Movatterモバイル変換

[i]

THE CHEVALIER
D’EON DE BEAUMONT

[ii]

LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY FROM FRANCE TO GREAT BRITAIN
IN 1763

BY
CAPTAIN J. BUCHAN TELFER, R.N.
F.S.A., F.R.G.S.
AUTHOR OF ‘THE CRIMEA AND TRANSCAUCASIA’ ‘THE BONDAGE AND
TRAVELS OF JOHANN SCHILTBERGER’ ETC.

With Portraits and Facsimile

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1885

All rights reserved

[iv]

[vi]

The Secret Correspondence established by Louis XV.in 1750-1752, originally for the purpose of gratifyingthe Prince de Conti’s ambition for sovereignty, in theinterests of Poland, and of securing the alliance andco-operation of several of the smaller Powers, againstthe aggression of Austria and Russia, proved, in courseof years, of inestimable benefit to the King, personally.Insuperable timidity, and the consciousness of a lack ofself-confidence, were weaknesses that ill-befitted anabsolute monarch, for Louis XV. could never summoncourage to confront his ministers. The Chevalier D’Eonde Beaumont very tersely portrays the besetting sin ofhis sovereign, where he describes it as a deficiency in theneeded strength of character to control, as became aking, his ministers and ambassadors, all of whom hemistrusted and avoided, making reparation in secret forthe follies they committed publicly. ‘Après nous ledéluge’ are the well-known words of comfort offered bythe Marquise de Pompadour, into whose hands thedirection of affairs was lapsing, when seeing the Kingsorely oppressed with grief upon learning the news ofthe disaster at Rosbach; and perhaps it is true that thesecret correspondence, of the existence of which thefavourite was entirely ignorant, was useful in averting[viii]the coming storm during the term of his reign. Selfishand self-indulgent almost beyond conception, Louis XV.had no spirit to grapple with difficulties where theypresented themselves, except in regard to the relationsof France with Foreign Powers, when he could perfectlywell rouse himself to action; not openly, lest the viewsof his ministers should be in opposition to his desires,but covertly and frequently to their confusion. It wasthe duty of the secret agents at the several capitals ofEurope, who were always connected in some way withhis Embassies, to keep his Majesty informed of all thatwas passing, and it became his custom to instruct themto bring about the realisation of his policy, regardlessof the directions of his ministers. Louis XV. took aninterest and a delight in foreign affairs, therefore to himthe secret correspondence had its uses; otherwise—itwas leading to destruction.

One of the earliest and most remarkable of theKing’s secret agents, for his employment as such datedfrom the year 1754 or 1755, was D’Eon de Beaumont,who, as a diplomatist, evinced spirit equal to that ofLord Whitworth under circumstances that have passedinto history, and exhibited much of the bravery anddaring of the famous Hugh Elliot, without, however, thesimilar advantage of being enabled to deal all his blowsby the light of day, his training from youth havingbeen in the direction rather of intrigue.

Since no history of Louis XV. can have any pretensionsto completeness if the name of D’Eon de Beaumontbe excluded, it is not a little surprising that theindividual acts, as well as the official services of so[ix]extraordinary a personage have never been broughttogether before the world. This blank the authorendeavours to fill.

In 1836, Gaillardet published a memoir of theChevalier D’Eon, meretricious and spurious in its details,which speedily reached a second edition, and attained apopularity that caused it to be pirated and reproduced,very extensively, in ‘Un Hermaphrodite,’ Louis Jourdanindiscreetly lending his name for its authorship! AlthoughGaillardet announced that his book was producedout of material supplied by the D’Eon family atTonnerre, its contents proved to be in great measurescandalous fabrications. Feeling himself, as he advancedin years, called upon to make some kind of reparation,this author gave, in 1866, a new edition under the title‘Mémoires sur la Chevalière D’Eon. La Vérité sur lesMystères de sa Vie,’ in the preface to which, styled‘Un Acte de Contrition, &c.,’ he candidly avows thathis first edition was in great part a fiction. In thislater edition Gaillardet reproduces, together with otherinteresting matter, numerous documents that are preservedat the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, where, byrare good fortune, he obtained permission to search thearchives; and that so distinguished an academician asthe Duke de Broglie (familiar to Englishmen as havingbeen first minister in the Conservative days of theFrench Republic), as well as other well-known authors,should have availed themselves of this work, may beaccepted as sufficient guarantee of its worth and reliability.As becomes a conscientious biographer, Gaillardetallows the documents he produces to speak for[x]themselves, without himself undertaking to pass judgmenton his subject; a safe course adopted in thefollowing pages, where scrupulous care is taken toauthenticate all that is adduced.

In his engaging work, ‘Le Secret du Roi,’ the Dukede Broglie treats at some length on the part taken byD’Eon in the secret correspondence of Louis XV. Unhappily,the Duke seems desirous of avenging the agonyof mind his ancestor the Count de Broglio must haveendured, upon certain occasions of the threateningattitude assumed by the Chevalier, and he evidentlyfinds it impossible to forgive the Minister Plenipotentiary,D’Eon, for being more clever, abler, andreadier-witted than the French Ambassador with whomit was his misfortune to be connected; for his Gracetakes frequent occasion to traduce him, and callsattention to his ‘assertions mensongères,’ withoutclearly substantiating the grave charges—a hardmeasure where the person assailed is beyond the possibilityof vindicating the accusation. The fact is thatD’Eon related unpleasant truths, and exposed startlingfacts, as will be manifested in due course.

Few persons, in all probability, have left behindthem so much matter in MS. as did the ChevalierD’Eon, if we except perhaps the Duke of Berwick andthe noted Saint-Simon, of whom Chateaubriand said:‘... il avait heureusement un tour à lui; il écrività la diable pour l’immortalité.’ Like Saint-Simon, theChevalier sketched admirable portraits, and like Saint-Simontoo, he commenced in early youth to write hisimpressions, keeping to himself, through life, all he had[xi]written. There is evidence, amongst the papers theauthor has consulted, that D’Eon never contemplatedan autobiography. ‘It has ever been my opinion,’ hewrote, ‘and I am even persuaded, that it is impossiblefor an author to write a just history of his own life; forhe is either lifted to the height of vanity by pride soinseparable from the human heart, or else feignedmodesty debases him to hypocritical humility. Thereare, at Versailles, public depôts of the Ministries forWar and for Foreign Affairs, and Louis XV. has left hisprivate papers of the Secret Correspondence. It isthere that the faithful historian should seek the truth ifhe has the courage to tell it.’ Unfortunately, there isreason for apprehending that many MSS., some of consequence,are lost. Père Elisée, the Chevalière’s medicalattendant, had a large number of his papers, whichwere seen in the possession of M. Nicolas de Chenart,about the years 1824-1828, by a correspondent, in‘Notes and Queries.’ They may now possibly form apart or the whole of the collection of D’Eon MSS. atthe British Museum, and at Tonnerre where they arenumerous. Another large portion passed into thehands of Mr. Christie, to whom the Chevalière wasindebted for many favours. The first and last of thesecollections have been well sifted by the author,the chief difficulty experienced being the making ajudicious selection. It was quite possible to have enlargedon the acts and writings of the Chevalier orChevalière D’Eon, by the introduction of additionalportraits, anecdotes, and letters of interest, but—happyis the biographer who escapes the charge of tedious[xii]prolixity! The author feels that although the materialat his disposal has been greatly condensed, the threadof the narrative is maintained in its completeness,without the omission of any incident of importancein the life of the most singular and of one of the mostextraordinary individuals of the last century.

There can be no exaggeration in the assertion thatthe life of the Chevalier or Chevalière D’Eon de Beaumontis unique in the history of the world. At any rate,the author is prepared to confess his ignorance of anyrecord of its equal.

Cases of females having occupied the position ofmen, whether for a limited period or during their entireexistence, are without number, striking instances ofboth, within the recollection of the present generation,being those of Captain (Marie Jeanne) Dubois, whoserved in Napoleon’s Russian campaign, and of amedical officer in the service of Her Most GraciousMajesty the Queen, who have passed away of lateyears. Upon the other hand, few men have disguisedthemselves as females, the most notable example of thekind, perhaps, being that afforded by the Comtesse desBarres, who for thirty years led a dissolute and discreditablelife, but was perfectly well known to be theAbbé de Choisy. The biographer of this creature,Thoulier d’Olivet, says of him: ‘But what sort of ahero is he whose portrait I am to describe? A CourtAbbé? ... what do I say? A Court Abbé! Acoquette who had one thousand times greater taste forbeauty spots and ribbons, one thousand times more thedesire to please, than any professional coquette. It[xiii]may be said that Nature made a mistake, and that itwas her intention to create a female;’ then, quoting alady’s estimate of the Abbé: ‘... male or female,ever carrying matters to extremes, whether absorbedin studies or in trifles. Deserving of esteem, becauseof undaunted courage, contemptible because of thecoquetry of a young maiden, and in whichever character,at all times engaged in the pursuit of pleasure.’The Chevalier D’Eon, whose ambiguity of sex wassuggested in infancy and maintained until death, cannotbe classed with either of the above. Female or male,D’Eon appeared as either in obedience to command,having done good service to King and Country, and wehave the authority of John Britton, who was in thehabit of meeting the Chevalière almost daily, during aperiod of three years, that she was respectable andrespected, and of refined manners. The uncertaintyof her sex occupied every mind. In branding the taleof Pope Joan as beingfalse and deserving the name,Gibbon shows himself to be at fault with regard toD’Eon. ‘... I would not pronounce it (the tale) incredible.Suppose a famous French chevalier of ourown times to have been born in Italy, and educated inthe Church instead of in the army;her merit or fortunemight have raised her to St. Peter’s chair; her amourswould have been natural....’

D’Eon’s immediate ancestors were in the habit, itwould appear, of writing their family name, Déon.Upon being accredited Resident, and afterwards MinisterPlenipotentiary at the Court of Great Britain,Louis XV. was pleased to distinguish the Chevalier’s[xiv]name by substituting E for e, changing Déon to D’Eon,orthography the author has observed with reference tothe Chevalier. Late in life, the Chevalière wrote hername, occasionally d’Eon, at other times D’eon, untilthe French Revolution, when, for a season, her signatureappears as Déon, bearing the prefix, La CitoyenneGeneviève.

In concluding these introductory remarks, the authorhas one pleasant duty left, that of offering his acknowledgmentsto Mr.James H. B. Christie, of Framingham,Norwich, and King Street, St. James’, and of expressinghis obligations to that gentleman for the liberality andfreedom with which he has been permitted to consultthe interesting MSS., short of which it would have beensimply impossible to produce, in its present form, theaccount of this Strange Career.

London,December, 1884.

For 32 Brewer Street, Golden Square, as being the residence in London ofthe Chevalier D’Eon during thirty-three years,read 38 Brewer Street, GoldenSquare.

[xxii]

[xxiii]

Charles-Geneviève-Louis-Auguste-André-Timothée
Charlotte-Geneviève-Louisa-Augusta-Andrée-Timothée-Marie
D’EON DE BEAUMONT.

Doctor of Civil and of Canon Law, and Advocate of the Parliament of Paris.
Censor Royal for History and Belles-Lettres.
Sent to Russia, first secretly, then officially, with the Chevalier Douglas
for the Purpose of re-establishing friendly Relations between that Country and France.
Secretary of the Embassy Extraordinary at the Court of Her Imperial Majesty, the Empress Elizabeth.
Captain of Dragoons and Aide-de-Camp to Marshal the Duke and to the Count de Broglio.
Secretary of the Embassy Extraordinary from France to Great Britain for concluding the Peace of 1763.
Knight of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis.
Resident, and afterwards Minister Plenipotentiary from France to Great Britain,
and, finally,
a Lady at the Court of Marie Antoinette,
and an occasional and honoured Inmate
at
L’Abbaye Royale des Dames de Hautes Bruyères,
La Maison des Demoiselles de St. Cyr,
and at the
Monastère des Filles de Ste. Marie.

On the first page of a well-thumbed devotionalpamphlet in MS., given to D’Eon de Beaumont uponhis entering the Collège Mazarin, at Paris, in 1740,appears the following in that person’s own hand:—

The baptismal certificate is as follows:—

Louis Déon de Beaumont was advocate in Parliament,King’s counsellor, sub-delegate of the Intendanceof the generality of Paris, and for some time mayor ofTonnerre. His brothers were André-Thimothée Déonde Tissey, advocate in Parliament, censor-royal, chiefsecretary of police in Paris, and principal secretary toH.R.H. the Duke d’Orleans; Jacques Déon de Pommard,advocate in Parliament, one of the first secretaries tothe Count d’Argenson, Minister of War; Michel Déon[3]de Germigny, knight of the Royal and Military Order ofSt. Louis, one of the twenty-five gentlemen of the King’sScottish Guard. They were the four sons of AndréDéon, advocate in Parliament, who died in 1720; whosefather was Louis Déon, lord of Ramelu, esquire, captainof infantry: all of whom lie interred within the churchof L’Hôpital Notre Dame de Fontenilles, at Tonnerre.[4]

In the preamble to her holograph will, headed ‘SoliDeo Honor et Gloria,’ in which she styles herselfCharlotte-Geneviève-Louise-Augusta-Andrée-Timothea-MarieD’Eon de Beaumont, it is stated:—

In another place D’Eon states that when in herfourth year she was publicly consecrated to the VirginMary, in front of the high altar, at a solemn service heldfor the occasion. She wore the robe of the sisterhoodof the Virgin Mary until her seventh year, when sheresumed boy’s apparel by direction of her father. Toher mother’s fervent devotion and enlightened piety inthe protection of the Virgin Mary was attributed thesafety of the ‘disguised daughter’ in all the perils sheencountered in the course of her extraordinary career—bysea and by land, at foreign courts, at sieges, in combatsand in battles.[5]

From the age of seven to twelve D’Eon remained incharge of M. Marceney, curé of the Church of St. Peter,[4]and was then sent to the Collège Mazarin. He completedhis studies with considerable credit, obtainingthe degrees of Doctor of Civil and of Canon Law, andbeing subsequently called to the bar of the Parliamentof Paris. He also became royal censor for works onhistory and belles-lettres. In 1749, whilst serving assecretary to M. Bertier de Savigny, he had the misfortuneto lose in the course of five days his father, anuncle, and an income of fifteen thousand livres. LouisDéon had rendered himself so beloved by the poor inhis district that for some time after his death they usedto resort in crowds to his grave and weep over it, andlament the loss of their friend and benefactor. It isrelated of him that when on his death-bed, and afterhaving received the last sacrament, he sent for hisdaughter (afterwards the Chevalier), and taking her bythe hand, said tenderly, ‘Do not be uneasy, my daughter—itis as natural to die as it is to live. I am quitting abad for a better land. I have been at much pains toteach you how to live, and I must likewise teach youhow to die.’ And giving her his blessing, he expired.[6]

Although D’Eon had lost his father, he was not leftfriendless; for he remained under the protection ofseveral persons of influence, who had known the relativeshe had lost, there being amongst them the Princede Conti, the Abbé de Bernis (subsequently Minister forForeign Affairs), the Marshal de Belle-Isle (afterwardsMinister for War), also the Duchess de Penthièvre andthe Count d’Ons-en-Bray, whose funeral eulogiums, insertedin the ‘Année Littéraire,’ were the earliest productsof his pen. These writings were succeeded by an[5]historical essay on finance in France, and ‘Notes on theLife and Works of the celebrated Abbé Lenglet deFresnoy,’ printed in the ‘Année Littéraire’ for 1755,literary labours which served to bring him into noticeat an early age as a thoughtful and careful writer.

D’Eon was passionately fond of study, and wouldonly quit his books for what became his sole recreationin life—the art of fencing, in which he proved a greatexpert, as shown by his election to the superintendenceof the School of Arms. D’Eon’s tastes inclined him toa military life, rather than to what the necessities of hissituation were calling him; but his destiny summonedhim to take a part in the political transactions of hiscountry, with what success it is the object of this workto show.

In his desire to renew with Russia the friendly relationsinterrupted since the day when the Marquis de laChétardie was unceremoniously escorted to the frontier(June 13, 1744), Louis XV. had dispatched to St. Petersburg,in the year 1754, the Chevalier de Valcroissant ona secret mission for that purpose—a mission, however,that came to an untimely end; for the Chevalier, beingunprovided with any kind of credential or letter ofrecommendation, was taken up on suspicion of being aFrench spy, and confined in the fortress of Schlusselburg,on the Ladoga, whence it was not deemed prudent, forthe time being at least, to seek to liberate him.[7] TheEmpress Elizabeth had already made advances of afriendly nature to the French Court, and in view of herpossible treaty of subsidies with England, the King resolvedupon another effort towards reconciliation, takingmore effectual precautions to ensure success.

[6]

The person selected for this important, secret, andeven hazardous service, was a native of North Britain,named Mackenzie, but known as the Chevalier Douglas,who represented himself as having followed the fortunesof the Pretender and obliged to seek refuge in France,bringing with him ‘nothing but his nobility,’ when inreality he was a Jesuit in disguise, had lived at Liègeduring the late war, employed as a spy by Holland, andhad afterwards entered the service of the Prince Waldeck.[8]When invited to proceed to Russia he was tutorin the family of the Intendant of Paris, and passing underthe name of Michel.

The importance and delicate nature of the negotiationsupon which Douglas was about to be employed—andnot Douglas only, but D’Eon also, sent with theKing’s approval, at the strong recommendation of thePrince de Conti (whose specialprotégé he was), toaccompany Douglas—will best be estimated upon knowledgeof the instructions—widely though they differed—suppliedfor their respective guidance. They show thatwhilst Douglas was secretly to watch and note eventsas an apparently indifferent observer, it was intendedthat D’Eon should pass his time in closest intimacy withsuch Russian ministers as might be favourably disposedtowards France, and reach, were it possible, even theEmpress herself.

The duties confided to D’Eon were entirely distinctand of a more intimate nature. He was supplied byM. Tercier, chief clerk at the Foreign Office and incharge of the King’s secret correspondence, with aquarto copy of Montesquieu’s ‘Esprit des Lois,’ thebinding, in double boards, being cunningly devised tohold papers. The documents thus concealed and entrustedto D’Eon included private letters from the Kingto the Empress Elizabeth; a cypher for the intelligenceof her Imperial Majesty and Count Woronzoff,the Vice-Chancellor, in their correspondence withLouis XV.;[10] a cypher for D’Eon’s own correspondencewith the King and Tercier, and another cypher forD’Eon’s use in communicating with the Prince de Conti,[12]Tercier, and M. Monin. He received strict injunctionsthat none of the King’s ministers, not even any ambassadorhis Majesty might have at St. Petersburg,should be allowed to entertain the slightest suspicion ofthis secret intercourse; he was ordered to furnish theKing with copies of all letters received from the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs, together with the Ambassador’sreplies, noting thereon his own observations, and he wasfurther required to thwart clandestinely any transactionson the part of the King’s ministers, so long asthey were in opposition to the secretly known royal willand pleasure.[11]

Douglas then left Paris in the summer of 1755 as aBritish tourist, an amateur geologist travelling in searchof health and amusement, and having got to Anhalt, hethere waited until D’Eon joined him. Proceeding onhis journey, Douglas strictly followed the route tracedout in his instructions, and when at Dantzig, where asat Amsterdam and Leipzig he had large credits, he announcedhis intention to visit the mines in Sweden; butsuddenly changing his mind, he started for St. Petersburg,where he arrived in the earliest days of October.He lost no time in making his appearance at the Britishembassy, and introducing himself as a subject of theKing and a relative of the Earl of Morton, requested SirHanbury Williams to present him at Court. This theBritish Ambassador refused to do unless he was properlyassured of his identity. Scarcely was Douglas gone,than the Swedish minister called to ask Sir Hanburywhether he objected to his presenting the ChevalierDouglas at Court. Sir Hanbury promptly replied thathe did not see what business the Swedish minister had[13]to present the King’s subjects, and if he ever attemptedsuch a thing, he would take it very ill; upon which theSwedish minister said that he should no longer meddlein the affair. Douglas then went to see Count Esterhazy,the Ambassador from Vienna, whose suspicions heimmediately awakened by explaining his presence atSt. Petersburg as due to the advice of his physiciansthat he should seek a cold climate for the benefit of hishealth. Finding all access to the Russian Court thusclosed against him, Douglas precipitately left the capitaland returned to France, bitterly complaining of Sir Hanbury’streatment in every town through which he passed.[12]

We are left quite in the dark as to the means bywhich D’Eon succeeded in obtaining admission at Court,but the matter was doubtless arranged by the Vice-ChancellorWoronzoff, friendly to France, through theSwedish minister, to whom Douglas had brought lettersof introduction from the Swedish minister at Paris, orpossibly through Michel, a French banker, as stated by LaMessalière. There is good evidence in support of the traditionthat D’Eon was received by the Empress in femalehabiliments, that in this disguise she ingratiated herselfwith her Majesty, gained her confidence, and interestingher in the object of his mission, had succeeded in revivingher old feelings of attachment towards France and towardsLouis XV., her suitor of days gone by.[13] It is certainthat the ill-humour and coldness of the Russian Courttowards England in the course of the year 1756, was ofmuch earlier date than the Neutrality Conventionbetween Prussia and England (January 16, 1756), andthis was attributed by Sir Hanbury, together with theEmpress’s delay in signing the ratifications to herTreaty of Subsidies with Great Britain, entirely to the[14]success of French influence after Douglas had first madehis appearance;[14] but Douglas not being at all in Russiabetween the end of October 1755, and the end of April1756, such exercise of French influence could only havebeen due to elaborate intrigues on the part of D’Eonduring the several months he spent at Court as reader(lecteur) to the Empress,[15] an appointment conferredupon him, perhaps, with the design of cloaking his realprofession.

In early life D’Eon was of peculiarly prepossessingappearance; his manners were gentle and engaging,his disposition soft and amiable, all of which, with hisgeneral physique, eminently adapted him to personify afemale; and if there is no direct proof in substantiationof the oft-told tale that D’Eon appeared at the Court ofElizabeth in female attire, there is at least valuableevidence in support of it.

It may be mentioned in regard to D’Eon’s looks, thatduring his second stay at St. Petersburg, when secretaryof Embassy, a Russian officer one day observed tohim that with his hair so neatly powdered he greatlyresembled the infant Jesus. D’Eon, who throughouthis career showed the greatest aversion to any kind ofremark on his feminine appearance, and disliked, besides,all that was Russian, very pertly replied: ‘Yes, youare right, for I happen to be in a very dirty manger.’[16]

During Douglas’ absence D’Eon was putting hisintelligence and tact to the best use in the service ofhis master, his task being rendered somewhat easier byElizabeth’s kindly feelings towards France and theFrench, which had never entirely changed,[17] even though[15]her two favourites, the Marquis de la Chétardie and theCount Lestocq, had long since been disposed of; thefirst, as already stated, by being thrust out of theempire, the latter—of whom in allusion to his treacheryher Majesty said: ‘If Lestocq could have poisoned allRussia with one dose, he would assuredly have done so’—bybeing tortured and exiled to Oustouk. D’Eon hadwisely commenced by insinuating himself in the goodgraces of the Vice-Chancellor, whose predilections werecompletely French, and who being married to theCountess Skavronsky, a cousin of the Empress, provedhis powerful support and shield against the GrandChancellor Bestoujeff Riumin, the known leader of thePrussian party hostile to France.

But five years before this Bestoujeff had so effectuallyprejudiced the mind of Elizabeth against Prussia, thather ambassador, Gross, very hastily and unceremoniouslytook his departure one morning from Berlin,without in the least troubling himself to announce hisintentions to anybody. Since that time, Bestoujefffancied he saw good cause for changing his views.

Peter, the son of Anna Petrovna, by her marriagewith Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, couldnever forget his German birth and parentage, and evenafter being created a Grand Duke of Russia, he continuedto attach far greater importance to his title ofHolstein-Gottorp, remaining perfectly indifferent to theinterests of the Russian people, and maintaining abouthim a suite and retinue consisting entirely of Germans.His consort, Catherine of Anhalt-Zerbst (afterwardsCatherine II.), sought, on the contrary, to identify herself[16]with the country of her adoption, embracing thereligion, and following the manners and customs of thepeople. Politically, she desired a good understandingwith England, entirely deprecating alliance with Franceand Austria; and when the report of the probablearrival of a French ambassador was gaining ground,she expressed her uneasiness to Sir Hanbury, saying sheshould act up to anything he might suggest to preventsuch a thing. Sir Hanbury reminded Catherine thather known confidence in Bestoujeff had made theSchouvaloffs her secret enemies; but that the latter, inthemselves, had neither sense, courage, nor moneyenough to do any harm to her succession, although thearrival of a French ambassador might change the scene,for he would do all in his power, sparing neither painsnor money, to injure her. Catherine’s feelings wereperfectly well known to Elizabeth, who used to say ofher that ‘she was a clever woman, only she prided herselfon being more clever than anybody else.’ Themost powerful man at Court because the greatestfavourite was Ivan Schouvaloff. He was fond of everythingthat was French, understood their language, followedall their fashions, and was known to have alwayswished that a French ambassador might arrive at St.Petersburg. Small causes produce great effects, andthe reconciliation proceeding between Russia and Francewas partly owing to the caprice of that young man.[18]

Bestoujeff, foreseeing the more probable course ofevents, seized the opportunity for turning his coat, andassuring the grand-duchess of his devotion to her personand to her views, and for expressing to the grand-duke,her husband, his own desire for the maintenance ofgood relations with Prussia. English, French, Austrian,[17]and even Prussian gold was being freely scattered atSt. Petersburg,[19] but in the end D’Eon, Schouvaloff, andWoronzoff obtained every advantage over the grand-ducalparty. Consenting to receive a French representativeat her Court, Elizabeth wrote privately to LouisXV. to that effect, the letter being carried to itsdestination by D’Eon, in his volume ‘Esprit des Lois,’after Douglas’ return from Versailles. We cannotundertake to fix the date of D’Eon’s departure fromSt. Petersburg nearer than that a letter of June 12,1756, from Sir Hanbury Williams to the Earl ofHoldernesse, announces ‘a creature of the Vice-Chancelloris soon to set out from hence to Paris tonegotiate this affair.’ In parting with D’Eon, theEmpress invited him to enter her service, promisinghonourable and lucrative employment; but D’Eon wastoo deeply attached to his own country to entertain sucha proposal; and resisting the offer, said that the renewalof friendly relations between the two countries, theadvantages of which he had already pointed out, wouldafford him the opportunity for serving the interests ofRussia without neglecting those of the Court of France;a reply which served to increase the esteem alreadyentertained for him by Elizabeth.

Leaving Paris under the name of Léonard, for the secondtime as the King’s secret envoy to Russia, but armedupon this occasion with private credentials from M.Rouillé, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and ‘a great dealof money to dispose of,’ Douglas passed through Dantzig,and Riga where he falsely represented himself as envoyextraordinary from France to Russia, and was accordinglyreceived as such by the governor of that town.With equal disregard to the truth, he made it hisbusiness upon this journey to spread the report that inthe treaty concluded between England and Prussia therewas a secret article whereby the former Power was topay to the latter an annual subsidy of 200,000l.! Hearrived at St. Petersburg on April 22 (N.S.), requestedan interview of the Vice-Chancellor at 9P.M. for thesame evening—obtained it—and forthwith delivered aletter from M. Rouillé, with friendly messages on thepart of the King. Shortly afterwards he was presentedat Court as a Scottish gentleman in the service of France,to the delight of Louis XV. and his ministers.[20]

[19]

When questioned by Sir Hanbury Williams, the Vice-Chancelloradmitted that Douglas was entrusted with acommission from the King of France, although not in anofficial capacity. He could give no information on thenature of that commission, but Sir Hanbury might restassured that the Court of Russia would not enter intoanything with France that could be prejudicial to theinterests of England. It was not the first time, he said,that France had made overtures to Russia, but he wastoo well acquainted with the French nation ever to betheir dupe, and he should not fail to give further informationwhen in a position to do so. Within twenty-fourhours of this conversation, the Chancellor Bestoujeffdeclared to Sir Hanbury that he was kept quite out ofthe secret, and knew nothing of Douglas’ return untilhis arrival at Riga.[21]

When D’Eon again made his appearance at St.Petersburg, Douglas was simply delighted. ‘I am verygreatly pleased at the arrival of M. D’Eon,’ he wrote toM. Rouillé; ‘I have been long acquainted with his intelligence,his zeal, and attachment to his work. He willbe very useful to me, and also of good service to theKing. He is steady and prudent....’[22]

Chancing to call one morning on Count Woronzoff,the British ambassador was not admitted. In thecourt-yard was Douglas’ coach. The next day Woronzoffsent for Baron Wolff, to tell him the reason he hadnot received Sir Hanbury was because Douglas beingwith him, he did not know whether the English ambassador[20]would have liked to meet him. Sir Hanbury,who naturally looked upon Douglas as a rebel of thefirst water, since he was actually in the service ofEngland’s enemies, replied that if such was the message,the excuse was worse than the fault, for he refused tobe put upon a level with such a fellow as Douglas.

The Treaty of Versailles (May 1, 1756) had placedDouglas and Count Esterhazy upon an entirely newfooting. Their lengthened conferences, at first heldsecretly in a third place, and their growing intimacy,prevented Sir Hanbury from conversing any longer withthe Austrian minister on matters of business. Frenchsubjects were invited to consider themselves under theprotection of the Empress-Queen’s ambassador, andRussia’s ministers at foreign courts were instructed tolive on good terms with those of France. Such werethe political changes in progress, when Elizabeth openlyprofessed her desire to renew diplomatic relations withthe King of France.

M. Rouillé’s courteous letter of February 9, presentedto the Vice-Chancellor by Douglas upon the sameevening of his arrival at St. Petersburg, and in which,by way of precaution, should the letter have miscarried,the secret envoy was spoken of as being a librarian, wasas courteously answered under date of April 20 (O.S.).A long ‘Mémoire,’ also handed to Douglas for transmissionto the French minister, in reply to the friendlyadvances made by Louis XV., and in which are expressedher Imperial Majesty’s views on drawing closertogether the improving relations between Russia andFrance, contains this passage:—

In July, Douglas was accredited Chargé d’Affairesto the Court of Russia, taking up his residence at theApraxin Palace, near the Summer Palace, D’Eon beingappointed Secretary of Legation, and entrusted with thesecret correspondence; communicating with the Princede Conti, and with the King through Tercier, and stillthe medium of intercourse between the Empress andWoronzoff on the one hand, and Louis XV. on theother; by which arrangement Douglas was enabled toentertain uninterrupted relations with Elizabeth andWoronzoff on subjects of a nature to be kept concealedfrom Bestoujeff Riumin.

As the Treaty of Subsidies, an acknowledged factbetween England and Russia, was set at naught byEngland’s Neutrality Treaty with Prussia, so did Elizabethcast the former to the winds, and in due courseunite herself to the French-Austrian alliance, inspite of all that Catherine and Bestoujeff could do toprevent such a thing. Frederick’s sarcasms had nomore spared the Empress of Russia and the Empress-Queenthan Madame de Pompadour, and the licentiousElizabeth thought it worth her while to retaliate byexpressing her indignation at the King of Prussia’s littleconcern in matters of religion. ‘He does not believein God! He never goes to Church! There is nothing[22]that is sacred in his eyes!’ Some years had passedsince she uttered those words; she had not forgivenhim, now she was joining the coalition against thatmonarch, and so was about to begin what is known asthe Seven Years’ War.

The eighty thousand men for whom Sir Hanbury hadbargained were assembled in Livonia under CountApraxin,[24] the firm friend of Bestoujeff, when theyshortly entered Poland. The war was commenced bythe Austrians, the first to receive Frederick’s fire andunder Marshal Daun to defeat him at Kolin (June 18),afterwards marching upon Berlin and bearing away allthe tribute money they could collect. Their Germanallies invaded Prussia from Saxony, the Swedes notlong delaying in entering Pomerania, and the Frenchattacking out of Hanover after having occupied Embden(July 3). Hearing that Apraxin had taken Memel,Frederick sent Field-Marshal Lewald with twenty-fivethousand men to keep him in check, and a battle wasfought at Gross-Jägersdorff near Königsberg (August30), in which the Russians overpowered the enemysimply through force of numbers. Frederick being leftwith about twenty thousand men only, began to fearthat all was lost, when the astounding intelligencereached him that the Russians, ‘who were more easilykilled than beaten,’ were withdrawing towards theirown frontier—a movement executed during the illness,[23]believed to be serious, of Elizabeth, who no sooner heardof Apraxin’s strange doings, than she ordered him tobe recalled and his conduct investigated. But thefield-marshal did not long survive his return, and whyhe failed to follow up the advantages he had gained bythe most complete of victories, was never explained byhimself. Later, his reasons were guessed!

D’Eon had quitted St. Petersburg in April, entrustedby the Empress with private letters to Maria Theresaand Louis XV.; he was the bearer to the Courts ofVienna and Versailles of Elizabeth’s friendly assurancesthat the Treaty of Subsidies with England was no longerof effect, and that the eighty thousand men she hadassembled in Livonia and Courland should henceforthact in concert with the forces of Austria and France.He was also charged to deliver the ratification to theTreaty of Versailles, the plan to be pursued by theRussian army in its operations with the Austrian andFrench troops, and other papers of considerable importancerelating to secret transactions in which he hadborne a part; and, further, he was commissioned byCount Schouvaloff to take with him fifty thousand livresin gold, being a gift from the Empress to Voltaire, whohad received her Majesty’s commands to write the lifeof Peter—specie D’Eon lodged with the bankers Hermaniand Dietrich, at Strasburg, on his way through that town.

In her letter to the King, Elizabeth referred to D’Eonin flattering terms as having been instrumental in conducingto the happy results which necessitated thejourney he was about to take, and ‘as a mark of herfavour’ she presented him with a gratuity of threehundred ducats.[25]

[24]

When D’Eon first went to Russia, one commissionentrusted to him was to obtain for the Prince de Conti,from the Empress, the command-in-chief of the Russianarmy and the principality of Courland; the secret aimof the prince being, through such means, to work hisway gradually to the throne of Poland, and to that ofRussia by marrying Elizabeth. Douglas and D’Eon hadmet with success on the two first points, which alonehad been mooted to the Empress, and D’Eon’s errandto Versailles included the Empress’ and Woronzoff’sassurances to the prince that he should have the commandof the army and the principality of Courland, ifthe King would....[26] The rest is obliterated byD’Eon in his letter.

One result of Douglas’ and D’Eon’s labours was theappointment of an ambassador to the Court of Russia inthe person of the Marquis de l’Hôpital; but a wholeyear having elapsed between that minister’s nominationand departure for his post, it so happened that whenD’Eon got to Bieloyēstok on his way to Vienna, the twomet, to the great advantage of the marquis, as he himselfsubsequently avowed; for he was supplied with somuch useful practical information, upon a country ofwhich he knew literally nothing, as a somewhat hurriedinterview would allow.

It was nightfall on the day that D’Eon got to thegates of Vienna, where a little incident occurred whichserves to illustrate at least one trait in his character.

Although provided with passports that should haveassured freedom from all kind of molestation or delay,the Customs’ officers refused to allow him to enter thecity without first searching his effects. Obstinately[25]objecting to submit to what he considered a gross indignity,but feeling himself under the circumstances tobe the weakest, he made up his mind to pass the nightoutside the walls. A sergeant of hussars going hisrounds offered the stranger a shelter in the guard-room.There being no French ambassador at Vienna, D’Eonsent, in the early morning, an account of his night’sadventure to Baron de Toussaint, a favourite of theEmperor, which resulted in the dismissal of the twoCustoms’ officers and the promotion of the sergeant tothe rank of lieutenant.[27]

At Vienna D’Eon found the Count de Broglio,French minister to Poland, who had received orders topass through that capital, and there concert such alterationsas might be considered advisable in the plan preparedby Marshal D’Estrées for the ensuing campaign;a measure facilitated by D’Eon’s timely appearancewith the Russian plan of operations and his intimateknowledge of Russian affairs, which proved of invaluableservice to the count. During his hurried stay atVienna, news were received of the battle of Prague(May 6), ‘the bloodiest battle of the age,’ as Frederickcalled it, and de Broglio at once despatched him to carrythe gratifying intelligence to Versailles. The hot hastein which he had travelled from St. Petersburg was notto be compared to the diligence he employed in bearingsuch additional good tidings; he managed to outstripby thirty-six hours the special courier sent by PrinceKaunitz to Count Staremberg, Austrian ambassador atParis, although he reached his destination with abroken leg, caused by the overturning of the coach inhis headlong journey; the accident and its cause onlyserving to intensify the interest already felt in the young[26]secretary, who was attended by the King’s own surgeonimmediately upon arrival.

D’Eon met with a most flattering reception by theCardinal de Bernis, Foreign Minister, and Marshal deBelle-Isle, Minister of War, and a month or two later hereceived a handsome gold snuff-box, with portrait, fromthe King, inside which he found a gratuity from theprivy purse, and, what he prized most, a commissionas lieutenant of dragoons.

D’Eon’s employment being still secret, and chiefly soin the King’s service, as well as public in the quality ofSecretary of Legation, he was bound to apply for permissionto convey to the Prince de Conti the messageentrusted to him at St. Petersburg. It was granted bythe King.

D’Eon had several interviews and some secret correspondencewith the Prince de Conti upon the successof his mission to St. Petersburg; but the Prince andMadame de Pompadour were no longer on good terms,she being too exacting to suit his pride, and the Kingwould or could not make up his mind in favour of hiskinsman.

D’Eon was anxious to take to Russia a decidedanswer of some sort, and when on his next journey hehalted five days at Strasburg by desire of the Prince,who hoped to overtake him there with some favourablesettlement of his case. But nothing came.

D’Eon never wasted his time. Whilst laid up undersurgical treatment, enduring no little suffering from theresetting of a broken limb, he worked at collating amass of useful information he had obtained in Russiafrom various sources, producing a valuable ‘Mémoire,’upon which he was complimented by King and ministers.In this ‘Mémoire,’ Gaillardet includes a document whichhas been the subject-matter of frequent controversy,its authenticity being discredited and derided—the willof Peter the Great; but he negligently omits to statewhere he consulted the copy of the will in D’Eon’s ownhand, and as we have been unable to verify the existenceof such a copy we forbear reproducing it, because otherwiseit has no place here, and leave the task to someone more favoured than we could expect to be, insearching amongst the French archives.

[28]

In a monograph which appeared at Brussels in 1863,[30]the author fathers the will of Peter the Great on NapoleonI., and ascribes the earliest publication of it toLesur in his ‘Des Progrès de la puissance Russe, depuisson origine jusqu’au commencement du XIXᵐᵉ siècle,’printed in 1812 under the immediate superintendence ofthe French Government, at the time that the Emperorwas preparing for the invasion of Russia. In thispamphlet Gaillardet (in whose fanciful story of theChevalier D’Eon, edition of 1836, the author read thewill) is charged with having reproduced the will fromthe pages of Lesur.

On receiving his commission in the army D’Eonapplied for active service, having grown tired andbecome disgusted with the intrigues of a life at Court,and the sight of troops in Courland, Prussia, Silesia, andMoravia, when upon his journey from Russia, having‘only served to inspire him with martial ardour.’ Buthe was too precious and too useful in Russia to beallowed to have his own way. The Marquis de l’Hôpitalwas pressing him to return to St. Petersburg. ‘Mydear little fellow, I have learnt with pain of your accident,and with great pleasure of your interviews withthe Old and New Testaments.[31] Come, live out theGospel with us, and rely upon my friendship and esteem.’To which Douglas added: ‘I also embrace you, my dearcripple, and hope you will have left before the arrivalof this letter to join your worthy protector, who will bea father to you.’ Over and above all, the King’sministers expressed the wish that D’Eon should returnto Russia with the least possible delay to perform a[29]particular piece of service, for which he was speciallyqualified.

It so happened that D’Eon had discovered theexistence of a secret correspondence between the grand-duke,assisted by Bestoujeff, and the King of Prussia,whose interests they preferred to serve, Apraxin andTodleben, the Empress’s two generals in command ofher army on the field; the design being to keep theRussian troops in a state of inaction, and thus deprivethe newly-allied Courts of the advantages to be derivedfrom the treaties so happily brought about by Douglasand himself. D’Eon alone seemed to have knowledgeof this surreptitious intercourse, and being required tobring it to light it was manifest that he should return toRussia.

In September D’Eon left Paris, again as the soleconfidential correspondent of Louis XV. He was suppliedwith copies of the instructions sent to the Frenchambassador at St. Petersburg and of those from PrinceKaunitz to Count Esterhazy, and he was ordered to concertmeasures with Count Woronzoff for disclosing tothe Empress the Grand Chancellor’s treachery. He alsotook with him a letter to Woronzoff, in which Tercier[30]repeated the King’s desire to entertain a secret correspondencewith the Empress.[33] Douglas was at the sametime on his way to Versailles, having been recalled atthe request of Bestoujeff, who was informed by theFrench ambassador that the recall was an accomplishedfact, done as a favour to him.[34]

The announcement of D’Eon’s approaching arrivalwas received with ill-concealed concern by the GrandChancellor, who suggested to the Marquis de l’Hôpitalthe desirability of this appointment being cancelled.He represented D’Eon to be a dangerous person whomthey would not cease to mistrust, for they believed himcapable of overturning the empire; an unguarded speech,producing a result contrary to what was desired byBestoujeff, for de l’Hôpital only called the more loudlyfor his new secretary, whose presence was feared by thePrussian party.[37]

D’Eon was now in Russia for the third time.

[31]

Meeting the English ambassador at dinner one evening,the conversation turned upon the trial and executionof Admiral Byng. D’Eon observed that for his part hewas very sorry for the admiral. ‘Why?’ inquired theambassador. ‘Because,’ replied D’Eon, ‘he was a greatfriend to France: he never did her any harm!’

