The warm applause you give to the peace of Paris, and the negociators
of it, both English and French, did not in the least surprise me. You
were well paid for it at the time, and the private advantages derived
to you from it did not cease with its _ratification_. The peace itself
was in its own nature so infamous, and so peculiarly _felonious_ to this
country, which it robbed of almost all its noble conquests, that no
Englishman was judged proper to be sent with the authentic ratification
of such a French bargain. It was given to you _contre toute regle &
contre toute usage_, as the Duke de Praslin says in your _Memoires_;
and the Duke of Nivernois observes in a letter to the Duke of Bedford,
that it was _une galanterie de votre ministere, & une bonte du Roi votre
maitre, qui se sert avec plaisir D’UN FRANCOIS pour cette tournure_.
Besides, at the very time of the negociation you held the Ambassador’s
pen; and altho’ you were never entrusted with the most important secrets
between the two courts, you were employed in the revisal of that fatal
instrument which tore from our bleeding warriors the fruits of all their
victories, the greatest acquisitions your rival nation had ever made.
You are allowed to have much chicanery; and the tricking article about
the Canada Bills was the effect of your duping the Duke of Bedford,
and the good-humoured Mr. Neville. You may therefore with reason speak
of the peace of Paris in terms of rapture, as a Frenchman, and as the
Duke of Nivernois’s secretary. I will ever mention it with indignation;
for I am an Englishman, and have not that load of guilt to expiate to
my country, the advising, making, or _approving_ so ruinous a measure.
You are, however, Sir, by no means singular in your opinion of the
late _peace_ even in this nation. We too have many traitors among us.
A set of gentlemen at Westminster gave an _entire approbation_ of the
_preliminary articles_, even with the very extraordinary original clause
about the East-India Company among them. Their bankers best know how
that _approbation_ was obtained; but their successors, altho’ careless
about the national debt, have had the prudence as well as foresight for
themselves, to pay off all debts contracted on that account.
You speak with some degree of modesty concerning yourself when you
mention the peace of Paris, as if conscious that you had only been
employed to toll the bell for the funeral of England’s departed glory
and fame. When you mention Count _Viry_, you are quite lavish in his
praises, knowing how much he had been a principal in that accursed
treaty. I respect the dead; but only the departed virtuous and good. I
distinguish characters, notwithstanding the trite maxim of _de mortuis
nil nisi bonum_. I will never confound a Cato and a Cataline, but will
give to each their due. I execrate the memory of Count Viry, as the
enemy of my country, as having been a principal in robbing England of
the _Havannah_, PORTO RICO, _Martinique_, _Guadelupe_, _Desiderade_,
_Mariegalante_, _St. Peter_, _Miquelon_, _Goree_, _Belleisle_, _St.
Lucia_, _&c._ and negociating a treaty which has proved the salvation
of France. I believe you have, besides the general cause of the peace,
which saved France, two particular reasons for the regard you testify
to the memory of Count Viry. The first is the very dexterous management
he used to get the claim of a sugar island from France waved, in which
you knew she was ready to have acquiesced. The other is, the protest he
signed in favour of the House of Savoy, which he procured to be legally
attested and given in at the time of the last coronation, in the name
of his master, the present King of Sardinia. He too in your time had
printed the _Genealogie de la Famille Royale d’Angleterre_, by which he
hoped at a future day that the ridiculous claims of his master’s family,
as being, although Papists, immediately descended from Henrietta Maria,
the daughter of Charles I. would have prevailed over those of the House
of Brunswick, who are descended from Elizabeth, Electress Palatine, one
degree more remote from the Crown, as being the daughter of James I. You
both expected at least a general confusion speedily among us; but neither
you, nor he, born under arbitrary governments, could have any idea of the
only lawful right to the crown of these realms, a parliamentary right.
