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:—