Part 1
THE MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY:
BEING A COLLECTION OF CURIOUS AND INTERESTING PAPERS, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LATE PEACE.
LONDON, Printed for J. Miller, No. 2, Queen’s-Head-Passage, Newgate-street; and sold by S. Bladon, No. 28, Paternoster-Row; F. Blyth, at the Royal Exchange; and J. Almon, Piccadilly.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
COPY of the DEVONSHIRE INSTRUCTIONS.
To Sir RICHARD WARWICK BAMPFYLDE, Bart. and JOHN PARKER, Esq; Knights of the Shire for the County of DEVON.
We, the Freeholders of the County of Devon, assembled in a General Meeting at the Castle of Exon, find ourselves called upon by many weighty considerations to exercise the constitutional and unquestionable right of instructing our Members with regard to their conduct in Parliament. It becomes now more highly necessary, when an opinion has been publickly avowed, derogatory from that relation which ought to subsist between the Electors and their Representatives. We, therefore, enjoin you to promote and support an enquiry into all those grievances that have so justly alarmed the subjects of this kingdom; particularly, for what reasons a magistrate, in the immediate service of the Crown, to whom informations of the most important nature were imparted by a native and Freeholder of this County, refused to examine or enquire after the evidence pointed out to him; being a person the most capable of clearing up the affair, both from his own knowledge, and the papers _then_ in his possession; in consequence of which refusal, secrets of the most important nature to the safety of this kingdom have been probably lost, and the alledged instruments of dishonour to his Majesty’s government _screen’d_ from censure and punishment; and that you will diligently pursue an enquiry into the criminal transactions referred to in that information; and that you also use your utmost endeavours to shorten the duration of Parliaments.
Voted at the Castle of Exon, Oct. 5, 1769.
THE MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY,
_An ADDRESS to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Devon, preparatory to the General Meeting at Exeter on Thursday the 5th of October, 1769._
By Dr. MUSGRAVE, _Physician at Plymouth_.
GENTLEMEN,
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._
MONSIEUR,
Vous me permettrez de croire que vous ne m’avez jamais plus connu, que je n’ai l’honneur de vous connoitre: & si dans votre lettre du 12 Aout vous n’aviez pas abuse de mon nom, je ne me verrois pas force d’entrer en correspondence avec vous.
Vous pretendez que “dans l’ete de 1764, on fit des ouvertures en mon nom a differens membres du parlement, portantes que j’etois pret a accuser trois personnes, donc deux etoient pairs, et membres au conseil prive, d’avoir vendu la paix a la France;” & vous paroissez fonder la dessus l’evidence de l’accusation, que vous dites en avoir porte vous memes a Milord Halifax.
Je vous declare en consequence ici Monsieur, que je n’ai jamais ni fait faire aucune ouverture pareille, ni dans l’hiver, ni dans l’ete de 1764, ni dans aucun tems. Je suis d’une part trop fidele au ministere que j’ai rempli, et de l’autre trop zelateur de la verite.
J’avoue que vous ne dites pas que ce soit moi qui aie fait ces propositions: Mais seulement qu’elles ont ete fait en mon nom, specialement a M. le Chevalier George Yonge & a M. Fitzherbert.
Je vous assure ne connoitre aucun de ces Messieurs & n’avoir jamais authorise qui que ce soit a faire, en mon nom, de pareilles ouvertures, que mon horreur seule pour la calomnie me feroit detester.
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. Ces Messieurs que vous avez denonce comme vos temoins, ne peuvent vous refuser de venger leur veracite & la votre.
Quoique je ne puisse m’empecher de louer votre droiture qui cite ses auteurs, cependant il me paroit de la derniere imprudence, dans une affaire d’une pareille gravite, de vous fonder sur un raport pour nommer publiquement un homme de mon caractere, sans l’avoir auparavant consulte. Si vous vous etiez souvenu du dementi que j’ai donne dans le S. James’s Chronicle du 25 Octobre 1766, No. 881, a un avertissement du meme papier, No. 875, qui portoit en substance ce que vous alleguez dans votre derniere lettre, vous m’auriez epargne la peine de vous repondre aujourdhui. Qu’en va-t-il arriver? Le public aura lu avidement votre lettre, aura ajoute foi a son contenu parceque vous en appellez a mon evidence: Mais qu’en pensera t-il maintenant? quand votre interet, mon honneur & la verite m’obligent a nier ce que vous y avancez a mon sujet.
Il en est de meme de ce que vous pretendez que “vers le 17 Mai 1765, M. Fitzherbert vous auroit dit savoir qu’on m’avoit fait des propositions de vendre pour une somme d’argent les papiers qui etoient entre mes mains.”
Je me suis toujours flatte de l’estime & de l’amitie des Anglois avec lesquels j’ai vecu. Qui d’eux dans ces sentimens auroit ose me temoigner assez de mepris pour me faire une pareille proposition? L’injure m’en auroit ete d’autant plus sensible que le caractere de la personne auroit ete plus respectable.
Je ne vous suivrai, Monsieur, ni dans les demarches que vous avez cru devoir faire, ni dans les raisonnemens dont vous vous servez pour les appuier: Ceux-ci montrent l’orateur & celles-la, si elles sont fondees, preuvent le patriote. Mais je vous atteste ici, sur ma parole d’honneur & a la face du public, que je ne puis vous etre d’aucune utilite, que je ne suis jamais entre en marche pour la vente de mes papiers, & que je n’ai jamais, ni par moi-meme ni par aucun agent autorise de ma part, propose de fait voir que la paix avoit ete vendue a la France.
Si Milord Halifax, ou l’orateur, auxquels vous dites vous etre addresse pour m’appeller en temoignage sur la validite de votre accusation, m’avoient fait citer; ils auroient connu par mes reponses que je pense que l’Angleterre a plutot donne de l’argent a la France, que la France de l’or a l’Angleterre pour conclure la derniere paix et que le bonheur que j’ai eu de concourir au salutaire ouvrage de cette paix m’a inspire les sentimens de la plus juste veneration pour les commissaires Anglois qui y ont ete emploies, & ceux de la plus vive estime & de la plus sincere admiration pour feu M. 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. Jugez maintenant, Monsieur, avec quelle solidite vous pouvois vous fonder sur moi pour rendre votre accusation evidente!
Je suis trop connu en Angleterre pour avoir eu besoin de cette reponse, si la franchise de votre lettre me n’avoit paru meriter que je vous empechasse de faire des demarches ulterieures qui ne pouroient tourner qu’a votre prejudice, puis qu’elles ne seroient fondees que sur de faux raports de mes actions. Pour vous mettre a meme d’etre aussi prudent que patriote, je signe cette lettre & vous y donne mon addresse, afin que, pour soutenir votre veracite, vous me donniez les moiens de convaincre publiquement les calomniateurs, qui ont ose se servir de mon nom, d’une maniere plus contraire encore a la verite des faits, qu’a la dignite avec lequelle, J’ai toujours soutenu mon caractere au millieu meme de la persecution de mes enemis.
J’ai l’honneur d’etre votre tres humble serviteur,
LE CHEVALIER D’EON.
_In Petty-France, Westminster, 4 Septembre, 1769._
_Translation of the Chevalier ~D’Eon~’s Answer to Dr. ~Musgrave’s~ Address._
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 the 12th of August 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 the year 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, Sir, that I never made, nor caused to be made any such overture, either in the winter or summer of the year 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 confess you do not say it was I that made these overtures; but only that they were made in my name, particularly to Sir George Yonge and Mr. Fitzherbert.
I assure you I do not know either of these gentlemen, 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, Sir, to lay before the public the name of the audacious person who has made use of mine to cover his own odious offers. The gentlemen whom you have given as your witnesses, cannot deny you this justification of their own veracity and your’s.
Though I cannot but commend your integrity in citing your authors, yet it appears to me an act of the last imprudence, in an affair of so much weight, to build upon report, for naming publickly a person of my character, without having previously consulted him. If you had recollected the contradiction I gave in the St. James’s Chronicle of Oct. 25, 1766, No. 881, to an advertisement in the same paper, No. 875, importing in substance what you alledge in your last letter, 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 it’s 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 thereon with respect to me.
It is the same with your pretence that “about the 17th of May, 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 have always flattered myself with being possessed of the esteem and friendship of the English with whom I have lived. Who of them then in these sentiments would have presumed to have shewn sufficient contempt for me to have made me such an overture? The injury would have been the more sensibly felt by me, as the character of the person was more respectable.
I shall not follow you, Sir, either in all the steps you have thought it your duty to take, or in the arguments you made use of to support them: these shew the orator, and those, if they be well founded, prove the patriot.