Part 3

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

I am, Sir,

An ENGLISHMAN.

To the PRINTER.

Lord B. and his toad eater the D. of G. both knew the contents of Dr. Musgrave’s letter many weeks before it made its appearance. They had concerted many schemes to suppress its publication; but all these schemes, however artfully managed, proved abortive. Lord B. who came fresh from the school of politics at Rome, embraced still the same propensity for absolute monarchy as he did before he departed from England. He is grown, indeed, more cautious, more masked, but not a jot less enterprising. Foiled in his well-concealed attempts to prevent the publication of Dr. Musgrave’s letter, his next attempt was to render the publication of it inoperative and ineffectual. The difficulty lay in compassing this desirable end. He knew very well that one ******** had married a cast-off, who formerly held no mean rank in his toad eater’s seraglio: this same ********, his Lordship knew had been confidently intrusted at different times, with the most important secrets of Mr. Wilkes, the Chevalier D’Eon, and Lord Temple, and therefore the only fit person to be confidentially entrusted, as far as his Lordship might deem necessary, with the opening a negociation for a treaty of union between the Earls of B—e, T——e, E———t, C———m, Lord H———d, and the petulant Duke of B———. Such a coalition, with his toad eater at the head, he rightly conceived, would be able to stem any torrent of opposition, were it to roll mountains high. But his Lordship, it will be seen, counted without his host. His first intention was to dispatch ******** to Stow. This measure could not be carried into execution but by another mode of application. ******** had already forfeited Lord T——e’s confidence, but he did not care to acquaint either G. or B. with this secret, which could not but be fatal to his own views; he therefore artfully declined going to Stow himself, adding, that the embassy would have greater weight, and probably better success, was the D. of G. to wait in person on Lord T———. ******** pretended to know the very bait that would tempt his Lordship; it was nothing less than a Dukedom, and if he ********, was to make the offer, Lord T———e, he said, might doubt the performance. By this device and advice of ********, B. and his toad eater were easily betrayed into a fond belief of gaining over Lord T. to their faction. Accordingly, the D. of G. was posted down to Stow, and this truly courtly visit was immediately announced in every news-paper throughout the kingdom. The success of this visit is no longer a mystery. The wild, incoherent, crude plan of operations, were conveyed, without loss of time, to Fonthill, and from Fonthill it soon arrived at Plymouth. Dr. Musgrave finding this once formidable and blood-thirsty faction tottering, and failing of support from Lord T. thought it a glorious opportunity to crush the whole junto, by hanging them out to public view and public odium. With this view, and to do justice to a brave, but greatly injured people, the Doctor, with a courage not to be daunted, published that well-timed letter, which has already unfilm’d the eyes of every subject in the kingdom, and which, in a few days, will receive a further elucidation from

_The_ BRITISH SPY.

To the PRINTER.

In my former letter I furnished your readers with an anecdote relative to Mr. ********. This man, who is connected with his Grace the D. of G. by the apron-string tenure; the present modish, and by much the strongest of all holds, has been constantly and most secretly employed for these last six weeks, as a go-between to the D. of G. and the Soi-disant l’Homme de Charactere, M. D’Eon.

To throw a veil over this mysterious negociation, and in order to blind the eyes of the prying public, the pretty Frenchman who lives in Petty France, has for this fortnight past been roaring out in every coffee-house he frequents, that Mr. ********, the go-between above-mentioned, has betrayed his most sacred secrets to the D. of G. and the whole B———d junto. This flimsy, gausy device, was no sooner made public, but it was seen through by every tyro in politics. And the Frenchman was compelled by his new employers to lay aside the mask. He was ordered by this new sett of masters, who will always tyrannize over him in proportion to the pension they give him: he was ordered I say flatly to deny every circumstance in Dr. Musgrave’s patriotic letter, and boldly to assert, “that he never entered into any treaty for the sale of his papers.” Nothing is so easy to a Frenchman, especially if they have been once initiated into the diplomatic corps, as to assert one thing for another, where they know they cannot for the present moment be detected. But what will the good people of England think of the veracity of this same Frenchman, when I call upon him in this public manner to declare for what reason, at whose instigation, and for what valuable consideration in money, he suppressed the publication of _those three letters_ relative to the late peace-makers?

