The Chevalier D’Eon de Beaumont

PREFACE.

The Secret Correspondence established by Louis XV. in 1750-1752, originally for the purpose of gratifying the Prince de Conti’s ambition for sovereignty, in the interests of Poland, and of securing the alliance and co-operation of several of the smaller Powers, against the aggression of Austria and Russia, proved, in course of years, of inestimable benefit to the King, personally. Insuperable timidity, and the consciousness of a lack of self-confidence, were weaknesses that ill-befitted an absolute monarch, for Louis XV. could never summon courage to confront his ministers. The Chevalier D’Eon de Beaumont very tersely portrays the besetting sin of his sovereign, where he describes it as a deficiency in the needed strength of character to control, as became a king, his ministers and ambassadors, all of whom he mistrusted and avoided, making reparation in secret for the follies they committed publicly. ‘Après nous le déluge’ are the well-known words of comfort offered by the Marquise de Pompadour, into whose hands the direction of affairs was lapsing, when seeing the King sorely oppressed with grief upon learning the news of the disaster at Rosbach; and perhaps it is true that the secret correspondence, of the existence of which the favourite was entirely ignorant, was useful in averting the coming storm during the term of his reign. Selfish and self-indulgent almost beyond conception, Louis XV. had no spirit to grapple with difficulties where they presented themselves, except in regard to the relations of France with Foreign Powers, when he could perfectly well rouse himself to action; not openly, lest the views of his ministers should be in opposition to his desires, but covertly and frequently to their confusion. It was the duty of the secret agents at the several capitals of Europe, who were always connected in some way with his Embassies, to keep his Majesty informed of all that was passing, and it became his custom to instruct them to bring about the realisation of his policy, regardless of the directions of his ministers. Louis XV. took an interest and a delight in foreign affairs, therefore to him the secret correspondence had its uses; otherwise—it was leading to destruction.

One of the earliest and most remarkable of the King’s secret agents, for his employment as such dated from the year 1754 or 1755, was D’Eon de Beaumont, who, as a diplomatist, evinced spirit equal to that of Lord Whitworth under circumstances that have passed into history, and exhibited much of the bravery and daring of the famous Hugh Elliot, without, however, the similar advantage of being enabled to deal all his blows by the light of day, his training from youth having been in the direction rather of intrigue.

Since no history of Louis XV. can have any pretensions to completeness if the name of D’Eon de Beaumont be excluded, it is not a little surprising that the individual acts, as well as the official services of so extraordinary a personage have never been brought together before the world. This blank the author endeavours to fill.

In 1836, Gaillardet published a memoir of the Chevalier D’Eon, meretricious and spurious in its details, which speedily reached a second edition, and attained a popularity that caused it to be pirated and reproduced, very extensively, in ‘Un Hermaphrodite,’ Louis Jourdan indiscreetly lending his name for its authorship! Although Gaillardet announced that his book was produced out of material supplied by the D’Eon family at Tonnerre, its contents proved to be in great measure scandalous fabrications. Feeling himself, as he advanced in 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 les Mystères de sa Vie,’ in the preface to which, styled ‘Un Acte de Contrition, &c.,’ he candidly avows that his first edition was in great part a fiction. In this later edition Gaillardet reproduces, together with other interesting matter, numerous documents that are preserved at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, where, by rare good fortune, he obtained permission to search the archives; and that so distinguished an academician as the Duke de Broglie (familiar to Englishmen as having been first minister in the Conservative days of the French Republic), as well as other well-known authors, should have availed themselves of this work, may be accepted as sufficient guarantee of its worth and reliability. As becomes a conscientious biographer, Gaillardet allows the documents he produces to speak for themselves, without himself undertaking to pass judgment on his subject; a safe course adopted in the following pages, where scrupulous care is taken to authenticate all that is adduced.

In his engaging work, ‘Le Secret du Roi,’ the Duke de Broglie treats at some length on the part taken by D’Eon in the secret correspondence of Louis XV. Unhappily, the Duke seems desirous of avenging the agony of mind his ancestor the Count de Broglio must have endured, upon certain occasions of the threatening attitude assumed by the Chevalier, and he evidently finds it impossible to forgive the Minister Plenipotentiary, D’Eon, for being more clever, abler, and readier-witted than the French Ambassador with whom it was his misfortune to be connected; for his Grace takes frequent occasion to traduce him, and calls attention to his ‘assertions mensongères,’ without clearly substantiating the grave charges—a hard measure where the person assailed is beyond the possibility of vindicating the accusation. The fact is that D’Eon related unpleasant truths, and exposed startling facts, as will be manifested in due course.

Few persons, in all probability, have left behind them so much matter in MS. as did the Chevalier D’Eon, if we except perhaps the Duke of Berwick and the noted Saint-Simon, of whom Chateaubriand said: ‘... il avait heureusement un tour à lui; il écrivit à la diable pour l’immortalité.’ Like Saint-Simon, the Chevalier sketched admirable portraits, and like Saint-Simon too, he commenced in early youth to write his impressions, keeping to himself, through life, all he had written. There is evidence, amongst the papers the author has consulted, that D’Eon never contemplated an autobiography. ‘It has ever been my opinion,’ he wrote, ‘and I am even persuaded, that it is impossible for an author to write a just history of his own life; for he is either lifted to the height of vanity by pride so inseparable from the human heart, or else feigned modesty debases him to hypocritical humility. There are, at Versailles, public depôts of the Ministries for War and for Foreign Affairs, and Louis XV. has left his private papers of the Secret Correspondence. It is there that the faithful historian should seek the truth if he has the courage to tell it.’ Unfortunately, there is reason for apprehending that many MSS., some of consequence, are lost. Père Elisée, the Chevalière’s medical attendant, had a large number of his papers, which were 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 a part or the whole of the collection of D’Eon MSS. at the British Museum, and at Tonnerre where they are numerous. Another large portion passed into the hands of Mr. Christie, to whom the Chevalière was indebted for many favours. The first and last of these collections have been well sifted by the author, the chief difficulty experienced being the making a judicious selection. It was quite possible to have enlarged on the acts and writings of the Chevalier or Chevalière D’Eon, by the introduction of additional portraits, anecdotes, and letters of interest, but—happy is the biographer who escapes the charge of tedious prolixity! The author feels that although the material at his disposal has been greatly condensed, the thread of the narrative is maintained in its completeness, without the omission of any incident of importance in the life of the most singular and of one of the most extraordinary individuals of the last century.

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

Cases of females having occupied the position of men, whether for a limited period or during their entire existence, are without number, striking instances of both, within the recollection of the present generation, being those of Captain (Marie Jeanne) Dubois, who served in Napoleon’s Russian campaign, and of a medical officer in the service of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, who have passed away of late years. Upon the other hand, few men have disguised themselves as females, the most notable example of the kind, perhaps, being that afforded by the Comtesse des Barres, who for thirty years led a dissolute and discreditable life, but was perfectly well known to be the Abbé de Choisy. The biographer of this creature, Thoulier d’Olivet, says of him: ‘But what sort of a hero is he whose portrait I am to describe? A Court Abbé? ... what do I say? A Court Abbé! A coquette who had one thousand times greater taste for beauty spots and ribbons, one thousand times more the desire to please, than any professional coquette. It may be said that Nature made a mistake, and that it was her intention to create a female;’ then, quoting a lady’s estimate of the Abbé: ‘... male or female, ever carrying matters to extremes, whether absorbed in studies or in trifles. Deserving of esteem, because of undaunted courage, contemptible because of the coquetry 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 was suggested in infancy and maintained until death, cannot be 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 we have the authority of John Britton, who was in the habit of meeting the Chevalière almost daily, during a period of three years, that she was respectable and respected, and of refined manners. The uncertainty of her sex occupied every mind. In branding the tale of Pope Joan as being false and deserving the name, Gibbon shows himself to be at fault with regard to D’Eon. ‘... I would not pronounce it (the tale) incredible. Suppose a famous French chevalier of our own times to have been born in Italy, and educated in the Church instead of in the army; her merit or fortune might have raised her to St. Peter’s chair; her amours would have been natural....’

D’Eon’s immediate ancestors were in the habit, it would appear, of writing their family name, Déon. Upon being accredited Resident, and afterwards Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Great Britain, Louis XV. was pleased to distinguish the Chevalier’s name by substituting E for e, changing Déon to D’Eon, orthography the author has observed with reference to the Chevalier. Late in life, the Chevalière wrote her name, occasionally d’Eon, at other times D’eon, until the French Revolution, when, for a season, her signature appears as Déon, bearing the prefix, La Citoyenne Geneviève.

In concluding these introductory remarks, the author has one pleasant duty left, that of offering his acknowledgments to Mr. James H. B. Christie, of Framingham, Norwich, and King Street, St. James’, and of expressing his obligations to that gentleman for the liberality and freedom with which he has been permitted to consult the interesting MSS., short of which it would have been simply impossible to produce, in its present form, the account of this Strange Career.

London, December, 1884.

CONTENTS.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Erratum.

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

WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE FOOTNOTES.

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.

THE CHEVALIER D’EON DE BEAUMONT.

CHAPTER I.

On the first page of a well-thumbed devotional pamphlet in MS., given to D’Eon de Beaumont upon his 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 Intendance of the generality of Paris, and for some time mayor of Tonnerre. His brothers were André-Thimothée Déon de Tissey, advocate in Parliament, censor-royal, chief secretary of police in Paris, and principal secretary to H.R.H. the Duke d’Orleans; Jacques Déon de Pommard, advocate in Parliament, one of the first secretaries to the Count d’Argenson, Minister of War; Michel Déon de Germigny, knight of the Royal and Military Order of St. Louis, one of the twenty-five gentlemen of the King’s Scottish Guard. They were the four sons of André Déon, advocate in Parliament, who died in 1720; whose father was Louis Déon, lord of Ramelu, esquire, captain of infantry: all of whom lie interred within the church of L’Hôpital Notre Dame de Fontenilles, at Tonnerre.[4]

In the preamble to her holograph will, headed ‘Soli Deo Honor et Gloria,’ in which she styles herself Charlotte-Geneviève-Louise-Augusta-Andrée-Timothea-Marie D’Eon de Beaumont, it is stated:—

In another place D’Eon states that when in her fourth year she was publicly consecrated to the Virgin Mary, in front of the high altar, at a solemn service held for the occasion. She wore the robe of the sisterhood of the Virgin Mary until her seventh year, when she resumed boy’s apparel by direction of her father. To her mother’s fervent devotion and enlightened piety in the protection of the Virgin Mary was attributed the safety of the ‘disguised daughter’ in all the perils she encountered in the course of her extraordinary career—by sea and by land, at foreign courts, at sieges, in combats and in battles.[5]

From the age of seven to twelve D’Eon remained in charge of M. Marceney, curé of the Church of St. Peter, and was then sent to the Collège Mazarin. He completed his studies with considerable credit, obtaining the degrees of Doctor of Civil and of Canon Law, and being subsequently called to the bar of the Parliament of Paris. He also became royal censor for works on history and belles-lettres. In 1749, whilst serving as secretary to M. Bertier de Savigny, he had the misfortune to lose in the course of five days his father, an uncle, and an income of fifteen thousand livres. Louis Déon had rendered himself so beloved by the poor in his district that for some time after his death they used to resort in crowds to his grave and weep over it, and lament the loss of their friend and benefactor. It is related of him that when on his death-bed, and after having received the last sacrament, he sent for his daughter (afterwards the Chevalier), and taking her by the hand, said tenderly, ‘Do not be uneasy, my daughter—it is as natural to die as it is to live. I am quitting a bad for a better land. I have been at much pains to teach you how to live, and I must likewise teach you how to die.’ And giving her his blessing, he expired.[6]

Although D’Eon had lost his father, he was not left friendless; for he remained under the protection of several persons of influence, who had known the relatives he had lost, there being amongst them the Prince de Conti, the Abbé de Bernis (subsequently Minister for Foreign Affairs), the Marshal de Belle-Isle (afterwards Minister for War), also the Duchess de Penthièvre and the Count d’Ons-en-Bray, whose funeral eulogiums, inserted in the ‘Année Littéraire,’ were the earliest products of his pen. These writings were succeeded by an historical essay on finance in France, and ‘Notes on the Life and Works of the celebrated Abbé Lenglet de Fresnoy,’ printed in the ‘Année Littéraire’ for 1755, literary labours which served to bring him into notice at an early age as a thoughtful and careful writer.

D’Eon was passionately fond of study, and would only quit his books for what became his sole recreation in life—the art of fencing, in which he proved a great expert, as shown by his election to the superintendence of the School of Arms. D’Eon’s tastes inclined him to a military life, rather than to what the necessities of his situation were calling him; but his destiny summoned him to take a part in the political transactions of his country, with what success it is the object of this work to show.

In his desire to renew with Russia the friendly relations interrupted since the day when the Marquis de la Chétardie was unceremoniously escorted to the frontier (June 13, 1744), Louis XV. had dispatched to St. Petersburg, in the year 1754, the Chevalier de Valcroissant on a secret mission for that purpose—a mission, however, that came to an untimely end; for the Chevalier, being unprovided with any kind of credential or letter of recommendation, was taken up on suspicion of being a French spy, and confined in the fortress of Schlusselburg, on the Ladoga, whence it was not deemed prudent, for the time being at least, to seek to liberate him.[7] The Empress Elizabeth had already made advances of a friendly nature to the French Court, and in view of her possible treaty of subsidies with England, the King resolved upon another effort towards reconciliation, taking more effectual precautions to ensure success.

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

The importance and delicate nature of the negotiations upon which Douglas was about to be employed—and not Douglas only, but D’Eon also, sent with the King’s approval, at the strong recommendation of the Prince de Conti (whose special protégé he was), to accompany Douglas—will best be estimated upon knowledge of the instructions—widely though they differed—supplied for their respective guidance. They show that whilst Douglas was secretly to watch and note events as an apparently indifferent observer, it was intended that D’Eon should pass his time in closest intimacy with such Russian ministers as might be favourably disposed towards France, and reach, were it possible, even the Empress herself.

The duties confided to D’Eon were entirely distinct and of a more intimate nature. He was supplied by M. Tercier, chief clerk at the Foreign Office and in charge of the King’s secret correspondence, with a quarto copy of Montesquieu’s ‘Esprit des Lois,’ the binding, in double boards, being cunningly devised to hold papers. The documents thus concealed and entrusted to D’Eon included private letters from the King to the Empress Elizabeth; a cypher for the intelligence of her Imperial Majesty and Count Woronzoff, the Vice-Chancellor, in their correspondence with Louis XV.;[10] a cypher for D’Eon’s own correspondence with the King and Tercier, and another cypher for D’Eon’s use in communicating with the Prince de Conti, Tercier, and M. Monin. He received strict injunctions that none of the King’s ministers, not even any ambassador his Majesty might have at St. Petersburg, should be allowed to entertain the slightest suspicion of this secret intercourse; he was ordered to furnish the King with copies of all letters received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, together with the Ambassador’s replies, noting thereon his own observations, and he was further required to thwart clandestinely any transactions on the part of the King’s ministers, so long as they were in opposition to the secretly known royal will and pleasure.[11]

Douglas then left Paris in the summer of 1755 as a British tourist, an amateur geologist travelling in search of health and amusement, and having got to Anhalt, he there waited until D’Eon joined him. Proceeding on his journey, Douglas strictly followed the route traced out in his instructions, and when at Dantzig, where as at Amsterdam and Leipzig he had large credits, he announced his intention to visit the mines in Sweden; but suddenly 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 British embassy, and introducing himself as a subject of the King and a relative of the Earl of Morton, requested Sir Hanbury Williams to present him at Court. This the British Ambassador refused to do unless he was properly assured of his identity. Scarcely was Douglas gone, than the Swedish minister called to ask Sir Hanbury whether he objected to his presenting the Chevalier Douglas at Court. Sir Hanbury promptly replied that he did not see what business the Swedish minister had to present the King’s subjects, and if he ever attempted such a thing, he would take it very ill; upon which the Swedish minister said that he should no longer meddle in the affair. Douglas then went to see Count Esterhazy, the Ambassador from Vienna, whose suspicions he immediately awakened by explaining his presence at St. Petersburg as due to the advice of his physicians that he should seek a cold climate for the benefit of his health. Finding all access to the Russian Court thus closed against him, Douglas precipitately left the capital and returned to France, bitterly complaining of Sir Hanbury’s treatment in every town through which he passed.[12]

We are left quite in the dark as to the means by which D’Eon succeeded in obtaining admission at Court, but the matter was doubtless arranged by the Vice-Chancellor Woronzoff, friendly to France, through the Swedish minister, to whom Douglas had brought letters of introduction from the Swedish minister at Paris, or possibly through Michel, a French banker, as stated by La Messalière. There is good evidence in support of the tradition that D’Eon was received by the Empress in female habiliments, that in this disguise she ingratiated herself with her Majesty, gained her confidence, and interesting her in the object of his mission, had succeeded in reviving her old feelings of attachment towards France and towards Louis XV., her suitor of days gone by.[13] It is certain that the ill-humour and coldness of the Russian Court towards England in the course of the year 1756, was of much earlier date than the Neutrality Convention between Prussia and England (January 16, 1756), and this was attributed by Sir Hanbury, together with the Empress’s delay in signing the ratifications to her Treaty of Subsidies with Great Britain, entirely to the success of French influence after Douglas had first made his appearance;[14] but Douglas not being at all in Russia between the end of October 1755, and the end of April 1756, such exercise of French influence could only have been due to elaborate intrigues on the part of D’Eon during the several months he spent at Court as reader (lecteur) to the Empress,[15] an appointment conferred upon him, perhaps, with the design of cloaking his real profession.

In early life D’Eon was of peculiarly prepossessing appearance; his manners were gentle and engaging, his disposition soft and amiable, all of which, with his general physique, eminently adapted him to personify a female; and if there is no direct proof in substantiation of the oft-told tale that D’Eon appeared at the Court of Elizabeth in female attire, there is at least valuable evidence in support of it.

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

During Douglas’ absence D’Eon was putting his intelligence and tact to the best use in the service of his master, his task being rendered somewhat easier by Elizabeth’s kindly feelings towards France and the French, which had never entirely changed,[17] even though her two favourites, the Marquis de la Chétardie and the Count Lestocq, had long since been disposed of; the first, as already stated, by being thrust out of the empire, the latter—of whom in allusion to his treachery her Majesty said: ‘If Lestocq could have poisoned all Russia with one dose, he would assuredly have done so’—by being tortured and exiled to Oustouk. D’Eon had wisely commenced by insinuating himself in the good graces of the Vice-Chancellor, whose predilections were completely French, and who being married to the Countess Skavronsky, a cousin of the Empress, proved his powerful support and shield against the Grand Chancellor Bestoujeff Riumin, the known leader of the Prussian party hostile to France.

But five years before this Bestoujeff had so effectually prejudiced the mind of Elizabeth against Prussia, that her ambassador, Gross, very hastily and unceremoniously took his departure one morning from Berlin, without in the least troubling himself to announce his intentions to anybody. Since that time, Bestoujeff fancied he saw good cause for changing his views.

Peter, the son of Anna Petrovna, by her marriage with Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, could never forget his German birth and parentage, and even after being created a Grand Duke of Russia, he continued to attach far greater importance to his title of Holstein-Gottorp, remaining perfectly indifferent to the interests of the Russian people, and maintaining about him a suite and retinue consisting entirely of Germans. His consort, Catherine of Anhalt-Zerbst (afterwards Catherine II.), sought, on the contrary, to identify herself with the country of her adoption, embracing the religion, and following the manners and customs of the people. Politically, she desired a good understanding with England, entirely deprecating alliance with France and Austria; and when the report of the probable arrival of a French ambassador was gaining ground, she expressed her uneasiness to Sir Hanbury, saying she should act up to anything he might suggest to prevent such a thing. Sir Hanbury reminded Catherine that her known confidence in Bestoujeff had made the Schouvaloffs her secret enemies; but that the latter, in themselves, had neither sense, courage, nor money enough to do any harm to her succession, although the arrival of a French ambassador might change the scene, for he would do all in his power, sparing neither pains nor money, to injure her. Catherine’s feelings were perfectly well known to Elizabeth, who used to say of her that ‘she was a clever woman, only she prided herself on being more clever than anybody else.’ The most powerful man at Court because the greatest favourite was Ivan Schouvaloff. He was fond of everything that was French, understood their language, followed all their fashions, and was known to have always wished that a French ambassador might arrive at St. Petersburg. Small causes produce great effects, and the reconciliation proceeding between Russia and France was partly owing to the caprice of that young man.[18]

Bestoujeff, foreseeing the more probable course of events, seized the opportunity for turning his coat, and assuring the grand-duchess of his devotion to her person and to her views, and for expressing to the grand-duke, her husband, his own desire for the maintenance of good relations with Prussia. English, French, Austrian, and even Prussian gold was being freely scattered at St. Petersburg,[19] but in the end D’Eon, Schouvaloff, and Woronzoff obtained every advantage over the grand-ducal party. Consenting to receive a French representative at her Court, Elizabeth wrote privately to Louis XV. to that effect, the letter being carried to its destination by D’Eon, in his volume ‘Esprit des Lois,’ after Douglas’ return from Versailles. We cannot undertake to fix the date of D’Eon’s departure from St. Petersburg nearer than that a letter of June 12, 1756, from Sir Hanbury Williams to the Earl of Holdernesse, announces ‘a creature of the Vice-Chancellor is soon to set out from hence to Paris to negotiate this affair.’ In parting with D’Eon, the Empress invited him to enter her service, promising honourable and lucrative employment; but D’Eon was too deeply attached to his own country to entertain such a proposal; and resisting the offer, said that the renewal of friendly relations between the two countries, the advantages of which he had already pointed out, would afford him the opportunity for serving the interests of Russia without neglecting those of the Court of France; a reply which served to increase the esteem already entertained for him by Elizabeth.

CHAPTER II.

Leaving Paris under the name of Léonard, for the second time as the King’s secret envoy to Russia, but armed upon this occasion with private credentials from M. Rouillé, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and ‘a great deal of money to dispose of,’ Douglas passed through Dantzig, and Riga where he falsely represented himself as envoy extraordinary from France to Russia, and was accordingly received as such by the governor of that town. With equal disregard to the truth, he made it his business upon this journey to spread the report that in the treaty concluded between England and Prussia there was a secret article whereby the former Power was to pay to the latter an annual subsidy of 200,000l.! He arrived at St. Petersburg on April 22 (N.S.), requested an interview of the Vice-Chancellor at 9 P.M. for the same evening—obtained it—and forthwith delivered a letter from M. Rouillé, with friendly messages on the part of the King. Shortly afterwards he was presented at Court as a Scottish gentleman in the service of France, to the delight of Louis XV. and his ministers.[20]

When questioned by Sir Hanbury Williams, the Vice-Chancellor admitted that Douglas was entrusted with a commission from the King of France, although not in an official capacity. He could give no information on the nature of that commission, but Sir Hanbury might rest assured that the Court of Russia would not enter into anything with France that could be prejudicial to the interests of England. It was not the first time, he said, that France had made overtures to Russia, but he was too well acquainted with the French nation ever to be their dupe, and he should not fail to give further information when in a position to do so. Within twenty-four hours of this conversation, the Chancellor Bestoujeff declared to Sir Hanbury that he was kept quite out of the secret, and knew nothing of Douglas’ return until his arrival at Riga.[21]

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

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

The Treaty of Versailles (May 1, 1756) had placed Douglas and Count Esterhazy upon an entirely new footing. Their lengthened conferences, at first held secretly in a third place, and their growing intimacy, prevented Sir Hanbury from conversing any longer with the Austrian minister on matters of business. French subjects were invited to consider themselves under the protection of the Empress-Queen’s ambassador, and Russia’s ministers at foreign courts were instructed to live on good terms with those of France. Such were the political changes in progress, when Elizabeth openly professed her desire to renew diplomatic relations with the King of France.

M. Rouillé’s courteous letter of February 9, presented to the Vice-Chancellor by Douglas upon the same evening 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, was as courteously answered under date of April 20 (O.S.). A long ‘Mémoire,’ also handed to Douglas for transmission to the French minister, in reply to the friendly advances made by Louis XV., and in which are expressed her Imperial Majesty’s views on drawing closer together the improving relations between Russia and France, contains this passage:—

In July, Douglas was accredited Chargé d’Affaires to the Court of Russia, taking up his residence at the Apraxin Palace, near the Summer Palace, D’Eon being appointed Secretary of Legation, and entrusted with the secret correspondence; communicating with the Prince de Conti, and with the King through Tercier, and still the medium of intercourse between the Empress and Woronzoff on the one hand, and Louis XV. on the other; by which arrangement Douglas was enabled to entertain uninterrupted relations with Elizabeth and Woronzoff on subjects of a nature to be kept concealed from Bestoujeff Riumin.

As the Treaty of Subsidies, an acknowledged fact between England and Russia, was set at naught by England’s Neutrality Treaty with Prussia, so did Elizabeth cast the former to the winds, and in due course unite herself to the French-Austrian alliance, in spite of all that Catherine and Bestoujeff could do to prevent such a thing. Frederick’s sarcasms had no more spared the Empress of Russia and the Empress-Queen than Madame de Pompadour, and the licentious Elizabeth thought it worth her while to retaliate by expressing her indignation at the King of Prussia’s little concern in matters of religion. ‘He does not believe in God! He never goes to Church! There is nothing that is sacred in his eyes!’ Some years had passed since she uttered those words; she had not forgiven him, now she was joining the coalition against that monarch, and so was about to begin what is known as the Seven Years’ War.

The eighty thousand men for whom Sir Hanbury had bargained were assembled in Livonia under Count Apraxin,[24] the firm friend of Bestoujeff, when they shortly entered Poland. The war was commenced by the Austrians, the first to receive Frederick’s fire and under Marshal Daun to defeat him at Kolin (June 18), afterwards marching upon Berlin and bearing away all the tribute money they could collect. Their German allies invaded Prussia from Saxony, the Swedes not long delaying in entering Pomerania, and the French attacking out of Hanover after having occupied Embden (July 3). Hearing that Apraxin had taken Memel, Frederick sent Field-Marshal Lewald with twenty-five thousand men to keep him in check, and a battle was fought at Gross-Jägersdorff near Königsberg (August 30), in which the Russians overpowered the enemy simply through force of numbers. Frederick being left with about twenty thousand men only, began to fear that all was lost, when the astounding intelligence reached him that the Russians, ‘who were more easily killed than beaten,’ were withdrawing towards their own frontier—a movement executed during the illness, believed to be serious, of Elizabeth, who no sooner heard of Apraxin’s strange doings, than she ordered him to be recalled and his conduct investigated. But the field-marshal did not long survive his return, and why he failed to follow up the advantages he had gained by the most complete of victories, was never explained by himself. Later, his reasons were guessed!

D’Eon had quitted St. Petersburg in April, entrusted by the Empress with private letters to Maria Theresa and Louis XV.; he was the bearer to the Courts of Vienna and Versailles of Elizabeth’s friendly assurances that the Treaty of Subsidies with England was no longer of effect, and that the eighty thousand men she had assembled in Livonia and Courland should henceforth act in concert with the forces of Austria and France. He was also charged to deliver the ratification to the Treaty of Versailles, the plan to be pursued by the Russian army in its operations with the Austrian and French troops, and other papers of considerable importance relating to secret transactions in which he had borne a part; and, further, he was commissioned by Count Schouvaloff to take with him fifty thousand livres in gold, being a gift from the Empress to Voltaire, who had received her Majesty’s commands to write the life of Peter—specie D’Eon lodged with the bankers Hermani and Dietrich, at Strasburg, on his way through that town.

In her letter to the King, Elizabeth referred to D’Eon in flattering terms as having been instrumental in conducing to the happy results which necessitated the journey he was about to take, and ‘as a mark of her favour’ she presented him with a gratuity of three hundred ducats.[25]

When D’Eon first went to Russia, one commission entrusted to him was to obtain for the Prince de Conti, from the Empress, the command-in-chief of the Russian army and the principality of Courland; the secret aim of the prince being, through such means, to work his way gradually to the throne of Poland, and to that of Russia by marrying Elizabeth. Douglas and D’Eon had met with success on the two first points, which alone had been mooted to the Empress, and D’Eon’s errand to Versailles included the Empress’ and Woronzoff’s assurances to the prince that he should have the command of the army and the principality of Courland, if the King would....[26] The rest is obliterated by D’Eon in his letter.

One result of Douglas’ and D’Eon’s labours was the appointment of an ambassador to the Court of Russia in the person of the Marquis de l’Hôpital; but a whole year having elapsed between that minister’s nomination and departure for his post, it so happened that when D’Eon got to Bieloyēstok on his way to Vienna, the two met, to the great advantage of the marquis, as he himself subsequently avowed; for he was supplied with so much useful practical information, upon a country of which he knew literally nothing, as a somewhat hurried interview would allow.

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

Although provided with passports that should have assured freedom from all kind of molestation or delay, the Customs’ officers refused to allow him to enter the city without first searching his effects. Obstinately objecting to submit to what he considered a gross indignity, but feeling himself under the circumstances to be the weakest, he made up his mind to pass the night outside the walls. A sergeant of hussars going his rounds offered the stranger a shelter in the guard-room. There being no French ambassador at Vienna, D’Eon sent, in the early morning, an account of his night’s adventure to Baron de Toussaint, a favourite of the Emperor, which resulted in the dismissal of the two Customs’ officers and the promotion of the sergeant to the rank of lieutenant.[27]

At Vienna D’Eon found the Count de Broglio, French minister to Poland, who had received orders to pass through that capital, and there concert such alterations as might be considered advisable in the plan prepared by Marshal D’Estrées for the ensuing campaign; a measure facilitated by D’Eon’s timely appearance with the Russian plan of operations and his intimate knowledge of Russian affairs, which proved of invaluable service to the count. During his hurried stay at Vienna, news were received of the battle of Prague (May 6), ‘the bloodiest battle of the age,’ as Frederick called it, and de Broglio at once despatched him to carry the gratifying intelligence to Versailles. The hot haste in which he had travelled from St. Petersburg was not to be compared to the diligence he employed in bearing such additional good tidings; he managed to outstrip by thirty-six hours the special courier sent by Prince Kaunitz to Count Staremberg, Austrian ambassador at Paris, although he reached his destination with a broken leg, caused by the overturning of the coach in his headlong journey; the accident and its cause only serving to intensify the interest already felt in the young secretary, who was attended by the King’s own surgeon immediately upon arrival.

D’Eon met with a most flattering reception by the Cardinal de Bernis, Foreign Minister, and Marshal de Belle-Isle, Minister of War, and a month or two later he received a handsome gold snuff-box, with portrait, from the King, inside which he found a gratuity from the privy purse, and, what he prized most, a commission as lieutenant of dragoons.

D’Eon’s employment being still secret, and chiefly so in the King’s service, as well as public in the quality of Secretary of Legation, he was bound to apply for permission to convey to the Prince de Conti the message entrusted to him at St. Petersburg. It was granted by the King.

D’Eon had several interviews and some secret correspondence with the Prince de Conti upon the success of his mission to St. Petersburg; but the Prince and Madame de Pompadour were no longer on good terms, she being too exacting to suit his pride, and the King would or could not make up his mind in favour of his kinsman.

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

D’Eon never wasted his time. Whilst laid up under surgical treatment, enduring no little suffering from the resetting of a broken limb, he worked at collating a mass of useful information he had obtained in Russia from various sources, producing a valuable ‘Mémoire,’ upon which he was complimented by King and ministers. In this ‘Mémoire,’ Gaillardet includes a document which has been the subject-matter of frequent controversy, its authenticity being discredited and derided—the will of Peter the Great; but he negligently omits to state where he consulted the copy of the will in D’Eon’s own hand, and as we have been unable to verify the existence of such a copy we forbear reproducing it, because otherwise it has no place here, and leave the task to some one more favoured than we could expect to be, in searching amongst the French archives.

In a monograph which appeared at Brussels in 1863,[30] the author fathers the will of Peter the Great on Napoleon I., and ascribes the earliest publication of it to Lesur in his ‘Des Progrès de la puissance Russe, depuis son origine jusqu’au commencement du XIXᵐᵉ siècle,’ printed in 1812 under the immediate superintendence of the French Government, at the time that the Emperor was preparing for the invasion of Russia. In this pamphlet Gaillardet (in whose fanciful story of the Chevalier D’Eon, edition of 1836, the author read the will) is charged with having reproduced the will from the pages of Lesur.

On receiving his commission in the army D’Eon applied for active service, having grown tired and become disgusted with the intrigues of a life at Court, and the sight of troops in Courland, Prussia, Silesia, and Moravia, when upon his journey from Russia, having ‘only served to inspire him with martial ardour.’ But he was too precious and too useful in Russia to be allowed to have his own way. The Marquis de l’Hôpital was pressing him to return to St. Petersburg. ‘My dear little fellow, I have learnt with pain of your accident, and with great pleasure of your interviews with the Old and New Testaments.[31] Come, live out the Gospel with us, and rely upon my friendship and esteem.’ To which Douglas added: ‘I also embrace you, my dear cripple, and hope you will have left before the arrival of this letter to join your worthy protector, who will be a father to you.’ Over and above all, the King’s ministers expressed the wish that D’Eon should return to Russia with the least possible delay to perform a particular piece of service, for which he was specially qualified.

It so happened that D’Eon had discovered the existence of a secret correspondence between the grand-duke, assisted by Bestoujeff, and the King of Prussia, whose interests they preferred to serve, Apraxin and Todleben, the Empress’s two generals in command of her army on the field; the design being to keep the Russian troops in a state of inaction, and thus deprive the newly-allied Courts of the advantages to be derived from the treaties so happily brought about by Douglas and himself. D’Eon alone seemed to have knowledge of this surreptitious intercourse, and being required to bring it to light it was manifest that he should return to Russia.