Invited upon another occasion to join in an Englishdance, D’Eon said that his business at St Petersburg wasnot to dance English dances, but to make the Englishjump!’[38]

D’Eon relates an incident that occurred in November,shortly after his arrival at St. Petersburg. PrincePoniatovsky, envoy extraordinary from Poland, wroteto ask him for certain information on events then passing,his letter being accompanied by a diamond of thevalue of eight thousand livres. As a matter of courseD’Eon handed over the letter and the bribe to theambassador, by whom the gem was immediately returnedto the Polish minister, who got into such apassion that he threw it into the fire. De l’Hôpital reportedthe circumstance to the Cardinal de Bernis, andthe King’s promise was made that such an act of fidelityshould be rewarded by the presentation to the secretaryof a sum of equal value to the diamond; but Bernis’disgrace and exile caused the matter to be forgotten.[39]

D’Eon was well known to Poniatovsky, who did notforget him in after years, his proficiency in the art offencing being one of the accomplishments that renderedhim a favourite with those at Court, and he frequentlydined with the grand-duke, with Prince Charles (for atime Duke of Courland), or with Poniatovsky, theevenings being spent in fencing. If pressure of work[32]prevented him from accepting the invitations he received,the French ambassador was scolded by those personagesfor having detained him at the Embassy.[40]

On February 24, 1758, the Grand Chancellor, BestoujeffRiumin, was arrested by order of Elizabeth, whilstpresiding at a council of ministers. Amidst his papers,which were all seized, was found a scheme for disposingof certain persons obnoxious to him, amongst whomwere included Douglas and D’Eon.[41] He was chargedwith high treason, the French and Austrian ambassadorsbeing loud in their condemnation of his criminal purposes.At the same time were arrested several otherpersons having constant access to the Grand-DuchessCatherine, such, for instance, as her secretary, her tutorin the Russian language, jeweller, &c., and she herselfbecame the object of so great obloquy that she demandedpermission to withdraw to Germany, a step theEmpress refused to sanction.

The conjectures formed to account for Bestoujeff’sperfidy were various, but it was generally accepted thatElizabeth, having been seriously indisposed and herdeath apprehended, the Grand Chancellor was anxious tosecure Catherine’s favour by withholding the Russianforces from taking part in further hostilities againstFrederick. He also aimed at securing the succession ofher child to the exclusion of the grand-duke, his father,with the nomination of herself to the regency, or even[33]her own elevation to the throne. This view of the casereceived confirmation in after years, for Bestoujeff wasnever permitted to return from exile until the accessionof Catherine.

When under arrest, Bestoujeff was treated with unusualconsideration, notwithstanding the general feelingagainst him from his known intimacy with Apraxin, thecause of so much national disgrace. He was detainedfor a time a prisoner in his own house, escaping thetortures to which others, equally compromised withhimself, had been subjected; and, although designated‘a traitor grown old in iniquity,’ it was decreed in theimperial manifesto ordering his trial, that ‘no severitywas to be employed for the purpose of exacting hisevidence or confession; but whatever he chose to saywas to be noted.’

Bestoujeff was exiled to one of his estates, andWoronzoff succeeded him as Grand Chancellor.

After the Bestoujeff affair, the Empress renewed herefforts—this time through his superiors—to induceD’Eon to enter her service.

It was not at the hands of the Empress of Russiathat D’Eon cared to receive honours. For his importantservices at the Court of that monarch he was promotedby Louis XV. to the rank of captain of dragoons, andawarded a pension of two hundred ducats, to be paid bythe Count de Broglio out of the secret service money.

In the course of this year D’Eon found time topublish a work, in two volumes, entitled ‘ConfédérationsHistoriques sur les Impôts des Egyptiens, des Babyloniens,des Perses, des Grecs, des Romains, et sur lesdifférentes situations de la France, par rapport auxFinances, depuis l’établissement des Francs dans laGaule jusqu’à present.’[45]

Apraxin’s defection was a fine thing for Frederick. Twogreat events followed—the humiliating defeat of theFrench at Rosbach (October 31), by Seidlitz andhis cavalry, shall we say? and the battle of Leuthen(December 5), in which eighty thousand Austrians wereworsted by thirty thousand Prussians. And thus endedthe campaign of 1757. The following year Field-MarshalFermor, Apraxin’s successor, entered Eastern Prussia,occupied Königsberg, and was beaten by Frederick atZorndorff (August 25, 1758). Prince Soltikoff, who replacedFermor, was also about to lose a battle at Künersdorff(August 12, 1759); but the day ended happily forhim, his ninety thousand men having almost annihilatedthe forty-eight thousand Prussians by whom hewas opposed.

This much of what the Russians did, and we shallhave got to the end of 1759, after an illustration, fromconcurrent testimony, of D’Eon’s share in the progressof the war.

Let us first turn to the pages of Vandal.[46]

[37]

On December 30, 1758, was signed by Louis XV.and Maria Theresa a treaty in confirmation of theirprevious treaty still in force, except that it determinedwith greater precision respective obligations;France, for instance, binding herself to keep an army of100,000 men in Germany. Elizabeth was invited tojoin, and she did so. Of this matter the Duke deChoiseul, for some months Minister for Foreign Affairs,was completely ignorant. There was a time, it was butshort, when the duke in his patriotic desire to recoverinfluences lost to France through the feeble administrationof the Cardinal de Bernis, his predecessor, haddetermined upon not entertaining any idea of capitulatingwith England, so long as soldiers, guns and shipsremained, and on prosecuting the war against Prussiauntil France met with success. A partisan of Austria,his feelings towards Russia were of a different nature,but he was wisely inclined to turn to the best accountthe alliance with those Powers. As regards Russia, heinstructed the ambassador at St. Petersburg (January 9,1759) to tell Woronzoff, for the information of theEmpress, that if the King were to desire peace for thehappiness of his people and the repose of Europe, itshould only be on conditions honourable to his Majestyand his allies, and which would ensure general tranquillity;but that so far from contemplating such athing, every arrangement was made for effectivelycontinuing the war during the present and a succeedingcampaign, to the end of bringing the enemy to just andreasonable terms. That the Empress might have undoubtedproofs of his Majesty’s sentiments on thesubject, and to do away with every possible misunderstanding,the King was disposed to conclude, jointlywith the two Empresses, or with the Empress of Russia[38]alone, such convention as might be considered necessaryfor strengthening their union, thereby giving freshassurances that his Majesty would only act in concertwith his allies, communicating with them on all pointswith that entire confidence which should exist betweenPowers bound by friendly ties, and whose interestswere in common.

Unable to cope with Great Britain on the seas, theDuke de Choiseul formed a plan of invasion, in whichhe sought the co-operation of Russia and Sweden, whosespheres of action would be the Scottish coast. ‘Shouldfifty thousand men perish in the first expedition,’ hewrote to Count Bernstorff, ‘the King has signed thedetermination to send other fifty thousand, and we shallnot be discouraged so long as we have men in France.’[47]The hesitations of those Powers, the destruction of theFrench fleets in the East Indies, off Cape Lagos, andin Quiberon Bay, and of the flotilla prepared for theinvasion of England, upset the whole of the duke’sschemes, and gave him good cause to change his tactics.He would now hail peace if he could. He turned tode l’Hôpital (July 8, 1759), and desired him to seize anearly opportunity for feeling his way with the GrandChancellor, and suggesting to that minister, as a privateopinion of his own, the desirability of Russia’s mediationbetween Austria and Prussia, whereby she would secureto herself the gratitude of Europe. De Choiseul believedthat if the Germanic Powers could but arrangetheir differences, Russia might become useful in bringingabout an understanding between France and England.

[39]

De l’Hôpital—gouty, good-natured, and easy-going—hadmade it a practice never to act without first consultinghis confidential secretary. That secretary, at thepresent time, was D’Eon, who recommended that nonotice whatever should be taken of the minister’s letter.De l’Hôpital agreed. At the expiration of a couple ofmonths de Choiseul again wrote, this time impatientlyand reproachfully.

[40]

We will let D’Eon lift the veil of Louis XV.’s diplomacyin his own words:—

Turning again to Vandal, we find the King’s approvalof D’Eon’s counsel to de l’Hôpital, and verificationof the former’s statement in the paragraph abovequoted.

[41]

Four years of anxious and hard toil in a climatewhich did not suit him had told on D’Eon’s health,until he felt seriously inconvenienced from scurvy andan affection of the eyes, and his return to France becamebut a question of time. He was longing for home.Apart from his dislike to life at Court, where he feltthat ‘it was impossible for a simply virtuous, non-intriguingand dispassionate man to succeed,’ he had madeup his mind that Russia was not a country for a freemanto live in. He could not forget that he and five otherofficers attached to the Embassy had to lay aside theiruniforms, to avoid the insults offered by soldiers andpeople of the lower class, at times when France wasmeeting with reverses, such as those at Rosbach andMinden; and the mortification he endured at hearingthe Empress’ words of comfort to his chief, the Frenchambassador. It was reported that D’Eon had determinedupon not remaining in Russia because he hadseen the daughter of Pope Urban X. (sic), who wasmarried to the gardener of a boyar, receive twentyblows with a stick for several days consecutively; andbecause the said boyar and thirty other boyars werebroken on the wheel, two years afterwards, for theirshare in some Court broil. He mentions this report ofhimself without adding any comment, but relates ananecdote which clearly confirms his unfavourableopinion of the country he was in. A Russian noblemansaid to him one fine summer’s day:—

D’Eon applied for permission to resign on the scoreof ill-health, and to be allowed to join his regiment, buthis departure was necessarily postponed until a suitablesuccessor could be found. For his own part de Choiseulbecame convinced that de l’Hôpital was no longer fittedfor the post of ambassador at St. Petersburg, an opinionshared by the King for quite different reasons, whichneed not be entered into here. De l’Hôpital, however,was an old and faithful servant to the Crown and deservingof every consideration, so that it was felt to beimpossible to recall him abruptly, and such a step waslikely to give offence to the Empress, who had taken afancy to him, and received him at her Court with favourand distinction. As a solution of the difficulty, deChoiseul conceived the idea of appointing a colleagueto the marquis with subordinate rank, who shouldeventually succeed him on his resignation, which, consideringhis age and increasing infirmities, could not longbe delayed. This colleague should be a personal friend ofhis own, to whom he might confide and entrust his policyand intentions, and he nominated the Baron de Breteuil,a young man of twenty-seven, of distinguished appearanceand refined manners. The Count de Broglio, however,also had his candidate, M. Durand, a gentlemanattached to the Embassy at Warsaw, the King’s secretagent in that capital, initiated in the system, well conversantin Russian affairs, and therefore eminently qualifiedto serve the King’s private interests at the Court ofRussia in the room of D’Eon. This nomination the dukeresolutely refused to entertain. He had undeniably[43]good cause to suspect the existence of some occult influenceto his disadvantage, having already found himselfthwarted in his plans, in various quarters, without beingable to trace the obstruction to its source, and haddetermined upon carrying his point, which he completelysucceeded in doing, by prevailing upon the King to signthe Baron de Breteuil’s credentials as minister plenipotentiary.No sooner had the minister’s choice becomean irrevocable fact, than the Count de Broglio andTercier urged upon the King the expediency of admittingthe baron to the secret correspondence, and informinghim that he should best be pleasing his masterby not carrying out the orders of the minister. TheKing had great objection to the admission of newdisciples, but there appeared to be no alternative, andafter a little hesitation his Majesty yielded to therecommendations of his advisers.[53]

On August 23, 1760, de l’Hôpital informed theMinister for Foreign Affairs that M. Poissonnier,[56] theEmpress’s private physician, had recommended D’Eon’sinstant departure from Russia, his ailments threateningserious consequences.

In a private communication to the same minister,de l’Hôpital reminded the duke that D’Eon’s services in[46]foreign affairs were well known; he had not a littlecontributed to a renewal of the alliance with Russia, andhad exerted himself with zeal equal to his activity andintelligence. Such men were deserving of the protectionof ministers such as he was, and of the favours hehad a right to expect.... The state of poor D’Eon’shealth was unsatisfactory, and his private affairs werein a bad condition; and yet his family had long andusefully served the King and State.[57]

The old marquis followed up these strong recommendationsof his young friend with a graceful tributeto his mother at Tonnerre.

Previous to quitting the capital, D’Eon went toPeterhof to take leave of the Empress, who required heshould promise to return to Russia so soon as he hadrecovered his health. In parting from Woronzoff, thecolleague with whose aid he had accomplished so much,the Grand Chancellor said:—

D’Eon carried away with him a souvenir from theEmpress, consisting of a snuff-box with her cipher indiamonds.

Sick and faint, D’Eon left St. Petersburg for thethird and last time in August 1760, taking withhim the ratifications to the Treaty of December 30,1758, and the ratifications to the Maritime Conventionconcluded between Russia, Sweden, and Denmark.Travelling through Finland, Livonia, Courland, Poland,and Hungary, as fast as horses could carry him, he[48]reached Vienna completely exhausted and scarcely ableto move. His friend, the Count de Choiseul,[60] receivedhim in comfortable quarters and supplied all his wants;but he was restless and impatient to complete hisjourney, which he did in equally imprudent haste.Sickening of small-pox at Paris, a long illness and convalescenceentirely unfitted him during several monthsfor any kind of employment.

Upon his recovery, D’Eon was received by the King,who was pleased to confer upon him a life pension oftwo thousand livres, under warrant dated December 24,1760, ‘in acknowledgment of his zeal and ability assecretary of Embassy in Russia, a post he has held forseveral years,’[61] and by the following February he waswell enough to be able to realise his dearest and long-deferredwish, that of active service on the field. Herequested the Minister for War to transfer him from hisown regiment, the dragoons of the Colonel-General,doing duty on the coasts of France, to the regiment ofdragoons of the Marquis d’Autichamp, in the army onthe Upper Rhine, and applied for permission to serve asaide-de-camp to the Marshal and the Count de Broglio,with both of which solicitations the Minister readilycomplied, the King specially approving of D’Eon’s beingon the staff of those officers, remarking that they shouldknow where to find him if he were wanted.[62] This appointmentwas a great compliment, for the marshal wasintractable in the selection of officers to serve on hisstaff, and most punctilious in surrounding himself withscions of the noblest families.[63]

[49]

We first hear of D’Eon after joining the army ashaving been present at the battle of Villinghausen,[64]then with the French force that crossed the Weser onAugust 19. He was under orders that day to removethe powder waggons to a place of safety on the oppositeside of the river, and this under the heavy fire of theenemy—‘a perilous operation,’ as allowed by the Dukede Broglie; and being across he was to find the Countde Guerchy, and deliver to that officer a written orderfrom the marshal.

Had de Guerchy promptly carried out the marshal’sinstructions the ammunition would have been instantlyremoved, the enemy’s fire would have ceased, and thelives of one officer and several grenadiers, occupying aredoubt which covered the two bridges of boats on theWeser, to the right and left of Höxter, would have beenspared. But upon reading the note the general preferredto gallop out of the way, shouting, as he went:‘If you have a supply of ammunition, you have only toremove it to a park of artillery you will find at half aleague’s distance.’ D’Eon gave spur after him, saying,[50]that since he did not wish to, or was unable to executethe marshal’s order, he might return it, and he shoulddo his best to execute it or cause it to be executed.‘Take the order, sir,’ said de Guerchy, returning thenote, ‘and carry it out according to your own judgment.’The enemy’s fire being largely directed to wherethe powder waggons had been removed, and there beingno time to lose, D’Eon took it upon himself to distributethe cartridges, with the assistance of several officers ofartillery who had volunteered their services.[66]

D’Eon was next engaged in a reconnaissance andaction at Ultrop, where he was wounded in the head andthigh; and later (November 7), when at the head of thegrenadiers of Champagne and of a body of Swiss, hedislodged the Scottish highlanders in the gorge of themountain at Einbeck, near Meintos, and pursued themto the English camp; a service he performed with thegreatest difficulty, owing to the tenacity of the enemy inkeeping up a rapid fire. In the latter engagement hecarried the following despatch:—

At Osterwiek, some six to seven hundred FrankishPrussians having intercepted communication with Wolfenbüttel,which was being besieged by Marshal Xavierde Saxe, M. de Saint-Victor was ordered to dislodgethem from their position with a few volunteers, twentyhussars, and eighty dragoons of the regiment of d’Autichampand of de la Ferronaye, in charge of D’Eon.The little detachment of horse was bravely led, and theexploit proved a brilliant one, for the enemy’s battalionwas completely routed and every man made a prisoner.

The dispute between the Marshals de Soubise and deBroglio as to who was in the right and who in thewrong at the battle of Villinghausen, had never cometo an end; for de Broglio, as became the first soldier ofFrance, refused to be put on a par with the hero ofRosbach. The campaign of 1761 being virtually over,de Broglio felt it was quite time the matter wereresolved; and having obtained permission to return toVersailles, hoping to justify his conduct in person, hedelivered to the Duke de Choiseul, now Minister forWar, for delivery to the King, a lengthy statementparticularising the events of July 15 and 16; but[52]the Marquise de Pompadour had taken care that herfavourite should not be the sufferer, and nothing themarshal could have urged was likely to serve his cause,or alter de Pompadour’s determination to punish him.His Majesty disapproved of the marshal’s ‘Mémoire’ asbeing contrary to the interests of his service and a badexample in his kingdom, and ordered him to retire to hiscountry seat, there to remain until further notice.[67]

On leaving Cassel for Versailles, the Marshal andCount de Broglio were accompanied by their aide-de-campD’Eon, who separated himself from the armynever to return to it, through no fault, however, or wishof his own. Short as was his military career, it was atleast brilliant, the qualities he displayed of a bravesoldier meeting with the high commendation of hissuperiors, to whom he had become so closely attachedby the nature of his duties.

It was the fate of the Count de Broglio, for noostensible reason, to share the exile of his brother, butwith that spirit of contradiction and fickleness inherentin Louis XV., he was retained on the staff of the secretcorrespondence and ordered to continue his customaryduties, the King telling Tercier he wasforced to act ashe did. The truth is that the King could scarcely dowithout him, and had felt the force of the remonstrancethe count had the courage to offer when on the pointof leaving Paris for the family estate. ‘Your Majestymay recollect that for several years past I have foreseenthe storm which to-day bursts over me. The verymarks of your Majesty’s favour have gathered it aboutme,’—words that were but the echo of others thecount had addressed to the King years before, whensimilarly misunderstood and suspected by his Majesty’sministers.

We are purposely dwelling on these murmurings of[54]the Count de Broglio that we may be the better able toshow hereafter that he was not the only victim, amongstthe confidential correspondents and agents, to the King’scaprice and selfish indifference.

The new year opened with an event—perhaps uponthe whole unfortunate for France—the not altogetherunexpected death of Elizabeth (January 5); and theaccession of Peter III. was the signal for a cessation ofhostilities and a complete change of front on the partof Russia. The new Tsar agreed with Frederick to atruce, which developed into an alliance, and affordedhim the opportunity for gratifying his tastes for all thatwas German, and further alienating the respect andsympathy of his people. In her struggle against herhusband, for liberty and even life, Catherine turned toFrance for succour—a circumstance that called fordecision and steadfastness of purpose on the part of theFrench representative at her Court; but the Baron deBreteuil proved himself unequal to the occasion by hispusillanimity and hesitation,[70] and Catherine effected herwill independently of French support. The disease wasquickly acknowledged and the remedy as quickly found.De Breteuil was to be replaced by D’Eon upon the recommendationsof the Duke de Choiseul and of the Countde Broglio, although on different grounds; the Kingreadily approving, because in him would be combinedwith the minister plenipotentiary what was of greatestimportance to his Majesty—a well-tried secret correspondent.[71]Other events, however, bid fair to changethese plans. The Emperor was disposed of, and Catherine,[55]in grasping the sceptre, said: ‘If I go to war it willbe to suit my own convenience, and not to please others,as was the case with the Empress Elizabeth.’ Fromvarious causes Louis XV. refused to continue withCatherine the secret correspondence he had entertainedwith her predecessor, and D’Eon’s services were consequentlyno longer required at the Russian capital.De Breteuil was suffered to remain at his post until,too glad to escape the ever-increasing difficulties of hisposition, he was removed, at his own request, to Stockholm.

Among D’Eon’s acquirements was accuracy in the delineationof portrait character, amusement in which hefreely indulged. Describing Catherine II. during thelast days of Peter’s short reign, he says:—

Notwithstanding the sagacity and exactitude, to usethe Duke de Broglie’s own words, with which thisportrait is drawn, testifying to a certain amount ofpersonal knowledge of the subject, the duke, in supportof his theory that D’Eon could not at any time havebeen reader (lectrice)[73] to Elizabeth, reproduces a letterof questionable accuracy from Catherine II. to Grimm,to show how complete a cipher he must have been atthe Russian Court. It is dated April 13, 1778.

We need not stop to inquire why the EmpressCatherine, attached as she was, when grand-duchess,to the party against which all D’Eon’s assaults, by commandof his sovereign, were directed; and who sat upfor nights, translating into French from the Russian,for the edification of Sir Hanbury Williams, all suchdecisions of the Council as were favourable to France,should have thus expressed herself with regard to thesecretary of a brilliant French Embassy; and this in hisadversity, twenty-two years after his certain appearanceat the Court of Russia for the first time. Apart fromD’Eon’s own observation that he dined occasionally at[58]the table of the grand-duke, there exists a letter whichtends to controvert the assertion of her Majesty.

We have here, at any rate, the testimony of theFrench ambassador to D’Eon’s personal knowledge ofthe Empress Catherine, and of his intimacy with thePrincess Dashkoff,[77] of whom we will have something tosay hereafter.

In taking leave of Russia and its concerns, as wemust now do, we are brought to the close of theSeven Years’ War, and our attention turns for a time tothe relations of France with Great Britain during theadministration of Lord Bute.

The preliminaries of the notable peace of 1763,between France and England, were signed at Fontainebleauon November 3, 1762, the ambassador selectedto conduct the negotiations in England being the Dukede Nivernois, once ambassador at Rome, and sent toBerlin in trying circumstances (1756) to endeavour totreat with Frederick. Gaillardet and the Duke de[59]Broglie fall into the same singular error in attributingto this nobleman a portrait by D’Eon, the latter addingdisdainfully—‘the portrait was in all probability onethat pleased D’Eon, for in his official correspondencethe same is applied, word for word, to Lord Sandwich.’That it was intended for the libertine English peer, ofwhom it was said

is clear enough, although even upon its first appearancethe Duke de Praslin thought fit to apply the sketch tohimself, and showed his resentment towards the authorof it in a very tangible manner.

[60]

Repudiating the charge of the Minister for ForeignAffairs, D’Eon says:—

D’Eon has not left us without a rough outline of theDuke de Nivernois, to whom he was devotedly attached.

[61]

D’Eon would have preferred a soldier’s career hadhe been free to choose. Ministers combined to dissuadehim, the Duke de Praslin bidding him ‘hang up his sword,’there being nothing for him to do in the army, and theDuke de Nivernois invited him to become his secretaryof Embassy in London. D’Eon felt that four years’ serviceas secretary in Russia, ‘under critical and most importantcircumstances,’ to use de Nivernois’ own words,entitled him rather to advancement, and in acceptingthe post in London purely from personal regard for theduke, he took the liberty of making it a condition thathe should return to France with the ambassador at thetermination of his mission.

Accompanied by this secretary the duke crossedthe Channel in September. When his lean figureappeared at the place of embarkation at Calais, anEnglish sailor said to his mate, ‘I say, d’ye see howthin that duke is? I remember him as a fine fat fellow.This is how we’ve skinned the French swells in the war.’And so greatly struck by his appearance was an Englishgentleman (Mr. C. Townsend, one of theFlag party)on seeing him for the first time that he exclaimed:‘What! the French have sent over the preliminariesof a man to sign the preliminaries of peace!’

In the course of the transactions on the Treaty ofPeace, D’Eon executed a somewhat adroit, though entirelyindefensible act, which caused no little mirth and secretjoy at Versailles. The negotiations so happily commencedmet with an obstacle, and being checked intheir progress a sort of crisis supervened, when Mr.Wood, Under Secretary of State, called on the Duke deNivernois to confer on certain contested points, andhaving his portfolio with him was indiscreet enough tosay that it contained the final instructions and ultimatum[62]which Lord Egremont had directed him to transmit tothe Duke of Bedford, the King’s ambassador at the Courtof Versailles. Upon hearing this the duke looked atD’Eon, and then cast his eye on the portfolio. D’Eonquickly caught at the sense of this pantomime. It wouldbe a matter of great importance to the French Court toknow the nature of the instructions and the terms ofthis ‘fatal ultimatum.’ He made a sign to the duke, whoat once invited Mr. Wood to stay to dinner and talkover matters. He wished him, he said, to taste somesamples of good wine from Tonnerre.... The bait took,and whilst the duke and Mr. Wood were enjoying theirbumpers, D’Eon extracted from the portfolio Lord Egremont’sdespatches, caused exact copies to be taken, andforwarded them instantly to Versailles, the Frenchcourier arriving twenty-four hours earlier than Mr.Wood’s. When the Duke of Bedford called to broachthe subject, de Choiseul and de Praslin, already apprisedof the difficulties about to be raised, and of the Britishambassador’s final instructions, were readily enabled tocome to terms. This was a smart piece of work in deNivernois’ opinion,[82] and de Praslin declared there wasnobody like D’Eon, and that he was quite deserving ofall the King’s favours.

D’Eon was instrumental in smoothing away anotherdifficulty. The Duke de Nivernois had altered severalarticles in the ultimatum of the treaty, an act whichgave umbrage to the English ministers, and Count Viriapprised him that if he did not withdraw the alterationshe might as well leave the country; to which the dukereplied that neither his honour nor dignity would allowof his withdrawing an ultimatum given in the name of[63]the King. Matters were looking serious, when D’Eonproposed that the duke should tell Lords Bute andEgremont of his secretary’s excess of zeal in makingalterations unknown to himself. ‘Every tongue will rail,every mouth open upon me,’ continued D’Eon. ‘Withall my heart; and if you choose you may also say thatyou will send me back to France.’ The duke caughtat the idea, and had the generosity to explain to dePraslin and to the King his indebtedness to D’Eon.[83]

The conduct of the secretary of Embassy duringprogress of the negotiations was all that his superiorscould desire, and he earned the gratitude of many aFrench prisoner by his exertions in administering totheir comfort. Scarcely a letter left the ambassadorthat was not replete with the highest encomiums.

On February 10, 1763, Mr. Richard Neville Nevilleleft Paris for London with the Treaty of Peace signedthat same evening by the plenipotentiaries of GreatBritain, France, and Spain;[85] a treaty that compelled[64]France to part with all the territory she had acquiredin Germany, England retaining the whole of Canada,Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, the Gulf and River of St.Lawrence, Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, Tobago,Senegal, some territory to the east of the Mississippi,and Minorca. Spain received Louisiana from France inexchange for Florida, given up to England, France beingpermitted to retain Belle-Isle, Martinique, and Guadaloupe—alsoChandernagor and Pondicherry, on conditionthat they should not be fortified, and further engagingto demolish the defences at Dunkirk.

It was an unprecedented mark of favour on thepart of George III. to confide to D’Eon the ratificationsto the Treaty for conveyance to his Majesty’s ambassadorat Versailles.[86] In announcing to de Praslin theapproaching departure of his secretary on the proudmission, de Nivernois claimed for him, in accordancewith usage, a gratuity of equal value—one thousandcrowns—to that about to be received from his ownGovernment by Mr. Neville for having brought the[65]Treaty to London. De Praslin insisted that no Englishminister would ever think of entrusting such preciousdocuments to a foreigner; it would be contrary to ruleand custom, and it would therefore be idle to expectthat D’Eon should be selected for the duty. It was theduke’s anxiety, he said, to serve his secretary, that hadblinded him to facts and precedent. D’Eon was stillyoung enough to be of good service, and he should takecare to afford him the opportunity for earning distinction.When, later, the Foreign Minister had to acknowledgehis mistake, he considered the choice of D’Eon to bea very straightforward proceeding on the part of theKing of England and of his ministers, who were givingproofs of the nobility of their sentiments, and inspiringthe desire and hope for the establishment and maintenanceof good relations and lasting concord betweenthe two Courts. ‘I am very glad you were stupidenough[87] to believe it impossible that the French secretary—mylittle D’Eon—should be the bearer of theKing of England’s ratifications,’ wrote De Nivernois inreply.[88]

D’Eon attributed his good luck to the kindness ofthe King of England, of Lord Bute, Count Viri, the Dukede Nivernois, and to his ownsavoir-faire. ‘He bringsme luck,’ said Louis XV., who received him warmly, andshortly afterwards conferred upon him the Cross of theRoyal and Military Order of Saint Louis, a gratuity of sixthousand livres, and raised his salary to the maximumof one thousand crowns. De Praslin was delighted, saidD’Eon was a good-looking fellow, a hard worker whohad performed his mission with great diligence, andawarded him a gratuity of two thousand crowns. Eventhe Marquise de Pompadour expressed her satisfaction, ina letter to de Nivernois, at seeing one who it was saidwas an excellent person, and had served his King inseveral countries, employed to bring the Treaty toFrance. She considered it a great act of politeness onthe part of the English to entrust him with the Treaty.She liked the King of England, who was full of candourand humanity, and possessed every virtue that constituteda good king.[89]

It had been arranged from the beginning that theDuke de Nivernois’ embassage should end with thecompletion of the negotiations, the minister nominatedto succeed him being the Count de Guerchy, with whomwe are already acquainted. ‘I must do him the justiceto say,’ wrote the British ambassador in Paris, ‘thatde Guerchy has a universal good character as a soldierand a man of honour.’[90] But the Duke of Bedford wasgreatly led into error in this estimate of the character[67]of a nobleman who was selected regardless of any qualificationbut that of rank, his strongest recommendationbeing his marriage with a lady of the House of Harcourt,and his only claims to the highest ambassadorial post inthe gift of the King being the favour of the Marquise dePompadour and a short period of obscure service in thewar. He is described by Gaillardet as one of thosegentlemen who live nobly in noble idleness, who arecharitable until their own purse is touched, ostentatiousuntil called upon to spend, ambitious of high office forthe sake of the title, and of the title for the sake of theemolument; esteeming a good estate preferable to a goodeducation; and persuaded that one always knows enoughwhen of good birth, in good health, and possessing a goodincome. De Praslin’s own opinion of the man he wasabout to employ as ambassador in London is bestgathered from what he says of him to de Nivernois:—

De Nivernois was out of health when he acceptedthe mission to England at the urgent instance of theKing and of his old friend the Count de Choiseul, shortlyafterwards created Duke de Praslin, and he never ceasedto complain of his physical sufferings from the day hebegan to live in a climate that did not suit him. He had[68]always hoped to leave ‘his little D’Eon’ in charge untilde Guerchy’s nomination was officially notified. Hetrembled for that poor novice in politics when hethought of the difficulties he should experience in acountry where people were far from being like ordinarymen; for this envoy of an absolute monarch, puzzledand perplexed in all probability at the large distributionof political power in England, and the number ofthose who shared in the responsibilities of government,gave it as his opinion that to conduct negotiations in thecountry to which he had been accredited was nothingshort of hard labour!

We cannot resist quoting here, in their place, a fewlines from a letter of de Praslin to his friend in London,which serve to expose, with what has already beensaid, the worth and honesty of purpose of the men whowere directing the affairs of France.

The opportunity for leaving D’Eon in charge on thedeparture of the ambassador seeming to be lost, deNivernois recommended him for appointment as Resident,an arrangement desirable in the interests of the King’sservice, and one which would enable de Guerchy toreceive such valuable assistance as no other person butthe secretary of Embassy was qualified to render, forhe was fully competent to continue the work he, theambassador, had commenced. D’Eon’s presence waspreferable to that of a stranger. Lord Bute had takena fancy to him, which was saying a great deal, and was[69]a piece of luck that might not fall to a new-comer. Onthe other hand, D’Eon was being informed by M. SainteFoy, senior clerk at the Foreign Office, that it wasearnestly desired he should remain with de Guerchy,and yet de Praslin was slow in paying the smallestattention to de Nivernois’ frequent recommendationsin his favour. De Praslin had his reasons; he doubtedD’Eon’s loyalty towards himself, and suspected him ofbeing in correspondence with the exiled de Broglios.He should put him to the test, and how this was accomplishedshall be related in D’Eon’s own words:—

[70]

Eighteen years after the battle of Villinghausen,D’Eon wrote:—

A few days after his interview with de Praslin,D’Eon was asked confidentially by the Duchess deNivernois if he was not in correspondence with M. deBroglio. ‘No, madam,’ said D’Eon, ‘and I am sorryfor it, as I am very fond of the Marshal de Broglio, butI do not wish to trouble him with my letters; I amsatisfied with writing to him on each New Year’s Day.’

[71]

‘I am very glad to hear this for your sake, my dearlittle friend,’ continued the duchess. ‘Let me tell you inconfidence that intimacy with the House of de Brogliomight be of injury to you at Court, and in the mind ofde Guerchy, your future ambassador.’

D’Eon had not strayed from the truth, for it was theCount de Broglio, whose name had not been mentioned inthe two conversations just related, who was his frequentcorrespondent, and not the marshal, with whom he communicatedbut seldom, supplying him with the newsof the day, but chiefly with Court gossip. Speaking ofde Soubise in a letter to the marshal, D’Eon says:—

Referring in after years to his interview with dePraslin, on the subject of the battle of Villinghausen,we find D’Eon saying:—

On March 30 D’Eon arrived in London, and wason the same day invested with the Cross of the Royaland Military Order of Saint Louis[99] by the Dukede Nivernois, at his own request as had been pre-arranged.He had brought with him some costlypresents from his royal master to the Count Viri, EnvoyExtraordinary from the King of Sardinia (well knownin English history as being engaged in secret negotiationswith Lord Bute), in recognition of his valuableservices, being the first to mediate for peace betweenGreat Britain and the two illustrious Houses of Bourbon,the King’s thanks being conveyed to the Sardinianminister in a letter from de Praslin.[100]

The appointment, dated April 17, of the ChevalierD’Eon as Resident and Chargé d’Affaires, relieved deNivernois of his functions and left him free to returnto his home and ‘get rid of the violent and well-seasonedcold from which he was suffering—an Englishcold that seemed to have no end;’ but he delayed hisdeparture for the purpose of proceeding to Oxford andreceiving the degree of Doctor,in facultate juris. Theduke, who had never been in England before, declaredthe journey had been most instructive to him. He sawsome of the finest things in the world, was greatlyastonished at the general high state of cultivation, andat the absence of poor people in the districts throughwhich he travelled—the poorest seemed well to do, andwould pass for burgesses in any small French provincialtown. De Nivernois left London in May, travellingleisurely to Dover, chiefly in consequence of the state ofhis health, but also from a wish to see places on theroad, and especially Chatham dockyard, and was no doubtthe identical French ambassador of whom Smollett, whoposted over the same ground a week or two later, relates[74]in one of his letters that he was charged forty poundsby a knave of a publican at Canterbury for a supperthat was not worth forty shillings!

On leaving for England, D’Eon had become thesecret correspondent of Louis XV., with whom andwith the Count de Broglio and Tercier he was to communicate,in cypher or otherwise, as occasion mightrequire, his instructions being similar in every particularto those he received when on his earliest journey to St.Petersburg in 1755.

The first duty upon which the Chevalier was engagedin the capacity of secret agent was to assist in the perfectionof a scheme for the invasion of England, devisedby the Count de Broglio, approved by the King, whosehatred towards England had greatly intensified since theconclusion of peace, and a task ultimately accomplishedto the satisfaction of his Majesty in the face of numerousdifficulties. Two persons were selected by de Broglioto effect, in concert, the great work in hand—one, theactive agent, was a young officer of Engineers of considerableability and established reputation, Carlet de laRosière, who had served during the war, and had beenattached for a time as aide-de-camp to the Duke deBroglio. A prisoner of the Prussians, Frederick refusedto sanction his exchange. ‘When an officer of distinctionis taken,’ said that monarch, ‘he is retained as longas possible.’[101] The other, the passive agent, was de laRosière’s kinsman, the Chevalier D’Eon. The undertakingwas to be completed without the knowledge ofany of the King’s ministers, and besides the two named,one other person only was admitted into the secret,according to the King’s will.

[75]

Every conceivable precaution was taken to avoid discoveryand ensure success, and that de la Rosière mightnot incur the smallest risk of detection by papers of acompromising character being found about his luggageor person, he was ordered to make his periodical reportsorally, if possible, to the Chevalier D’Eon, who was tonote and retain them within the inviolable precincts ofthe Embassy, of which he was thegenius loci. The Kingwas not indifferent to his own safety.

The special cypher to be employed being considered[76]scarcely sufficient security, a nickname was assigned toeach person likely to be named in the correspondence:

The Chevalier’s instructions were contained in thefollowing letters:—

The count recommended D’Eon to invite his cousin,D’Eon de Mouloise, to stay with him, so that in theevent of any unforeseen circumstance he might give himcharge of the correspondence, with the strictest injunctionsnot to pass it on to any person whatsoever, andmore especially not to de Guerchy. The count concludedby recommending to D’Eon’s protection theMarquis de la Rosière—

De Praslin failed, as we have seen, to incriminatethe Chevalier in a correspondence with the exiled deBroglios, but it so happened that shortly after receivingthe duke’s report of his midnight interview with D’Eon,on the subject of the battle of Villinghausen, de Pompadourobtained certain information tending to confirmher suspicions, without, however, affording sufficientlytangible evidence. Unsuccessful in securing this, whicheverway she directed the scrutiny of those at Courttoo pliant to her will, her spirit of malevolence impelledher not to stop short of anything in the attainment ofher wishes.

[79]

D’Eon attributed de Pompadour’s attention beingdirected towards himself to the action of an informerwith whom he had long been acquainted. We quotehis own narrative:—

After relating de Pompadour’s act for satisfying hercupidity, the Chevalier continues:—

The Chevalier’s nomination as Resident at the Courtof St. James’ was succeeded by that, on May 31, ofMr. Neville, in succession to the Duke of Bedford, asResident and Chargé d’Affaires at the French Court, thesame rank with which D’Eon was invested, and withwhom Neville was placed in every respect on the[82]same footing. D’Eon had been received by GeorgeIII., but when, in due course, Neville demanded anaudience, he was informed by the ‘Introducteur desAmbassadeurs’ that there never was an instance of aresident having had an audience to present his credentials.Neville pressed his rights until, finding it impossibleto approach the King, he reported the difficulty ofhis situation. De Praslin had in the meantime givenofficial intimation to the above effect to Lord Egremontthrough D’Eon, and afterwards suggested as a meansout of the dilemma that Neville should be accreditedminister plenipotentiary, the lowest rank that could bereceived at the French Court. Lord Egremont quicklyreminded the French ministers that since a residentcould not be received in audience at the Court of France,they should have better considered their action whenmaking such an appointment. The error was theirs,and it was for them to rectify it by being the first toappoint a minister plenipotentiary, in which caseEngland could reciprocate. An active interchange ofletters between the two ministers, from June 13 toJuly 22, resulted to the great advantage of D’Eon, whoreceived new credential letters giving him the characterof minister plenipotentiary, in which quality he wasagain presented to the King of England; after which,other credentials were furnished to Neville, then for thefirst time received by his Most Catholic Majesty.[112]

We have reached that period of D’Eon’s life—hewas but in his thirty-fifth year—when he had becomeminister plenipotentiary from France at the Court ofGreat Britain; he had obtained the coveted knighthoodof Saint Louis; he was the secret correspondent ofLouis XV., and the secret agent of his Majesty and of[83]the Count de Broglio in the drafting of plans for theinvasion of England. Numerous congratulations pouredin upon him, among them being those of Count Woronzoffand the Marquis de l’Hôpital, his fellow-workers inRussia. How he took his promotion appears in thefollowing letter—a free and outspoken denunciation ofwhat he felt might be in store for him—to the man hemost esteemed and loved.

The Chevalier was greatly liked in English society,and had become a favourite of good George III. Wefind him included by Horace Walpole amongst the distinguishedguests at the Strawberry Hill breakfast givento Madame de Boufflers, and his countrymen were proudof their representative; but a storm was gatheringwhich was about to engulf him, and turn the tide of his[84]fortunes, so brilliant at the outset, in a completely differentdirection.

The Count de Broglio’s apprehensions for the safetyof de la Rosière’s reports and other private papers of theKing, increased as the time of de Guerchy’s departurefor England drew nigh. In his restless anxiety, heinstructed D’Eon to remove himself and every privatedocument in his charge from the French Embassy,before the ambassador made his appearance, to apartmentswhere they should be absolutely beyond hisinterference and reach. Any excuse would do toaccount for his change of residence, and he was recommendedto take to live with him either of his kinsmen,D’Eon de Mouloise or Carlet de la Rosière, who wouldbe valuable protection against any attempt at a surprise,and trusty substitutes in the event of any unforeseenaccident to himself; in fact, every precaution was to betaken to prevent the secret correspondence from fallinginto the hands of strangers, and especially of the King’sambassador and ministers. In a few days the preciousdocuments were securely deposited in a house in DoverStreet, to which D’Eon removed immediately upon thearrival of the Count de Guerchy.

So thoroughly was the secret maintained that afterfour months even the late ambassador, the Duke deNivernois, who was on the most intimate and friendlyterms with all at Court, expressed his surprise at D’Eon’shaving quitted the Embassy. ‘Why do you alwayswish to live by yourself and remain in loneliness?’ hewrote; ‘how can you live separated from your work,and where can your work be, but under the ambassador’sroof?’ The Chevalier quotes Psalm cii. 7,and adds cynically: ‘I prefer the solitude of my littlelibrary to the society of the great. Men are not good[85]for much. Knaves or fools; so much for three-fourthsof them; as for the other fourth, they stay at home.’