I know, Mr. Printer, I speak ænigmatically to the generality of your readers, when I talk of three letters. But the D. of B———d understands me; Lord B—— understands me; and D’Eon, if he has any regard for truth, ought to blush at the bare mention of those three letters. There is but one moral tie can bind a French gentleman, that is, his word of honour. Let D’Eon then, if he dare, lay his hand upon his Croix de St. Louis, and swear, upon his _honour_, that he never received directly or indirectly, without equivocation, or mental reservation, any money, pension, emolument, or promise, for suppressing the publication of the three letters in question, and he shall either be credited, or publickly confuted, by

_The_ BRITISH SPY.

To the PRINTER.

Doctor Musgrave’s address to the freeholders of the county of Devon, and the Chevalier D’Eon’s answer to it, having engrossed the public attention, give me leave, first, to consider the nature and tendency of the address, and then to make a few remarks on the Chevalier’s answer.

Mr. Musgrave has told us a series of facts within his own knowledge, the authenticity of which are corroborated by the names of the parties concerned, and the periods in which they were transacted. He tells us, that Sir George Yonge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and other members of parliament, informed him at different times, that the Chevalier D’Eon was really to impeach three persons of selling the peace to the French—that Sir George Yonge in particular told him, that he understood the charge could be supported by written as well as by living evidence. By the direction of Dr. Blackstone, Mr. Musgrave went to Lord Halifax _on the 10th of May, 1765_, and delivered to him an exact narrative of the intelligence he had received at Paris concerning the late peace, and at the same time gave him copies of four letters to and from Lord Hertford. _On the 17th of May, 1765_, just seven days after he delivered the narrative to Lord Halifax, Mr. Fitzherbert told the Doctor, that overtures were then making to the Chevalier D’Eon to get his papers from him for a stipulated sum of money. Lord Halifax, although repeatedly pressed by Doctor Musgrave to enquire into the truth of the charge, first, objected to all public steps that would lead to the truth, to avoid giving _an alarm_; and, at last, absolutely refused to take any cognizance of it, either in private or public. Thus frustrated in every application to the secretary of state, the Doctor carried his papers to the Speaker, who very readily allowed the expediency of their being laid before the House of Commons, but at the same time peremptorily refused to promote the enquiry.

This, Sir, is the substance of Dr. Musgrave’s address, which carries with it such a face of authenticity, that nothing but a public investigation of the facts can exculpate the parties concerned. As to the tendency of it, every unprejudiced reader must allow, that the public good, and not an inclination to aggravate the guilt of any particular person, was his object.

If the allegations contained in the address are not fairly stated—if Doctor Musgrave has been guilty of injuring private characters, and of imposing falshoods on the public—why, in God’s name, is he not contradicted?—Why do not the accused exculpate themselves?—Why are not the public undeceived?—Why should _they_ be silent whose conduct is principally arraigned, and a vindication, such as it is, be published by a man, whose veracity in this respect is by no means to be relied on? For when his papers were purchased from him, the condition of the obligation no doubt was, that their contents should be buried in oblivion.

When the official conduct of a secretary of state, or of any other servant of the crown, is arraigned, the public have an undoubted right to be satisfied either of their guilt or innocence, in order that the law of the land may in either case take effect. When the character of an honest man is unjustly and publicly attacked, he will not postpone the vindication of his innocence until a legal enquiry can be set on foot in a court of law; he ought to exculpate himself through the same channel he has been accused. Therefore, until Doctor Blackstone tells us the conversation that passed between him and Mr. Musgrave, previous to his waiting on Lord Halifax—Until Lord Halifax informs us whether Doctor Musgrave did or did not deliver to him a narrative of the intelligence he had received at Paris, concerning the peace in 1764, and likewise publish the copies of the four letters to and from Lord Hertford; which, as they are of a public nature, his _politeness_ need not stumble at—Until Sir George Yonge and Mr. Fitzherbert publicly deny every circumstance relative to their several conversations with Doctor Musgrave, especially what passed between Mr. Fitzherbert and him _on the 17th day of May, 1765_—And until the Speaker acquaints us with the reason why he allowed the expediency of laying these important papers before the House of Commons, and at the same time _refused to promote the enquiry_—Until all these matters are promulged and sufficiently authenticated, the impartial and dispassionate part of mankind must and will give credit to the facts contained in the address.

I come now, Sir, to make a few remarks on the Chevalier D’Eon’s answer, which I shall do with the same impartiality I have considered the address, and leave the public to draw the line between the honest sincerity of the Englishman, and the evasive _finesse_ of the Frenchman.

Monsieur le Chevalier, notwithstanding his long residence in England, and the esteem and friendship he is favoured with from _some_ of the inhabitants (the reason of which he knows best) still preserves his _native_ insincerity and politeness. His letter to Dr. Musgrave is as foreign to the purpose of an answer to the address, as the conduct of our present ministry in suffering his master, the Grand Monarque, to conquer Corsica, was foreign to the faith of treaty, and repugnant to the interest of this kingdom—than which no two positions can be more opposite.

The Chevalier has very _politely_ passed some French compliments on the doctor’s oratory and patriotism—has talked a good deal of his own integrity and zeal for truth—blames him for naming a person of his _vast_ consequence in so public a manner, and manfully denies every circumstance he is publicly known to have been concerned in at the time mentioned in the address. But what does all this amount to with respect to Mr. Musgrave’s allegations? He, indeed, very justly says, that the evidence of the Chevalier would have been decisive at the time he urged Lord Halifax to send for him to examine him, and to peruse his papers which he _then_ had in his possession; but in his address to the freeholders of Devon, he neither desires nor expects any proofs from him _now_, because he either knows, or shrewdly suspects, that no written evidence is now to be found in his custody.

The Chevalier desires to know the person or persons in this country, who would have presumed to make an overture to him for the sale of his papers—I wish to God I could tell him!—or rather that I could tell the public—for the Chevalier himself, I dare say, wants no information in that affair. It is much to be wished, however, that Lord Halifax or the Speaker had examined the Chevalier, and that it might at least have been known what sum was paid by England, and for what consideration it was given to France, at the conclusion of the last ever memorable and glorious peace.

TULLIUS.

LETTER I.

To Dr. MUSGRAVE, of PLYMOUTH.

SIR,

The meritorious and intrepid manner in which you have stepped forth, and called the public attention to the negociation of the last infamous peace, deserves the thanks and applause of your country. As an individual of this country, not wholly unacquainted with some parts of that negociation, you have my poor thanks: but thanks alone are not sufficient in such a cause; I should hold myself the basest of Englishmen, if I did not contribute my mite towards accomplishing a full and impartial enquiry into the manner in which that important work was conducted. Such parts of the negociation as have accidentally come to my knowledge, I shall freely relate. If my account is true, as I have great reason to believe it is in general, I hope it will warm some virtuous man to stand up in his place, and call for the papers relating to that negociation. In a pamphlet, intituled, _The present State of the Nation_, &c. p. 24, 8vo. edit. published last winter, there is this extraordinary passage, evidently alluding to these papers, which I have often wondered was not taken notice of; “Whether by the treaty Great Britain obtained all that she might have obtained, is a question to which those only who were acquainted with the secrets of the French and Spanish cabinets can give an answer. _The correspondence relative to that negociation has not been laid before the public_; for the last parliament approved of the peace as it was, without thinking it necessary to enquire whether better terms might not have been had.”

The secret of the negociation, or ultimatum, on the part of England, was neither in the D. of B. the B. A. at Paris; nor in the late Earl of Egremont, the _official_ minister at home, who was Secretary of State for the Southern department; but between Lord Bute and the Sardinian Minister in London, and the Duc de Choiseul and the Sardinian Minister at Paris.