The sheriff having summoned a meeting of the county in order to consider
of a Petition for redress of grievances, I think it incumbent on me as a
lover of my country in general to lay before you a transaction, which,
I apprehend, gives juster grounds of complaint and apprehension than
any thing hitherto made public. Having long had reason to imagine that
the nation has been cruelly and fatally injured in a way which they
little suspect, I have ardently wished for the day, when my imperfect
information should be superseded by evidence and certainty. That day, I
flatter myself, is at last approaching, and that the spirit which now
appears among the Freeholders will bear down every obstacle that may be
thrown in the way of open and impartial enquiry.
I need not remind you, Gentlemen, of the universal indignation and
abhorrence, with which the conditions of the late peace were received by
the independant part of the nation. Yet such is the candid, unsuspecting
nature of Englishmen, that even those who condemned the measure did not
attribute it to any worse motive than an unmanly impatience under the
burdens of the war, and a blind, headlong desire to be relieved from
them. They did not conceive that persons of high rank and unbounded
wealth could be seduced by gold to betray the interests of their country,
and surrender advantages, which the lives of so many heroes had been
willingly sacrificed to purchase. Such a supposition, unhappily for us,
is at present far from incredible. The important secret was disclosed to
me in the year 1764, during my residence at Paris. I will not trouble
you with a detail of the intermediate steps I took in the affair,
which, however, in proper time I shall most fully and readily discover.
It is sufficient to say, on the 10th of May 1765, by the direction of
Dr. Blackstone I waited on Lord Halifax, then Secretary of State, and
delivered to him an exact narrative of the intelligence I had received
at Paris, with copies of four letters to and from Lord Hertford. The
behaviour of Lord Halifax was polite but evasive. When I pressed him in
a second interview to enquire into the truth of the charge, he objected
to all public steps that might give an alarm, and asked me whether I
could point out to him any way of prosecuting the enquiry in secret, and
whether in so doing there was any probability of his obtaining positive
proof of the fact. I was not so much the dupe of his artifice as to
believe that he had any serious intention of following the clue I had
given him, though his discourse plainly pointed that way. It appeared by
the sequel that I had judged right. For having four days after given a
direct and satisfactory answer to both his questions, he then put an end
to my solicitations by a peremptory refusal to take any steps whatever in
the affair.
It is here necessary to explain what I mean by enquiring into the truth
of the charge. In the summer of the year 1764, an overture had been
made to Sir George Yonge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and several other Members
of Parliament, in the name of the Chevalier D’Eon, importing that he,
the Chevalier, was ready to impeach three persons, two of whom are
Peers and Members of the Privy Council, of selling the peace to the
French. Of this proposal I was informed at different times by the two
gentlemen above-mentioned. Sir George Yonge in particular told me that
he understood the charge could be supported by written as well as living
evidence. The step that I urged Lord Halifax to take, was to send for
the Chevalier D’Eon, to examine him upon the subject of this overture,
to peruse his papers, and then to proceed according to the proofs. In
such a case a more decisive evidence than the Chevalier D’Eon could not
be wished for. He had the negociation on the part of the enemy, and was
known to have in his possession the dispatches and papers of the Duke de
Nivernois. This gentleman, so qualified and so disposed to give light
into the affair, did Lord Halifax refuse to examine; whether from an
apprehension that the charge would not be made out, or on the contrary
that it could. I leave you, gentlemen, and every impartial reader to
judge.
It must not be understood, that I can myself support a charge of
corruption against the noble Lords named in my information. My complaint
is of a different nature and against a different person. I consider the
refusal of Lord Halifax as a willful obstruction of national justice,
for which I wish to see him undergo a suitable punishment. Permit me to
observe, gentlemen, that such an obstruction not only gives a temporary
impunity to offenders, but tends also to make that impunity perpetual, by
destroying or weakening the proofs of their guilt. Evidence of all kinds
is a very perishable thing. Living witnesses are exposed to the chance
of mortality, and written evidence to the not uncommon casualty of fire.
In the present case something more than these ordinary accidents might
with good reason be apprehended. It stands upon record that the Count de
Guerchy had conspired to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon, neither has
this charge hitherto been refuted or answered. This not succeeding, a
band of ruffians was hired to kidnap that gentleman, and carry off his
papers. Though this second attempt failed, it does not follow that these
important papers are still secure. I was informed by Mr. Fitzherbert,
so long ago as the 17th of May, 1765, that he had then intelligence
of overtures making to the Chevalier D’Eon, the object of which was
to get the papers out of his hands in return for a stipulated sum of
money. This account I communicated the following day to Lord Halifax,
who still persisted in exposing those precious documents to so many
complicated hazards. I say precious documents, because if they should be
unfortunately lost, the affair must be for ever involved in uncertainty,
an uncertainty, gentlemen, which may be productive of infinite mischiefs
to the nation, and cannot tend to the advantage or satisfaction of any
but the guilty.