The Marquise de Pompadour had condemned theChevalier D’Eon for acts he had not committed—he hadnot betrayed his connection with the de Broglios, he refusedto betray the King his master—both ever existinggrievances in her mind, and she decreed his fall anddisgrace. Men willing to stoop to do her will, andsufficiently powerful to carry it out, were not wantingat Versailles. With such as the Duke de Praslin, theCount d’Argental, and the Count de Guerchy, pretextscould never fail, and the Chevalier’s epistolary dissensionswith de Praslin on certain monetary claimsagainst the State, which he honestly persisted in making,as also his just resentment of de Guerchy’s censureson what the latter considered excessive outlay at hisexpense, during the term of D’Eon’s office as Frenchrepresentative in London, readily made up the sum ofheavy charges wherewith to crush him. We wouldavoid anticipating events, but let us say here, thatdesigns even on the life of the minister plenipotentiarywere contemplated by two, at the least, of the triumviratewhich had bound itself to wreck him.[114]

When D’Eon was first sent on secret service toRussia, he had to contract a loan of ten thousand livreson his own account to meet his expenses. Ordered byM. Rouillé, Minister for Foreign Affairs, when despatchedto Russia for the second time officially, to remain withthe Chevalier Douglas until the arrival of the ambassador,Douglas considered it desirable, in view ofthe coming changes, that D’Eon’s application forreimbursement should not be made except to his own[86]Court, feeling persuaded that sooner or later his claimwould be acknowledged by the latter. Acquiescing inthis, D’Eon deferred pressing for money, and contentedhimself by zealously carrying out what he knew to be thewishes of M. Rouillé, who had frequently and authoritativelypromised him promotion and rewards, should themission upon which he was employed turn out a success;but upon his return to France that minister wasno longer in office, and when he solicited the Cardinalde Bernis and the Duke de Choiseul for a settlement, wasmet by each with the reply, ‘You should have obtainedpayment of my predecessor.’

From the time that de Praslin, as Count de Choiseul,had succeeded his cousin, the Duke de Choiseul, in theMinistry for Foreign Affairs, D’Eon took frequent occasionto remind him of his entangled situation, arisingfrom having to pay interest on the original loan of tenthousand livres expended in the interests of the Crown.His debt had increased to fifteen thousand livres, andhe found himself seriously compromised and threatenedby his creditors, with no prospect whatever, consideringhis own limited resources, of being able to satisfy theirjust demands. Having settled his small property onhis mother, he was entirely dependent on his own exertions,and, notwithstanding the estimation in which hisservices were held, he had always been kept a poorman. His salary as secretary of Embassy in Russianever exceeded three thousand livres, and even thatwas reduced to one thousand crowns upon the Duke deChoiseul assuming office. When on leave of absencefrom his regiment, awaiting orders to proceed to St.Petersburg, his pay was stopped; and as secretary ofEmbassy in London he was in receipt of three thousandlivres only. ‘Three thousand livres a year,’ wrote de[87]Nivernois to de Praslin, when pressing the Chevalier’sclaims to greater consideration, ‘does not go so far inLondon as would fifteen thousand livres in Paris. Theseare but the wages of an ordinary clerk ... his salaryshould be more in accordance with the style of livingin England, where everything is singularly expensive.’De Praslin was not to be moved, and yet what strongerproof was needed of his sense of the wrongs underwhich D’Eon was suffering, and of the recognisedserious nature of his embarrassments, than is to befound in the singular document supplied to him as protectionin France against arrest and detention, at amoment when he was required to proceed to Versailles,with the ratifications to the Treaty of Peace.

Pursued and worried by his creditors at home andabroad, and in despair at the extremities to which hewas being reduced, the Chevalier lost all control overhimself in his communications with the Foreign Minister,who, he considered, had failed to keep his word.

A friendly note of reproof from his late chief, deNivernois, for having written so ‘churlish’ a letter tode Praslin, was met by D’Eon’s regret that his ‘churlish’letter had given cause for vexation. The truths heexposed, and the integrity of his demands, were notintended to vex two just and enlightened ministers....He respectfully demanded justice of a minister he respected... he respected the minister’s economy thatrefused to pay his debts, but he respected much morehis justice that should pay them. So soon as he receivedthe money, he would become as meek as apaschal lamb.

Simultaneously with the griefs that were being sovigorously laid before de Praslin, the Chevalier wasindulging in a brisk interchange of letters with deGuerchy, in which he vindicated himself with no littledexterity against the charges of wanton extravaganceas host at the embassy in London, for the general maintenanceof which the count was solely responsible, theliberal allowance of a minister at one of the first Courtsin Europe being enjoyed by him, though only ambassadorin petto, and not by the minister plenipotentiaryin situ. The spirit of satire and sarcasm in which D’Eonhad latterly indited his letters to both those ministerswas more than either could bear with; but, forgettingtheir dignity in the face of what, after all, was grossinsubordination, they gave way to a feeling of resentment,the former in admonitions and threats, afterreceipt of the ‘churlish’ note; the latter, by beingoffensive and insulting, and persisting in peevish andunbecoming lamentations on the frequent requisitionsto which his pocket was subjected. We cannot undertaketo reproduce in full the mutual recriminations,brimming with scorn, that brought to a close the unseemly[91]paper war which irrevocably sealed the fate ofthe Chevalier D’Eon; but we must at least find roomfor a few of the ugly things that were said by the strong,as well as by him who was on the defensive, and whomthey were deliberately luring to his destruction.

This and much more was irritating matter enough,and might perhaps have been borne with patience bythe Chevalier; but one other paragraph there waswhich placidly gave him the lie, and banished all hopesof relief out of his financial difficulties, so long as dePraslin remained at the Foreign Ministry.

It was not in D’Eon’s nature to receive this prevaricatingstatement with composure. He was notsufficiently cool-headed to make a perfectly good[92]courtier. Smarting under insult and what he consideredundeserved injury, he relieved his agitated mindin emphatic language such as this:—

One extract, I think, suffices as an illustration of thegeneral character of de Guerchy’s letters to D’Eon:—

In another letter to de Guerchy, the Chevalierwrites:—

Unyielding as the Duke de Broglie shows himself tobe in his general condemnation of D’Eon, we find himadmitting[119] that French persons of distinction aboundedin London during several months after the re-establishmentof peace, all eager to visit the country so littleknown and until then so little understood, and whosecustoms and literature had only just been brought intofashion by Voltaire and Montesquieu. It became therage, as sometimes happens with society in Paris; andthe idea that they were rendering homage to conquerorsdid not restrain any of the generation of that day, moreinterested in political and philosophical innovationsthan in national honour. The Countess de Boufflers[120]had given the signal, arriving with a number of literarypeople in her train.

Mistrustful, too, of the Chevalier’s veracity, the Duke[97]de Broglie informs his readers that until he had seenthe original letter to de Guerchy, dated September 25,in the official archives, he could not believe in theauthenticity of the copy published by D’Eon himself inhis ‘Lettres, Mémoires et Négotiations Particulières,’the work to which we are frequently having recourse.The duke’s, and our own readers, will perhaps feelinclined to sympathise with his grace’s amazement atD’Eon’s audacity in holding such language towards hissuperiors, until they learn the vantage afforded by avitiated and unscrupulous minister, when he again insultedthe Chevalier by seeking his co-operation in anodious and dishonourable transaction. De Guerchy’scomplaints of the Chevalier’s extravagance as hislocumtenens became so loud and frequent that an idea—a mostfoul idea—was conceived by de Praslin for making goodthe supposed losses sustained by his old friend. Incredibleas it appeared at the time, de Nivernois lentsomething more than his countenance in support, for itwas he who first proposed it to D’Eon. His letter borethree dates, September 9, 10 and 11, which the Chevalierinterpreted by saying that the late ambassador’s handhad refused its office twice, even his ink-horn hadshrunk from him, until at last his noble heart hadhumbled itself to please old friends—the minister andambassador.

So far as the Chevalier was personally concerned,he felt that all he had to reproach in the Duke deNivernois was the Italian shrewdness of his great-uncle theCardinal Mazarin, and the extreme weakness and tendernessof his poor nerves and understanding. He thoughtthe duke must have been endowed to a marvellousextent with a natural fund of honesty, for it was awonderful fact that, although he had been the friend ofthree illustrious rascals during the past thirty years,the purity of his soul had never become contaminatedby so long and so close a friendship, by so foul andunnatural an alliance. The astounding virtue of theamiable duke reminded him of that of St. Ives.SanctusIvo erat advocatus et non latro. O res miranda![121]

One other mortification, the climax to the persecutionhe was undergoing, the Chevalier was aboutto endure, and when we shall have become acquaintedwith it, there will no longer be room for surprise at thebold and unflinching attitude he had been assuming,and at the factious spirit in which he had been addressinghis superiors.

When the Chevalier’s credentials as Resident reachedEngland, de Nivernois, perceiving that hisprotégé’smission was to end with the appearance of a new ambassador,[99]took occasion to express himself in unmistakableterms to de Praslin on the unfairness of thearrangement, and urged, considering the past valuableservices of his secretary and the conditions upon whichhe had accepted his appointment the preceding autumn,that promotion, to which he was fully entitled, should bepermanent. Never ceasing to concern himself in all thatrelated to ‘his little D’Eon,’ de Nivernois, althoughno longer ambassador, continued his exertions longafter returning to France, with the success only of receivingintimation from the minister that the Chevalierwas shortly to become minister plenipotentiary, whenhe should have to abandon his old claim to travellingexpenses in Russia; but that upon de Guerchy’s arrivalhe must return to his duties as secretary of Embassy.Whatever the occasion, however, of the ambassador’sabsence from his post in the future, D’Eon should beleft in charge with the temporary rank of resident; andthis was all he could expect. Feeling how unpalatablesuch news would be, de Nivernois earnestly recommendedthe Chevalier to accept the situation and hopefor better days. It was true that in again becomingsecretary after having been minister plenipotentiary, hewas descending from a bishopric to become a miller,but millers who had been bishops were not to be foundby the dozen! He warned him against further dispositionto rebel, repeating what he had already said morethan once: ‘I know the man with whom you will haveto deal’—an opinion of de Guerchy much of the samesubstance as that expressed by the Count de Broglio.

It was very singular, thought the Chevalier, thatwhen engaged in war he was at peace with everybody,but since he had toiled at the re-establishment of peace,he seemed to be at war with everybody.

[100]

D’Eon further informed the duke that his loins werenot sufficiently supple to enable him to vault politically,at one time on the mule of a bishop, at another on theass of a miller!

Without seeking to justify the Chevalier’s conduct[101]in addressing such flippant letters to his superiors, evento those he loved so well, some indulgence may beclaimed under provocation of no ordinary character.His pension, ever in arrear, was irregularly paid; hissalary as resident was fixed at the inadequate sum of12,000 livres, and he was to live at the charge of theambassador, whose pocket, by desire of de Praslin andde Nivernois, should be spared to the utmost, and forwhose sole benefit a gratuity was to be obtained fromthe King, by a fraud in which it was expected he wouldconnive. It was too true that de Guerchy was totallyunfitted for the high office he had been called upon tofill, but ‘little D’Eon, experienced, zealous, and useful,’would be retained to do the work, and steer the countclear of all eventual troubles; not, however, with thetitle of minister or resident, to which he had beenraised, but as secretary of Embassy, to which he wouldhave to descend, resuming the former rank at suchtimes only as the ambassador might be absent from hispost. ‘Little D’Eon, an easy, good-natured fellow,’would have peaceably resigned himself almost to anyarrangement in accordance with the pleasure of ministers;but the prospect of degradation to secretary, at the sameCourt at which he had become plenipotentiary, wasmore than his proud spirit could bear. This was theopen wound that never healed.... He had beendirected by the King to receive his instructions fromTercier as if they came from himself; he accordinglywrote to Tercier for guidance, received expressions ofsympathy and confessions of indignation, and beingsupported by further secret orders from his sovereign,he determined on his course of action.

For several months past an ambassador to Francehad been talked about, and so early as April 14, D’Eon[102]had intimated to de Guerchy that it was commonlybelieved Lord Hertford would be named, accompanyingthe information, as was his custom, with a sketch of thatnobleman. The earl was a Knight of the Garter, thefather of six sons and six daughters all living, withoutcounting those to come, for her ladyship was still youngand in an interesting condition. His lordship spokeFrench well, and was just the man to preserve the peaceso happily arranged between the two nations. He wasa very courteous and amiable man, and of the sameillustrious family as the beautiful Seymour, one of theempty-headed wives of a heartless king—he alluded toHenry VIII.[122]

The official notification of the Earl of Hertford’sappointment, September 29, as ambassador to the Courtof France, was quickly followed by the official nomination,October 3, of the Count de Guerchy. Speaking ofthe new minister, George III. asked the French plenipotentiaryif he was a good officer as general of infantry,to which D’Eon replied that he was so good as never tohave harmed anybody, and although a general of infantryhe considered him better qualified to command cavalry,because at the battle of Minden he recommended thecavalry to be placed in the centre and infantry on thewings. De Guerchy arrived in London on October 17,and put up at Lord Holland’s. The Chevalier hastenedto wait upon his new chief, and the two men stood faceto face, not for the first time in their lives, de Guerchyat once betraying the spirit by which he was animated,in expressing his surprise at D’Eon not being presentwhen he alighted from his coach, and then askingwhether he did not regret having written to him hisletter of September 25. ‘No, sir, and were you to[103]write me such another letter as that of September 4,from Jouy, I should be obliged to send you a similarreply.’ De Guerchy added that he should preserve theoriginal as long as he lived; to which D’Eon repliedthat if he feared to lose it he begged to offer copies inquadruplicate, with his own attestationne variatur!And so ended the first interview in England betweenthese two men, whose malignant hatred of each otherwas not even swallowed up in death.

In the course of the evening, de Guerchy informedD’Eon that he had brought his letters of recall. ‘A labonheur (sic), Monsieur le Comte!’ said the latter. ‘Iwill call for them in the morning, and at the sametime hand over all papers likely to be of consequenceto you.’ The following day, after de Guerchy hadreceived the Embassy archives and assumed officialcharge, the Chevalier demanded his letters of recall.The ambassador, strangely agitated, searched drawers,portfolios, and elsewhere, and finding them at last inhis pocket, gave them to D’Eon, at whose quiet acceptanceof them he seemed disconcerted. D’Eon believedthat the pretended search was to give him time tomake some kind of apology for the past.

[104]

The Chevalier was recalled, and yet expressly forbiddento appear at Court! There was apprehensionlest he should bring to light the iniquities of which hewas the victim! He was greatly moved at the contentsof this letter, for even the despatch he had receivedsome days previously, through the hands of a secretcourier, had scarcely prepared him for so overwhelminga blow.

‘I have frequently heard the Chevalier D’Eon repeatto my father,’ says Madame Campan, ‘the contentsof this letter, in which Louis XV. thus separated hisindividuality from the person of the King of France.The Chevalier or Chevalière had kept all the King’sletters ...’[125] yet the Duke de Broglie refuses to acknowledgeits authenticity, and labours to prove thatit is an imposture.[126]

No sooner had the Chevalier read de Praslin’s letterthan it fell from his hands. He began to suspect,for the first time, the evils that menaced him. Whatwas he to hope from the strength of character of amonarch who deserted him when he had done nothing[105]but obey his commands, and whose only exhibition ofcourage consisted in signing away his downfall with thestamp instead of with the sign-manual. Unable to adoptand digest the idea that the King would submit himselfto the will of others, and sacrifice one who was dear tohim and whom he supported in secret, the Chevalierconcluded that the affixing of a stamped signaturecould only have been an act of momentary weakness,a concession to temporary necessities, and he felt thathe should be the more surely justified, from havingbeen so unjustly condemned. Reflections such as thesegave him courage and hope; he resumed his habitualgaiety, his usual indifference, and resolved upon adheringto all the King’s instructions, whatever thedamaging situations in which they might place him.He did not, however, resign himself to this sort ofhumiliation without a struggle, being specially sensitiveon points of honour and self-esteem, feelings to whichhe was prone, and which were readily excited withinhim.... He awaited his enemies with resignation,having made up his mind to yield, step by step, inchby inch, and make them pay dearly for a triumph hesome day hoped to avenge.[127]

It had become de Praslin’s object to crush theChevalier, first by degrading him, then seizing hisperson, when he would have thrown him in all probabilityinto the Bastille. To effect this, he showedD’Eon’s two letters of September 25 to the King—theone to himself, the other to de Guerchy—and maintainedthat both sufficiently betrayed aberration ofwind in the plenipotentiary, who could not possiblycontinue at a foreign court. It was under pressuresuch as this that Louis XV., feigning to believe in the[106]imputation, suffered the despatch of the letter of recall,signed, not with his hand, but with the stamp.

‘Instead of bringing the Chevalier to trial and provinghis guilt, de Praslin contented himself by causingforged letters of recall to be presented to the King ofEngland by the Count de Guerchy. There was nothingin this to manifest the majesty of ministerial justice—itwas the feeble apology of a desperate cause.’[129]

It was enough for the Chevalier to have learnt fromthe King himself that his letters of recall were not signedwith the sign-manual; he felt assured that his Majestycould not be prevailed upon to sign away, with his ownhand, his perdition, whilst want of firmness and feeblenessof character had precluded him from fairly interposingin the action of his minister, and he refused torecognise the authenticity of the document.[130]

[107]

Had D’Eon gone on to state how injured innocencewas to reach a despotic monarch, his experience would[108]have been of service to many, even in this the last butone decade of the nineteenth century; for the absolutismof his adored master, his Most Christian MajestyLouis XV., is not to be compared to that of one Christianruler of these our times, the Imperial ruler, who,whatever the disposition of his heart, is condemned bytradition and long custom to spend his days in lonelygrandeur, invisible and unapproachable to all but oneor two dissembling and unfaithful ministers, too oftenshunned by even his nearest relatives, and thereforeunjustly mistrusted and despised by his subjects ofevery class.

With his usual alacrity and wariness in anticipatingdifficulties, by strengthening the position into which hesometimes fancied he was forced by chance, the Chevaliertook occasion to represent to Lord Halifax, at a specialinterview for which he had asked, that he could notconsider his letters of recall as authentic. In the firstplace, they had been brought by the Count de Guerchy,which was absolutely contrary to all precedent, and inthese letters he was styled, simply, Minister Plenipotentiary,the titles of Knight of the Order of Saint Louisand Captain of Dragoons being omitted, although theyappeared in his credentials; and what was of most importance,they were not signed with the King’s ownhand. Lord Halifax expressed surprise at these informalities,and said that any English minister rashenough to make use of the King’s signature undersimilar circumstances would be doing so at the risk ofhis head; the King of England signed with his ownhand all letters to foreign princes, and all special instructionsto his ministers. Such an expression ofopinion was exactly what the Chevalier wanted.[132]

[110]

The Embassy archives received by de Guerchy werecontained in the same four despatch-boxes in whichthey had been delivered to D’Eon by de Nivernois, andconsisted only of the official cypher and ordinary correspondence;but on taking leave of Madame de Pompadourand the Minister for Foreign Affairs, de Guerchyhad engaged to secure, not only the Chevalier’s person,but every scrap of paper in his possession. Failing toobtain them coaxingly, he imperiously demanded, inthe many angry altercations on the subject, that all thedocuments which had passed into his hands during histerm of office, should be immediately and unconditionallygiven up! D’Eon quietly persisted in his refusal tosurrender all such other papers as he conceived he hada right to retain, unless he received orders to thecontrarydirect from the King, and on October 23 hefurnished the ambassador with this decision in writing.

The nature of the papers they coveted was a mysteryto de Pompadour, de Praslin, and de Guerchy, exceptthat it was believed they incriminated D’Eon in a correspondencewith the proscribed de Broglios. Suchwould certainly have been the case, but they also includedthe detailed plans for an invasion of England,contemplated, as we are aware, and being completedduring the few months that had transpired since thetreaty of peace had been signed.

Finding D’Eon intractable and resolute, de Guerchywas urgent in requiring him to present his letters ofrecall and return to France with the least possibledelay; and meaning to hasten his departure, he requestedthe Secretary of State to obtain an audience forthe minister plenipotentiary on the earliest day possible.The following communication was the result:—

[111]

D’Eon declined the Secretary of State’s invitationto take leave of the King on the 26th, but he attendedhis Majesty’s levée on that day, and a dinner party inthe evening at Lord Halifax’s, where the company includedMr. Grenville, the Prime Minister, Lord Sandwich,and others, and several foreign representatives.Scarcely had he entered the room at Lord Halifax’s,than de Guerchy, advancing rapidly towards him,asked why he had not taken leave of the King at theappointed audience. The Chevalier made his usuallaconic reply: ‘Because I am awaiting further instructions,’[112]which led to an agitated and unseemly disputation,until D’Eon brought it to a close by addressinghimself to the three English ministers who happened tobe conversing together. ‘The Count de Guerchy forcesme to the honour of declaring to your Excellencies,that I do not take leave at any audience, because I amawaiting further instructions,’ which little speech ‘deGuerchy confessed he was quite unable to comprehend,being himself a novice in diplomatic matters.’ LordHalifax showing some inclination to take de Guerchy’spart, D’Eon drew from his pocket the invitation todinner he had received, and said to his lordship: ‘YourExcellency has invited the minister plenipotentiary todinner; I entreat that it be not delayed. It is late,and personally, I wish to avail myself peaceably of thehonour you have done me. I do not come here toexcite a disturbance but to bring peace.’ For suchbold words as these, Lord Halifax, who as yet knew butlittle of D’Eon, was scarcely prepared; but they sufficedto put him on his guard, as the sequel will show, for hewas beginning to discover that he had to do with asomewhat strange, perhaps violent, and at any rate verysingular character.

There called at the French Embassy one day inAugust, a tall, lean Frenchman, who announced himselfas M. Treyssac de Vergy, a great friend of the Duke dePraslin and the Count de Guerchy, and other Frenchministers, and as having come to England to visit acountry of which so little was known. The ChevalierD’Eon received him politely, but reminded him that itwas customary to bring letters of introduction to aminister, and hoped that he would make it his businessto do so; to which de Vergy replied that he didnot consider such letters at all necessary from his being[113]on terms of great intimacy with the Count de Guerchy,whom he had met at supper at the house of the Marquisesde Villeroy, de Lirré, &c., and who was sure toembrace him on both cheeks the next time they met.He repeated his calls, still without producing any letters,until the Chevalier gave him clearly to understand, inthe presence of several members of the Embassy, thathe should have to refuse him admittance if he againmade his appearance without some kind of recommendation.

On October 23 the Chevalier dined with de Guerchy,and in the course of the evening M. de Vergy wasannounced. The Countess de Guerchy asked D’Eon,aside, if he knew him. ‘No, Madame, but I have mysuspicions about him.’ ‘Hush! M. D’Eon; pray donot speak so loud.’ De Guerchy then inquired ofD’Eon if he was acquainted with de Vergy. ‘No,Monsieur le Comte, and I have already informed himthat he must bring letters of recommendation.’ Then,turning to de Vergy, he said: ‘Here is the Count deGuerchy who you know so well, and with whom youhave supped at the Marquise de Villeroy’s. I do notsee that he flies to embrace you.’ An awkward silenceof some moments was broken by de Guerchy: ‘Monsieurde Vergy, I do not know you at all, nor have Imet you at supper at the Marquise de Villeroy’s, althoughI have the honour of knowing that lady, and have frequentlysupped at her house.’ Foolish de Guerchy!How dearly this utterance cost him, so untrue was it.De Vergy fixed his eyes steadily on the ambassador,made a profound obeisance, and said: ‘I beg your Excellency’spardon, I thought I had the honour of beingacquainted with you.’ Then, turning to D’Eon: ‘Ihave heard it said that you were a polite man; there[114]never was a greater mistake.You do not know, M.D’Eon, the fate that awaits you in France.’ These lastwords he repeated a second time. The Chevalier, whowas a perfect stranger to de Vergy’s business in England,took the latter by the arm. ‘My politeness doesnot extend to lying in behalf of others. I do not giveyou the lie, because you do not know what it is to tellthe truth.... I have nothing with which to reproachmyself, and am by no means anxious as regards myfate, in France or elsewhere.... Were we not in thepresence of the ambassador and of his lady, I shouldvery soon prove to you that I am not afraid of yourthreats.’ Other visitors being announced, the ambassadorauthoritatively put an end to the altercation, andto D’Eon’s great surprise, de Vergy was permitted tospend the evening in the general company.

On the morning of the 26th, whilst the Chevalierwas absent from home attending the King’s levée, deVergy called at his residence in Dover Street, and beinginformed, in answer to his inquiries, that D’Eon wasalways at home at nine o’clock, left word that he shouldcall at that hour the following day, fully expecting tofind him in. D’Eon took in the significance of thismessage, and in the evening, after dinner at LordHalifax’s, he privately related to his lordship the wholeof the de Vergy incidents, and the challenge openlyleft at his house that morning. For once, the Chevalierneglected his measures of prudence. Lord Halifax hadscarcely time to forget the mild reproof D’Eon foundthe courage to administer to him that evening, beforebeing unconcernedly told of an intended breach of thepeace by one in whose own country duelling was forbiddenunder pain of death.[134]

[115]

Lord Halifax thanked the plenipotentiary for theinformation he had communicated, and shortly invitedthe French ambassador into another room, where theyremained closeted for some minutes, and on coming outagain the two joined Mr. Grenville and Lord Sandwichin close conversation. Lord Halifax then asked theChevalier to abandon his intention of meeting de Vergy.‘I have no intention of going in search of de Vergy,but since he has appointed an hour to see me, I shallcertainly await him.’ ‘Well, then,’ said Lord Halifax,‘were you even the Duke of Bedford, I should haveto give you in charge of the Guards.’ ‘I have not thehonour of being the Duke of Bedford; I am M. D’Eon,and can take perfectly good care of myself;’ adding,wishing to escape all further interference: ‘I have anengagement at the play-house this evening, and beg totake leave of your Excellency.’ On turning to leavethe room he was surprised to find the door locked, andsaid somewhat testily to the ministers, that he nevercould have believed it possible for a minister plenipotentiaryfrom France to find himself a prisoner inEngland, in the house of a Secretary of State; whereuponLord Halifax handed him a slip of paper, with therequest that he would attach his signature to what waswritten on it. D’Eon read the note, and as he persistedin refusing to sign it, although repeatedly pressed to doso by the ministers, the door was thrown open, and adetachment of the Guards, with bayonets fixed, occupiedthe room in which the company was assembled, andthe adjoining chambers as well. There were no means[116]of retreat. On seeing the officer, D’Eon said: ‘Do yourduty and I will do mine. If it is to see me home thatyou have come I need no soldiers, for I can go perfectlywell alone and on foot.’ Then, addressing the ministers,he intimated that when his regiment again looked uponthe uniform he was wearing, it should either be unsulliedor drenched in blood! A compromise waseffected, the soldiers were withdrawn, and the Chevaliersigned the following declaration ‘in obedience toorders.’

Beyond reporting the circumstance of the Guardsbeing summoned during the evening of October 26 tokeep the peace, the daily papers gave no details of whatpassed in the reception-rooms of one of the King’sministers;[135] a variety of inaccurate versions found easycredence, and one other blunder was added to the actsof a blundering ministry.

De Vergy was true to his tryst. ‘Here am I, sir,[117]in fighting trim, only let me ask you a question. Areyou minister plenipotentiary or a captain of dragoons?because if you are a minister I retire.’ ‘I am delightedto see you, for I have been expecting you. To you, Iam simply a dragoon.’ D’Eon then secured the door,intending to detain his visitor until he had sent word tothe Embassy that de Vergy was with him. ‘Do nottouch me!’ cried de Vergy in alarm; ‘do not touchme!’ ‘What!’ said D’Eon smiling, ‘you come to mein fighting trim, and are afraid lest I should touch you?No. I merely intend that you shall be arrested.’ Then,leading him into his bed-chamber where were writingmaterials: ‘I require you to read this note, and sign itin duplicate.’ De Vergy started at seeing a brace ofcavalry pistols and a sabre. ‘Do not kill me!’ D’Eonlay a pistol on the floor, and putting his foot on it said:‘There, it won’t bite you. Now, sign with a will.’

De Vergy quickly put his name to both slips, andwas making for the door when D’Eon stopped him.‘I must trouble you to leave by the back way; myfriends only pass through that door. Tell me who youare, or I shall hand you over to the Embassy.’ ‘M.D’Eon, do not detain me here or I am a lost man.’[118]‘Well, Mr. Adventurer, you may go; I do not wish forthe death of a sinner, but rather for his conversion. Ifyou bring letters and prove to me that you are anhonest man, I shall be a good friend to you.’ D’Eon atonce sent the duplicate of de Vergy’s declaration to theambassador, who complimented him upon his honourablebehaviour; and de Vergy, having made the bestof his way to the police-court, to lodge a complaintagainst the man who had been bullying him thatmorning, the Chevalier received the following notice inthe course of the day:—

No notice was taken of this summons by theChevalier, in the first place because it was not authenticatedby any signature, and because as minister plenipotentiaryhe did not consider himself bound to answerit. The matter went no further.

Regardless of his dignity, the ambassador continuedto importune D’Eon for the surrender of his papers,advances that were now met in that spirit of defiance theChevalier thought himself safe in assuming, armed ashe was with the King’s secret commands. De Guerchywas furious at D’Eon’s obstinacy and intractability, andresorted to endless expedients for injuring him in publicand private estimation. Acting as he did, in concert[119]with de Praslin, his first care was to circulate the reportof the Chevalier’s insanity, which he even carried tothe Princess Augusta at Court. He caused two damagingpamphlets to be published,[137] and further annoyedhim in a hundred different ways, even to the jeopardyof his person, hoping to drive him out of the countryand back to France. De Guerchy, however, was nomatch for his dexterous subordinate, and he so farforgot himself as to entreat the Duke de Choiseul towrite a flattering and coaxing letter to the Chevalier,under the title of minister plenipotentiary, to invite himto repair to Versailles and lay his grievances before theKing. ‘You will perhaps think me a fool for askingyou to resort to means so little consonant with yourcharacter, but I do not see my way to anything elsefor the present.’[138]

The Chevalier did lay his grievances before the King,but in a manner very different to that intended by deGuerchy, for he reported in a long despatch, taken toVersailles by his kinsman and collaborator, de la Rosière,the treatment he had received at the hands of the ambassador,and his own conduct under the circumstances.We give a few extracts only, such as are indispensableto our narrative:—

[122]

These incidents, the attempts made to bribe hisservants, the fact of a sedan being continually stationedat his door, although it was not ordered, convinced himof some bold design on his person and papers, and heresolved upon leaving his apartments in Dover Street,which he did on November 9, removing to the house of aMr. Lautem, wine merchant, 32 Brewer Street, GoldenSquare, which became his abode for many years after.

A puerile annoyance to which D’Eon had been subjectedduring the last few days of his stay in DoverStreet, was a rapping and plaintive sounds at twoo’clock every morning, which proceeded from the flueof a chimney communicating between his own bedroom,and the apartments in the floor below occupied byL’Escallier, private secretary to the ambassador, who,as the zealous auxiliary in the plots of his master, employeda young sweep to ascend the chimney and make‘ghostly noises.’ The count was trying very hard topass off D’Eon for a madman, and that he might obtainevidence to that effect, had conceived this bright ideafor frightening the Chevalier, imagining that suchnoises and groans in the dark would terrify him, causehim to leave his bed and summon the servants. Monin,the count’s old tutor, who lodged in the room aboveL’Escallier and the other dependants devoted to him,would be able to depose that nothing was found; thatthere was no cause for alarm, and thus prove theminister plenipotentiary’s insanity, or at any rate hisbeing a visionary, which would go far towards completingthe success of the scheme for having himarrested and confined as a lunatic. ‘This incident ofitself suffices to illustrate the meanness and wickednessof the count and his party.’[141]

[123]

Although a good deal of trouble was taken to persuadeLouis XV. that his minister plenipotentiary inLondon was demented, he does not appear ever tohave seriously believed in the accusation. After seeingD’Eon’s letters of September 25 to de Praslin andde Guerchy, we find the King writing to Tercier,October 11, 1763:—

It is possible that the representations of the Frenchministers on D’Eon’s mental condition, received somesupport from Walpole’s chit-chat to the Earl of Hertford,ambassador in Paris.

As Walpole was not present at Lord Halifax’s theevening of October 26, he probably obtained thesedetails from his friend de Guerchy.

[124]

Thwarted at all points by the Chevalier, who wasproving himself to be his superior in shrewdness andaudacity, and indeed in every other quality that thecircumstances during their sensational disputes necessitated,and dreading the certain exposure, by hisintended victim, of the criminal act of which he hadbeen guilty, the ambassador, miserably perplexed,entreated his valued friend de Praslin to extricate himout of a position which had become quite unendurable.The result was a joyous one to de Guerchy, a specialcourier having brought a request to the British Governmentfor the extradition of D’Eon and the seizure of allhis papers; but with his habitual foresight and caution,the King took care to forestall the ministers by despatchinga secret messenger with written instructionsto his ambassador and to his minister plenipotentiary,neither of whom was to be made aware of the communicationreceived by the other.

Thus was the Chevalier about to be dealt with as anordinary malefactor for having braved the fury of dePraslin and of the ambassador, losing also his best friendde Nivernois, in his intense devotion to the King whosesecret correspondence and interests in England he wasprotecting; and because his freedom was imperilled bythe ministers of France, the selfish, vacillating, andweak monarch was secretly scheming for the transferof the compromising papers into the custody of thevery man from whom it had cost D’Eon so much towithhold them, and for doing which he had been fastensuring his own ruin. The King was feeling that thestep he had taken threatened imminent danger to theother secret agents immediately concerned—the Countde Broglio and Tercier, but his conscience was easilyrelieved, and in addressing a few words of explanationand comfort to the latter, he fancied he was justifyinghis course of action, and reassuring those who wereserving him far more faithfully than he deserved.

[126]

De Broglie was of an entirely different opinion.Upon hearing of what the King had done, he declaredto Tercier, in a note he wrote from his place of exile,that de Guerchy would assuredly divulge the secret,and that his wife was as assuredly already acquaintedwith it.[145]

In hastening to make a formal demand for the arrestof D’Eon and seizure of all his papers, the Frenchambassador was feeling satisfied that the days of hisobnoxious subordinate were numbered, but ‘one ofthe qualities of a great general is the glance, in war,that reveals to him the advantages and disadvantagesof the field on which the contest is about to take place.Had General de Guerchy known this, would he everhave selected the ground of liberty in London and Westminsterto wage an unjust and despotic war against theChevalier D’Eon? But this would not be matter forsurprise, when it was once known that at the battleof Minden he gave the marvellous advice to placecavalry in the centre and infantry on the wings. Theresult of the two actions could not but be similar.’[146]

The Chevalier was perfectly safe. Lord Halifaxsent the case, ‘which was of a very extraordinary kindand without any known precedent,’ for the considerationof the Advocate and Solicitor-General, and eventuallyhad to inform the French ambassador that,[128]‘according to the law of the kingdom, it would beimpossible to justify the seizure either of the person orof the papers’ of the Chevalier D’Eon.[147]

Since he could not be legally apprehended, theattempt was to be made, under de Guerchy’s authority,to kidnap the Chevalier, and for this purpose sometwenty-five to thirty French police officers and spies, incharge of an officer, and who had already been somedays in London, were watching a favourable opportunityfor seizing and putting him into a six-oared boatin readiness at Westminster, whence he was to be conveyedto a small vessel, manned by twenty armed men,lying at Gravesend.

The Chevalier was fully aware of the proceedings ofhis enemies, and took his precautions accordingly. Thesecurity of the King’s papers being his first care, heconfided a portion of them to de la Rosière, and actuallysent him to France, there to remain, at least for a time.Then, to ensure himself from the abduction with whichhe was now threatened by an organised force, havingconcealed the remainder of the papers in his apartments,he converted them into a stronghold after thefollowing manner:—His bedroom, sitting-room, andstudy on the first floor were mined, also the staircase,which he further intrenched. He kept a lamp burningthroughout the night, and had a red-hot poker at hisside during the day. His arsenal included four braceof pistols, two guns, and eight sabres. The garrisonconsisted of several dragoons of his old regiment, forwhom he had sent, and some deserters he picked up inLondon, all trusty men, who occupied the basementwith orders to admit the police officers should they atany time seek to enter, and then cut off their retreat[129]while he defended the intrenchment. It was arrangedthat, in the event of his being worsted, he should makea preconcerted signal to intimate that they were to runfor their lives, whilst he fired the mine.[148]

Thus prepared, D’Eon resolutely awaited eventualities.De Guerchy made one other advance, afterfailure of the demand for extradition. He sent a conciliatoryletter to the Chevalier, by one of the gentlemenat the Embassy, in which he renewed application for thesurrender of the King’s papers. The reception withwhich the attaché met may well be gathered by thenature of D’Eon’s reply:—

The Chevalier was thus proving himself to be morethan a match for the ambassador, who was finallyobliged to confess to the King his complete failure inevery effort he had made to execute his Majesty’scommands.

We have been obliged to reproduce, almost at length,the communications received by the King from de[132]Guerchy, because they show how successfully D’Eonwas keeping at bay, or misleading all those, whose handshe considered were lifted against him. ‘I have at lastreceived a letter from M. de Guerchy with Monin’smemorandum enclosed, which I send to you,’ wroteLouis XV. to Tercier; and then the King betrays hisuneasiness and restless anxiety for the safety of hispapers, and yet his objection to having them in his ownpossession or anywhere about him, fearing perhaps arepetition of the scene in the month of June. ‘Takecare of the Sieur de la Rosière, or rather of his papers,for it is known that he is here, and if he were visited allmight be discovered.’[152]

De Guerchy’s next step was to submit to LordHalifax, so far as the wording was concerned, and withthe desire that it should be inserted in the official newspaper,a paragraph to the effect that the Chevalier wasto be excluded, in the future, from the British Court.[153]His request was complied with, and an exact translationof the notice, under date of the ambassador’s letter,appeared in an early number of theGazette:—

[133]

Thus divested of his dignity, the Chevalier was alsodeclared guilty of high treason, and all arrears ofemoluments due to him were forfeited to the Crown—apitiful situation naturally evoking very warm sympathyon the part of his old chief and well-wisher, the Countde Broglio, who himself had long been paying thepenalty of his devotion to their mystery-loving royalmaster.[155] But, apart from personal considerations forD’Eon, the dangers to be apprehended from suchlimitless persecution were considerable, as the count tookimmediate occasion to remind the King.

The count concluded his letter by enjoining thatthe ambassador should leave D’Eon in peace, and thatone of his friends should be sent with an order signedby the King, requiring him, in warm-hearted terms, toreturn to France, with the special assurance that royalprotection should not fail him.[156]

The calamity which befell the Chevalier did notvisit him alone; it encompassed his mother and otherrelatives, and even their dependants at home. He wastenderly attached to his only parent, upon whom he[134]had long since settled his little property, yet to hersolicitude and gentle warnings he replied with all thevehemence of his strong and stormy nature.

D’Eon’s determination not to deliver any of thepapers in his possession, left no alternative to deGuerchy other than to obtain from him an officialstatement in writing of his refusal to obey the King’sorders. This was effected at the residence of theChevalier, who, ever apprehensive of treachery on thepart of the ambassador’s emissaries, whenever andwherever he met them, held himself in readiness armed,and levelling his gun at the witnesses, cried, ‘It is atthe end of this that you will find the King’s papers;come and take them.’[159]

Mention has been made of the publication of acouple of pamphlets by direction of de Guerchy, as beingone of the measures to which his Excellency resortedfor bringing the Chevalier into disrepute.[160] They hadreference to the scene at Lord Halifax’s house on theevening of October 26, and to the minister plenipotentiary’sintercourse with Treyssac de Vergy. D’Eonnever missed the opportunity for committing pen topaper, and in his turn published a lengthened statement,likewise in the form of a pamphlet.[161] It was a faithfulrecital of facts, and as such, he immediately forwardeda copy to his good friend the Duke de Choiseul, who,[137]not being one of the executive triumvirate engaged indoing the will of the Marquise de Pompadour, had buta few weeks previously offered the Chevalier his protectionand restoration to the army.[162] On issuing the ‘Note,’he wrote to the King and to his secret confidants thathe was avenging his honour thus infamously attacked,and hoped to receive orders which he had no desire tosee nullified by any precipitate conduct on his part....Great was his dismay at the nature of Tercier’s communicationin reply.

The ‘Contre-Note’[163] was a third pamphlet de Guerchyhad the weakness to employ Goudard to write, in vindicationof himself and in severe condemnation of D’Eon;it was a retort to the ‘Note’ that had been addressed tohim. D’Eon kept his word. The ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’&c., which made their appearance, in quarto and octavoeditions, are frequently referred to in this work. Thevolume, divided into three parts, opens with a violentand virulent attack on the French ambassador, givingrise, in due course, to an action for libel, and is followedby the Chevalier’s correspondence with the Dukes dePraslin and de Nivernois, M. de Sainte-Foy, the Countde Guerchy, and others. Part II. relates to D’Eon’spersonal interests during his residence in London, andPart III. gives some particulars of his services, with copiesof certificates, despatches, and letters, all favourable to[139]himself. The epigraph consists of three lines borrowedfrom Voltaire:—

The motto isVita sine litteris mors est, and the postface at the end of Part II. is inscribed:—

The Chevalier was at no loss to justify himself forhaving thus exposed the private correspondence ofFrench ministers. When he saw that de Guerchy andde Praslin made it their business to despatch courierafter courier to each other, and secretly spread reportsupon the subject of his affairs, he made up his mind topublish what disconcerted their measures. Nobody wasable to conceive how a young captain of dragoons couldhave the temerity to be the first to impugn an old lieutenant-general,Knight of the King’s Orders, his Majesty’sAmbassador Extraordinary, a friend of thirty years’standing of the Ministers of France, a favourite of theKing, and allied to several powerful houses; but everybodywas able to perceive, without any difficulty, that itwas the lieutenant-general and favourite ambassadorwho had commenced the attack, and that the captain,minister plenipotentiary, was obliged to defend himself.Was there cause for libel in writing against a poisoner,an assassin, who commenced by hiring scribblers totarnish his reputation? Was there cause for libel inpublicly defending, when openly and publicly assailed,[140]one’s honour, life, and liberty? Every law, human anddivine, justifies such defence. In every suit, in everycontention, in every quarrel, the aggressor is speciallyto be distinguished from the aggressed, the oppressorfrom the oppressed! Offensive war is the act of atyrant; he who defends himself is justified. Had thecount given the Chevalier good wine at his table, inthe place of poison, there never would have been anydissension between them. The chief cause of theChevalier’s falling into disgrace with the Frenchambassador, lay in the former’s evil or good luck, inseeing the latter take to flight on the right bank of theWeser, when, being under fire of the English andHanoverians at the passage of that river, the Marshalde Broglio’s order was delivered, directing him to givehis support and distribute ammunition to the troops.The recollection of that incident must have been exceedinglydisagreeable to the count, for when theChevalier reminded him, upon the memorable eveningat Lord Halifax’s, that they had served together duringthe war, de Guerchy told Lord Halifax, in the presenceof the other English ministers, that he had never metD’Eon, nor was he at all concerned to know who werethe aides-de-camp to the Count and the Duke de Broglio.In reply, D’Eon maintained that he might perhaps rememberhaving entertained him at his head-quartersupon more than one occasion, to discuss the hot pastryfor which his cook was famous, and that when retreatingfrom Einbeck, his column having missed its way, he hadput it on the right road to Northeim.[164]

The giving his volume to the world produced thegreatest consternation amongst those of the rulingpowers whose private letters, several of an exceedingly[141]delicate nature, had thus been made public, and inexposing the secrets of ministers, D’Eon spared hisfriends as little as he did his bitterest enemies, theKing only, in whom his faith was implicit, being heldsacred by his daring spirit. The publication was noleap in the dark, but an ill-considered act, an irreparableblunder which brought upon him the extreme ofgratuitous misery, and desertion by all those in authority.

