Part 4
We certify that M. d’Eon de Beaumont, captain of the regiment of dragoons of d’Autichamp, has made the last campaign with us as our aide-de-camp; that during the whole of the said campaign we very frequently employed him in carrying the orders of the general, and that he has, upon several occasions, given proofs of the greatest intelligence and of the greatest valour; notably at Höxter, in executing, in presence of, and under fire of, the enemy the perilous operation of removing the powder and other stores of the King; at the reconnaissance and at the battle of Ultrop, where he was wounded in the head and in the thigh; and near Osterwieck, where, as second captain of a detachment of eighty dragoons under the orders of M. de Saint-Victor, commanding the volunteers of the army, they charged the Frankish Prussian battalion of Rhes with such effect and determination that they took them prisoners of war, notwithstanding the superior number of the enemy.
In testimony whereof, we have delivered to him this certificate, signed with our hand, and have affixed thereunto our seals.
Cassel, December 24, 1761.
THE MARSHAL DUC DE BROGLIE. THE COMTE DE BROGLIE.
The original of this certificate has been lost, but d’Eon published the text himself in London in 1764, at the time of his quarrels with the Comte de Guerchy, when the Marshal and the Comte de Broglie were still alive, so that the accuracy of the testimony cannot well be questioned.
It was at this time that d’Eon met a man in de Broglie’s army who exercised later a decisive influence over his destiny, ruining his regular career, and launching him in a series of adventures, one more bizarre than another, which involved the ruin of his brilliant qualities, and the loss, through an extravagant metamorphosis, of his manly dignity. The Comte de Guerchy, future ambassador of France in England, was then lieutenant-general in Marshal de Broglie’s army. On August 19, 1761, the day that the French army crossed the Weser below Höxter, Captain d’Eon was commissioned by his chief to deliver to him the following order:—
The Marshal requests the Comte de Guerchy to order the brigades of infantry on the right bank of the Weser to take at once 400,000 cartridges which are there, and which a storekeeper of artillery will distribute to them, to the place to which M. d’Eon, the bearer of this note, will conduct them.
Given at Höxter, August 19, 1761.
THE COMTE DE BROGLIE.
_P.S._—It is desirable that a staff officer should at once accompany M. d’Eon to effect this distribution to the troops under your orders.
Is it true, as d’Eon asserted later in the libel which he published in London against the ambassador, that the Comte de Guerchy contented himself with putting the order in his pocket, saying to d’Eon: “If you have a supply of ammunition, you have only to remove it to a park of artillery you will find at half-a-league’s distance,” and that, in spite of discipline, the young aide-de-camp had to gallop after the lieutenant-general to recover the order, and to take it upon himself to carry out the marshal’s instructions? The Comte de Guerchy naturally took care not to admit the truth of the story, which he treated as a wild fabrication, and the tardy and interested testimony of so biassed and insincere a person as d’Eon can only be accepted with extreme caution.
However that may be, it is interesting to record this first meeting on the battlefield of two officers who were destined three years later, as colleagues in the same embassy, to quarrel so violently and to astonish the whole of Europe by the scandal of their dispute.
Yet despite his exemplary conduct in the army and the ability he displayed in discharging the duties of a dragoon on real battlefields after following in embassies what he called “the trade of a scribe and pharisee,” d’Eon quitted the service before the month of September 1762, when the preliminaries of peace were signed. Towards the end of December, 1761, he returned to Paris in compliance with an order from the ministry. There was some question of sending him back to St. Petersburg, where he had so successfully made his first diplomatic campaign, and of appointing him successor to the Baron de Breteuil. Once more he was about to change his career, by gaining another promotion. He left Cassel, where he chanced to be with Marshal de Broglie’s staff, taking away with him the certificate which recorded his brilliant military exploits, and reached France in the beginning of the year 1762. Hardly had he set out when the Czarina died, bearing away to her grave d’Eon’s prospects of an embassy. If, notwithstanding his comparatively inferior rank and origin, he had seemed in the eyes of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the King peculiarly qualified for the accomplishment of a confidential mission to the Empress, who had known him for several years and had frequently given him proofs of her good-will, the accession of a new sovereign at St. Petersburg considerably diminished the importance of these particular reasons, and the impetuous Burgundian was thwarted once again in his aspirations by the obstacle of caste.
In fact, instead of sending d’Eon to Russia, where the ministry decided upon leaving the Baron de Breteuil, they conceived the idea of turning the young diplomatist’s indefatigable zeal and remarkable talents to profitable account in the negotiations for peace. The Duc de Choiseul appointed him secretary to the Duc de Nivernais, selected as the most subtle and expert arbitrator in the whole of France for the difficult task of concluding peace with England.