In September D’Eon left Paris, again as the sole confidential correspondent of Louis XV. He was supplied with copies of the instructions sent to the French ambassador at St. Petersburg and of those from Prince Kaunitz to Count Esterhazy, and he was ordered to concert measures with Count Woronzoff for disclosing to the Empress the Grand Chancellor’s treachery. He also took with him a letter to Woronzoff, in which Tercier repeated the King’s desire to entertain a secret correspondence with the Empress.[33] Douglas was at the same time on his way to Versailles, having been recalled at the request of Bestoujeff, who was informed by the French ambassador that the recall was an accomplished fact, done as a favour to him.[34]

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

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

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

Invited upon another occasion to join in an English dance, D’Eon said that his business at St Petersburg was not to dance English dances, but to make the English jump!’[38]

D’Eon relates an incident that occurred in November, shortly after his arrival at St. Petersburg. Prince Poniatovsky, envoy extraordinary from Poland, wrote to ask him for certain information on events then passing, his letter being accompanied by a diamond of the value of eight thousand livres. As a matter of course D’Eon handed over the letter and the bribe to the ambassador, by whom the gem was immediately returned to the Polish minister, who got into such a passion that he threw it into the fire. De l’Hôpital reported the circumstance to the Cardinal de Bernis, and the King’s promise was made that such an act of fidelity should be rewarded by the presentation to the secretary of 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 not forget him in after years, his proficiency in the art of fencing being one of the accomplishments that rendered him a favourite with those at Court, and he frequently dined with the grand-duke, with Prince Charles (for a time Duke of Courland), or with Poniatovsky, the evenings being spent in fencing. If pressure of work prevented him from accepting the invitations he received, the French ambassador was scolded by those personages for having detained him at the Embassy.[40]

On February 24, 1758, the Grand Chancellor, Bestoujeff Riumin, was arrested by order of Elizabeth, whilst presiding at a council of ministers. Amidst his papers, which were all seized, was found a scheme for disposing of certain persons obnoxious to him, amongst whom were included Douglas and D’Eon.[41] He was charged with high treason, the French and Austrian ambassadors being loud in their condemnation of his criminal purposes. At the same time were arrested several other persons having constant access to the Grand-Duchess Catherine, such, for instance, as her secretary, her tutor in the Russian language, jeweller, &c., and she herself became the object of so great obloquy that she demanded permission to withdraw to Germany, a step the Empress refused to sanction.

The conjectures formed to account for Bestoujeff’s perfidy were various, but it was generally accepted that Elizabeth, having been seriously indisposed and her death apprehended, the Grand Chancellor was anxious to secure Catherine’s favour by withholding the Russian forces from taking part in further hostilities against Frederick. He also aimed at securing the succession of her child to the exclusion of the grand-duke, his father, with the nomination of herself to the regency, or even her own elevation to the throne. This view of the case received confirmation in after years, for Bestoujeff was never permitted to return from exile until the accession of Catherine.

When under arrest, Bestoujeff was treated with unusual consideration, notwithstanding the general feeling against him from his known intimacy with Apraxin, the cause of so much national disgrace. He was detained for a time a prisoner in his own house, escaping the tortures to which others, equally compromised with himself, had been subjected; and, although designated ‘a traitor grown old in iniquity,’ it was decreed in the imperial manifesto ordering his trial, that ‘no severity was to be employed for the purpose of exacting his evidence or confession; but whatever he chose to say was to be noted.’

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

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

It was not at the hands of the Empress of Russia that D’Eon cared to receive honours. For his important services at the Court of that monarch he was promoted by Louis XV. to the rank of captain of dragoons, and awarded a pension of two hundred ducats, to be paid by the Count de Broglio out of the secret service money.

In the course of this year D’Eon found time to publish a work, in two volumes, entitled ‘Confédérations Historiques sur les Impôts des Egyptiens, des Babyloniens, des Perses, des Grecs, des Romains, et sur les différentes situations de la France, par rapport aux Finances, depuis l’établissement des Francs dans la Gaule jusqu’à present.’[45]

CHAPTER III.

Apraxin’s defection was a fine thing for Frederick. Two great events followed—the humiliating defeat of the French at Rosbach (October 31), by Seidlitz and his cavalry, shall we say? and the battle of Leuthen (December 5), in which eighty thousand Austrians were worsted by thirty thousand Prussians. And thus ended the campaign of 1757. The following year Field-Marshal Fermor, Apraxin’s successor, entered Eastern Prussia, occupied Königsberg, and was beaten by Frederick at Zorndorff (August 25, 1758). Prince Soltikoff, who replaced Fermor, was also about to lose a battle at Künersdorff (August 12, 1759); but the day ended happily for him, his ninety thousand men having almost annihilated the forty-eight thousand Prussians by whom he was opposed.

This much of what the Russians did, and we shall have got to the end of 1759, after an illustration, from concurrent testimony, of D’Eon’s share in the progress of the war.

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

On December 30, 1758, was signed by Louis XV. and Maria Theresa a treaty in confirmation of their previous treaty still in force, except that it determined with greater precision respective obligations; France, for instance, binding herself to keep an army of 100,000 men in Germany. Elizabeth was invited to join, and she did so. Of this matter the Duke de Choiseul, for some months Minister for Foreign Affairs, was completely ignorant. There was a time, it was but short, when the duke in his patriotic desire to recover influences lost to France through the feeble administration of the Cardinal de Bernis, his predecessor, had determined upon not entertaining any idea of capitulating with England, so long as soldiers, guns and ships remained, and on prosecuting the war against Prussia until 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 account the alliance with those Powers. As regards Russia, he instructed the ambassador at St. Petersburg (January 9, 1759) to tell Woronzoff, for the information of the Empress, that if the King were to desire peace for the happiness of his people and the repose of Europe, it should only be on conditions honourable to his Majesty and his allies, and which would ensure general tranquillity; but that so far from contemplating such a thing, every arrangement was made for effectively continuing the war during the present and a succeeding campaign, to the end of bringing the enemy to just and reasonable terms. That the Empress might have undoubted proofs of his Majesty’s sentiments on the subject, and to do away with every possible misunderstanding, the King was disposed to conclude, jointly with the two Empresses, or with the Empress of Russia alone, such convention as might be considered necessary for strengthening their union, thereby giving fresh assurances that his Majesty would only act in concert with his allies, communicating with them on all points with that entire confidence which should exist between Powers bound by friendly ties, and whose interests were in common.

Unable to cope with Great Britain on the seas, the Duke de Choiseul formed a plan of invasion, in which he sought the co-operation of Russia and Sweden, whose spheres of action would be the Scottish coast. ‘Should fifty thousand men perish in the first expedition,’ he wrote to Count Bernstorff, ‘the King has signed the determination to send other fifty thousand, and we shall not be discouraged so long as we have men in France.’[47] The hesitations of those Powers, the destruction of the French fleets in the East Indies, off Cape Lagos, and in Quiberon Bay, and of the flotilla prepared for the invasion of England, upset the whole of the duke’s schemes, and gave him good cause to change his tactics. He would now hail peace if he could. He turned to de l’Hôpital (July 8, 1759), and desired him to seize an early opportunity for feeling his way with the Grand Chancellor, and suggesting to that minister, as a private opinion of his own, the desirability of Russia’s mediation between Austria and Prussia, whereby she would secure to herself the gratitude of Europe. De Choiseul believed that if the Germanic Powers could but arrange their differences, Russia might become useful in bringing about an understanding between France and England.

De l’Hôpital—gouty, good-natured, and easy-going—had made it a practice never to act without first consulting his confidential secretary. That secretary, at the present time, was D’Eon, who recommended that no notice whatever should be taken of the minister’s letter. De l’Hôpital agreed. At the expiration of a couple of months de Choiseul again wrote, this time impatiently and reproachfully.

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

Turning again to Vandal, we find the King’s approval of D’Eon’s counsel to de l’Hôpital, and verification of the former’s statement in the paragraph above quoted.

Four years of anxious and hard toil in a climate which did not suit him had told on D’Eon’s health, until he felt seriously inconvenienced from scurvy and an affection of the eyes, and his return to France became but a question of time. He was longing for home. Apart from his dislike to life at Court, where he felt that ‘it was impossible for a simply virtuous, non-intriguing and dispassionate man to succeed,’ he had made up his mind that Russia was not a country for a freeman to live in. He could not forget that he and five other officers attached to the Embassy had to lay aside their uniforms, to avoid the insults offered by soldiers and people of the lower class, at times when France was meeting with reverses, such as those at Rosbach and Minden; and the mortification he endured at hearing the Empress’ words of comfort to his chief, the French ambassador. It was reported that D’Eon had determined upon not remaining in Russia because he had seen the daughter of Pope Urban X. (sic), who was married to the gardener of a boyar, receive twenty blows with a stick for several days consecutively; and because the said boyar and thirty other boyars were broken on the wheel, two years afterwards, for their share in some Court broil. He mentions this report of himself without adding any comment, but relates an anecdote which clearly confirms his unfavourable opinion of the country he was in. A Russian nobleman said to him one fine summer’s day:—

D’Eon applied for permission to resign on the score of ill-health, and to be allowed to join his regiment, but his departure was necessarily postponed until a suitable successor could be found. For his own part de Choiseul became convinced that de l’Hôpital was no longer fitted for the post of ambassador at St. Petersburg, an opinion shared by the King for quite different reasons, which need not be entered into here. De l’Hôpital, however, was an old and faithful servant to the Crown and deserving of every consideration, so that it was felt to be impossible to recall him abruptly, and such a step was likely to give offence to the Empress, who had taken a fancy to him, and received him at her Court with favour and distinction. As a solution of the difficulty, de Choiseul conceived the idea of appointing a colleague to the marquis with subordinate rank, who should eventually succeed him on his resignation, which, considering his age and increasing infirmities, could not long be delayed. This colleague should be a personal friend of his own, to whom he might confide and entrust his policy and intentions, and he nominated the Baron de Breteuil, a young man of twenty-seven, of distinguished appearance and refined manners. The Count de Broglio, however, also had his candidate, M. Durand, a gentleman attached to the Embassy at Warsaw, the King’s secret agent in that capital, initiated in the system, well conversant in Russian affairs, and therefore eminently qualified to serve the King’s private interests at the Court of Russia in the room of D’Eon. This nomination the duke resolutely refused to entertain. He had undeniably good cause to suspect the existence of some occult influence to his disadvantage, having already found himself thwarted in his plans, in various quarters, without being able to trace the obstruction to its source, and had determined upon carrying his point, which he completely succeeded in doing, by prevailing upon the King to sign the Baron de Breteuil’s credentials as minister plenipotentiary. No sooner had the minister’s choice become an irrevocable fact, than the Count de Broglio and Tercier urged upon the King the expediency of admitting the baron to the secret correspondence, and informing him that he should best be pleasing his master by not carrying out the orders of the minister. The King had great objection to the admission of new disciples, but there appeared to be no alternative, and after a little hesitation his Majesty yielded to the recommendations of his advisers.[53]

On August 23, 1760, de l’Hôpital informed the Minister for Foreign Affairs that M. Poissonnier,[56] the Empress’s private physician, had recommended D’Eon’s instant departure from Russia, his ailments threatening serious consequences.

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

The old marquis followed up these strong recommendations of his young friend with a graceful tribute to his mother at Tonnerre.

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

D’Eon carried away with him a souvenir from the Empress, consisting of a snuff-box with her cipher in diamonds.

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

Upon his recovery, D’Eon was received by the King, who was pleased to confer upon him a life pension of two thousand livres, under warrant dated December 24, 1760, ‘in acknowledgment of his zeal and ability as secretary of Embassy in Russia, a post he has held for several years,’[61] and by the following February he was well enough to be able to realise his dearest and long-deferred wish, that of active service on the field. He requested the Minister for War to transfer him from his own regiment, the dragoons of the Colonel-General, doing duty on the coasts of France, to the regiment of dragoons of the Marquis d’Autichamp, in the army on the Upper Rhine, and applied for permission to serve as aide-de-camp to the Marshal and the Count de Broglio, with both of which solicitations the Minister readily complied, the King specially approving of D’Eon’s being on the staff of those officers, remarking that they should know where to find him if he were wanted.[62] This appointment was a great compliment, for the marshal was intractable in the selection of officers to serve on his staff, and most punctilious in surrounding himself with scions of the noblest families.[63]

We first hear of D’Eon after joining the army as having been present at the battle of Villinghausen,[64] then with the French force that crossed the Weser on August 19. He was under orders that day to remove the powder waggons to a place of safety on the opposite side of the river, and this under the heavy fire of the enemy—‘a perilous operation,’ as allowed by the Duke de Broglie; and being across he was to find the Count de Guerchy, and deliver to that officer a written order from the marshal.

Had de Guerchy promptly carried out the marshal’s instructions the ammunition would have been instantly removed, the enemy’s fire would have ceased, and the lives of one officer and several grenadiers, occupying a redoubt which covered the two bridges of boats on the Weser, to the right and left of Höxter, would have been spared. But upon reading the note the general preferred to gallop out of the way, shouting, as he went: ‘If you have a supply of ammunition, you have only to remove it to a park of artillery you will find at half a league’s distance.’ D’Eon gave spur after him, saying, that since he did not wish to, or was unable to execute the marshal’s order, he might return it, and he should do his best to execute it or cause it to be executed. ‘Take the order, sir,’ said de Guerchy, returning the note, ‘and carry it out according to your own judgment.’ The enemy’s fire being largely directed to where the powder waggons had been removed, and there being no time to lose, D’Eon took it upon himself to distribute the cartridges, with the assistance of several officers of artillery who had volunteered their services.[66]

D’Eon was next engaged in a reconnaissance and action at Ultrop, where he was wounded in the head and thigh; and later (November 7), when at the head of the grenadiers of Champagne and of a body of Swiss, he dislodged the Scottish highlanders in the gorge of the mountain at Einbeck, near Meintos, and pursued them to the English camp; a service he performed with the greatest difficulty, owing to the tenacity of the enemy in keeping up a rapid fire. In the latter engagement he carried the following despatch:—

At Osterwiek, some six to seven hundred Frankish Prussians having intercepted communication with Wolfenbüttel, which was being besieged by Marshal Xavier de Saxe, M. de Saint-Victor was ordered to dislodge them from their position with a few volunteers, twenty hussars, and eighty dragoons of the regiment of d’Autichamp and of de la Ferronaye, in charge of D’Eon. The little detachment of horse was bravely led, and the exploit proved a brilliant one, for the enemy’s battalion was completely routed and every man made a prisoner.

The dispute between the Marshals de Soubise and de Broglio as to who was in the right and who in the wrong at the battle of Villinghausen, had never come to an end; for de Broglio, as became the first soldier of France, refused to be put on a par with the hero of Rosbach. The campaign of 1761 being virtually over, de Broglio felt it was quite time the matter were resolved; and having obtained permission to return to Versailles, hoping to justify his conduct in person, he delivered to the Duke de Choiseul, now Minister for War, for delivery to the King, a lengthy statement particularising the events of July 15 and 16; but the Marquise de Pompadour had taken care that her favourite should not be the sufferer, and nothing the marshal 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’ as being contrary to the interests of his service and a bad example in his kingdom, and ordered him to retire to his country seat, there to remain until further notice.[67]

On leaving Cassel for Versailles, the Marshal and Count de Broglio were accompanied by their aide-de-camp D’Eon, who separated himself from the army never to return to it, through no fault, however, or wish of his own. Short as was his military career, it was at least brilliant, the qualities he displayed of a brave soldier meeting with the high commendation of his superiors, to whom he had become so closely attached by the nature of his duties.

It was the fate of the Count de Broglio, for no ostensible reason, to share the exile of his brother, but with that spirit of contradiction and fickleness inherent in Louis XV., he was retained on the staff of the secret correspondence and ordered to continue his customary duties, the King telling Tercier he was forced to act as he did. The truth is that the King could scarcely do without him, and had felt the force of the remonstrance the count had the courage to offer when on the point of leaving Paris for the family estate. ‘Your Majesty may recollect that for several years past I have foreseen the storm which to-day bursts over me. The very marks of your Majesty’s favour have gathered it about me,’—words that were but the echo of others the count had addressed to the King years before, when similarly misunderstood and suspected by his Majesty’s ministers.

We are purposely dwelling on these murmurings of the Count de Broglio that we may be the better able to show hereafter that he was not the only victim, amongst the confidential correspondents and agents, to the King’s caprice and selfish indifference.

The new year opened with an event—perhaps upon the whole unfortunate for France—the not altogether unexpected death of Elizabeth (January 5); and the accession of Peter III. was the signal for a cessation of hostilities and a complete change of front on the part of Russia. The new Tsar agreed with Frederick to a truce, which developed into an alliance, and afforded him the opportunity for gratifying his tastes for all that was German, and further alienating the respect and sympathy of his people. In her struggle against her husband, for liberty and even life, Catherine turned to France for succour—a circumstance that called for decision and steadfastness of purpose on the part of the French representative at her Court; but the Baron de Breteuil proved himself unequal to the occasion by his pusillanimity and hesitation,[70] and Catherine effected her will independently of French support. The disease was quickly acknowledged and the remedy as quickly found. De Breteuil was to be replaced by D’Eon upon the recommendations of the Duke de Choiseul and of the Count de Broglio, although on different grounds; the King readily approving, because in him would be combined with the minister plenipotentiary what was of greatest importance to his Majesty—a well-tried secret correspondent.[71] Other events, however, bid fair to change these plans. The Emperor was disposed of, and Catherine, in grasping the sceptre, said: ‘If I go to war it will be to suit my own convenience, and not to please others, as was the case with the Empress Elizabeth.’ From various causes Louis XV. refused to continue with Catherine the secret correspondence he had entertained with her predecessor, and D’Eon’s services were consequently no 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 his position, he was removed, at his own request, to Stockholm.

CHAPTER IV.

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

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

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

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

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

The preliminaries of the notable peace of 1763, between France and England, were signed at Fontainebleau on November 3, 1762, the ambassador selected to conduct the negotiations in England being the Duke de Nivernois, once ambassador at Rome, and sent to Berlin in trying circumstances (1756) to endeavour to treat with Frederick. Gaillardet and the Duke de Broglie fall into the same singular error in attributing to this nobleman a portrait by D’Eon, the latter adding disdainfully—‘the portrait was in all probability one that pleased D’Eon, for in his official correspondence the same is applied, word for word, to Lord Sandwich.’ That it was intended for the libertine English peer, of whom it was said

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

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

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

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

Accompanied by this secretary the duke crossed the Channel in September. When his lean figure appeared at the place of embarkation at Calais, an English sailor said to his mate, ‘I say, d’ye see how thin 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 English gentleman (Mr. C. Townsend, one of the Flag party) on seeing him for the first time that he exclaimed: ‘What! the French have sent over the preliminaries of a man to sign the preliminaries of peace!’

In the course of the transactions on the Treaty of Peace, D’Eon executed a somewhat adroit, though entirely indefensible act, which caused no little mirth and secret joy at Versailles. The negotiations so happily commenced met with an obstacle, and being checked in their progress a sort of crisis supervened, when Mr. Wood, Under Secretary of State, called on the Duke de Nivernois to confer on certain contested points, and having his portfolio with him was indiscreet enough to say that it contained the final instructions and ultimatum which Lord Egremont had directed him to transmit to the Duke of Bedford, the King’s ambassador at the Court of Versailles. Upon hearing this the duke looked at D’Eon, and then cast his eye on the portfolio. D’Eon quickly caught at the sense of this pantomime. It would be a matter of great importance to the French Court to know the nature of the instructions and the terms of this ‘fatal ultimatum.’ He made a sign to the duke, who at once invited Mr. Wood to stay to dinner and talk over matters. He wished him, he said, to taste some samples of good wine from Tonnerre.... The bait took, and whilst the duke and Mr. Wood were enjoying their bumpers, D’Eon extracted from the portfolio Lord Egremont’s despatches, caused exact copies to be taken, and forwarded them instantly to Versailles, the French courier arriving twenty-four hours earlier than Mr. Wood’s. When the Duke of Bedford called to broach the subject, de Choiseul and de Praslin, already apprised of the difficulties about to be raised, and of the British ambassador’s final instructions, were readily enabled to come to terms. This was a smart piece of work in de Nivernois’ opinion,[82] and de Praslin declared there was nobody like D’Eon, and that he was quite deserving of all the King’s favours.

D’Eon was instrumental in smoothing away another difficulty. The Duke de Nivernois had altered several articles in the ultimatum of the treaty, an act which gave umbrage to the English ministers, and Count Viri apprised him that if he did not withdraw the alterations he might as well leave the country; to which the duke replied that neither his honour nor dignity would allow of his withdrawing an ultimatum given in the name of the King. Matters were looking serious, when D’Eon proposed that the duke should tell Lords Bute and Egremont of his secretary’s excess of zeal in making alterations unknown to himself. ‘Every tongue will rail, every mouth open upon me,’ continued D’Eon. ‘With all my heart; and if you choose you may also say that you will send me back to France.’ The duke caught at the idea, and had the generosity to explain to de Praslin and to the King his indebtedness to D’Eon.[83]

The conduct of the secretary of Embassy during progress of the negotiations was all that his superiors could desire, and he earned the gratitude of many a French prisoner by his exertions in administering to their comfort. Scarcely a letter left the ambassador that was not replete with the highest encomiums.

On February 10, 1763, Mr. Richard Neville Neville left Paris for London with the Treaty of Peace signed that same evening by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, and Spain;[85] a treaty that compelled France to part with all the territory she had acquired in 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 in exchange for Florida, given up to England, France being permitted to retain Belle-Isle, Martinique, and Guadaloupe—also Chandernagor and Pondicherry, on condition that they should not be fortified, and further engaging to demolish the defences at Dunkirk.

It was an unprecedented mark of favour on the part of George III. to confide to D’Eon the ratifications to the Treaty for conveyance to his Majesty’s ambassador at Versailles.[86] In announcing to de Praslin the approaching departure of his secretary on the proud mission, de Nivernois claimed for him, in accordance with usage, a gratuity of equal value—one thousand crowns—to that about to be received from his own Government by Mr. Neville for having brought the Treaty to London. De Praslin insisted that no English minister would ever think of entrusting such precious documents to a foreigner; it would be contrary to rule and custom, and it would therefore be idle to expect that D’Eon should be selected for the duty. It was the duke’s anxiety, he said, to serve his secretary, that had blinded him to facts and precedent. D’Eon was still young enough to be of good service, and he should take care to afford him the opportunity for earning distinction. When, later, the Foreign Minister had to acknowledge his mistake, he considered the choice of D’Eon to be a very straightforward proceeding on the part of the King of England and of his ministers, who were giving proofs of the nobility of their sentiments, and inspiring the desire and hope for the establishment and maintenance of good relations and lasting concord between the two Courts. ‘I am very glad you were stupid enough[87] to believe it impossible that the French secretary—my little D’Eon—should be the bearer of the King of England’s ratifications,’ wrote De Nivernois in reply.[88]

D’Eon attributed his good luck to the kindness of the King of England, of Lord Bute, Count Viri, the Duke de Nivernois, and to his own savoir-faire. ‘He brings me luck,’ said Louis XV., who received him warmly, and shortly afterwards conferred upon him the Cross of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis, a gratuity of six thousand livres, and raised his salary to the maximum of one thousand crowns. De Praslin was delighted, said D’Eon was a good-looking fellow, a hard worker who had performed his mission with great diligence, and awarded him a gratuity of two thousand crowns. Even the Marquise de Pompadour expressed her satisfaction, in a letter to de Nivernois, at seeing one who it was said was an excellent person, and had served his King in several countries, employed to bring the Treaty to France. She considered it a great act of politeness on the part of the English to entrust him with the Treaty. She liked the King of England, who was full of candour and humanity, and possessed every virtue that constituted a good king.[89]

It had been arranged from the beginning that the Duke de Nivernois’ embassage should end with the completion of the negotiations, the minister nominated to succeed him being the Count de Guerchy, with whom we are already acquainted. ‘I must do him the justice to say,’ wrote the British ambassador in Paris, ‘that de Guerchy has a universal good character as a soldier and a man of honour.’[90] But the Duke of Bedford was greatly led into error in this estimate of the character of a nobleman who was selected regardless of any qualification but that of rank, his strongest recommendation being his marriage with a lady of the House of Harcourt, and his only claims to the highest ambassadorial post in the gift of the King being the favour of the Marquise de Pompadour and a short period of obscure service in the war. He is described by Gaillardet as one of those gentlemen who live nobly in noble idleness, who are charitable until their own purse is touched, ostentatious until called upon to spend, ambitious of high office for the sake of the title, and of the title for the sake of the emolument; esteeming a good estate preferable to a good education; and persuaded that one always knows enough when of good birth, in good health, and possessing a good income. De Praslin’s own opinion of the man he was about to employ as ambassador in London is best gathered from what he says of him to de Nivernois:—

De Nivernois was out of health when he accepted the mission to England at the urgent instance of the King and of his old friend the Count de Choiseul, shortly afterwards created Duke de Praslin, and he never ceased to complain of his physical sufferings from the day he began to live in a climate that did not suit him. He had always hoped to leave ‘his little D’Eon’ in charge until de Guerchy’s nomination was officially notified. He trembled for that poor novice in politics when he thought of the difficulties he should experience in a country where people were far from being like ordinary men; for this envoy of an absolute monarch, puzzled and perplexed in all probability at the large distribution of political power in England, and the number of those who shared in the responsibilities of government, gave it as his opinion that to conduct negotiations in the country to which he had been accredited was nothing short of hard labour!

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

The opportunity for leaving D’Eon in charge on the departure of the ambassador seeming to be lost, de Nivernois recommended him for appointment as Resident, an arrangement desirable in the interests of the King’s service, and one which would enable de Guerchy to receive such valuable assistance as no other person but the secretary of Embassy was qualified to render, for he was fully competent to continue the work he, the ambassador, had commenced. D’Eon’s presence was preferable to that of a stranger. Lord Bute had taken a fancy to him, which was saying a great deal, and was a piece of luck that might not fall to a new-comer. On the other hand, D’Eon was being informed by M. Sainte Foy, senior clerk at the Foreign Office, that it was earnestly desired he should remain with de Guerchy, and yet de Praslin was slow in paying the smallest attention to de Nivernois’ frequent recommendations in his favour. De Praslin had his reasons; he doubted D’Eon’s loyalty towards himself, and suspected him of being in correspondence with the exiled de Broglios. He should put him to the test, and how this was accomplished shall be related in D’Eon’s own words:—

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 de Nivernois if he was not in correspondence with M. de Broglio. ‘No, madam,’ said D’Eon, ‘and I am sorry for it, as I am very fond of the Marshal de Broglio, but I do not wish to trouble him with my letters; I am satisfied with writing to him on each New Year’s Day.’

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

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

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

On March 30 D’Eon arrived in London, and was on the same day invested with the Cross of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis[99] by the Duke de Nivernois, at his own request as had been pre-arranged. He had brought with him some costly presents from his royal master to the Count Viri, Envoy Extraordinary from the King of Sardinia (well known in English history as being engaged in secret negotiations with Lord Bute), in recognition of his valuable services, being the first to mediate for peace between Great Britain and the two illustrious Houses of Bourbon, the King’s thanks being conveyed to the Sardinian minister in a letter from de Praslin.[100]

CHAPTER V.

The appointment, dated April 17, of the Chevalier D’Eon as Resident and Chargé d’Affaires, relieved de Nivernois of his functions and left him free to return to his home and ‘get rid of the violent and well-seasoned cold from which he was suffering—an English cold that seemed to have no end;’ but he delayed his departure for the purpose of proceeding to Oxford and receiving the degree of Doctor, in facultate juris. The duke, who had never been in England before, declared the journey had been most instructive to him. He saw some of the finest things in the world, was greatly astonished at the general high state of cultivation, and at the absence of poor people in the districts through which he travelled—the poorest seemed well to do, and would pass for burgesses in any small French provincial town. De Nivernois left London in May, travelling leisurely to Dover, chiefly in consequence of the state of his health, but also from a wish to see places on the road, and especially Chatham dockyard, and was no doubt the identical French ambassador of whom Smollett, who posted over the same ground a week or two later, relates in one of his letters that he was charged forty pounds by a knave of a publican at Canterbury for a supper that was not worth forty shillings!

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

The first duty upon which the Chevalier was engaged in the capacity of secret agent was to assist in the perfection of a scheme for the invasion of England, devised by the Count de Broglio, approved by the King, whose hatred towards England had greatly intensified since the conclusion of peace, and a task ultimately accomplished to the satisfaction of his Majesty in the face of numerous difficulties. Two persons were selected by de Broglio to effect, in concert, the great work in hand—one, the active agent, was a young officer of Engineers of considerable ability and established reputation, Carlet de la Rosière, who had served during the war, and had been attached for a time as aide-de-camp to the Duke de Broglio. A prisoner of the Prussians, Frederick refused to sanction his exchange. ‘When an officer of distinction is taken,’ said that monarch, ‘he is retained as long as possible.’[101] The other, the passive agent, was de la Rosière’s kinsman, the Chevalier D’Eon. The undertaking was to be completed without the knowledge of any 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.

Every conceivable precaution was taken to avoid discovery and ensure success, and that de la Rosière might not incur the smallest risk of detection by papers of a compromising character being found about his luggage or person, he was ordered to make his periodical reports orally, if possible, to the Chevalier D’Eon, who was to note and retain them within the inviolable precincts of the Embassy, of which he was the genius loci. The King was not indifferent to his own safety.

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

The Chevalier’s instructions were contained in the following letters:—

The count recommended D’Eon to invite his cousin, D’Eon de Mouloise, to stay with him, so that in the event of any unforeseen circumstance he might give him charge of the correspondence, with the strictest injunctions not to pass it on to any person whatsoever, and more especially not to de Guerchy. The count concluded by recommending to D’Eon’s protection the Marquis de la Rosière—

De Praslin failed, as we have seen, to incriminate the Chevalier in a correspondence with the exiled de Broglios, but it so happened that shortly after receiving the duke’s report of his midnight interview with D’Eon, on the subject of the battle of Villinghausen, de Pompadour obtained certain information tending to confirm her suspicions, without, however, affording sufficiently tangible evidence. Unsuccessful in securing this, whichever way she directed the scrutiny of those at Court too pliant to her will, her spirit of malevolence impelled her not to stop short of anything in the attainment of her wishes.

D’Eon attributed de Pompadour’s attention being directed towards himself to the action of an informer with whom he had long been acquainted. We quote his own narrative:—

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

The Chevalier’s nomination as Resident at the Court of St. James’ was succeeded by that, on May 31, of Mr. Neville, in succession to the Duke of Bedford, as Resident and Chargé d’Affaires at the French Court, the same rank with which D’Eon was invested, and with whom Neville was placed in every respect on the same footing. D’Eon had been received by George III., but when, in due course, Neville demanded an audience, he was informed by the ‘Introducteur des Ambassadeurs’ that there never was an instance of a resident having had an audience to present his credentials. Neville pressed his rights until, finding it impossible to approach the King, he reported the difficulty of his situation. De Praslin had in the meantime given official intimation to the above effect to Lord Egremont through D’Eon, and afterwards suggested as a means out of the dilemma that Neville should be accredited minister plenipotentiary, the lowest rank that could be received at the French Court. Lord Egremont quickly reminded the French ministers that since a resident could not be received in audience at the Court of France, they should have better considered their action when making such an appointment. The error was theirs, and it was for them to rectify it by being the first to appoint a minister plenipotentiary, in which case England could reciprocate. An active interchange of letters between the two ministers, from June 13 to July 22, resulted to the great advantage of D’Eon, who received new credential letters giving him the character of minister plenipotentiary, in which quality he was again presented to the King of England; after which, other credentials were furnished to Neville, then for the first time received by his Most Catholic Majesty.[112]

We have reached that period of D’Eon’s life—he was but in his thirty-fifth year—when he had become minister plenipotentiary from France at the Court of Great Britain; he had obtained the coveted knighthood of Saint Louis; he was the secret correspondent of Louis XV., and the secret agent of his Majesty and of the Count de Broglio in the drafting of plans for the invasion of England. Numerous congratulations poured in upon him, among them being those of Count Woronzoff and the Marquis de l’Hôpital, his fellow-workers in Russia. How he took his promotion appears in the following letter—a free and outspoken denunciation of what he felt might be in store for him—to the man he most esteemed and loved.

The Chevalier was greatly liked in English society, and had become a favourite of good George III. We find him included by Horace Walpole amongst the distinguished guests at the Strawberry Hill breakfast given to Madame de Boufflers, and his countrymen were proud of their representative; but a storm was gathering which was about to engulf him, and turn the tide of his fortunes, so brilliant at the outset, in a completely different direction.

The Count de Broglio’s apprehensions for the safety of de la Rosière’s reports and other private papers of the King, increased as the time of de Guerchy’s departure for England drew nigh. In his restless anxiety, he instructed D’Eon to remove himself and every private document in his charge from the French Embassy, before the ambassador made his appearance, to apartments where they should be absolutely beyond his interference and reach. Any excuse would do to account for his change of residence, and he was recommended to take to live with him either of his kinsmen, D’Eon de Mouloise or Carlet de la Rosière, who would be valuable protection against any attempt at a surprise, and trusty substitutes in the event of any unforeseen accident to himself; in fact, every precaution was to be taken to prevent the secret correspondence from falling into the hands of strangers, and especially of the King’s ambassador and ministers. In a few days the precious documents were securely deposited in a house in Dover Street, to which D’Eon removed immediately upon the arrival of the Count de Guerchy.