No sooner was this book out of the printer’s handsthan the Count de Guerchy secured a copy, and sat forseveral hours with his wife poring over its contents.Some satirical passages on their love of economy havingled to a quarrel between the two, they threw thevolume at each other’s heads. ‘Could I have foreseensuch a thing,’ said the Chevalier upon being informedof the circumstance, ‘I should have issued the book in awooden binding!’[165]

As the publication caused a panic at Versailles, sowas the sensation in London enormous. This is whatWalpole had to say about it:—

As I shall have occasion to return to Walpole, orrather to his letters, I would limit myself in the interestsof this history, seeing that the opinions to whichhe gave expression were immatured except by his ownspecious judgment, hastily and prematurely formed, toquoting Macaulay’s estimate of thatgentleman usher atheart. ‘He sneered at everybody, put on every actionthe worst construction which it could bear,’ and we aretold, further, that he ‘spelt every man backward.’

A painful sense of oppression was produced onD’Eon by Tercier’s letter of December 27, and nothing,not even his vigorous mind, could rouse him out of thestate of despondency into which he had fallen. To hiskindest of protectors, the Duke de Nivernois, he said,‘... all my trust is in your tender friendship for me,and all my fear lies in your weakness for your friends.’If the power of his enemies was too great, he continued,to enable the duke to break asunder the chainof error, of falsehood, and of iniquity, he should onlyask permission, for himself and his two cousins, to enterthe service of a foreign State, a request they made withtheir hearts plunged in the bitterest grief; for there werenone more ready than they to shed the last drop oftheir blood for the King they adored, and their nativeland which they cherished.

[143]

In an enclosure, under flying seal, addressed to hisother good friend the Duke de Choiseul, he thus expressedhimself:—

To D’Eon’s surprise, these letters remained unnoticed.He appealed to the King, to the Count deBroglio, to Tercier, for support in his perplexing situation,but nothing came. All were silent. Yet, for hisown sake, the count had never been callous to the criesof the Chevalier, nor was he so now, for D’Eon’s doom,were the designs against him carried to a successful issue,would be the harbinger of his own fate. He followedup his suggestion of December 6 to the King, by proposingthat his secretary, the Chevalier Nort, should besent to England to conciliate D’Eon. The King approved,but with his customary dilatoriness nothing was done.Then were brought the news of the recall from exile ofthe de Broglios, and of the moribund condition of theMarquise de Pompadour, and wearisome darkness, the[144]poor proscribed one thought, would give place to light,and relief be at hand! Still nothing came, thoughweeks had passed; to remain thus disregarded andtreated with silent contempt was more than theChevalier’s nature could endure. He again addressedhimself to Tercier, this time openly throwing the gauntlet,with what results will be known hereafter.

The King took the matter coolly enough. He knewhis man, and must have been full well persuaded thathe could safely rely upon his loyalty and attachment tohis person, and that there was consequently no immediatecause for alarm. When informed for the firsttime of the tempting offers made to the Chevalier inEngland, he merely said: ‘I do not believe that D’Eonwill become an Englishman, for he has nothing to gainfrom the ministry, and what will he do if he joins theopposition? Send him two hundred ducats ...’ andthen he wrote word to Tercier, ‘... I have nothing tosay as regards the Sieur D’Eon. I doubt that we should[147]have war, no matter what he were to say; but we mustprevent such an exposure.’ Still, as if impressed withthe obvious necessity for being wise in time, hisMajesty added, ‘I approve of the despatch of the Sieurde Nort; make every necessary arrangement accordingly.’[173]

It is possible that Tercier, who was in the habit ofkeeping D’Eon informed of all that was passing atCourt, so far as he was concerned, had told him beforetheir correspondence was interrupted that the King‘did not at all care to see the “Mémoires” in print.’[174]At any rate, in a second letter in which he pressed hiscase, and which quickly followed the first, we find theChevalier offering some passing words of explanation onthe course he had pursued.

These resolute letters had their consequences. M.Nort was hurried off to London with the King’s secretinstructions, taking with him a conciliatory letter from[149]the Count de Broglio, a sum of money for D’Eon, andspecial directions to effect an arrangement, if possible,between the ambassador and the turbulent captain ofdragoons.[176] De Praslin, on his part, had sent his ownagent to England, with orders to take D’Eonalive, aboveeverything, it being his intention to confine him whensecured, in the Bastille.[177] ‘You must admit that hisprivate letters are deserving of this,’ said Louis XV. toTercier; ‘but it is more essential that he should beconciliated and my papers recovered.’

We may well pause awhile to recapitulate, and realisethe parts that were being severally played by King,minister, ambassador, and late minister plenipotentiary,in this most extraordinary political drama. In the firstplace we see the late minister plenipotentiary as thecustodian, not only of the King of France’s writtensecret instructions and correspondence, extending overa series of years, but also of highly compromisingdocuments, the property of his Majesty,[178] of which, hadtheir signification been known to the people of England,still agitated and discontented at the terms of the latepeace, would inevitably have plunged the two countriesin afresh and sudden war. Then we find the FrenchMinister for Foreign Affairs, the willing instrument ofthe King’s malicious mistress, employing his old friend,the ambassador in London, to carry out her biddingby seeking to obtain the whole of the plenipotentiary’spapers, first by authoritatively demanding them, thenby gentle measures, and afterwards at any hazard. The[151]plenipotentiary and King’s secret agent proves true tohis trust in refusing to make any surrender, withoutthe express orders of his sovereign, whose secret commandsto that effect he holds. Of this the Minister forForeign Affairs knows nothing. The plenipotentiarycannot serve two masters, and elects to submit himselfto the King’s will, of which he alone is cognisant. Forrefusing to yield to his superiors in office he is regardedas a rebel, then a traitor, is degraded, disgraced, andto be treated as if he were a common criminal, and thisthrough orders wrested from the King by his minister!Thus Louis XV., a cowardly stranger to every emotionof the heart, suffers his name to be used as the authorityfor dishonouring the most faithful of his servants, andbecause apprehensive of the fate of his papers, andfancying he is no longer able to protect the custodian ofthem, secretly puts him on his guard, and although herecommends him to save himself if he can, remains carelesslyindifferent to what might befall him; turns tohis ambassador, admits him into the secret as the solealternative that presents itself for ensuring himselffrom being compromised, directs him to secure thepapers, to keep their existence and his possession ofthem a profound secret, and retain them until suchtime as he shall return to France, when he is todeliver them in person; this ambassador being thevery man who, from the beginning, was the confidantand tool of de Pompadour and de Praslin, and againstwhose acquisition of the royal documents the plenipotentiaryhad long and successfully struggled, bravingthe hostility of ministers until he had effected his ownruin.

Had D’Eon been so inclined he might, solitary outcastas he was, have constituted himself master of the[152]situation, and dictated his own terms. Offers amountingto forty thousand pounds were now made, if he would saywhat he knew regarding the late peace. Lords Bute,Egremont, and Halifax, the Duke of Richmond, CountViri, and even the Princess of Wales, were accused, inthe general excitement, of having received bribes fromthe French Court for their share in the negotiations;so great indeed was the popular indignation against theDuke of Bedford, who had conducted them at Versaillesas the King’s ambassador, that he seldom dared toappear in the streets of London, where he had beenhissed, and worse might have befallen him. It wasbelieved, and with good reason, that the Chevalier D’Eonwas in a position to settle any doubts on the matter,and it was sought to take advantage of his abandonedand penniless situation by tempting him with plenty;but the love of lucre was not a trait in the Chevalier’scharacter. ‘I am intractable as regards my honour,’he wrote more than once; and even though his royalmaster, for whom he was enduring all things, shouldforsake him in time of greatest need, he loved hiscountry too well to expose it to danger and to the scornof the world, by betraying the King.

No sooner had the Chevalier received from M. Nortthe Count de Broglio’s letter and substantial succourfrom the King—for it should be remembered that hisemoluments and pension were stopped—than, brimfulof emotion, and believing that in this material assistancehe saw fresh earnest of interest in his behalf on thepart of the monarch, now no longer trammelled by dePompadour,[179] he expressed his heartfelt gratitude inthese words:—

[153]

His behaviour was very different towards the Countde Broglio, in whose letter he found no reference whateverto his contentions with de Guerchy; his solicitationsfor redress against the injuries he had suffered atthe hands of the ambassador remained unheeded, norwas there one word of encouragement that might beconstrued into probable consideration of the services hehad rendered, privately to the King, and to his country.It simply contained a proposition that he shouldsurrender the papers in his possession for a sum ofmoney not stated, and as to his prospects in the future,they were left undetermined. He returned the count’sletter to Nort, under cover of a written declaration thathe refused to consider it.

The French ambassador having been advised thatthe language employed in the Introduction to the‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c. was libellous, immediately institutedproceedings against D’Eon, in which he wassupported by the whole diplomatic corps in London.[181]The trial[182] was pending, and D’Eon, deserted and friendless,was careful to keep himself armed at all points, sofar as lay in his power, against the coming struggle.He was satisfied that, provided he had custody of thepapers, he was comparatively safe from any very greatharm. Nort had brought to him no promise of protection,at a time that his liberty was in hourly peril; he shouldtherefore continue to keep the papers until security ofhis person was guaranteed to him. Finding it impossibleto treat with the Chevalier, Nort returned toParis from his bootless errand, defeated and empty-handed.

[155]

Apart from his action for libel, the ambassadorcaused yet another pamphlet to be written and publishedby Goudard[184] (who wrote, says D’Eon,pro famerather thanpro fama), a vicious criticism on the volumeof ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c. The Chevalier ‘would nottake the trouble to reply to this senseless ratherthan discriminating disquisition on his book, but availedhimself of the opportunity afforded him on Easter Day,1764, in chancing to meet Goudard in the Green Park,St. James’, to give him a sound caning in the presenceof several respectable witnesses, to which the mercenaryscribe never made any answer;’ and Goudard havingboasted in a coffee-house that he had completely rebuttedevery argument advanced in the work, D’Eongave out that since he had thus proved the vigorousnature of his jaw, he should borrow that ass’s jawwhenever he would have to combatdes Philistins desGuerchiens et des chiens de Guerchy.[185]

At the time of which we write, the trial of JohnWilkes at the Old King’s Court had already taken place,and the country was convulsed by what are known asthe Wilkes’ riots.

The Chevalier was increasing in popularity, ‘for itis engraven in the hearts of the English to take partwith the oppressed,’ at a time that de Guerchy’s conductwas not of a nature to gain for him the esteem ofthe ministers or people of England. He had come intodisagreeable collision with the authorities, and foundpleasure in persecuting several of his own countrymenin London,[187] who refused to be tyrannised over by himin a manner that was offending the sensibilities of theliberty-loving people amongst whom they lived, andespecially at a time when that people believed they wereengaged in a struggle for liberty, represented in theiridol of the day—John Wilkes.

Some weeks previous to de Guerchy’s arrival, D’Eonwrote to apprise him that he might rely upon exemptionfrom duty in accordance with the privileges of anambassador, on all such goods as he might require topass into the country, provided it was indisputablyshown that they were for his sole use and benefit.The abuse of this privilege upon more occasions thanone, after his arrival in England, called forth a strongremonstrance from the department concerned, to whichde Guerchy replied by the assertion of privilege; thematter was consequently referred to the Lords of theTreasury, who terminated the discussion by informing[157]Lord Halifax that their lordships would not enter intothe consideration of all that had passed on the subjectsince his Excellency’s arrival, although, if it were necessary,they could produce instances which would besufficient to convince his lordship that their officerswere not to be charged with any unusual strictness intheir treatment of his Excellency; neither would theyenforce the necessity of the exact observance of thelaws, or the propriety of the orders lately given for thestrict execution of them, showing the many and notoriousabuses which had been committed under pretence ofthe privilege; for they were only desirous to preventthe evil for the future, and not to complain of what waspast.[188]

Upon another occasion, three constables were sentto the French Embassy to arrest the ambassador’s‘gentleman of the horse,’ for having threatened the lifeof a woman and to set her house on fire, when theambassador caused the gate to be closed, his servantsassaulted the constables and confined them, and hehimself tore up the warrant they presented. This outragewas followed up by de Guerchy’s complaint of theviolation of the privileges of an ambassador, in theattempt to arrest hisécuyer within the court-yard of hisExcellency’s house. The law officers of the Crown havingbeen consulted, the Foreign Secretary informed theKing’s ambassador at the French Court that—

[158]

It was George III.’s birthday (June 4), and deGuerchy being recognised in the streets was insulted,and the windows of the Embassy were broken.

Writing to Tercier upon these events, D’Eon says:—

[159]

The spies and officers of police sent by the Frenchminister and acting under the directions of de Guerchy,continued to watch every movement of the Chevalier,who they no doubt still hoped to kidnap, as had beenthe Marquis de Fratteau[193] some years previously. Fivewere lodged in Gerrard Street, close to Brewer Street,where he resided. His precautions he describes to an oldfriend, Captain Pommard, in Paris. When he went out,as he did daily, it was with all the vigilance a captainof dragoons should observe in time of war. His ownspies were about. He had met his enemies, and had anyattempt been made against his person, they would havebeen cut to pieces by the party he led. Every eveninghe reconnoitred at Ranelagh and Vauxhall; but acts ofviolence were not to be apprehended in England, andhe was more on his guard against the stratagems ofthose with whom he was unacquainted, and of his falseand therefore dangerous friends. That French emissarieswere actually on the look-out to seize the Chevalierand carry him off to France in a vessel appointedfor the purpose, does not appear to have been generallycredited in London, judging by the obituary noticeswhich appeared in the newspapers, where it is statedthat if the Chevalier was not the author of the reports to[160]that effect, he at any rate believed in them.[194] Wereofficial confirmation of the plan for his abductionneeded, it is to be found in de Guerchy’s handwriting,and in the instructions he asks, under date June 23,1764, as to whether D’Eon is to be seized before orafter his trial for libel.

The Chevalier’s case met with a good deal of sympathy,which found its way into the papers, andexhibited itself in anonymous letters cautioning him tobe wary against his countrymen. His unknown correspondentsrecommended him to withdraw to Oxford,Bath, or other distant town, taking care not to alloweven his most discreet friend to know the time of hisdeparture or his destination.

He should not leave his house unless accompaniedby some trustworthy person who spoke English andknew London well, and he should never think of goingout at night.... Were any scoundrel sufficiently rashand villainous to dare to attack him, he should pitilesslyshoot him or cut him in two with his sword.[195] That theChevalier would have killed the first man who dared tolay hands upon him was no bombast on his part. He hadwritten to Lord Mansfield, to the Earl of Bute, Mr. Pitt,and Earl Temple, to represent what were the designsof the French ambassador, the risk he hourly incurredof being kidnapped, and to seek their advice.[161]He informed Lord Mansfield that he did not contract anydebts, and avoided everything that could possibly leadhim to an infringement of the laws. If, therefore, thelaw would appear to arm itself against his liberty, hemust necessarily conclude it did so under a false pretence,being won over by the hatred of his enemies to deliverhim to them. Such being the case, might he presumeto ask his lordship, he who was the administrator ofthose laws which but interpreted primitive and naturallaws, might he presume to inquire whether the necessityfor self-defence did not place him in the positionof repelling force by force? He ventured to thinkthat his lordship’s heart contemplated such extrememeasures with dread; but his equity, as was natural,would readily forgive any evils resulting therefrom.Such was his position, which he was obliged to bringto notice, in the hope that his lordship’s equitywould offer some counsel that he was able to follow,and which should be equally in conformity with therequirements for his safety and with the laws of acountry he loved and to which he owed so much.

Towards the end of June, the Chevalier receivednotice of the charges upon which he was to be tried,and a summons to appear on July 9, that being theend of Trinity term. He made an affidavit askingfor adjournment to another term, to enable him toproduce four witnesses who had been expelled thecountry by orders of the French ambassador. Hisapplication was refused, and it being simply impossiblefor his counsel, who knew nothing of French, to readand digest in the course of eight days his book of sixhundred pages in quarto, he made up his mind not toappear. The trial came on before Lord Chief JusticeMansfield at the King’s Bench bar on the day appointed,[162]upon information filed against him by the King’s command,as author of a libel on the Count de Guerchy,and in default was found guilty.[196]

D’Eon disappeared, and although not readily found,was by no means idle, for in this same month, July, theMarquis de Blosset, in diplomatic charge during deGuerchy’s absence on leave,[197] made application to LordHalifax that the Chevalier might be compelled to ceaseprinting certain papers which he believed to be the‘Négotiations,’ in which his cousin, D’Eon de Mouloise,and M. la Rochette were also concerned. The Englishminister replied that it was impossible to stop theprinting of books when the subject was not known,and on suspicion only;[198] and here the matter dropped.After a time, a clue having been obtained to the Chevalier’splace of concealment, the Solicitor-General wasconsulted on the legality of force being employed forarresting him and bringing him to the bar of the Courtof King’s Bench to receive sentence upon the conviction.Sir Henry Norton gave it as his opinion thatthe officer having the paper process of the Court ofKing’s Bench for apprehending the Chevalier D’Eon, wasthereby authorised and might legally break open thedoors of a house though within the verge of the Courtor of any other house, in order to take the Chevalier,if, upon request, the doors of such house shouldbe refused to be opened; and it being believed that thehouse in which D’Eon was secreted stood within theverge of the Court, the Solicitor-General ruled that anyobjection on that account might be easily obviated by[163]a proper application for the purpose.[199] No time waslost, and on the evening of the same day, November 20,a house in Scotland Yard, Whitehall, occupied by aMr. Eddowes, was entered by an officer and five men,who said they had come with orders to seek and arrest,or take, dead or alive, the Chevalier D’Eon. They spentan hour on the premises, bursting open every door, notexcepting even that of the room in which Mr. Eddowes,many years bed-ridden, was lying; and they were aboutto force open a closet and bureau, but that Mrs. Eddowescautioned them against so doing, as the roomcontained papers and money belonging to the King.D’Eon was nowhere about the house, and she had notseen him for more than two months. The officer,whose conduct had been outrageous, then left with thesearch party.[200]

Having absconded from justice and failed to surrenderhimself to the Court of King’s Bench to receivejudgment, the Chevalier was in due course, that is tosay, on June 13, 1765, declared to be outlawed byjudgement of the coroners for the county of Middlesex.[201]

The story must go back a few pages, that we maybecome the better acquainted with Treyssac de Vergywith whom we parted at the door of D’Eon’s backpremises, through which he was ignominiously made topass on the morning of October 27, 1763, when he hadpresented himself to settle an affair of honour pendingbetween himself and the Chevalier. Whatever thelatter’s hiding-place for several months after his conviction,it is very certain that de Vergy found him out the[164]following September, and to his great astonishmentfavoured him one day with a call. Smitten with remorseand driven by despair, de Vergy had a confessionto make which throws all the light needed onthe designs of the triumvirate at Paris against theliberty and life even of the Chevalier D’Eon.

De Vergy then placed before the Chevalier the necessarypapers to prove his identity, as he promised he shoulddo in the declaration he had signed when they last met.He described himself as being a man of good birth, anadvocate of the parliament of Bordeaux, and son-in-lawto the Baroness Fagan; but having squandered his ownand his wife’s fortune in riotous living, had tried hishand at literature, and published, in 1762, a work entitled‘Les Usages,’ which brought him into favour withthe Count d’Argental, not altogether, perhaps, the mostdesirable of patrons; still, he was an intimate friend ofde Praslin, and as de Vergy was a candidate for anyemployment he could get, his friends advised him tostick to the count, since he had chanced to pleasehim. De Vergy did so, and asked for his interest withde Praslin to obtain a nomination as consul or secretaryof Embassy, which resulted in an introduction to deGuerchy, the new ambassador to London, throughwhom he was informed he might possibly obtain thesecretaryship of Embassy, in the room of D’Eon, who[165]had given displeasure at Court. De Guerchy referredhim to d’Argental, and the latter, in a somewhat longinterview they had, told de Vergy that he might haveto pay for such an appointment, in case of need, withpersonal courage and blind devotion to the orders ofthe Count de Guerchy.

De Vergy went on to say that he was persuadedfrom this ambiguous language and the few words deGuerchy had said to him, that he was required to takepart in some machinations, but to what end he couldnot conceive. He explained his dilemma to d’Argental,who put him at his ease by assuring him that he hadnothing to fear, and as he was literally starving, heovercame his scruples and consented to leave for Englandwhere he preceded de Guerchy by several weeks.He was to assist in encompassing the ruin of D’Eon,and through him of the Count de Broglio; he was tospread reports injurious to the Chevalier’s reputation;if possible, to pick a quarrel with him, and write apamphlet to his prejudice. It was thus that advantagewas to be taken of his necessitous situation. It was hisconscience, not his courage, that made him wincewhilst doing the will of the ambassador, and when hehad said to the Chevalier the evening they met at theEmbassy,You do not know the fate that awaits you inFrance, it was his conscience that spoke and wouldwarn him, and had the Chevalier replied in an encouragingand conciliatory manner, de Vergy wouldhave confessed all to him. But he was dependingupon the Count de Guerchy for his very existence.

[167]

‘I could not help laughing,’ notes D’Eon, ‘at thistheory in explanation of the verdict of our conscience,and de Vergy laughed quite as heartily.’

Indeed, D’Eon had nothing but a piece of bread tooffer, being himself in sore need; a refugee from theworld![203]

[169]

Whilst preparing his ‘Lettre aux Français’ for thepress, de Vergy enclosed extracts to de Guerchy, andthreatened its immediate publication unless his Excellencywould consent to buy it off by sending him thesum of eighty guineas and granting him some otherfavours, and he employed an attorney named Grojan tocall at the Embassy, receive the money, and give areceipt for it. Such, at least, was de Guerchy’s statement,eventually unsupported as will appear in thesequel; but this circumstance being brought to thenotice of Lord Halifax, the matter was placed in thehands of the Solicitor-General, by whom it was submittedthat de Vergy’s attempt to extort money fromthe French ambassador by threats and vilifying hisExcellency and his Court if his demands were not compliedwith, was highly criminal, and he might be legallyprosecuted for the same, either by indictment or by informationin the name of his Majesty’s Attorney-General,and if convicted upon the trial would be brought tocondign punishment. Lord Halifax immediately instructedthe Attorney-General to prosecute M. de Vergyby way of information in his name, and at the expenseof the King, giving at the same time notice to this effectto the French ambassador.[204] Actions for libel, however,were of such ordinary occurrence at this period of socialdisorder, that as many as two hundred informations werefiled against printers and others in the course of theyear.

Provided with de Vergy’s statement in writing andbearing his signature, the first step taken by theChevalier was to call upon de Guerchy to settle theirdifferences by recourse to arms, as became two soldiers.The latter objected to draw swords with a fencing-master.The Chevalier observed he was right, andproposed, to ensure perfect equality, that the ambassadorshould choose his own fire-arms and theyshould fight on horse-back, if he objected to do so onfoot; and further intimated to him, through his seconds,that if he promised to meet him on the ground with agood grace, he gave his word of honour, privately, thathe should wound him only; whereas de Guerchy wouldbe at liberty to do his worst. The count’s reply to thiswas that D’Eon must be a fool to suppose a generalwould agree to fight a simple captain of dragoons, whichpersuaded the Chevalier that it would be as impossiblefor such a man to perform an act of courage and ofjustice, as it is to extract oil from stones. De Guerchy[171]could not be prevailed upon to fight! Then, ‘out of considerationfor the Court of France and for the count’sfamily, D’Eon was careful to lay at the feet of his augustmaster his private wrongs on the subject of poisoning,assassination, kidnapping, and other not generallyknown dark designs against his honour, his life, hisperson, and his papers. This he did before appealing tothe tribunals of England for that liberty and the safetyof his person and papers which the law could ensure tohim.’ It does not appear that Louis XV. took anynotice of these representations, and D’Eon determinedon having de Guerchy prosecuted for a craven-heartedcriminal, and he took proceedings accordingly.

A copy of de Vergy’s deposition was sent to theDuke de Choiseul, and another to the Count de Brogliounder cover of one of the most pitiful of appeals.

A long time had elapsed since the date of deBroglio’s last letter to the Chevalier, and now his replywas laconic enough. He declined, in the future, tosubmit to the King any of his letters in which allusionwas made to de Guerchy, but he would take extractsand show them to his Majesty. D’Eon remainedpuzzled at this system of neutrality, having noticed thatthe very dispatches which informed him that any referencehe might make to his squabbles with de Guerchyshould not be seen by the King, were approved with theown hand of the sovereign, who must consequently havebeen aware of the correspondence on this particularsubject being concealed from him.

The reports on the threatening attitude assumed byD’Eon and the probable use he would make of de Vergy’sdeposition, caused no little alarm in the mind of deGuerchy and at the French Court. It became a matter ofgreater moment than ever to the ambassador that heshould rid himself of the hateful Chevalier, and he urgedupon Lord Halifax, in pressing terms, that de Vergy,[173]who was making common cause with D’Eon, should beprosecuted as his lordship stated might be done. Tohis old friend de Praslin he represented that nothingin D’Eon’s past villainous conduct could be comparedto his latest fabrications, which were enough to makeone shudder. De Praslin (?) and de Choiseul were sofirmly persuaded of de Vergy’s criminality, that theyangrily complained to Lord Hertford of the difficultyde Guerchy and they experienced in obtaining justicein England; to which they received assurances that themeasures pursued and pursuing against D’Eon and deVergy, were fully sufficient to repair the insult offeredto the King of France in the person of his representative;but scarcely had this explanation been given than theimpatient de Guerchy, apprehensive and insecure, importunedthe English minister to take steps against deVergy in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney-General.This affair, however, eventually fell to theground. De Guerchy failed to make out his case, andwas in the end informed by Lord Halifax that theaffidavits made did not suffice for entering an action.[208]

De Vergy had, in the meantime, made other depositionsupon oath, in which he gave ‘a true and circumstantialaccount of the plot against the life of theChevalier D’Eon’—the one on November 12, beforeJudge Wilmot, of the Court of King’s Bench; the otheron November 27, before Judge Yates, also of the Courtof King’s Bench; and he sent a report of his proceedingsto the Duke de Choiseul, dated November 15.

De Guerchy’s hour of retribution was at hand, andthe Chevalier was satisfied. Louis XV., ever selfish andunconcerned, but ill concealed his uneasiness at theserious aspect of affairs, and gladly approved of theCount de Broglio’s offer to proceed to London and bringD’Eon to his senses, to arrange with him for the surrenderof the compromising papers, and mediate between himand his tormentor. One difficulty presented itself tothe King, who asked Tercier: ‘On what plea is thedespatch of the Count de Broglio to England to beproposed to M. de Praslin?’—but ere this new designcould be matured it had to be abandoned, an awkwardincident that had the effect of seriously disturbing theKing’s equanimity, having well-nigh led to disclosureswhich would certainly have unravelled the mystery ofthe long- and well-maintained secret.

D’Eon’s valet, a man named Hugonnet, had beenfor some time employed carrying despatches on theKing’s secret service between the two countries. Long[175]suspected of being engaged in this duty, orders wereissued by the ministry to the police at Calais to watchfor him, and arrest him if they at any time foundsufficient cause. On January 10, as he was preparingto return to England, he was taken up, and in hispossession was found a letter in the handwriting ofM. Drouet, private secretary to the Count de Broglio.It was intended, ostensibly, for D’Eon de Mouloise inLondon, bore no signature, but contained the namesof Tercier and Durand, and allusions to the Counsellor,the deputy, &c. Drouet was in consequence alsoarrested and his papers seized, and the two were lodgedin the Bastille. Being kept promptly informed by deBroglio of what was passing, and fearing that all wassurely about to be discovered, Louis XV. resorted tothe only expedient left to him—to secure the co-operationin his cause of the officials in charge of the prisoners.He immediately sent for M. de Sartines,[210] officer ofpolice, and had to endure the humiliation of admittinghim into his confidence, and asking him to lay hold ofall such papers as were likely to compromise, in thesight of his ministers, those of his secret agents henamed.

So wrote Louis XV. to Tercier; and again, in a dayor two:—

De Sartines found himself painfully embarrassed atthe peculiar position into which he was forced by theKing, and showed no little diffidence and hesitation inhis action. ‘I find him a very timid man,’ was de Broglio’sremark to the sovereign, ‘and yet I do not see what hehas to fear, having received his master’s orders.’ LouisXV. was little apprehensive that the police officer wouldfail in his duty towards himself, for he had already receivedfrom him a bundle of recovered papers. Fortunatelyfor the royal schemes in hand, de Praslin was atVersailles with the Court, and although he had announcedhis intention of being present at the examinationof the prisoners, the day was not fixed. Advantagewas taken of this respite by the sneaking monarch tocorrupt yet another of his officials, so urgent was he inseeking to lift, at least his own self, out of the mire.His Majesty authorised M. Jumilhac, Governor of theBastille, to admit Tercier to a conference with Drouetand Hugonnet, thereby requiring him to violate histrust! Every precaution was to be taken that Terciermight enter and leave the prison unnoticed, for fearthat some busybody should carry the tale to theministers. De Broglio was to appoint to each actor inthe farce about to be played his part for misleading[177]de Praslin. Drouet was to declare that he had beenacting on his own responsibility and to oblige a friend;Hugonnet would insist that he was employed by Drouet,and by him alone, without reference to any otherperson; the titles had reference to certain friends ofD’Eon; and, finally, de Sartines was to countenancethese fanciful declarations and not conduct too searchingan interrogatory. ‘I have been at work for fifteenhours consecutively, wrote de Broglio to the King,‘preparing material for the investigation, the repliesto be given by the Sieur Drouet, the depositions to bemade by Hugonnet, all of which will be in keeping withwhat has already transpired, and I have prepared asort of interrogatory for M. de Sartines.’

‘They are playing the fool with me!’ said de Praslinto de Sartines, peevishly, as he went away at the closeof the investigation, and on making his report the followingday, Sunday, at a Cabinet Council, he insistedthat Drouet had not been telling the whole truth.

Drouet did get away, having threatened to discloseeverything if detained in durance, and so he had nothingfor which to thank the King whom, as was the casewith others, he was serving but too faithfully. Hugonnet’sdetention was a cruelly long one.

[178]

I have said that D’Eon was about to institute proceedingsagainst the French ambassador on a criminalcharge. Those proceedings had commenced and followedtheir course. De Guerchy was indicted onFebruary 12, and on March 1, following, a true bill wasfound against him by the grand jury of Middlesex,at Hick’s Hall, for a conspiracy against the life of theChevalier D’Eon—a verdict that greatly perplexed theministry; for, by the law of England, a person accusedupon oath of any criminal offence must take his trialfor the same when the bill of indictment is found againsthim by a grand jury; but by the law of nations, ambassadorsare exempted from the ordinary forms of lawin the countries where they are resident. The mosteminent lawyers had been consulted, but the decisionwas left to the wisdom of the two courts.[214]

The Duke de Broglie asserts that ‘this audaciousverdict was received in London with a sort of stupor;’but if the English papers of the day are consulted, thiswill scarcely be found to have been the case, for deGuerchy was by no means a favourite with the generalpublic. At Versailles, on the contrary, the sensationcaused was immense. The Count de Broglio and M. deBeauvau talked themselves hoarse one evening in tryingto make Hume[215] feel that, independently of the quality of[179]the accusers, and the little similarity in the depositionsthey had made, it was inconceivable that an ambassadorcould be subjected to any other jurisdiction than that ofhis own master. Hume kept repeating in reply thatthe laws of England in this respect were immutable, andthat the authority of the King would not suffice toeffect any alteration.[216]

The Chevalier sought to improve the occasion bysending what may be regarded as a note of intimidation:—

[180]

D’Eon was satisfied that his bitter enemy was in hispower, and had made up his mind that nothing shouldinduce him to alter his determination to run him toearth. ‘He should either triumph through the evidencein favour of his innocence and the strength of the laws,or know how to bear himself nobly on the scaffold.’

Writing to his son, in allusion to the subject thatwas engrossing the mind of the public throughout thekingdom, the Earl of Chesterfield[221] says:—

Lord Chesterfield was wrong. De Vergy went toLondon to be secretary to de Guerchy, and was desired,solicited, commanded to assassinate D’Eon, not hired todo so, as the price for the appointment he coveted.

The indictment against de Guerchy was afterwards,in Easter term, at the instance of the Attorney-General,removed from the Old Bailey by writ ofcertiorari intothe Court of King’s Bench. The ambassador appliedto the King for anolle prosequi, and an order of referencewas made to the Attorney-General, Sir Fletcher Norton,and the Solicitor-General, William de Grey, Esq., whoissued summons on April 26, to the prosecutor and hiswitnesses, to attend at Lincoln’s Inn at eight o’clock inthe evening of the following Tuesday, the 30th, to showcause why thenolle prosequi should not be granted;and upon hearing counsel on both sides and witnesses,the proofs appeared so clear against de Guerchy, thatthe Attorney-General refused to certify to the King infavour of the ambassador or of anolle prosequi, so thatthe indictment for the intended murder of the ChevalierD’Eon, minister plenipotentiary, undefended, undischarged,and open to further proceedings, remained onrecord among the archives as a lasting monument ofthe villainous designs of the French ambassador. Acorrespondent in a newspaper of the day observed thatthe verdict ‘was a remarkable instance of the spirit of agrand jury of the city of London, as well as of fairadministration of our laws.’[223]

[182]

The London papers testify to the public discontentat this miscarriage of justice, and when it becamegenerally known that Chazal, the ambassador’s butler,suspected by D’Eon of having administered opium tohim by direction of de Guerchy, at the Embassydinner, had fled, leaving behind him his youthful wifeto whom he had just been married, the people nolonger hesitated to resort to violence. De Guerchy wasmobbed whilst out driving, and owed his safety simplyto the declaration that he was not indeed the Frenchambassador but only his secretary; the crowd neverthelessfollowed the coach, and would have entered thecourt-yard of the Embassy had not the iron gates beenimmediately closed. Failing to reach his Excellency,the people somewhat relieved their feelings by breakingevery window they were able to reach with missilesfrom the street.

[183]

To the storm succeeded a calm. De Guerchy, tooglad to get out of the way, proceeded on leave ofabsence, leaving in triumph the Chevalier, who spentthe summer at Byfleet[225] in Surrey, where he was awelcome guest the chief part of the two succeedingyears. When de Guerchy returned to England in theautumn, he found his way to London without receivingany of the honours that were strictly paid to theFrench King’s ambassadors. Not a gun was fired, nota soldier was in attendance upon him, either at Doveror at Canterbury.[226]

Meeting D’Eon one day, Lord Lincoln said to him:‘How is it that the Count de Guerchy has again returnedto weary us with his sad countenance?’ ‘Mafoi! my Lord, indeed I cannot say. He must be like atop; the more it is whipped the better it goes!’[227]

At this juncture, de Broglio bethought him ofmaking fresh proposals to the Chevalier. He invitedhim to forget the past, to desist in the future from allallusion to de Guerchy, whether for good or for evil—toforget the action for libel—the trial for attempt tomurder, &c. &c.; and upon these conditions he shouldobtain the King’s sanction to entrust him anew with thesecret correspondence, whereby he would be requiredto report on the state of public opinion in England,and what the members of the opposition were about.This species of capitulation coming from no less aperson than the Count de Broglio, served to swell stillmore the Chevalier’s sense of his own importance, andhe replied:—

D’Eon concluded by insisting that de Guerchyshould be permanently recalled, and that in his steadshould be appointed an ambassador to whose hands hemight confidingly entrust what he still held in hischarge.[228]

But even before de Broglio’s, had come a letterfrom Louis XV. D’Eon, ever generous towards theshortcomings of the monarch he adored, thus accountsfor the King’s having refrained from any kind of interferenceor expression of opinion during the period ofhis own grave strife with the ambassador:—

D’Eon thanked the count for his friendly adviceand good wishes, and took occasion to remind him ofthe undertaking that the stipulated pension should bepaid with regularity; then, making up a sealed packetof the papers in his possession, he entrusted them tothe custody of his friend, Mr. Cotes,[230] who unceasinglyurged him to become a British subject, and give upFrance, a country in which nobody was certain of sleepingin his own bed.

Testimonials such as that received from the King,and his continued employment in matters necessitatingthe greatest tact and circumspection, should suffice toacquit the Chevalier of having been a half-witted adventurer,as we find asserted by some writers. Howeverimpetuous, and of almost ungovernable passions,D’Eon was not a fool, nor, in the course of his historydoes it appear that any of his contemporaries seriouslythought him one, if we except the exasperated deGuerchy, who thus sought to brand him, after havingfailed in his ‘blind authority,’ to ‘beat with a staff thechild that might have led him.’

Whilst D’Eon was receiving from the King ofFrance the highest marks of his royal confidence andfavour, ministers at Versailles were officially, but clandestinely,seeking to secure his person; and so late asNovember 1765, de Praslin, in conversation with the[187]Duke of Richmond, the British ambassador, remonstratedupon England not surrendering the Chevalier towhom the Christian King had a hundred times a greaterright, than had England to John Rice, ‘a thief of thePublics,’[231] who was given up by France. Ever watchful,D’Eon was perfectly conscious of all that waspassing.

De Guerchy having quitted England ‘on leave,’Durand succeeded him as minister plenipotentiary, byroyal warrant dated June 8. One of the King’s oldcorrespondents on secret service, Durand was wellknown to D’Eon, with whom he had had frequent intercoursein former days. Recalled from Poland bythe Duke de Choiseul, who suspected him of beingupon intimate terms with the Count de Broglio, we nowsee him minister in England, specially charged, thoughsecretly, by the King, as had been de la Rosière,Nardin, and Nort, to watch over and protect D’Eon.De Guerchy was virtually superseded.

Durand was not long in coming to terms withD’Eon, upon whom he prevailed to give up that mostcompromising of all papers, so far as the King was personallyconcerned—His Majesty’s secret instructions of[188]June 3, 1763,[233] and for which the Chevalier received, inexchange, the royal warrant granting him an annualpension. Durand’s written report was as follows:—

Once again was D’Eon admitted into the royal confidence—hehad never lost the royal favour—withoutany knowledge thereof on the part of the King’sministers, and this by means of the very representativethey had themselves nominated to the Court of GreatBritain! A few weeks elapsed, and there occurred anincident which seemed pregnant of import to the Dukede Praslin, who put his whole heart into any actionthat had for its object the pursuit of those rash enoughto resist his authority. The event proved to be ofpassing moment only, but merits notice as receivingimportance from the Chevalier’s subsequent history.

It was brought to the knowledge of the duke by aFrench woman named Dufour who kept furnishedapartments in London, that the Chevalier D’Eon hadbeen concealed for some days in her house, disguisedas a female; that he had been in the habit of correspondingwith the Count and the Marshal de Broglio,and receiving money from them. Upon being informedby Tercier, in behalf of the King, of these fresh indicationsof a possible exposure of their secret transactions,the Count de Broglio flew into a violent passion, andwas well-nigh making a clean breast of the matter and[190]admitting his share in them, regardless of all consequences.He wrote to Tercier on October 22:—

De Sartines had been directed by de Praslin toinquire into the statements made by Dufour, saying,‘Nothing essential is to be omitted this time!’ Theofficer of police insisted that the woman was of verydoubtful reputation; no evidence, therefore, she wasable to adduce could be accepted, and before involvingpersons of so high consideration, as were the deBroglios, in an affair of this kind, it would be necessaryto obtain a written order from the King that hehimself, at least, might be protected against all responsibility.Such pleas were worthy of a poor perplexeddetective, for since the Hugonnet business, de Sartinesfelt himself bound, whatever his proper sense of duty,to consult, in the first place, the sovereign’s privateinterests and obey his secret commands, and he discerned,plainly enough, that the present was an instancewhich called for the exercise of his utmost discretion andprudence. Too well persuaded, on his part, of thefutility of applying to the King for the order suggested[191]by the officer of police, de Praslin had to contenthimself with a simple re-examination of Dufour, fromwhom nothing more was to be learnt, and the summoningof Hugonnet, who declared his incompetence tosupply any kind of information, as the woman wasentirely unknown to him, nor had he ever heard ofher. At the close of the inquiry, de Praslin said: ‘I amnot being duped, because, as a fact, this affair causesme very little anxiety. It is not D’Eon who will ruinthe State.’[234]

Although de Guerchy and D’Eon had becomeseparated never again to meet on this earth; althoughtheir unprofitable bickerings had come to an end andthe time for recriminations was over, to cast each otherinto oblivion was too impossible a task for either.Upon his return to France, de Guerchy entered on acourse of persecution, selecting for his victim D’Eon’saged mother, who was suddenly deprived of the enjoymentof certain free tenures, while the taxes on her littleestate at Tonnerre where she was living in quiet retirement,were inordinately increased. The poor lady wasin fact hunted to misery and despair.

D’Eon had sent the count a final challenge in theform of a letter, dated August 5, 1767, which reachedhim a few weeks only before his death, when his[192]youthful son swore that he would some day avenge hisfather. This letter, in which all the events of the pastwere recapitulated, covered copies of the indictment, ofthe writ ofcertiorari, and of other documents connectedwith his trial in London, and called upon deGuerchy to justify himself.

No answer came, and D’Eon sent his letter toAmsterdam to be printed in the form of a pamphlet byhis friend Wan, the publisher. Whilst it was in thepress, Wan heard of de Guerchy’s death, and wrote(September 23) to ask the Chevalier whether the publicationwas still to be proceeded with. The reply wasin the affirmative, because he owed a full and completejustification to the King his master, to his country, tohimself, to his family, to his protectors, and to theposition he had held in England.