The contrary doctrine was in Queen Anne’s time expresly declared to be
_high treason_, by a particular statute, the “Act for the better securing
her Majesty’s person and government, and the succession to the crown of
England in the protestant line;” _That if any person or persons, from
and after the 25th day of March 1706, shall maliciously, advisedly and
directly, by writing or printing, declare, maintain, or affirm that the
Kings or Queens of England, with and by the authority of the parliament
of England, are not able to make laws and statutes of sufficient force
and validity to limit and bind the crown of this realm, and the DESCENT,
LIMITATION, INHERITANCE, and government thereof, every such person or
persons shall be guilty of High Treason, and being thereof convicted and
attainted, &c. &c._ Count Viri acted by the express orders of his Court,
in conjunction with your’s. In the same manner the two Courts acted
in concert at the beginning of this century, in the last year of our
glorious Deliverer, King William III. Count Maffei, the Ambassador from
Savoy, delivered in the first famous protestation, in the name of the
Duchess of Savoy, against the Hanover succession, at the time the Duke
himself commanded the French army in Italy, with Marshal Catinat and the
Prince of Vaudemont under him, and every action of his life was dictated
by France. I believe you therefore _unusually_ sincere, when you express,
“la plus vive estime & la plus sincere admiration pour feu Monsieur le
Comte de Viry, qui par son attachement pour le bien des deux nations
belligerantes & graces a son zele infatiguable, eut la gloire d’amener
cette paix necessaire aux deux nations a une heureuse conclusion.” What
this _happy conclusion_ for England was, we have already seen. From that
fatal moment France, like a tall bully, began again to lift the head, and
insult all its neighbours.
You tell Dr. Musgrave, “le public aura lu avidement votre lettre, aura
adjute foi a son contenu parceque vous en appellez a mon evidence.” You
are mistaken. Your evidence of itself will have little weight with any
one, but you may have papers of importance, which the public expected
from _your own absolute promise_. The last page of your tiresome quarto
promised a second volume on the first of June 1764, and a third the first
of September. You ought to have given them at the stipulated time, and
to have made them as valuable as you could from the materials of others,
were it only to indemnify us for having waded through the family dullness
and impertinence of the letters to your mother, nurse, &c. &c. What did
the Scot give you for the suppression? Was it as much as you had for the
dedication, in which you tell him that you find “dans les portraits du
Duc de Sully & de Milord Bute une ressemblance assez parfaite, de grandes
vertus, l’amour de la patrie (_Scotland I suppose_) de la philosophie; la
profondeur d’un politique, l’eloquence d’un homme d’etat, cette activite
d’esprit qui donne les succes & les revers, ce coup d’œil qui demele les
objets meme au milieu du trouble, qui fait le grand negociateur, &c. &c.”
Upon my word you merited the whole sum he gave you, let it have been
ever so considerable. But did you believe one single feature of _Bute_
was like _Sully_? I am satisfied no more than your master the Duke of
Nivernois, Ambassador and Academician, one of your _quarante immortels_,
believed that the Kings of England and France were _faits pour s’aimer,
formed to love each other_, although he declared so at St. James’s with
the utmost gravity, and afterwards printed it, like a compliment of the
French Academy, only in both French and English for the amusement of
the two nations. The flattery of the French ambassador and secretary
succeeded. The English monarch and his Scottish minister were equally
captivated; and the most gallant army in Europe were left to regret that
they had not once the honour even of a visit from our sovereign during
the whole war, or before they were disbanded. The early and dangerous
intrigues, the specious flattery of a home favourite, and an insinuating
foreign minister, but above all the holding out in such terms, _le
charactere distinctif d’une bonne foi non equivoque_, at which the King
of Prussia has so much laughed, lulled asleep all heroism, suspicion, and
even curiosity.
You are very just, Sir, in the observation, that the public read with
great eagerness Dr. Musgrave’s letter. The reason is plain. The fact,
that French gold made the last peace, was long ago believed; but the
public rejoiced when a man of Dr. Musgrave’s unblemished reputation
stated the presumptive evidence in general terms to his countrymen of
Devonshire, because then it seemed impossible any longer to stifle the
enquiry. You say, “Je vous interpelle donc, M. le Docteur, de declarer
au public le nom du temeraire qui s’est servi du mien pour faire ces
ouvertures odieuses.” The Doctor does not say that he ever heard the
name of the person, who, _in your name_, applied to Sir George Yonge,
Mr. Fitzherbert, and several other members of parliament. He only
declares that Sir George Yonge and Mr. Fitzherbert informed him _at
different times_ that _an overture had been made 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_. Why do you not make your appeal to
these two gentlemen? If neither of the placemen should chuse to answer,
if they are either fearful or false, if the _boards of admiralty and
trade_ have exacted at least a promise of secrecy, I will name a third
person to you, a character unexceptionable, of a candour, probity, and
