, 1774, a memorandum to Louis XVI., in which
he informed him of the various negotiations of the secret correspondence,
and also of the places where the late King might have concealed his
papers and letters, but which showed above all his anxiety to clear
himself and to explain the part he had played personally. A fortnight
later he wrote again to the King; but this time it was chiefly d’Eon’s
conduct which he strove to explain and justify. In defending d’Eon,
the Comte de Broglie was serving his own ends, and the very terms of
his letter prove that he was aware of that fatal joint responsibility.
“I conceive it to be possible,” he wrote, “that your Majesty has heard
him unfavourably spoken of, and that you will therefore be astonished
to find him included among the number of those persons honoured with
the confidence of the late King.” He admitted that d’Eon’s excessive
hastiness had given rise to “unseemly incidents,” but did not conceal
the fact that the Chevalier was first provoked by the Comte de Guerchy’s
want of tact. He concluded: “This curious person (since the Sieur d’Eon
is a woman) is, even more than most others, a mixture of good and bad
qualities, and he carries both to extremes.” The Comte de Broglie
therefore urged upon the King that it would be wise to continue to
pay to Mademoiselle d’Eon the pension conferred upon the Chevalier by
Louis XV. For himself he asked more, and intimated that he would not
deliver the secret papers until he should have been able to justify
himself completely before a special commission. Louis XVI., who had
bethought himself for a moment of continuing the secret policy of his
predecessor, soon abandoned this project under the influence of Marie
Antoinette herself, urged by her mother. His immediate care then was to
pay off the staff of the secret service. In order to put an end to the
Comte de Broglie’s claims, he gave him an opportunity of justifying his
conduct before three commissioners—De Muy, Vergennes and Sartine—who did
justice unreservedly to the discretion, penetration and ability which
Louis XV.’s secret minister had shown during the course of extremely
delicate negotiations. Such striking testimony might satisfy the count’s
conscience, but it did not restore him to royal favour. Louis XVI.
obstinately refused to confer a peerage, or even the least reward, upon
his grandfather’s faithful and unfortunate servant. He confined himself
to settling the pensions of the subordinate agents, henceforward deprived
of all employment by the abolition of the secret service.
[Illustration: THE CHEVALIER D’EON
_From an Engraving published in 1810_]
Among these d’Eon alone was not included. The ministers thought that
the figure of the pension which Louis XV. had conferred upon him was
excessive, and hesitated to ensure payment in the same proportions.
The motive for such liberality still existed, however, since numerous
political papers were still in d’Eon’s possession. The Comte de Vergennes
had been able to satisfy himself of this fact, and he wrote to the King
on August 22:
M. de Muy and I have already seen the entire correspondence
which the Comte de Broglie has entertained with the Chevalier
d’Eon since he made return to his own country impossible.
We are preparing a report which we shall have the honour of
communicating to your Majesty, as well as the means we propose
to employ for recalling a man whom it would be unwise to allow
to remain in England.
The means in question were really suggested by the Comte de Broglie, who
interceded on d’Eon’s behalf and undertook to induce him to come to an
agreement. It was he who persuaded the King to continue the payment in
full of the pension conferred upon the Chevalier by Louis XV. in the year
1766, and to authorise him to return to France.
In return, d’Eon was to surrender the secret papers and give his word
of honour that he would desist from provoking or attacking in writing a
family which he had already so unjustly persecuted. Such were the offers
transmitted to d’Eon by the Comte de Vergennes in a letter approved
by the King. It was decided that the Marquis de Prunevaux, captain in
the regiment of Burgundian Cavalry, should proceed to London for the
express purpose of conducting that negotiation. He was to deliver to the
Chevalier a safe conduct, together with a note in which the Comte de
Broglie exhorted him to submit readily and gratefully to the King’s will.
“For my own part,” wrote the former secret minister in conclusion, “I am
delighted to have been able to contribute to your securing a liberal and
honourable retiring pension in your own country.”