Hatred usually ends with the death of the one hated,says Boccaccio; it was not so, however, with D’Eon,who to the close of his days never forgot, thoughhe had long forgiven, the enemy that had been thecause of all his troubles.

Treyssac de Vergy died at Blackheath in October1774.[237] Two magistrates, at the request of Sir JohnFielding, attended to receive his dying statements,when, after confirming the depositions he had madeupon oath, he said that being benevolently forgiven bythe Chevalier D’Eon, who was present, for all the injuryhe had done to him, he met death with great pleasure.In his will, dated July 21 of the same year, and provedat Doctors’ Commons on October 10, we find himstrictly adhering to the substance of the evidence hehad given ten years previously.

The Chevalier was firmly established as secret correspondentin London, performing his duty loyally andcompetently, even though frequently suffering fromabsolute want in consequence of his pension neverbeing paid with regularity, and always in arrears; andhad it not been for the hospitality of some of hisEnglish friends, foremost amongst whom was theMarquis of Tavistock,[238] he would have had to enduremany a sad privation. The Duke de Broglie admitsthat D’Eon accomplished his task as correspondent andnewsmonger with considerable ability, and that he wasthe precursor, if not actually the first of political reporters,and the most trustworthy and wittiest, if not[195]the most useful, of correspondents. The contents of hisletters, of which we give an example, verified as they maybe by the history of the times, testify clearly enough tohis qualities as a shrewd and correct observer, to thefacility with which he obtained information and theunlimited sphere of his operations, and are probablyunique, regard being had to the times in which he lived,in their resemblance to the efficient productions of ourown modern newspaper reporters.

De Broglio lost no time in replying. He desired[199]D’Eon to seek to discover, by diligent research, inwhich he was to observe the greatest circumspection,what prospect there would be of success were the restorationof the Stuarts to be attempted; and he furtherwished to know whether it would be dangerous to soundLord Bute as to his secret intentions, or whether itwould be better to watch and wait. The Chevalierrecommended the latter course, saying that accordingto his judgment men and things were not sufficientlymatured.[239]

The number of D’Eon’s friends in every class ofLondon society, clearly exceeded that of his enemieswho were seeking to discredit him in public opinion,by resorting to the daily papers as a vehicle for theirmalice. We may mention as an example, that in Octoberof this year there appeared in the ‘St. James’Chronicle’[240] the announcement of a work preparing forthe press, and in due time to be published anddedicatedto Parliament, which would contain amongst other matter:‘An Account of the Chevalier D’Eon’s overtures toimpeach three persons, by name, ofselling the Peaceto France—an Account of the Bill of Indictment foundagainst a great foreigner for a conspiracy to assassinatethe Chevalier D’Eon—an Account of thenolle prosequigranted to stop proceedings against the said foreigner—anAccount of the attempt made to seize the personand papers of the Chevalier D’Eon, on November 20,1764, by a warrant from the then ministry—an Accountof the pension granted to Count Viri forhis services inmaking the Peace—Extract of a letter from the Dukeof N——s to the Duke de Praslin, dated London,February 20, 1763.’

[200]

D’Eon’s indignant notification and protest at theliberty taken with his name, and disowning all participationin the forthcoming pamphlet, was promptand conclusive, and inserted in the same paper inFrench with an English translation.

The author of the notice publicly disavowed byD’Eon was believed by some to be a Dr. Musgrave,[242]who, availing himself three years later of a generalelection, issued anAddress to the Gentlemen, Clergy,and Freeholders of the County of Devon, under date,Plymouth, August 12, 1769, which he caused to be[201]extensively circulated about the kingdom. In thisdocument, intended in reality for the people of England,Dr. Musgrave represented that whilst residing in Paris, in1764, he discovered that the Peace signed the previousyear had been sold to the French by some persons ofhigh rank. He had at different times been informed bySir George Younge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and other membersof Parliament, that overtures were made to them duringthe summer of 1764, in the name of the ChevalierD’Eon, imputing that he, the Chevalier, was ready toimpeach three persons, two of whom were peers andmembers of the Privy Council, for selling the Peace tothe French, Sir George Younge having in particulartold him that he understood the charge could be supportedby written as well as by living evidence. Bydirection of Dr. Blackstone[243] he waited, May 10, 1765,on Lord Halifax, Secretary of State, and deliveredto him an exact narrative of the intelligence he hadreceived at Paris, with copies of four letters to andfrom Lord Hertford; seven days after which interview,he was informed by Mr. Fitzherbert that overtureswere then being made to the Chevalier D’Eon to gethis papers from him for a stipulated sum of money.When pressed by Dr. Musgrave, at a second interview,to inquire into the truth of the charge, Lord Halifaxobjected to all public steps that might cause alarm,and asked him to point out a way of prosecuting theinquiry in secret, and whether, in so doing, there wasany probability of obtaining positive proof of the allegedfacts. The Doctor urged Lord Halifax to send for theChevalier D’Eon and examine him upon the subject, toperuse his papers, and then proceed according to proofs,it being well known that the Chevalier had the negotiations[202]on the part of the French, also the despatches ofthe Duke de Nivernois. This his lordship refused todo; the Doctor therefore took it upon himself to accusethe Secretary of State of wilful obstruction of nationaljustice in delaying inquiry, such obstruction not onlygiving a temporary impunity to offenders, but tendingalso to make the impunity perpetual, seeing that livingwitnesses were exposed to the chances of mortality, andwritten evidence to the not uncommon casualty of fire.The Doctor went on to say that the papers upon whichthe whole of the written evidence depended were anythingbut secure—they were not in safety. Did it notstand upon record that the Count de Guerchy had conspiredto assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon, a charge thathad not been either refuted or answered; which, notsucceeding, a band of ruffians was hired to kidnap thatgentleman and carry off his papers! Lord Halifax’srefusals did not deter him from carrying his ownpapers to the Speaker to be laid before the late Houseof Commons. The Speaker was pleased to justify hisconduct by allowing that the affair ought to be inquiredinto, although refusing to be instrumental in promotingthe inquiry. Dr. Musgrave concluded his address bysubmitting the prosecution of the affair to the judgmentof those for whom his message was intended, in fullconfidence that the result of their deliberations woulddo honour at the same time to their prudence, candour,and patriotism.[244]

Dr. Musgrave’s paper was intended to persuade thepeople of England that what many already believedwas true—that the French Court had paid immensesums of money to the Princess of Wales, Lord Bute,the Duke of Richmond, Lords Egremont and Halifax,[203]and Count Viri, towards bringing about a general peace,a remonstrance which set the whole nation in a flame.The Court of St. James, the Peace of 1763 and all whohad a hand in it, became the objects of universal hatred,and in 1770 Parliament was obliged to take seriousnotice of the movement.[245] D’Eon, regardless of expense,was not content to oppose Musgrave’s popularscandal and that of a throng of writers, who, withoutany proof whatever, attempted to support such rashand dishonourable reports, but he also, by his depositions,in a great measure contributed to the discreditingof the Doctor’s virulence, and the latter was reprimandedby the Speaker of the House of Commons as the disturberof public tranquillity, D’Eon on his part gainingthe approbation of the two courts and of the people ingeneral.[246]

The expulsion of John Wilkes from the House ofCommons and his trial for libel, and D’Eon’s convictionon a similar charge, both of which took place in 1764,were almost contemporary events, and although theChevalier abstained from taking any part in the riots ofthat year, he never failed, when opportunity offered, toshow his sympathy forWilkes and Liberty! After thegreat agitator had returned to England in 1768, andwas undergoing his sentence of twenty-two months’imprisonment in King’s Bench for seditious libel andblasphemy, D’Eon one day sent him a present of twelvesmoked tongues, with a note in which he expressed thewish that ‘the tongues might have the eloquence ofCicero and the nicety of speech of Voltaire,’ to laudhim worthily upon the anniversary of his birth, which,in the future, would ever be regarded as that of Englishliberty.’[248]

A singular letter from Louis XV. to the Count deBroglio, dated February 12, 1767, commences thus:—

[207]

Yet the man who was considered insane only whenit suited the King to say so, was retained as secretagent enjoying the royal confidence, and upon the Baronde Breteuil, nominated ambassador to Holland, being sentto England in 1768 on a special mission, he was ordered‘to see and confer with D’Eon,’ which, however, he was todo ‘in the most secret manner possible.’[250]

For the next few years D’Eon beguiled his leisure inliterary labours, spending his summers chiefly atStaunton Harold, Earl Ferrers’ seat in Leicestershire.He retired late and rose early, worked fifteen hoursa day, partook of one meal only, at twoP.M., and refusedto receive any visitors except on Sundays. Hisordinary residence from July 1769, when he quitted 32Brewer Street, and 1772, when he returned to those hisold quarters, was Petty France, Westminster, the househe occupied having a garden bordering on the park,and to which he removed to be near his friend, Mr.Cotes. He produced ‘Les Loisirs du Chevalier D’Eon,&c., in thirteen volumes,[251] which he dedicated to his[208]friend and protector, the now disgraced and exiled Dukede Choiseul.

Commenting on this dedication, a newspaper articlethus eulogises D’Eon:—

The work was well received, and especially, it wassaid, at Berlin, where the notices it contained on politicaladministration, and particularly that branch relatingto finance, caused so favourable an impressionon the ministers, for they found therein a quantity ofnew and extremely useful ideas, that his PrussianMajesty ordered they should immediately be put into[209]operation for the benefit of the public and of theGovernment.[253]

The Chevalier’s popularity, chiefly amongst thosewho interested themselves in the politics of the day, hadnever waned since his first introduction into Englishsociety, much of the favour he enjoyed being due tohis genial and agreeable manners, his openness ofcharacter, and the dignity and spirit of independencewith which he bore his trials; but in the year we havereached—1769—his name, somewhat more freely canvassed,began to attain unenviable notoriety, for doubtswere being seriously entertained as to the nature of hissex, and what was at first whispered from mouth to earbecame openly revealed, until public opinion had fairlyfastened on the idea that the Chevalier D’Eon was not aman at all but a woman! And when the PrincessDashkoff, who chanced to arrive in England at thisjuncture, related that D’Eon, whom she perfectly wellknew at St. Petersburg, had been received and entertainedby the Empress Elizabeth with all the intimacyto which his believed in sex admitted him, furtherdoubts existed in the minds of a few only; and what hadbeen suspected was boldly advanced as a certainty, theCount de Châtelet, French ambassador in London,among the number, writing to tell Louis XV. he waspersuaded that the Chevalier was afille. According toa biographical memoir in the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’vol. liii., the first indications that led to a suspicion ofD’Eon’s sex was a wound received in a duel.

John Taylor, the author of ‘Monsieur Tonson,’ whohad met the Chevalier in advanced life, was assured bya very old friend of his father, one well acquainted withD’Eon at this period, that his manners were captivating[210]and that he might have married most advantageously,as several ladies of good family and with large fortuneshad made overtures to him at their country seats wherehe visited; but that upon all such occasions he immediatelyleft the house, whence it was inferred he quitted theplace on account of his being really of the female sex.[254]

It was the fashion in England for all matters ofdispute to become the subject of betting, and gamblingtransactions attained extraordinary proportions, the leadbeing taken at Brooks’s, White’s, and other clubs, asWalpole relates in some curious anecdotes. The uncertaintyof the sex of a noted character was too fairan opportunity to be wasted, and gambling policies ofinsurance were effected to large amounts, as shown inthe opposite statement, giving an idea of the extent towhich such transactions were carried within the firstfew months of their being started, reaching, as theysubsequently did, considerably larger proportions.

[211]

Insurance on the Sex of Monsieur the Chevalier D’Eon.[256]

[212]

To add to the chagrin endured at the gross libertiestaken with his name, the Chevalier was reproached byhis enemies with being an accomplice in the scandalousjobbing affairs and a sharer in the plunder, charges heindignantly repudiated when unburdening himself tohis old friend the count.[255]

The tone of swagger repeated in the above letters,would dispose to the belief that D’Eon was exaggeratingthe degree of front he had shown to those Englishmenwho were taking unwarrantable liberties with his name;but the measure of his veracity would appear to be outof the question. In the ‘Public Advertiser’ of November16, 1774, it was stated that—

[214]

That the calumnies of which D’Eon continued to bethe object were not chargeable to all classes of society, isto be inferred from a notice which appeared in the papersa few days later, announcing—

Being at dinner one day with his friend Angelo,D’Eon was informed of the presence, in the next room, ofa Jew named Treves who would, on condition that hediscovered his sex, on the instant pay him one thousandpounds; when, says Henry Angelo, he flew into such aviolent passion, that it was with much difficulty hisfather could restrain him in his rage against theIsraelite.

For the second time in his life the Chevalier foundhimself to be in imminent peril of being kidnapped inthe interests of those who had heavy stakes on his sex,and were pressing for having the question resolved off-hand.Leaving London, he wandered restlessly in thenorth, until he saw in the papers that his disappearancewas causing anxiety to his friends, who were offering ahandsome reward and the payment of all reasonableexpenses for any intelligence that should lead to hisrecovery, if concealed or restrained of his liberty. Hewas described as being dressed, upon leaving his home,in scarlet faced with green, and wearing the cross ofSaint Louis; he had a new plain hat with silver button,loop and band, and his sword, but no cane. Inquiredafter and sought, and no trace of him being obtainable,[215]acaveat was entered at Doctors’ Commons against hisgoods, on the supposition that he was dead. Hasteningback he informed his friend, Mr. Fountain, of LitchfieldStreet, who had been most active in searching after him,of his arrival in London, in a note which appeared inthe papers[258] the following morning with the announcement:—

Then, in due course, he presented himself beforeLord Mayor Crosby,[259] as the most public way of testifyingthat he was alive, and made an affidavit to theeffect that—

In reporting his proceedings to de Broglio theChevalier wrote:—

D’Eon never allowed anything to interfere with hisfirst object in life, that of supplying his royal masterwith the fullest information on every subject of interest;this, however, was not to be effected without resourcesof some kind; and as it was his misfortune ever to be leftwithout funds, even to not receiving his pension with anydegree of regularity, he became fast involved in seriousdifficulties, which obliged him to live in a state of miserythat became a terrible burden for one of his past life[217]and habits to bear. He might have been the possessorof thousands had he been less patriotic, less scrupulous,and less resolved to put up with his every-day distressingprivations. Patent as the Chevalier’s condition was toeverybody, still did he stand accused of being a confederatein the dishonest transactions of which he wasthe innocent cause. At length relief appeared to be athand. Poniatovsky, King of Poland, who had not forgottenthe pleasant evenings he had enjoyed at swordpractice with D’Eon at St. Petersburg, wrote with hisown hand to offer him an asylum and employment, andfor the second time, driven by want and despair, did thefaithful servant’s loyalty waver, for he asked permissionof his cruel master to accept the invitation. But it wasnot to be, as de Broglio notified in his reply, approvedin the King’s hand.

[218]

Much of D’Eon’s correspondence with the King atthis time was pseudonymous, the assumed name beingWilliam Wolff. There is no probability, whatever, ofthe subjects of it becoming generally known, but it maybe said that the Chevalier saved England, France, andSpain from a ruinous war that was nearly taking placeon account of the dispute relative to the FalklandIslands. This was done through his secret communicationswith Louis XV., to whom he represented theworthlessness of those islands and their barrenness.[262]

De Broglio’s letter of May 11, given above, wasentrusted to Drouet[263] for delivery to the Chevalier, thestartling report he made upon quickly returning toFrance, as the result of his interview with D’Eon, beingimmediately communicated by de Broglio to Louis XV.

Let us here note that although D’Eon was describedat this period as having a rather effeminate countenance,[219]blue eyes, small features, and as being pale, he had adark beard, wore a wig and cue, and ever appeared inthe same dress—that of an officer of dragoons, red withpea-green lapels and silver lace. He stood about fivefeet seven inches, and was rather inclined to corpulency.[265]

Whether or no de Broglio and the King believed inDrouet’s bewildering assertion, made with so much circumstance,it is certain that no action was taken eitherto the prejudice or in favour of D’Eon, who was left intrust of his old office, and again forced to appeal pitifullyto the count.

D’Eon was sighing to leave England, and negotiationswith a view to his being permitted to return to Francehad been conducted from time to time since the fallof de Choiseul (1770) by the new minister, the Duked’Aiguillon; but the Chevalier comprehensively notes,with reference to that minister’s proposals—TimeoDanaos et dona ferentes.[267] When the reiterated appealfor succour reached its destination, the count was againin exile at his seat, Ruffec.

In the early part of 1774, Versailles was visited byan epidemic which ran through the palace, infecting somefifty or more of its inmates (amongst them the King’s[220]daughters, Adelaide, Victoire, and Sophie), and of whomabout a dozen, including Louis XV., were carried off.[268]Those curious to know what were the last days of theprofligate and careless monarch will find, on consultingSismondi, how a death-bed repentance was wrestedfrom him by his confessor, the unflinching and unimpeachableAbbé Mandoux; how the old Marshalde Richelieu remonstrated angrily, and how thefilsemancipé received absolution at the hands of thedisconcerted Cardinal de la Roche-Aymon, thegrandaumônier, who read the royal confession.

The interment was anything but royal, for the corpseofle Bien-aimé was hurried in the darkness of the nightto the tomb—not its last resting-place—amidst the execrationsof the numbers who had turned out to see theprocession as it hastily passed their way, and who keptshouting the late King’s favourite cry on the huntingfield,tayau! tayau!—andhallali! hallali! his favouritecry at the death, as his remains were being borne intoSt. Denis.

Wishing to rid himself of a tipsy customer, thekeeper of a drinking-shop warned the troublesomefellow that the funeral of Louis XV. was about to pass.‘What!’ was the answer, ‘we were dying of hunger solong asce b—— là lived, and are we to die of thirstnow that he is dead?’[269]

[221]

D’Eon’s faith in the good intentions of his masterhad never deserted him, but now that master was dead;and yet, though the Chevalier lived to see the countryhe loved so well reap what Louis XV. had sown, hisestimate of that monarch’s character never changed!

Scarcely had Louis XVI. ascended the throne, thanthe Count de Broglio addressed a memorandum to thenew King, in which was recapitulated the history of thelate sovereign’s secret correspondence from the beginning,and describing the mode in which it had been conducted.The count exposed the anomaly of his position, thenand during the two-and-twenty years that he had beensecretly employed by Louis XV.; suggested the probablecauses of his exile, maintained he had never fallenaway from the royal favour, and asked his Majesty’sinstructions, for his guidance, under the peculiar circumstancesin which he found himself. The King’s[222]reply—laconic, formal, and unsigned—simply acknowledgedthe receipt of the despatch, enjoined the countto continue to observe the strictest secrecy, and informedhim that inquiries should be made in the proper quarterfor the reasons that induced the late King to order himinto exile.[271] De Broglio followed up his memorandumwith several letters, soliciting permission in one of themto communicate certain matters with which he consideredit necessary his Majesty should become acquainted:—

All the details of the secret correspondence, as theywere fully treated upon by the Count de Broglio, provedentirely novel to the King, who promptly put an end tothe system. The money allowed for this secret serviceby Louis XV. amounted to 120,000 livres annually, hisconfidential agents, with one sole exception, being in theservice of the State, and in receipt of established salaries—asambassadors, ministers, residents or secretaries ofEmbassy; but to several, the reduction of their emolumentsby discontinuance of the secret correspondence[224]allowances would prove a serious inconvenience, thecount therefore submitted a plan for ensuring to hisformer colleagues, the faithful depositaries of Statesecrets, a life-pension as a reward for their loyalty anddiscretion. Approving the scheme, the King respondedliberally, and life-pensions, varying from 1,100 livres to20,000 livres per annum, were settled upon the variousmembers of the abolished department, D’Eon excepted,whose case necessitated special and careful consideration.

As to the count himself and his recall from exile,he insisted upon a thorough investigation into his conduct,whether as regarded his personal acts or hiscorrespondence, both of which too clearly proved howcompletely removed from the slightest taint had beenhis loyalty and integrity of purpose.

The Count de Vergennes had succeeded as Ministerfor Foreign Affairs[275] upon the disgrace and exile of theDuke d’Aiguillon, the avowed enemy of the de Broglios,and whose attitude towards D’Eon had been one of[225]dangerous hostility. Rejoicing in his fall and full ofhope in the new order of things, the Chevalier appealedto de Broglio for intercession in his behalf with theyoung King.

that for particular reasons, known only to the late King,he thought it his duty to sacrifice him, openly, to thewrath of his ambassador de Guerchy, to that of hisministers, and to the hysterics of de Pompadour; butthat his sense of justice and kindness of heart hadnever, in secret, allowed him to abandon him, but thathe had, on the contrary, given him, in his own handhis royal promise to reward and justify him in thefuture.

De Broglio had said much more in his favour to LouisXVI. than he chose to tell D’Eon, and he now conveyedto him the King’s desire that he should continue to makehis reports in cypher, addressing all such communicationsto the Count de Vergennes.

So far as the ministers were concerned, the ChevalierD’Eon was regarded in the light of a rebel and traitor,when all of which he could have stood convicted was,like poor Clinker, ‘hunger, wretchedness, and want;but de Broglio and the King knew otherwise. Thecompromising papers with the existence of which wehave become so familiar, were still in his possession, andtheir immediate recovery having become an absolutenecessity, the count was directed to arrange in a kindlyand generous spirit for their surrender. He accordinglysent to London the Marquis de Prunevaux, an officer ofdistinction and a kinsman of the Duke de Nivernois, topropose the following conditions:—D’Eon to give upevery document relating to the late King’s private orofficial correspondence; to give his word of honour toabstain, ever thereafter, from writing anything of anature likely to awaken the recollections of his contentionswith de Guerchy and de Praslin, and to avoidall such places where he would be liable to meet theCountess de Guerchy and her children. In return, heshould receive a life-pension of twelve thousand livres,[280][228]have his military rank restored to him, all chargespending against him should be withdrawn, and a safeconduct signed by the King granted, enabling him toreturn to France and live in any part of the countrymost agreeable to himself. But D’Eon had lost hisbeloved master, whose slightest wish had ever been alaw to him; he knew that his occupation was gone,but he thought he might recover the position he hadlost if he played his cards well, and accordingly rejectedthe terms, substituting his own instead, in which heasked—(1) that his conduct should be purged of thecalumnies imputed to it by the Duke de Praslin and theCount de Guerchy, and that he should be reinstated inthe diplomatic rank and title he had held, as was doneto the celebrated La Chalotais;[281] and (2) that all sumsand indemnities due to him during the past twenty-oneyears, amounting altogether to 13,933l. sterling, or318,477 livres, should be paid to him in full.

In urging his claims to a sum of such large proportions,the Chevalier’s argument was a repetition of whathe had advanced in days gone by, when soliciting LouisXV. and de Broglio for pecuniary assistance:—

De Prunevaux remonstrated that the sum demandedwas prodigious.

Notwithstanding a four months’ residence in London,De Prunevaux could not prevail upon the Chevalier toleave England, for he insisted, after the example of thebrave and virtuous La Chalotais, on a temporary re-establishmentin his post of plenipotentiary which heoccupied with distinction, and from which Madame dePompadour, with a cabal of the great, by little andbase intrigues expelled him; deeming all pecuniarysatisfaction beneath his honour, gold being but a meansand not the object of great souls.[283]

De Broglio’s friendly remonstrances and reproacheswere without effect upon D’Eon, who became the moreobdurate from the moment that de Prunevaux resolutely,and once for all, refused to entertain any such idea as hisreinstatement to his former official position. De Prunevauxwas succeeded by Captain Pommereux of the Grenadiers,ordered to treat with D’Eon on the basis of an[230]indemnity; but the only concession the Chevalier wouldmake being to reduce his claim to 256,000 livres, deVergennes submitted to the King that since a high sumwas still persisted in, it would be unwise to underratethe importance of keeping on good terms with theChevalier, and recommended that for the present, atleast, his quarterly allowance should be paid as before,anticipating that he would become more tractablewith time, and if less importance were attached tothe recovery of the papers of which he was the depositary.Louis XVI. approved, but said that he hadnever read a more impertinent or ridiculous letter thanD’Eon’s,[284] and were it not for the safety of the documents,he should certainly send him about his business.[285]I cannot conclude this paragraph without noticing thatthe gallant captain became so thoroughly persuaded,during his stay in London, of the truth of the reports onthe presumed sex of the Chevalier, that he becameenamoured of the heroine, and actually proposed marriagebefore taking his departure for France!

There now appears on the scene a remarkable man,one who, relying upon his abilities, of which he wassingularly vain, was prepared to act as mediator, andby pursuing a policy of something like oppression, bringD’Eon to his bearings. This was no less an individualthan Beaumarchais, the watchmaker’s apprentice, lieutenant-generalof the royal hunt, champion of theAmericans in revolt against Britain, and in the secretservice of Louis XVI., but more universally known, perhaps,as the author of ‘Le Barbier de Seville,’ a playfirst published with the authority of that sovereign, andunjustly condemned for a season as being a plagiary on[231]Molière’s ‘École des Femmes.’ When D’Eon and Beaumarchaismet for the first time, the latter was in Londonon a mission from the King, in which D’Eon was likewiseconcerned, and it is scarcely to be doubted hewas under instructions from de Vergennes to make theChevalier’s acquaintance with a view to entering eventuallyinto further relations with him. By Beaumarchais’management were shaped the destinies of D’Eon,who has left a record of how they met and what theirintercourse, in a written statement he addressed to theCount de Vergennes, on May 27, 1776,[286] and from whichwe quote the following passages:—

To which the Chevalier D’Eon replied, under dateof July 13-18, 1773:—

According to Loménie,[290] D’Eonsolicited the assistanceof Beaumarchais, and that he might the moreeffectively enlist his sympathies, confessed to him, withtears, that he was a female, which, never doubting, anddelighted at the prospect of obliging a woman becomeinteresting by her daring courage, political talents andmisfortunes, and wishing also to bring to a successfulissue a somewhat difficult task, Beaumarchais wrotesome touching words to Louis XVI. in favour of hisclient.

Having familiarised himself with D’Eon’s story, his[236]difficulties and necessities, Beaumarchais returned toVersailles, and exaggerating the importance of thehidden secret correspondence, although he had notseen any of it, pleaded the cause of his new client, andsecured for himself the congenial employment of treatingfor the King’s papers by instructions contained in aletter from the Count de Vergennes, in which allusionis made for the first time to the Chevalier’s change ofsex, although spoken of throughout in the masculinegender.

Even though the Count de Vergennes was thusengaged in determining the final disposal of D’Eon,such was the opinion continued to be entertained of hisdevotion to his country, of his abilities and usefulness,that we see him recommended by that minister to thenew French ambassador in London, as being amanfully competent to obtain information of which theystood in need, and this at a time that France was stillguided by a feeling of hostility towards the rebelsagainst British authority in America.

To resume. Beaumarchais’ earliest success consistedin obtaining from the Chevalier the keys of aniron safe said to contain the King’s secret papers, andwhich Lord Ferrers was supposed to hold as securityfrom D’Eon for the loan of five thousand pounds.

The letter intimating to Beaumarchais, for the first[239]time, that D’Eon should, in the future, be considered afemale, was succeeded two months later by anotherministerial despatch, in which allusion is made, also forthe first time, to the necessity for his complete changeof sex by the assumption of female attire; the Countde Vergennes, as will be noticed, still referring to theChevalier by employing the personal pronoun of themasculine gender.

Having displayed his keys at Versailles, and assuredde Vergennes that four days would suffice to regulateaffairs finally with D’Eon, Beaumarchais returned toLondon, the first step he took being to inform theChevalier, in the clearest terms, that as the primarycondition of all future negotiations it was absolutelynecessary she should agree to resuming female attire.D’Eon became very noisy upon receiving intimationfor which he was so little prepared, and persistentlyrefused to assent; but the determined attitude anddictatorial bearing assumed by Beaumarchais were notwithout effect, and for the first time in his life, perhaps,he quailed, and in the end, yielded.

[240]

The next few weeks were employed in arranging theterms of that Covenant by which D’Eon irrevocablybound himself to renounce his style as a man, andappear for ever thereafter in the character of a female,that being the sex to which he more properly belonged.During this interval also the iron safe was opened, andits contents declared by Beaumarchais to be far frommeriting the importance attached to them. D’Eoninsisted, on the contrary, that they were very precious,including, as they did, the earliest instructions suppliedto the Duke de Nivernois on his proceeding to England;the earliest despatches of that minister givingthe secret details of the negotiations for peace; andthe family pact of the House of Bourbon, togetherwith the secret convention—the whole of which weremade up into four bundles; but he admitted that thepapers of the greatest consequence were not in theiron safe at all. To produce these he took Beaumarchaisto his residence, led him into his bedroom, andfrom beneath the flooring withdrew four parcelssecurely sealed and directed:Secret papers to be givento the King only, which, he avowed, completed the collection.D’Eon then drew up a list of the whole, indetail, Beaumarchais affixing his initials and a numeralto each sheet as he hastily perused it.

[242]

In conferring with Lord Ferrers, whose name appearedon D’Eon’s list as one of his principal creditors,Beaumarchais shrewdly observed that either the debtowed to him was imaginary, or his debtor had beenimposing upon him, by obtaining large sums of moneyon the security of papers held to be of considerableimportance, but which papers had never really beenconsigned to him, they having been concealed in hisown residence. To this Lord Ferrers replied that heregretted Beaumarchais should seek to create a breachbetween his friend the Chevalier and himself—he littlecared to which sex he belonged—as he valued him forthe spirit he showed and for his virtues. He had notbeen deceived, he said, on the nature of the papers inthe iron safe, represented to have been State papers,and having seen the inventory of them, signed by Beaumarchaishimself, he was more than ever convinced ofthe Chevalier’s honesty and truthfulness, such papersbeing all he could have desired as security for hismoney. Even had his creditor died, he might haveeasily recovered what was owed to him, for the Courtof France, or at any rate, the British Court, wouldhave paid ten times the sum he claimed, ratherthan that publicity should be given to their contents.He was surprised, he added, at the dishonourabletreatment by the French Court and its ministers of soextraordinary a person as the Chevalier D’Eon, whohad worthily served his country, and yet had been sobadly used.

Defending himself against the charge of havingdeceived Lord Ferrers, D’Eon says:—

In the Covenant[298] between Beaumarchais and D’Eon,settling the terms for the surrender of the King’spapers, and the return of the latter to France, theemendations and alterations, as they appear in footnotes,are written in the Chevalier’s hand.

When the wording of this Covenant had been firstagreed upon, Beaumarchais went to Staunton Harold,paid a large portion of the sum presumably owing toLord Ferrers, then left for France, returning almostimmediately, bringing with him three warrants theproduction of which was indispensable to the signingof the Covenant no longer delayed, and effected onNovember 4. Those warrants, all bearing the samedate, we reproduce in full—the first confers on Beaumarchaisfull powers to negotiate with D’Eon for thesurrender of the official and secret correspondence ofLouis XV.—the second grants permission to D’Eon toreturn to France—the third requires the DemoiselleD’Eon to reassume female attire, the right to wear thecross of Saint Louis being at the same time concededto her.

I.

In the King’s Name.

‘His Majesty being informed that there are in the possessionof the Sieur D’Eon de Beaumont sundry papers relating tosecret negotiations and correspondence with the late King, hismost honoured grandfather, and with some of his Ministers ofState, and it being his Majesty’s desire that these papers shouldbe withdrawn, he has to this end empowered and commissioned[252]by these presents the Sieur Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchaisto proceed to London, there to discover all the documentsin question, to withdraw them out of the hands or custody ofwhoever may have them, to take charge of them, to bring themto France, and to deliver them for his Majesty. His Majestyauthorises the Sieur Caron de Beaumarchais to make all sucharrangements and dispositions as he may deem necessary, withthe view of enforcing all the conditions that prudence willsuggest, for the complete execution of the commission confidedto him, his Majesty being pleased to trust to his intelligence andzeal in this matter. And as assurance of his will, his Majestyhas of his own hand signed the present order, which he hascaused to be countersigned by me, Councillor, Secretary of Statefor his commands and finance.

‘Louis.

‘(Signed)Gravier de Vergennes.’

‘At Versailles, August 25, 1775.’

To a certified copy of the above warrant wasappended the following affirmation:—

II.

In the King’s Name.

‘His Majesty having been pleased to cause information to belaid before him of the different commissions, both public andprivate, which the late King, his most honoured grandfather,[253]heretofore most graciously confided for his service, as well inRussia as in England and other places, to Charles-Geneviève-Louise-Auguste-André-TimothéeD’Eon de Beaumont, and ofthe manner in which he executed them, as also of the saidD’Eon de Beaumont’s military service, his Majesty was convincedthat, as an officer and as a minister, in politics, in war,and upon every occasion, he has given such indisputable proofsof attachment to his country, and of zeal for the King’s service,as render him worthy of the protection which his Majesty ispleased to grant him; and his said Majesty, willing that thesaid D’Eon de Beaumont should partake of his royal favour,deigns to continue the pension of twelve thousand livres perannum, which the late King, his grandfather, granted to him in1766, and which has been paid to him to this day without interruption.His Majesty, moreover, being willing that the unhappyquarrels which broke out so publicly, to the scandal of Europe,should be for ever buried in oblivion, imposes absolute silencefor the future in that respect, not only upon the said D’Eon deBeaumont, but also upon all his officers and subjects; upon thiscondition his Majesty grants permission to the said D’Eon deBeaumont to return into his kingdom, to remain there, and toattend to his affairs in full liberty, as also to choose any othercountry which he shall think proper, according to the choicegiven him by the late King, dated April 1, 1766. His Majesty,moreover, willing that, upon no occasion, at no time, and in noplace whatever, the said D’Eon shall be troubled, disquieted, ormolested in his honour, his person, or his fortune, by any of theministers—past, present, or future, or by any other person, eitherabout the negotiations or commissions, whether public or secret,with which the late King had honoured him, or from any othercause resulting from his quarrels, disputes, and law-suits, whichby these presents are for ever abolished, as hath been saidabove; is pleased to grant to the said D’Eon de Beaumontsafeguard and entire security for his person, and to put himunder his said Majesty’s special and immediate protection andsafeguard, charging the said D’Eon de Beaumont to observe thestrictest silence, and to demean himself upon all occasions likea submissive, respectful, and faithful subject; and as an assuranceof the authenticity of his royal will in this respect, his[254]Majesty has signed this order and safeguard with his own hand;and in order to prevent all persons from pretending ignorance,hath caused it to be countersigned and delivered to the saidD’Eon de Beaumont by me, Councillor, and Secretary of Statefor his Foreign Affairs, and for his commands and finances.[306]

‘Louis.

‘(Signed)Gravier de Vergennes.’

‘At Versailles, the 25th day of August, 1775.’

III.

In the King’s Name.

‘Demoiselle Charles-Geneviève-Louise-Auguste-André-TimothéeD’Eon de Beaumont, spinster of age, hitherto knownas the Chevalier D’Eon, formerly captain of dragoons, knight ofthe royal and military order of Saint Louis, and ministerplenipotentiary in England, &c., is hereby required to resumeimmediately the garments of her sex, never again to lay themaside, and she is forbidden, under pain of disobedience, to reappearin France otherwise than in female attire. Upon thiscondition only, and others fully set forth in the special safe-conductwhich we have this day granted to her, she may, inperfect security on my royal word, return to her own country,there to enjoy the freedom, the honours, favours, and benefitsthat have been accorded to her by our illustrious and mosthonoured grandfather, as well as by ourselves, in considerationof her military and political services, without any fear of molestationto her person, honour, and property by any of my late,present, or future ministers, or by any other person of whatsoeverrank or quality. And his Majesty, desiring to mark byspecial favour his sense of the public and secret services, inwar and in diplomacy, which the said Demoiselle D’Eon de[255]Beaumont has had the good fortune to render during upwardsof twenty consecutive years to the late King, his most honouredgrandfather, decrees that the cross of his royal and militaryorder of Saint Louis, won by the said Demoiselle D’Eon deBeaumont at the peril of her life, in combats, sieges, and battlesin which she took part, when she was wounded and employed asaide-de-camp to the general, also as captain of dragoons and ofvolunteers in the army of de Broglio, with bravery to which allthe generals under whom she has served have attested, shall neverbe taken from her, and that the right to wear it in female attireshall belong to her until death.[307] And as an assurance of theauthenticity of his will in this respect, his Majesty has of hisown hand signed the present order; and to prevent all personsfrom pretending ignorance, hath caused it to be countersignedand delivered to the said Demoiselle D’Eon de Beaumont by me,Councillor, Secretary of State for his Foreign Affairs, and for hiscommands and finances.[308]

‘Louis.

‘(Signed)Gravier de Vergennes.’

‘At Versailles, the 25th day of August, 1775.’

D’Eon’s burning desire to see his beloved France wasat length about to be gratified, and as these fresh newsgot bruited about, the press announced that theChevalier had been recalled, it being the King’s intentionto loadhim (orher) with honours, and that theheroine would be shortly leaving for her native land,where the French Court was impatient to see her.Such rumours only served to revive all the old squabblesover the policies on his sex, and bets ran seven to fourthat D’Eon was a woman and not a man,[309] which, thoughfairly heavy odds, showed that there still existed apretty strong feeling in favour of his being a man ratherthan a woman. He again became the subject of numerousobjectionable proposals, advances he repelled withinfinite disgust, and which he did his best to discountenanceand discourage by a protest to which he gavethe greatest possible publicity.

In less than a month after the appearance of thisaddress, by which it might be inferred that if D’Eonwas anything at all he was more probably a man thana woman, his old chief and firmest of friends, the Countde Broglio, received his humble confession that he was[258]not a man but a woman—a confession that could onlyhave been to one of the count’s discernment and sensibilitybut transparent veneer over the sarcasm theletter was intended to convey.

This was the last letter of any consequence addressedby D’Eon to the Count de Broglio,[312] who gave little encouragement[259]to his correspondent of many years’ standing,if we except one written in 1778, and which willbe touched upon in its proper place.

Although the Covenant between Beaumarchais andD’Eon had been formally signed, there still remainedcertain conditional clauses to be ratified. Beaumarchaisinformed the Count de Vergennes that he hadassured the lady with whom he was in treaty, that ifshe were wise, discreet, silent, and well conducted, heshould give so good an account of her to the King’sminister, and even to his Majesty himself, as to leadto the hope that he should succeed in obtaining for herother benefits. He did not hesitate to hold out such apromise, having a balance on hand of 41,000 livrestournois, with which he purposed rewarding each submissionshe made, by supposed concessions on the partof the King and of his minister; only, however, asfavours that were being granted, and not in satisfactionof any claim. It was by such artifice only that hecould expect to prevail, and subdue the unruly andcrafty creature. The triumph of Beaumarchais wascomplete, for D’Eon, even in spite of himself, waseffectively within his grip; and he who had spent a lifetimein the direction of affairs, and whose ambition andrestlessness would never brook interposition, became atlength persuaded that his only chance in life—and yetat what a fearful sacrifice—lay in meekly submitting tothe only man who had ever succeeded, being favouredby the most exceptional circumstances, in daunting hisrebellious spirit.

Beaumarchais again left London, taking with himupon this occasion his prize, the iron safe, which hedelivered into the custody of de Vergennes, tendering atthe same time to that minister a series of questions for the[260]consideration of the King, who was entreated to insertreplies in his own hand, that he might be armed withfurther incontestable authority for bringing his transactionswith D’Eon to a speedy termination. The text ofthe original, which is preserved, was written by Beaumarchaishimself and bears his signature, ‘the replies toeach question, on the margin, being in a small, tremulous,and undecided hand, in which the letterst andv arescarcely indicated—it is the writing of the good, weak,and unhappy monarch....’

There were other questions to which Beaumarchaissought for answer, but as they are in connection withhis enterprises in the American cause, and entirely irrelevantto our story, we pass them over.

In countersigning this document, de Vergennes added:‘The marginal replies are in the King’s own hand,’ andBeaumarchais was granted a certificate to the effect that‘the King was entirely satisfied with the zeal he hadexhibited on this occasion, and with the intelligenceand skill displayed in accomplishing the mission entrustedto him.’[313] With these precious papers Beaumarchaistook flight for the English capital, where hearrived on December 29.

D’Eon’s action in rushing into print during theabsence of Beaumarchais, was scarcely in accordancewith the stipulations of the latter that she should preservea discreet and silent demeanour, and he told herso. In justification, D’Eon said he should never havethought of having recourse to the press had not severalpersons, he knew well, been at some pains to revive thepolicies on his sex. Leaving his chair abruptly, andputting on his hat in a passion, Beaumarchais qualifiedthe notice she had inserted in the ‘Morning Post’ as abadly-worded, stupid, senseless, and impertinent productionfrom beginning to end—to which sentiment[262]D’Eon responded by also rising and putting on his hat,and terminating the interview by saying that thenegotiations and such negotiators as he was, might go tothe d——l! The next morning he hired a post-chaise,and leaving Beaumarchais to his own devices, went toLord Ferrers’ seat in Leicestershire, where we shall findhim for the next two months.

D’Eon had hardly left the room than Beaumarchaisfelt that he had gone too far, and hastened to makesome friendly advances. He was greatly affected, hewrote, at the exhibition of feminine choler on her part,and at the masculine terms of the compliment she hadpaid him. He reminded her that she had always foundhim agreeable and cheerful, straightforward and liberalin his dealings—and having said so much by way ofapology, he awaited with curiosity any explanations shemight have to offer. None came, and at the expirationof another week Beaumarchais again wrote, to say thatin whatever part of England she might be, she had hadample time to answer his letter, and since she had notdone so, he concluded they were in future to considerthemselves strangers to each other. He was too gallantto differ with her on such a point! But she should notfail to remember how greatly she was indebted to himfor the many favours the King had granted, and shewas to beware lest she conducted herself with ingratitudetowards the King, as she had done towards himself.To Lord Ferrers he also wrote, requesting his lordshipto supply him with a receipt in full for the money hehad paid him,[314] a request, he said, he had intended to[263]prefer through M. D’Eon, but who suddenly disappearedout of his sight without leaving word as to whither shehad gone—and this, simply because he had reprovedher, as a matter of necessity, for certain indiscretionscommitted during his, Beaumarchais’, absence.