honour equal to Dr. Musgrave’s, superior I believe never existed. I mean
Thomas Cholmondeley, Esq; the late member for Cheshire, a relation of
Lord Chatham. My reason for naming this gentleman you will see in the
following passage. “It is true (_Pitt_) assisted in the first debate
upon General Warrants in 1764; but finding that some of the party were
in earnest in their designs of going farther, and had prepared a motion
against the seizure of papers, which was, in fact, the great grievance;
and also finding that the _favourite_ dreaded the minority gaining a
victory, lest the party should be afterwards turned against him; and
that the _favourite_ had therefore supported the administration with all
his might upon this occasion, the great patriot scandalously withdrew
from the cause and the party; thereby _preventing_ any point being
then gained towards that security of public liberty, which the whole
kingdom so ardently wished for and expected. A short time afterwards,
when an IMPEACHMENT OF THE FAVOURITE was privately rumoured among a few
only; and it was said, that there was strong evidence ready to be given,
_particularly with regard to the peace_; when a certain baronet, and
others, who took some pains in order to come at this evidence, and the
conditions upon which it might have been obtained were trifling, not
pecuniary (_the pardon of the Chevalier D’Eon is here meant_) and who
thought it necessary that the great Commoner should be consulted upon a
subject of such importance, especially too as he was looked upon to be
the fittest person to lead, or principally support such a procedure; and
when, in consequence of that idea, he was applied to by one of his own
friends, and, in some measure, a distant relation, he checked the whole
in the bud, by declaring vehemently against it.” _An enquiry into the
conduct of the late Right Honourable Commoner_, page 26, _&c._ published
in 1766. The strange phrase _Pitt_ used was, _that he would set his
foot on the head of the man who first moved the enquiry, and crush him
to atoms_. I am very glad to hear that the _three brothers_ are at last
united, and that there is now not only a family, but a political union
among them. I venture however to prophesy, that two of the three will
never promote an enquiry into the transactions of the last _peace_, or
the conduct of the _favourite_, and I therefore hope all the friends of
the public will be on their guard against them both. They cannot safely
be trusted with the conduct of this important business. The _apostate_
had in 1764 his peerage and place of Privy Seal in view, for which he
then sold his friends and his country. He now looks forwards to a more
lucrative office, a larger pension to recruit his shattered finances,
and perhaps to a higher title, which he may probably get, if he can keep
the favourite’s head on his shoulders. I wish however the _triumvirate_
of brothers success, because I think a _triumvirate_, which should be
only insolent and overbearing, is infinitely to be preferred to a sole
minister who is cruel; and _delights in blood_.
I should before this, Monsieur le Chevalier, have apologized to you
for the frankness of my proceeding with respect to you, and the plain
language of my heart, but really my nature is open and undisguised. I
detest flattery and foolish compliments. I call things generally by their
names, _j’appelle un chat un chat, et rolet un fripon_. Besides your
example ought to weigh in an address to you. The embassador extraordinary
and plenipotentiary of your court, a Cordon Bleu, who represented the
person of the Most Christian King, you repeatedly in the grossest manner
call _ane extraordinaire_, and you add, _la truye n’ennoblit pas le
cochon_. Monsieur Bussy, the late French minister here, is with you a
_bourreau_. Your language even to your own mother is particularly rude.
You advise a tender affectionate parent, in tears for the misconduct
of a son she loved, to _wipe her eyes, plant her cabbages, weed her
garden, eat her greens, and drink the milk of her cows and the wine of
her vineyard_, without giving herself any trouble about you. The letter
to your nurse, Madame Benoit a Tonnerre, is rather more obliging. You
talk of all her _soins et peines passees_, and then very elegantly add,
that _you are well at present, but should be better if you could see
her soon_. To her you act the _signor magnifico_; you actually send her
one hundred livres, or near four pounds and eight shillings sterling.
How interesting is all this to the public? how glorious to you? But to
return to your poor mother, whom I heartily pity. You tell her in return
for her concern, that you have read _toutes les lettres lamentables et
pitoyables que vous avez pris la peine de m’ecrire: pourquoi pleurez
vous, femme de peu de foi?_ You make use here, Sir, of our Blessed
Saviour’s words in a very strange and indecent manner. You speak of him
in your last publication, _in a most daring and really impudent stile_.
In the _Pieces Authentiques_, page 13, your words are, _on n’accusa point
Jesus Christ au Banc d’Herode d’avoir debite des libelles; cependant ce
que notre seigneur a avance n’a jamais ete si bien prouve que ce que le
Chevalier D’Eon a demontre par ses LETTRES ET MEMOIRES. Jesus Christ was
not accused at Herod’s Bench of having published libels; although what
our Saviour advanced was never so well proved as what the Chevalier D’Eon
has demonstrated in his LETTERS AND MEMOIRS._ After all these instances I
shall conclude without the least compliment to you, with only saying, that