So thoroughly was the secret maintained that after four months even the late ambassador, the Duke de Nivernois, who was on the most intimate and friendly terms with all at Court, expressed his surprise at D’Eon’s having quitted the Embassy. ‘Why do you always wish to live by yourself and remain in loneliness?’ he wrote; ‘how can you live separated from your work, and where can your work be, but under the ambassador’s roof?’ The Chevalier quotes Psalm cii. 7, and adds cynically: ‘I prefer the solitude of my little library to the society of the great. Men are not good for much. Knaves or fools; so much for three-fourths of them; as for the other fourth, they stay at home.’

The Marquise de Pompadour had condemned the Chevalier D’Eon for acts he had not committed—he had not betrayed his connection with the de Broglios, he refused to betray the King his master—both ever existing grievances in her mind, and she decreed his fall and disgrace. Men willing to stoop to do her will, and sufficiently powerful to carry it out, were not wanting at Versailles. With such as the Duke de Praslin, the Count d’Argental, and the Count de Guerchy, pretexts could never fail, and the Chevalier’s epistolary dissensions with de Praslin on certain monetary claims against the State, which he honestly persisted in making, as also his just resentment of de Guerchy’s censures on what the latter considered excessive outlay at his expense, during the term of D’Eon’s office as French representative in London, readily made up the sum of heavy charges wherewith to crush him. We would avoid anticipating events, but let us say here, that designs even on the life of the minister plenipotentiary were contemplated by two, at the least, of the triumvirate which had bound itself to wreck him.[114]

When D’Eon was first sent on secret service to Russia, he had to contract a loan of ten thousand livres on his own account to meet his expenses. Ordered by M. Rouillé, Minister for Foreign Affairs, when despatched to Russia for the second time officially, to remain with the Chevalier Douglas until the arrival of the ambassador, Douglas considered it desirable, in view of the coming changes, that D’Eon’s application for reimbursement should not be made except to his own Court, feeling persuaded that sooner or later his claim would be acknowledged by the latter. Acquiescing in this, D’Eon deferred pressing for money, and contented himself by zealously carrying out what he knew to be the wishes of M. Rouillé, who had frequently and authoritatively promised him promotion and rewards, should the mission upon which he was employed turn out a success; but upon his return to France that minister was no longer in office, and when he solicited the Cardinal de Bernis and the Duke de Choiseul for a settlement, was met by each with the reply, ‘You should have obtained payment of my predecessor.’

From the time that de Praslin, as Count de Choiseul, had succeeded his cousin, the Duke de Choiseul, in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, D’Eon took frequent occasion to remind him of his entangled situation, arising from having to pay interest on the original loan of ten thousand livres expended in the interests of the Crown. His debt had increased to fifteen thousand livres, and he found himself seriously compromised and threatened by his creditors, with no prospect whatever, considering his own limited resources, of being able to satisfy their just demands. Having settled his small property on his mother, he was entirely dependent on his own exertions, and, notwithstanding the estimation in which his services were held, he had always been kept a poor man. His salary as secretary of Embassy in Russia never exceeded three thousand livres, and even that was reduced to one thousand crowns upon the Duke de Choiseul assuming office. When on leave of absence from his regiment, awaiting orders to proceed to St. Petersburg, his pay was stopped; and as secretary of Embassy in London he was in receipt of three thousand livres only. ‘Three thousand livres a year,’ wrote de Nivernois to de Praslin, when pressing the Chevalier’s claims to greater consideration, ‘does not go so far in London as would fifteen thousand livres in Paris. These are but the wages of an ordinary clerk ... his salary should be more in accordance with the style of living in England, where everything is singularly expensive.’ De Praslin was not to be moved, and yet what stronger proof was needed of his sense of the wrongs under which D’Eon was suffering, and of the recognised serious nature of his embarrassments, than is to be found in the singular document supplied to him as protection in France against arrest and detention, at a moment when he was required to proceed to Versailles, with the ratifications to the Treaty of Peace.

Pursued and worried by his creditors at home and abroad, and in despair at the extremities to which he was being reduced, the Chevalier lost all control over himself 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, de Nivernois, for having written so ‘churlish’ a letter to de Praslin, was met by D’Eon’s regret that his ‘churlish’ letter had given cause for vexation. The truths he exposed, and the integrity of his demands, were not intended to vex two just and enlightened ministers.... He respectfully demanded justice of a minister he respected ... he respected the minister’s economy that refused to pay his debts, but he respected much more his justice that should pay them. So soon as he received the money, he would become as meek as a paschal lamb.

CHAPTER VI.

Simultaneously with the griefs that were being so vigorously laid before de Praslin, the Chevalier was indulging in a brisk interchange of letters with de Guerchy, in which he vindicated himself with no little dexterity against the charges of wanton extravagance as host at the embassy in London, for the general maintenance of which the count was solely responsible, the liberal allowance of a minister at one of the first Courts in Europe being enjoyed by him, though only ambassador in petto, and not by the minister plenipotentiary in situ. The spirit of satire and sarcasm in which D’Eon had latterly indited his letters to both those ministers was more than either could bear with; but, forgetting their dignity in the face of what, after all, was gross insubordination, they gave way to a feeling of resentment, the former in admonitions and threats, after receipt of the ‘churlish’ note; the latter, by being offensive and insulting, and persisting in peevish and unbecoming lamentations on the frequent requisitions to which his pocket was subjected. We cannot undertake to reproduce in full the mutual recriminations, brimming with scorn, that brought to a close the unseemly paper war which irrevocably sealed the fate of the Chevalier D’Eon; but we must at least find room for a few of the ugly things that were said by the strong, as well as by him who was on the defensive, and whom they were deliberately luring to his destruction.

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

It was not in D’Eon’s nature to receive this prevaricating statement with composure. He was not sufficiently cool-headed to make a perfectly good courtier. Smarting under insult and what he considered undeserved injury, he relieved his agitated mind in emphatic language such as this:—

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

In another letter to de Guerchy, the Chevalier writes:—

Unyielding as the Duke de Broglie shows himself to be in his general condemnation of D’Eon, we find him admitting[119] that French persons of distinction abounded in London during several months after the re-establishment of peace, all eager to visit the country so little known and until then so little understood, and whose customs and literature had only just been brought into fashion by Voltaire and Montesquieu. It became the rage, as sometimes happens with society in Paris; and the idea that they were rendering homage to conquerors did not restrain any of the generation of that day, more interested in political and philosophical innovations than in national honour. The Countess de Boufflers[120] had given the signal, arriving with a number of literary people in her train.

Mistrustful, too, of the Chevalier’s veracity, the Duke de Broglie informs his readers that until he had seen the original letter to de Guerchy, dated September 25, in the official archives, he could not believe in the authenticity of the copy published by D’Eon himself in his ‘Lettres, Mémoires et Négotiations Particulières,’ the work to which we are frequently having recourse. The duke’s, and our own readers, will perhaps feel inclined to sympathise with his grace’s amazement at D’Eon’s audacity in holding such language towards his superiors, until they learn the vantage afforded by a vitiated and unscrupulous minister, when he again insulted the Chevalier by seeking his co-operation in an odious and dishonourable transaction. De Guerchy’s complaints of the Chevalier’s extravagance as his locum tenens became so loud and frequent that an idea—a most foul idea—was conceived by de Praslin for making good the supposed losses sustained by his old friend. Incredible as it appeared at the time, de Nivernois lent something more than his countenance in support, for it was he who first proposed it to D’Eon. His letter bore three dates, September 9, 10 and 11, which the Chevalier interpreted by saying that the late ambassador’s hand had refused its office twice, even his ink-horn had shrunk from him, until at last his noble heart had humbled itself to please old friends—the minister and ambassador.

So far as the Chevalier was personally concerned, he felt that all he had to reproach in the Duke de Nivernois was the Italian shrewdness of his great-uncle the Cardinal Mazarin, and the extreme weakness and tenderness of his poor nerves and understanding. He thought the duke must have been endowed to a marvellous extent with a natural fund of honesty, for it was a wonderful fact that, although he had been the friend of three illustrious rascals during the past thirty years, the purity of his soul had never become contaminated by so long and so close a friendship, by so foul and unnatural an alliance. The astounding virtue of the amiable duke reminded him of that of St. Ives. Sanctus Ivo erat advocatus et non latro. O res miranda![121]

One other mortification, the climax to the persecution he was undergoing, the Chevalier was about to endure, and when we shall have become acquainted with it, there will no longer be room for surprise at the bold and unflinching attitude he had been assuming, and at the factious spirit in which he had been addressing his superiors.

When the Chevalier’s credentials as Resident reached England, de Nivernois, perceiving that his protégé’s mission was to end with the appearance of a new ambassador, took occasion to express himself in unmistakable terms to de Praslin on the unfairness of the arrangement, and urged, considering the past valuable services of his secretary and the conditions upon which he had accepted his appointment the preceding autumn, that promotion, to which he was fully entitled, should be permanent. Never ceasing to concern himself in all that related to ‘his little D’Eon,’ de Nivernois, although no longer ambassador, continued his exertions long after returning to France, with the success only of receiving intimation from the minister that the Chevalier was shortly to become minister plenipotentiary, when he should have to abandon his old claim to travelling expenses in Russia; but that upon de Guerchy’s arrival he must return to his duties as secretary of Embassy. Whatever the occasion, however, of the ambassador’s absence from his post in the future, D’Eon should be left in charge with the temporary rank of resident; and this was all he could expect. Feeling how unpalatable such news would be, de Nivernois earnestly recommended the Chevalier to accept the situation and hope for better days. It was true that in again becoming secretary after having been minister plenipotentiary, he was descending from a bishopric to become a miller, but millers who had been bishops were not to be found by the dozen! He warned him against further disposition to rebel, repeating what he had already said more than once: ‘I know the man with whom you will have to deal’—an opinion of de Guerchy much of the same substance as that expressed by the Count de Broglio.

It was very singular, thought the Chevalier, that when 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.

D’Eon further informed the duke that his loins were not sufficiently supple to enable him to vault politically, at one time on the mule of a bishop, at another on the ass of a miller!

Without seeking to justify the Chevalier’s conduct in addressing such flippant letters to his superiors, even to those he loved so well, some indulgence may be claimed under provocation of no ordinary character. His pension, ever in arrear, was irregularly paid; his salary as resident was fixed at the inadequate sum of 12,000 livres, and he was to live at the charge of the ambassador, whose pocket, by desire of de Praslin and de Nivernois, should be spared to the utmost, and for whose sole benefit a gratuity was to be obtained from the King, by a fraud in which it was expected he would connive. It was too true that de Guerchy was totally unfitted for the high office he had been called upon to fill, but ‘little D’Eon, experienced, zealous, and useful,’ would be retained to do the work, and steer the count clear of all eventual troubles; not, however, with the title of minister or resident, to which he had been raised, but as secretary of Embassy, to which he would have to descend, resuming the former rank at such times only as the ambassador might be absent from his post. ‘Little D’Eon, an easy, good-natured fellow,’ would have peaceably resigned himself almost to any arrangement in accordance with the pleasure of ministers; but the prospect of degradation to secretary, at the same Court at which he had become plenipotentiary, was more than his proud spirit could bear. This was the open wound that never healed.... He had been directed by the King to receive his instructions from Tercier as if they came from himself; he accordingly wrote to Tercier for guidance, received expressions of sympathy and confessions of indignation, and being supported by further secret orders from his sovereign, he determined on his course of action.

For several months past an ambassador to France had been talked about, and so early as April 14, D’Eon had intimated to de Guerchy that it was commonly believed Lord Hertford would be named, accompanying the information, as was his custom, with a sketch of that nobleman. The earl was a Knight of the Garter, the father of six sons and six daughters all living, without counting those to come, for her ladyship was still young and in an interesting condition. His lordship spoke French well, and was just the man to preserve the peace so happily arranged between the two nations. He was a very courteous and amiable man, and of the same illustrious family as the beautiful Seymour, one of the empty-headed wives of a heartless king—he alluded to Henry VIII.[122]

The official notification of the Earl of Hertford’s appointment, September 29, as ambassador to the Court of France, was quickly followed by the official nomination, October 3, of the Count de Guerchy. Speaking of the new minister, George III. asked the French plenipotentiary if he was a good officer as general of infantry, to which D’Eon replied that he was so good as never to have harmed anybody, and although a general of infantry he considered him better qualified to command cavalry, because at the battle of Minden he recommended the cavalry to be placed in the centre and infantry on the wings. De Guerchy arrived in London on October 17, and put up at Lord Holland’s. The Chevalier hastened to wait upon his new chief, and the two men stood face to face, not for the first time in their lives, de Guerchy at once betraying the spirit by which he was animated, in expressing his surprise at D’Eon not being present when he alighted from his coach, and then asking whether he did not regret having written to him his letter of September 25. ‘No, sir, and were you to write me such another letter as that of September 4, from Jouy, I should be obliged to send you a similar reply.’ De Guerchy added that he should preserve the original as long as he lived; to which D’Eon replied that if he feared to lose it he begged to offer copies in quadruplicate, with his own attestation ne variatur! And so ended the first interview in England between these two men, whose malignant hatred of each other was not even swallowed up in death.

In the course of the evening, de Guerchy informed D’Eon that he had brought his letters of recall. ‘A la bonheur (sic), Monsieur le Comte!’ said the latter. ‘I will call for them in the morning, and at the same time hand over all papers likely to be of consequence to you.’ The following day, after de Guerchy had received the Embassy archives and assumed official charge, the Chevalier demanded his letters of recall. The ambassador, strangely agitated, searched drawers, portfolios, and elsewhere, and finding them at last in his pocket, gave them to D’Eon, at whose quiet acceptance of them he seemed disconcerted. D’Eon believed that the pretended search was to give him time to make some kind of apology for the past.

The Chevalier was recalled, and yet expressly forbidden to appear at Court! There was apprehension lest he should bring to light the iniquities of which he was the victim! He was greatly moved at the contents of this letter, for even the despatch he had received some days previously, through the hands of a secret courier, had scarcely prepared him for so overwhelming a blow.

‘I have frequently heard the Chevalier D’Eon repeat to my father,’ says Madame Campan, ‘the contents of this letter, in which Louis XV. thus separated his individuality from the person of the King of France. The Chevalier or Chevalière had kept all the King’s letters ...’[125] yet the Duke de Broglie refuses to acknowledge its authenticity, and labours to prove that it is an imposture.[126]

No sooner had the Chevalier read de Praslin’s letter than it fell from his hands. He began to suspect, for the first time, the evils that menaced him. What was he to hope from the strength of character of a monarch who deserted him when he had done nothing but obey his commands, and whose only exhibition of courage consisted in signing away his downfall with the stamp instead of with the sign-manual. Unable to adopt and digest the idea that the King would submit himself to the will of others, and sacrifice one who was dear to him and whom he supported in secret, the Chevalier concluded that the affixing of a stamped signature could only have been an act of momentary weakness, a concession to temporary necessities, and he felt that he should be the more surely justified, from having been so unjustly condemned. Reflections such as these gave him courage and hope; he resumed his habitual gaiety, his usual indifference, and resolved upon adhering to all the King’s instructions, whatever the damaging situations in which they might place him. He did not, however, resign himself to this sort of humiliation without a struggle, being specially sensitive on points of honour and self-esteem, feelings to which he was prone, and which were readily excited within him.... He awaited his enemies with resignation, having made up his mind to yield, step by step, inch by inch, and make them pay dearly for a triumph he some day hoped to avenge.[127]

It had become de Praslin’s object to crush the Chevalier, first by degrading him, then seizing his person, when he would have thrown him in all probability into the Bastille. To effect this, he showed D’Eon’s two letters of September 25 to the King—the one to himself, the other to de Guerchy—and maintained that both sufficiently betrayed aberration of wind in the plenipotentiary, who could not possibly continue at a foreign court. It was under pressure such as this that Louis XV., feigning to believe in the 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 proving his guilt, de Praslin contented himself by causing forged letters of recall to be presented to the King of England by the Count de Guerchy. There was nothing in this to manifest the majesty of ministerial justice—it was the feeble apology of a desperate cause.’[129]

It was enough for the Chevalier to have learnt from the King himself that his letters of recall were not signed with the sign-manual; he felt assured that his Majesty could not be prevailed upon to sign away, with his own hand, his perdition, whilst want of firmness and feebleness of character had precluded him from fairly interposing in the action of his minister, and he refused to recognise the authenticity of the document.[130]

Had D’Eon gone on to state how injured innocence was to reach a despotic monarch, his experience would have been of service to many, even in this the last but one decade of the nineteenth century; for the absolutism of his adored master, his Most Christian Majesty Louis XV., is not to be compared to that of one Christian ruler of these our times, the Imperial ruler, who, whatever the disposition of his heart, is condemned by tradition and long custom to spend his days in lonely grandeur, invisible and unapproachable to all but one or two dissembling and unfaithful ministers, too often shunned by even his nearest relatives, and therefore unjustly mistrusted and despised by his subjects of every class.

CHAPTER VII.

With his usual alacrity and wariness in anticipating difficulties, by strengthening the position into which he sometimes fancied he was forced by chance, the Chevalier took occasion to represent to Lord Halifax, at a special interview for which he had asked, that he could not consider his letters of recall as authentic. In the first place, they had been brought by the Count de Guerchy, which was absolutely contrary to all precedent, and in these letters he was styled, simply, Minister Plenipotentiary, the titles of Knight of the Order of Saint Louis and Captain of Dragoons being omitted, although they appeared in his credentials; and what was of most importance, they were not signed with the King’s own hand. Lord Halifax expressed surprise at these informalities, and said that any English minister rash enough to make use of the King’s signature under similar circumstances would be doing so at the risk of his head; the King of England signed with his own hand all letters to foreign princes, and all special instructions to his ministers. Such an expression of opinion was exactly what the Chevalier wanted.[132]

The Embassy archives received by de Guerchy were contained in the same four despatch-boxes in which they had been delivered to D’Eon by de Nivernois, and consisted only of the official cypher and ordinary correspondence; but on taking leave of Madame de Pompadour and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, de Guerchy had engaged to secure, not only the Chevalier’s person, but every scrap of paper in his possession. Failing to obtain them coaxingly, he imperiously demanded, in the many angry altercations on the subject, that all the documents which had passed into his hands during his term of office, should be immediately and unconditionally given up! D’Eon quietly persisted in his refusal to surrender all such other papers as he conceived he had a right to retain, unless he received orders to the contrary direct from the King, and on October 23 he furnished the ambassador with this decision in writing.

The nature of the papers they coveted was a mystery to de Pompadour, de Praslin, and de Guerchy, except that it was believed they incriminated D’Eon in a correspondence with the proscribed de Broglios. Such would certainly have been the case, but they also included the detailed plans for an invasion of England, contemplated, as we are aware, and being completed during the few months that had transpired since the treaty of peace had been signed.

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

D’Eon declined the Secretary of State’s invitation to take leave of the King on the 26th, but he attended his Majesty’s levée on that day, and a dinner party in the evening at Lord Halifax’s, where the company included Mr. 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 the appointed audience. The Chevalier made his usual laconic reply: ‘Because I am awaiting further instructions,’ which led to an agitated and unseemly disputation, until D’Eon brought it to a close by addressing himself to the three English ministers who happened to be conversing together. ‘The Count de Guerchy forces me to the honour of declaring to your Excellencies, that I do not take leave at any audience, because I am awaiting further instructions,’ which little speech ‘de Guerchy confessed he was quite unable to comprehend, being himself a novice in diplomatic matters.’ Lord Halifax showing some inclination to take de Guerchy’s part, D’Eon drew from his pocket the invitation to dinner he had received, and said to his lordship: ‘Your Excellency has invited the minister plenipotentiary to dinner; I entreat that it be not delayed. It is late, and personally, I wish to avail myself peaceably of the honour you have done me. I do not come here to excite a disturbance but to bring peace.’ For such bold words as these, Lord Halifax, who as yet knew but little of D’Eon, was scarcely prepared; but they sufficed to put him on his guard, as the sequel will show, for he was beginning to discover that he had to do with a somewhat strange, perhaps violent, and at any rate very singular character.

There called at the French Embassy one day in August, a tall, lean Frenchman, who announced himself as M. Treyssac de Vergy, a great friend of the Duke de Praslin and the Count de Guerchy, and other French ministers, and as having come to England to visit a country of which so little was known. The Chevalier D’Eon received him politely, but reminded him that it was customary to bring letters of introduction to a minister, and hoped that he would make it his business to do so; to which de Vergy replied that he did not consider such letters at all necessary from his being on terms of great intimacy with the Count de Guerchy, whom he had met at supper at the house of the Marquises de Villeroy, de Lirré, &c., and who was sure to embrace 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, in the presence of several members of the Embassy, that he should have to refuse him admittance if he again made 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 was announced. The Countess de Guerchy asked D’Eon, aside, if he knew him. ‘No, Madame, but I have my suspicions about him.’ ‘Hush! M. D’Eon; pray do not speak so loud.’ De Guerchy then inquired of D’Eon if he was acquainted with de Vergy. ‘No, Monsieur le Comte, and I have already informed him that he must bring letters of recommendation.’ Then, turning to de Vergy, he said: ‘Here is the Count de Guerchy who you know so well, and with whom you have supped at the Marquise de Villeroy’s. I do not see that he flies to embrace you.’ An awkward silence of some moments was broken by de Guerchy: ‘Monsieur de Vergy, I do not know you at all, nor have I met you at supper at the Marquise de Villeroy’s, although I have the honour of knowing that lady, and have frequently supped 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’s pardon, I thought I had the honour of being acquainted with you.’ Then, turning to D’Eon: ‘I have heard it said that you were a polite man; there never was a greater mistake. You do not know, M. D’Eon, the fate that awaits you in France.’ These last words he repeated a second time. The Chevalier, who was a perfect stranger to de Vergy’s business in England, took the latter by the arm. ‘My politeness does not extend to lying in behalf of others. I do not give you the lie, because you do not know what it is to tell the truth.... I have nothing with which to reproach myself, and am by no means anxious as regards my fate, in France or elsewhere.... Were we not in the presence of the ambassador and of his lady, I should very soon prove to you that I am not afraid of your threats.’ Other visitors being announced, the ambassador authoritatively put an end to the altercation, and to D’Eon’s great surprise, de Vergy was permitted to spend the evening in the general company.

On the morning of the 26th, whilst the Chevalier was absent from home attending the King’s levée, de Vergy called at his residence in Dover Street, and being informed, in answer to his inquiries, that D’Eon was always at home at nine o’clock, left word that he should call at that hour the following day, fully expecting to find him in. D’Eon took in the significance of this message, and in the evening, after dinner at Lord Halifax’s, he privately related to his lordship the whole of the de Vergy incidents, and the challenge openly left at his house that morning. For once, the Chevalier neglected his measures of prudence. Lord Halifax had scarcely time to forget the mild reproof D’Eon found the courage to administer to him that evening, before being unconcernedly told of an intended breach of the peace by one in whose own country duelling was forbidden under pain of death.[134]

Lord Halifax thanked the plenipotentiary for the information he had communicated, and shortly invited the French ambassador into another room, where they remained closeted for some minutes, and on coming out again the two joined Mr. Grenville and Lord Sandwich in close conversation. Lord Halifax then asked the Chevalier 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 shall certainly await him.’ ‘Well, then,’ said Lord Halifax, ‘were you even the Duke of Bedford, I should have to give you in charge of the Guards.’ ‘I have not the honour 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 an engagement at the play-house this evening, and beg to take leave of your Excellency.’ On turning to leave the room he was surprised to find the door locked, and said somewhat testily to the ministers, that he never could have believed it possible for a minister plenipotentiary from France to find himself a prisoner in England, in the house of a Secretary of State; whereupon Lord Halifax handed him a slip of paper, with the request that he would attach his signature to what was written on it. D’Eon read the note, and as he persisted in refusing to sign it, although repeatedly pressed to do so by the ministers, the door was thrown open, and a detachment of the Guards, with bayonets fixed, occupied the room in which the company was assembled, and the adjoining chambers as well. There were no means of retreat. On seeing the officer, D’Eon said: ‘Do your duty and I will do mine. If it is to see me home that you have come I need no soldiers, for I can go perfectly well alone and on foot.’ Then, addressing the ministers, he intimated that when his regiment again looked upon the uniform he was wearing, it should either be unsullied or drenched in blood! A compromise was effected, the soldiers were withdrawn, and the Chevalier signed the following declaration ‘in obedience to orders.’

Beyond reporting the circumstance of the Guards being summoned during the evening of October 26 to keep the peace, the daily papers gave no details of what passed in the reception-rooms of one of the King’s ministers;[135] a variety of inaccurate versions found easy credence, and one other blunder was added to the acts of a blundering ministry.

De Vergy was true to his tryst. ‘Here am I, sir, in fighting trim, only let me ask you a question. Are you minister plenipotentiary or a captain of dragoons? because if you are a minister I retire.’ ‘I am delighted to see you, for I have been expecting you. To you, I am simply a dragoon.’ D’Eon then secured the door, intending to detain his visitor until he had sent word to the Embassy that de Vergy was with him. ‘Do not touch me!’ cried de Vergy in alarm; ‘do not touch me!’ ‘What!’ said D’Eon smiling, ‘you come to me in 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 writing materials: ‘I require you to read this note, and sign it in duplicate.’ De Vergy started at seeing a brace of cavalry pistols and a sabre. ‘Do not kill me!’ D’Eon lay 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, and was making for the door when D’Eon stopped him. ‘I must trouble you to leave by the back way; my friends only pass through that door. Tell me who you are, or I shall hand you over to the Embassy.’ ‘M. D’Eon, do not detain me here or I am a lost man.’ ‘Well, Mr. Adventurer, you may go; I do not wish for the death of a sinner, but rather for his conversion. If you bring letters and prove to me that you are an honest man, I shall be a good friend to you.’ D’Eon at once sent the duplicate of de Vergy’s declaration to the ambassador, who complimented him upon his honourable behaviour; and de Vergy, having made the best of his way to the police-court, to lodge a complaint against the man who had been bullying him that morning, the Chevalier received the following notice in the course of the day:—

No notice was taken of this summons by the Chevalier, in the first place because it was not authenticated by any signature, and because as minister plenipotentiary he did not consider himself bound to answer it. The matter went no further.

Regardless of his dignity, the ambassador continued to importune D’Eon for the surrender of his papers, advances that were now met in that spirit of defiance the Chevalier thought himself safe in assuming, armed as he was with the King’s secret commands. De Guerchy was furious at D’Eon’s obstinacy and intractability, and resorted to endless expedients for injuring him in public and private estimation. Acting as he did, in concert with de Praslin, his first care was to circulate the report of the Chevalier’s insanity, which he even carried to the Princess Augusta at Court. He caused two damaging pamphlets to be published,[137] and further annoyed him in a hundred different ways, even to the jeopardy of his person, hoping to drive him out of the country and back to France. De Guerchy, however, was no match for his dexterous subordinate, and he so far forgot himself as to entreat the Duke de Choiseul to write a flattering and coaxing letter to the Chevalier, under the title of minister plenipotentiary, to invite him to repair to Versailles and lay his grievances before the King. ‘You will perhaps think me a fool for asking you to resort to means so little consonant with your character, but I do not see my way to anything else for the present.’[138]

The Chevalier did lay his grievances before the King, but in a manner very different to that intended by de Guerchy, for he reported in a long despatch, taken to Versailles 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 indispensable to our narrative:—

These incidents, the attempts made to bribe his servants, the fact of a sedan being continually stationed at his door, although it was not ordered, convinced him of some bold design on his person and papers, and he resolved upon leaving his apartments in Dover Street, which he did on November 9, removing to the house of a Mr. Lautem, wine merchant, 32 Brewer Street, Golden Square, which became his abode for many years after.

A puerile annoyance to which D’Eon had been subjected during the last few days of his stay in Dover Street, was a rapping and plaintive sounds at two o’clock every morning, which proceeded from the flue of a chimney communicating between his own bedroom, and the apartments in the floor below occupied by L’Escallier, private secretary to the ambassador, who, as the zealous auxiliary in the plots of his master, employed a young sweep to ascend the chimney and make ‘ghostly noises.’ The count was trying very hard to pass off D’Eon for a madman, and that he might obtain evidence to that effect, had conceived this bright idea for frightening the Chevalier, imagining that such noises and groans in the dark would terrify him, cause him to leave his bed and summon the servants. Monin, the count’s old tutor, who lodged in the room above L’Escallier and the other dependants devoted to him, would be able to depose that nothing was found; that there was no cause for alarm, and thus prove the minister plenipotentiary’s insanity, or at any rate his being a visionary, which would go far towards completing the success of the scheme for having him arrested and confined as a lunatic. ‘This incident of itself suffices to illustrate the meanness and wickedness of the count and his party.’[141]

Although a good deal of trouble was taken to persuade Louis XV. that his minister plenipotentiary in London was demented, he does not appear ever to have seriously believed in the accusation. After seeing D’Eon’s letters of September 25 to de Praslin and de Guerchy, we find the King writing to Tercier, October 11, 1763:—

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

As Walpole was not present at Lord Halifax’s the evening of October 26, he probably obtained these details from his friend de Guerchy.

Thwarted at all points by the Chevalier, who was proving himself to be his superior in shrewdness and audacity, and indeed in every other quality that the circumstances during their sensational disputes necessitated, and dreading the certain exposure, by his intended victim, of the criminal act of which he had been guilty, the ambassador, miserably perplexed, entreated his valued friend de Praslin to extricate him out of a position which had become quite unendurable. The result was a joyous one to de Guerchy, a special courier having brought a request to the British Government for the extradition of D’Eon and the seizure of all his papers; but with his habitual foresight and caution, the King took care to forestall the ministers by despatching a secret messenger with written instructions to his ambassador and to his minister plenipotentiary, neither of whom was to be made aware of the communication received by the other.

Thus was the Chevalier about to be dealt with as an ordinary malefactor for having braved the fury of de Praslin and of the ambassador, losing also his best friend de Nivernois, in his intense devotion to the King whose secret correspondence and interests in England he was protecting; and because his freedom was imperilled by the ministers of France, the selfish, vacillating, and weak monarch was secretly scheming for the transfer of the compromising papers into the custody of the very man from whom it had cost D’Eon so much to withhold them, and for doing which he had been fast ensuring his own ruin. The King was feeling that the step he had taken threatened imminent danger to the other secret agents immediately concerned—the Count de Broglio and Tercier, but his conscience was easily relieved, and in addressing a few words of explanation and comfort to the latter, he fancied he was justifying his course of action, and reassuring those who were serving him far more faithfully than he deserved.

De Broglie was of an entirely different opinion. Upon hearing of what the King had done, he declared to 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 acquainted with it.[145]

CHAPTER VIII.

In hastening to make a formal demand for the arrest of D’Eon and seizure of all his papers, the French ambassador was feeling satisfied that the days of his obnoxious subordinate were numbered, but ‘one of the qualities of a great general is the glance, in war, that reveals to him the advantages and disadvantages of the field on which the contest is about to take place. Had General de Guerchy known this, would he ever have selected the ground of liberty in London and Westminster to wage an unjust and despotic war against the Chevalier D’Eon? But this would not be matter for surprise, when it was once known that at the battle of Minden he gave the marvellous advice to place cavalry in the centre and infantry on the wings. The result of the two actions could not but be similar.’[146]

The Chevalier was perfectly safe. Lord Halifax sent the case, ‘which was of a very extraordinary kind and without any known precedent,’ for the consideration of the Advocate and Solicitor-General, and eventually had to inform the French ambassador that, ‘according to the law of the kingdom, it would be impossible to justify the seizure either of the person or of the papers’ of the Chevalier D’Eon.[147]

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

The Chevalier was fully aware of the proceedings of his enemies, and took his precautions accordingly. The security of the King’s papers being his first care, he confided a portion of them to de la Rosière, and actually sent him to France, there to remain, at least for a time. Then, to ensure himself from the abduction with which he was now threatened by an organised force, having concealed the remainder of the papers in his apartments, he converted them into a stronghold after the following manner:—His bedroom, sitting-room, and study on the first floor were mined, also the staircase, which he further intrenched. He kept a lamp burning throughout the night, and had a red-hot poker at his side during the day. His arsenal included four brace of pistols, two guns, and eight sabres. The garrison consisted of several dragoons of his old regiment, for whom he had sent, and some deserters he picked up in London, all trusty men, who occupied the basement with orders to admit the police officers should they at any time seek to enter, and then cut off their retreat while he defended the intrenchment. It was arranged that, in the event of his being worsted, he should make a preconcerted signal to intimate that they were to run for their lives, whilst he fired the mine.[148]

Thus prepared, D’Eon resolutely awaited eventualities. De Guerchy made one other advance, after failure of the demand for extradition. He sent a conciliatory letter to the Chevalier, by one of the gentlemen at the Embassy, in which he renewed application for the surrender of the King’s papers. The reception with which the attaché met may well be gathered by the nature of D’Eon’s reply:—

The Chevalier was thus proving himself to be more than a match for the ambassador, who was finally obliged to confess to the King his complete failure in every effort he had made to execute his Majesty’s commands.

We have been obliged to reproduce, almost at length, the communications received by the King from de Guerchy, because they show how successfully D’Eon was keeping at bay, or misleading all those, whose hands he considered were lifted against him. ‘I have at last received a letter from M. de Guerchy with Monin’s memorandum enclosed, which I send to you,’ wrote Louis XV. to Tercier; and then the King betrays his uneasiness and restless anxiety for the safety of his papers, and yet his objection to having them in his own possession or anywhere about him, fearing perhaps a repetition of the scene in the month of June. ‘Take care of the Sieur de la Rosière, or rather of his papers, for it is known that he is here, and if he were visited all might be discovered.’[152]

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

Thus divested of his dignity, the Chevalier was also declared guilty of high treason, and all arrears of emoluments due to him were forfeited to the Crown—a pitiful situation naturally evoking very warm sympathy on the part of his old chief and well-wisher, the Count de Broglio, who himself had long been paying the penalty of his devotion to their mystery-loving royal master.[155] But, apart from personal considerations for D’Eon, the dangers to be apprehended from such limitless persecution were considerable, as the count took immediate occasion to remind the King.

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

The calamity which befell the Chevalier did not visit him alone; it encompassed his mother and other relatives, and even their dependants at home. He was tenderly attached to his only parent, upon whom he had long since settled his little property, yet to her solicitude and gentle warnings he replied with all the vehemence of his strong and stormy nature.

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

Mention has been made of the publication of a couple of pamphlets by direction of de Guerchy, as being one of the measures to which his Excellency resorted for bringing the Chevalier into disrepute.[160] They had reference to the scene at Lord Halifax’s house on the evening of October 26, and to the minister plenipotentiary’s intercourse with Treyssac de Vergy. D’Eon never missed the opportunity for committing pen to paper, and in his turn published a lengthened statement, likewise in the form of a pamphlet.[161] It was a faithful recital of facts, and as such, he immediately forwarded a copy to his good friend the Duke de Choiseul, who, not being one of the executive triumvirate engaged in doing the will of the Marquise de Pompadour, had but a few weeks previously offered the Chevalier his protection and restoration to the army.[162] On issuing the ‘Note,’ he wrote to the King and to his secret confidants that he was avenging his honour thus infamously attacked, and hoped to receive orders which he had no desire to see nullified by any precipitate conduct on his part.... Great was his dismay at the nature of Tercier’s communication in reply.

The ‘Contre-Note’[163] was a third pamphlet de Guerchy had the weakness to employ Goudard to write, in vindication of himself and in severe condemnation of D’Eon; it was a retort to the ‘Note’ that had been addressed to him. D’Eon kept his word. The ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c., which made their appearance, in quarto and octavo editions, are frequently referred to in this work. The volume, divided into three parts, opens with a violent and virulent attack on the French ambassador, giving rise, in due course, to an action for libel, and is followed by the Chevalier’s correspondence with the Dukes de Praslin and de Nivernois, M. de Sainte-Foy, the Count de Guerchy, and others. Part II. relates to D’Eon’s personal interests during his residence in London, and Part III. gives some particulars of his services, with copies of certificates, despatches, and letters, all favourable to himself. The epigraph consists of three lines borrowed from Voltaire:—

The motto is Vita sine litteris mors est, and the post face at the end of Part II. is inscribed:—

The Chevalier was at no loss to justify himself for having thus exposed the private correspondence of French ministers. When he saw that de Guerchy and de Praslin made it their business to despatch courier after courier to each other, and secretly spread reports upon the subject of his affairs, he made up his mind to publish what disconcerted their measures. Nobody was able to conceive how a young captain of dragoons could have the temerity to be the first to impugn an old lieutenant-general, Knight of the King’s Orders, his Majesty’s Ambassador Extraordinary, a friend of thirty years’ standing of the Ministers of France, a favourite of the King, and allied to several powerful houses; but everybody was able to perceive, without any difficulty, that it was the lieutenant-general and favourite ambassador who 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 to tarnish his reputation? Was there cause for libel in publicly defending, when openly and publicly assailed, one’s honour, life, and liberty? Every law, human and divine, justifies such defence. In every suit, in every contention, in every quarrel, the aggressor is specially to be distinguished from the aggressed, the oppressor from the oppressed! Offensive war is the act of a tyrant; he who defends himself is justified. Had the count given the Chevalier good wine at his table, in the place of poison, there never would have been any dissension between them. The chief cause of the Chevalier’s falling into disgrace with the French ambassador, lay in the former’s evil or good luck, in seeing the latter take to flight on the right bank of the Weser, when, being under fire of the English and Hanoverians at the passage of that river, the Marshal de Broglio’s order was delivered, directing him to give his support and distribute ammunition to the troops. The recollection of that incident must have been exceedingly disagreeable to the count, for when the Chevalier reminded him, upon the memorable evening at Lord Halifax’s, that they had served together during the war, de Guerchy told Lord Halifax, in the presence of the other English ministers, that he had never met D’Eon, nor was he at all concerned to know who were the aides-de-camp to the Count and the Duke de Broglio. In reply, D’Eon maintained that he might perhaps remember having entertained him at his head-quarters upon more than one occasion, to discuss the hot pastry for which his cook was famous, and that when retreating from Einbeck, his column having missed its way, he had put it on the right road to Northeim.[164]

The giving his volume to the world produced the greatest consternation amongst those of the ruling powers whose private letters, several of an exceedingly delicate nature, had thus been made public, and in exposing the secrets of ministers, D’Eon spared his friends as little as he did his bitterest enemies, the King only, in whom his faith was implicit, being held sacred by his daring spirit. The publication was no leap in the dark, but an ill-considered act, an irreparable blunder which brought upon him the extreme of gratuitous misery, and desertion by all those in authority.

No sooner was this book out of the printer’s hands than the Count de Guerchy secured a copy, and sat for several hours with his wife poring over its contents. Some satirical passages on their love of economy having led to a quarrel between the two, they threw the volume at each other’s heads. ‘Could I have foreseen such a thing,’ said the Chevalier upon being informed of the circumstance, ‘I should have issued the book in a wooden binding!’[165]

As the publication caused a panic at Versailles, so was the sensation in London enormous. This is what Walpole had to say about it:—

As I shall have occasion to return to Walpole, or rather to his letters, I would limit myself in the interests of this history, seeing that the opinions to which he gave expression were immatured except by his own specious judgment, hastily and prematurely formed, to quoting Macaulay’s estimate of that gentleman usher at heart. ‘He sneered at everybody, put on every action the worst construction which it could bear,’ and we are told, further, that he ‘spelt every man backward.’

A painful sense of oppression was produced on D’Eon by Tercier’s letter of December 27, and nothing, not even his vigorous mind, could rouse him out of the state of despondency into which he had fallen. To his kindest 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 chain of error, of falsehood, and of iniquity, he should only ask permission, for himself and his two cousins, to enter the service of a foreign State, a request they made with their hearts plunged in the bitterest grief; for there were none more ready than they to shed the last drop of their blood for the King they adored, and their native land which they cherished.

In an enclosure, under flying seal, addressed to his other good friend the Duke de Choiseul, he thus expressed himself:—

To D’Eon’s surprise, these letters remained unnoticed. He appealed to the King, to the Count de Broglio, to Tercier, for support in his perplexing situation, but nothing came. All were silent. Yet, for his own sake, the count had never been callous to the cries of 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 followed up his suggestion of December 6 to the King, by proposing that his secretary, the Chevalier Nort, should be sent 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 of the de Broglios, and of the moribund condition of the Marquise de Pompadour, and wearisome darkness, the poor proscribed one thought, would give place to light, and relief be at hand! Still nothing came, though weeks had passed; to remain thus disregarded and treated with silent contempt was more than the Chevalier’s nature could endure. He again addressed himself to Tercier, this time openly throwing the gauntlet, with what results will be known hereafter.

The King took the matter coolly enough. He knew his man, and must have been full well persuaded that he could safely rely upon his loyalty and attachment to his person, and that there was consequently no immediate cause for alarm. When informed for the first time of the tempting offers made to the Chevalier in England, he merely said: ‘I do not believe that D’Eon will become an Englishman, for he has nothing to gain from the ministry, and what will he do if he joins the opposition? Send him two hundred ducats ...’ and then he wrote word to Tercier, ‘... I have nothing to say as regards the Sieur D’Eon. I doubt that we should have war, no matter what he were to say; but we must prevent such an exposure.’ Still, as if impressed with the obvious necessity for being wise in time, his Majesty added, ‘I approve of the despatch of the Sieur de Nort; make every necessary arrangement accordingly.’[173]

It is possible that Tercier, who was in the habit of keeping D’Eon informed of all that was passing at Court, so far as he was concerned, had told him before their 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 his case, and which quickly followed the first, we find the Chevalier offering some passing words of explanation on the course he had pursued.

These resolute letters had their consequences. M. Nort was hurried off to London with the King’s secret instructions, taking with him a conciliatory letter from the Count de Broglio, a sum of money for D’Eon, and special directions to effect an arrangement, if possible, between the ambassador and the turbulent captain of dragoons.[176] De Praslin, on his part, had sent his own agent to England, with orders to take D’Eon alive, above everything, it being his intention to confine him when secured, in the Bastille.[177] ‘You must admit that his private letters are deserving of this,’ said Louis XV. to Tercier; ‘but it is more essential that he should be conciliated and my papers recovered.’

CHAPTER IX.

We may well pause awhile to recapitulate, and realise the parts that were being severally played by King, minister, ambassador, and late minister plenipotentiary, in this most extraordinary political drama. In the first place we see the late minister plenipotentiary as the custodian, not only of the King of France’s written secret instructions and correspondence, extending over a series of years, but also of highly compromising documents, the property of his Majesty,[178] of which, had their signification been known to the people of England, still agitated and discontented at the terms of the late peace, would inevitably have plunged the two countries in afresh and sudden war. Then we find the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, the willing instrument of the King’s malicious mistress, employing his old friend, the ambassador in London, to carry out her bidding by seeking to obtain the whole of the plenipotentiary’s papers, first by authoritatively demanding them, then by gentle measures, and afterwards at any hazard. The plenipotentiary and King’s secret agent proves true to his trust in refusing to make any surrender, without the express orders of his sovereign, whose secret commands to that effect he holds. Of this the Minister for Foreign Affairs knows nothing. The plenipotentiary cannot serve two masters, and elects to submit himself to the King’s will, of which he alone is cognisant. For refusing to yield to his superiors in office he is regarded as a rebel, then a traitor, is degraded, disgraced, and to be treated as if he were a common criminal, and this through orders wrested from the King by his minister! Thus Louis XV., a cowardly stranger to every emotion of the heart, suffers his name to be used as the authority for dishonouring the most faithful of his servants, and because apprehensive of the fate of his papers, and fancying he is no longer able to protect the custodian of them, secretly puts him on his guard, and although he recommends him to save himself if he can, remains carelessly indifferent to what might befall him; turns to his ambassador, admits him into the secret as the sole alternative that presents itself for ensuring himself from being compromised, directs him to secure the papers, to keep their existence and his possession of them a profound secret, and retain them until such time as he shall return to France, when he is to deliver them in person; this ambassador being the very man who, from the beginning, was the confidant and tool of de Pompadour and de Praslin, and against whose acquisition of the royal documents the plenipotentiary had long and successfully struggled, braving the hostility of ministers until he had effected his own ruin.

Had D’Eon been so inclined he might, solitary outcast as he was, have constituted himself master of the situation, and dictated his own terms. Offers amounting to forty thousand pounds were now made, if he would say what he knew regarding the late peace. Lords Bute, Egremont, and Halifax, the Duke of Richmond, Count Viri, and even the Princess of Wales, were accused, in the general excitement, of having received bribes from the French Court for their share in the negotiations; so great indeed was the popular indignation against the Duke of Bedford, who had conducted them at Versailles as the King’s ambassador, that he seldom dared to appear in the streets of London, where he had been hissed, and worse might have befallen him. It was believed, and with good reason, that the Chevalier D’Eon was in a position to settle any doubts on the matter, and it was sought to take advantage of his abandoned and penniless situation by tempting him with plenty; but the love of lucre was not a trait in the Chevalier’s character. ‘I am intractable as regards my honour,’ he wrote more than once; and even though his royal master, for whom he was enduring all things, should forsake him in time of greatest need, he loved his country too well to expose it to danger and to the scorn of the world, by betraying the King.

No sooner had the Chevalier received from M. Nort the Count de Broglio’s letter and substantial succour from the King—for it should be remembered that his emoluments and pension were stopped—than, brimful of emotion, and believing that in this material assistance he saw fresh earnest of interest in his behalf on the part of the monarch, now no longer trammelled by de Pompadour,[179] he expressed his heartfelt gratitude in these words:—

His behaviour was very different towards the Count de Broglio, in whose letter he found no reference whatever to his contentions with de Guerchy; his solicitations for redress against the injuries he had suffered at the hands of the ambassador remained unheeded, nor was there one word of encouragement that might be construed into probable consideration of the services he had rendered, privately to the King, and to his country. It simply contained a proposition that he should surrender the papers in his possession for a sum of money not stated, and as to his prospects in the future, they were left undetermined. He returned the count’s letter to Nort, under cover of a written declaration that he refused to consider it.

The French ambassador having been advised that the language employed in the Introduction to the ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c. was libellous, immediately instituted proceedings against D’Eon, in which he was supported 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, so far as lay in his power, against the coming struggle. He was satisfied that, provided he had custody of the papers, he was comparatively safe from any very great harm. Nort had brought to him no promise of protection, at a time that his liberty was in hourly peril; he should therefore continue to keep the papers until security of his person was guaranteed to him. Finding it impossible to treat with the Chevalier, Nort returned to Paris from his bootless errand, defeated and empty-handed.

Apart from his action for libel, the ambassador caused yet another pamphlet to be written and published by Goudard[184] (who wrote, says D’Eon, pro fame rather than pro fama), a vicious criticism on the volume of ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c. The Chevalier ‘would not take the trouble to reply to this senseless rather than discriminating disquisition on his book, but availed himself 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 presence of several respectable witnesses, to which the mercenary scribe never made any answer;’ and Goudard having boasted in a coffee-house that he had completely rebutted every argument advanced in the work, D’Eon gave out that since he had thus proved the vigorous nature of his jaw, he should borrow that ass’s jaw whenever he would have to combat des Philistins des Guerchiens et des chiens de Guerchy.[185]

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

The Chevalier was increasing in popularity, ‘for it is engraven in the hearts of the English to take part with the oppressed,’ at a time that de Guerchy’s conduct was not of a nature to gain for him the esteem of the ministers or people of England. He had come into disagreeable collision with the authorities, and found pleasure in persecuting several of his own countrymen in London,[187] who refused to be tyrannised over by him in a manner that was offending the sensibilities of the liberty-loving people amongst whom they lived, and especially at a time when that people believed they were engaged in a struggle for liberty, represented in their idol of the day—John Wilkes.

Some weeks previous to de Guerchy’s arrival, D’Eon wrote to apprise him that he might rely upon exemption from duty in accordance with the privileges of an ambassador, on all such goods as he might require to pass into the country, provided it was indisputably shown that they were for his sole use and benefit. The abuse of this privilege upon more occasions than one, after his arrival in England, called forth a strong remonstrance from the department concerned, to which de Guerchy replied by the assertion of privilege; the matter was consequently referred to the Lords of the Treasury, who terminated the discussion by informing Lord Halifax that their lordships would not enter into the consideration of all that had passed on the subject since his Excellency’s arrival, although, if it were necessary, they could produce instances which would be sufficient to convince his lordship that their officers were not to be charged with any unusual strictness in their treatment of his Excellency; neither would they enforce the necessity of the exact observance of the laws, or the propriety of the orders lately given for the strict execution of them, showing the many and notorious abuses which had been committed under pretence of the privilege; for they were only desirous to prevent the evil for the future, and not to complain of what was past.[188]

Upon another occasion, three constables were sent to the French Embassy to arrest the ambassador’s ‘gentleman of the horse,’ for having threatened the life of a woman and to set her house on fire, when the ambassador caused the gate to be closed, his servants assaulted the constables and confined them, and he himself tore up the warrant they presented. This outrage was followed up by de Guerchy’s complaint of the violation of the privileges of an ambassador, in the attempt to arrest his écuyer within the court-yard of his Excellency’s house. The law officers of the Crown having been consulted, the Foreign Secretary informed the King’s ambassador at the French Court that—

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

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

The spies and officers of police sent by the French minister 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 been the Marquis de Fratteau[193] some years previously. Five were lodged in Gerrard Street, close to Brewer Street, where he resided. His precautions he describes to an old friend, Captain Pommard, in Paris. When he went out, as he did daily, it was with all the vigilance a captain of dragoons should observe in time of war. His own spies were about. He had met his enemies, and had any attempt been made against his person, they would have been cut to pieces by the party he led. Every evening he reconnoitred at Ranelagh and Vauxhall; but acts of violence were not to be apprehended in England, and he was more on his guard against the stratagems of those with whom he was unacquainted, and of his false and therefore dangerous friends. That French emissaries were actually on the look-out to seize the Chevalier and carry him off to France in a vessel appointed for the purpose, does not appear to have been generally credited in London, judging by the obituary notices which appeared in the newspapers, where it is stated that if the Chevalier was not the author of the reports to that effect, he at any rate believed in them.[194] Were official confirmation of the plan for his abduction needed, 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 or after his trial for libel.

The Chevalier’s case met with a good deal of sympathy, which found its way into the papers, and exhibited itself in anonymous letters cautioning him to be wary against his countrymen. His unknown correspondents recommended him to withdraw to Oxford, Bath, or other distant town, taking care not to allow even his most discreet friend to know the time of his departure or his destination.

He should not leave his house unless accompanied by some trustworthy person who spoke English and knew London well, and he should never think of going out at night.... Were any scoundrel sufficiently rash and villainous to dare to attack him, he should pitilessly shoot him or cut him in two with his sword.[195] That the Chevalier would have killed the first man who dared to lay hands upon him was no bombast on his part. He had written to Lord Mansfield, to the Earl of Bute, Mr. Pitt, and Earl Temple, to represent what were the designs of the French ambassador, the risk he hourly incurred of being kidnapped, and to seek their advice. He informed Lord Mansfield that he did not contract any debts, and avoided everything that could possibly lead him to an infringement of the laws. If, therefore, the law would appear to arm itself against his liberty, he must necessarily conclude it did so under a false pretence, being won over by the hatred of his enemies to deliver him to them. Such being the case, might he presume to ask his lordship, he who was the administrator of those laws which but interpreted primitive and natural laws, might he presume to inquire whether the necessity for self-defence did not place him in the position of repelling force by force? He ventured to think that his lordship’s heart contemplated such extreme measures with dread; but his equity, as was natural, would readily forgive any evils resulting therefrom. Such was his position, which he was obliged to bring to notice, in the hope that his lordship’s equity would offer some counsel that he was able to follow, and which should be equally in conformity with the requirements for his safety and with the laws of a country he loved and to which he owed so much.

Towards the end of June, the Chevalier received notice of the charges upon which he was to be tried, and a summons to appear on July 9, that being the end of Trinity term. He made an affidavit asking for adjournment to another term, to enable him to produce four witnesses who had been expelled the country by orders of the French ambassador. His application was refused, and it being simply impossible for his counsel, who knew nothing of French, to read and digest in the course of eight days his book of six hundred pages in quarto, he made up his mind not to appear. The trial came on before Lord Chief Justice Mansfield at the King’s Bench bar on the day appointed, 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, the Marquis de Blosset, in diplomatic charge during de Guerchy’s absence on leave,[197] made application to Lord Halifax that the Chevalier might be compelled to cease printing 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 English minister replied that it was impossible to stop the printing 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’s place of concealment, the Solicitor-General was consulted on the legality of force being employed for arresting him and bringing him to the bar of the Court of King’s Bench to receive sentence upon the conviction. Sir Henry Norton gave it as his opinion that the officer having the paper process of the Court of King’s Bench for apprehending the Chevalier D’Eon, was thereby authorised and might legally break open the doors of a house though within the verge of the Court or of any other house, in order to take the Chevalier, if, upon request, the doors of such house should be refused to be opened; and it being believed that the house in which D’Eon was secreted stood within the verge of the Court, the Solicitor-General ruled that any objection on that account might be easily obviated by a proper application for the purpose.[199] No time was lost, and on the evening of the same day, November 20, a house in Scotland Yard, Whitehall, occupied by a Mr. 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 spent an hour on the premises, bursting open every door, not excepting even that of the room in which Mr. Eddowes, many years bed-ridden, was lying; and they were about to force open a closet and bureau, but that Mrs. Eddowes cautioned them against so doing, as the room contained papers and money belonging to the King. D’Eon was nowhere about the house, and she had not seen him for more than two months. The officer, whose conduct had been outrageous, then left with the search party.[200]

Having absconded from justice and failed to surrender himself to the Court of King’s Bench to receive judgment, the Chevalier was in due course, that is to say, on June 13, 1765, declared to be outlawed by judgement of the coroners for the county of Middlesex.[201]

The story must go back a few pages, that we may become the better acquainted with Treyssac de Vergy with whom we parted at the door of D’Eon’s back premises, through which he was ignominiously made to pass on the morning of October 27, 1763, when he had presented himself to settle an affair of honour pending between himself and the Chevalier. Whatever the latter’s hiding-place for several months after his conviction, it is very certain that de Vergy found him out the following September, and to his great astonishment favoured him one day with a call. Smitten with remorse and driven by despair, de Vergy had a confession to make which throws all the light needed on the designs of the triumvirate at Paris against the liberty and life even of the Chevalier D’Eon.

De Vergy then placed before the Chevalier the necessary papers to prove his identity, as he promised he should do in the declaration he had signed when they last met. He described himself as being a man of good birth, an advocate of the parliament of Bordeaux, and son-in-law to the Baroness Fagan; but having squandered his own and his wife’s fortune in riotous living, had tried his hand at literature, and published, in 1762, a work entitled ‘Les Usages,’ which brought him into favour with the Count d’Argental, not altogether, perhaps, the most desirable of patrons; still, he was an intimate friend of de Praslin, and as de Vergy was a candidate for any employment he could get, his friends advised him to stick to the count, since he had chanced to please him. De Vergy did so, and asked for his interest with de Praslin to obtain a nomination as consul or secretary of Embassy, which resulted in an introduction to de Guerchy, the new ambassador to London, through whom he was informed he might possibly obtain the secretaryship of Embassy, in the room of D’Eon, who had given displeasure at Court. De Guerchy referred him to d’Argental, and the latter, in a somewhat long interview they had, told de Vergy that he might have to pay for such an appointment, in case of need, with personal courage and blind devotion to the orders of the Count de Guerchy.

De Vergy went on to say that he was persuaded from this ambiguous language and the few words de Guerchy had said to him, that he was required to take part in some machinations, but to what end he could not conceive. He explained his dilemma to d’Argental, who put him at his ease by assuring him that he had nothing to fear, and as he was literally starving, he overcame his scruples and consented to leave for England where 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 to spread reports injurious to the Chevalier’s reputation; if possible, to pick a quarrel with him, and write a pamphlet to his prejudice. It was thus that advantage was to be taken of his necessitous situation. It was his conscience, not his courage, that made him wince whilst doing the will of the ambassador, and when he had said to the Chevalier the evening they met at the Embassy, You do not know the fate that awaits you in France, it was his conscience that spoke and would warn him, and had the Chevalier replied in an encouraging and conciliatory manner, de Vergy would have confessed all to him. But he was depending upon the Count de Guerchy for his very existence.

‘I could not help laughing,’ notes D’Eon, ‘at this theory 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 to offer, being himself in sore need; a refugee from the world![203]

Whilst preparing his ‘Lettre aux Français’ for the press, de Vergy enclosed extracts to de Guerchy, and threatened its immediate publication unless his Excellency would consent to buy it off by sending him the sum of eighty guineas and granting him some other favours, and he employed an attorney named Grojan to call at the Embassy, receive the money, and give a receipt for it. Such, at least, was de Guerchy’s statement, eventually unsupported as will appear in the sequel; but this circumstance being brought to the notice of Lord Halifax, the matter was placed in the hands of the Solicitor-General, by whom it was submitted that de Vergy’s attempt to extort money from the French ambassador by threats and vilifying his Excellency and his Court if his demands were not complied with, was highly criminal, and he might be legally prosecuted for the same, either by indictment or by information in the name of his Majesty’s Attorney-General, and if convicted upon the trial would be brought to condign punishment. Lord Halifax immediately instructed the Attorney-General to prosecute M. de Vergy by way of information in his name, and at the expense of the King, giving at the same time notice to this effect to the French ambassador.[204] Actions for libel, however, were of such ordinary occurrence at this period of social disorder, that as many as two hundred informations were filed against printers and others in the course of the year.

CHAPTER X.

Provided with de Vergy’s statement in writing and bearing his signature, the first step taken by the Chevalier was to call upon de Guerchy to settle their differences by recourse to arms, as became two soldiers. The latter objected to draw swords with a fencing-master. The Chevalier observed he was right, and proposed, to ensure perfect equality, that the ambassador should choose his own fire-arms and they should fight on horse-back, if he objected to do so on foot; and further intimated to him, through his seconds, that if he promised to meet him on the ground with a good grace, he gave his word of honour, privately, that he should wound him only; whereas de Guerchy would be at liberty to do his worst. The count’s reply to this was that D’Eon must be a fool to suppose a general would agree to fight a simple captain of dragoons, which persuaded the Chevalier that it would be as impossible for such a man to perform an act of courage and of justice, as it is to extract oil from stones. De Guerchy could not be prevailed upon to fight! Then, ‘out of consideration for the Court of France and for the count’s family, D’Eon was careful to lay at the feet of his august master his private wrongs on the subject of poisoning, assassination, kidnapping, and other not generally known dark designs against his honour, his life, his person, and his papers. This he did before appealing to the tribunals of England for that liberty and the safety of his person and papers which the law could ensure to him.’ It does not appear that Louis XV. took any notice of these representations, and D’Eon determined on having de Guerchy prosecuted for a craven-hearted criminal, and he took proceedings accordingly.

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

A long time had elapsed since the date of de Broglio’s last letter to the Chevalier, and now his reply was laconic enough. He declined, in the future, to submit to the King any of his letters in which allusion was made to de Guerchy, but he would take extracts and show them to his Majesty. D’Eon remained puzzled at this system of neutrality, having noticed that the very dispatches which informed him that any reference he might make to his squabbles with de Guerchy should not be seen by the King, were approved with the own hand of the sovereign, who must consequently have been aware of the correspondence on this particular subject being concealed from him.

The reports on the threatening attitude assumed by D’Eon and the probable use he would make of de Vergy’s deposition, caused no little alarm in the mind of de Guerchy and at the French Court. It became a matter of greater moment than ever to the ambassador that he should rid himself of the hateful Chevalier, and he urged upon Lord Halifax, in pressing terms, that de Vergy, who was making common cause with D’Eon, should be prosecuted as his lordship stated might be done. To his old friend de Praslin he represented that nothing in D’Eon’s past villainous conduct could be compared to his latest fabrications, which were enough to make one shudder. De Praslin (?) and de Choiseul were so firmly persuaded of de Vergy’s criminality, that they angrily complained to Lord Hertford of the difficulty de Guerchy and they experienced in obtaining justice in England; to which they received assurances that the measures pursued and pursuing against D’Eon and de Vergy, were fully sufficient to repair the insult offered to the King of France in the person of his representative; but scarcely had this explanation been given than the impatient de Guerchy, apprehensive and insecure, importuned the English minister to take steps against de Vergy in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney-General. This affair, however, eventually fell to the ground. De Guerchy failed to make out his case, and was in the end informed by Lord Halifax that the affidavits made did not suffice for entering an action.[208]

De Vergy had, in the meantime, made other depositions upon oath, in which he gave ‘a true and circumstantial account of the plot against the life of the Chevalier D’Eon’—the one on November 12, before Judge Wilmot, of the Court of King’s Bench; the other on November 27, before Judge Yates, also of the Court of King’s Bench; and he sent a report of his proceedings to the Duke de Choiseul, dated November 15.

De Guerchy’s hour of retribution was at hand, and the Chevalier was satisfied. Louis XV., ever selfish and unconcerned, but ill concealed his uneasiness at the serious aspect of affairs, and gladly approved of the Count de Broglio’s offer to proceed to London and bring D’Eon to his senses, to arrange with him for the surrender of the compromising papers, and mediate between him and his tormentor. One difficulty presented itself to the King, who asked Tercier: ‘On what plea is the despatch of the Count de Broglio to England to be proposed to M. de Praslin?’—but ere this new design could be matured it had to be abandoned, an awkward incident that had the effect of seriously disturbing the King’s equanimity, having well-nigh led to disclosures which would certainly have unravelled the mystery of the long- and well-maintained secret.

D’Eon’s valet, a man named Hugonnet, had been for some time employed carrying despatches on the King’s secret service between the two countries. Long suspected of being engaged in this duty, orders were issued by the ministry to the police at Calais to watch for him, and arrest him if they at any time found sufficient cause. On January 10, as he was preparing to return to England, he was taken up, and in his possession was found a letter in the handwriting of M. Drouet, private secretary to the Count de Broglio. It was intended, ostensibly, for D’Eon de Mouloise in London, bore no signature, but contained the names of Tercier and Durand, and allusions to the Counsellor, the deputy, &c. Drouet was in consequence also arrested and his papers seized, and the two were lodged in the Bastille. Being kept promptly informed by de Broglio of what was passing, and fearing that all was surely about to be discovered, Louis XV. resorted to the only expedient left to him—to secure the co-operation in his cause of the officials in charge of the prisoners. He immediately sent for M. de Sartines,[210] officer of police, and had to endure the humiliation of admitting him into his confidence, and asking him to lay hold of all such papers as were likely to compromise, in the sight of his ministers, those of his secret agents he named.

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

De Sartines found himself painfully embarrassed at the peculiar position into which he was forced by the King, and showed no little diffidence and hesitation in his action. ‘I find him a very timid man,’ was de Broglio’s remark to the sovereign, ‘and yet I do not see what he has to fear, having received his master’s orders.’ Louis XV. was little apprehensive that the police officer would fail in his duty towards himself, for he had already received from him a bundle of recovered papers. Fortunately for the royal schemes in hand, de Praslin was at Versailles with the Court, and although he had announced his intention of being present at the examination of the prisoners, the day was not fixed. Advantage was taken of this respite by the sneaking monarch to corrupt yet another of his officials, so urgent was he in seeking to lift, at least his own self, out of the mire. His Majesty authorised M. Jumilhac, Governor of the Bastille, to admit Tercier to a conference with Drouet and Hugonnet, thereby requiring him to violate his trust! Every precaution was to be taken that Tercier might enter and leave the prison unnoticed, for fear that some busybody should carry the tale to the ministers. De Broglio was to appoint to each actor in the farce about to be played his part for misleading de Praslin. Drouet was to declare that he had been acting 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 other person; the titles had reference to certain friends of D’Eon; and, finally, de Sartines was to countenance these fanciful declarations and not conduct too searching an interrogatory. ‘I have been at work for fifteen hours consecutively, wrote de Broglio to the King, ‘preparing material for the investigation, the replies to be given by the Sieur Drouet, the depositions to be made by Hugonnet, all of which will be in keeping with what has already transpired, and I have prepared a sort of interrogatory for M. de Sartines.’

‘They are playing the fool with me!’ said de Praslin to de Sartines, peevishly, as he went away at the close of the investigation, and on making his report the following day, Sunday, at a Cabinet Council, he insisted that Drouet had not been telling the whole truth.

Drouet did get away, having threatened to disclose everything if detained in durance, and so he had nothing for which to thank the King whom, as was the case with others, he was serving but too faithfully. Hugonnet’s detention was a cruelly long one.

I have said that D’Eon was about to institute proceedings against the French ambassador on a criminal charge. Those proceedings had commenced and followed their course. De Guerchy was indicted on February 12, and on March 1, following, a true bill was found against him by the grand jury of Middlesex, at Hick’s Hall, for a conspiracy against the life of the Chevalier D’Eon—a verdict that greatly perplexed the ministry; for, by the law of England, a person accused upon oath of any criminal offence must take his trial for the same when the bill of indictment is found against him by a grand jury; but by the law of nations, ambassadors are exempted from the ordinary forms of law in the countries where they are resident. The most eminent lawyers had been consulted, but the decision was left to the wisdom of the two courts.[214]

The Duke de Broglie asserts that ‘this audacious verdict was received in London with a sort of stupor;’ but if the English papers of the day are consulted, this will scarcely be found to have been the case, for de Guerchy was by no means a favourite with the general public. At Versailles, on the contrary, the sensation caused was immense. The Count de Broglio and M. de Beauvau talked themselves hoarse one evening in trying to make Hume[215] feel that, independently of the quality of the accusers, and the little similarity in the depositions they had made, it was inconceivable that an ambassador could be subjected to any other jurisdiction than that of his own master. Hume kept repeating in reply that the laws of England in this respect were immutable, and that the authority of the King would not suffice to effect any alteration.[216]

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

D’Eon was satisfied that his bitter enemy was in his power, and had made up his mind that nothing should induce him to alter his determination to run him to earth. ‘He should either triumph through the evidence in 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 that was engrossing the mind of the public throughout the kingdom, the Earl of Chesterfield[221] says:—

Lord Chesterfield was wrong. De Vergy went to London to be secretary to de Guerchy, and was desired, solicited, commanded to assassinate D’Eon, not hired to do 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 of certiorari into the Court of King’s Bench. The ambassador applied to the King for a nolle prosequi, and an order of reference was made to the Attorney-General, Sir Fletcher Norton, and the Solicitor-General, William de Grey, Esq., who issued summons on April 26, to the prosecutor and his witnesses, to attend at Lincoln’s Inn at eight o’clock in the evening of the following Tuesday, the 30th, to show cause why the nolle prosequi should not be granted; and upon hearing counsel on both sides and witnesses, the proofs appeared so clear against de Guerchy, that the Attorney-General refused to certify to the King in favour of the ambassador or of a nolle prosequi, so that the indictment for the intended murder of the Chevalier D’Eon, minister plenipotentiary, undefended, undischarged, and open to further proceedings, remained on record among the archives as a lasting monument of the villainous designs of the French ambassador. A correspondent in a newspaper of the day observed that the verdict ‘was a remarkable instance of the spirit of a grand jury of the city of London, as well as of fair administration of our laws.’[223]

The London papers testify to the public discontent at this miscarriage of justice, and when it became generally known that Chazal, the ambassador’s butler, suspected by D’Eon of having administered opium to him by direction of de Guerchy, at the Embassy dinner, had fled, leaving behind him his youthful wife to whom he had just been married, the people no longer hesitated to resort to violence. De Guerchy was mobbed whilst out driving, and owed his safety simply to the declaration that he was not indeed the French ambassador but only his secretary; the crowd nevertheless followed the coach, and would have entered the court-yard of the Embassy had not the iron gates been immediately closed. Failing to reach his Excellency, the people somewhat relieved their feelings by breaking every window they were able to reach with missiles from the street.

To the storm succeeded a calm. De Guerchy, too glad to get out of the way, proceeded on leave of absence, leaving in triumph the Chevalier, who spent the summer at Byfleet[225] in Surrey, where he was a welcome guest the chief part of the two succeeding years. When de Guerchy returned to England in the autumn, he found his way to London without receiving any of the honours that were strictly paid to the French King’s ambassadors. Not a gun was fired, not a soldier was in attendance upon him, either at Dover or at Canterbury.[226]

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

At this juncture, de Broglio bethought him of making fresh proposals to the Chevalier. He invited him to forget the past, to desist in the future from all allusion to de Guerchy, whether for good or for evil—to forget the action for libel—the trial for attempt to murder, &c. &c.; and upon these conditions he should obtain the King’s sanction to entrust him anew with the secret correspondence, whereby he would be required to 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 a person than the Count de Broglio, served to swell still more the Chevalier’s sense of his own importance, and he replied:—

D’Eon concluded by insisting that de Guerchy should be permanently recalled, and that in his stead should be appointed an ambassador to whose hands he might confidingly entrust what he still held in his charge.[228]

But even before de Broglio’s, had come a letter from Louis XV. D’Eon, ever generous towards the shortcomings of the monarch he adored, thus accounts for the King’s having refrained from any kind of interference or expression of opinion during the period of his own grave strife with the ambassador:—

D’Eon thanked the count for his friendly advice and good wishes, and took occasion to remind him of the undertaking that the stipulated pension should be paid with regularity; then, making up a sealed packet of the papers in his possession, he entrusted them to the custody of his friend, Mr. Cotes,[230] who unceasingly urged him to become a British subject, and give up France, a country in which nobody was certain of sleeping in his own bed.

Testimonials such as that received from the King, and his continued employment in matters necessitating the greatest tact and circumspection, should suffice to acquit the Chevalier of having been a half-witted adventurer, as we find asserted by some writers. However impetuous, and of almost ungovernable passions, D’Eon was not a fool, nor, in the course of his history does it appear that any of his contemporaries seriously thought him one, if we except the exasperated de Guerchy, who thus sought to brand him, after having failed in his ‘blind authority,’ to ‘beat with a staff the child that might have led him.’

Whilst D’Eon was receiving from the King of France the highest marks of his royal confidence and favour, ministers at Versailles were officially, but clandestinely, seeking to secure his person; and so late as November 1765, de Praslin, in conversation with the Duke of Richmond, the British ambassador, remonstrated upon England not surrendering the Chevalier to whom the Christian King had a hundred times a greater right, than had England to John Rice, ‘a thief of the Publics,’[231] who was given up by France. Ever watchful, D’Eon was perfectly conscious of all that was passing.

De Guerchy having quitted England ‘on leave,’ Durand succeeded him as minister plenipotentiary, by royal warrant dated June 8. One of the King’s old correspondents on secret service, Durand was well known to D’Eon, with whom he had had frequent intercourse in former days. Recalled from Poland by the Duke de Choiseul, who suspected him of being upon intimate terms with the Count de Broglio, we now see him minister in England, specially charged, though secretly, 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 with D’Eon, upon whom he prevailed to give up that most compromising of all papers, so far as the King was personally concerned—His Majesty’s secret instructions of June 3, 1763,[233] and for which the Chevalier received, in exchange, the royal warrant granting him an annual pension. Durand’s written report was as follows:—

CHAPTER XI.

Once again was D’Eon admitted into the royal confidence—he had never lost the royal favour—without any knowledge thereof on the part of the King’s ministers, and this by means of the very representative they had themselves nominated to the Court of Great Britain! A few weeks elapsed, and there occurred an incident which seemed pregnant of import to the Duke de Praslin, who put his whole heart into any action that had for its object the pursuit of those rash enough to resist his authority. The event proved to be of passing moment only, but merits notice as receiving importance from the Chevalier’s subsequent history.

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

De Sartines had been directed by de Praslin to inquire into the statements made by Dufour, saying, ‘Nothing essential is to be omitted this time!’ The officer of police insisted that the woman was of very doubtful reputation; no evidence, therefore, she was able to adduce could be accepted, and before involving persons of so high consideration, as were the de Broglios, in an affair of this kind, it would be necessary to obtain a written order from the King that he himself, at least, might be protected against all responsibility. Such pleas were worthy of a poor perplexed detective, for since the Hugonnet business, de Sartines felt himself bound, whatever his proper sense of duty, to consult, in the first place, the sovereign’s private interests and obey his secret commands, and he discerned, plainly enough, that the present was an instance which called for the exercise of his utmost discretion and prudence. Too well persuaded, on his part, of the futility of applying to the King for the order suggested by the officer of police, de Praslin had to content himself with a simple re-examination of Dufour, from whom nothing more was to be learnt, and the summoning of Hugonnet, who declared his incompetence to supply any kind of information, as the woman was entirely unknown to him, nor had he ever heard of her. At the close of the inquiry, de Praslin said: ‘I am not being duped, because, as a fact, this affair causes me very little anxiety. It is not D’Eon who will ruin the State.’[234]

Although de Guerchy and D’Eon had become separated never again to meet on this earth; although their unprofitable bickerings had come to an end and the time for recriminations was over, to cast each other into oblivion was too impossible a task for either. Upon his return to France, de Guerchy entered on a course of persecution, selecting for his victim D’Eon’s aged mother, who was suddenly deprived of the enjoyment of certain free tenures, while the taxes on her little estate at Tonnerre where she was living in quiet retirement, were inordinately increased. The poor lady was in fact hunted to misery and despair.

D’Eon had sent the count a final challenge in the form of a letter, dated August 5, 1767, which reached him a few weeks only before his death, when his youthful son swore that he would some day avenge his father. This letter, in which all the events of the past were recapitulated, covered copies of the indictment, of the writ of certiorari, and of other documents connected with his trial in London, and called upon de Guerchy to justify himself.

No answer came, and D’Eon sent his letter to Amsterdam to be printed in the form of a pamphlet by his friend Wan, the publisher. Whilst it was in the press, Wan heard of de Guerchy’s death, and wrote (September 23) to ask the Chevalier whether the publication was still to be proceeded with. The reply was in the affirmative, because he owed a full and complete justification to the King his master, to his country, to himself, to his family, to his protectors, and to the position 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, though he had long forgiven, the enemy that had been the cause of all his troubles.

Treyssac de Vergy died at Blackheath in October 1774.[237] Two magistrates, at the request of Sir John Fielding, attended to receive his dying statements, when, after confirming the depositions he had made upon oath, he said that being benevolently forgiven by the Chevalier D’Eon, who was present, for all the injury he had done to him, he met death with great pleasure. In his will, dated July 21 of the same year, and proved at Doctors’ Commons on October 10, we find him strictly adhering to the substance of the evidence he had given ten years previously.

The Chevalier was firmly established as secret correspondent in London, performing his duty loyally and competently, even though frequently suffering from absolute want in consequence of his pension never being paid with regularity, and always in arrears; and had it not been for the hospitality of some of his English friends, foremost amongst whom was the Marquis of Tavistock,[238] he would have had to endure many a sad privation. The Duke de Broglie admits that D’Eon accomplished his task as correspondent and newsmonger with considerable ability, and that he was the precursor, if not actually the first of political reporters, and the most trustworthy and wittiest, if not the most useful, of correspondents. The contents of his letters, of which we give an example, verified as they may be by the history of the times, testify clearly enough to his qualities as a shrewd and correct observer, to the facility with which he obtained information and the unlimited sphere of his operations, and are probably unique, regard being had to the times in which he lived, in their resemblance to the efficient productions of our own modern newspaper reporters.

De Broglio lost no time in replying. He desired D’Eon to seek to discover, by diligent research, in which he was to observe the greatest circumspection, what prospect there would be of success were the restoration of the Stuarts to be attempted; and he further wished to know whether it would be dangerous to sound Lord Bute as to his secret intentions, or whether it would be better to watch and wait. The Chevalier recommended the latter course, saying that according to his judgment men and things were not sufficiently matured.[239]

The number of D’Eon’s friends in every class of London society, clearly exceeded that of his enemies who were seeking to discredit him in public opinion, by resorting to the daily papers as a vehicle for their malice. We may mention as an example, that in October of this year there appeared in the ‘St. James’ Chronicle’[240] the announcement of a work preparing for the press, and in due time to be published and dedicated to Parliament, which would contain amongst other matter: ‘An Account of the Chevalier D’Eon’s overtures to impeach three persons, by name, of selling the Peace to France—an Account of the Bill of Indictment found against a great foreigner for a conspiracy to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon—an Account of the nolle prosequi granted to stop proceedings against the said foreigner—an Account of the attempt made to seize the person and papers of the Chevalier D’Eon, on November 20, 1764, by a warrant from the then ministry—an Account of the pension granted to Count Viri for his services in making the Peace—Extract of a letter from the Duke of N——s to the Duke de Praslin, dated London, February 20, 1763.’

D’Eon’s indignant notification and protest at the liberty taken with his name, and disowning all participation in the forthcoming pamphlet, was prompt and conclusive, and inserted in the same paper in French with an English translation.

The author of the notice publicly disavowed by D’Eon was believed by some to be a Dr. Musgrave,[242] who, availing himself three years later of a general election, issued an Address to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Devon, under date, Plymouth, August 12, 1769, which he caused to be extensively circulated about the kingdom. In this document, intended in reality for the people of England, Dr. Musgrave represented that whilst residing in Paris, in 1764, he discovered that the Peace signed the previous year had been sold to the French by some persons of high rank. He had at different times been informed by Sir George Younge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and other members of Parliament, that overtures were made to them during the summer of 1764, in the name of the Chevalier D’Eon, imputing that he, the Chevalier, was ready to impeach three persons, two of whom were peers and members of the Privy Council, for selling the Peace to the French, Sir George Younge having in particular told him that he understood the charge could be supported by written as well as by living evidence. By direction of Dr. Blackstone[243] he waited, May 10, 1765, on Lord Halifax, Secretary of State, and delivered to him an exact narrative of the intelligence he had received at Paris, with copies of four letters to and from Lord Hertford; seven days after which interview, he was informed by Mr. Fitzherbert that overtures were then being made to the Chevalier D’Eon to get his 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 Halifax objected to all public steps that might cause alarm, and asked him to point out a way of prosecuting the inquiry in secret, and whether, in so doing, there was any probability of obtaining positive proof of the alleged facts. The Doctor urged Lord Halifax to send for the Chevalier D’Eon and examine him upon the subject, to peruse his papers, and then proceed according to proofs, it being well known that the Chevalier had the negotiations on the part of the French, also the despatches of the Duke de Nivernois. This his lordship refused to do; the Doctor therefore took it upon himself to accuse the Secretary of State of wilful obstruction of national justice in delaying inquiry, such obstruction not only giving a temporary impunity to offenders, but tending also to make the impunity perpetual, seeing that living witnesses were exposed to the chances of mortality, and written evidence to the not uncommon casualty of fire. The Doctor went on to say that the papers upon which the whole of the written evidence depended were anything but secure—they were not in safety. Did it not stand upon record that the Count de Guerchy had conspired to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon, a charge that had not been either refuted or answered; which, not succeeding, a band of ruffians was hired to kidnap that gentleman and carry off his papers! Lord Halifax’s refusals did not deter him from carrying his own papers to the Speaker to be laid before the late House of Commons. The Speaker was pleased to justify his conduct by allowing that the affair ought to be inquired into, although refusing to be instrumental in promoting the inquiry. Dr. Musgrave concluded his address by submitting the prosecution of the affair to the judgment of those for whom his message was intended, in full confidence that the result of their deliberations would do honour at the same time to their prudence, candour, and patriotism.[244]

Dr. Musgrave’s paper was intended to persuade the people of England that what many already believed was true—that the French Court had paid immense sums of money to the Princess of Wales, Lord Bute, the Duke of Richmond, Lords Egremont and Halifax, 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 who had a hand in it, became the objects of universal hatred, and in 1770 Parliament was obliged to take serious notice of the movement.[245] D’Eon, regardless of expense, was not content to oppose Musgrave’s popular scandal and that of a throng of writers, who, without any proof whatever, attempted to support such rash and dishonourable reports, but he also, by his depositions, in a great measure contributed to the discrediting of the Doctor’s virulence, and the latter was reprimanded by the Speaker of the House of Commons as the disturber of public tranquillity, D’Eon on his part gaining the approbation of the two courts and of the people in general.[246]

CHAPTER XII.

The expulsion of John Wilkes from the House of Commons and his trial for libel, and D’Eon’s conviction on a similar charge, both of which took place in 1764, were almost contemporary events, and although the Chevalier abstained from taking any part in the riots of that year, he never failed, when opportunity offered, to show his sympathy for Wilkes and Liberty! After the great agitator had returned to England in 1768, and was undergoing his sentence of twenty-two months’ imprisonment in King’s Bench for seditious libel and blasphemy, D’Eon one day sent him a present of twelve smoked tongues, with a note in which he expressed the wish that ‘the tongues might have the eloquence of Cicero and the nicety of speech of Voltaire,’ to laud him worthily upon the anniversary of his birth, which, in the future, would ever be regarded as that of English liberty.’[248]

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

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

For the next few years D’Eon beguiled his leisure in literary labours, spending his summers chiefly at Staunton Harold, Earl Ferrers’ seat in Leicestershire. He retired late and rose early, worked fifteen hours a day, partook of one meal only, at two P.M., and refused to receive any visitors except on Sundays. His ordinary residence from July 1769, when he quitted 32 Brewer Street, and 1772, when he returned to those his old quarters, was Petty France, Westminster, the house he 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 friend and protector, the now disgraced and exiled Duke de Choiseul.

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

The work was well received, and especially, it was said, at Berlin, where the notices it contained on political administration, and particularly that branch relating to finance, caused so favourable an impression on the ministers, for they found therein a quantity of new and extremely useful ideas, that his Prussian Majesty ordered they should immediately be put into operation for the benefit of the public and of the Government.[253]

The Chevalier’s popularity, chiefly amongst those who interested themselves in the politics of the day, had never waned since his first introduction into English society, much of the favour he enjoyed being due to his genial and agreeable manners, his openness of character, and the dignity and spirit of independence with which he bore his trials; but in the year we have reached—1769—his name, somewhat more freely canvassed, began to attain unenviable notoriety, for doubts were being seriously entertained as to the nature of his sex, and what was at first whispered from mouth to ear became openly revealed, until public opinion had fairly fastened on the idea that the Chevalier D’Eon was not a man at all but a woman! And when the Princess Dashkoff, who chanced to arrive in England at this juncture, related that D’Eon, whom she perfectly well knew at St. Petersburg, had been received and entertained by the Empress Elizabeth with all the intimacy to which his believed in sex admitted him, further doubts existed in the minds of a few only; and what had been suspected was boldly advanced as a certainty, the Count de Châtelet, French ambassador in London, among the number, writing to tell Louis XV. he was persuaded that the Chevalier was a fille. According to a biographical memoir in the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ vol. liii., the first indications that led to a suspicion of D’Eon’s sex was a wound received in a duel.

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

It was the fashion in England for all matters of dispute to become the subject of betting, and gambling transactions attained extraordinary proportions, the lead being taken at Brooks’s, White’s, and other clubs, as Walpole relates in some curious anecdotes. The uncertainty of the sex of a noted character was too fair an opportunity to be wasted, and gambling policies of insurance were effected to large amounts, as shown in the opposite statement, giving an idea of the extent to which such transactions were carried within the first few months of their being started, reaching, as they subsequently did, considerably larger proportions.

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

To add to the chagrin endured at the gross liberties taken with his name, the Chevalier was reproached by his enemies with being an accomplice in the scandalous jobbing affairs and a sharer in the plunder, charges he indignantly repudiated when unburdening himself to his old friend the count.[255]

The tone of swagger repeated in the above letters, would dispose to the belief that D’Eon was exaggerating the degree of front he had shown to those Englishmen who were taking unwarrantable liberties with his name; but the measure of his veracity would appear to be out of the question. In the ‘Public Advertiser’ of November 16, 1774, it was stated that—

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

Being at dinner one day with his friend Angelo, D’Eon was informed of the presence, in the next room, of a Jew named Treves who would, on condition that he discovered his sex, on the instant pay him one thousand pounds; when, says Henry Angelo, he flew into such a violent passion, that it was with much difficulty his father could restrain him in his rage against the Israelite.

For the second time in his life the Chevalier found himself to be in imminent peril of being kidnapped in the 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 the north, until he saw in the papers that his disappearance was causing anxiety to his friends, who were offering a handsome reward and the payment of all reasonable expenses for any intelligence that should lead to his recovery, if concealed or restrained of his liberty. He was described as being dressed, upon leaving his home, in scarlet faced with green, and wearing the cross of Saint Louis; he had a new plain hat with silver button, loop and band, and his sword, but no cane. Inquired after and sought, and no trace of him being obtainable, a caveat was entered at Doctors’ Commons against his goods, on the supposition that he was dead. Hastening back he informed his friend, Mr. Fountain, of Litchfield Street, who had been most active in searching after him, of his arrival in London, in a note which appeared in the papers[258] the following morning with the announcement:—

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

In reporting his proceedings to de Broglio the Chevalier wrote:—

D’Eon never allowed anything to interfere with his first object in life, that of supplying his royal master with the fullest information on every subject of interest; this, however, was not to be effected without resources of some kind; and as it was his misfortune ever to be left without funds, even to not receiving his pension with any degree of regularity, he became fast involved in serious difficulties, which obliged him to live in a state of misery that became a terrible burden for one of his past life and habits to bear. He might have been the possessor of thousands had he been less patriotic, less scrupulous, and less resolved to put up with his every-day distressing privations. Patent as the Chevalier’s condition was to everybody, still did he stand accused of being a confederate in the dishonest transactions of which he was the innocent cause. At length relief appeared to be at hand. Poniatovsky, King of Poland, who had not forgotten the pleasant evenings he had enjoyed at sword practice with D’Eon at St. Petersburg, wrote with his own hand to offer him an asylum and employment, and for the second time, driven by want and despair, did the faithful servant’s loyalty waver, for he asked permission of his cruel master to accept the invitation. But it was not to be, as de Broglio notified in his reply, approved in the King’s hand.

Much of D’Eon’s correspondence with the King at this time was pseudonymous, the assumed name being William Wolff. There is no probability, whatever, of the subjects of it becoming generally known, but it may be said that the Chevalier saved England, France, and Spain from a ruinous war that was nearly taking place on account of the dispute relative to the Falkland Islands. This was done through his secret communications with Louis XV., to whom he represented the worthlessness of those islands and their barrenness.[262]

De Broglio’s letter of May 11, given above, was entrusted to Drouet[263] for delivery to the Chevalier, the startling report he made upon quickly returning to France, as the result of his interview with D’Eon, being immediately communicated by de Broglio to Louis XV.

Let us here note that although D’Eon was described at this period as having a rather effeminate countenance, blue eyes, small features, and as being pale, he had a dark beard, wore a wig and cue, and ever appeared in the same dress—that of an officer of dragoons, red with pea-green lapels and silver lace. He stood about five feet seven inches, and was rather inclined to corpulency.[265]

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

D’Eon was sighing to leave England, and negotiations with a view to his being permitted to return to France had been conducted from time to time since the fall of de Choiseul (1770) by the new minister, the Duke d’Aiguillon; but the Chevalier comprehensively notes, with reference to that minister’s proposals—Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.[267] When the reiterated appeal for succour reached its destination, the count was again in exile at his seat, Ruffec.

In the early part of 1774, Versailles was visited by an epidemic which ran through the palace, infecting some fifty or more of its inmates (amongst them the King’s daughters, Adelaide, Victoire, and Sophie), and of whom about a dozen, including Louis XV., were carried off.[268] Those curious to know what were the last days of the profligate and careless monarch will find, on consulting Sismondi, how a death-bed repentance was wrested from him by his confessor, the unflinching and unimpeachable Abbé Mandoux; how the old Marshal de Richelieu remonstrated angrily, and how the fils emancipé received absolution at the hands of the disconcerted Cardinal de la Roche-Aymon, the grand aumônier, who read the royal confession.

The interment was anything but royal, for the corpse of le Bien-aimé was hurried in the darkness of the night to the tomb—not its last resting-place—amidst the execrations of the numbers who had turned out to see the procession as it hastily passed their way, and who kept shouting the late King’s favourite cry on the hunting field, tayau! tayau!—and hallali! hallali! his favourite cry at the death, as his remains were being borne into St. Denis.

Wishing to rid himself of a tipsy customer, the keeper of a drinking-shop warned the troublesome fellow that the funeral of Louis XV. was about to pass. ‘What!’ was the answer, ‘we were dying of hunger so long as ce b—— là lived, and are we to die of thirst now that he is dead?’[269]

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

Scarcely had Louis XVI. ascended the throne, than the Count de Broglio addressed a memorandum to the new King, in which was recapitulated the history of the late 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, then and during the two-and-twenty years that he had been secretly employed by Louis XV.; suggested the probable causes of his exile, maintained he had never fallen away from the royal favour, and asked his Majesty’s instructions, for his guidance, under the peculiar circumstances in which he found himself. The King’s reply—laconic, formal, and unsigned—simply acknowledged the receipt of the despatch, enjoined the count to continue to observe the strictest secrecy, and informed him that inquiries should be made in the proper quarter for the reasons that induced the late King to order him into exile.[271] De Broglio followed up his memorandum with several letters, soliciting permission in one of them to communicate certain matters with which he considered it necessary his Majesty should become acquainted:—

All the details of the secret correspondence, as they were fully treated upon by the Count de Broglio, proved entirely novel to the King, who promptly put an end to the system. The money allowed for this secret service by Louis XV. amounted to 120,000 livres annually, his confidential agents, with one sole exception, being in the service of the State, and in receipt of established salaries—as ambassadors, ministers, residents or secretaries of Embassy; but to several, the reduction of their emoluments by discontinuance of the secret correspondence allowances would prove a serious inconvenience, the count therefore submitted a plan for ensuring to his former colleagues, the faithful depositaries of State secrets, a life-pension as a reward for their loyalty and discretion. Approving the scheme, the King responded liberally, and life-pensions, varying from 1,100 livres to 20,000 livres per annum, were settled upon the various members 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 his correspondence, both of which too clearly proved how completely removed from the slightest taint had been his loyalty and integrity of purpose.

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

that for particular reasons, known only to the late King, he thought it his duty to sacrifice him, openly, to the wrath of his ambassador de Guerchy, to that of his ministers, and to the hysterics of de Pompadour; but that his sense of justice and kindness of heart had never, in secret, allowed him to abandon him, but that he had, on the contrary, given him, in his own hand his royal promise to reward and justify him in the future.

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

CHAPTER XIII.

So far as the ministers were concerned, the Chevalier D’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. The compromising papers with the existence of which we have become so familiar, were still in his possession, and their immediate recovery having become an absolute necessity, the count was directed to arrange in a kindly and generous spirit for their surrender. He accordingly sent to London the Marquis de Prunevaux, an officer of distinction and a kinsman of the Duke de Nivernois, to propose the following conditions:—D’Eon to give up every document relating to the late King’s private or official correspondence; to give his word of honour to abstain, ever thereafter, from writing anything of a nature likely to awaken the recollections of his contentions with de Guerchy and de Praslin, and to avoid all such places where he would be liable to meet the Countess de Guerchy and her children. In return, he should receive a life-pension of twelve thousand livres,[280] have his military rank restored to him, all charges pending against him should be withdrawn, and a safe conduct signed by the King granted, enabling him to return to France and live in any part of the country most agreeable to himself. But D’Eon had lost his beloved master, whose slightest wish had ever been a law to him; he knew that his occupation was gone, but he thought he might recover the position he had lost if he played his cards well, and accordingly rejected the terms, substituting his own instead, in which he asked—(1) that his conduct should be purged of the calumnies imputed to it by the Duke de Praslin and the Count de Guerchy, and that he should be reinstated in the diplomatic rank and title he had held, as was done to the celebrated La Chalotais;[281] and (2) that all sums and indemnities due to him during the past twenty-one years, amounting altogether to 13,933l. sterling, or 318,477 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 what he had advanced in days gone by, when soliciting Louis XV. and de Broglio for pecuniary assistance:—

De Prunevaux remonstrated that the sum demanded was prodigious.

Notwithstanding a four months’ residence in London, De Prunevaux could not prevail upon the Chevalier to leave England, for he insisted, after the example of the brave and virtuous La Chalotais, on a temporary re-establishment in his post of plenipotentiary which he occupied with distinction, and from which Madame de Pompadour, with a cabal of the great, by little and base intrigues expelled him; deeming all pecuniary satisfaction beneath his honour, gold being but a means and not the object of great souls.[283]

De Broglio’s friendly remonstrances and reproaches were without effect upon D’Eon, who became the more obdurate from the moment that de Prunevaux resolutely, and once for all, refused to entertain any such idea as his reinstatement to his former official position. De Prunevaux was succeeded by Captain Pommereux of the Grenadiers, ordered to treat with D’Eon on the basis of an indemnity; but the only concession the Chevalier would make being to reduce his claim to 256,000 livres, de Vergennes submitted to the King that since a high sum was still persisted in, it would be unwise to underrate the importance of keeping on good terms with the Chevalier, and recommended that for the present, at least, his quarterly allowance should be paid as before, anticipating that he would become more tractable with time, and if less importance were attached to the recovery of the papers of which he was the depositary. Louis XVI. approved, but said that he had never read a more impertinent or ridiculous letter than D’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 that the gallant captain became so thoroughly persuaded, during his stay in London, of the truth of the reports on the presumed sex of the Chevalier, that he became enamoured of the heroine, and actually proposed marriage before taking his departure for France!

There now appears on the scene a remarkable man, one who, relying upon his abilities, of which he was singularly vain, was prepared to act as mediator, and by pursuing a policy of something like oppression, bring D’Eon to his bearings. This was no less an individual than Beaumarchais, the watchmaker’s apprentice, lieutenant-general of the royal hunt, champion of the Americans in revolt against Britain, and in the secret service of Louis XVI., but more universally known, perhaps, as the author of ‘Le Barbier de Seville,’ a play first published with the authority of that sovereign, and unjustly condemned for a season as being a plagiary on Molière’s ‘École des Femmes.’ When D’Eon and Beaumarchais met for the first time, the latter was in London on a mission from the King, in which D’Eon was likewise concerned, and it is scarcely to be doubted he was under instructions from de Vergennes to make the Chevalier’s acquaintance with a view to entering eventually into 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 their intercourse, in a written statement he addressed to the Count de Vergennes, on May 27, 1776,[286] and from which we quote the following passages:—

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

According to Loménie,[290] D’Eon solicited the assistance of Beaumarchais, and that he might the more effectively enlist his sympathies, confessed to him, with tears, that he was a female, which, never doubting, and delighted at the prospect of obliging a woman become interesting by her daring courage, political talents and misfortunes, and wishing also to bring to a successful issue a somewhat difficult task, Beaumarchais wrote some touching words to Louis XVI. in favour of his client.

Having familiarised himself with D’Eon’s story, his difficulties and necessities, Beaumarchais returned to Versailles, and exaggerating the importance of the hidden secret correspondence, although he had not seen any of it, pleaded the cause of his new client, and secured for himself the congenial employment of treating for the King’s papers by instructions contained in a letter from the Count de Vergennes, in which allusion is made for the first time to the Chevalier’s change of sex, although spoken of throughout in the masculine gender.

Even though the Count de Vergennes was thus engaged in determining the final disposal of D’Eon, such was the opinion continued to be entertained of his devotion to his country, of his abilities and usefulness, that we see him recommended by that minister to the new French ambassador in London, as being a man fully competent to obtain information of which they stood in need, and this at a time that France was still guided by a feeling of hostility towards the rebels against British authority in America.

To resume. Beaumarchais’ earliest success consisted in obtaining from the Chevalier the keys of an iron safe said to contain the King’s secret papers, and which Lord Ferrers was supposed to hold as security from D’Eon for the loan of five thousand pounds.

The letter intimating to Beaumarchais, for the first time, that D’Eon should, in the future, be considered a female, was succeeded two months later by another ministerial despatch, in which allusion is made, also for the first time, to the necessity for his complete change of sex by the assumption of female attire; the Count de Vergennes, as will be noticed, still referring to the Chevalier by employing the personal pronoun of the masculine gender.

Having displayed his keys at Versailles, and assured de Vergennes that four days would suffice to regulate affairs finally with D’Eon, Beaumarchais returned to London, the first step he took being to inform the Chevalier, in the clearest terms, that as the primary condition of all future negotiations it was absolutely necessary she should agree to resuming female attire. D’Eon became very noisy upon receiving intimation for which he was so little prepared, and persistently refused to assent; but the determined attitude and dictatorial bearing assumed by Beaumarchais were not without effect, and for the first time in his life, perhaps, he quailed, and in the end, yielded.

CHAPTER XIV.

The next few weeks were employed in arranging the terms of that Covenant by which D’Eon irrevocably bound himself to renounce his style as a man, and appear 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, and its contents declared by Beaumarchais to be far from meriting the importance attached to them. D’Eon insisted, on the contrary, that they were very precious, including, as they did, the earliest instructions supplied to the Duke de Nivernois on his proceeding to England; the earliest despatches of that minister giving the secret details of the negotiations for peace; and the family pact of the House of Bourbon, together with the secret convention—the whole of which were made up into four bundles; but he admitted that the papers of the greatest consequence were not in the iron safe at all. To produce these he took Beaumarchais to his residence, led him into his bedroom, and from beneath the flooring withdrew four parcels securely sealed and directed: Secret papers to be given to the King only, which, he avowed, completed the collection. D’Eon then drew up a list of the whole, in detail, Beaumarchais affixing his initials and a numeral to each sheet as he hastily perused it.

In conferring with Lord Ferrers, whose name appeared on D’Eon’s list as one of his principal creditors, Beaumarchais shrewdly observed that either the debt owed to him was imaginary, or his debtor had been imposing upon him, by obtaining large sums of money on the security of papers held to be of considerable importance, but which papers had never really been consigned to him, they having been concealed in his own residence. To this Lord Ferrers replied that he regretted Beaumarchais should seek to create a breach between his friend the Chevalier and himself—he little cared to which sex he belonged—as he valued him for the spirit he showed and for his virtues. He had not been deceived, he said, on the nature of the papers in the iron safe, represented to have been State papers, and having seen the inventory of them, signed by Beaumarchais himself, he was more than ever convinced of the Chevalier’s honesty and truthfulness, such papers being all he could have desired as security for his money. Even had his creditor died, he might have easily recovered what was owed to him, for the Court of France, or at any rate, the British Court, would have paid ten times the sum he claimed, rather than that publicity should be given to their contents. He was surprised, he added, at the dishonourable treatment by the French Court and its ministers of so extraordinary a person as the Chevalier D’Eon, who had worthily served his country, and yet had been so badly used.

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

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

When the wording of this Covenant had been first agreed upon, Beaumarchais went to Staunton Harold, paid a large portion of the sum presumably owing to Lord Ferrers, then left for France, returning almost immediately, bringing with him three warrants the production of which was indispensable to the signing of the Covenant no longer delayed, and effected on November 4. Those warrants, all bearing the same date, we reproduce in full—the first confers on Beaumarchais full powers to negotiate with D’Eon for the surrender of the official and secret correspondence of Louis XV.—the second grants permission to D’Eon to return to France—the third requires the Demoiselle D’Eon to reassume female attire, the right to wear the cross of Saint Louis being at the same time conceded to her.

I.

In the King’s Name.

‘His Majesty being informed that there are in the possession of the Sieur D’Eon de Beaumont sundry papers relating to secret negotiations and correspondence with the late King, his most honoured grandfather, and with some of his Ministers of State, and it being his Majesty’s desire that these papers should be withdrawn, he has to this end empowered and commissioned by these presents the Sieur Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais to proceed to London, there to discover all the documents in question, to withdraw them out of the hands or custody of whoever may have them, to take charge of them, to bring them to France, and to deliver them for his Majesty. His Majesty authorises the Sieur Caron de Beaumarchais to make all such arrangements and dispositions as he may deem necessary, with the view of enforcing all the conditions that prudence will suggest, for the complete execution of the commission confided to him, his Majesty being pleased to trust to his intelligence and zeal in this matter. And as assurance of his will, his Majesty has of his own hand signed the present order, which he has caused to be countersigned by me, Councillor, Secretary of State for his commands and finance.

‘Louis.

‘(Signed) Gravier de Vergennes.’

‘At Versailles, August 25, 1775.’

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

II.

In the King’s Name.

‘His Majesty having been pleased to cause information to be laid before him of the different commissions, both public and private, which the late King, his most honoured grandfather, heretofore most graciously confided for his service, as well in Russia as in England and other places, to Charles-Geneviève-Louise-Auguste-André-Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont, and of the manner in which he executed them, as also of the said D’Eon de Beaumont’s military service, his Majesty was convinced that, as an officer and as a minister, in politics, in war, and upon every occasion, he has given such indisputable proofs of attachment to his country, and of zeal for the King’s service, as render him worthy of the protection which his Majesty is pleased to grant him; and his said Majesty, willing that the said D’Eon de Beaumont should partake of his royal favour, deigns to continue the pension of twelve thousand livres per annum, which the late King, his grandfather, granted to him in 1766, and which has been paid to him to this day without interruption. His Majesty, moreover, being willing that the unhappy quarrels which broke out so publicly, to the scandal of Europe, should be for ever buried in oblivion, imposes absolute silence for the future in that respect, not only upon the said D’Eon de Beaumont, but also upon all his officers and subjects; upon this condition his Majesty grants permission to the said D’Eon de Beaumont to return into his kingdom, to remain there, and to attend to his affairs in full liberty, as also to choose any other country which he shall think proper, according to the choice given him by the late King, dated April 1, 1766. His Majesty, moreover, willing that, upon no occasion, at no time, and in no place whatever, the said D’Eon shall be troubled, disquieted, or molested in his honour, his person, or his fortune, by any of the ministers—past, present, or future, or by any other person, either about the negotiations or commissions, whether public or secret, with which the late King had honoured him, or from any other cause resulting from his quarrels, disputes, and law-suits, which by these presents are for ever abolished, as hath been said above; is pleased to grant to the said D’Eon de Beaumont safeguard and entire security for his person, and to put him under his said Majesty’s special and immediate protection and safeguard, charging the said D’Eon de Beaumont to observe the strictest silence, and to demean himself upon all occasions like a submissive, respectful, and faithful subject; and as an assurance of the authenticity of his royal will in this respect, his 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 said D’Eon de Beaumont by me, Councillor, and Secretary of State for 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-Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont, spinster of age, hitherto known as the Chevalier D’Eon, formerly captain of dragoons, knight of the royal and military order of Saint Louis, and minister plenipotentiary in England, &c., is hereby required to resume immediately the garments of her sex, never again to lay them aside, and she is forbidden, under pain of disobedience, to reappear in France otherwise than in female attire. Upon this condition only, and others fully set forth in the special safe-conduct which we have this day granted to her, she may, in perfect security on my royal word, return to her own country, there to enjoy the freedom, the honours, favours, and benefits that have been accorded to her by our illustrious and most honoured grandfather, as well as by ourselves, in consideration of her military and political services, without any fear of molestation to her person, honour, and property by any of my late, present, or future ministers, or by any other person of whatsoever rank or quality. And his Majesty, desiring to mark by special favour his sense of the public and secret services, in war and in diplomacy, which the said Demoiselle D’Eon de Beaumont has had the good fortune to render during upwards of twenty consecutive years to the late King, his most honoured grandfather, decrees that the cross of his royal and military order of Saint Louis, won by the said Demoiselle D’Eon de Beaumont at the peril of her life, in combats, sieges, and battles in which she took part, when she was wounded and employed as aide-de-camp to the general, also as captain of dragoons and of volunteers in the army of de Broglio, with bravery to which all the generals under whom she has served have attested, shall never be taken from her, and that the right to wear it in female attire shall belong to her until death.[307] And as an assurance of the authenticity of his will in this respect, his Majesty has of his own hand signed the present order; and to prevent all persons from pretending ignorance, hath caused it to be countersigned and delivered to the said Demoiselle D’Eon de Beaumont by me, Councillor, Secretary of State for his Foreign Affairs, and for his commands and finances.[308]

‘Louis.

‘(Signed) Gravier de Vergennes.’

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

CHAPTER XV.

D’Eon’s burning desire to see his beloved France was at length about to be gratified, and as these fresh news got bruited about, the press announced that the Chevalier had been recalled, it being the King’s intention to load him (or her) with honours, and that the heroine 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 squabbles over the policies on his sex, and bets ran seven to four that D’Eon was a woman and not a man,[309] which, though fairly heavy odds, showed that there still existed a pretty strong feeling in favour of his being a man rather than a woman. He again became the subject of numerous objectionable proposals, advances he repelled with infinite disgust, and which he did his best to discountenance and discourage by a protest to which he gave the greatest possible publicity.

In less than a month after the appearance of this address, by which it might be inferred that if D’Eon was anything at all he was more probably a man than a woman, his old chief and firmest of friends, the Count de Broglio, received his humble confession that he was not a man but a woman—a confession that could only have been to one of the count’s discernment and sensibility but transparent veneer over the sarcasm the letter was intended to convey.

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

Although the Covenant between Beaumarchais and D’Eon had been formally signed, there still remained certain conditional clauses to be ratified. Beaumarchais informed the Count de Vergennes that he had assured the lady with whom he was in treaty, that if she were wise, discreet, silent, and well conducted, he should give so good an account of her to the King’s minister, and even to his Majesty himself, as to lead to the hope that he should succeed in obtaining for her other benefits. He did not hesitate to hold out such a promise, having a balance on hand of 41,000 livres tournois, with which he purposed rewarding each submission she made, by supposed concessions on the part of the King and of his minister; only, however, as favours that were being granted, and not in satisfaction of any claim. It was by such artifice only that he could expect to prevail, and subdue the unruly and crafty creature. The triumph of Beaumarchais was complete, for D’Eon, even in spite of himself, was effectively within his grip; and he who had spent a lifetime in the direction of affairs, and whose ambition and restlessness would never brook interposition, became at length persuaded that his only chance in life—and yet at what a fearful sacrifice—lay in meekly submitting to the only man who had ever succeeded, being favoured by the most exceptional circumstances, in daunting his rebellious spirit.

Beaumarchais again left London, taking with him upon this occasion his prize, the iron safe, which he delivered into the custody of de Vergennes, tendering at the same time to that minister a series of questions for the consideration of the King, who was entreated to insert replies in his own hand, that he might be armed with further incontestable authority for bringing his transactions with D’Eon to a speedy termination. The text of the original, which is preserved, was written by Beaumarchais himself and bears his signature, ‘the replies to each question, on the margin, being in a small, tremulous, and undecided hand, in which the letters t and v are scarcely indicated—it is the writing of the good, weak, and unhappy monarch....’

There were other questions to which Beaumarchais sought for answer, but as they are in connection with his enterprises in the American cause, and entirely irrelevant to our story, we pass them over.

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

D’Eon’s action in rushing into print during the absence of Beaumarchais, was scarcely in accordance with the stipulations of the latter that she should preserve a discreet and silent demeanour, and he told her so. In justification, D’Eon said he should never have thought of having recourse to the press had not several persons, he knew well, been at some pains to revive the policies on his sex. Leaving his chair abruptly, and putting on his hat in a passion, Beaumarchais qualified the notice she had inserted in the ‘Morning Post’ as a badly-worded, stupid, senseless, and impertinent production from beginning to end—to which sentiment D’Eon responded by also rising and putting on his hat, and terminating the interview by saying that the negotiations and such negotiators as he was, might go to the d——l! The next morning he hired a post-chaise, and leaving Beaumarchais to his own devices, went to Lord Ferrers’ seat in Leicestershire, where we shall find him for the next two months.

D’Eon had hardly left the room than Beaumarchais felt that he had gone too far, and hastened to make some friendly advances. He was greatly affected, he wrote, at the exhibition of feminine choler on her part, and at the masculine terms of the compliment she had paid him. He reminded her that she had always found him agreeable and cheerful, straightforward and liberal in his dealings—and having said so much by way of apology, he awaited with curiosity any explanations she might have to offer. None came, and at the expiration of another week Beaumarchais again wrote, to say that in whatever part of England she might be, she had had ample time to answer his letter, and since she had not done so, he concluded they were in future to consider themselves strangers to each other. He was too gallant to differ with her on such a point! But she should not fail to remember how greatly she was indebted to him for the many favours the King had granted, and she was to beware lest she conducted herself with ingratitude towards the King, as she had done towards himself. To Lord Ferrers he also wrote, requesting his lordship to supply him with a receipt in full for the money he had paid him,[314] a request, he said, he had intended to prefer through M. D’Eon, but who suddenly disappeared out of his sight without leaving word as to whither she had gone—and this, simply because he had reproved her, as a matter of necessity, for certain indiscretions committed during his, Beaumarchais’, absence.

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

The surrender of the precious deposit which had constituted his strength over the space of many years, and emboldened him in his seeming insubordination and fearless demeanour towards the ministers of France, had brought the affairs of D’Eon to a crisis, where the making or unmaking of him for the remainder of his days depended almost entirely upon submission to the man into whose hands was committed his destiny, and in whom he himself pretended to confide. The Chevalier’s meekness whilst settling terms with Beaumarchais was, it might be supposed, an exemplification of the moral derived from La Fontaine’s fable—

But D’Eon’s submission was a sham, for his mind was racked with positive pain—suffering which grew in intensity the more completely he realised the wretchedness of his situation. He had allowed himself to be persuaded to admit that he belonged to the female sex, and to pledge himself to the assumption, for life, of female attire; irrevocable facts, under pain of forfeiting the only means of existence left to him! Yet there remained matters touching his honour in which he knew he should never be able to vindicate himself, from the moment it became publicly established that the Chevalier D’Eon was no longer a man; because it would be impossible for him, being a woman, to take the law into his own hands as was his wont in certain cases. Whether he were a male or a female, the King cared little enough, but the Chevalier was to be put into petticoats by his orders, that the scandal in which a late French ambassador in London had figured so objectionably, should never by any possibility be revived. Beaumarchais had stated what was perfectly true—D’Eon’s blood boiled at the bare mention of the name of Guerchy—while the vehement longing of the young count to avenge his father had never been gratified, and his tongue had not ceased openly to slander the enemy he would chastise. D’Eon had so far failed also in disabusing the public mind generally of the imputation of his being concerned in the gambling policies on his sex, and had not succeeded in lifting himself above the cloud that tarnished his reputation and saddened his days. Moreover, in charging him with having failed to render certain papers which were found to be missing, upon the verification of the inventories at Versailles, Beaumarchais had exercised his authority oppressively and offensively. D’Eon would have called him to account for this, after an unmistakably manly fashion—but he bethought himself, as being more to his advantage, of allowing that he still held some of the secret correspondence,[315] hoping against hope that he might yet prevail upon the pitiless King’s agent to yield to other demands, for which he thought he had a right to press. Nevertheless, he did inflict upon him a gentle kind of punishment in the shape of a sorrowful despatch, consisting of no less than thirty-eight pages—the first of a series that was maintained well into the year 1778.

After charging Beaumarchais with failing to carry out Article IV. of their Covenant, inasmuch as a portion only of her debts had been paid and not the whole, the Chevalière points out that for the purpose of legalising the document to which they had affixed their signatures, it was essential that the sentence of outlawry passed upon herself, in default, for the publication of the volume entitled ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c., should be rescinded, and that Beaumarchais should be relieved from the ban of censure pronounced by the Parliament of Paris, the deprivation of civil rights under which they were suffering rendering null and void any and all their acts.

Referring to the intemperate language Beaumarchais had employed with regard to the notice in the daily papers:—

Beaumarchais reminded Mademoiselle D’Eon, in his reply to this interminable composition so full of recriminations, of his ceaseless efforts in her behalf to obtain advantageous concessions from the King—he called her to a sense of her duty, and allowed her eight days to express her regret at what she had written. He bitterly reproached her for allowing that she had not given up the whole of the King’s papers, since she had signed a declaration to that effect. Confiding in her good faith, which, however, had proved bad, he had given the deed for a life-annuity of 12,000 livres, paid 128,000 livres in liquidation of her debts, and supplied her 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 correspondence of two royal secret agents, who were simply practising towards each other ruse contre ruse.

The astute and yet outwitted Beaumarchais had become thoroughly persuaded that not only was the Chevalier a female, but also one of the most unmanageable of her sex. For her own part, D’Eon was now as 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 for satisfying her creditors, and yet, what prospect had she of obtaining it from one whose harshness as taskmaster was only to be equalled by his exceeding great parsimony as purse-bearer! However stern and unflinching, Beaumarchais had seldom behaved otherwise than with consideration towards the distinguished heroine with whom he had undertaken to treat, whose past services and misfortunes had awakened in him a feeling of something more than ordinary interest, and which, through vanity, he had not the sense to dissemble. Keenly alive to all this, D’Eon was resolved to 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 lost them, and was evidently a man who sought after feminine sympathy, a craving that became manifest to D’Eon, who deemed it worth her while to gratify it—and she succeeded.

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

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

So long as Beaumarchais abstained from advancing the ‘other large sums’ promised in Article IV. of the Covenant, so long did the Chevalière refuse to carry out her engagement to discard her uniform for female attire; a refusal adopted by the King’s envoy as his motive for forbearing from taking any further interest in his refractory client. Loménie argues that it was precisely because she could not be prevailed upon to clothe herself in the garments of her sex, that no money was forthcoming; but it may fairly be contended, upon D’Eon’s argument, that Beaumarchais being the contracting power, were he to prove true to his obligations, she, as executrix, would necessarily be obliged to observe her engagements under pain of being deprived of the enjoyment of her annuity. It is not easy to account for the meanness and want of generosity displayed by Beaumarchais in his dealings with the Chevalière, his penuriousness leading him even to neglect the bonds he had given to Lord Ferrers, and upon the faith of which he was allowed to have the iron safe.

Baser conduct in Beaumarchais was his participation in the interminable and ever-increasing sex policies, the Chevalière entreating him, over and over, to abstain from mixing himself up in affairs that sorely afflicted her. Thoroughly persuaded that D’Eon was of the female sex, Beaumarchais added insult to injury by offering her eight thousand louis d’or and a share in all his profits, if she would submit herself to the verdict of a qualified jury nominated for the purpose by the policy-holders—proposals that were repelled with the contempt they deserved, and in the same spirit in which similar advances were repulsed in 1771, when the accommodation bribe amounted to fifteen thousand guineas. As bad was the confederacy into which Beaumarchais suffered himself to be drawn, having become associated in these foul speculations with the needy adventurer Morande; and it being the Chevalier’s practice, with his cacoëthes scribendi, to commit to paper every circumstance, every incident, small or great, in which he chanced to be concerned, he drew up and afterwards distributed a declaration, which was to show forth how Morande and Beaumarchais had endeavoured, in defiance of him, to practise fraud in their speculations on his sex.

CHAPTER XVI.

The breach was now complete. Beaumarchais had proved himself to be perfectly indifferent in the matter of his reputation, so far as his relations with the Chevalière were concerned, and it is certain, after the admission made by Morande, that D’Eon would never have entered into further negotiations, even to her own benefit, with the man who was regardless of the injury he was causing, instead of affording his protection by virtue of the powers with which he was invested. D’Eon sent a copy of the declaration to de Vergennes, under cover of a letter, in which, after recapitulating the shameless conduct of Beaumarchais towards herself and Lord Ferrers, conduct by no means adapted to re-establish the good name of a man who had fallen a victim to the passions of the great, much less of a virtuous female, and his little scrupulousness in betraying Court secrets, she informed the minister that she declined to have further intercourse with one whose life in London, in the company of his friend Morande, was licentious and discreditable to the last degree. She entreated the count to be persuaded that, although a female, she had all the qualities and the courage of the most fearless of men, and that notwithstanding her refusal to consent to a verification of her sex, she would be willing to do so as a favour or from necessity. This letter, written throughout in the feminine gender, is signed, ‘Votre dévoué Serviteur, le Chev. D’Eon.’[321]

When de Vergennes had communicated to Beaumarchais its contents, so full of abuse directed against him, the latter replied with resignation: ‘She is a woman, and so horribly influenced, that I forgive her with my whole heart; she is a woman, and this explains everything.’

But Beaumarchais’ words were inconsistent with his actions. In the first place he had betrayed his trust in confiding to Morande the nature of his private dealings with D’Eon, together with many particulars of D’Eon’s past intercourse with the Court of France, details which Morande made it his business to repeat in public, the gossip thus spread only serving to increase the agitation in the public mind on the Chevalier’s sex. Then, Beaumarchais and Morande having become thoroughly persuaded that all hope of amassing riches at the expense of Mademoiselle had vanished, and Beaumarchais being about to return to France, it was arranged that Morande should publish a pamphlet in disparagement of D’Eon, to whom a copy was sent by the writer, with the request for an interview at which terms for permanent reconciliation between them might be agreed upon. The Chevalier sent his brother-in-law O’Gorman, and his friend the Chevalier de Piennes, with a message to the effect that the only place where Mademoiselle D’Eon could meet Morande was in Hyde Park, those gentlemen being at the same time instructed to invite him to appoint an early day and the hour, and make his choice of weapons. Morande’s reply was an outrage on all decency and the foullest insult that could be offered to a woman;[322] and when D’Eon found himself bound over to keep the peace in 200l., and two sureties in 100l. each, he became excited beyond all control, and committed the fatal error of writing to Morande in language very similar to that employed in the pamphlet.

Morande having declined to fight a woman, O’Gorman took her place; but Morande avoided the risk of an encounter by apprising the police of the bellicose designs of the big Irishman, who was also, in his turn, bound over to keep the peace.

The widespread and unenvied notoriety that had rendered D’Eon’s situation in London perfectly intolerable, was increasing in spite of himself, and his yearning to leave the country and return to France became all the greater as fresh dangers threatened the liberty of his person. He was the centre of attraction, the chief object of public curiosity, and having become more familiarly known to the multitude, was more liable to be seized at some unguarded moment, to be maltreated and insulted by those whose interests, heavily staked, demanded an expeditious solution of the problem—Of which sex is the Chevalier? One pretty and innocent little note from Miss Wilkes, daughter of the patriot, who had been brought up in a French convent and knew the language perfectly, puts the question point blank.

By some the Chevalier was accused of being a spy in disguise, who should be made to appear in the garments proper to her sex. By others she was suspected of being a natural daughter of Louis XV.; and one night a party of stragglers broke the windows and wrenched off several bars of the railing in front of her house in Brewer Street, violence repeated the second night after, the perpetrators not being discovered, even though D’Eon offered a reward of twenty guineas for their apprehension.[324] His aversion to the assumption of female attire was insurmountable, but he was pledged to it and had been strengthening his mind for the inevitable, the essential point ever present to his imagination being the driving of every bargain to his own special advantage. He sought to resume the negotiations of 1774-1775 for his return from exile, by direct communication with the Count de Vergennes, and claimed that if he were absolutely required to dress as a female, there should at least be inserted, in the written order to that effect, the words as had been required of her in the reign of the late King, after the words, ‘to resume immediately the garments of her sex never again to lay them aside.’ In making this request it was clearly the object of D’Eon, now about to enter upon the world’s stage, openly and permanently, in the character of a female, to shield herself against the imputation of having of her own accord, and at any time disguised her sex to pass the life of a brave and distinguished man, and he shrank from accepting the smallest responsibility in his approaching compulsory transformation. The minister found it impossible to accede, and Beaumarchais was instructed to explain to the Chevalière the impracticability of her request being entertained, which he did, by repeating, textually, the minister’s own words, after saying that he wished the Count de Vergennes had employed some person less odious than he must be to her, to communicate his reply:—

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

This refusal of Louis XVI. to accede to the request made by D’Eon, reached him at a moment that Morande had successfully defeated all his plans to punish him. Foiled in his purpose of chastising Morande by resort to arms, the Chevalier sued him for libel, and Lord Mansfield directed rule to be granted; but when it was shown that D’Eon had written equally libellous matter to Morande, the Court discharged the rule, and the Chevalier had the mortification of seeing his enemy reap the advantage of his own imprudence. It was whilst smarting under a sense of these failures that D’Eon wrote to his tormentor:—

In ever increasing anxiety to make his escape out of the difficulties and threatening dangers by which he was surrounded, the Chevalier applied to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to ask whether he might rely upon the Government for protection, it being his intention to return shortly to France.

D’Eon was unable to leave England unless he made some arrangement with his creditors, still oppressed as he was by the liabilities he had incurred in the furtherance of the late King’s service, and no sooner had his imminent departure become extensively known, than something like a panic seized upon all who had engaged in the speculations on his sex. Three several actions were commenced in Easter term, against three underwriters in the city, for the recovery of the respective sums underwritten by them. Upwards of 120,000l. had been underwritten at various times on this mysterious question, but rather than ‘risk a heat over the Bacon course in Westminster Hall,’ several eminent merchants forfeited sixty per cent., and even seventy per cent., to have their names cancelled from the policies they had underwritten.

One trial on the legality of these policies took place before Lord Mansfield, on July 1, when it was believed that the sex of the Chevalier was established beyond the possibility of a doubt. The action was brought by Mr. Hayes, a surgeon in Leicester Fields, against Mr. Jacques, broker and underwriter, for the recovery of 700l., the said Jacques having, about six years previously, received a premium of fifteen guineas, on the engagement to return one hundred guineas for every guinea, whenever it should be proved that the Chevalier was actually a female. Mr. Buller, as counsel for Hayes, opened the cause by stating the fairness of the transaction and the justifiable nature of the demand, the plaintiff believing himself to be in possession of sufficient proof to establish the sex of the Chevalier. He called for his first witness a surgeon named Le Goux,[327] who gave evidence to the effect that he had been acquainted with the Chevalier D’Eon from the time that the Duke de Nivernois was ambassador in London; that about five years previously he was called in by the Chevalier to lend professional aid, when she was labouring under a disorder which led to the discovery of her sex, of which he, Le Goux, was able to give satisfactory testimony. Another witness was Morande, with whom we are so intimately acquainted, who deposed that so far back as July 3, 1774, the Chevalier had made to him a free disclosure of her sex, even to displaying her bosom, and exhibiting her female wardrobe, which consisted of sacks, petticoats, and other garments for feminine use. On the part of the defendant, Mr. Mansfield pleaded that this was one of those gambling, indecent, and unnecessary cases that ought never to be permitted to come into a court of justice; that besides the inutility and indecency of the case, the plaintiff had taken advantage of his client, being in possession of intelligence that enabled him to lay with greater certainty, 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 the Chevalier as a woman to grant her a pension, and that the French Court must have some strong circumstances to imbibe that idea; he therefore hoped that the jury would reprobate such wagers.

In charging the jury, Lord Mansfield expressed his abhorrence of the whole transaction, and of its being brought into a Court of Justice when it might have been settled elsewhere, and wished that their verdict could so operate that neither party might be the winner; but, as the law did not expressly prohibit, and the wager was laid, the question before them was, who had won? His lordship observed that the indecency of the proceeding arose more from the unnecessary questions asked than from the case itself. There was every external proof 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 had the best of the wager. On the part of the plaintiff there was a considerable difficulty. Suppose him to have been right, yet the proof of the fact was not easy. It was not in the power of any person to compel D’Eon to disclose her sex, and was it known, the proof still rested on the plaintiff. It had been thrown out that he was sure of the fact at the time he laid the wager. The contrary has appeared, for he had no proofs in his power at the time the contract was entered into.... The Court of France considered D’Eon as a man; there were reasons afterwards to believe the contrary.... It might have been difficult to prove the sex, if private quarrels of the parties had not furnished collateral evidence as put the question out of doubt. The witnesses were either perjured, or their testimonies must be credited. As was the case in all wagers, both parties conceived themselves certain of winning. His lordship called upon the jury to consider all the circumstances, and if they thought that the bet was fairly won to decide in favour of the plaintiff, for whom a verdict was given, without any hesitation on the part of the jury—for 700l. and forty shillings—a verdict awaited with intense interest, as numerous sums on policies were depending on this suit. When, however, this policy business came to be solemnly signed before Lord Mansfield, in the Court of King’s Bench, the defendant pleaded a late Act of Parliament for the non-payment of the policy he had underwritten, a statute which provided that ‘no insurance shall be valid, where the person insuring cannot prove an antecedent interest in the person or thing insured.’ The Chief Justice having admitted the statute to be binding in the present instance, the decision at once and for ever deprived all insurers in the ‘D’Eon policies’ of the golden harvest they so long and patiently expected.[328]

D’Eon received the intimation that he was declared by the law to be a female with perfect equanimity. ‘What does it matter to me that the King’s Bench has proclaimed me to be a female! I am none the better or the worse. I am in the same condition as before the war—in eodem statu ante bellum.’ He had failed in his application for a postponement of the trial until he should return from France, and having abstained from taking any part in the proceedings, it was bruited about that such discretion was to be rewarded with a bonus of twenty thousand pounds!

D’Eon appeared in London in ‘her real character as a female, for the first time on August 6, being dressed in an elegant sack, her head-dress adorned with diamonds, and bedecked in all the other elegant paraphernalia of her sex;’ but with the laudable desire of completely disconnecting herself from the smallest suspicion of wishing to countenance either of the contending parties in the gambling policies, when the day fixed upon for her departure from London had arrived, she drove off from her house in Brewer Street, in a neat post-chaise and four, wearing her uniform with the cross of Saint Louis, and suitably attended.[329] The whole of her effects remained in England, her stock of wine, which was large and valuable, being left with her landlord to be sold for the benefit of her creditors.

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

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

The Chevalier left London on August 13, and in the ‘Morning Post and Public Advertiser,’ &c., of the 15th, appeared her protest against the malicious charge of being interested in the issue of the late trial.

D’Eon’s residence in England had extended over fifteen years, and it was with no inconsiderable feelings of emotion that he again touched his native soil. Hurrying to Versailles, he presented himself, equipped as a dragoon, before the Count de Vergennes, who received him affably and with distinction, but at once enjoined him to execute the terms of his Covenant, and not appear unless in female attire. D’Eon demurred, pleading, first one thing, then another, but the minister was obdurate, and soon the Chevalière was favoured with the following order:—

The Count de Vergennes had asked M. Genest, chief clerk at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, to receive his old friend the Chevalier in his own house, and manage him as best he could. Upon hearing of his arrival, the Queen sent word to Genest that he was to bring the Chevalier to her. Genest, having informed the minister of her Majesty’s commands, received instructions to accompany the Chevalier; but the count having previously had a few minutes’ audience of the Queen, she left the room with him, and finding Genest in the adjoining apartment, her Majesty told him, smiling, that she was sorry to have given him any trouble, the few words the count had just said to her having for ever cured her of her curiosity.[330] And yet she did not remain unmindful of him. When D’Eon sought to put off the evil hour of his transformation by pitiably pleading that she had no suitable clothes in which to appear, even the Queen’s eagerness for novelty and amusement seemed to conspire against her. Her Majesty seized upon so exceptional an opportunity ‘for exercising the nobility 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 sufficed for any four girls of the royal house of St. Cyr.’[331]

D’Eon was delighted at the respite afforded by the time required for preparing a trousseau in accordance with the Queen’s commands, and he made the most of it by paying a visit to his mother, whom he had not seen for many years. In acknowledging the receipt of the King’s order of August 19, the Chevalier informed the minister that the few articles of female attire he had by him were quite unsuitable for making his appearance at Versailles. Mademoiselle Bertin had consequently undertaken to procure the clothing necessary for his new condition of life, and to turn him into a fairly modest and obedient woman; and to her, after Heaven, the King, and his ministers, would belong the greatest merit in connection with his miraculous conversion. His earnest desire to appear irreproachable in the eyes of the King and of the Counts de Vergennes and de Maurepas, sufficed to endue him with the strength required to overcome himself, and adopt a sweetness of disposition in conformity with the new existence into which he was forced.[332] This letter was signed, ‘The Chevalier D’Eon for a little while longer.’

D’Eon likens his reception at his home to that given to the prodigal son. In transports of joy his mother calls all her friends together to rejoice with her over the sheep that was lost, and was found again—her daughter—who had been her son for a time only, but now was, and should for ever be, a daughter to her! She holds three days’ feasting, to which all the authorities of the town and neighbourhood are invited. The mayor and aldermen, the ecclesiastical, monastical, military, and civil bodies, and a deputation formed of the married and maiden ladies of Tonnerre, call upon Madame D’Eon and overwhelm her with their congratulations. Each evening, two casks of wine are placed at the gate of the house, and bread and meat is distributed to the people, who give vent to their enthusiasm by firing guns and crackers, and nearly causing a conflagration in the stable-yard and granaries. It was only after these memorable incidents at the place of her birth, that the Chevalier’s heart felt less heavy; but he was very shortly ordered back by the ministers, and having returned to Versailles, he bound himself, in a written declaration, never to transgress the orders of the King, to whom he swore, in the presence 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 transformed into Chevalière, was made by his relative, Christopher de Beaumont,[334] Archbishop of Paris, Madame Louise[335] having greatly interested herself in his behalf. On the morning of October 21, 1777, the Feast of St. Ursula, Mademoiselle D’Eon having been deprived, by order of the King, of all her male attire, was clothed by Mademoiselle Bertin in her new female habiliments, with the injunction never to lay them aside, but to wear them to the end of her days. She was anointed with fragrant perfumes, her hair was curled, and a magnificent head-dress put on her; her gown, petticoats, and stockings were of the richest materials, and she was adorned with bracelets, a necklace, earrings, and rings. At the moment of her transformation, apparelled like a bride for her bridegroom, she excelled the Queen of Sheba herself, in all her glory. In this quality she was presented at Court, and there compelled to remain two years, that she might become moulded into her new condition.

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

The Chevalière, we are told by those who saw her at this period, was slow enough in adapting herself to the requirements of her sex; it would be long, she used to say, before she became accustomed to them, and would have continued to dress as a man had it been possible. At first she laughed at her petticoats and cap, saying it was very hard to be degraded from captain to a cornet! (cornette), and was altogether careless in her demeanour. She was of a fair complexion, with fair hair slightly grey, and having a handsome neck and bosom appeared to advantage as a female; she had formerly made herself a beard, and her chin being provided with some hairs, she employed herself in nipping them. Wearing low, though somewhat large heels, her stature did not exceed five feet four inches, and those who had not seen her in uniform, could not conceive how she could have looked well in it.[338] Her accent was peculiar, but not unbecoming as her voice was agreeable,[339] and in making a courtesy she would bend her knees forward quickly without otherwise moving her limbs. Being recommended to put on some rouge, she replied that she had tried it, but it would not stick to her face; she despised her body, she said, which she considered as the case or shell only of her 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 you were dressed as a man you had a very handsome leg!’ ‘Parbleu!’ replied D’Eon with vivacity, pulling up her petticoats, ‘if you are curious to see it, here it is!’ Upon another occasion a lady observed to her, ‘If you wished to demand satisfaction, would you not regret your former condition and your arms?’ ‘I have already considered this matter,’ she replied; ‘when I quitted my hat and sword, I own it gave me some concern, but I said to myself, what does it signify? I may do as much, perhaps, with my slipper?’ And to another lady who gave some advice with regard to her behaviour, she said: ‘Madam, I shall always be sage, no doubt, but I can never be modest.’ Upon the whole, however, the Chevalière seldom appeared in public, limiting herself to dining with her old friends. If she chanced, upon such occasions, to be in the same room with some other knight who happened to be addressed as ‘Monsieur le Chevalier,’ she would instantly turn round thinking she was meant, and would equally forget herself in her assiduity towards the fair sex, never failing to assist a lady to wine, when sitting at table, or rising with alacrity to relieve her of her empty coffee cup.[340] She was a great eater, and usually partook of every dish, even if she sent her plate away directly after.

Since D’Eon was not visible to the world at large in Paris, it became the fashion to personate her at masquerades, and even at ordinary evening parties, when Beaumarchais would also be brought into ridicule by the pretended Chevalière relating, for the amusement of the company, the incidents of her courtship with that individual. The tales told, however, were not always harmless, and one report spread, was to the effect that a portion of the money destined by the King for the Chevalière’s use in England, and confided to Beaumarchais, had been appropriated by the latter, who accordingly complained to de Vergennes of the base accusation, charging D’Eon with being the author of it. He was at once reassured by that minister, who wrote word that his Majesty’s satisfaction at the correctness of the accounts he had rendered should suffice to vindicate his character from any such attacks; and having obtained permission to publish the minister’s letter, he sent a copy to D’Eon under cover of some offensive and very angry lines. Calmer judgments had certainly not as yet prevailed in the unsettled mind that was ever craving after excitement; and in malicious enjoyment of Beaumarchais’ participation in his own unenviable notoriety, D’Eon seized the opportunity for indulging in his favourite recreation, by treating the Minister for Foreign Affairs to one of the most tedious effusions of which he had ever been guilty, but humorous and satirical withal.

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

Amongst the later causes tried in London for the recovery of sums forfeited by the wagers on D’Eon’s sex, was that of Jones and Dacosta, in which a verdict was given in favour of the plaintiff; but a motion having been made in the Court of King’s Bench for an arrest in judgment, Lord Mansfield delivered his opinion in its favour, in which all the other judges concurred. The decision, he said, tended to indecency, and to make the courts of justice subservient to the purposes of gamblers and swindlers—a conclusion that was heartily approved by all right-minded persons throughout the country.

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

CHAPTER XVII.

There appeared at about this time in England the translation of a letter in verse from D’Eon to Lord Mansfield, on the decision he had pronounced in the late trial. In his preface the translator frankly states that he has taken the liberty of deviating a little from the original, especially where Mademoiselle, in her address to his lordship, and in the warmth of her imagination, had seemed to have forgotten that she was in petticoats. The title page is illustrated with a plate representing the Chevalière in a double character, the right half of her body being in the dress of a dragoon with drawn sword in hand, the left half appearing as a buxom woman waving a fan.[343]

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

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

D’Eon’s affected gaiety at length gave way; she fell into a state of melancholy, and then became quite ill, physically and morally. The Queen’s physician, Lasone, and the King’s physician, Lieutard, were ordered to hold a consultation, and terminated their visit by saying to the patient: ‘Be comforted, dear lady; yours is an incurable complaint, and will disappear as it came.’[346]

But it was not in D’Eon’s nature to repose in moody silence, and she poured out her sorrows in pitiful 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 exercise and the compulsory abandonment of the active habits of a lifetime, that she should be permitted to wear 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 and country as she had been doing for so many years; and, further, she asked to be employed in the war that was on the eve of breaking out, France being about to become the active ally of the Americans.

The Chevalière had been exerting herself to save France from meddling in the War of Independence, undertaking to prove that the reasons alleged in the manifesto of the French Court were not founded either on philosophical or political arguments,[347] representations to which de Vergennes, who was easily accessible to her, was disposed to give his attention. But Beaumarchais had everything to gain by the prosecution of the war, and secured to himself all access to the French Court, to the exclusion of D’Eon, who found it impossible to approach either King or ministers. Individually, de Vergennes’ treatment of D’Eon had always been considerate, and at times indulgent, and since all her supplications to the several ministers had been treated with callous indifference, she imagined she might succeed in disburdening herself of the yoke imposed upon her by getting back to London if she could but secure his interest and influence. ’Tis said that James I. of England thought that if he were ever to be confined in a prison, he should wish that prison to be a library. D’Eon pleaded hard that her books and some valuable MSS., all ‘so dear to her purse and to her heart,’ were in London, where she desired to live in retirement with them for her companions. Her metamorphosis, her long illness, the war, the almost sudden death of Lord Ferrers, and the non-payment of monies legitimately due to her, had despoiled her of health and fortune, and she reminded the minister that the pledges contained in his letter of July 12, 1777, confirming the intentions of the late King in his order of April 1, 1766, left her at liberty to go whithersoever she would.[348]

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

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, she sought, or pretended to seek for comfort in the consolations of religion. She retired, she says, speaking of herself, to different convents, that she might acquire the customs, habits, occupations and virtues which most became her, and if she had offered a bad example in wearing the King’s uniform in time of war, she made ample reparation by wearing, in time of peace, the Queen’s uniform amongst the ladies at Court; then she adds, comically enough, that it was to the edification of the Church and of her neighbours she retired frequently to 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 the invitation to visit the ladies at St. Cyr, D’Eon thus wrote to Madame ——, one of the inmates:—

D’Eon’s strength of character enabled her to shape her deportment at the several retreats she visited with honourable and scrupulous observance of the rules of those institutions, conduct induced from prudential considerations, and she spent her time in the profuse waste of paper, writing prayers of her own composition, cunningly adapted to one in her singularly anomalous position, e.g.:—

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

It is clear that the Chevalière was by no means yielding to the supposed advantageous influences by which she was surrounded, no benefit being conferred on her agitated mind by the religious austerity in the midst of which so many of her days were being passed. The profound meditations in which she indulged with others were not those of the cloister, her thoughts being too actively engaged in evolving to herself scheme after scheme for obtaining freedom from the restraint imposed by her hated petticoats, chafing as she was to join the King’s forces. It is true that the war being necessarily a naval one, it was not the soldiers of France who were called to the strife; but D’Eon showed herself equal to the occasion when addressing herself, this time to the Count de Maurepas, president of the council, more pathetically and entreatingly than to any of the other ministers:—

D’Eon must have been fully persuaded that escape out of her state of wretchedness was impossible, and that the pen and ink agitation, in which she was repeating so much sad nonsense, would prove fruitless, for, in writing, on the very next day, to her nephews who were about leaving to take part in the war, she playfully observed that the King, or rather his presiding minister, absolutely refused to allow her to join the forces, through fear, no doubt, that the indomitable English 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 the intentions of the ministers with regard to the epicene D’Eon, her allusions to the de Guerchy family, and her ill-concealed desire to avenge herself on the son of her old and deceased enemy, could only have served to confirm them in their earliest resolution that she should not, under any circumstances, be liberated from the thraldom into which she had yielded her person.

Neglected by all at Court, and perhaps despised, as she conceived herself to be, the Chevalière resolved upon throwing off the badges of her servitude, and again appearing as a captain of dragoons; but she was immediately arrested and conveyed to the castle of the old Dukes of Burgundy, at Dijon, where she remained confined during the space of two months. Consenting to take things in a more philosophic spirit, and return to her laces and skirts, she was permitted to reappear in Paris, and there, on September 20, was confirmed, by order of the King and the Count de Vergennes, the draft of a deed granting a life-annuity of twelve thousand livres, out of the funds of the Department for Foreign Affairs, unto ‘Charlotte-Geneviève-Louisa-Augusta-André-Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont, formerly known as the Chevalier D’Eon;’ this being the first occasion upon which she was officially styled by her new appellations. After this D’Eon completely disappeared from society, having gone to live with her aged mother at Tonnerre, where travellers, impelled by natural curiosity, made it a point to see her if they could. In this way she entertained at her table Prince Henry of Prussia, brother to Frederick the Great, who had met her in Germany during the war.

D’Eon does not appear to have absented herself from Tonnerre until about the middle of 1785, when she went to stay with the Duchess de Montmorency-Bouteville, and at the Hôtel des Dames de France, in the Rue de Baume, Paris. France and England being again at peace, since September 1783, she was maturing her plans for obtaining permission to return to London, where she was anxious to recover the money that was owed to her, and save from dispersion the property she had left in charge of her landlord, who, unable to obtain any advance upon the rent due, had already, upon one occasion, publicly advertised for sale the ‘valuable library and curious manuscripts of the Chevalière D’Eon, to refund himself for the space occupied by the said library in his house during seven years’—a sale the Chevalière succeeded in arresting by some arrangement with her creditor.[353] It was not, however, until the rulers of France conceived the right moment had arrived, and they were as good as their word, that D’Eon received official intimation of her movements being relieved from all restriction, with freedom to leave France if she chose, and with scarcely a day’s delay she made her exit from Paris in a post-chaise, attended by her maid, arriving in London on November 17, and putting up at her old chambers in Brewer Street. She was well received by her friends of former days, amongst whom are specially named Lord Tamworth, Colonel Kemys Tynte,[354] and Mrs. Church.

With no other resources but the modest pension of 12,000 livres, D’Eon was hard pushed for very existence in the face of her liabilities, many of ancient date, notwithstanding the five thousand pounds sterling paid by Louis XVI. to extricate her out of her difficulties, for the monetary transactions between the French Chevalière and the English peer resulted in grievous distress to the former, as we shall presently see. Forced by reason of this to live in strict seclusion, we almost lose sight of her until April 9, 1787, the day appointed for an assault-at-arms in the presence of the Prince of Wales at Carlton House, and to which, as a fencer of distinguished reputation, she was invited. D’Eon and Mr. Angelo, Sen., were nominated by his Royal Highness judges for the occasion, there being present several of the most accomplished fencers of the day, such as the mulatto, the celebrated Saint-George, and his companions Fabien and de la Motte; also Angelo, Jun., Nogee, Reda, Rolland, and Goddard. The novelty of a lady in petticoats engaging the most experienced and able masters excited much mirth, even those who had known her en culottes being not a little surprised at the skill she displayed in fencing with Saint-George. Her petticoats did not incommode her in the least, but it was clear that the late captain of dragoons proved herself to be more expert at the risposte than a courtesy, and at handling a foil more gracefully than she did a fan. Quoting from another newspaper:—

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

When Mr. Angelo died near Eton, in 1801, D’Eon deplored the loss of one of her oldest and best friends, 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 were frequent guests at Angelo’s table, in his house in Carlisle Street, Soho Square, where they often sat for hours over the bottle, in lengthened arguments upon the politics of the day. D’Eon was Angelo’s most constant guest and bosom friend, staying at his house sometimes for weeks, and materially assisted him in his Treatise on Fencing. It was there that old Hone and Cosway met her. She had experienced the greatest pleasure in teaching young Angelo how to handle a foil, until at last they became strong antagonists, the latter, after reaching manhood, often taking much pains to put her out of humour. Speaking of her as a maître d’armes, Angelo found that he was violent and bien opiniâtre, though by no means a ferrailleur. Whatever he executed was correct and scientific.

Other announcements in the papers of the day show how the Chevalière turned to equally good account her skill in chess.

In 1788, when the country was sorrowing at symptoms of aberration in George III., the Chevalière issued an ‘Epître aux Anglais dans leurs tristes circonstances présentes’ (8vo. 48 pp.), complimentary to the Prince of Wales, which was well received and quickly reached a second edition.

We pass over the intermediate years until 1791, when the Chevalière burst upon London with the sudden announcement that her precious books and MSS. were about to be sold by public auction. The catalogue, prepared by herself, opens with an address to the Public,[359] in which are given the reasons which place her under the necessity of disposing, during her lifetime, of all she possesses. She had returned to London in 1785 for no other purpose than that of paying her creditors and collecting what was due to her, but she had been unable to succeed in this double object of her wishes. The reigning King of France, she went on to say, sensible of her military and political services, as well as of her innocence and the misfortunes she had experienced, had generously caused to be remitted to Washington, 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 her debts, so that she might be in a position to leave England honourably. Notwithstanding, however, the earl’s honour and probity, and his friendship for the Chevalière, he discharged a part only of her debts, and without first asking her consent, kept 3,000l. for his own private use, undoubtedly with the intention of returning the money, D’Eon having asked him to settle with her creditors, and especially with Mr. Duval, the King’s jeweller, who had advanced several sums during the Chevalière’s law-suits and distresses in London. Being urged to satisfy these claims, his lordship acknowledged that he had applied 3,000l. towards completing the furniture of his seat,[360] the working of a lead-mine, and of a lime-pit in his park of Staunton Harold, which had since produced an income of 600l. Being dissatisfied with this employment of her money, D’Eon wrote from London to entreat that upon his lordship’s return to town, he would afford to herself and to her creditors some security for the speedy reimbursement of the money. Lord Ferrers replied in three separate letters.

Alarmed at this intelligence, D’Eon repaired to the seat of his lordship,[364] who, fearing he should die, had signed a bond at five per cent. interest, payable at the expiration of five years instead of one year, as he had promised. D’Eon was not greatly pleased at this fresh delay, but finding there was no alternative, she accepted this bond, dated December 26, 1775, and payable in 1780, and transferred it, jointly with Lord Ferrers, to Mr. John Duval, on August 11, 1777, as security for the Chevalière’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 Honourable Washington, Earl Ferrers, am held and firmly bound to Charles Genovesa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon de Beaumont, Knight of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis, now of Brewer’s Street, Golden Square, in the County of Middlesex, in the penal sum of Six Thousand Pounds, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid to the said Charles Genovesa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon de Beaumont, 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, firmly by these presents. Sealed with my Seal; dated this twenty-sixth day of December, in the sixteenth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth; and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five.

‘The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden Washington, Earl Ferrers, his Heirs, Executors, and Administrators, shall and do well and truly pay or cause to be paid to the said Charles Genovesa Louisa Augusta Andrea Timothea D’Eon de Beaumont, his certain Attorney, Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, the full sum of Three Thousand Pounds, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, on or before the twenty-sixth day of December, which will be in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty, with interest for the same after the rate of five pounds per centum, per annum, then this obligation to be void, or else to remain in full force.

‘(Signed) Ferrers.’

‘Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence 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’s probity, D’Eon left London for France with her mind quite at ease. The following year Lord Ferrers died, as did also Mr. Duval. It was impossible for D’Eon to return to England to obtain payment of the bond and reimburse the heirs of Mr. Duval, the King’s ministers having ordered his detention in France, and it was not until 1785 that she was able to attend to the affair in person. Being then again in England, she prevailed upon a common friend to treat with Robert, Earl Ferrers, brother and heir to the late earl, to obtain payment, but finding that his lordship only wished to gain time and keep her out of her money, she was obliged to bring an action against him in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, which she gained, on February 6, 1787, the funds for conducting the prosecution having been supplied by Lord Tamworth, in entire disapproval of his father’s conduct. Two months later this earl, who, according to Walpole, ‘deserved his ancient honours,’ died, referring to which event a daily paper observed:—

The will of the late earl contained directions that all his late brother’s and his own debts should be paid, and although the new earl, as Lord Tamworth, had befriended D’Eon and made handsome promises, he no longer thought it his duty, after succeeding to the title, to discharge the debt of honour. It should be stated that the only sums received by the Chevalière from the day that Washington, Earl Ferrers, had appropriated the 3,000l. in 1775, to the year 1791, amounted to 150l., paid in three instalments of 50l. each, between April 21 and November 26, 1776. After her return from France, she endeavoured to recover her money or the interest due; but all was in vain, and being determined that her creditors should not be the sufferers, she felt obliged to offer even her beloved library for sale, resolved ‘to carry nothing with her out of the island but her integrity and her regret at leaving it.’

It is impossible not to feel some sympathy for the unfortunate Chevalière in this ignoble treatment by a succession of British peers, with all of whom she had long been on terms of intimate friendship, even though the moral to be deduced by the circumstances is, that the would-be biter herself became the bitten one! Turning back a few pages to the time when Beaumarchais was conducting 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 represented by the supposed creditor and debtor that the iron safe filled with important documents had been deposited with the English nobleman in security for the debt, a story that cannot be regarded otherwise than as a pure invention. It is clear enough that in her anxiety to secure a sufficiently large advance out of the funds supplied by the King, who was fully disposed to liberality, but with which Beaumarchais was most unwilling to part, D’Eon had secured the earl’s sanction to the entry, in her list of liabilities, of this imaginary debt. Never for a moment doubting the genuineness of the claim after his first suspicions had been removed, or suspecting complicity in any kind of deception, Beaumarchais paid the money, but instead of immediately passing on the whole to D’Eon’s creditors, as he had promised to do, his lordship boldly retained 3,000l. for his own use and benefit, in the conviction that the Chevalière would be in no hurry to expose her own share in the double dealing, by publicly resenting the breach of trust of which he had been guilty. The Chevalière discovered, but too late, the blunder she had committed in trusting to her would-be friend, and submitted tamely enough to the earl’s shameless and unfeeling settlement, by which she was required to wait five years for her little capital, and not one year as originally convened.

The breach of trust became something worse as years rolled by, and none of Washington, Earl Ferrers’ successors, after having adorned themselves with the coronet, cared to recognise their obligation towards the needy and ill-used knight. D’Eon had awaited the pleasure of the several earls during fifteen years, before making the fearless exposure of their conduct and giving public expression to her feelings thereon, in the preface to her catalogue. When bitterly tried, a decade later, by fresh reverses of fortune, she renewed her efforts (October 1802) to recover what was her own, this time through Admiral Shirley, a brother of the deceased earl, Washington. She sent to him a copy of the bond, a calculation of the interest due on her capital of 3,000l. during twenty-seven years, and a proposal for the final adjustment of the affair. The encumbered condition of the Ferrers’ estates would have rendered nugatory any further promises, even if any such had been held out to the Chevalière, who reduced her demands to a minimum by asking for 500l. wherewith to pay pressing calls, and a yearly allowance of 100l. for the remainder of her days, no great exaction, seeing that she was then in her seventy-fifth year! Upon these conditions she was prepared to surrender the bond to the admiral, to be disposed of as he might think proper. It does not appear what notice was taken of this proposition by the deceased earl’s brother, but it is very certain that so late as January 1805, the Chevalière had not received one farthing from the Ferrers family![366]

Scarcely had the distribution of D’Eon’s Catalogue taken place, than sympathising friends made up a purse to meet her immediate necessities; a subscription list was opened at Mr. Hammersley’s, the banker, Pall Mall, where, in a very short time, the sum of 465l. 5s. was collected, 100l. being a contribution from the Prince of Wales. Another expression of feeling was a public entertainment given for D’Eon’s benefit, on June 29, 1791, by the managers of Ranelagh,[367] ‘in consideration of her having been deprived of a considerable part of her fortune by the odious detention of a deposit.’

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

The latter included—

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

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

A pair of single drop brilliant earrings, 109 guineas.

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

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

CHAPTER XVIII.

Having satisfied some of her creditors with the proceeds of the sale, D’Eon occupied herself in packing the remainder of her effects in fifteen cases for conveyance to France. War had been declared, and the Citoyenne Geneviève at once sent her nephew O’Gorman to Paris, with the offers of her services in the form of a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, an extract from which was read at a sitting of that body. It stated that although she had worn the dress of a woman for fifteen years, she had never forgotten that she was formerly a soldier; that since the Revolution she felt her military ardour revive, and demanded, instead of her cap and petticoats, her helmet, sabre, horse, and the rank in the army to which her seniority, her services, and her wounds entitled her; and she also requested permission to raise a legion of volunteers. Unconnected with any party, she had no desire to brandish her sword in procession in the streets of Paris, and wished for nothing but actual service—war nobly made and courageously supported.

This petition, the reading of which was interrupted by repeated bursts of applause, was ordered to be honourably mentioned in the minutes, and referred to the 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 from the Minister of War for the Republic of France, she was about to proceed to Paris, thence to join the army of General Dumouriez,[372] and begged leave to forward to his care six cases for despatch to France, viâ Rouen or Havre de Grace, as she might determine after her arrival in that country. Nine other cases were at the same time sent to Mr. Christie, who had promised to find room for them. She was also invited by the ladies of Paris to return to them, the invitation, dated in the month of April, having been entrusted for personal delivery to her old friend, Captain Arden, of the Royal Navy. The Chevalière did not return to France, having been detained in all probability by her creditors, who would have acted with greater wisdom and profit to themselves had they trusted to her honour, and left her free to seek for better days under the changed fortunes of her country. It was doubtlessly her late surrender of State papers, and the nature of their contents,[373] that had influenced the administrators of the Republic in her favour; but her right to a pension was no longer recognised under the new form of Government in France, her property had been confiscated, and she was thus left without resources of any description, now verging on her sixty-fifth year. The Chevalière appears to have existed at this time chiefly upon the hospitality of her friends, there being amongst those who entertained her more frequently the names of Lady 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 Horne Tooke and Paine; Mr. Fitzmaurice (brother of Lord Lansdowne), Colonel Macbean, of the Artillery; Mr. Lockhart, banker, Pall Mall; Mr. Dent, banker, Clarges Street; Sir William Ffloyd, Count Zenobio, envoy from Venice; Colonel du Bathe, M. Hirsinger, Chargé d’Affaires from France, &c. &c.

By the end of the year 1792 the Chevalière’s remaining means and credit were completely exhausted, and there was no alternative but to make public exhibition of her pre-eminent skill in fencing, a resolution in which she appears to have been supported by Mrs. Bateman, the noted actress and female fencer. Her first appearance, in a series of performances, was at a déjeuner given by Mrs. Bateman in her house, Soho Square, to a party of English and French officers of both services, several ‘literary characters, and gentlemen of first-rate stage talents,’ upon which occasion, as announced in the papers,

January 22.—She was next invited to an Assaut d’armes with Captain Walmsley, at Mr. Towneley’s house in Devonshire Place, when one hundred guests were present, nearly all of whom were Roman Catholics.

February 11.—Fenced Captain Walmsley at the Club d’Armes, Brewer Street, and although very much indisposed, astonished numerous spectators with her science and activity. The captain was foiled four or five times successively, and it was not till the female Chevalier was nearly exhausted that he had the opportunity of a retort. Confident of success, Mademoiselle D’Eon refused the mask, of which her opponent availed himself.[374]

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 11 and 21.—Fences at the theatre, Dover.

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

After which, Mrs. Bateman[375] and the Chevalière, who had been on a professional tour together, returned to London.

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

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

D’Eon had to keep her bed for four months, and after being removed to London was confined, through great debility, to the house, which she left four times only during the next four years, and then only in a coach. She spent her long convalescence with Mrs. Mary Cole[378] at her own invitation, an old friend from whom she never again parted, and these two thereafter shared alike in each other’s sorrows, for of joys they had none! ‘My life was spent in eating, drinking, and sleeping, praying, writing, and at work with Mrs. Cole, repairing linen, gowns, and head-dresses.’

The Chevalière was in the habit of pawning her diamonds from time to time when hard pressed, taking care to redeem and keep them in reserve until she could dispose of them at a fair price. In 1799, being absolutely obliged to part with those jewels, after failing to treat with Rundell and his friend Sharp, the well-known jewellers, she made some satisfactory arrangement with a Mr. Moses, who called to see them. After this, it may be said that D’Eon lived entirely upon charity. Forced to give up the chambers she had occupied in Brewer Street during thirty-three years, she went to stay for a time with Colonel Thornton, on the Surrey side of the Thames, and then took up her residence permanently with Mrs. Cole, first at 33 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, Foundling Hospital. Her two nephews, Major O’Gorman, and Captain Augustus O’Gorman of the 18th regiment of foot, called to see her occasionally, but it does not appear that they ever afforded any relief or comfort to their aged aunt, who had been in the habit of assisting them very materially in their younger days.

D’Eon had never abandoned the idea of possibly returning to France, the Treaty of Amiens and the First 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 supplied with a passport to Paris and Tonnerre, good for three decades (thirty days), dated the 25th Brumaire (November 15) of the same year, and she received five pounds from Mr. R. Slade ‘to enable her to return to her country;’ but she remained hopelessly involved, as appears from several touching entries in her note-book, of which we quote two. M. Blacher, the exiled curé of St. Martin le Gérard in the diocese of Constance, called at the house of the sheriff’s officer for Surrey, on November 15, 1804, and inquired if it was true that Mademoiselle D’Eon was in detention. Upon learning that she had been in custody five months, and only just set at liberty, the curé asked to see her, and being shown into the Chevalière’s chamber, said that he had come at the instance of an English lady to know the particulars of her arrest. On taking his leave, and pleading that he also was an exile and poor, he quietly placed on the table a gold seven-shilling piece which he refused to take up again, although pressed to do so by D’Eon. Acknowledging the receipt of ten guineas from the Marchioness Townshend, D’Eon wrote, July 18, 1805:—

The note was signed: Chevalier D’Eon, who has not quitted his bed, his room, or his house nine times during the last nine years.

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

Amongst those who occasionally supplied her with funds, or whose attentions the Chevalière more particularly appreciated, were Mrs. Crawford, of Hertford Street, Mayfair, a daughter of Mrs. Holland; the Misses Dodwell; Mrs. Tryon, of Glaston, Uppingham; Colonel Kemys-Tynte; and Miss Shirley, a natural daughter of Admiral Shirley. The good Queen Charlotte had never forgotten her, and she enjoyed an annuity of fifty pounds from the Duke of Queensberry.

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

When the last offices were being performed to the remains of her deceased friend, Mrs. Cole learnt for the first time, and to her utter astonishment, that her late most intimate companion was a man. Upon making his appearance the following morning, Père Elisée equally expressed his great surprise, and at once recommended the expediency of the Chevalier’s sex being professionally determined; the body was accordingly dissected in the presence of several medical gentlemen, the Earl of Yarborough, Sir Sidney Smith, the Honourable Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Douglas, and other persons of consideration, the following certificate being forthwith made public:—

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

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

Before the devastating spade and shovel of the Midland Railway Company had commenced its work in 1868, to make a cutting through the churchyard at St. Pancras, a slab, in situ, was to be seen bearing this inscription:

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 engraving was made, and a tinted engraving of the torso, from a drawing by C. Turner, was also published, with the surgical attestation as to sex. The body presented unusual roundness in the formation of limbs; the appearance of a beard was very slight, and hair of so light a colour as to be scarcely perceptible on the arms, legs, and chest. The throat was by no means masculine; shoulders square and good; breast remarkably full; arms, hands, and fingers, those of a stout female; hips very small, and legs and feet corresponding with arms.

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

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

D’Eon left a holograph will of some length, preceded by a preamble, and appointed Sir Sidney Smith to be his executor, but the will was unsigned. The preamble is headed, Soli Deo Gloria et Honor, and the testament commencing, Mors mihi lucrum, ends with these four lines:—

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, he leaves to his three nephews O’Gorman the sum of sixty thousand livres, owed to him by their father, his brother-in-law, the Chevalier O’Gorman.

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

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

Writing to the Bishop de Langres, Seigneur de Montmorin, D’Eon sums up very curtly a sketch of himself:—

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

John Taylor had met the Chevalier in his advanced life at Mr. Angelo’s, when he found that his former captivating manners must have undergone great alteration, for, although dressed as a woman, he spoke and acted with all the roughness of a veteran soldier. He was generally considered to be most intelligent, full of anecdote and fertile conversation, and it was believed that his name and extraordinary appearance would never be forgotten.

As to the tastes and habits of our subject, he certainly through life eschewed low society of whatsoever class. He was fond of good living, and in his palmy days kept his cellar well stocked with expensive Burgundies and Champagnes. He was hospitable and charitable, never forgetting more especially his poor relations; but it does not appear that he ever had the generosity to admit a fault to his neighbour, although frequently confessing his imperfections to God. He was an accepted free-mason at the Lodge of Immortality at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, not very zealous in his attendance. As a woman he rarely left the house except when socially called, was a confirmed smoker, and no doubt employed cosmetics and wore feminine garments other than stays, as we are led to believe by the numerous cuttings of newspaper advertisements he has left behind. (A small red cross marked every piece of linen.) He spent his leisure indulging largely in writing, and in the study of his favourite authors, such as Cicero, Lucretius, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Tacitus—La Fontaine, Boileau, Racine, and Voltaire—Swift, and Addison from whom I have found quoted the apothegm that must have been like salve to his turbulent spirit: ‘A disturbed liberty is preferable to quiescent slavery.’ He was fond of reading the Psalms, frequently transcribing passages adapted to his changed condition and circumstances, and had perhaps realised—but how much too late!—his neglect of the admonition: ‘Put not your trust in princes’ ... when, in writing his will, he expressed the hope that he might be able to retire to the Hermitage at Friburg, there to forget the world, and devote himself solely to God, ‘alone worthy of his homage.’

A few extracts from the voluminous MSS. on sacred subjects in the Christie collection, should suffice to persuade us that D’Eon had indeed studied the Holy Scriptures, and faithfully interpreted, generally speaking, the doctrine of our Lord; but without entirely divesting himself of some of the teachings of the Church of Rome, upon whose servants he unsparingly casts obloquy similar to that heaped upon their successors at the present day, in both hemispheres; for there is no exaggeration whatever in asserting that it is in Great Britain alone, where the spirit of ‘fair play’ rules every heart, that the Romish priesthood enjoys anything like consideration at the hands of its fellow subjects at large.

About the year 1764 D’Eon wrote:—

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

The most perfect stranger to Charles XII. was Love! They had never nudged one another! This was not the case with the Chevalier D’Eon, who resembled Swift perhaps in more ways than one. In Mademoiselle Constance de Courcelles and the Countess de Rochefort (the latter, by the way, was a young widow), D’Eon had his Stella (short of wedlock) and Vanessa. Of the scenes of their love, we know nothing. He may have had a dozen Varinas, but I very much doubt it. Of Mademoiselle de Courcelles’ letters he preserved a large packet for twenty years, and it may be, for longer, after their correspondence had ceased upon his assuming female attire. The Duke de Nivernois was in the habit of teasing him by introducing the name of the Countess, but this was the shortest-lived flirtation of the two, because the Chevalier remained in England and the Countess resided chiefly in France. Without actually avoiding the society of ladies, he never sought it—he could not speak of that he did not feel—and was never known, in the course of his career, to have been engaged in any amorous adventure or affair of gallantry as it was termed, whether at Court or in the camp, and this in an age when courtiers, like their 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 to his duty, working early and late, with fencing for recreation, to any kind of unsavoury indulgence. He never sought to wrong the decencies of life.

I am not aware that Swift’s unfeeling treatment of the two women he after a fashion loved has ever been satisfactorily explained; whereas D’Eon himself, upon various occasions, assigns to physical causes his state of insensibility. Two examples will probably suffice:—

Most accounts agree, the one being taken from the other, that D’Eon’s attainments included an acquaintance with ancient and modern languages. That this was not the case is evidenced by the contents of his library and the almost complete absence, amongst his MSS., of any note or quotation except in French or Latin; while forty years’ residence in England did not suffice to teach him English.

A few reflections, written at intervals of time, might assist us in passing judgment on a life of so rare adventure, for t’were well, if we would be just, to estimate each touch of character at its true proportions, for entry whether on the credit or on the debtor side of the moralist’s ledger.

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

From the first moment when society, not in England only, stood perplexed at the enigma presented in the person of the Chevalière D’Eon, a variety of fugitive pieces, some acrimonious, others laudatory, of which she was the subject, appeared in the public prints on both sides of the Channel. With the necessarily limited selections for which we can find space, because we believe they form a fit sequel to the history of our archetype, we gratefully take leave of the reader, who will have had the kindness to accompany us thus far.

Verses believed to have been written by an eminent Doctor of Divinity of the University of Oxford, and addressed to a friend 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 par Madame Falconet.

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

On Mademoiselle D’Eon’s skill in fencing.

ARGUMENT.

Two events in the career of the Chevalier D’Eon, undisputed by his contemporaries, but controverted of late years, must ever give cause for despair to biographers, so long as they seek to determine, by written evidence alone—(1) That D’Eon went to St. Petersburg for the first time in 1755, appearing there in the disguise of a female. (2) That he declared himself to be a female, and permanently adopted female attire in the year 1777, solely in obedience to the commands of Louis XVI. and his ministers.

The objections raised by the non-contents to these earliest traditions is based uniquely on the complete absence of any documents in their direct support; how far such documents are indispensable the reader will judge in the face of much incidental evidence in their favour.

Boutaric (i. 81), writing in 1866, says: ‘About the year 1755 (vers 1755) was conducted a negotiation (during the interrupted diplomatic relations between France and Russia), from which the Count de Broglie was excluded, but wherein took part a personage whose name has become celebrated, the Chevalier D’Eon.’ It was with no greater precision, that the Archivist of the Empire was enabled to fix the date of the Chevalier Douglas’ departure for Russia (no great matter for surprise) seeing that neither amongst the national archives, nor at the ministry for foreign affairs, are to be found any papers whatever relating to Douglas’ first journey to Russia![393] A deficiency, however, that has been supplied by Vandal (p. 263), and at p. 12 of this book upon the authority of the British ambassador at St. Petersburg, the arrival at the Russian capital of the King of France’s secret agent having unquestionably taken place in October, 1755. That D’Eon went with Douglas appears from several of the Chevalier’s indirect statements to that effect, and by some fortuitous but very forcible testimony.

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

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

A first incitement to the persuasion that D’Eon’s earliest introduction at St. Petersburg was in the character of a female, exists in the portrait by La Tour. When D’Eon was in his twenty-fifth (or more probably twenty-seventh[394]) year, La Tour was a greatly esteemed and general favourite; he had painted a full length picture of Louis XV., and portraits of Madame de Pompadour and many others at Court, and as it is scarcely credible, from what we know of his circumstances in those days, that D’Eon was in a position to employ an artist of established reputation to paint a fancy portrait of himself for himself, and this apart from his known innate dislike to any such travesty, we perhaps see personified in the comely young woman at page 14, a representation of le petit D’Eon, as he was expected, by the Prince de Conti, shortly to make his appearance at the Russian capital.

In recapitulating his services to the Duke de Praslin (June 5, 1763) D’Eon showed that when sent to Petersburg by M. Rouillé, in 1756, for secret and important motives, reasons of policy required that certain views entertained with regard to himself, and for which he felt some repugnance, should be abandoned; whereupon he received the minister’s orders to remain with Douglas until the arrival of the new ambassador. What but a repetition of the part he played in 1755 is to be understood from his repugnance to perform duties assigned to him! It was quite beyond D’Eon’s power to endure from others any allusion to his effeminate appearance or physical defects, and he studiously eschewed all reference to his assumption of female attire, by rarely specifying his first visit to St. Petersburg as having been in 1755, preferring to allude in 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 existed any object in concealing the past so very carefully, and when admission to that effect was only too likely, as he thought, 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 that he was a female; and it is true that after the arrival of that lady in London, fresh reports were circulated tending to confirm the suspicions already entertained that the Chevalier was indeed a woman.

There is preserved in the public library at Tonnerre a note from the old Marquis de l’Hôpital to D’Eon, written in a spirit of pleasantry, and although undated, is obviously of the last half of 1759, or of the first half of 1760.

Could Lia have been the name adopted by D’Eon during his disguise in 1755, or are we to believe that it was playfully applied by the ambassador to the secretary suffering from ophthalmia, because ‘Leah was tender-eyed?’

The secret autograph order of Louis XV., dated October 4, 1763 (p. 104), is sufficiently significative, and can only have reference to the Chevalier’s earliest connection with Russia, because from August, 1756, he was officially recognised as secretary of Embassy, until his final departure for France in August, 1760, after which he fell ill of small-pox. Early in 1761 he joined the army in the field, served as aide-de-camp to the de Broglios throughout the campaign of that year, and upon his return to France went on leave, whilst awaiting the appointment of minister plenipotentiary to Russia, which, he wrote to tell his colonel, the Marquis d’Autichamp, would take him to St. Petersburg for the fourth time. See ‘Lettres, Mémoires,’ &c.

Madame Campan had frequently heard the Chevalier repeat to her father, M. Genest, the contents of Louis XV.’s order, in which that monarch separated his individuality from the person of the King of France. She had special opportunities afterwards, as lady-in-waiting to the queen, for becoming acquainted with D’Eon’s character during his two years’ residence at the Court of Marie Antoinette and in its precincts, and she long survived him, dying in 1822; we may therefore legitimately assume that had his veracity been generally mistrusted, or had she doubted the existence of such an order, she would assuredly have qualified his statement, unless she had cause to be satisfied that the order, which it is pretty certain she never saw, was indeed in the King’s own hand.

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

The earliest intimation of D’Eon’s somewhat familiar intercourse with Elizabeth appears in the work of de la Fortelle, of whom the Chevalier says:—‘Il m’a élevé un monument de gloire dans son grand ouvrage.’ According to this author, D’Eon was received at the Russian Court in a secret capacity, and having succeeded in making himself agreeable in the sight of the Empress, and secured the good-will of her favourite minister, his consummate tact enabled him to approach the sovereign, to converse with and gradually interest her, and having secured her Majesty’s confidence, he prepared her mind to receive impressions favourable to the cause he had at heart.

Did D’Eon permanently adopt female attire in 1777, solely in obedience to the commands of Louis XVI. and his ministers?

In Kirby’s ‘Wonderful and Eccentric Museum’ is quoted from the ‘Gazette de Santé,’ a periodical of the day, an article that appeared soon after the Chevalier’s decease, 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 a woman, and it will be remembered that when resisting the pressure put upon him by Beaumarchais, he reminded that unyielding negotiator that it was Louis XV. and the Duke d’Aiguillon, Louis XVI. and the Count de Vergennes, and the de Guerchy family who demanded his metamorphosis.

The theory put forward by Gaillardet, that D’Eon himself confirmed the general belief in his being a female, is based upon two passages in letters to Beaumarchais: ‘I admit with pleasure, although with the pain, the shame, and the tears that the avowal and admission of 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 a woman is beyond any manner of doubt, but that D’Eon confessed so much to him spontaneously, the idea having emanated from himself, is anything but proved, if proof rests solely on the above two short extracts. Dutens, styled by D’Eon, ‘mon honorable ami,’ and who was well acquainted with Beaumarchais (‘j’ai beaucoup connu Beaumarchais’), was told by the dramatic writer that he was perfectly assured of the sex of the extraordinary woman—but that was all! And he relates, as he had heard it, the cause which led to the Chevalier’s change of sex.

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

If we look at the order of Louis XVI., dated August 25, 1775, instructing Beaumarchais to recover the papers out of D’Eon’s hands, we find the latter named in the masculine gender; and although Beaumarchais distinctly individualises D’Eon as being a woman, in none of de Vergennes’ despatches is he spoken of otherwise than as if he were a man, and that minister goes so far as to say that if the Chevalier would disguise himself—‘si M. D’Eon voulait se travestir’—all should be well. (See p. 239.)

The author of the attractive and somewhat laborious work, ‘Beaumarchais et son Temps,’ calls attention to the piquancy in D’Eon’s letters to Beaumarchais, acting admirably, as he does, the part of a woman concealed under the guise of a man; at the same time adopting an ambiguous style, as if with the view of making it clear at any such time eventually as his fraud would be discovered, that he had been duping so astute a man as the author of ‘Le Barbier de Seville,’ and that whilst duping him, to his face, he was also making fun of him, without his being sensible of it. On the other hand, Beaumarchais amused himself at the expense of the love-sick vieille dragonne, becoming the more confirmed in his error, as D’Eon continued to counterfeit the wrath of an offended old maid.

The Chevalier’s letters to Louis XVI. (Ch. MSS.) make it sufficiently clear that the King could not have been positively assured on his sex. In one letter D’Eon informs his Majesty that he continued to maintain silence in respect to his position, which was so singular and extraordinary, as to be without parallel in ancient or modern history. He had kept his secret profoundly, because it was the secret of secrets of the late King, and he entreated his Majesty either to allow two Councillors of State, in whom he had implicit confidence, to write down his depositions and the proofs to them, before he returned to France, or permit him to publish his defence.

In another letter, the King is told that the question of sex will soon be decided, after the Court will have restored the honour and money due to him. ‘I can then think of settling down, and in marrying, make known to which sex I belong.’

In a third letter, the Chevalier points out that negotiations for his return to France were conducted from 1770 to 1775, and that his letter to the Count de Broglio of January 1775, was sent under flying seal to the Count de Vergennes, to enable that minister to become well acquainted with the validity of some of his arguments, and communicate them for his Majesty’s consideration.

Lacretelle, Taylor, and others, are unable to account for the Chevalier’s change of sex, otherwise than that it was produced by some unexplained intrigue, and that he was directed by the French Government to appear as a woman, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily determined. Voltaire wrote, that the whole affair puzzled him. He was unable to picture to himself either D’Eon, or the ministers of his day, or the acts 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 find the key to the situation.

Might not every secret in which this mystery was involved have been hidden in the valise 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 immediately responsible for the ludicrous innovation, confessed to Beaumarchais his concern lest D’Eon should make his appearance in France as a man, his enemies being on the alert, and not likely to forgive him easily for all he had 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. (See p. 283.)

The question has also arisen—Granted that D’Eon was obliged to appear as a woman, by command of King and ministers, such being the stipulation for his receiving the royal grant of twelve thousand livres, annually; why, after the fall of the monarchy and having lost all by the French Revolution, did he continue in the anomalous character of a female? We, in England, are able to understand, that to one who had spent so many years of his life in this country, and had become familiar with the sentiments and susceptibilities of English men and women, there was no choice. It had long been known and admitted that the Chevalière had been treated by French ministers with peculiar harshness, and she was seen to be reduced to absolute want at the advanced age of sixty-four! Under circumstances such as these, he must have felt that so long as he was believed to be a female, commiseration and assistance were to be expected; but to declare himself a man, after having adopted female attire and been admitted into the intimacies of female society over a period of sixteen years, would have been to expose himself—to summary castigation? That he did not fear; but to what would have been dreaded infinitely more than famine by one with his antecedents—the ridicule and scorn of all who knew anything about him; and so he elected to continue to the end of his days, dressing, writing, and speaking as if he were a woman, but otherwise conducting himself in all respects with the freedom belonging to a man.

We adhere to our engagement not to judge the individual who presents such startling episodes in his life, and contrasts in his character. It has hitherto been his fate to be classed, it may be said, amongst the adventurers of which the last century was sufficiently prolific; these pages will perhaps assist to remove him out of that order and place him where he should stand—alone, as a physiognomical marvel. We would in a measure plead for him, in Johnson’s words in behalf of poor Goldsmith—‘Let not his failings be remembered’—for his faults were but failings. Of this victim to envy, malice, and all uncharitableness, we have read clearly enough how sinned against he was, far more than he had ever himself sinned against others. All he suffered he had to endure for serving an ungrateful King too faithfully, oblivious that promesse des grands n’est pas héritage, while his attachment to his country was sublime, entitling him amongst his countrymen at home to Florian’s epitaph,

Loyal beyond compare, he ever continued true to one and the other, frequently under unexceptionably trying circumstances, repeating and again repeating: ‘Comme Français, je puis regarder le sacrifice de ma fortune comme la dette de mon amour pour le Roi. Comme militaire et Chevalier de Saint Louis, je dois même lui sacrifier ma vie; mais pour celui de mon honneur, il n’est pour personne!’

WORKS AND PUBLICATIONS BY THE CHEVALIER D’EON DE BEAUMONT. — MSS.

APPENDIX. — CARICATURES.

They who have seen the face of the eiserne jungfrau in the dread dungeon of the Inquisition at Nuremberg, even though by the lurid light of the keeper’s candle-stuffs, will experience little difficulty in figuring to themselves the habitual expression of the Chevalier D’Eon’s features, where every sentiment implanted by nature and conveyed in the open face, intelligent eyes, and well-shaped nose, was subjugated by the agitated spirit of sarcasm and disdain that kept rippling, as it were, out of the spacious brow, and overspreading the otherwise attractive countenance.

In the various portraits herewith described, the Chevalier or Chevalière D’Eon is represented in female attire except in those 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 collection of 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 Dragoons and the Volunteers of the Army, Aide-de-Camp to the Maréchal Duke and Count de Broglio, Minister Plenipotentiary from the King of France to the King of Great Britain in 1763. Born at Tonnerre, October 5, 1728. Painted in her twenty-fifth year. (See p. 14, from a photograph by C. Prætorius.)

To represent D’Eon de Beaumont as a Chevalière of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis at the age of twenty-five, is an anomaly. The cross in this picture may have been introduced by Angelica Kauffmann[395] when she copied La Tour’s portrait, or it may have been added many years after its execution, by La Tour himself, before Angelica Kauffmann saw it. His biographer gives authority for such a conjecture where he says: ‘Towards the close of his life, the mind of this artist began to give way. He vitiated a large number of his works by retracing them, under the pretext that in a portrait everything should 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 Charles Louis Cezar Augustus Alexander Timotheus D’Eon de Beaumont (here follow style and titles) and accepted free-mason at the lodge of Immortality at the ‘Crown and Anchor’ in the Strand.

4. *Huquier, pinxt; Burke, fect. Published as the Act directs, August 7, 1771, by I. Wesson. THE CHEVALIER D’EON. (See p. 208, from a photograph 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 the latter this legend: At nunc dura dedit vobis discrimina Pallas. On one side: Impavidam ferient ruinæ. A long inscription in English, concludes: Læsæ sed invictæ Palladi, per bella, per acta publica in patriæ suæ honorem et famam inclytæ, cujus virtutes nec inimici vituperare, pauci homines 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 communiqués par Mademoiselle D’Eon à ce Seul Artiste. Charlotte Geneviève Louise Auguste Andrée Timothée D’Eon de Beaumont (here follow style and titles) Ætatis 35.[396] A la Mémoire des Héroines Françoises, Jeanne D’Arc, Jeanne Hachette, etc. etc.

7. Frontispiece to ‘La Vie Militaire, Politique et Privée de Mademoiselle 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, dated 1812 (?), at the back of this canvas, allusion being made to the trial on sex policies, it is asserted—‘Sir Joshua Reynolds was in Court during the trial and requested the Chevalier to pay him a visit, which he did in female attire on 4 August, 1777, when this Sketch was taken of the Chevalier by Sir Joshua, and presented 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 his fiftieth year, and completed in 1782, the date inscribed by the artist to the left of the figure, whilst the Chevalière, then in her fifty-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-Timothée D’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 par Cathelin, de l’Académie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture à Paris. Læsæ sed invictæ Palladi. Name, style, and titles close with.... plus célèbre encore par sa Vertu que par son nom. Pensionnaire de Louis XV. et de Louis 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’s in 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 the Prince of Wales. The assault or Fencing-Match which took place between Mademoiselle La Chevalière D’Eon de Beaumont and Monsieur de Saint-George, on the 9th of April, 1787, at Carlton House, in the presence of His Royal Highness, several of the Nobility, and many eminent Fencing Masters of 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, published June 24, 1791, upon the occasion of the entertainment given by the Managers of Ranelagh for the benefit of the Chevalière D’Eon ... deprived of a considerable part of her fortune by the odious detention of a deposit. Minerve Gauloise, née a Tonnerre, le 5 8ᵇʳᵉ, 1728. Proprio Marte Tuta. The French artist who engraved this plate designed it for a monument of English generosity and French gratitude.

17. Dance, R.A., 26 May, 1793. Engraved by William Daniell, August 15, 1810. THE CHEVALIÈRE D’EON. This profile, to the left, was drawn 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. Turner from the Cast taken May 24, 1810, in the presence of J. C. Carpuc, Esq. and Dr. Pearson. Published June 29, 1810, by C. Turner. THE CHEVALIER D’EON.

A tinted engraving of the torso, 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.

In September 1777 was executed for the ‘London Magazine’—Mademoiselle de Beaumont, or the Chevalier D’Eon. Female Minister Plenipo., Capt. of Dragoons, etc. etc.—a full-length figure, the right half being a lady holding a fan, and the left half a man in uniform, with hat under the arm.

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

Another sketch that appeared in London, in 1778, represented the 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 Carlton House in April 1787 (see pp. 308, 367), we see ‘the Chevalière D’Eon making a successful thrust and hitting Saint George in his right arm. A railing divides the combatants from a highly select audience, in which the Prince of Wales occupies the post of honour, while Mrs. Fitzherbert sits on his right hand, and a crowd of political and fashionable worthies exhibit the greatest interest in the contest.’

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

Needless to observe that the Chevalière D’Eon did not escape being made the subject of foul and obscene illustrations, in the same way in which it had become the fashion to treat the most distinguished and highest in the land!

FOOTNOTES

INDEX.

• 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, 22 note
• 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, surnamed l’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, 63 note;
• mistaken opinion of de Guerchy, 66;
• report on de Choiseul, 76 note;
• 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
• 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, 179 note;
• 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, 333 note
• 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, 38 note;
• 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, 60 note;
• nickname in secret correspondence, 76;
• Duke of Bedford’s report, 76 note;
• offers D’Eon’s restoration to the army, 137;
• lines on his exile, 137 note;
• complains of no justice in England, 173
• Choiseul, Count de, attention to D’Eon at Vienna, 48.
• See Duke de Praslin
• Christie, Mr., friendship for D’Eon, 323, 324;
• acquisition of the Chevalier’s MSS., 335
• Church, Mrs., 308
• Clive, M. P., Major, 330 and note
• Cole, Mrs., companion to Mademoiselle D’Eon, 328-331;
• astonishment at the Chevalière’s sex, 331
• Condamine, La. See La 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. See Eon
• 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, 14 note;
• 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;
• 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, 54 note, 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, 129 note, 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;
• 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, 264 note;
• 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, and Appendix;
• 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;
• 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, 156 note.
• See Déon
• 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, 129 note;
• 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. See D’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, 320 note, 326
• Goddard, a noted fencer, 308
• Gorman. See O’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, 63 note
• 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, 191 note
• Guerchy, Countess de, her disposition, 121 note
• 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;
• 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, 326 note
• 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, 265 note;
• 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 Dubarry mémoires, 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
• 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, 18 note
• Mokronosky, General, a Polish patriot, in the secret correspondence, 227 note
• 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, 135 note, 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, 336 note
• 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
• 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, 63 note;
• 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, 89 note;
• 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, 330 note
• 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, 149 note
• Staremberg, Count, Austrian Ambassador at Versailles, 25
• Tamworth, Lord, hospitality to D’Eon, 308;
• supports her in her action against his father, 316.
• See Robert, 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, 210 note
• Thornton, Colonel, 329
• Tooke, Horne, 324
• Towneley, Mr., 325
• Townsend, Mr. C., 61
• Townshend, the Marchioness, 330
• Tryon, Mrs., 331
• Valcroissant, Chevalier de, secret envoy to Russia, imprisoned, and liberated through D’Eon, 5 and note
• 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

STANDARD BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS.

STANDARD HISTORICAL WORKS.

Catalogue of Books PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. — TEXT-BOOKS OF SCIENCE. — EPOCHS OF ANCIENT HISTORY. — EPOCHS OF MODERN HISTORY. — EPOCHS OF ENGLISH HISTORY. — EPOCHS OF CHURCH HISTORY.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.

Abbey.—The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800. By Charles J. Abbey, Rector of Checkendon. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.

Abbey and Overton.—The English Church in the Eighteenth Century. By Charles J. Abbey, Rector of Checkendon, and John H. Overton, Rector of Epworth and Canon of Lincoln. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Abbott.—The Elements of Logic. By T. K. Abbott, B.D. 12mo. 3s.

Acton.—Modern Cookery for Private Families. By Eliza Acton. With 150 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. 4s. 6d.

Æschylus.—The Eumenides of Æschylus: a Critical Edition, with Metrical English Translation. By John F. Davies, M.A. Professor of Latin in the Queen’s College, Galway. 8vo. 7s.

A. K. H. B.—The Essays and Contributions of A. K. H. B.—Uniform Cabinet Editions in crown 8vo.

Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson, 3s. 6d.

Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths, 3s. 6d.

Commonplace Philosopher, 3s. 6d.

Counsel and Comfort from a City Pulpit, 3s. 6d.

Critical Essays of a Country Parson, 3s. 6d.

Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3s. 6d. each.

Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities, 3s. 6d.

Leisure Hours in Town, 3s. 6d.

Lessons of Middle Age, 3s. 6d.

Our Little Life. Two Series, 3s. 6d. each.

Our Homely Comedy and Tragedy, 3s. 6d.

Present Day Thoughts, 3s. 6d.

Recreations of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3s. 6d. each.

Seaside Musings, 3s. 6d.

Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a Scottish University City, 3s. 6d.

Amos.—Works by Sheldon Amos.

A Primer of the English Constitution and Government. Crown 8vo. 6s.

A Systematic View of the Science of Jurisprudence. 8vo. 18s.

Aristophanes.—The Acharnians of Aristophanes. Translated into English Verse by Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, M.A. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Aristotle.—The Works of.

The Politics, G. Bekker’s Greek Text of Books I. III. IV. (VII.) with an English Translation by W. E. Bolland, M.A.; and short Introductory Essays by A. Lang, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The Politics; Introductory Essays. By Andrew Lang. (From Bolland and Lang’s ‘Politics.’) Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

The Ethics; Greek Text, illustrated with Essays and Notes. By Sir Alexander Grant, Bart. M.A., LL.D. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

The Nicomachean Ethics, Newly Translated into English. By Robert Williams, Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Armstrong.—Works by George Francis Armstrong, M.A.

Poems: Lyrical and Dramatic. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

King Saul. (The Tragedy of Israel, Part I.) Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

King David. (The Tragedy of Israel, Part II.) Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

King Solomon. (The Tragedy of Israel, Part III.) Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

Ugone: A Tragedy. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

A Garland from Greece; Poems. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.

Stories of Wicklow; Poems. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.

Victoria Regina et Imperatrix: a Jubilee Song from Ireland, 1887. 4to. 5s. cloth gilt.

The Life and Letters of Edmund J. Armstrong. Fcp. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Armstrong.—Works by Edmund J. Armstrong.

Poetical Works. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

Essays and Sketches. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

Arnold.—Works by Thomas Arnold, D.D. Late Head-master of Rugby School.

Introductory Lectures on Modern History, delivered in 1841 and 1842. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Sermons Preached mostly in the Chapel of Rugby School. 6 vols. crown 8vo. 30s. or separately, 5s. each.

Miscellaneous Works. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Arnold.—A Manual of English Literature, Historical and Critical. By Thomas Arnold, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Arnott.—The Elements of Physics or Natural Philosophy. By Neil Arnott, M.D. Edited by A. Bain, LL.D. and A. S. Taylor, M.D. F.R.S. Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Ashby.—Notes on Physiology for the Use of Students Preparing for Examination. With 120 Woodcuts. By Henry Ashby, M.D. Lond. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

Atelier (The) du Lys; or, an Art Student in the Reign of Terror. By the Author of ‘Mademoiselle Mori.’ Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Bacon.—The Works and Life of.

Complete Works. Edited by R. L. Ellis, M.A., J. Spedding, M.A. and D. D. Heath. 7 vols. 8vo. £3. 13s. 6d.

Letters and Life, including all his Occasional Works. Edited by J. Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. £4. 4s.

The Essays; with Annotations. By Richard Whately, D.D., 8vo. 10s. 6d.

The Essays; with Introduction, Notes, and Index. By E. A. Abbott, D.D. 2 vols. fcp. 8vo. price 6s. Text and Index only, without Introduction and Notes, in 1 vol. fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Bentley.—A Text-Book of Organic Materia Medica. Comprising a Description of the Vegetable and Animal Drugs of the British Pharmacopœia, with some others in common use. Arranged Systematically and especially Designed for Students. By Robt. Bentley, M.R.C.S.Eng. F.L.S. With 62 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The BADMINTON LIBRARY, edited by the Duke of Beaufort, K.G. assisted by Alfred E. T. Watson.

Hunting. By the Duke of Beaufort, K.G. and Mowbray Morris. With Contributions by the Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, Rev. E. W. L. Davies, Digby Collins, and Alfred E. T. Watson. With Coloured Frontispiece and 53 Illustrations by J. Sturgess, J. Charlton, and Agnes M. Biddulph. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Fishing. By H. Cholmondeley-Pennell. With Contributions by the Marquis of Exeter, Henry R. Francis, M.A., Major John P. Traherne, and G. Christopher Davies.

Vol. I. Salmon, Trout, and Grayling. With 150 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Vol. II. Pike and other Coarse Fish. With 58 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Racing and Steeplechasing. By the Earl of Suffolk, W. G. Craven, The Hon. F. Lawley, A. Coventry, and A. E. T. Watson. With Coloured Frontispiece and 56 Illustrations by J. Sturgess. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Shooting. By Lord Walsingham and Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, with Contributions by Lord Lovat, Lord Charles Lennox Kerr, The Hon. G. Lascelles, and Archibald Stuart-Wortley. With 21 full-page Illustrations and 149 Woodcuts in the text by A. J. Stuart-Wortley, Harper Pennington, C. Whymper, J. G. Millais, G. E. Lodge, and J. H. Oswald-Brown.

Vol. I. Field and Covert. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Vol. II. Moor and Marsh. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Cycling. By Viscount Bury, K.C.M.G. and G. Lacy Hillier. With 19 Plates and 61 Woodcuts in the Text, by Viscount Bury and Joseph Pennell. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

⁂ Other volumes in preparation.

Bagehot.—Works by Walter Bagehot, M.A.

Biographical Studies. 8vo. 12s.

Economic Studies. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Literary Studies. 2 vols. 8vo. Portrait. 28s.

The Postulates of English Political Economy. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Bagwell.—Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. By Richard Bagwell, M.A. Vols. I. and II. From the first invasion of the Northmen to the year 1578. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

Bain.—Works by Alexander Bain, LL.D.

Mental and Moral Science; a Compendium of Psychology and Ethics, Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

The Senses and the Intellect. 8vo. 15s.

The Emotions and the Will. 8vo. 15s.

Practical Essays. Cr. 8vo. 4s. 6d.

Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Part I. Deduction, 4s. Part II. Induction, 6s. 6d.

James Mill; a Biography. Cr. 8vo. 5s.

John Stuart Mill; a Criticism, with Personal Recollections. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Baker.—Works by Sir Samuel W. Baker, M.A.

Eight Years in Ceylon. Crown 8vo. Woodcuts. 5s.

The Rifle and the Hound in Ceylon. Crown 8vo. Woodcuts. 5s.

Ball.—The Reformed Church of Ireland (1537-1886). By the Right Hon. J. T. Ball, LL.D. D.C.L. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Barrett.—English Glees and Part-Songs. An Inquiry into their Historical Development. By William Alexander Barrett. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Beaconsfield.—Works by the Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G.

Novels and Tales. The Hughenden Edition. With 2 Portraits and 11 Vignettes. 11 vols. Crown 8vo. 42s.

Endymion.

Lothair.

Coningsby.

Sybil.

Tancred.

Venetia.

Henrietta Temple.

Contarini Fleming, &c.

Alroy, Ixion, &c.

The Young Duke, &c.

Vivian Grey.

Novels and Tales. Cheap Edition, complete in 11 vols. Crown 8vo. 1s. each, boards; 1s. 6d. each, cloth.

The Wit and Wisdom of the Earl of Beaconsfield. Crown 8vo. 1s. boards, 1s. 6d. cloth.

Becker.—Works by Professor Becker, translated from the German by the Rev. F. Metcalf.

Gallus; or, Roman Scenes in the Time of Augustus. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Charicles; or, Illustrations of the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Boultbee.—A Commentary on the 39 Articles of the Church of England. By the Rev. T. P. Boultbee, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Bourne.—Works by John Bourne, C.E.

Catechism of the Steam Engine in its various Applications in the Arts, to which is now added a chapter on Air and Gas Engines, and another devoted to Useful Rules, Tables, and Memoranda. Illustrated by 212 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Handbook of the Steam Engine; a Key to the Author’s Catechism of the Steam Engine. With 67 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.

Recent Improvements in the Steam Engine. With 124 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

Bowen.—Harrow Songs and other Verses. By Edward E. Bowen. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.; or printed on hand-made paper, 5s.

Brabazon.—Social Arrows: Re-printed Articles on various Social Subjects. By Lord Brabazon, Crown 8vo. 1s. boards, 5s. cloth.

Brabourne.—Friends and Foes from Fairyland. By the Right Hon. Lord Brabourne. With 20 Illustrations by Linley Sambourne. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Brassey.—Works by Lady Brassey.

A Voyage in the ‘Sunbeam,’ our Home on the Ocean for Eleven Months.

Library Edition. With 8 Maps and Charts, and 118 Illustrations, 8vo. 21s.

Cabinet Edition. With Map and 66 Illustrations, crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

School Edition. With 37 Illustrations, fcp. 2s. cloth, or 3s. white parchment with gilt edges.

Popular Edition. With 60 Illustrations, 4to. 6d. sewed, 1s. cloth.

Sunshine and Storm in the East.

Library Edition. With 2 Maps and 114 Illustrations, 8vo. 21s.

Cabinet Edition. With 2 Maps and 114 Illustrations, crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Popular Edition. With 103 Illustrations, 4to. 6d. sewed, 1s. cloth.

In the Trades, the Tropics, and the ‘Roaring Forties.’

Library Edition. With 8 Maps and Charts and 292 Illustrations, 8vo. 21s.

Cabinet Edition. With Map and 220 Illustrations, crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Popular Edition. With 183 Illustrations, 4to. 2s. 6d. sewed, 1s. cloth.

Three Voyages in the ‘Sunbeam.’

Popular Edition. With 346 Illustrations, 4to. 2s. 6d.

Browne.—An Exposition of the 39 Articles, Historical and Doctrinal. By E. H. Browne, D.D., Bishop of Winchester. 8vo. 16s.

Buckle.—Works by Henry Thomas Buckle.

History of Civilisation in England and France, Spain and Scotland. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 24s.

Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works. A New and Abridged Edition. Edited by Grant Allen, 2 vols. crown 8vo. 21s.

Buckton.—Works by Mrs. C. M. Buckton.

Food and Home Cookery. With 11 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Health in the House. With 41 Woodcuts and Diagrams. Crown 8vo. 2s.

Our Dwellings. With 39 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

Bull.—Works by Thomas Bull, M.D.

Hints to Mothers on the Management of their Health during the Period of Pregnancy and in the Lying-in Room. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.

The Maternal Management of Children in Health and Disease. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.

Bullinger.—A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament. Together with an Index of Greek Words and several Appendices. By the Rev. E. W. Bullinger, D.D. Royal 8vo. 15s.

Burnside and Panton.—The Theory of Equations. With an Introduction to the Theory of Binary Algebraic Forms. By William Snow Burnside, M.A. and Arthur William Panton, M.A. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Burrows.—The Family of Brocas of Beaurepaire and Roche Court, Hereditary Masters of the Royal Buckhounds. With some account of the English Rule in Aquitaine. By Montagu Burrows, M.A. F.S.A. With 26 Illustrations of Monuments, Brasses, Seals, &c. Royal 8vo. 42s.

Cabinet Lawyer, The; a Popular Digest of the Laws of England, Civil, Criminal, and Constitutional. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.

Caddy.—Through the Fields with Linnæus.—By Mrs. Caddy. With 6 Illustrations and 2 Maps. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.

Carlyle.—Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle.

Thomas Carlyle, a History of the first Forty Years of his Life, 1795-1835. By J. A. Froude, M.A. With 2 Portraits and 4 Illustrations, 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

Thomas Carlyle, a History of his Life in London: from 1834 to his death in 1881. By J. A. Froude, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

Letters and Memorials of Jane Welsh Carlyle. Prepared for publication by Thomas Carlyle, and edited by J. A. Froude, M.A. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.

Cates.—A Dictionary of General Biography. Fourth Edition, with Supplement brought down to the end of 1884. By W. L. R. Cates. 8vo. 28s. cloth; 35s. half-bound russia.

Cicero.—The Correspondence of Cicero: a revised Text, with Notes and Prolegomena. By Robert Y. Tyrrell, M.A. Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Vols. I. and II. 12s. each.

Clerk.—The Gas Engine. By Dugald Clerk. With 101 Illustrations and Diagrams. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Coats.—A Manual of Pathology. By Joseph Coats, M.D. Pathologist to the Western Infirmary and the Sick Children’s Hospital, Glasgow. With 339 Illustrations engraved on Wood. 8vo. 31s. 6d.

Colenso.—The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. By J. W. Colenso, D.D. late Bishop of Natal. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Comyn.—Atherstone Priory: a Tale. By L. N. Comyn. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Conder.—A Handbook to the Bible, or Guide to the Study of the Holy Scriptures derived from Ancient Monuments and Modern Exploration. By F. R. Conder, and Lieut. C. R. Conder, R.E. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Conington.—Works by John Conington, M.A.

The Æneid of Virgil. Translated into English Verse. Crown 8vo. 9s.

The Poems of Virgil. Translated into English Prose. Crown 8vo. 9s.

Conybeare & Howson.—The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By the Rev. W. J. Conybeare, M.A. and the Very Rev. J. S. Howson, D.D.

Library Edition, with Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. 2 vols. square crown 8vo. 21s.

Student’s Edition, revised and condensed, with 46 Illustrations and Maps. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Cooke.—Tablets of Anatomy. By Thomas Cooke, F.R.C.S. Eng. B.A. B.Sc. M.D. Paris. Fourth Edition, being a selection of the Tablets believed to be most useful to Students generally. Post 4to. 7s. 6d.

Cox.—The First Century of Christianity. By Homersham Cox, M.A. 8vo. 12s.

Cox.—A General History of Greece: from the Earliest Period to the Death of Alexander the Great; with a Sketch of the History to the Present Time. By the Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, Bart., M.A. With 11 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

⁂ For other Works by Sir G. Cox, see ‘Epochs of History,’ p. 24.

Creighton.—History of the Papacy During the Reformation. By the Rev. M. Creighton, M.A. 8vo. Vols. I. and II. 1378-1464, 32s.; Vols. III. and IV. 1464-1518, 24s.

Crookes.—Select Methods in Chemical Analysis (chiefly Inorganic). By William Crookes, F.R.S. V.P.C.S. With 37 Illustrations. 8vo. 24s.

Crump.—A Short Enquiry into the Formation of Political Opinion, from the Reign of the Great Families to the Advent of Democracy. By Arthur Crump. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Culley.—Handbook of Practical Telegraphy. By R. S. Culley, M. Inst. C.E. Plates and Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s.

Dante.—The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri. Translated verse for verse from the Original into Terza Rima. By James Innes Minchin. Crown 8vo. 15s.

Davidson.—An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. Critical, Exegetical, and Theological. By the Rev. S. Davidson, D.D. LL.D. Revised Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s.

Davidson.—Works by William L. Davidson, M.A.

The Logic of Definition Explained and Applied. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Leading and Important English Words Explained and Exemplified. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

Decaisne & Le Maout.—A General System of Botany. Translated from the French of E. Le Maout, M.D., and J. Decaisne, by Mrs. Hooker; with Additions by Sir J. D. Hooker, C.B. F.R.S. Imp. 8vo. with 5,500 Woodcuts, 31s. 6d.

De Salis.—Works by Mrs. De Salis.

Savouries à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. boards.

Entrées à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d. boards.

De Tocqueville.—Democracy in America. By Alexis de Tocqueville. Translated by Henry Reeve, C.B. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.

D’Herrisson.—The Black Cabinet. By M. le Comte d’Herrisson. Translated from the French. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Dickinson.—On Renal and Urinary Affections. By W. Howship Dickinson, M.D. Cantab. F.R.C.P. &c. With 12 Plates and 122 Woodcuts. 3 vols. 8vo. £3. 4s. 6d.

Dixon.—Rural Bird Life; Essays on Ornithology, with Instructions for Preserving Objects relating to that Science. By Charles Dixon. With 45 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 5s.

Dowell.—A History of Taxation and Taxes in England, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. By Stephen Dowell, Assistant Solicitor of Inland Revenue. 4 vols. 8vo. 48s.

Dublin University Press Series (The): a Series of Works, chiefly Educational, undertaken by the Provost and Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin:

Abbott’s (T. K.) Codex Rescriptus Dublinensis of St. Matthew. 4to. 21s.

—— Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronymiana ex Codice Usseriano (Dublinensi). 2 vols. crown 8vo. 21s.

Burnside (W. S.) and Panton’s (A. W.) Theory of Equations. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Casey’s (John) Sequel to Euclid’s Elements. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

—— Analytical Geometry of the Conic Sections. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Davies’s (J. F.) Eumenides of Æschylus. With Metrical English Translation. 8vo. 7s.

Dublin Translations into Greek and Latin Verse. Edited by R. Y. Tyrrell. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Graves’s (R. P.) Life of Sir William Hamilton. (3 vols.) Vols. I. and II. 8vo. each 15s.

Griffin (R. W.) on Parabola, Ellipse, and Hyperbola, treated Geometrically. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Haughton’s (Dr. S.) Lectures on Physical Geography. 8vo. 15s.

Hobart’s (W. K.) Medical Language of St. Luke. 8vo. 16s.

Leslie’s (T. E. Cliffe) Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Macalister’s (A.) Zoology and Morphology of Vertebrata. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

MacCullagh’s (James) Mathematical and other Tracts. 8vo. 15s.

Maguire’s (T.) Parmenides of Plato, Greek Text with English Introduction, Analysis, and Notes. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Monck’s (W. H. S.) Introduction to Logic. Crown 8vo. 5s.

Purser’s (J. M.) Manual of Histology. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

Roberts’s (R. A.) Examples in the Analytic Geometry of Plane Curves. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.

Southey’s (R.) Correspondence with Caroline Bowles. Edited by E. Dowden. 8vo. 14s.

Thornhill’s (W. J.) The Æneid of Virgil, freely translated into English Blank Verse. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Tyrrell’s (R. Y.) Cicero’s Correspondence. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. each 12s.

—— The Acharnians of Aristophanes, translated into English Verse. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Webb’s (T. E.) Goethe’s Faust, Translation and Notes. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

—— The Veil of Isis: a Series of Essays on Idealism. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Wilkins’s (G.) The Growth of the Homeric Poems. 8vo. 6s.

Doyle.—The Official Baronage of England. By James E. Doyle. Showing the Succession, Dignities, and Offices of every Peer from 1066 to 1885. Vols. I. to III. With 1,600 Portraits, Shields of Arms, Autographs, &c. 3 vols. 4to. £5. 5s.

Doyle.—Reminiscences and Opinions, 1813-1885. By Sir Francis Hastings Doyle. 8vo. 16s.

Doyle.—Works by J. A. Doyle, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas. 8vo. 18s.

The English in America: The Puritan Colonies. 2 vols. 8vo. 36s.

Edersheim.—Works by the Rev. Alfred Edersheim, D.D.

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.

Prophecy and History in relation to the Messiah: the Warburton Lectures, delivered at Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, 1880-1884. 8vo. 12s.

Ellicott.—Works by C. J. Ellicott, D.D. Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.

A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles. 8vo.

I. Corinthians. 16s.

Galatians. 8s. 6d.

Ephesians. 8s. 6d.

Pastoral Epistles. 10s. 6d.

Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 10s. 6d.

Thessalonians. 7s. 6d.

Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 8vo. 12s.

English Worthies. Edited by Andrew Lang, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. each.

Darwin. By Grant Allen.

Marlborough. By G. Saintsbury.

Shaftesbury (The First Earl). By H. D. Traill.

Admiral Blake. By David Hannay.

Raleigh. By Edmund Gosse.

Steele. By Austin Dobson.

Ben Jonson. By J. A. Symonds.

Canning. By Frank H. Hill.

⁂ Other Volumes are in preparation.