Lord Ferrers replied—and we would draw attention,for future reference, to that part of his letter we haveitalicised:—

The surrender of the precious deposit which hadconstituted his strength over the space of many years,and emboldened him in his seeming insubordination andfearless demeanour towards the ministers of France, hadbrought the affairs of D’Eon to a crisis, where themaking or unmaking of him for the remainder of hisdays depended almost entirely upon submission to theman into whose hands was committed his destiny, andin whom he himself pretended to confide. The Chevalier’smeekness whilst settling terms with Beaumarchaiswas, it might be supposed, an exemplification ofthe moral derived from La Fontaine’s fable—

But D’Eon’s submission was a sham, for his mindwas racked with positive pain—suffering which grew inintensity the more completely he realised the wretchednessof his situation. He had allowed himself to be[264]persuaded to admit that he belonged to the female sex,and to pledge himself to the assumption, for life, offemale attire; irrevocable facts, under pain of forfeitingthe only means of existence left to him! Yet there remainedmatters touching his honour in which he knewhe should never be able to vindicate himself, from themoment it became publicly established that the ChevalierD’Eon was no longer a man; because it would be impossiblefor him, being a woman, to take the law intohis own hands as was his wont in certain cases. Whetherhe were a male or a female, the King cared little enough,but the Chevalier was to be put into petticoats by hisorders, that the scandal in which a late French ambassadorin London had figured so objectionably, shouldnever by any possibility be revived. Beaumarchais hadstated what was perfectly true—D’Eon’s blood boiled atthe bare mention of the name of Guerchy—while thevehement longing of the young count to avenge hisfather had never been gratified, and his tongue had notceased openly to slander the enemy he would chastise.D’Eon had so far failed also in disabusing the publicmind generally of the imputation of his being concernedin the gambling policies on his sex, and had not succeededin lifting himself above the cloud that tarnishedhis reputation and saddened his days. Moreover, incharging him with having failed to render certain paperswhich were found to be missing, upon the verification ofthe inventories at Versailles, Beaumarchais had exercisedhis authority oppressively and offensively. D’Eon wouldhave called him to account for this, after an unmistakablymanly fashion—but he bethought himself, as beingmore to his advantage, of allowing that he still heldsome of the secret correspondence,[315] hoping against hope[265]that he might yet prevail upon the pitiless King’s agentto yield to other demands, for which he thought hehad a right to press. Nevertheless, he did inflict uponhim agentle kind of punishment in the shape of a sorrowfuldespatch, consisting of no less than thirty-eightpages—the first of a series that was maintained wellinto the year 1778.

After charging Beaumarchais with failing to carryout Article IV. of their Covenant, inasmuch as aportion only of her debts had been paid and not thewhole, the Chevalière points out that for the purposeof legalising the document to which they had affixed[268]their signatures, it was essential that the sentence ofoutlawry passed upon herself, in default, for the publicationof the volume entitled ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c.,should be rescinded, and that Beaumarchais should berelieved from the ban of censure pronounced by theParliament of Paris, the deprivation of civil rightsunder which they were suffering rendering null andvoid any and all their acts.

Referring to the intemperate language Beaumarchaishad employed with regard to the notice in the dailypapers:—

Beaumarchais reminded Mademoiselle D’Eon, in hisreply to this interminable composition so full of recriminations,of his ceaseless efforts in her behalf toobtain advantageous concessions from the King—hecalled her to a sense of her duty, and allowed her eightdays to express her regret at what she had written.He bitterly reproached her for allowing that she hadnot given up the whole of the King’s papers, since shehad signed a declaration to that effect. Confiding inher good faith, which, however, had proved bad, he[270]had given the deed for a life-annuity of 12,000 livres,paid 128,000 livres in liquidation of her debts, and suppliedher with the safe-conduct....

Again a few passages from D’Eon’s lengthy rejoinders,also dated at Staunton Harold, and we close,for a time at least, the ill-humoured correspondenceof two royal secret agents, who were simply practisingtowards each otherruse contre ruse.

The astute and yet outwitted Beaumarchais hadbecome thoroughly persuaded that not only was theChevalier a female, but also one of the most unmanageableof her sex. For her own part, D’Eon was nowas thoroughly convinced that the end of Beaumarchais’mission would be the consummation of all her hopes,all her desires. She still needed a good sum of money[272]for satisfying her creditors, and yet, what prospect hadshe of obtaining it from one whose harshness as taskmasterwas only to be equalled by his exceeding greatparsimony as purse-bearer! However stern and unflinching,Beaumarchais had seldom behaved otherwisethan with consideration towards the distinguishedheroine with whom he had undertaken to treat, whosepast services and misfortunes had awakened in him afeeling of something more than ordinary interest, andwhich, through vanity, he had not the sense to dissemble.Keenly alive to all this, D’Eon was resolvedto profit by the favourable impression she had made,therefore, changing her tone from bluster to gentleness,she coyly approached Beaumarchais:—

Beaumarchais had married three wives—and lostthem, and was evidently a man who sought afterfeminine sympathy, a craving that became manifest toD’Eon, who deemed it worth her while to gratify it—andshe succeeded.

That marriage was contemplated became a commontopic in Paris, and while none believed, few were preparedto doubt, or treat such gossip with contempt.We are able to quote from two letters in which thesubject is mentioned by the writers, who had knownD’Eon intimately during many years.

And her landlord, Mr. Lautem, in whose house she hadlived almost unintermittingly since the autumn of 1763,says to her:—

[274]

So long as Beaumarchais abstained from advancingthe ‘other large sums’ promised in Article IV. of theCovenant, so long did the Chevalière refuse to carryout her engagement to discard her uniform for femaleattire; a refusal adopted by the King’s envoy as hismotive for forbearing from taking any further interestin his refractory client. Loménie argues that it wasprecisely because she could not be prevailed upon toclothe herself in the garments of her sex, that no moneywas forthcoming; but it may fairly be contended, uponD’Eon’s argument, that Beaumarchais being the contractingpower, were he to prove true to his obligations,she, as executrix, would necessarily be obliged toobserve her engagements under pain of being deprivedof the enjoyment of her annuity. It is not easy toaccount for the meanness and want of generosity displayedby Beaumarchais in his dealings with theChevalière, his penuriousness leading him even toneglect the bonds he had given to Lord Ferrers, andupon the faith of which he was allowed to have theiron safe.

Baser conduct in Beaumarchais was his participationin the interminable and ever-increasing sex policies, theChevalière entreating him, over and over, to abstainfrom mixing himself up in affairs that sorely afflictedher. Thoroughly persuaded that D’Eon was of thefemale sex, Beaumarchais added insult to injury by[275]offering her eight thousand louis d’or and a share in allhis profits, if she would submit herself to the verdict ofa qualified jury nominated for the purpose by the policy-holders—proposalsthat were repelled with the contemptthey deserved, and in the same spirit in which similaradvances were repulsed in 1771, when the accommodationbribe amounted to fifteen thousand guineas. As badwas the confederacy into which Beaumarchais sufferedhimself to be drawn, having become associated in thesefoul speculations with the needy adventurer Morande;and it being the Chevalier’s practice, with hiscacoëthesscribendi, to commit to paper every circumstance, everyincident, small or great, in which he chanced to beconcerned, he drew up and afterwards distributed adeclaration, which was to show forth how Morandeand Beaumarchais had endeavoured, in defiance of him,to practise fraud in their speculations on his sex.

The breach was now complete. Beaumarchais hadproved himself to be perfectly indifferent in the matterof his reputation, so far as his relations with theChevalière were concerned, and it is certain, after theadmission made by Morande, that D’Eon would neverhave entered into further negotiations, even to her ownbenefit, with the man who was regardless of the injuryhe was causing, instead of affording his protection byvirtue of the powers with which he was invested. D’Eonsent a copy of the declaration to de Vergennes, undercover of a letter, in which, after recapitulating theshameless conduct of Beaumarchais towards herselfand Lord Ferrers, conduct by no means adapted tore-establish the good name of a man who had fallena victim to the passions of the great, much less of avirtuous female, and his little scrupulousness in betrayingCourt secrets, she informed the minister that shedeclined to have further intercourse with one whoselife in London, in the company of his friend Morande,was licentious and discreditable to the last degree. She[278]entreated the count to be persuaded that, although afemale, she had all the qualities and the courage of themost fearless of men, and that notwithstanding her refusalto consent to a verification of her sex, she wouldbe willing to do so as a favour or from necessity. Thisletter, written throughout in the feminine gender, issigned, ‘Votre dévoué Serviteur, le Chev. D’Eon.’[321]

When de Vergennes had communicated to Beaumarchaisits contents, so full of abuse directed againsthim, the latter replied with resignation: ‘She is awoman, and so horribly influenced, that I forgive herwith my whole heart; she is a woman, and this explainseverything.’

But Beaumarchais’ words were inconsistent with hisactions. In the first place he had betrayed his trust inconfiding to Morande the nature of his private dealingswith D’Eon, together with many particulars of D’Eon’spast intercourse with the Court of France, details whichMorande made it his business to repeat in public, thegossip thus spread only serving to increase the agitationin the public mind on the Chevalier’s sex. Then,Beaumarchais and Morande having become thoroughlypersuaded that all hope of amassing riches at the expenseof Mademoiselle had vanished, and Beaumarchaisbeing about to return to France, it was arranged thatMorande should publish a pamphlet in disparagementof D’Eon, to whom a copy was sent by the writer, withthe request for an interview at which terms for permanent[279]reconciliation between them might be agreedupon. The Chevalier sent his brother-in-law O’Gorman,and his friend the Chevalier de Piennes, with a messageto the effect that the only place where MademoiselleD’Eon could meet Morande was in Hyde Park, thosegentlemen being at the same time instructed to invitehim to appoint an early day and the hour, and makehis choice of weapons. Morande’s reply was an outrageon all decency and the foullest insult that could beoffered to a woman;[322] and when D’Eon found himselfbound over to keep the peace in 200l., and two suretiesin 100l. each, he became excited beyond all control, andcommitted the fatal error of writing to Morande in languagevery similar to that employed in the pamphlet.

Morande having declined to fight a woman, O’Gormantook her place; but Morande avoided the risk of anencounter by apprising the police of the bellicosedesigns of the big Irishman, who was also, in his turn,bound over to keep the peace.

The widespread and unenvied notoriety that hadrendered D’Eon’s situation in London perfectly intolerable,was increasing in spite of himself, and hisyearning to leave the country and return to Francebecame all the greater as fresh dangers threatened theliberty of his person. He was the centre of attraction,the chief object of public curiosity, and having becomemore familiarly known to the multitude, was more liableto be seized at some unguarded moment, to be maltreatedand insulted by those whose interests, heavilystaked, demanded an expeditious solution of the problem—Ofwhich sex is the Chevalier? One pretty andinnocent little note from Miss Wilkes, daughter of thepatriot, who had been brought up in a French convent[280]and knew the language perfectly, puts the questionpoint blank.

By some the Chevalier was accused of being a spyin disguise, who should be made to appear in the garmentsproper to her sex. By others she was suspectedof being a natural daughter of Louis XV.; and onenight a party of stragglers broke the windows andwrenched off several bars of the railing in front of herhouse in Brewer Street, violence repeated the secondnight after, the perpetrators not being discovered, eventhough D’Eon offered a reward of twenty guineas fortheir apprehension.[324] His aversion to the assumption offemale attire was insurmountable, but he was pledgedto it and had been strengthening his mind for the inevitable,the essential point ever present to his imaginationbeing the driving of every bargain to his ownspecial advantage. He sought to resume the negotiationsof 1774-1775 for his return from exile, by directcommunication with the Count de Vergennes, andclaimed that if he were absolutely required to dress as afemale, there should at least be inserted, in the writtenorder to that effect, the wordsas had been required ofher in the reign of the late King, after the words, ‘toresume immediately the garments of her sex neveragain to lay them aside.’ In making this request it[281]was clearly the object of D’Eon, now about to enterupon the world’s stage, openly and permanently, in thecharacter of a female, to shieldherself against the imputationof having ofher own accord, and at any timedisguisedher sex to pass the life of a brave and distinguishedman, and he shrank from accepting thesmallest responsibility in his approaching compulsorytransformation. The minister found it impossible toaccede, and Beaumarchais was instructed to explain tothe Chevalière the impracticability of her request beingentertained, which he did, by repeating, textually, theminister’s own words, after saying that he wished theCount de Vergennes had employed some person less odiousthan he must be to her, to communicate his reply:—

Beaumarchais added, that for his own part he did[282]not believe, more than the minister, that any freshclaims she made could be of the least advantage to her,and with many kind words expressed his readiness toserve her as he had hitherto done, provided she did notpersist in creating further difficulties.[325]

This refusal of Louis XVI. to accede to the requestmade by D’Eon, reached him at a moment that Morandehad successfully defeated all his plans to punish him.Foiled in his purpose of chastising Morande by resort toarms, the Chevalier sued him for libel, and Lord Mansfielddirected rule to be granted; but when it wasshown that D’Eon had written equally libellous matterto Morande, the Court discharged the rule, and theChevalier had the mortification of seeing his enemy reapthe advantage of his own imprudence. It was whilstsmarting under a sense of these failures that D’Eonwrote to his tormentor:—

In ever increasing anxiety to make his escape out ofthe difficulties and threatening dangers by which he was[283]surrounded, the Chevalier applied to the Minister forForeign Affairs to ask whether he might rely upon theGovernment for protection, it being his intention toreturn shortly to France.

D’Eon was unable to leave England unless he madesome arrangement with his creditors, still oppressed ashe was by the liabilities he had incurred in the furtheranceof the late King’s service, and no sooner had hisimminent departure become extensively known, thansomething like a panic seized upon all who had engagedin the speculations on his sex. Three several actions[284]were commenced in Easter term, against three underwritersin the city, for the recovery of the respectivesums underwritten by them. Upwards of 120,000l. hadbeen underwritten at various times on this mysteriousquestion, but rather than ‘risk a heat over the Baconcourse in Westminster Hall,’ several eminent merchantsforfeited sixty per cent., and even seventy per cent.,to have their names cancelled from the policies theyhad underwritten.

One trial on the legality of these policies took placebefore Lord Mansfield, on July 1, when it was believedthat the sex of the Chevalier was established beyondthe possibility of a doubt. The action was brought byMr. Hayes, a surgeon in Leicester Fields, against Mr.Jacques, broker and underwriter, for the recovery of700l., the said Jacques having, about six years previously,received a premium of fifteen guineas, on the engagementto return one hundred guineas for every guinea,whenever it should be proved that the Chevalier wasactually a female. Mr. Buller, as counsel for Hayes,opened the cause by stating the fairness of the transactionand the justifiable nature of the demand, theplaintiff believing himself to be in possession of sufficientproof to establish the sex of the Chevalier. He calledfor his first witness a surgeon named Le Goux,[327] whogave evidence to the effect that he had been acquaintedwith the Chevalier D’Eon from the time that the Dukede Nivernois was ambassador in London; that aboutfive years previously he was called in by the Chevalierto lend professional aid, when she was labouring undera disorder which led to the discovery of her sex, ofwhich he, Le Goux, was able to give satisfactory[285]testimony. Another witness was Morande, with whomwe are so intimately acquainted, who deposed that sofar back as July 3, 1774, the Chevalier had made tohim a free disclosure of her sex, even to displaying herbosom, and exhibiting her female wardrobe, which consistedof sacks, petticoats, and other garments forfeminine use. On the part of the defendant, Mr. Mansfieldpleaded that this was one of those gambling, indecent,and unnecessary cases that ought never to bepermitted to come into a court of justice; that besidesthe inutility and indecency of the case, the plaintiffhad taken advantage of his client, being in possessionof intelligence that enabled him to lay with greatercertainty, although with such great odds on his side;that the plaintiff, at the time of laying the wager,knew that the Court of France treated with theChevalier as a woman to grant her a pension, and thatthe French Court must have some strong circumstancesto imbibe that idea; he therefore hoped that the jurywould reprobate such wagers.

In charging the jury, Lord Mansfield expressed hisabhorrence of the whole transaction, and of its beingbrought into a Court of Justice when it might have beensettled elsewhere, and wished that their verdict couldso operate that neither party might be the winner; but,as the law did not expressly prohibit, and the wagerwas laid, the question before them was, who had won?His lordship observed that the indecency of the proceedingarose more from the unnecessary questions askedthan from the case itself. There was every externalproof that the defendant was right in his conjecture.D’Eon was dressed as a man, would have fought duels,was captain of dragoons, and had resided here as an ambassador;therefore, to all appearances the defendant[286]had the best of the wager. On the part of the plaintiffthere was a considerable difficulty. Suppose himto have been right, yet the proof of the fact wasnot easy. It was not in the power of any person tocompel D’Eon to disclose her sex, and was it known,the proof still rested on the plaintiff. It had beenthrown out that he was sure of the fact at the time helaid the wager. The contrary has appeared, for hehad no proofs in his power at the time the contract wasentered into.... The Court of France considered D’Eonas a man; there were reasons afterwards to believe thecontrary.... It might have been difficult to prove thesex, if private quarrels of the parties had not furnishedcollateral evidence as put the question out of doubt.The witnesses were either perjured, or their testimoniesmust be credited. As was the case in all wagers, bothparties conceived themselves certain of winning. Hislordship called upon the jury to consider all the circumstances,and if they thought that the bet was fairlywon to decide in favour of the plaintiff, for whom averdict was given, without any hesitation on the partof the jury—for 700l. and forty shillings—a verdictawaited with intense interest, as numerous sums onpolicies were depending on this suit. When, however,this policy business came to be solemnly signed beforeLord Mansfield, in the Court of King’s Bench, thedefendant pleaded a late Act of Parliament for the non-paymentof the policy he had underwritten, a statutewhich provided that ‘no insurance shall be valid, wherethe person insuring cannot prove an antecedent interestin the person or thing insured.’ The Chief Justicehaving admitted the statute to be binding in the presentinstance, the decision at once and for ever deprived all[287]insurers in the ‘D’Eon policies’ of the golden harvestthey so long and patiently expected.[328]

D’Eon received the intimation that he was declaredby the law to be a female with perfect equanimity.‘What does it matter to me that the King’s Bench hasproclaimed me to be a female! I am none the betteror the worse. I am in the same condition as before thewar—in eodem statu ante bellum.’ He had failed in hisapplication for a postponement of the trial until heshould return from France, and having abstained fromtaking any part in the proceedings, it was bruited aboutthat such discretion was to be rewarded with a bonusof twenty thousand pounds!

D’Eon appeared in London in ‘her real character asa female, for the first time on August 6, being dressedin an elegant sack, her head-dress adorned withdiamonds, and bedecked in all the other elegant paraphernaliaof her sex;’ but with the laudable desire ofcompletely disconnecting herself from the smallestsuspicion of wishing to countenance either of the contendingparties in the gambling policies, when the dayfixed upon for her departure from London had arrived,she drove off from her house in Brewer Street, in aneat post-chaise and four, wearing her uniform with thecross of Saint Louis, and suitably attended.[329] The wholeof her effects remained in England, her stock of wine,which was large and valuable, being left with her landlordto be sold for the benefit of her creditors.

Henry Angelo tells us that the first time he sawD’Eon dressed as a woman was in Brewer Street.

Angelo was entertained to ‘an excellent dinner’ oneday after D’Eon had donned the petticoat, there beingamongst the guests Bach, Abel, and Cramer.

The Chevalier left London on August 13, and inthe ‘Morning Post and Public Advertiser,’ &c., of the15th, appeared her protest against the malicious chargeof being interested in the issue of the late trial.

D’Eon’s residence in England had extended overfifteen years, and it was with no inconsiderable feelingsof emotion that he again touched his native soil.Hurrying to Versailles, he presented himself, equippedas a dragoon, before the Count de Vergennes, whoreceived him affably and with distinction, but at onceenjoined him to execute the terms of his Covenant, andnot appear unless in female attire. D’Eon demurred,pleading, first one thing, then another, but the ministerwas obdurate, and soon the Chevalière was favouredwith the following order:—

The Count de Vergennes had asked M. Genest, chiefclerk at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, to receive hisold friend the Chevalier in his own house, and managehim as best he could. Upon hearing of his arrival, theQueen sent word to Genest that he was to bring theChevalier to her. Genest, having informed the ministerof her Majesty’s commands, received instructions toaccompany the Chevalier; but the count having previouslyhad a few minutes’ audience of the Queen, sheleft the room with him, and finding Genest in the[290]adjoining apartment, her Majesty told him, smiling,that she was sorry to have given him any trouble, thefew words the count had just said to her having forever cured her of her curiosity.[330] And yet she did notremain unmindful of him. When D’Eon sought to putoff the evil hour of his transformation by pitiably pleadingthat she had no suitable clothes in which to appear,even the Queen’s eagerness for novelty and amusementseemed to conspire against her. Her Majesty seizedupon so exceptional an opportunity ‘for exercising thenobility of her soul and the generosity of her heart,in causing Mademoiselle Bertin, one of her ladies-in-waiting,to complete an outfit which would have sufficedfor any four girls of the royal house of St. Cyr.’[331]

D’Eon was delighted at the respite afforded by thetime required for preparing a trousseau in accordancewith the Queen’s commands, and he made the most ofit by paying a visit to his mother, whom he had notseen for many years. In acknowledging the receipt ofthe King’s order of August 19, the Chevalier informedthe minister that the few articles of female attire hehad by him were quite unsuitable for making hisappearance at Versailles. Mademoiselle Bertin hadconsequently undertaken to procure the clothing necessaryfor his new condition of life, and to turn him intoa fairly modest and obedient woman; and to her, afterHeaven, the King, and his ministers, would belong thegreatest merit in connection with his miraculous conversion.His earnest desire to appear irreproachablein the eyes of the King and of the Counts de Vergennesand de Maurepas, sufficed to endue him withthe strength required to overcome himself, and adopt a[291]sweetness of disposition in conformity with the newexistence into which he was forced.[332] This letter wassigned, ‘The Chevalier D’Eon for a little while longer.’

D’Eon likens his reception at his home to that givento the prodigal son. In transports of joy his mothercalls all her friends together to rejoice with her overthe sheep that was lost, and was found again—herdaughter—who had been her son for a time only,but now was, and should for ever be, a daughter toher! She holds three days’ feasting, to which all theauthorities of the town and neighbourhood are invited.The mayor and aldermen, the ecclesiastical, monastical,military, and civil bodies, and a deputation formed ofthe married and maiden ladies of Tonnerre, call uponMadame D’Eon and overwhelm her with their congratulations.Each evening, two casks of wine areplaced at the gate of the house, and bread and meatis distributed to the people, who give vent to theirenthusiasm by firing guns and crackers, and nearlycausing a conflagration in the stable-yard and granaries.It was only after these memorable incidents atthe place of her birth, that the Chevalier’s heart feltless heavy; but he was very shortly ordered back bythe ministers, and having returned to Versailles, hebound himself, in a written declaration, never to transgressthe orders of the King, to whom he swore, in thepresence of the Counts de Maurepas and de Vergennes,that he should die, as in duty bound, a female.[333]

The choice of the day upon which, from Chevalier,D’Eon was to be formally and effectively transformedinto Chevalière, was made by his relative, Christopher[292]de Beaumont,[334] Archbishop of Paris, Madame Louise[335]having greatly interested herself in his behalf. On themorning of October 21, 1777, the Feast of St. Ursula,Mademoiselle D’Eon having been deprived, by order ofthe King, of all her male attire, was clothed by MademoiselleBertin in her new female habiliments, with theinjunction never to lay them aside, but to wear themto the end of her days. She was anointed with fragrantperfumes, her hair was curled, and a magnificent head-dressput on her; her gown, petticoats, and stockingswere of the richest materials, and she was adorned withbracelets, a necklace, earrings, and rings. At themoment of her transformation, apparelled like a bridefor her bridegroom, she excelled the Queen of Shebaherself, in all her glory. In this quality she waspresented at Court, and there compelled to remain twoyears, that she might become moulded into her newcondition.

Household of Marie Antoinette at the time of theChevalière’s introduction:—

The Chevalière, we are told by those who saw herat this period, was slow enough in adapting herself tothe requirements of her sex; it would be long, sheused to say, before she became accustomed to them, andwould have continued to dress as a man had it beenpossible. At first she laughed at her petticoats andcap, saying it was very hard to be degraded fromcaptain to a cornet! (cornette), and was altogethercareless in her demeanour. She was of a fair complexion,with fair hair slightly grey, and having ahandsome neck and bosom appeared to advantage asa female; she had formerly made herself a beard, andher chin being provided with some hairs, she employedherself in nipping them. Wearing low, though somewhatlarge heels, her stature did not exceed five feetfour inches, and those who had not seen her in uniform,could not conceive how she could have looked well in[294]it.[338] Her accent was peculiar, but not unbecoming asher voice was agreeable,[339] and in making a courtesy shewould bend her knees forward quickly without otherwisemoving her limbs. Being recommended to put onsome rouge, she replied that she had tried it, but itwould not stick to her face; she despised her body, shesaid, which she considered as the case or shell only ofher soul.

Being one day in a room where several gentlemen,strangers to her, were present, a lady having remarked,‘Chevalière, to the best of my recollection when youwere dressed as a man you had a very handsome leg!’‘Parbleu!’ replied D’Eon with vivacity, pulling up herpetticoats, ‘if you are curious to see it, here it is!’Upon another occasion a lady observed to her, ‘If youwished to demand satisfaction, would you not regretyour former condition and your arms?’ ‘I havealready considered this matter,’ she replied; ‘when Iquitted my hat and sword, I own it gave me someconcern, but I said to myself, what does it signify? Imay do as much, perhaps, with my slipper?’ And toanother lady who gave some advice with regard to herbehaviour, she said: ‘Madam, I shall always besage,[295]no doubt, but I can never be modest.’ Upon thewhole, however, the Chevalière seldom appeared inpublic, limiting herself to dining with her old friends.If she chanced, upon such occasions, to be in the sameroom with some other knight who happened to beaddressed as ‘Monsieur le Chevalier,’ she would instantlyturn round thinking she was meant, and would equallyforget herself in her assiduity towards the fair sex,never failing to assist a lady to wine, when sitting attable, or rising with alacrity to relieve her of her emptycoffee cup.[340] She was a great eater, and usually partookof every dish, even if she sent her plate awaydirectly after.

Since D’Eon was not visible to the world at large inParis, it became the fashion to personate her at masquerades,and even at ordinary evening parties, whenBeaumarchais would also be brought into ridicule bythe pretended Chevalière relating, for the amusement ofthe company, the incidents of her courtship with thatindividual. The tales told, however, were not alwaysharmless, and one report spread, was to the effect thata portion of the money destined by the King for theChevalière’s use in England, and confided to Beaumarchais,had been appropriated by the latter, whoaccordingly complained to de Vergennes of the baseaccusation, charging D’Eon with being the author ofit. He was at once reassured by that minister, whowrote word that his Majesty’s satisfaction at the correctnessof the accounts he had rendered should suffice tovindicate his character from any such attacks; andhaving obtained permission to publish the minister’sletter, he sent a copy to D’Eon under cover of someoffensive and very angry lines. Calmer judgments had[296]certainly not as yet prevailed in the unsettled mind thatwas ever craving after excitement; and in maliciousenjoyment of Beaumarchais’ participation in his ownunenviable notoriety, D’Eon seized the opportunity forindulging in his favourite recreation, by treating theMinister for Foreign Affairs to one of the most tediouseffusions of which he had ever been guilty, buthumorous and satirical withal.

Passing over the reply sent to Beaumarchais, wefind ‘The Appeal of Mademoiselle D’Eon to her Contemporaries,’which also went through the press:—

Amongst the later causes tried in London for therecovery of sums forfeited by the wagers on D’Eon’s[298]sex, was that of Jones and Dacosta, in which a verdictwas given in favour of the plaintiff; but a motionhaving been made in the Court of King’s Bench for anarrest in judgment, Lord Mansfield delivered hisopinion in its favour, in which all the other judgesconcurred. The decision, he said, tended to indecency,and to make the courts of justice subservient to thepurposes of gamblers and swindlers—a conclusion thatwas heartily approved by all right-minded personsthroughout the country.

No sooner had the news reached D’Eon than heissued a ‘Second Letter to Women,’ dated Paris,February 10, 1778, opening with these words:—

There appeared at about this time in England thetranslation of a letter in verse from D’Eon to LordMansfield, on the decision he had pronounced in thelate trial. In his preface the translator frankly statesthat he has taken the liberty of deviating a little fromthe original, especially where Mademoiselle, in heraddress to his lordship, and in the warmth of herimagination, had seemed to have forgotten that shewas in petticoats. The title page is illustrated with aplate representing the Chevalière in a double character,the right half of her body being in the dress of adragoon with drawn sword in hand, the left halfappearing as a buxom woman waving a fan.[343]

A variety of similar grotesque likenesses made theirappearance, one by Bradel, in Paris, also representingthe Chevalière in both sexes. Other portraits, however,were in glorification of the heroine, the most remarkablebeing that published inmezzo-tinto by S. Hooper,of Ludgate Hill, in which she appears as Pallas.[344]

[300]

One of these prints having found its way to Voltaire,to whom D’Eon was not entirely a stranger, theold sage wrote to his friend d’Argental:—

D’Eon’s affected gaiety at length gave way; she fellinto a state of melancholy, and then became quiteill, physically and morally. The Queen’s physician,Lasone, and the King’s physician, Lieutard, wereordered to hold a consultation, and terminated theirvisit by saying to the patient: ‘Be comforted, dearlady; yours is an incurable complaint, and will disappearas it came.’[346]

But it was not in D’Eon’s nature to repose inmoody silence, and she poured out her sorrows inpitiful appeals to the Counts de Sartines, de Vergennes,and de Broglio, praying, for the sake of her health,which was being seriously injured from want of exerciseand the compulsory abandonment of the activehabits of a lifetime, that she should be permitted towear male attire, at least on Sundays and festivals;she was ashamed and sick at heart to be in petticoats,idly enjoying a pension instead of serving her King andcountry as she had been doing for so many years; and,further, she asked to be employed in the war that wason the eve of breaking out, France being about tobecome the active ally of the Americans.

[301]

The Chevalière had been exerting herself to saveFrance from meddling in the War of Independence,undertaking to prove that the reasons alleged in themanifesto of the French Court were not founded eitheron philosophical or political arguments,[347] representationsto which de Vergennes, who was easily accessible toher, was disposed to give his attention. But Beaumarchaishad everything to gain by the prosecution ofthe war, and secured to himself all access to the FrenchCourt, to the exclusion of D’Eon, who found it impossibleto approach either King or ministers. Individually,de Vergennes’ treatment of D’Eon had alwaysbeen considerate, and at times indulgent, and sinceall her supplications to the several ministers had beentreated with callous indifference, she imagined shemight succeed in disburdening herself of the yokeimposed upon her by getting back to London if shecould but secure his interest and influence. ’Tis saidthat James I. of England thought that if he were everto be confined in a prison, he should wish that prison tobe a library. D’Eon pleaded hard that her books andsome valuable MSS., all ‘so dear to her purse and toher heart,’ were in London, where she desired to livein retirement with them for her companions. Hermetamorphosis, her long illness, the war, the almostsudden death of Lord Ferrers, and the non-payment ofmonies legitimately due to her, had despoiled her ofhealth and fortune, and she reminded the minister thatthe pledges contained in his letter of July 12, 1777,confirming the intentions of the late King in his orderof April 1, 1766, left her at liberty to go whithersoevershe would.[348]

[302]

The reply, in his Majesty’s name, was a firmrefusal.

If D’Eon had sinned, she was as surely suffering.There was no hope whatever of escape from her bondage,and with her high spirit seemingly humbled, shesought, or pretended to seek for comfort in the consolationsof religion. She retired, she says, speakingof herself, to different convents, that she might acquirethe customs, habits, occupations and virtues whichmost became her, and if she had offered a bad examplein wearing the King’s uniform in time of war, she madeample reparation by wearing, in time of peace, theQueen’s uniform amongst the ladies at Court; then sheadds, comically enough, that it was to the edification ofthe Church and of her neighbours she retired frequentlyto the ‘Abbaye Royale des Dames de Hautes-Bruyères,’to the ‘Maison des Demoiselles de St. Cyr,’ and to the‘Monastère des Filles de Ste. Marie.’ In accepting theinvitation to visit the ladies at St. Cyr, D’Eon thuswrote to Madame ——, one of the inmates:—

D’Eon’s strength of character enabled her to shapeher deportment at the several retreats she visited withhonourable and scrupulous observance of the rules ofthose institutions, conduct induced from prudentialconsiderations, and she spent her time in the profuse[304]waste of paper, writing prayers of her own composition,cunningly adapted to one in her singularly anomalousposition,e.g.:—

At each of the homes where she stayed theChevalière was supplied with formulas of prayer in MS.,copied for her own special edification, as stated onthe title-page of each pamphlet:—‘Oraisons de l’Eglisepour tous les temps de l’année Mpt. copié pour MademoiselleD’Eon pendant sa retraite, en 1778, à l’AbbayeRoyale des Dames de Hautes-Bruyères, dépendante dela célèbre Abbaye de Fontevrault fondée l’an 1100, parle bien-heureux Robert d’Arbrissel. Réflexions Morales.Sentiments de Piété. Sentiments sur l’Oraison Mentale.’

It is clear that the Chevalière was by no meansyielding to the supposed advantageous influences bywhich she was surrounded, no benefit being conferredon her agitated mind by the religious austerity in themidst of which so many of her days were being passed.The profound meditations in which she indulged withothers were not those of the cloister, her thoughtsbeing too actively engaged in evolving to herself schemeafter scheme for obtaining freedom from the restraintimposed by her hated petticoats, chafing as she was to[305]join the King’s forces. It is true that the war beingnecessarily a naval one, it was not the soldiers of Francewho were called to the strife; but D’Eon showed herselfequal to the occasion when addressing herself, thistime to the Count de Maurepas, president of the council,more pathetically and entreatingly than to any of theother ministers:—

D’Eon must have been fully persuaded that escapeout of her state of wretchedness was impossible, andthat the pen and ink agitation, in which she was repeatingso much sad nonsense, would prove fruitless,for, in writing, on the very next day, to her nephewswho were about leaving to take part in the war, sheplayfully observed that the King, or rather his presidingminister, absolutely refused to allow her to join theforces, through fear, no doubt, that the indomitableEnglish who in other days had burned, in Normandy,the Maid of Orleans, might now be guilty of drowning,in America, the Maid of Tonnerre! Whatever theintentions of the ministers with regard to the epiceneD’Eon, her allusions to the de Guerchy family, and herill-concealed desire to avenge herself on the son of herold and deceased enemy, could only have served to confirmthem in their earliest resolution that she shouldnot, under any circumstances, be liberated from thethraldom into which she had yielded her person.

Neglected by all at Court, and perhaps despised, asshe conceived herself to be, the Chevalière resolvedupon throwing off the badges of her servitude, andagain appearing as a captain of dragoons; but she wasimmediately arrested and conveyed to the castle of theold Dukes of Burgundy, at Dijon, where she remainedconfined during the space of two months. Consenting[307]to take things in a more philosophic spirit, and returnto her laces and skirts, she was permitted to reappear inParis, and there, on September 20, was confirmed, byorder of the King and the Count de Vergennes, the draftof a deed granting a life-annuity of twelve thousandlivres, out of the funds of the Department for ForeignAffairs, unto ‘Charlotte-Geneviève-Louisa-Augusta-André-TimothéeD’Eon de Beaumont, formerly knownas the Chevalier D’Eon;’ this being the first occasionupon which she was officially styled by her newappellations. After this D’Eon completely disappearedfrom society, having gone to live with her aged motherat Tonnerre, where travellers, impelled by naturalcuriosity, made it a point to see her if they could. Inthis way she entertained at her table Prince Henry ofPrussia, brother to Frederick the Great, who had mether in Germany during the war.

D’Eon does not appear to have absented herself fromTonnerre until about the middle of 1785, when shewent to stay with the Duchess de Montmorency-Bouteville,and at the Hôtel des Dames de France, in the Ruede Baume, Paris. France and England being again atpeace, since September 1783, she was maturing herplans for obtaining permission to return to London,where she was anxious to recover the money that wasowed to her, and save from dispersion the property shehad left in charge of her landlord, who, unable to obtainany advance upon the rent due, had already, upon oneoccasion, publicly advertised for sale the ‘valuablelibrary and curious manuscripts of the Chevalière D’Eon,to refund himself for the space occupied by the saidlibrary in his house during seven years’—a sale theChevalière succeeded in arresting by some arrangement[308]with her creditor.[353] It was not, however, until therulers of France conceived the right moment hadarrived, and they were as good as their word, thatD’Eon received official intimation of her movementsbeing relieved from all restriction, with freedom toleave France if she chose, and with scarcely a day’sdelay she made her exit from Paris in a post-chaise,attended by her maid, arriving in London on November17, and putting up at her old chambers in BrewerStreet. She was well received by her friends of formerdays, amongst whom are specially named Lord Tamworth,Colonel Kemys Tynte,[354] and Mrs. Church.

With no other resources but the modest pension of12,000 livres, D’Eon was hard pushed for very existencein the face of her liabilities, many of ancient date, notwithstandingthe five thousand pounds sterling paid byLouis XVI. to extricate her out of her difficulties, forthe monetary transactions between the French Chevalièreand the English peer resulted in grievous distress tothe former, as we shall presently see. Forced by reasonof this to live in strict seclusion, we almost lose sightof her until April 9, 1787, the day appointed for anassault-at-arms in the presence of the Prince of Walesat Carlton House, and to which, as a fencer of distinguishedreputation, she was invited. D’Eon and Mr.Angelo, Sen., were nominated by his Royal Highnessjudges for the occasion, there being present several of themost accomplished fencers of the day, such as themulatto, the celebrated Saint-George, and his companionsFabien and de la Motte; also Angelo, Jun.,Nogee, Reda, Rolland, and Goddard. The novelty of a[309]lady in petticoats engaging the most experienced andable masters excited much mirth, even those who hadknown heren culottes being not a little surprised at theskill she displayed in fencing with Saint-George. Herpetticoats did not incommode her in the least, but itwas clear that the late captain of dragoons proved herselfto be more expert at therisposte than a courtesy,and at handling a foil more gracefully than she did afan. Quoting from another newspaper:—

Upon another occasion of the Chevalière’s appearingbefore the Prince of Wales, this time at the King’sTheatre, she was dressed in armour, with a casque andfeather, representing Minerva or the Maid of Orleans.[356]

When Mr. Angelo died near Eton, in 1801, D’Eondeplored the loss of one of her oldest and best friends,[310]for they had known each other fifty-five (sic) years,and she was indebted to him for many acts of kindness.The Chevalière, Wilkes, and the elder Sheridan werefrequent guests at Angelo’s table, in his house in CarlisleStreet, Soho Square, where they often sat for hoursover the bottle, in lengthened arguments upon thepolitics of the day. D’Eon was Angelo’s most constantguest and bosom friend, staying at his house sometimesfor weeks, and materially assisted him in his Treatise onFencing. It was there that old Hone and Cosway mether. She had experienced the greatest pleasure inteaching young Angelo how to handle a foil, until atlast they became strong antagonists, the latter, afterreaching manhood, often taking much pains to put herout of humour. Speaking of her as amaître d’armes,Angelo found thathe was violent andbien opiniâtre,though by no means aferrailleur. Whateverhe executedwas correct and scientific.

Other announcements in the papers of the day showhow the Chevalière turned to equally good account herskill in chess.

In 1788, when the country was sorrowing at symptomsof aberration in George III., the Chevalière issuedan ‘Epître aux Anglais dans leurs tristes circonstancesprésentes’ (8vo. 48 pp.), complimentary to the Prince ofWales, which was well received and quickly reached asecond edition.

[311]

[312]

We pass over the intermediate years until 1791,when the Chevalière burst upon London with thesudden announcement that her precious books andMSS. were about to be sold by public auction. Thecatalogue, prepared by herself, opens with an address tothe Public,[359] in which are given the reasons which placeher under the necessity of disposing, during her lifetime,of all she possesses. She had returned to Londonin 1785 for no other purpose than that of paying hercreditors and collecting what was due to her, but shehad been unable to succeed in this double object of herwishes. The reigning King of France, she went on tosay, sensible of her military and political services, aswell as of her innocence and the misfortunes she hadexperienced, had generously caused to be remitted toWashington, Earl Ferrers, through M. de Beaumarchais,on October 17, 1778, the sum of 5,000l.sterling, to be employed by the said Earl Ferrers,according to his promise, towards the discharge of herdebts, so that she might be in a position to leaveEngland honourably. Notwithstanding, however, the[313]earl’s honour and probity, and his friendship for theChevalière, he discharged a part only of her debts, andwithout first asking her consent, kept 3,000l. for his ownprivate use, undoubtedly with the intention of returningthe money, D’Eon having asked him to settle with hercreditors, and especially with Mr. Duval, the King’sjeweller, who had advanced several sums during theChevalière’s law-suits and distresses in London. Beingurged to satisfy these claims, his lordship acknowledgedthat he had applied 3,000l. towards completing thefurniture of his seat,[360] the working of a lead-mine, andof a lime-pit in his park of Staunton Harold, which hadsince produced an income of 600l. Being dissatisfiedwith this employment of her money, D’Eon wrote fromLondon to entreat that upon his lordship’s return totown, he would afford to herself and to her creditorssome security for the speedy reimbursement of themoney. Lord Ferrers replied in three separate letters.

Alarmed at this intelligence, D’Eon repaired to the[315]seat of his lordship,[364] who, fearing he should die, hadsigned a bond at five per cent. interest, payable at theexpiration of five years instead of one year, as he hadpromised. D’Eon was not greatly pleased at this freshdelay, but finding there was no alternative, she acceptedthis bond, dated December 26, 1775, and payable in1780, and transferred it, jointly with Lord Ferrers, toMr. John Duval, on August 11, 1777, as security for theChevalière’s debt to him, Lord Ferrers binding himself,verbally also, to be punctual to his engagement.

Earl Ferrers’ Bond.