What the Comte de Broglie regarded as an honourable pension was in
d’Eon’s estimation a wretched gratuity, which in no wise indemnified
him for the pecuniary losses he had sustained, and the disgrace he
had incurred in consequence of his obedience to royal commands. Since
the death of Louis XV. he had never ceased to profess himself “ready
to submit to anything that might be agreeable to the new King,” but
such feigned humility was merely the result of fear. He was afraid of
being forgotten in London, and strove by the bait of the secret papers
to involve Louis XVI. in a negotiation which he hoped to turn to good
account.
Upon the arrival of the negotiator, he promptly forgot the
disinterestedness he had displayed, and set about discussing eagerly the
terms of the bargain. He did not doubt that this was a final opportunity
offered him for deliverance once for all out of the unhappy plight to
which his foolish pride had reduced him. An unexpected event revived his
hope of reinstatement. Treyssac de Vergy, who had been implicated in his
quarrels with the Comte de Guerchy, had just died, and, in a will which
d’Eon immediately caused to be published in the papers, certified anew
the truth of all the ambassador’s plots and nefarious designs, of which
he confessed he had been the unwitting agent. The adventurer’s confession
_in extremis_ was credited in London; Sir John Fielding declared d’Eon’s
innocence to be “clear as daylight,” and Mr. Charles, tutor to the royal
children, sent to the Chevalier the congratulations of Lord Bute, the
minister. “The Chevalier’s old friend [Lord Bute],” he wrote, “to whom
Charles has shown the enclosed document [a copy of the will], rejoices at
the favourable turn affairs appear to be taking.”
So well, indeed, did D’Eon think things were getting on, that he
protested strongly when the Marquis de Prunevaux made him acquainted
with the Comte de Vergennes’ decision and offers. He declared heatedly
that the terms were unacceptable, as they did not take into account “the
amends due to his honour and the money owed by the court” to the former
minister plenipotentiary. He proved so untractable that de Prunevaux
forthwith informed the minister of the Chevalier’s frame of mind, which
had completely upset their calculations. De Vergennes, perceiving that
d’Eon’s moments of repentance were brief, charged the Comte de Broglie to
make a last effort to persuade his former agent, who thereupon received
a letter of judicious recommendations and salutary warnings. “Upon my
return from Ruffec,” wrote the count, “I was greatly surprised to hear
that you had not accepted the Comte de Vergennes’ offers.... I confess I
do not see what grounds you have for such a refusal. I trust, therefore,
you will listen to reason, consider your duty and your own interests,
and redeem your faults, which prolonged resistance would aggravate
irretrievably.”
But d’Eon would not listen to advice, urging that a minister
plenipotentiary of France and a knight of the Order of Saint Louis
could not “run away like so many despicable Frenchmen who had duped the
generous English.” “He had promised,” he added, “never to quit the
island before he had met his engagements.” The Marquis de Prunevaux
concluded that his mission was at an end, and returned to Paris, bringing
back nothing but a letter, at once humble and threatening, in which
d’Eon permitted himself to state his own terms for returning to the
King and the minister. He asked that he should be reinstated, if only
temporarily, in the diplomatic rank and title he had held, and that the
indemnities included in the enclosed detailed statement should be paid
to him in full. It was, as M. de Loménie has justly remarked, the most
impertinent _compte d’apothicaire_ (exorbitant bill) conceivable. Not
only did d’Eon claim his captain’s pay for a period of fifteen years,
as well as the reimbursement of his extravagant expenses during his
ostentatious administration _ad interim_, but even the reimbursement of
the “great expenses occasioned by his twelve years’ residence in London,”
which amounted to the modest sum of 100,000 livres. His claims became
completely farcical when the sum of 6000 livres was demanded for having
refused Prince Poniatowsky’s present of a diamond of that value.
Item (the Chevalier continued)—the Comte de Guerchy
dissuaded the King of England from making the
present of a thousand guineas to M. d’Eon which
he confers upon ministers plenipotentiary who
reside at his court 24,000 livres
Item for several family papers lost by Hugonnet
at the time of his arrest 27,000 livres
Item, to having been unable to look after his
vineyards in Burgundy from 1763 to 1773 15,000 livres
When a few other no less imaginary monetary payments are added to the
above, the sum total amounted to between 200,000 and 250,000 livres.