III
IN LONDON
If the conclusion of peace with England presented difficulties, the choice of the arbitrator was an excellent one. The Duc de Nivernais met with a thoroughly good reception in English society, which was able to appreciate the qualities of a true nobleman, and recognised them in the person of the new French ambassador. The son of the Duc de Nevers and of a princess of the Spinola family, he had married Hélène de Pontchartrain. To the influence which his birth and his alliance gave him he had been able to add the intimate friendship of Madame de Pompadour, gained by organising those dramatic entertainments at Versailles by means of which the favourite succeeded in retaining the King’s interest. In the numerous notes which she sent him the marquise hardly ever omitted to call him “my dear little husband”; nicknames had been brought into fashion by the King himself, and this one serves to show on what an intimate footing the duke was treated at the palace. He had talents, however, more genuine and more rare than the qualities necessary to a good courtier.
As ambassador to the Holy See in 1748, at the time that the _Unigenitus_ bull was promulgated, he succeeded at once in astonishing the Romans by the splendour of his retinue, and in gaining the confidence of Pope Benedict XIV. by the ability of his diplomacy. Sent afterwards to Berlin, he managed to captivate Frederick, but unfortunately too late to detach Prussia from the English alliance, an understanding secretly arrived at. The failure of his mission was due entirely to the tardiness and hesitation of the King’s government. For this reason nobody blamed him for it, and the general opinion was that he was the man most likely to obtain the least stringent terms for a treaty which had become indispensable to France. An accomplished nobleman and able negotiator, a witty talker and charming writer, as well as a good horseman and musician, he was at home in every society. No one then had a better chance of reconciling two nations which pride themselves equally on being judges of good breeding, and the English gave him a warm reception, Horace Walpole going so far as to say that France had sent them the best she had to offer.
Nivernais had been selected as the most able ambassador, and d’Eon was appointed to assist him as the cleverest and best-informed secretary.
Having already taken part, on several occasions, in extremely delicate and important transactions, he was likely to be an invaluable adviser for his chief and to develop in his ingenious mind many an expedient for the negotiation. They embarked at Calais together on September 11, 1762, and reached London as soon as the 14th, thanks to the swift horses of the Duke of Bedford. If the English seemed eager to receive the ambassador of France, they were not in so great a hurry to proceed with the negotiations for peace. The Opposition, which desired to continue the war, were on the watch for an opportunity for breaking them off and for upsetting Lord Bute’s ministry. The news of the taking of Havana, which was received in London on October 1, turned everyone’s head, and the King and the cabinet became more exacting under pressure of public opinion, demanding Florida, which France had still, under difficulties, to obtain from Spain. “That wretched Havana, my little husband,” wrote Madame de Pompadour to the Duc de Nivernais, “I am alarmed about it.” It was important that the preliminaries of peace should be signed before the opening of Parliament, the Opposition being intent upon overthrowing the ministry, and resuming hostilities. Nivernais was afraid, besides, that another British naval victory would make the terms of the treaty still less favourable: “I fear now,” he wrote to Choiseul, “that Lisbon will be taken before that confounded signature.”
Lisbon was not taken, for on November 5 Choiseul was able to inform Nivernais that the preliminaries of peace had just been signed at Fontainebleau, adding, with self-complacency somewhat irritating for the ambassador, whose task in London had proved less profitable, that he had been raised on that occasion to the peerage, with the title of Duc de Praslin. A large share of the success of this first agreement, which, notwithstanding all that it cost France, was regarded at the French court as highly advantageous, was due indeed to the mission of the Duc de Nivernais. Are we to believe that in order to induce the English ministers to conclude peace, in spite of the Opposition, the French ambassador was obliged to bribe them, as was boldly asserted in London some years later, at the time of the action for libel brought against Dr. Musgrave? It would not have been in the least improbable, for it is known that more than once during the long struggle which fills the history of the eighteenth century, England and France endeavoured to bribe one another. At all events d’Eon relates how he succeeded one day, at the Duc de Nivernais’ house, in alluring Mr. Wood, Under Secretary of State, by the offer of some good wine from Tonnerre, and how he took copies, while this latter was drinking copiously, of the papers he had brought in his portfolio. Among these there happened to be the ultimatum about to be transmitted to the Duke of Bedford, the British ambassador at the court of Versailles. Thanks to this impudent trick, Choiseul, already apprised of all the difficulties about to be raised, was enabled to come to terms with the Duke of Bedford, expeditiously and without taking any risks. This amusing story was given considerable publicity throughout France, and the papers of the Opposition soon published it in England, taking advantage of it to heckle the cabinet.
The preliminaries signed, there was nothing more for the two governments to do but to come to an agreement on certain minor points and the actual wording of the treaty. This task, somewhat ungrateful and difficult on account of Choiseul’s anxiety about recovering some of the concessions he had made in his great haste to negotiate before the opening of Parliament, kept Nivernais and d’Eon occupied for three more months; the definite treaty being signed only on February 10. This disastrous peace, which cost France a fine colonial empire full of still finer possibilities, was welcomed there with transports of joy, while in England it raised genuine reprobation. D’Eon was too ambitious not to turn to good account the transactions in which he had taken part. Two personal experiences had taught him that it was always profitable to bear good news to the court, and that the King showed his pleasure on such occasions by granting favours to the messenger. He had won a lieutenancy in the dragoons by bringing to Versailles the Empress Elizabeth’s ratification to the Treaty of Versailles, and three years later a life-pension of two thousand livres by discharging a similar commission. The new treaty which had been so earnestly desired and so well received in France should evidently obtain from him still greater advantages, only he must reach the King himself, not surreptitiously, as the agent of the secret correspondence, but before the whole court, as the accredited secretary of an official embassy. D’Eon, who thought nothing was impossible, urged his chief to request the British Government to grant him the favour of conveying the ratifications to the treaty to Versailles. Such a selection on the part of a foreign government for a mission regarded as highly honorific was unprecedented and contrary to all usage. Nevertheless, the ambassador consented to make the application, however irregular, although the Duc de Praslin considered it to be doomed to failure. The Minister for Foreign Affairs put Nivernais on his guard, assuring him that the court of St. James’ would certainly not entrust such a mission to a French secretary. It would appear also that the minister, out of patience at the aspirations with which premature successes had inspired d’Eon, was anxious to put him in his place. “He is young,” he wrote, “and has still time enough to be of good service and to earn distinction. I take an interest in his welfare and will gladly put him in the way of gaining advance by time and work.”
In spite of de Praslin’s sceptical conjectures, the Duc de Nivernais obtained for “his little d’Eon” the difficult favour he had requested. This success was a clearer indication of Nivernais’ great influence at the court of St. James’ than any testimonial; and the ambassador did not omit to banter the minister on his incredulity:
I am very glad you were stupid enough to believe it impossible that the French secretary—my little d’Eon—should be the bearer of the King of England’s ratifications. The fact is, you did not fully realise the great kindness and esteem which your ambassador enjoys here, and it is just as well that you have done so, for otherwise you would be capable of despising me all your life, while now you will doubtless have some regard for me.
D’Eon reached Paris on February 26, as bearer of the ratifications. Praslin did not fail to remark that he had made “great haste,” but, without grudging him his success, exerted himself in his behalf. On March 1, he informed Nivernais that the Cross of Saint Louis and a gratuity were to be conferred upon his little d’Eon by the King: “I think he will be satisfied,” he added; “as for me, I am delighted, for he is a handsome young fellow and a hard worker, and I am his well-wisher.” D’Eon met with a warm reception at court, and took good care not to forget the commissions with which his chiefs had charged him. He gave Madame de Pompadour news of the wretched health of her “little husband,” and delivered to her some purses from England which she pronounced to be very ugly and “coarse as ropes.” The favourite thought d’Eon was “an excellent person,” and considered it “a great act of politeness on the part of the English to entrust him with the treaty.” Congratulating Nivernais upon having terminated his work, she urged him to return and “repair his health by the good air of France.”
As the Duc de Nivernais had accomplished to his master’s satisfaction the delicate and difficult negotiation for which he had been sent to London, the Duc de Praslin could not think of prolonging an embassy from which his friend had reaped every advantage and honour, and which was hardly better than an honourable exile for that wealthy and literary nobleman. The choice of a successor had, moreover, preoccupied Nivernais himself for several months. He had thought of his friend, the Comte de Guerchy, lieutenant-general of the King’s armies, who had earned distinction in the Seven Years’ War, and enjoyed a great reputation for courage at Versailles. A fearless soldier, Guerchy had never been afforded the opportunity of proving himself a diplomat, and even his friends doubted his qualifications for that career. Such was the opinion of de Praslin, who replied, on January 8, 1763, to the proposals which the Duc de Nivernais had just made:
I am still much concerned about Guerchy. I am not sure, however, that we are doing him a good service by appointing him ambassador in London.... I dread his despatches like fire, and you know how defective despatches injure a man and his work. A minister is often judged less by the manner in which he conducts business than by the account he gives of it.... But he cannot write at all; we must not deceive ourselves on this point.
Nevertheless, Guerchy was named for the post—first, because it was not deemed desirable that Nivernais’ candidate should be rejected—the ambassador being in high favour at Versailles—secondly, because Praslin, in spite of his too just opinion of Guerchy’s merits, was glad to oblige two of his intimate friends at the same time. On February 16, 1763, the Duc de Nivernais was apprised of this selection in London. It was settled that d’Eon should remain at the embassy for the purpose of assisting his new chief, and wielding the pen in his stead. In the interim he was even left in charge, and, upon Nivernais’ earnest recommendation, Praslin agreed to give him the title of Resident Minister. D’Eon was still in France when Nivernais recalled him to London to commit the embassy to his care. He was somewhat long in complying with his chief’s order, and even gave out that he was ill. In reality, the intrigues of the secret diplomacy were detaining him in Paris.
The Comte de Broglie was at that time an exile in his estates in Normandy. He had been involved in the disgrace of his brother, the marshal, to whom the Marquise de Pompadour, notwithstanding facts and the force of public opinion, had attributed the responsibilities really incurred by Soubise during the Seven Years’ War. Louis XV., unable to oppose the favourite openly, but unwilling to be deprived of his secret minister’s services, resigned himself to transferring the headquarters of his private diplomacy to the Château de Broglie. It was during this temporary seclusion that the Comte de Broglie matured a plan for the invasion of England which had been formed a long time before, but the recent hostilities had prevented its execution. If the conclusion of peace put back the opportunity for doing so, it allowed, at least, of the conditions and means likely to lead to a successful issue being studied on the spot. The King and the minister understood better than the nation the fatal terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and were anxious to prepare themselves quickly for counteracting its effects. Accordingly Louis XV. examined with interest the plan submitted to him, and sent it back to Tercier with his approval. It was at this latter’s house that d’Eon and the Comte de Broglie, who was passing through Paris at the time, met for the purpose of organising this perilous mission. D’Eon’s position in London and his experience of intrigues of this description enabled him to conduct the researches, and a colleague was given to him—his cousin, the Sieur d’Eon de Mouloize, who should take charge of the documents in the event of the discovery of the scheme. As for the technical part, it was to be entrusted to an engineer, Carrelet de la Rozière. Lastly, the basis of a cypher to be employed in the affair was arranged. The King gave his instructions himself:
The Chevalier d’Eon will receive through the Comte de Broglie or M. Tercier my orders on the surveys to be made in England, whether on the coast or in the interior of the country, and he will comply with the instructions he will receive to that end, as if he received them direct from me. It is my desire that he shall observe the greatest secrecy in this affair, and that he shall not make any communications thereon to any living person, not even to my ministers wheresoever they may be.
These instructions were precisely stated and commented upon by the Comte de Broglie in a letter which he sent, on May 7, 1763, to the Chevalier d’Eon in London. He recommended him to observe the utmost prudence in his conduct, apprising him that the Comte de Guerchy’s suspicious character would render his secret mission extremely difficult, and urged him to take every conceivable precaution for the safety of the papers connected with the correspondence. The Count appointed him tutor to M. de la Rozière, adding: “He is a somewhat wild pupil, but you will be pleased with him.” In conclusion he congratulated himself upon having d’Eon as “lieutenant in so important an affair, which may contribute to the safety and even to the prosperity of the nation,” and thanked him for the zeal and devotion which he had never ceased to show to the Marshal de Broglie and to himself.
D’Eon’s attachment to the exiled de Broglies had awakened the suspicions of the Duc de Praslin, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not hesitate to subject the young representative of the King at the court of St. James’ to a regular interrogatory, in the presence of his senior clerk, Sainte-Foy, and the Comte de Guerchy. He began by abruptly asking him to give an account of the battle of Villinghausen, at which he was present while serving in the dragoons. D’Eon did not require much pressing, and boldly laid to the charge of Soubise all the blunders officially imputed to the Duc de Broglie. Praslin, who was striding impatiently up and down the room, suddenly interrupted him, exclaiming: “I know it to have been just the opposite of what you say, and this from one of my intimate friends who was also there.” And he turned to the Comte de Guerchy. “But, my dear d’Eon, you surely did not witness all you tell me.”
“The minister pulled a long face,” d’Eon relates, “and gave a sardonic smile, for I persisted in assuring him, as I shall do to the end of my days, that I had indeed seen and heard what I had told him.” The duke concluded by saying: “It is your attachment to the Broglies that makes you speak as you do.” “Faith, sir,” d’Eon replied, “it is my attachment to the truth. You question me, and I can only tell you what I myself know.”
Upon leaving the minister, Sainte-Foy rebuked d’Eon and advised him not to remain “in a country where he would never make his fortune, but to return to England.”