‘Know all men by these presents, that I, the Right HonourableWashington, Earl Ferrers, am held and firmly bound toCharles Genovesa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon deBeaumont, Knight of the Royal and Military Order of SaintLouis, now of Brewer’s Street, Golden Square, in the Countyof Middlesex, in the penal sum of Six Thousand Pounds, ofgood and lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid to the saidCharles Genovesa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon deBeaumont, or his certain Attorney, Executors, Administrators,or Assigns. For which payment to be well and faithfully made,I bind myself, my Heirs, Executors, and Administrators, firmlyby these presents. Sealed with my Seal; dated this twenty-sixthday of December, in the sixteenth year of the reign of ourSovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God of GreatBritain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, andso forth; and in the year of our Lord one thousand sevenhundred and seventy-five.

‘The condition of this obligation is such, that if the abovebounden Washington, Earl Ferrers, his Heirs, Executors, andAdministrators, shall and do well and truly pay or cause to bepaid to the said Charles Genovesa Louisa Augusta AndreaTimothea D’Eon de Beaumont, his certain Attorney, Executors,Administrators, or Assigns, the full sum of Three ThousandPounds, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, on or[316]before the twenty-sixth day of December, which will be inthe year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty,with interest for the same after the rate of five poundspercentum, per annum, then this obligation to be void, or else toremain in full force.

‘(Signed)Ferrers.’

‘Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in thepresence of

‘(Signed)W. Woty.
‘(Signed)John Newcomb.’

‘Passed by order of Mr. John Duval and Son, at London,August 11, 1777.

‘(Signed)The Chevalier D’Eon.’

Relying upon his lordship’s honour and Mr. Duval’sprobity, D’Eon left London for France with her mindquite at ease. The following year Lord Ferrers died,as did also Mr. Duval. It was impossible for D’Eon toreturn to England to obtain payment of the bond andreimburse the heirs of Mr. Duval, the King’s ministershaving ordered his detention in France, and it was notuntil 1785 that she was able to attend to the affair inperson. Being then again in England, she prevailedupon a common friend to treat with Robert, EarlFerrers, brother and heir to the late earl, to obtainpayment, but finding that his lordship only wished togain time and keep her out of her money, she wasobliged to bring an action against him in the Court ofCommon Pleas at Westminster, which she gained, onFebruary 6, 1787, the funds for conducting the prosecutionhaving been supplied by Lord Tamworth, inentire disapproval of his father’s conduct. Two monthslater this earl, who, according to Walpole, ‘deserved[317]his ancient honours,’ died, referring to which event adaily paper observed:—

The will of the late earl contained directions thatall his late brother’s and his own debts should be paid,and although the new earl, as Lord Tamworth, hadbefriended D’Eon and made handsome promises, he nolonger thought it his duty, after succeeding to the title,to discharge the debt of honour. It should be statedthat the only sums received by the Chevalière from theday that Washington, Earl Ferrers, had appropriatedthe 3,000l. in 1775, to the year 1791, amounted to150l., paid in three instalments of 50l. each, betweenApril 21 and November 26, 1776. After her returnfrom France, she endeavoured to recover her money orthe interest due; but all was in vain, and being determinedthat her creditors should not be the sufferers,she felt obliged to offer even her beloved library forsale, resolved ‘to carry nothing with her out of theisland but her integrity and her regret at leaving it.’

[318]

It is impossible not to feel some sympathy for theunfortunate Chevalière in this ignoble treatment by asuccession of British peers, with all of whom she hadlong been on terms of intimate friendship, even thoughthe moral to be deduced by the circumstances is, thatthe would-be biter herself became the bitten one! Turningback a few pages to the time when Beaumarchais wasconducting the mission entrusted to him by Louis XVI.,Lord Ferrers appears as a creditor of D’Eon for 5,000l.,and as if to give colour to the claim, it was representedby the supposed creditor and debtor that the iron safefilled with important documents had been depositedwith the English nobleman in security for the debt, astory that cannot be regarded otherwise than as a pureinvention. It is clear enough that in her anxiety tosecure a sufficiently large advance out of the fundssupplied by the King, who was fully disposed to liberality,but with which Beaumarchais was most unwillingto part, D’Eon had secured the earl’s sanction to theentry, in her list of liabilities, of this imaginary debt.Never for a moment doubting the genuineness of theclaim after his first suspicions had been removed, orsuspecting complicity in any kind of deception, Beaumarchaispaid the money, but instead of immediatelypassing on the whole to D’Eon’s creditors, as he hadpromised to do, his lordship boldly retained 3,000l. forhis own use and benefit, in the conviction that theChevalière would be in no hurry to expose her ownshare in the double dealing, by publicly resenting thebreach of trust of which he had been guilty. TheChevalière discovered, but too late, the blunder shehad committed in trusting to her would-be friend, andsubmitted tamely enough to the earl’s shameless andunfeeling settlement, by which she was required to[319]wait five years for her little capital, and not one yearas originally convened.

The breach of trust became something worse asyears rolled by, and none of Washington, Earl Ferrers’successors, after having adorned themselves with thecoronet, cared to recognise their obligation towardsthe needy and ill-used knight. D’Eon had awaited thepleasure of the several earls during fifteen years, beforemaking the fearless exposure of their conduct andgiving public expression to her feelings thereon, inthe preface to her catalogue. When bitterly tried, adecade later, by fresh reverses of fortune, she renewedher efforts (October 1802) to recover what was her own,this time through Admiral Shirley, a brother of thedeceased earl, Washington. She sent to him a copy ofthe bond, a calculation of the interest due on hercapital of 3,000l. during twenty-seven years, and aproposal for the final adjustment of the affair. Theencumbered condition of the Ferrers’ estates wouldhave rendered nugatory any further promises, even ifany such had been held out to the Chevalière, whoreduced her demands to a minimum by asking for500l. wherewith to pay pressing calls, and a yearlyallowance of 100l. for the remainder of her days, nogreat exaction, seeing that she was then in her seventy-fifthyear! Upon these conditions she was prepared tosurrender the bond to the admiral, to be disposed of ashe might think proper. It does not appear what noticewas taken of this proposition by the deceased earl’sbrother, but it is very certain that so late as January1805, the Chevalière had not received one farthing fromthe Ferrers family![366]

Scarcely had the distribution of D’Eon’s Catalogue[320]taken place, than sympathising friends made up a purseto meet her immediate necessities; a subscription listwas opened at Mr. Hammersley’s, the banker, PallMall, where, in a very short time, the sum of 465l. 5s.was collected, 100l. being a contribution from thePrince of Wales. Another expression of feeling wasa public entertainment given for D’Eon’s benefit, onJune 29, 1791, by the managers of Ranelagh,[367] ‘in considerationof her having been deprived of a considerablepart of her fortune by the odious detention of adeposit.’

The troubles with which France was being agitatedfound an echo in the heart of the unfortunate Chevalière.The news of the King’s flight, and the abolition of allorders of chivalry by the National Assembly, she receivedas sure warnings of coming distress to herself;and when the Legislative Assembly summoned all emigrantsto make their appearance in France by a certaindate, under pain of death if they disregarded the decree,she quickly made up her mind to obey the national willand return to her country. In the midst of her manyapprehensions there seemed to be one gleam of comfort—forshe became persuaded that the hour was at handwhen she should be liberated from her state of womanhood.The sale of some of her property took placeon February 17, 1792, when were disposed of at Mr.Christie’s, in Pall Mall, seventy-three lots of ‘valuableand elegant jewels, a few fine prints, valuable coins,medals, plate, &c., the property of Mademoiselle theChevalière D’Eon,’ which realised the sum of 348l. 17s. 7d.,some of the more valuable lots having been bought in.

[321]

The latter included—

A pair of single drop brilliant earrings ofsingularbeauty, colour and perfection, 155l.

A diamond cross and chain,the stones of matchlessbeauty and perfection, 110l.

A pair of single drop brilliant earrings, 109 guineas.

A tortoise-shell lined snuff-box mounted in goldwith miniature, and cypher on the reverse side (thegift of the Empress Elizabeth), 2½ guineas.

The personal ornaments sold comprised five pairs ofgold drops, one pair in brilliants; eleven pairs of earrings,one pair in brilliants and one pair in roses; twocrosses, one being in diamonds, with chain; five necklaces;one bracelet with miniature of the Chevalière inmilitary uniform; two hoop brilliant rings; threewatches, one being set in brilliants.[368]

Having satisfied some of her creditors with the proceedsof the sale, D’Eon occupied herself in packing theremainder of her effects in fifteen cases for conveyanceto France. War had been declared, and the CitoyenneGeneviève at once sent her nephew O’Gorman to Paris,with the offers of her services in the form of a petitionaddressed to the Legislative Assembly, an extract fromwhich was read at a sitting of that body. It statedthat although she had worn the dress of a woman forfifteen years, she had never forgotten that she was formerlya soldier; that since the Revolution she felt hermilitary ardour revive, and demanded, instead of hercap and petticoats, her helmet, sabre, horse, and therank in the army to which her seniority, her services,and her wounds entitled her; and she also requestedpermission to raise a legion of volunteers. Unconnectedwith any party, she had no desire to brandish hersword in procession in the streets of Paris, and wishedfor nothing but actual service—war nobly made andcourageously supported.

[323]

This petition, the reading of which was interruptedby repeated bursts of applause, was ordered to behonourably mentioned in the minutes, and referred tothe military committee.[370]

Early in the following year the Citoyenne Geneviève,in a transport of delight, informed her friend, M. Beauvais,[371]that in consequence of instructions received fromthe Minister of War for the Republic of France, shewas about to proceed to Paris, thence to join the armyof General Dumouriez,[372] and begged leave to forward tohis care six cases for despatch to France,viâ Rouenor Havre de Grace, as she might determine after herarrival in that country. Nine other cases were at thesame time sent to Mr. Christie, who had promised to[324]find room for them. She was also invited by the ladiesof Paris to return to them, the invitation, dated in themonth of April, having been entrusted for personaldelivery to her old friend, Captain Arden, of the RoyalNavy. The Chevalière did not return to France, havingbeen detained in all probability by her creditors, whowould have acted with greater wisdom and profit tothemselves had they trusted to her honour, and lefther free to seek for better days under the changedfortunes of her country. It was doubtlessly her latesurrender of State papers, and the nature of their contents,[373]that had influenced the administrators of the Republicin her favour; but her right to a pension wasno longer recognised under the new form of Governmentin France, her property had been confiscated, andshe was thus left without resources of any description,now verging on her sixty-fifth year. The Chevalièreappears to have existed at this time chiefly upon thehospitality of her friends, there being amongst thosewho entertained her more frequently the names ofLady Constable, Mr. Christie, Lord and Lady Glencairn,Lady Wallis (sister to the Duchess of Gordon),Colonel and Mrs. Kemys-Tynte, General Melville,General Rainsford, at whose house she met HorneTooke and Paine; Mr. Fitzmaurice (brother of LordLansdowne), Colonel Macbean, of the Artillery; Mr.Lockhart, banker, Pall Mall; Mr. Dent, banker, ClargesStreet; Sir William Ffloyd, Count Zenobio, envoyfrom Venice; Colonel du Bathe, M. Hirsinger, Chargéd’Affaires from France, &c. &c.

By the end of the year 1792 the Chevalière’s remainingmeans and credit were completely exhausted,and there was no alternative but to make public exhibition[325]of her pre-eminent skill in fencing, a resolutionin which she appears to have been supported by Mrs.Bateman, the noted actress and female fencer. Herfirst appearance, in a series of performances, was at adéjeuner given by Mrs. Bateman in her house, SohoSquare, to a party of English and French officers ofboth services, several ‘literary characters, and gentlemenof first-rate stage talents,’ upon which occasion,as announced in the papers,

January 22.—She was next invited to anAssautd’armes with Captain Walmsley, at Mr. Towneley’s housein Devonshire Place, when one hundred guests werepresent, nearly all of whom were Roman Catholics.

February 11.—Fenced Captain Walmsley at theClub d’Armes, Brewer Street, and although very muchindisposed, astonished numerous spectators with herscience and activity. The captain was foiled four orfive times successively, and it was not till the femaleChevalier was nearly exhausted that he had the opportunityof a retort. Confident of success, MademoiselleD’Eon refused the mask, of which her opponent availedhimself.[374]

[326]

May 30.—Fences at the Haymarket on Mrs. Bateman’sbenefit night. Never, since the death of Garrick,had the house been so full.

June 26.—Fences at the Ranelagh, in the presenceof the Prince of Wales and Duke of Gloucester.

August 23.—Fences with Mr. Bateman and his son.

September.—Fences with Mrs. Bateman and anEnglish officer, under the patronage of the Prince ofWales, who sat in the stage box (Brighton theatre)with Mrs. Fitzherbert and Miss Piggot.

October 19.—Fences at her own benefit in thetheatre, Margate, a prologue being spoken by Mrs.Bateman.

November 2.—Fences at the Assembly Rooms, Deal.

November 11 and21.—Fences at the theatre, Dover.

November 30.—Fences at the Fountain Inn, Canterbury.

After which, Mrs. Bateman[375] and the Chevalière, whohad been on a professional tour together, returned toLondon.

In the Chevalière’s journals, from which the abovedates are taken,[376] there appear two entries only duringthe year 1794 of her having publicly exhibited—atRanelagh on May 26, and at the Brighton theatre onAugust 8. In 1795, she fenced at the Lower Rooms(Bath?) on April 24, at Birmingham on July 6, and atWorcester on August 13. In January 1796, she performed[327]in the Lower Rooms, Bath, under the patronageof the colonel and officers of the Essex Dragoons,whose band was in attendance, Bath still being whatit had been for many years, incomparably the mostfashionable and favourite watering-place in England,and frequented by people of all classes of society.After giving four performances, D’Eon travelled toOxford for April 22 and three other evenings, thenceto Southampton to keep an engagement on August 26,when an unlucky accident brought to an end, forever, these exhibitions of her skill.

In receiving a thrust from her adversary thatevening, the foil broke off, inflicting a serious wound,by which she was completely disabled. It is well toreproduce her address to the public upon that occasion,and the surgical certificate given to satisfy thatpublic; the first, because it so very clearly, and in herown words, exposes her sad necessities; the second, becauseit is evident that the physician and surgeons whoexamined the wound were satisfied with regard to thesex of their patient.

D’Eon had to keep her bed for four months, andafter being removed to London was confined, throughgreat debility, to the house, which she left four timesonly during the next four years, and then only in acoach. She spent her long convalescence with Mrs.Mary Cole[378] at her own invitation, an old friend fromwhom she never again parted, and these two thereaftershared alike in each other’s sorrows, for of joys theyhad none! ‘My life was spent in eating, drinking, andsleeping, praying, writing, and at work with Mrs. Cole,repairing linen, gowns, and head-dresses.’

The Chevalière was in the habit of pawning herdiamonds from time to time when hard pressed, taking[329]care to redeem and keep them in reserve until shecould dispose of them at a fair price. In 1799, beingabsolutely obliged to part with those jewels, afterfailing to treat with Rundell and his friend Sharp, thewell-known jewellers, she made some satisfactory arrangementwith a Mr. Moses, who called to see them.After this, it may be said that D’Eon lived entirelyupon charity. Forced to give up the chambers shehad occupied in Brewer Street during thirty-threeyears, she went to stay for a time with Colonel Thornton,on the Surrey side of the Thames, and then tookup her residence permanently with Mrs. Cole, first at33 Westminster Bridge Road, then at 5 Mead’s Place,opposite to the Apollo Gardens, and near the Asylum,Lambeth, and finally at 26 New Milman Street, FoundlingHospital. Her two nephews, Major O’Gorman,and Captain Augustus O’Gorman of the 18th regimentof foot, called to see her occasionally, but it does notappear that they ever afforded any relief or comfort totheir aged aunt, who had been in the habit of assistingthem very materially in their younger days.

D’Eon had never abandoned the idea of possiblyreturning to France, the Treaty of Amiens and theFirst Consulate seeming to afford a glimmer of hope.She had made some kind of declaration before M. Otto,the French minister plenipotentiary, on the 7th Fructidor(August 24), 1802, which resulted in her being suppliedwith a passport to Paris and Tonnerre, good forthree decades (thirty days), dated the 25th Brumaire(November 15) of the same year, and she received fivepounds from Mr. R. Slade ‘to enable her to return toher country;’ but she remained hopelessly involved, asappears from several touching entries in her note-book,of which we quote two. M. Blacher, the[330]exiledcuré of St. Martin le Gérard in the diocese ofConstance, called at the house of the sheriff’s officer forSurrey, on November 15, 1804, and inquired if it wastrue that Mademoiselle D’Eon was in detention. Uponlearning that she had been in custody five months, andonly just set at liberty, thecuré asked to see her, andbeing shown into the Chevalière’s chamber, said thathe had come at the instance of an English lady toknow the particulars of her arrest. On taking hisleave, and pleading that he also was an exile and poor,he quietly placed on the table a gold seven-shillingpiece which he refused to take up again, althoughpressed to do so by D’Eon. Acknowledging thereceipt of ten guineas from the Marchioness Townshend,D’Eon wrote, July 18, 1805:—

The note was signed:Chevalier D’Eon, who has notquitted his bed, his room, or his house nine times duringthe last nine years.

Writing to Major Clive, M.P.,[379] she complains of herreduced circumstances, and of having lost her all by theFrench Revolution, she cannot say, why?

Amongst those who occasionally supplied her withfunds, or whose attentions the Chevalière more particularly[331]appreciated, were Mrs. Crawford, of HertfordStreet, Mayfair, a daughter of Mrs. Holland; theMisses Dodwell; Mrs. Tryon, of Glaston, Uppingham;Colonel Kemys-Tynte; and Miss Shirley, a naturaldaughter of Admiral Shirley. The good Queen Charlottehad never forgotten her, and she enjoyed an annuityof fifty pounds from the Duke of Queensberry.

For the two last years of her life, D’Eon was almostbed-ridden through infirmity, but affectionately nursedand tended by Mrs. Cole. About a year before herdeath she sent for Père Elisée, formerly surgeon to the‘Pères de la Charité’ at Grenoble, who was enjoying acomfortable allowance from the Duke of Queensberryas his grace’s physician, and with whom he dinedalmost daily.[381] Elisée and Dr. Perigalese attended heras her strength failed from day to day, and until shequietly expired at 10P.M. of May 21, 1810.

When the last offices were being performed to theremains of her deceased friend, Mrs. Cole learnt for thefirst time, and to her utter astonishment, that her latemost intimate companion was a man. Upon makinghis appearance the following morning, Père Eliséeequally expressed his great surprise, and at once recommendedthe expediency of the Chevalier’s sexbeing professionally determined; the body was accordinglydissected in the presence of several medical gentlemen,the Earl of Yarborough, Sir Sidney Smith, theHonourable Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Douglas, and otherpersons of consideration, the following certificate beingforthwith made public:—

In the Slade collection of autograph papers at theBritish Museum is preserved this letter:—

The body was privately interred in the churchyardof St. Pancras on the morning of May 28, the coffinbeing inscribed, ‘Charles Geneviève Louis AugusteAndré Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont. Né 17 Octobre,1727, mort 21 Mai, 1810.’

Before the devastating spade and shovel of theMidland Railway Company had commenced its work in[333]1868, to make a cutting through the churchyard atSt. Pancras, a slab,in situ, was to be seen bearing thisinscription:

CHARLES GENEVIEVE LOUISE AUGUSTE ANDRE
TIMOTHEE D’EON DE BEAUMONT,
Died, May 21; Buried, May 28, 1810,
Aged 83 Years.[383]

but, like numerous other monuments, it has disappeared,[384]‘and the place thereof shall know it no more.’

A cast was taken after death, of which an engravingwas made, and a tinted engraving of thetorso, froma drawing by C. Turner, was also published, with thesurgical attestation as to sex. The body presentedunusual roundness in the formation of limbs; theappearance of a beard was very slight, and hair of solight a colour as to be scarcely perceptible on thearms, legs, and chest. The throat was by no meansmasculine; shoulders square and good; breast remarkablyfull; arms, hands, and fingers, those of a stoutfemale; hips very small, and legs and feet correspondingwith arms.

So early as 1763, D’Eon had a tendency to beinground-shouldered, a deformity induced by much sedentarywork, but that did not greatly increase with years,or interfere with his carriage, which was good. The[334]low body, in red cloth, lined with coarse canvas, of oneof the last gowns he wore, exhibits dimensions showingthe obesity of his condition at death.

This garment is stiffened with seven whalebones;three being in front, one upon each side, from arm-pitto waist, and two behind for lacing.[385]

D’Eon left a holograph will of some length, precededby a preamble, and appointed Sir Sidney Smith to behis executor, but the will was unsigned. The preambleis headed,Soli Deo Gloria et Honor, and the testamentcommencing,Mors mihi lucrum, ends with these fourlines:—

The preamble directs:—

After bequeathing his estates (?) at Chambeaudon,Tissey, and at the chapel Flogny, to his native town,Tonnerre, for a certain purpose distinctly specified, heleaves to his three nephews O’Gorman the sum of sixtythousand livres, owed to him by their father, hisbrother-in-law, the Chevalier O’Gorman.

On August 14, 1811, administration of the goodsand chattels (value 300l.) of the Chevalier D’Eon,bachelor, deceased, was granted to Thomas WilliamPlummer, Esq., the lawful attorney of Lewis AugustusO’Gorman, residing at Cadiz, the nephew and one ofthe next of kin of the deceased. The sale of hislibrary, which included five hundred editions of Horace(see note, p. 323), was held at Mr. Christie’s rooms onFebruary 19, 1813, the proceeds amounting to 313l.This library and his own MSS. included all theChevalier’s possessions. The latter, refused in all probabilityby Mr. O’Gorman at Cadiz, on account of theexpense that would be entailed in their transport,appear to have been divided amongst Père Elisée,Mr. Christie, and others who had most befriended thedestitute exile.

What further remains to be said of the ChevalierD’Eon will be briefly and exhaustively done.

Writing to the Bishop de Langres, Seigneur deMontmorin, D’Eon sums up very curtly a sketch ofhimself:—

Let us now turn to one of his contemporaries andto those personally acquainted with him, and see whatthey have recorded.

John Taylor had met the Chevalier in his advancedlife at Mr. Angelo’s, when he found that his formercaptivating manners must have undergone great alteration,for, although dressed as a woman, he spoke andacted with all the roughness of a veteran soldier. Hewas generally considered to be most intelligent, full ofanecdote and fertile conversation, and it was believedthat his name and extraordinary appearance wouldnever be forgotten.

As to the tastes and habits of our subject, he certainlythrough life eschewed low society of whatsoeverclass. He was fond of good living, and in his palmydays kept his cellar well stocked with expensiveBurgundies and Champagnes. He was hospitable andcharitable, never forgetting more especially his poorrelations; but it does not appear that he ever had thegenerosity to admit a fault to his neighbour, althoughfrequently confessing his imperfections to God. Hewas an accepted free-mason at the Lodge of Immortalityat the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, notvery zealous in his attendance. As a woman he rarelyleft the house except when socially called, was a confirmed[338]smoker, and no doubt employed cosmetics andwore feminine garments other than stays, as we are ledto believe by the numerous cuttings of newspaper advertisementshe has left behind. (A small red crossmarked every piece of linen.) He spent his leisureindulging largely in writing, and in the study of hisfavourite authors, such as Cicero, Lucretius, Sallust,Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Tacitus—La Fontaine,Boileau, Racine, and Voltaire—Swift, and Addison fromwhom I have found quoted the apothegm that musthave been like salve to his turbulent spirit: ‘A disturbedliberty is preferable to quiescent slavery.’ He was fondof reading the Psalms, frequently transcribing passagesadapted to his changed condition and circumstances,and had perhaps realised—but how much too late!—hisneglect of the admonition: ‘Put not your trust inprinces’ ... when, in writing his will, he expressedthe hope that he might be able to retire to the Hermitageat Friburg, there to forget the world, anddevote himself solely to God, ‘alone worthy of hishomage.’

A few extracts from the voluminous MSS. onsacred subjects in the Christie collection, should sufficeto persuade us that D’Eon had indeed studied the HolyScriptures, and faithfully interpreted, generally speaking,the doctrine of our Lord; but without entirelydivesting himself of some of the teachings of the Churchof Rome, upon whose servants he unsparingly castsobloquy similar to that heaped upon their successors[339]at the present day, in both hemispheres; for there isno exaggeration whatever in asserting that it is inGreat Britain alone, where the spirit of ‘fair play’rules every heart, that the Romish priesthood enjoysanything like consideration at the hands of its fellowsubjects at large.

About the year 1764 D’Eon wrote:—

And later, in 1777, upon assuming the garb of afemale:—

The most perfect stranger to Charles XII. wasLove! They had never nudged one another! Thiswas not the case with the Chevalier D’Eon, who resembledSwift perhaps in more ways than one. In[341]Mademoiselle Constance de Courcelles and the Countessde Rochefort (the latter, by the way, was a youngwidow), D’Eon had his Stella (short of wedlock) andVanessa. Of the scenes of their love, we know nothing.He may have had a dozen Varinas, but I very muchdoubt it. Of Mademoiselle de Courcelles’ letters hepreserved a large packet for twenty years, and it maybe, for longer, after their correspondence had ceasedupon his assuming female attire. The Duke de Nivernoiswas in the habit of teasing him by introducing thename of the Countess, but this was the shortest-livedflirtation of the two, because the Chevalier remainedin England and the Countess resided chiefly in France.Without actually avoiding the society of ladies, henever sought it—he could not speak of that he did notfeel—and was never known, in the course of his career,to have been engaged in any amorous adventure oraffair of gallantry as it was termed, whether at Court orin the camp, and this in an age when courtiers, liketheir sovereigns, were strangely given to profligacy.The old Marquis de l’Hôpital, an antiquated debauchee,who will be remembered as French ambassador at St.Petersburg, frequently twitted D’Eon on his cold temperament,but the latter preferred close application tohis duty, working early and late, with fencing for recreation,to any kind of unsavoury indulgence. He neversought to wrong the decencies of life.

I am not aware that Swift’s unfeeling treatment ofthe two women he after a fashion loved has ever beensatisfactorily explained; whereas D’Eon himself, uponvarious occasions, assigns to physical causes his state ofinsensibility. Two examples will probably suffice:—

Most accounts agree, the one being taken from theother, that D’Eon’s attainments included an acquaintancewith ancient and modern languages. That thiswas not the case is evidenced by the contents of hislibrary and the almost complete absence, amongst hisMSS., of any note or quotation except in French orLatin; while forty years’ residence in England did notsuffice to teach him English.

A few reflections, written at intervals of time, mightassist us in passing judgment on a life of so rare adventure,for t’were well, if we would be just, to estimateeach touch of character at its true proportions, for entrywhether on the credit or on the debtor side of themoralist’s ledger.

And here we have a reflection after Raphael Aben-Ezra’sown heart!

From the first moment when society, not in Englandonly, stood perplexed at the enigma presented in theperson of the Chevalière D’Eon, a variety of fugitivepieces, some acrimonious, others laudatory, of whichshe was the subject, appeared in the public prints onboth sides of the Channel. With the necessarily limitedselections for which we can find space, because webelieve they form a fit sequel to the history of ourarchetype, we gratefully take leave of the reader, whowill have had the kindness to accompany us thus far.

Verses believed to have been written by an eminent Doctor ofDivinity of the University of Oxford, and addressed to afriend of the Chevalier.

A Mademoiselle —— qui s’était déguisée en homme.

Lines on hearing a greyheaded lady called Miss.

Quatrain pour le buste de Mademoiselle D’Eon, exécuté parMadame Falconet.

[346]

Impromptu sur Mademoiselle D’Eon, qui lui a été remis à Londrespar M. Angelo, père, maître d’armes de la famille Royaled’Angleterre.

On Mademoiselle D’Eon’s skill in fencing.

Two events in the career of the Chevalier D’Eon, undisputedby his contemporaries, but controverted oflate years, must ever give cause for despair to biographers,so long as they seek to determine, by writtenevidence alone—(1) That D’Eon went to St. Petersburgfor the first time in 1755, appearing there in the disguiseof a female. (2) That he declared himself to bea female, and permanently adopted female attire in theyear 1777, solely in obedience to the commands ofLouis XVI. and his ministers.

The objections raised by the non-contents to theseearliest traditions is based uniquely on the completeabsence of any documents in their direct support; howfar such documents are indispensable the reader willjudge in the face of much incidental evidence in theirfavour.

Boutaric (i. 81), writing in 1866, says: ‘About theyear 1755 (vers 1755) was conducted a negotiation(during the interrupted diplomatic relations betweenFrance and Russia), from which the Count de Brogliewas excluded, but wherein took part a personage whosename has become celebrated, the Chevalier D’Eon.’It was with no greater precision, that the Archivistof the Empire was enabled to fix the date of the ChevalierDouglas’ departure for Russia (no great matterfor surprise) seeing thatneither amongst the national[348]archives, nor at the ministry for foreign affairs, are to befound any papers whatever relating to Douglas’ firstjourney to Russia![393] A deficiency, however, that hasbeen supplied by Vandal (p. 263), and at p. 12 of thisbook upon the authority of the British ambassador atSt. Petersburg, the arrival at the Russian capital of theKing of France’s secret agent having unquestionablytaken place in October, 1755. That D’Eon went withDouglas appears from several of the Chevalier’s indirectstatements to that effect, and by some fortuitous butvery forcible testimony.

I would add under this head, for what it is worth,that the anecdotes related by D’Eon concerning himselfin Russia have been taken from a note-book,‘Recueil de mes Pensées,’ dated 1754.

The non-contents maintain, that until he becamesecretary of Embassy, nothing was known of D’Eon.I ask in reply: How came a young, untried, and unknownindividual to be appointed secretary to theFrench Embassy in Russia, during a crisis in the affairsof the two countries?

A first incitement to the persuasion that D’Eon’searliest introduction at St. Petersburg was in the characterof a female, exists in the portrait by La Tour.When D’Eon was in his twenty-fifth (or more probablytwenty-seventh[394]) year, La Tour was a greatly esteemed[350]and general favourite; he had painted a full lengthpicture of Louis XV., and portraits of Madame de Pompadourand many others at Court, and as it is scarcelycredible, from what we know of his circumstances inthose days, that D’Eon was in a position to employan artist of established reputation to paint a fancy portraitof himself for himself, and this apart from hisknown innate dislike to any such travesty, we perhapssee personified in the comely young woman atpage 14,a representation ofle petit D’Eon, as he was expected,by the Prince de Conti, shortly to make his appearanceat the Russian capital.

In recapitulating his services to the Duke de Praslin(June 5, 1763) D’Eon showed that when sent toPetersburg by M. Rouillé, in 1756, for secret and importantmotives, reasons of policy required that certainviews entertained with regard to himself, and for whichhe felt some repugnance, should be abandoned; whereuponhe received the minister’s orders to remain withDouglas until the arrival of the new ambassador.What but a repetition of the part he played in1755 is to be understood from his repugnance to performduties assigned to him! It was quite beyondD’Eon’s power to endure from others any allusion tohis effeminate appearance or physical defects, and hestudiously eschewed all reference to his assumption offemale attire, by rarely specifying his first visit to St.Petersburg as having been in 1755, preferring to alludein general terms to his ‘earliest journeys to Russia.’Instances there are, as we have shown, to the contrary,but this was at a time when there no longer existedany object in concealing the past so very carefully, and[351]when admission to that effect was only too likely, as hethought, to turn to his advantage. See p.247 note,and p.267.

It was not his fault, he told the Count de Broglio,if the Princess Dashkoff assured people in England thathe was a female; and it is true thatafter the arrival ofthat lady in London, fresh reports were circulated tendingto confirm the suspicions already entertained that theChevalier was indeed a woman.

There is preserved in the public library at Tonnerrea note from the old Marquis de l’Hôpital to D’Eon, writtenin a spirit of pleasantry, and although undated, isobviously of the last half of 1759, or of the first half of1760.

Could Lia have been the name adopted by D’Eonduring his disguise in 1755, or are we to believe thatit was playfully applied by the ambassador to thesecretary suffering from ophthalmia, because ‘Leah wastender-eyed?’

The secret autograph order of Louis XV., datedOctober 4, 1763 (p. 104), is sufficiently significative, andcan only have reference to the Chevalier’s earliest connectionwith Russia, because from August, 1756, hewas officially recognised as secretary of Embassy, until[352]his final departure for France in August, 1760, afterwhich he fell ill of small-pox. Early in 1761 he joinedthe army in the field, served as aide-de-camp to the deBroglios throughout the campaign of that year, andupon his return to France went on leave, whilst awaitingthe appointment of minister plenipotentiary toRussia, which, he wrote to tell his colonel, the Marquisd’Autichamp, would take him to St. Petersburg for thefourth time. See ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c.

Madame Campan had frequently heard the Chevalierrepeat to her father, M. Genest, the contents ofLouis XV.’s order, in which that monarch separatedhis individuality from the person of the King of France.She had special opportunities afterwards, as lady-in-waitingto the queen, for becoming acquainted withD’Eon’s character during his two years’ residence at theCourt of Marie Antoinette and in its precincts, and shelong survived him, dying in 1822; we may thereforelegitimately assume that had his veracity been generallymistrusted, or had she doubted the existence ofsuch an order, she would assuredly have qualified hisstatement, unless she had cause to be satisfied that theorder, which it is pretty certain she never saw, wasindeed in the King’s own hand.

Dutens’ version is to this effect. The King had asecret minister at the several Courts, who carried outhis views without the knowledge of his ambassador.This was the position at the Court of Russia of theChevalier D’Eon, sent thither upon the recommendationsof the Prince de Conti, who was not even aware ofhis sex. He spent several months at St. Petersburg,and was clever enough to secure presentation to theEmpress Elizabeth in the character of a female, and[353]conclude in fifteen days an affair upon which the ambassadorhad been for a long time engaged.

The earliest intimation of D’Eon’s somewhat familiarintercourse with Elizabeth appears in the work of de laFortelle, of whom the Chevalier says:—‘Il m’a élevé unmonument de gloire dans son grand ouvrage.’ Accordingto this author, D’Eon was received at the Russian Courtin a secret capacity, and having succeeded in makinghimself agreeable in the sight of the Empress, andsecured the good-will of her favourite minister, hisconsummate tact enabled him to approach the sovereign,to converse with and gradually interest her, andhaving secured her Majesty’s confidence, he preparedher mind to receive impressions favourable to the causehe had at heart.

Did D’Eon permanently adopt female attire in1777, solely in obedience to the commands of LouisXVI. and his ministers?

In Kirby’s ‘Wonderful and Eccentric Museum’ isquoted from the ‘Gazette de Santé,’ a periodical of theday, an article that appeared soon after the Chevalier’sdecease, and which we feel bound to give at length.

From this kind of declaration D’Eon never swerved,always maintaining that he was forced to pass for awoman, and it will be remembered that when resistingthe pressure put upon him by Beaumarchais, he remindedthat unyielding negotiator that it was Louis XV.and the Duke d’Aiguillon, Louis XVI. and the Countde Vergennes, and the de Guerchy family who demandedhis metamorphosis.

The theory put forward by Gaillardet, that D’Eonhimself confirmed the general belief in his being afemale, is based upon two passages in letters to Beaumarchais:[355]‘I admit with pleasure, although with thepain, the shame, and the tears that the avowal and admissionof my own weakness have wrung from me,’ and,‘I have made known to you the mystery of my sex.’That Beaumarchais seriously believed D’Eon to be awoman is beyond any manner of doubt, but thatD’Eon confessed so much to him spontaneously, theidea having emanated from himself, is anything butproved, if proof rests solely on the above two shortextracts. Dutens, styled by D’Eon, ‘mon honorable ami,’and who was well acquainted with Beaumarchais (‘j’aibeaucoup connu Beaumarchais’), was told by the dramaticwriter that he was perfectly assured of the sex ofthe extraordinary woman—but that was all! And herelates, as he had heard it, the cause which led to theChevalier’s change of sex.

The Countess de Guerchy attributed the death ofher husband to grief, consequent upon the ridicule withwhich he had been covered by the Chevalier D’Eon, andshe warned the Count de Maurepas that if D’Eon daredto land in France, her son should await him at Calais tofight him, and if her son fell, she had a son-in-law readyto take his place. Greatly amused at hearing this,D’Eon was reported to have said: ‘Very well, I willput an end to all this. I declare I am a woman.’ Unfortunately,Dutens does not give his authority for thisstory, the latter part of which is entirely inconsistentwith the impatience we have seen exhibited by D’Eonto fight young de Guerchy, and to afford him theopportunity for avenging his father.

If we look at the order of Louis XVI., dated August25, 1775, instructing Beaumarchais to recover thepapers out of D’Eon’s hands, we find the latter namedin the masculine gender; and although Beaumarchais[356]distinctly individualises D’Eon as being a woman, innone of de Vergennes’ despatches is he spoken of otherwisethan as if he were a man, and that minister goesso far as to say that if the Chevalier would disguisehimself—‘si M. D’Eon voulait se travestir’—all shouldbe well. (See p.239.)

The author of the attractive and somewhat laboriouswork, ‘Beaumarchais et son Temps,’ calls attention tothe piquancy in D’Eon’s letters to Beaumarchais, actingadmirably, as he does, the part of a woman concealedunder the guise of a man; at the same time adoptingan ambiguous style, as if with the view of making itclear at any such time eventually as his fraud would bediscovered, that he had been duping so astute a man asthe author of ‘Le Barbier de Seville,’ and that whilstduping him, to his face, he was also making fun ofhim, without his being sensible of it. On the otherhand, Beaumarchais amused himself at the expense ofthe love-sickvieille dragonne, becoming the more confirmedin his error, as D’Eon continued to counterfeitthe wrath of an offended old maid.

The Chevalier’s letters to Louis XVI. (Ch. MSS.)make it sufficiently clear that the King could not havebeen positively assured on his sex. In one letterD’Eon informs his Majesty that he continued to maintainsilence in respect to his position, which was sosingular and extraordinary, as to be without parallel inancient or modern history. He had kept his secretprofoundly, because it was the secret of secrets of thelate King, and he entreated his Majesty either to allowtwo Councillors of State, in whom he had implicit confidence,to write down his depositions and the proofs tothem, before he returned to France, or permit him topublish his defence.

[357]

In another letter, the King is told that the questionof sex will soon be decided, after the Court will haverestored the honour and money due to him. ‘I canthen think of settling down, and in marrying, makeknown to which sex I belong.’

In a third letter, the Chevalier points out thatnegotiations for his return to France were conductedfrom 1770 to 1775, and that his letter to the Count deBroglio of January 1775, was sent under flying seal tothe Count de Vergennes, to enable that minister tobecome well acquainted with the validity of some of hisarguments, and communicate them for his Majesty’sconsideration.

Lacretelle, Taylor, and others, are unable to accountfor the Chevalier’s change of sex, otherwise than that itwas produced by some unexplained intrigue, and thathe was directed by the French Government to appearas a woman, for reasons which have never been satisfactorilydetermined. Voltaire wrote, that the wholeaffair puzzled him. He was unable to picture to himselfeither D’Eon, or the ministers of his day, or theacts of Louis XV., or what was passing then (1777).He knew nothing of any of them. In returning, however,to the pages of Madame Campan, we seem to findthe key to the situation.

[358]

Might not every secret in which this mystery wasinvolved have been hidden in thevalise containing‘papers that had belonged to the King and Court,’given to the French minister plenipotentiary by D’Eon,on February 1, 1792? (See note, p. 264, p. 324.)

The Count de Vergennes, the minister immediatelyresponsible for the ludicrous innovation, confessed toBeaumarchais his concern lest D’Eon should make hisappearance in France as a man, his enemies being onthe alert, and not likely to forgive him easily for all hehad said of them; and when writing to the Chevalier,two years later, he impressed upon him the conditions,should he think of returning to his native land. (Seep. 283.)

The question has also arisen—Granted that D’Eonwas obliged to appear as a woman, by command of Kingand ministers, such being the stipulation for his receivingthe royal grant of twelve thousand livres, annually;why, after the fall of the monarchy and having lost allby the French Revolution, did he continue in the anomalouscharacter of a female? We, in England, areable to understand, that to one who had spent so manyyears of his life in this country, and had become familiarwith the sentiments and susceptibilities of English menand women, there was no choice. It had long beenknown and admitted that the Chevalière had been treatedby French ministers with peculiar harshness, and shewas seen to be reduced to absolute want at the advancedage of sixty-four! Under circumstances such as these,he must have felt that so long as he was believed tobe a female, commiseration and assistance were to beexpected; but to declare himself a man, after havingadopted female attire and been admitted into the intimaciesof female society over a period of sixteen years,[359]would have been to expose himself—to summary castigation?That he did not fear; but to what would havebeen dreaded infinitely more than famine by one withhis antecedents—the ridicule and scorn of all who knewanything about him; and so he elected to continue tothe end of his days, dressing, writing, and speaking asif he were a woman, but otherwise conducting himselfin all respects with the freedom belonging to a man.

We adhere to our engagement not to judge the individualwho presents such startling episodes in his life,and contrasts in his character. It has hitherto been hisfate to be classed, it may be said, amongst the adventurersof which the last century was sufficiently prolific;these pages will perhaps assist to remove him out ofthat order and place him where he should stand—alone,as a physiognomical marvel. We would in a measureplead for him, in Johnson’s words in behalf of poor Goldsmith—‘Letnot his failings be remembered’—for hisfaults were but failings. Of this victim to envy, malice,and all uncharitableness, we have read clearly enoughhow sinned against he was, far more than he had everhimself sinned against others. All he suffered he hadto endure for serving an ungrateful King too faithfully,oblivious thatpromesse des grands n’est pas héritage,while his attachment to his country was sublime, entitlinghim amongst his countrymen at home to Florian’sepitaph,

Loyal beyond compare, he ever continued true toone and the other, frequently under unexceptionablytrying circumstances, repeating and again repeating:[360]‘Comme Français, je puis regarder le sacrifice de mafortune comme la dette de mon amour pour le Roi.Comme militaire et Chevalier de Saint Louis, je doismême lui sacrifier ma vie; mais pour celui de mon honneur,il n’est pour personne!’

[364]

They who have seen the face of theeiserne jungfrau in thedread dungeon of the Inquisition at Nuremberg, even thoughby the lurid light of the keeper’s candle-stuffs, will experiencelittle difficulty in figuring to themselves the habitual expressionof the Chevalier D’Eon’s features, where every sentiment implantedby nature and conveyed in the open face, intelligenteyes, and well-shaped nose, was subjugated by the agitatedspirit of sarcasm and disdain that kept rippling, as it were, outof the spacious brow, and overspreading the otherwise attractivecountenance.