Lord Halifax, in excuse for his refusal, will probably alledge, as he did
to me, his persuasion that the charge was wholly groundless. I need not
observe, how misplaced and frivolous such an allegation is when applied
to justify a magistrate for not examining evidence. But I will suppose
for argument’s sake the persons accused to be perfectly innocent. Is it
not the interest and the wish of every innocent man to have his conduct
scrutinized while facts are recent, and truth, of consequence, easy to
be distinguished from falshood? Is there any tenderness in suffering
a stain to remain upon their characters till it becomes difficult, or
even impossible to be wiped out? Will therefore these noble persons,
if their actions have been upright, will they, I say, thank Lord
Halifax for depriving them of an early opportunity of establishing
their innocence? Will they not regret and execrate his caution, if the
subsequent suppression or destruction of the evidence should concur
with other circumstances to fix on them the suspicion of guilt? How
will Lord Halifax excuse himself to his Sovereign, for suffering so
attrocious a calumny to spread and take root, to the evident hazard of
his royal reputation? And what amends will he make to the nation for the
heart burnings and jealousies which are the natural fruits of such a
procedure? Yet these, gentlemen, are the least of the mischiefs that may
be apprehended from his behaviour upon the footing of his own plea.
I will venture however to assert, that, as far as hitherto appears,
the weight of evidence and probability is on the contrary side. Now,
supposing the charge to be true, there can be no need of long arguments
to convince you of the injury done to the nation, by suffering such
capital offenders to escape. For what is this but to defraud us of
the only compensation we can expect for the loss of so many important
territories, a loss rendered still more grievous by the indignity of
paying a pension, as we notoriously do, to the foreign ministers who
negociated the ruinous bargain? Yet even these considerations are
infinitely out-weighed by the danger to which the whole nation must be
exposed from the continued operation of so much authority, influence,
and favour to their prejudice, and, above all, from the possibility that
the supreme government of the kingdom may, by the regency-act, devolve
to a person directly and positively accused of high treason. Even the
encouragement that such an impunity must give to future treasons, is
enough to fill a thinking mind with the most painful apprehensions. We
live in an age, not greatly addicted to scruples, when the open avowal of
domestic venality seems to lead men, by an easy gradation, to connexions
equally mercenary with foreigners and enemies. How then can we expect
ill-disposed persons to resist a temptation of this sort, when they find
that treason may be detected, and proofs of it offered to a magistrate,
without producing either punishment or enquiry? The consequence of
this may be, our living to see a French party, as well as a court
party, in parliament; which, should it ever happen, no imagination can
sufficiently paint the calamitous and horrid state to which our late
glorious triumphs might finally be reduced. When I talk of a French party
in parliament, I do not speak a mere visionary language unsupported
by experience. The history of all ages informs us, that France, where
other weapons have failed, has constantly had recourse to the less
alarming weapons of intrigue and corruption. And how effectual these
have sometimes been, we have a recent and tragical example in the total
enslaving of Corsica.
I have been thus particular in enumerating the evils that may result
from the refusal of Lord Halifax, not from a desire of aggravating that
nobleman’s offence, but merely to evince the necessity of a speedy
enquiry, while there is yet a chance of its not being wholly fruitless.
Though the course of my narrative has unavoidably led me to accuse his
Lordship, accusation is not my object, but enquiry, which cannot be
disagreeable to any but those to whom truth itself is disagreeable.
In pursuing this point, I have hitherto been frustrated from the very
circumstance which ought to have insured my success, the immense
importance of the question. It has been apprehended, how justly I
know not, that any magistrate, who should commence an enquiry, or any
gentleman who should openly move for it, would be deemed responsible for
the truth of the charge, and subjected to severe penalties, if he could
not make it good. This imagination, however, did not deter me, though
single and unprotected, from carrying my papers to the Speaker, to be
laid before the late House of Commons. The Speaker was pleased to justify
my conduct, by allowing, that the affair ought to be enquired into, but
refused at the same time to be instrumental in promoting the enquiry
himself. What then remained to be done? What, but to wait, though with
reluctance and impatience, till a proper opportunity should offer for
appealing to the public at large, that is, till the accumulated errors of
government should awaken a spirit of enquiry too powerful to be resisted
or eluded? That this spirit is now reviving, we have a sufficient earnest
in the unanimous zeal you have shewn for the appointment of a county
meeting. In such a conjuncture, to withold from you so important a truth,
would no longer be prudence, it would be to disgrace my former conduct,
it would shew that I had been actuated by some temporary motives, and not
by a steady and uniform regard to national good. Indeed, the declared
purpose of your meeting is in itself a call upon every freeholder to
disclose whatever you are concerned to know. I obey this call without
hesitation, submitting the prosecution of the affair to your judgment, in
full confidence that the result of your deliberations will do honour at
the same time to your prudence, candour, and patriotism.
_Plymouth, Aug. 12, 1769._
_Reponse du Chevalier D’Eon a la lettre que M. le DOCTEUR MUSGRAVE a
fait imprimer dans le Public Advertiser du 2 Sept. 1769, No. 10869, &
qui a ensuite ete copiee dans tous les autres papers, sous la datte de
Plymouth, le 12 Aout, &c._