In the various portraits herewith described, the Chevalieror Chevalière D’Eon is represented in female attire except inthose marked *.

1.Angelica Kauffmann after Latour. Francis Haward, R.A., sculpsit (mezzo-tinto)published (by the engraver),January 18, 1788, from the picture in the collectionof George Keate, Esq.

Carola Genovefa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon de Beaumont,Knight of the Royal and Military Order of St. Louis, Captain of Dragoonsand the Volunteers of the Army, Aide-de-Camp to the Maréchal Duke andCount de Broglio, Minister Plenipotentiary from the King of France to theKing of Great Britain in 1763. Born at Tonnerre, October 5, 1728. Paintedin her twenty-fifth year. (See p. 14, from a photograph by C. Prætorius.)

To represent D’Eon de Beaumont as a Chevalière of theRoyal and Military Order of Saint Louis at the age of twenty-five,is an anomaly. The cross in this picture may have beenintroduced by Angelica Kauffmann[395] when she copied La Tour’sportrait, or it may have been added many years after its execution,by La Tour himself, before Angelica Kauffmann saw it.[366]His biographer gives authority for such a conjecture where hesays: ‘Towards the close of his life, the mind of this artistbegan to give way. He vitiated a large number of his worksby retracing them, under the pretext that in a portrait everythingshould be sacrificed to the head.’

2.*Mackenzie sc. LE CHEVALIER D’EON (beardless).

3.Printed for S. Hooper, 25 Ludgate Hill, 25 January, 1771 (mezzo-tinto,full length).The Discovery or Female Free-mason, Lady CharlesLouis Cezar Augustus Alexander Timotheus D’Eon de Beaumont (herefollow style and titles)and accepted free-mason at the lodge of Immortalityat the ‘Crown and Anchor’ in the Strand.

4.*Huquier, pinxt; Burke, fect. Published as the Act directs, August 7, 1771, byI. Wesson. THE CHEVALIER D’EON. (See p. 208, from aphotograph by C. Prætorius.)

5.Published as the Act directs by S. Hooper, Ludgate Hill, 20 March, 1778 (mezzo-tinto).Represented as Minerva, with lance and shield, upon thelatter this legend:At nunc dura dedit vobis discrimina Pallas. On oneside:Impavidam ferient ruinæ. A long inscription in English, concludes:Læsæ sed invictæ Palladi, per bella, per acta publica in patriæsuæ honorem et famam inclytæ, cujus virtutes nec inimici vituperare, paucihomines imitari possunt. Exul mi Deone, ne quidem ossa patria habeat!In perpetuum amoris monumentum offerebant amici sociales milites.

6.Dessiné et Gravé par J. B. Bradel d’après nature et les Originaux communiquéspar Mademoiselle D’Eon à ce Seul Artiste. Charlotte Geneviève Louise AugusteAndrée Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont (here follow style and titles)Ætatis 35.[396] A la Mémoire des Héroines Françoises, Jeanne D’Arc, JeanneHachette, etc. etc.

7. Frontispiece to ‘La Vie Militaire, Politique et Privée deMademoiselle D’Eon de Beaumont, etc.’: by de la Fortelle, 1779.LA CHEVALIÈRE D’EON DE BEAUMONT,Née en 1728.

8.A. Stöttrup sc. 1779. Same as 7.

9. Painting in oils, life size. CHEVALIER D’EON, 1782.(See Frontispiece, from a photograph by Arthur King.)

In a short biographical notice of the Chevalier D’Eon, dated1812 (?), at the back of this canvas, allusion being made to thetrial on sex policies, it is asserted—‘Sir Joshua Reynolds wasin Court during the trial and requested the Chevalier to payhim a visit, which he did in female attire on 4 August, 1777,[367]when this Sketch was taken of the Chevalier by Sir Joshua, andpresented by him in 1782 to his friend Sir Wm. Chambers.’

According to this statement, the signature to which is indistinct,the sketch of the Chevalier was taken when in hisfiftieth year, and completed in 1782, the date inscribed by theartist to the left of the figure, whilst the Chevalière, then in herfifty-sixth year, was residing in France!

This picture is now the property of General Meredith Read,New York, U.S.A.

10. Dupin (Pierre?) artist and engraver.Charles-Geneviève-Louis-Auguste-César-André-TimothéeD’Eon de Beaumont, née à Tonnerre,en 1728 (here follow style and titles).A Paris chez Esnauts et Rapilly.

11.Peint par Ducreux, de l’Académie Impériale et Royale de Vienne. Gravé parCathelin, de l’Académie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture à Paris. Læsæ sed invictæPalladi. Name, style, and titles close with....plus célèbreencore par sa Vertu que par son nom. Pensionnaire de Louis XV. et deLouis XVI. Née à Tonnerre, le 5 8ᵇʳᵉ, 1728, Ætatis 58.

12.Cosway, R.A., 1787. Thos. Chambers sculpsit. Published July 12, 1787.LA CHEVALIÈRE D’EON.

13.Painted by Robineau. Engraved by V. M. Picot. From a picture of Robineau’sin the possession of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Published June 20,1789, by V. M. Picot. Dedicated by Permission to His Royal Highness thePrince of Wales. The assault or Fencing-Match which took place betweenMademoiselle La Chevalière D’Eon de Beaumont and Monsieur de Saint-George,on the 9th of April, 1787, at Carlton House, in the presence of HisRoyal Highness, several of the Nobility, and many eminent Fencing Mastersof London.

14.J. Condé delin. et sculp. LA CHEVALIÈRE D’EON,née à Tonnerre,le 5 8ᵇʳᵉ, 1728.

15.Published by I. Sewell, March 1, 1791 (for the ‘European Magazine’).Same as 14.

16. Medallion portrait.Vigil audax—by J. Condé, publishedJune 24, 1791, upon the occasion of the entertainment givenby the Managers of Ranelagh for the benefit of the ChevalièreD’Eon... deprived of a considerable part of her fortune by the odiousdetention of a deposit. Minerve Gauloise, née a Tonnerre, le 5 8ᵇʳᵉ, 1728.Proprio Marte Tuta. The French artist who engraved this plate designedit for a monument of English generosity and French gratitude.

[368]

17.Dance, R.A., 26 May, 1793. Engraved by William Daniell, August 15, 1810.THE CHEVALIÈRE D’EON. This profile, to the left, wasdrawn at the request of Mr. W. Seward, F.R.S.

18.Robert Cooper sculp. Published July 2, 1810, by J. Bell, Southampton Street,Strand. Engraved for La Belle Assemblée. Same as 14.

19. From a Cast taken after death.Engraved by C. Turnerfrom the Cast taken May 24, 1810, in the presence of J. C. Carpuc, Esq. andDr. Pearson. Published June 29, 1810, by C. Turner. THE CHEVALIERD’EON.

A tinted engraving of thetorso, from a drawing by C. Turner,was published with the surgical attestation (see p.331) by C.Turner, June 14, 1810. This print was never sold publicly,and was not to be obtained without an order from a magistrate.

CARICATURES.

In September 1777 was executed for the ‘London Magazine’—Mademoisellede Beaumont, or the Chevalier D’Eon. Female MinisterPlenipo., Capt. of Dragoons, etc. etc.—a full-length figure, the righthalf being a lady holding a fan, and the left half a man inuniform, with hat under the arm.

In Paris was published a print similar to the above, illustratingboth sexes, inscribed—Dédié aux dragons de l’armée.

Another sketch that appeared in London, in 1778, representedthe right half of a dragoon, with drawn sword in hand,back to back with the right half of a lady.

In a caricature, by Gillray, of the Assaut d’armes at CarltonHouse in April 1787 (see pp.308,367), we see ‘the ChevalièreD’Eon making a successful thrust and hitting Saint George inhis right arm. A railing divides the combatants from a highlyselect audience, in which the Prince of Wales occupies the postof honour, while Mrs. Fitzherbert sits on his right hand, and acrowd of political and fashionable worthies exhibit the greatestinterest in the contest.’

Other ludicrous drawings of this fencing-match made theirappearance at about the same time.

Needless to observe that the Chevalière D’Eon did notescape being made the subject of foul and obscene illustrations,in the same way in which it had become the fashion to treatthe most distinguished and highest in the land!

• Abel, Ch. Fred., musician,288
• Adair, Mr.,331
• Addington, Mr.,214
• Aiguillon, Duke d’, Minister for Foreign Affairs, hostility to D’Eon,219,224
• Angelo, Mr., at Carlton House,308;
• friendship for D’Eon,310;
• lines on D’Eon,346
• Angelo, Henry, at Carlton House,308;
• on D’Eon’s fencing,310
• Apraxin, Marshal the Count, at Gross Jägersdorff,22;
• retreat,22,36;
• character,22note
• Arden, R. N., Captain,324
• Argental, Count d’, designs on D’Eon’s life,164-166,194;
• letter from Voltaire,300
• Aubaret, Marquis d’,225
• Augusta, H.R.H. the Princess (Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel),119,198
• Bach, Jean Christ., composer, surnamedl’Anglais,288
• Bateman, Mrs., actress and fencer,déjeuner at Soho Square,325;
• her professional tour,325-326
• Bathe, Colonel du,324
• Beaumarchais, P. A. Caron de,230;
• share in the Dubarry scandal,231-235;
• impression made by D’Eon,235,278;
• instructions from de Vergennes to mediate with D’Eon,236;
• first success,238;
• recovers secret papers,241;
• Earl Ferrers,242;
• covenant with D’Eon,243-251;
• payment to Earl Ferrers on account of D’Eon,251;
• instructions from Louis XVI.,251;
• delivers secret papers to de Vergennes,259;
• Louis XVI.’s final instructions regarding D’Eon,260-261;
• breach with D’Eon,261;
• and subsequent correspondence,262-273;
• his vanity,273;
• reported marriage with D’Eon,273-274;
• interest in the D’Eon sex policies,274-276;
• insulting proposal to D’Eon,275;
• reprehensible conduct,278;
• final correspondence with D’Eon,281,295
• Bedford, Duke of, Ambassador at Versailles, signatory of the Treaty of Peace,63note;
• mistaken opinion of de Guerchy,66;
• report on de Choiseul,76note;
• consulted by de Guerchy,147;
• popular feeling against him,152
• Belle-Isle, Marshal de, Minister for War,4;
• reception of D’Eon,26
• Bernis, Abbé, afterwards Cardinal de, Minister for Foreign Affairs,4;
• reception of D’Eon,26;
• despatches him to Russia,29-30;
• approves his refusal to serve Russia,33
• Bertin, Mademoiselle, furnishes Mademoiselle D’Eon’s outfit,290;
• and clothes her in female attire,292
• Bestoujeff-Riumin, Count, grand chancellor, hostility to France,15,16;
• to Prussia,15;
• devotion to Peter and Catherine,16;
• ignorance of Vice-Chancellor’s secret action,19;
• in secret correspondence with Prussia,29;
• estimate of D’Eon,30;
• is arrested, his treatment and exile,32-33;
• designs on Douglas and D’Eon,32;
• treasonable conduct explained,32
• Blackstone, Dr. (later, Lord Chief Justice),201
• [370]Blosset, Marquis de, in diplomatic charge, complaint to Lord Halifax against D’Eon,162
• Boufflers, Countess de, at Strawberry Hill breakfast,83;
• entertained by D’Eon,96
• Breteuil, Baron de, minister plenipotentiary to Russia,42;
• secret instructions from Louis XV.,43;
• unequal to the circumstances,54;
• removed to Stockholm,55;
• on special mission to England,207
• Broglio, Marshal the Duke de, receives D’Eon as aide-de-camp,48;
• fastidious in the selection of his staff,48;
• at the battle of Villinghausen,51,70;
• is exiled,52;
• testimonial to D’Eon,53;
• his occasional correspondent,71;
• D’Eon’s admiration for him,71
• Broglio, Count de, French Minister to Poland,25;
• serves in the campaign of 1761,48-52;
• exiled,53;
• letters of remonstrance to Louis XV.,53;
• recommends D’Eon as minister plenipotentiary to Russia,54;
• D’Eon’s esteem for him,72;
• scheme for the invasion of England,74;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• anxiety for the safety of the King’s papers,76,77,84,126,133,143,179note;
• sympathy for D’Eon,133;
• recalled from exile,143;
• conciliatory letters to D’Eon,148,183,185;
• remonstrance from D’Eon,153;
• ministers’ designs against him,166;
• conducts, by order, a farce at the Bastille,176;
• expostulates with Hume,179;
• threatens to disclose the secret correspondence,189;
• on the restoration of the Stuarts,199;
• informs Louis XV. that D’Eon is a female,218;
• in exile,219;
• communicates history of secret correspondence to Louis XVI.,221;
• and D’Eon’s share in it,222;
• and that he is a female,223;
• recalled from exile,224;
• treats with D’Eon for the King’s papers,227;
• the Dubarry scandal,231;
• D’Eon’s confession to being a female,257;
• last letter from D’Eon,300
• Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Duke of,198
• Burdett-Coutts, the Baroness,333note
• Bute, Earl of, First Lord of the Treasury,58;
• interest in D’Eon,66,68;
• unpopularity,152;
• consulted by D’Eon,160;
• George III.’s displeasure,196;
• attachment to the Stuarts,198;
• character by D’Eon,198;
• de Broglio’s desire to know his secret intentions,199
• Camus, C. E. Louis, academician,96
• Catherine of Anhalt-Zerbst, grand-duchess, friendly towards England and intercourse with Sir Hanbury Williams,16,57;
• what Elizabeth said of her,16;
• refused permission to proceed to Germany,32;
• accession as Catherine II.,55;
• portrait by D’Eon,56;
• pretended ignorance of D’Eon,57;
• his acquaintance with her,58
• Charles, Prince (Duke of Courland),31
• Charlotte, H.M. Queen,197,331
• Châtelet, Count de, ambassador in London, reports to Louis XV. that D’Eon is a female,209
• Chesterfield, Earl of, on the true bill against the French ambassador,180;
• his error,181
• Chétardie, Marquis de la, ambassador to Russia in 1744,5,15
• Choiseul, Duke de, Minister for Foreign Affairs, then Minister for War, ignorance of Louis XV.’s secret policy,37;
• hostility to England,37,38note;
• change of policy,38;
• instructions to de l’Hôpital, and censure for neglect,38,39;
• peace policy secretly opposed by D’Eon,40;
• requires de l’Hôpital’s recall,42;
• recommends D’Eon as minister to Russia,54;
• expulsion of Jesuits,60note;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• Duke of Bedford’s report,76note;
• offers D’Eon’s restoration to the army,137;
• lines on his exile,137note;
• complains of no justice in England,173
• Choiseul, Count de, attention to D’Eon at Vienna,48.
• SeeDuke de Praslin
• Christie, Mr., friendship for D’Eon,323,324;
• [371]acquisition of the Chevalier’s MSS.,335
• Church, Mrs.,308
• Clive, M. P., Major,330 andnote
• Cole, Mrs., companion to Mademoiselle D’Eon,328-331;
• astonishment at the Chevalière’s sex,331
• Condamine, La.SeeLa Condamine
• Constable, Lady,324
• Conti, Prince de (grand-nephew of the great Condé), recommends D’Eon for secret service,6;
• secret correspondence with Russia,11;
• conditionally promised the command of Russian army and principality of Courland,24,26;
• ambitious designs,24;
• rupture with de Pompadour,26
• Conti, Prince de, son of the above,332
• Copeland, T., surgeon, attestation on D’Eon’s sex,332
• Cosway, R. A.,310
• Cotes, Humphrey, of Byfleet,183;
• takes charge of secret correspondence,186
• Courcelles, Constance de,273,341
• Cramer, Ch. Frederick, man of letters,288
• Crawford, Mrs.,331
• Crosby, Lord Mayor, D’Eon sworn before him,215
• Dashkoff, Princess, intimately known to D’Eon,58;
• who she intimates is a female,209,216
• Daun, Marshal, defeats Frederick,22
• Dent, Mr., banker,324
• Déon de Beaumont, Françoise, mother of the Chevalier,2;
• consecrates her child to the Virgin Mary,3;
• letter from de l’Hôpital,46;
• involved in her child’s misfortunes,133;
• letter from the Chevalier,134-136;
• de Guerchy’s persecution,191
• Déon de Beaumont, Louis, father of the Chevalier,2;
• requires the child to adopt male attire,3;
• death,4
• Déon.SeeEon
• Dodwell, the Misses,331
• Douglas,alias Mackenzie, the Chevalier, who was he?6;
• instructions as secret envoy to Russia,6-11;
• not obtaining presentation at Russian Court, returns to France,12-13;
• complains of English ambassador’s treatment,13;
• second journey to Russia,18;
• interview with vice-chancellor and presentation at Court,18;
• delight at D’Eon’s return to Russia,19;
• accredited chargé d’affaires,21;
• success in Russia,24;
• recalled, to please the grand chancellor,30;
• Bestoujeff’s designs against him,32
• Douglas, Mr.,331
• Drouet, M., private secretary to Count de Broglio, sent to the Bastille,175;
• threatens disclosures and is liberated,177;
• report on D’Eon’s sex,218
• Dubarry, Madame, a publication on her life stopped, by Louis XV.,231-234
• Duclos, Ch. Pireau, academician,96
• Durand, M., secret agent, to assist in survey of England,75;
• nickname in correspondence,76;
• minister plenipotentiary in London,185;
• recovers from D’Eon, King’s secret instructions,187
• Duval, Mr. John, the king’s jeweller,313,315-316
• Egremont, Earl of, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, unpopularity,152
• Elisée, Père, physician, attends D’Eon,331-332;
• acquisition of the Chevalier’s MSS.,335
• Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, friendly towards France,5,14;
• delay in ratifying Treaty with Great Britain,13;
• admirer of English fashions,14note;
• what she said of Catherine,16;
• writes privately to Louis XV.,17;
• invites D’Eon to enter her service,17,33;
• and return to Russia,47;
• renews relation with France,20,21;
• disregards Treaty with England and joins French-Austrian Alliance,21,37;
• indignation at Frederick,21;
• Apraxin’s recall,23;
• gift to Voltaire,23;
• to D’Eon,23,47;
• invited to correspond with Louis XV.,29;
• Bestoujeff’s arrest and exile,32;
• [372]death,54
• Eon de Beaumont, C.G.L.A.A.T. d’, parentage and early years,1-2;
• dedicated to the Virgin Mary,3;
• education and abilities,3-5;
• an accomplished fencer,5;
• secret envoy, with Douglas, to Russia,6;
• secret correspondent to Louis XV.,11;
• received by the Empress,13;
• personal appearance and anecdote,14;
• dislike to Russia,14,34,41;
• triumph of French party,17;
• invited to enter the service of Russia,17;
• returns to Versailles,17;
• second journey to Russia,19;
• secretary of legation,21;
• and to conduct the secret correspondence,21;
• second return to Versailles with State papers,23;
• importance of services in Russia,23,45-47,267;
• presents from the Empress,23,47;
• success in Russia,24;
• trait of character,24;
• message to Prince de Conti,24,26;
• reaches Paris with a broken leg,25;
• honours and rewards,26,35,48,54note,66,185;
• appointed lieutenant of dragoons,26;
• mémoire on Russia,27;
• applies to join his regiment,28,42;
• Bestoujeff’s treachery,29;
• third journey to Russia,29;
• repartee on Admiral Byng’s execution,31;
• Poniatovsky’s bribe,31;
• favourite at Russian Court,31;
• Bestoujeff’s designs,32;
• again invited to serve Russia, and reasons for refusing,33,34;
• promoted to captain,35;
• share in the war,39-40;
• opposes the policy of ministers,40;
• his advice to the ambassador approved by Louis XV.,40;
• failing health,41,45;
• secret orders from Louis XV.,44;
• who approves his services,44;
• de l’Hôpital’s high opinion of D’Eon,45-46;
• reception by Louis XV.,48;
• aide-de-camp to Marshal and Count de Broglio,48;
• dashing services during the campaign of 1761,49-53;
• selected as minister plenipotentiary to Russia,54;
• portrait of Catherine II.,56;
• of Lord Sandwich,59;
• of the Duke de Nivernois,60,98;
• secretary of embassy in London,60;
• smart pieces of work,61-63;
• abilities appreciated,63,65;
• takes Treaty of Peace to Paris,64;
• Lord Bute’s favour,66,68;
• created a Knight of Saint Louis,66,72;
• suspected of attachment to the de Broglios,69;
• de Soubise and de Broglio at Villinghausen,70;
• esteem for the de Broglios,71;
• brings presents to Count Viri,72;
• chargé d’affaires in London,73;
• secret correspondent to Louis XV., and employed on survey of England,74;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• cautioned on safety of the King’s papers,76,84;
• Louis XV.’s secret orders,77;
• fate determined by de Pompadour,78;
• and why?85;
• minister plenipotentiary,82;
• indifference to advancement,83;
• a favourite in England,83;
• debt incurred on the King’s service,85;
• embarrassed circumstances,86;
• protected by a Letter of State,87;
• appeals for repayment,86,88;
• impudent letter to de Praslin,92;
• to de Guerchy,94;
• mistaken ministers,97;
• portrait of Lord Hertford,102;
• superseded and recalled,103-107;
• Louis XV.’s order to resume female attire,104;
• reported insanity,105,119,130;
• Lord Halifax,109;
• refusal to surrender the King’s papers,110,136;
• scene at Lord Halifax’s dinner-party,111,115;
• frightens a duellist, and is summoned by a magistrate,117-118;
• letter to Louis XV. on de Guerchy,119-121;
• is drugged,121;
• warned by Louis XV. of demand for his extradition,125;
• which is not acceded to,127;
• in peril of being kidnapped,128,149,159-161,214,279;
• mines his apartments and measures of defence,128,129note,146,148,159,243;
• scares away an attaché,129;
• forbidden the Court,132;
• letter to his mother,134;
• offered restoration to the army,137;
• warned for his safety,137,160;
• publishes correspondence of ministers and ambassadors, and justification,138-140,147;
• seeks expatriation,143,217;
• threatens to disclose the King’s secret,144-146;
• [373]proof against bribery,145,152;
• patriotism,152,216,237-238;
• tried for libel,154;
• chastises a scurrilous scribe,155;
• letters to Lord Mansfield, Lord Bute, Mr. Pitt, Lord Temple,160-161;
• found guilty of libel, in default, searched, and outlawed,161-163;
• conspiracy against his life,163-168;
• challenges de Guerchy,170;
• note of intimidation to de Broglio,179;
• to Louis XV. on de Guerchy,180;
• admiration for Louis XV.,184,221;
• a pension conferred by the King,185;
• surrenders the King’s secret orders,187;
• reported disguise as a female,189;
• second challenge to de Guerchy,191;
• the first of political reporters,194;
• Mr. Pitt,195-197;
• slandered and public protests,199-200;
• conduct in Musgrave affair,202,225;
• letter to Dr. Musgrave,203-205;
• sympathy for Wilkes,206;
• at rest!207;
• popularity,209;
• doubts raised as to sex,209;
• captivating manners,209;
• policies of insurance on sex,210-216;
• allusions to physical failings,213,219,342;
• protests,215,257,288;
• Poniatovsky’s offers of succour,217;
• saves England from war,218;
• Drouet’s report on D’Eon’s sex,218;
• personal appearance,219;
• his case laid before Louis XVI.,222-226;
• to continue secret correspondence,226;
• refuses terms for surrender of the King’s papers,227-230;
• offer of marriage,230;
• the Dubarry scandal,231-235;
• impression on Beaumarchais,235,278;
• surrenders the King’s papers,241;
• covenant with Beaumarchais,243-251;
• Louis XVI.’s permission to return to France,252;
• and orders to resume female attire,254;
• fresh policies on sex and new protests,256-257;
• confesses to being a female,257;
• breach with Beaumarchais,261;
• aversion to resuming female attire,263-271,280,289,290,292,300,305,306;
• consignment of State papers to the French minister,264note;
• reported marriage to Beaumarchais,273;
• challenges a foul libeller,279;
• personal liberty in danger,279;
• public feeling,280;
• de Vergennes’ conditional protection in France,283;
• trial on sex policies and proved to be a female,283-287;
• appears in public as a female, and leaves for Paris in uniform,287-289;
• renewed protest against sex policies,288;
• Louis XVI.’s order to resume female attire,289;
• Marie Antoinette supplies her outfit,290;
• reception at Tonnerre,291;
• dressed by Mademoiselle Bertin and presented at Court,292;
• deportment as a lady,293-295;
• personated at social gatherings,295;
• the last of Beaumarchais,295-297;
• addresses her contemporaries,297,298;
• other trials on sex policies, and decision of Lord Mansfield,297-298;
• epistle to Lord Mansfield,299;
• grotesque and other portraits,299, andAppendix;
• on the War of Independence,301;
• anxiety to return to England,301,305;
• at various ladies’ retreats,302-304;
• volunteers for service afloat,305;
• the Maid of Tonnerre!306;
• resumes her uniform and is arrested,306;
• released and goes home,307;
• a royal guest,307;
• quits France and arrives in London,308;
• fences at Carlton House,308-309;
• plays Phillidor at chess,310;
• on George III.’s illness,311;
• advertised sale of library,311,312;
• transactions with the House of Ferrers,311-319;
• public sympathy,320;
• sale of jewellery,320-321;
• preparations for France,320,322;
• offers to serve the Republic,322;
• ordered to join General Dumouriez,323;
• deprived of every source of maintenance,324;
• English friends,324;
• exhibits in public as a fencer,325-327;
• dangerously wounded,327;
• hard times,328-331;
• obtains a passport to France,329;
• last days, death and burial,331-333;
• autopsy of the body,333-334;
• will, and directions for burial,334-335;
• administration of effects,335;
• sale of five hundred editions of Horace,335;
• character,335-337;
• [374]habits and occupations,337-338;
• a free-mason,337;
• sentiments on religion,338-340;
• coldness of temperament,340-342;
• reflections,342-344;
• fugitive pieces,344,346;
• publications,361
• Eon de l’Estoile,1
• Eon de Mouloise, Chevalier d’,77,84,156note.
• SeeDéon
• Fabien, a noted fencer,308
• Fermor, Field-Marshal, beaten by Frederick,36
• Ferrers, Washington, 5th Earl,214;
• entrusted by D’Eon with the King’s papers,238;
• his interest (?) in their custody,242;
• receives 5,000l. on account of D’Eon’s creditors,251,262,311;
• what he did with the money,311-316;
• death,316
• Ferrers, Robert, 6th Earl, sued by D’Eon and result,316;
• death,317
• Ferrers, Robert, 7th Earl, his faithlessness,317
• Ffloyd, Sir William,324
• Fielding, Sir John, D’Eon summoned before him,118;
• receives his declaration,129note;
• and de Vergy’s depositions,193;
• entertained by D’Eon,214
• Fitzherbert, Mr., M.P.,201,204
• Fitzherbert, Mrs.,326
• Frederick the Great, his sarcasms,21;
• secret correspondence with the grand-duke,29
• Genest, Mr., chief clerk at Ministry for Foreign Affairs, receives D’Eon in his house,289;
• Marie Antoinette and D’Eon,289
• Geneviève, la Citoyenne.SeeD’Eon de Beaumont
• George III., His Majesty, entrusts Treaty of Peace to D’Eon,64;
• inquiry respecting de Guerchy,102;
• displeased with Lord Bute,196-198;
• his debts and economy,197
• Glencairn, Lord and Lady,324
• Gloucester, Duke of,198,320note,326
• Goddard, a noted fencer,308
• Gorman.SeeO’Gorman
• Grafton, Duchess of,60
• Grenville, George, First Lord of the Treasury, actor in the scene at Lord Halifax’s,111,115-116
• Grey, William de, solicitor-general,181
• Grimaldi, Marquis, signatory to the Treaty of Peace,63note
• Guerchy, Count de, lieutenant-general, conduct in action,49;
• ambassador to Great Britain, and the Duke of Bedford’s report on him,66;
• character,67;
• de Praslin’s estimate of him,67;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• insulting letter to D’Eon,94;
• what de Broglio and de Nivernois thought of him,68,76,99;
• arrival in London and deportment towards D’Eon,102;
• delivers D’Eon’s letters of recall and urgent for his departure,103,109,110;
• conduct at Lord Halifax’s dinner-party,111,115-116;
• scene at his residence,113;
• publishes pamphlets defamatory of D’Eon,119,136,138;
• efforts to kidnap D’Eon,128,149,160;
• complaint to Louis XV.,130;
• prosecutes D’Eon for libel,154;
• in collision with English authorities,156-157;
• design on D’Eon’s life,164-168,194;
• groundless charge against de Vergy,169,173;
• declines to fight D’Eon,170;
• prosecuted for inciting to murder,171;
• true bill found,178;
• Attorney-General refuses to certify in his favour,181;
• is mobbed,182;
• reception upon his return from leave,183;
• superseded,187;
• persecutes Madame D’Eon,191;
• his death,191;
• D’Eon’s second challenge,191;
• anecdote of his father,191note
• Guerchy, Countess de, her disposition,121note
• Guines, Count de, ambassador in London, instructed to communicate with D’Eon,237
• Halifax, Earl of, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, receives D’Eon at an interview,109;
• invites him to take leave of the King,111;
• [375]scene at his residence, and the Guards summoned,111,115-116;
• refuses to surrender D’Eon to France,127;
• unpopularity,152;
• Dr. Musgrave’s story,201-202
• Hammersley, Mr., banker,320
• Hastings, Warren,326note
• Henry of Prussia, Prince, visits D’Eon at Tonnerre,307
• Hertford, Earl of, at the French Embassy,96;
• portrait by D’Eon,102;
• ambassador to France,102
• Hirsinger, M., French Chargé d’Affaires, receives from D’Eon a packet of State Papers,265note;
• hospitality to her,324
• Hone,old,310
• Hôpital, Marquis de l’, Ambassador Extraordinary to Russia,24;
• applies for D’Eon as Secretary of Embassy,29-30;
• receives the Ministry’s instructions, consults D’Eon, neglects them and is censured,38-39;
• the King’s approval,40;
• high estimate of D’Eon,45-46;
• letter to D’Eon on the Empress Catherine and Princess Dashkoff,58
• Hume, David, at the French Embassy,96;
• secretary of Embassy at Versailles,178;
• conversation with de Broglio respecting D’Eon,179
• Jumilhac, M., governor of the Bastille, required by Louis XV. to violate his trust,176
• Kaunitz, Prince, Austrian Minister, sends news of the battle of Prague to Count Staremberg,25;
• copy of his instructions to Count Esterhazy, supplied to D’Eon,29
• Kelly, Sir George,325
• Kemys-Tynte, Colonel, hospitality to D’Eon,308,324,331
• Kynaston, Mr., Justice of the Peace, sends a summons to D’Eon,118
• La Condamine, Ch. Marie de, the traveller,96
• Lalande, J. J. le Français de, the astronomer,96
• Lauraguais, Count de,232-234
• Lestocq, Count, a favourite of Elizabeth, tortured and exiled,15
• Lewald, Field-Marshal, beaten at Gross Jägersdorff,22
• Lincoln, Earl of,183
• Lockhart, Mr., banker,324
• Louis XV., friendly advances to Russia,5,18;
• secret intercourse with Elizabeth,11,21,23;
• desire to correspond with the Empress,30;
• treaty with Maria Theresa,37;
• secret diplomacy,40;
• approves D’Eon’s advice to the ambassador,40;
• secret instructions to de Breteuil,43;
• to D’Eon,44;
• declines correspondence with Catherine,55;
• reception of D’Eon,66;
• orders for the survey of England, and his own precautions,74-75;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• secret orders to D’Eon,77;
• outwitted by de Pompadour,78-81;
• grants Letter of State to D’Eon,87;
• orders him to resume female attire,104;
• D’Eon’s letters of recall,106;
• does not believe in his insanity,123;
• admits de Guerchy to the secret correspondence,124;
• letter of warning to D’Eon,125;
• anxiety for his papers in England,132,149,151;
• confidence in D’Eon,146;
• his pusillanimity,151;
• uneasiness at Guerchy’s situation,174;
• humiliating position,175-177;
• confers a pension on D’Eon,185;
• his fickleness,206-207;
• death and funeral,219-220;
• D’Eon’s admiration for him,184,221;
• the King’s anxiety to suppress the Dubarrymémoires,231
• Louis XVI., informed by de Broglio that D’Eon is a female,223;
• abolishes the secret correspondence system,223;
• recalls de Broglio from exile,224;
• instructions to Beaumarchais,251,260-261;
• grants D’Eon permission to return to France, having resumed female attire,252-255;
• renews order to D’Eon to resume female attire,289;
• refuses her permission to proceed to England,302
• Lyttleton, Honourable Mr.,331
• [376]Macbean, Colonel, of the Artillery,324
• Mansfield, Lord, Chief Justice, consulted by D’Eon,161;
• tries him on a charge of libel,161;
• tries the legality of sex policies,285;
• final decision on those policies,298
• March, Earl of,95,96
• Maria Theresa, treaty with Louis XV.,37
• Marie Antoinette, curiosity to see D’Eon,289;
• orders her outfit,290;
• the Queen’s household,293
• Masseran, Prince, Spanish Ambassador in London,225
• Maurepas, Count de, president of the Council, letter from D’Eon,305
• Melville, General,324
• Michel, M., French banker at St. Petersburg,13;
• takes despatches to France,18note
• Mokronosky, General, a Polish patriot, in the secret correspondence,227note
• Monin, M., employed in the secret correspondence,12;
• betrays D’Eon,79,125;
• memorandum to Louis XV., on His Majesty’s secret papers,131
• Montmorency-Bouteville, Duchess de,307
• Motte, De la, a noted fencer,308
• Musgrave, Dr., address to the Freeholders, &c., of Devon,200-203
• Nardin, Colonel, secret agent, to protect D’Eon and his papers,144,147
• Neville, Richard Neville, secretary of Embassy, takes Treaty of Peace from Paris to London,63;
• resident,81;
• minister plenipotentiary,82
• Nivernois, Duke de, Ambassador Extraordinary to Great Britain,58;
• portrait by D’Eon,60,98;
• personal appearance,61;
• high opinion of D’Eon,62,63,65,68;
• invests him with the cross of Saint Louis,72;
• receives a degree at Oxford,73;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• offensive letter to D’Eon,97;
• exertions in his favour,99;
• private letters published,138
• Nivernois, Duchess de,70
• Nogee, a noted fencer,308
• Nort, Chevalier, aide-de-camp to Marshal de Broglio,70;
• secretary to Count de Broglio, hurried away to treat with D’Eon,148;
• Louis XV.’s instructions,149;
• returns to Paris discomfited,154
• Norton, Sir Fletcher, attorney-general, refusal to certify in favour of de Guerchy,181
• Norton, Sir Henry, solicitor-general, against the extradition of D’Eon,127;
• on the charge against de Vergy,169
• O’Gorman, Chevalier,135note,279
• O’Gorman, Major,329
• O’Gorman, Captain Augustus,329
• O’Gorman, Lewis Augustus,335
• Ons-en-Bray, Count d’,4,92
• Otto, M., French minister plenipotentiary,329
• Paine, Tom,324
• Perigalese, Dr.,331
• Peter the Great, life by Voltaire,23;
• will,27-28
• Peter of Holstein Gottorp, grand-duke, indifference to Russia,15;
• secret correspondence,29;
• a fencer,31;
• accession as Peter III. and alliance with Frederick,54;
• disappearance,54
• Phillidor, the chess player,310-311
• Piggot, Miss,326
• Pitt, William, consulted by D’Eon,160;
• report on his proceedings,195-197
• Plummer, Thomas William, attorney, administrator of D’Eon’s effects,335;
• his intended biographer,336note
• Poissonnier, M., physician to Elizabeth,45
• Pommereux, Captain, sent to treat with D’Eon for the King’s papers,229;
• proposes marriage to Mademoiselle D’Eon,230
• Pompadour, Marquise de, the subject of Frederick’s sarcasms,21;
• hostility to the de Broglios,52,78,85,110;
• on D’Eon’s mission from England,66;
• discovers the secret correspondence,78-81;
• cause of D’Eon’s ruin,78,137,229
• [377]Poniatovsky, Prince, Polish envoy to Russia, attempt to bribe D’Eon,31;
• a fencer,31;
• King of Poland offers succour to D’Eon,217
• Praslin, Duke de, Minister for Foreign Affairs, applies to himself a portrait by D’Eon,59;
• high opinion of him,61,62,66;
• signatory to the Treaty of Peace,63note;
• estimate of de Guerchy,67;
• dislike to office,68;
• suspicions of D’Eon’s loyalty to himself,69;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• dislike to fat people,89note;
• offensive letter to D’Eon,91;
• recalls him,103;
• hostility towards him,105,149,150;
• reports him as insane,105,119;
• demands his extradition,124;
• private letters published,138;
• his efforts to kidnap D’Eon,128,149,159;
• no justice in England!173;
• ‘played the fool with,’174-177;
• remonstrance to the Duke of Richmond,187;
• duped,190
• Prunevaux, Marquis de, sent to treat with D’Eon for the King’s papers,227;
• failure,229
• Queensberry, Duke of,331
• Rainsford, General,324
• Reda, a noted fencer,308
• Richmond, Duke of, Ambassador at Versailles, unpopularity,152;
• urged to surrender D’Eon,187
• Rochefort, Countess de,341
• Rolland, a noted fencer,308
• Rosière, Marquis de la, officer of Engineers, his reputation and employment in the survey of England,74-75;
• under D’Eon’s protection,77;
• sent to France to conceal the King’s papers,128
• Rouillé, M., Minister for Foreign Affairs, supplies Douglas with private credentials,18,20
• Saint George, Chevalier, a distinguished fencer, Mademoiselle’s antagonist at Carlton House,308-309
• Sandwich, Earl of, a secretary of State, portrait by D’Eon,59;
• at Lord Hertford’s,95;
• an actor in the scene at Lord Halifax’s,111,114-116
• Sartines, Count de, chief of police, required by Louis XV. to violate his trust,175-177;
• his perplexing situation,190
• Saxe, Marshal, his sword,330note
• Schouvaloff, Count Ivan, a favourite of Elizabeth, attachment to France,16,17
• Sheridan, Thomas,310
• Shirley, Admiral, the Honourable Thomas,319
• Shirley, Miss,331
• Silk, Mr. George, attorney, report on D’Eon’s body,332
• Slade, Mr. Robert,329,332
• Smith, Sir Sidney, at the autopsy of D’Eon’s body,331;
• named as executor,334
• Soltikoff, Prince, at Künersdorff,36
• Soubise, Prince de, at the battle of Villinghausen,51;
• D’Eon’s evidence thereon,69-71
• Stanhope, Earl, president of the Revolution Society,149note
• Staremberg, Count, Austrian Ambassador at Versailles,25
• Tamworth, Lord, hospitality to D’Eon,308;
• supports her in her action against his father,316.
• SeeRobert, 5th Earl Ferrers
• Tavistock, Marquis of, friendship for D’Eon,194
• Temple, Earl, consulted by D’Eon,160
• Tercier, chief clerk at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and in charge of secret correspondence,11,21;
• influence over Louis XV.,43;
• letters from Louis XV.,26,75,132,146,149,174,175,177;
• nickname in secret correspondence,76;
• cautions D’Eon on his insecurity,137,142;
• D’Eon’s letters to him,144-146,147,158;
• admitted secretly to the Bastille,176;
• death,210note
• Thornton, Colonel,329
• Tooke, Horne,324
• Towneley, Mr.,325
• Townsend, Mr. C.,61
• Townshend, the Marchioness,330
• [378]Tryon, Mrs.,331
• Valcroissant, Chevalier de, secret envoy to Russia, imprisoned, and liberated through D’Eon,5 andnote
• Vergennes, Count de, Minister for Foreign Affairs,224;
• necessity for humouring D’Eon,230;
• instructions to Beaumarchais for treating with D’Eon,236;
• requires D’Eon’s disguise and resumption of female attire,239,283,289;
• receives the King’s secret papers,259;
• defence of Beaumarchais,295;
• general treatment of D’Eon,301;
• confirms her annuity,307
• Vergy, Treyssac de, calls at the French embassy in London,112;
• a guest of de Guerchy,112;
• gives warning to D’Eon,113,114;
• hostile message,114;
• humbled by D’Eon,117;
• confession of designs on D’Eon’s life,163-168;
• sworn depositions,171,173,193;
• death and will,193
• Viri, Count, Sardinian envoy in London, his interest in D’Eon,66;
• share in the restoration of peace,72,204;
• presents from Louis XV.,72
• Voltaire, a gift from Elizabeth,23;
• threatened with defamation,231;
• on a portrait of D’Eon,300
• Waldegrave, Countess (later, married to the Duke of Gloucester),198
• Wales, H.R.H. the Princess of, mother to George III.,152,196,197
• Wales, H.R.H. the Prince of,308,320,326
• Wallis, Lady,324
• Walmsley, Captain,325
• Wilkes, John,the patriot,156,206,310
• Wilkes, Miss, note to D’Eon,280
• Williams, Sir C. Hanbury, ambassador to Russia, refuses to present Chevalier Douglas, and caution to Swedish minister,12,13;
• intercourse with Catherine,16,57;
• designation of D’Eon,17;
• deceived by Woronzoff,19;
• dignified message to the Count,19;
• D’Eon’s repartee on Admiral Byng’s execution,31
• Wilmot, Mr. Justice,173,194
• Wilson, Mr.,332
• Wolff, Baron, British Consul-General,19
• Wood, Mr., Under Secretary of State, act of indiscretion,61
• Woronzoff, Count Michel, vice-chancellor,11;
• leader of the French party,13,17;
• receives the French secret envoy,18;
• deception practised on English ambassador,19;
• message from Sir Hanbury Williams,19-20;
• message to Prince de Conti,24;
• grand chancellor,33;
• regret at losing D’Eon,47;
• congratulates him on promotion,83
• Wright, Mr.,214
• Yarborough, Earl of,331
• Yates, Mr. Justice,173,194
• York, Duke of,198
• Younge, Sir George, M.P.,201,204
• Zenobio, Count, envoy from Venice,324

LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET