The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Musgrave controversy
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Musgrave controversy
        being a collection of curious and interesting papers, on the subject of the late peace

Author: Charles Geneviève Louis Auguste André Timothée d' Eon de Beaumont
        Samuel Musgrave

Release date: October 23, 2024 [eBook #74629]

Language: English

Original publication: London: J Miller

Credits: Super Queer Historian and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY ***





                                   THE
                          MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY:

                                  BEING
                             A COLLECTION OF
                     CURIOUS AND INTERESTING PAPERS,
                                  ON THE
                        SUBJECT OF THE LATE PEACE.

                                 LONDON,
   Printed for J. Miller, No. 2, Queen’s-Head-Passage, Newgate-street;
     and sold by S. Bladon, No. 28, Paternoster-Row; F. Blyth, at the
                Royal Exchange; and J. Almon, Piccadilly.

                           PRICE ONE SHILLING.




COPY of the DEVONSHIRE INSTRUCTIONS.


To Sir RICHARD WARWICK BAMPFYLDE, Bart. and JOHN PARKER, Esq; Knights of
the Shire for the County of DEVON.

We, the Freeholders of the County of Devon, assembled in a General
Meeting at the Castle of Exon, find ourselves called upon by many weighty
considerations to exercise the constitutional and unquestionable right
of instructing our Members with regard to their conduct in Parliament.
It becomes now more highly necessary, when an opinion has been publickly
avowed, derogatory from that relation which ought to subsist between the
Electors and their Representatives. We, therefore, enjoin you to promote
and support an enquiry into all those grievances that have so justly
alarmed the subjects of this kingdom; particularly, for what reasons a
magistrate, in the immediate service of the Crown, to whom informations
of the most important nature were imparted by a native and Freeholder of
this County, refused to examine or enquire after the evidence pointed
out to him; being a person the most capable of clearing up the affair,
both from his own knowledge, and the papers _then_ in his possession;
in consequence of which refusal, secrets of the most important nature
to the safety of this kingdom have been probably lost, and the alledged
instruments of dishonour to his Majesty’s government _screen’d_ from
censure and punishment; and that you will diligently pursue an enquiry
into the criminal transactions referred to in that information; and
that you also use your utmost endeavours to shorten the duration of
Parliaments.

Voted at the Castle of Exon, Oct. 5, 1769.




THE MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY,

_An ADDRESS to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of
Devon, preparatory to the General Meeting at Exeter on Thursday the 5th
of October, 1769._

By Dr. MUSGRAVE, _Physician at Plymouth_.


GENTLEMEN,

The sheriff having summoned a meeting of the county in order to consider
of a Petition for redress of grievances, I think it incumbent on me as a
lover of my country in general to lay before you a transaction, which,
I apprehend, gives juster grounds of complaint and apprehension than
any thing hitherto made public. Having long had reason to imagine that
the nation has been cruelly and fatally injured in a way which they
little suspect, I have ardently wished for the day, when my imperfect
information should be superseded by evidence and certainty. That day, I
flatter myself, is at last approaching, and that the spirit which now
appears among the Freeholders will bear down every obstacle that may be
thrown in the way of open and impartial enquiry.

I need not remind you, Gentlemen, of the universal indignation and
abhorrence, with which the conditions of the late peace were received by
the independant part of the nation. Yet such is the candid, unsuspecting
nature of Englishmen, that even those who condemned the measure did not
attribute it to any worse motive than an unmanly impatience under the
burdens of the war, and a blind, headlong desire to be relieved from
them. They did not conceive that persons of high rank and unbounded
wealth could be seduced by gold to betray the interests of their country,
and surrender advantages, which the lives of so many heroes had been
willingly sacrificed to purchase. Such a supposition, unhappily for us,
is at present far from incredible. The important secret was disclosed to
me in the year 1764, during my residence at Paris. I will not trouble
you with a detail of the intermediate steps I took in the affair,
which, however, in proper time I shall most fully and readily discover.
It is sufficient to say, on the 10th of May 1765, by the direction of
Dr. Blackstone I waited on Lord Halifax, then Secretary of State, and
delivered to him an exact narrative of the intelligence I had received
at Paris, with copies of four letters to and from Lord Hertford. The
behaviour of Lord Halifax was polite but evasive. When I pressed him in
a second interview to enquire into the truth of the charge, he objected
to all public steps that might give an alarm, and asked me whether I
could point out to him any way of prosecuting the enquiry in secret, and
whether in so doing there was any probability of his obtaining positive
proof of the fact. I was not so much the dupe of his artifice as to
believe that he had any serious intention of following the clue I had
given him, though his discourse plainly pointed that way. It appeared by
the sequel that I had judged right. For having four days after given a
direct and satisfactory answer to both his questions, he then put an end
to my solicitations by a peremptory refusal to take any steps whatever in
the affair.

It is here necessary to explain what I mean by enquiring into the truth
of the charge. In the summer of the year 1764, an overture had been
made to Sir George Yonge, Mr. Fitzherbert, and several other Members
of Parliament, in the name of the Chevalier D’Eon, importing that he,
the Chevalier, was ready to impeach three persons, two of whom are
Peers and Members of the Privy Council, of selling the peace to the
French. Of this proposal I was informed at different times by the two
gentlemen above-mentioned. Sir George Yonge in particular told me that
he understood the charge could be supported by written as well as living
evidence. The step that I urged Lord Halifax to take, was to send for
the Chevalier D’Eon, to examine him upon the subject of this overture,
to peruse his papers, and then to proceed according to the proofs. In
such a case a more decisive evidence than the Chevalier D’Eon could not
be wished for. He had the negociation on the part of the enemy, and was
known to have in his possession the dispatches and papers of the Duke de
Nivernois. This gentleman, so qualified and so disposed to give light
into the affair, did Lord Halifax refuse to examine; whether from an
apprehension that the charge would not be made out, or on the contrary
that it could. I leave you, gentlemen, and every impartial reader to
judge.

It must not be understood, that I can myself support a charge of
corruption against the noble Lords named in my information. My complaint
is of a different nature and against a different person. I consider the
refusal of Lord Halifax as a willful obstruction of national justice,
for which I wish to see him undergo a suitable punishment. Permit me to
observe, gentlemen, that such an obstruction not only gives a temporary
impunity to offenders, but tends also to make that impunity perpetual, by
destroying or weakening the proofs of their guilt. Evidence of all kinds
is a very perishable thing. Living witnesses are exposed to the chance
of mortality, and written evidence to the not uncommon casualty of fire.
In the present case something more than these ordinary accidents might
with good reason be apprehended. It stands upon record that the Count de
Guerchy had conspired to assassinate the Chevalier D’Eon, neither has
this charge hitherto been refuted or answered. This not succeeding, a
band of ruffians was hired to kidnap that gentleman, and carry off his
papers. Though this second attempt failed, it does not follow that these
important papers are still secure. I was informed by Mr. Fitzherbert,
so long ago as the 17th of May, 1765, that he had then intelligence
of overtures making to the Chevalier D’Eon, the object of which was
to get the papers out of his hands in return for a stipulated sum of
money. This account I communicated the following day to Lord Halifax,
who still persisted in exposing those precious documents to so many
complicated hazards. I say precious documents, because if they should be
unfortunately lost, the affair must be for ever involved in uncertainty,
an uncertainty, gentlemen, which may be productive of infinite mischiefs
to the nation, and cannot tend to the advantage or satisfaction of any
but the guilty.

Lord Halifax, in excuse for his refusal, will probably alledge, as he did
to me, his persuasion that the charge was wholly groundless. I need not
observe, how misplaced and frivolous such an allegation is when applied
to justify a magistrate for not examining evidence. But I will suppose
for argument’s sake the persons accused to be perfectly innocent. Is it
not the interest and the wish of every innocent man to have his conduct
scrutinized while facts are recent, and truth, of consequence, easy to
be distinguished from falshood? Is there any tenderness in suffering
a stain to remain upon their characters till it becomes difficult, or
even impossible to be wiped out? Will therefore these noble persons,
if their actions have been upright, will they, I say, thank Lord
Halifax for depriving them of an early opportunity of establishing
their innocence? Will they not regret and execrate his caution, if the
subsequent suppression or destruction of the evidence should concur
with other circumstances to fix on them the suspicion of guilt? How
will Lord Halifax excuse himself to his Sovereign, for suffering so
attrocious a calumny to spread and take root, to the evident hazard of
his royal reputation? And what amends will he make to the nation for the
heart burnings and jealousies which are the natural fruits of such a
procedure? Yet these, gentlemen, are the least of the mischiefs that may
be apprehended from his behaviour upon the footing of his own plea.

I will venture however to assert, that, as far as hitherto appears,
the weight of evidence and probability is on the contrary side. Now,
supposing the charge to be true, there can be no need of long arguments
to convince you of the injury done to the nation, by suffering such
capital offenders to escape. For what is this but to defraud us of
the only compensation we can expect for the loss of so many important
territories, a loss rendered still more grievous by the indignity of
paying a pension, as we notoriously do, to the foreign ministers who
negociated the ruinous bargain? Yet even these considerations are
infinitely out-weighed by the danger to which the whole nation must be
exposed from the continued operation of so much authority, influence,
and favour to their prejudice, and, above all, from the possibility that
the supreme government of the kingdom may, by the regency-act, devolve
to a person directly and positively accused of high treason. Even the
encouragement that such an impunity must give to future treasons, is
enough to fill a thinking mind with the most painful apprehensions. We
live in an age, not greatly addicted to scruples, when the open avowal of
domestic venality seems to lead men, by an easy gradation, to connexions
equally mercenary with foreigners and enemies. How then can we expect
ill-disposed persons to resist a temptation of this sort, when they find
that treason may be detected, and proofs of it offered to a magistrate,
without producing either punishment or enquiry? The consequence of
this may be, our living to see a French party, as well as a court
party, in parliament; which, should it ever happen, no imagination can
sufficiently paint the calamitous and horrid state to which our late
glorious triumphs might finally be reduced. When I talk of a French party
in parliament, I do not speak a mere visionary language unsupported
by experience. The history of all ages informs us, that France, where
other weapons have failed, has constantly had recourse to the less
alarming weapons of intrigue and corruption. And how effectual these
have sometimes been, we have a recent and tragical example in the total
enslaving of Corsica.

I have been thus particular in enumerating the evils that may result
from the refusal of Lord Halifax, not from a desire of aggravating that
nobleman’s offence, but merely to evince the necessity of a speedy
enquiry, while there is yet a chance of its not being wholly fruitless.
Though the course of my narrative has unavoidably led me to accuse his
Lordship, accusation is not my object, but enquiry, which cannot be
disagreeable to any but those to whom truth itself is disagreeable.
In pursuing this point, I have hitherto been frustrated from the very
circumstance which ought to have insured my success, the immense
importance of the question. It has been apprehended, how justly I
know not, that any magistrate, who should commence an enquiry, or any
gentleman who should openly move for it, would be deemed responsible for
the truth of the charge, and subjected to severe penalties, if he could
not make it good. This imagination, however, did not deter me, though
single and unprotected, from carrying my papers to the Speaker, to be
laid before the late House of Commons. The Speaker was pleased to justify
my conduct, by allowing, that the affair ought to be enquired into, but
refused at the same time to be instrumental in promoting the enquiry
himself. What then remained to be done? What, but to wait, though with
reluctance and impatience, till a proper opportunity should offer for
appealing to the public at large, that is, till the accumulated errors of
government should awaken a spirit of enquiry too powerful to be resisted
or eluded? That this spirit is now reviving, we have a sufficient earnest
in the unanimous zeal you have shewn for the appointment of a county
meeting. In such a conjuncture, to withold from you so important a truth,
would no longer be prudence, it would be to disgrace my former conduct,
it would shew that I had been actuated by some temporary motives, and not
by a steady and uniform regard to national good. Indeed, the declared
purpose of your meeting is in itself a call upon every freeholder to
disclose whatever you are concerned to know. I obey this call without
hesitation, submitting the prosecution of the affair to your judgment, in
full confidence that the result of your deliberations will do honour at
the same time to your prudence, candour, and patriotism.

_Plymouth, Aug. 12, 1769._




_Reponse du Chevalier D’Eon a la lettre que M. le DOCTEUR MUSGRAVE a
fait imprimer dans le Public Advertiser du 2 Sept. 1769, No. 10869, &
qui a ensuite ete copiee dans tous les autres papers, sous la datte de
Plymouth, le 12 Aout, &c._


MONSIEUR,

Vous me permettrez de croire que vous ne m’avez jamais plus connu, que
je n’ai l’honneur de vous connoitre: & si dans votre lettre du 12 Aout
vous n’aviez pas abuse de mon nom, je ne me verrois pas force d’entrer en
correspondence avec vous.

Vous pretendez que “dans l’ete de 1764, on fit des ouvertures en mon nom
a differens membres du parlement, portantes que j’etois pret a accuser
trois personnes, donc deux etoient pairs, et membres au conseil prive,
d’avoir vendu la paix a la France;” & vous paroissez fonder la dessus
l’evidence de l’accusation, que vous dites en avoir porte vous memes a
Milord Halifax.

Je vous declare en consequence ici Monsieur, que je n’ai jamais ni fait
faire aucune ouverture pareille, ni dans l’hiver, ni dans l’ete de 1764,
ni dans aucun tems. Je suis d’une part trop fidele au ministere que j’ai
rempli, et de l’autre trop zelateur de la verite.

J’avoue que vous ne dites pas que ce soit moi qui aie fait ces
propositions: Mais seulement qu’elles ont ete fait en mon nom,
specialement a M. le Chevalier George Yonge & a M. Fitzherbert.

Je vous assure ne connoitre aucun de ces Messieurs & n’avoir jamais
authorise qui que ce soit a faire, en mon nom, de pareilles ouvertures,
que mon horreur seule pour la calomnie me feroit detester.

Je vous interpelle donc, M. le Docteur, de declarer au public le nom du
temeraire qui s’est servi du mien pour faire ces ouvertures odieuses.
Ces Messieurs que vous avez denonce comme vos temoins, ne peuvent vous
refuser de venger leur veracite & la votre.

Quoique je ne puisse m’empecher de louer votre droiture qui cite ses
auteurs, cependant il me paroit de la derniere imprudence, dans une
affaire d’une pareille gravite, de vous fonder sur un raport pour
nommer publiquement un homme de mon caractere, sans l’avoir auparavant
consulte. Si vous vous etiez souvenu du dementi que j’ai donne dans le
S. James’s Chronicle du 25 Octobre 1766, No. 881, a un avertissement du
meme papier, No. 875, qui portoit en substance ce que vous alleguez dans
votre derniere lettre, vous m’auriez epargne la peine de vous repondre
aujourdhui. Qu’en va-t-il arriver? Le public aura lu avidement votre
lettre, aura ajoute foi a son contenu parceque vous en appellez a mon
evidence: Mais qu’en pensera t-il maintenant? quand votre interet, mon
honneur & la verite m’obligent a nier ce que vous y avancez a mon sujet.

Il en est de meme de ce que vous pretendez que “vers le 17 Mai 1765, M.
Fitzherbert vous auroit dit savoir qu’on m’avoit fait des propositions de
vendre pour une somme d’argent les papiers qui etoient entre mes mains.”

Je me suis toujours flatte de l’estime & de l’amitie des Anglois avec
lesquels j’ai vecu. Qui d’eux dans ces sentimens auroit ose me temoigner
assez de mepris pour me faire une pareille proposition? L’injure m’en
auroit ete d’autant plus sensible que le caractere de la personne auroit
ete plus respectable.

Je ne vous suivrai, Monsieur, ni dans les demarches que vous avez cru
devoir faire, ni dans les raisonnemens dont vous vous servez pour les
appuier: Ceux-ci montrent l’orateur & celles-la, si elles sont fondees,
preuvent le patriote. Mais je vous atteste ici, sur ma parole d’honneur &
a la face du public, que je ne puis vous etre d’aucune utilite, que je ne
suis jamais entre en marche pour la vente de mes papiers, & que je n’ai
jamais, ni par moi-meme ni par aucun agent autorise de ma part, propose
de fait voir que la paix avoit ete vendue a la France.

Si Milord Halifax, ou l’orateur, auxquels vous dites vous etre addresse
pour m’appeller en temoignage sur la validite de votre accusation,
m’avoient fait citer; ils auroient connu par mes reponses que je pense
que l’Angleterre a plutot donne de l’argent a la France, que la France de
l’or a l’Angleterre pour conclure la derniere paix et que le bonheur que
j’ai eu de concourir au salutaire ouvrage de cette paix m’a inspire les
sentimens de la plus juste veneration pour les commissaires Anglois qui
y ont ete emploies, & ceux de la plus vive estime & de la plus sincere
admiration pour feu M. le Comte de Viry qui, par son attachement pour le
bien des deux nations belligerantes & graces a son zele infatiguable, eut
la gloire d’amener cette paix necessaire aux deux nations a une heureuse
conclusion. Jugez maintenant, Monsieur, avec quelle solidite vous pouvois
vous fonder sur moi pour rendre votre accusation evidente!

Je suis trop connu en Angleterre pour avoir eu besoin de cette reponse,
si la franchise de votre lettre me n’avoit paru meriter que je vous
empechasse de faire des demarches ulterieures qui ne pouroient tourner
qu’a votre prejudice, puis qu’elles ne seroient fondees que sur de faux
raports de mes actions. Pour vous mettre a meme d’etre aussi prudent que
patriote, je signe cette lettre & vous y donne mon addresse, afin que,
pour soutenir votre veracite, vous me donniez les moiens de convaincre
publiquement les calomniateurs, qui ont ose se servir de mon nom, d’une
maniere plus contraire encore a la verite des faits, qu’a la dignite
avec lequelle, J’ai toujours soutenu mon caractere au millieu meme de la
persecution de mes enemis.

J’ai l’honneur d’etre votre tres humble serviteur,

                                                       LE CHEVALIER D’EON.

_In Petty-France, Westminster, 4 Septembre, 1769._




_Translation of the Chevalier ~D’Eon~’s Answer to Dr. ~Musgrave’s~
Address._


SIR,

You will permit me to believe that you never knew any more of me, than
I have the honour of knowing of you: and if in your letter of the 12th
of August you had not made a wrong use of my name, I should not now find
myself obliged to enter into a correspondence with you.

You pretend that “in the summer of the year 1764, overtures were made in
my name to several members of parliament, importing that I was ready to
impeach three persons, two of whom were peers and members of the privy
council, of having sold the peace to the French:” and you seem to found
thereupon the evidence of a charge, which you say you carried yourself to
Lord Halifax.

I declare, therefore, here, Sir, that I never made, nor caused to be
made any such overture, either in the winter or summer of the year 1764,
nor at any other time: I am, on one side, too faithful to the office I
filled, and on the other too zealous a friend to truth.

I confess you do not say it was I that made these overtures; but only
that they were made in my name, particularly to Sir George Yonge and Mr.
Fitzherbert.

I assure you I do not know either of these gentlemen, and never
authorised any person whatever to make in my name such overtures, which
the abhorrence alone I have for calumny, would make me detest.

I call upon you, therefore, Sir, to lay before the public the name of the
audacious person who has made use of mine to cover his own odious offers.
The gentlemen whom you have given as your witnesses, cannot deny you this
justification of their own veracity and your’s.

Though I cannot but commend your integrity in citing your authors,
yet it appears to me an act of the last imprudence, in an affair of
so much weight, to build upon report, for naming publickly a person
of my character, without having previously consulted him. If you had
recollected the contradiction I gave in the St. James’s Chronicle of
Oct. 25, 1766, No. 881, to an advertisement in the same paper, No.
875, importing in substance what you alledge in your last letter, you
had saved me the trouble of replying to you at this time. What must be
the result? The public will have read greedily your letter; will have
believed it’s contents, because you appeal therein to my testimony: but
what will they think now when your own interest, my honour and truth
oblige me to deny all that you have advanced thereon with respect to me.

It is the same with your pretence that “about the 17th of May, 1765, Mr.
Fitzherbert told you, he knew that overtures had been made to me to sell
for a sum of money the papers that were in my hands.”

I have always flattered myself with being possessed of the esteem and
friendship of the English with whom I have lived. Who of them then in
these sentiments would have presumed to have shewn sufficient contempt
for me to have made me such an overture? The injury would have been
the more sensibly felt by me, as the character of the person was more
respectable.

I shall not follow you, Sir, either in all the steps you have thought it
your duty to take, or in the arguments you made use of to support them:
these shew the orator, and those, if they be well founded, prove the
patriot.

But I here certify to you, on my word of honour, and in the face of the
public, that I cannot be of any sort of use to you; that I never entered
into any treaty for the sale of my papers, and never either by myself or
any agent authorised on my part, offered to make appear, that the peace
had been sold to France.

If Lord Halifax, or the Speaker, to whom you say you addressed yourself
in order to call upon me as evidence, with respect to the validity of
your charge, had caused me to be cited, he might have known by my answers
what my thoughts were, that England rather gave money to France than
France to England, to conclude the last peace; and that the happiness
I had in concurring to the great work of peace has inspired me with
sentiments of the justest veneration for the English commissioners who
had been employed in it, and with the most lively esteem and sincerest
admiration for the late Count de Viry, who in his attachment to the
welfare of the two nations then at war, and thanks to his indefatigable
zeal! had the glory of bringing that peace to a happy conclusion.

Judge now, Sir, with what solidity you can depend upon me to make your
charge clear.

I am too well known in England to have been under any necessity of this
reply, if the frankness of your letter had not appeared to me to merit my
preventing you from taking any further steps, which could not but turn
to your prejudice, in as much as they would be founded solely on false
reports of _my_ proceedings.

In order to enable you to be as prudent as patriotic, I sign this letter,
and therein give you my address, that for the maintenance of your own
veracity you may furnish me with the means of convicting publickly those
slanderers who have dared to make use of my name, in a manner still
more repugnant to real facts, than the dignity with which I have ever
supported my character.

I have the honour of being your most humble servant,

                                                    _The Chevalier D’EON._

_In Petty France, Westminster._




_To Charles-Genevieve-Louis-Auguste-Andre-Timothee ~D’Eon de Beaumont~,
Chevalier de l’ordre roial & militaire de S. Louis,[1] Ministre
Plenipotentiare de France aupres du Roi de la Grande Bretagne, Captaine
de Dragons au service de sa Majeste tres Chretienne, Avocat au Parlement
de Paris, Censeur roial pour l’Histoire et les Belles Lettres en France,
&c._

LETTER I.


SIR,

I have read with particular attention your letter to Dr. Musgrave, and
can no longer be in doubt what your business at present is in a country
where you are an _outlaw_.

You exhibit to us a character most singularly profligate. You alone in
this age have had it in your power to be equally false and treacherous
to two such great nations as England and France. While you were
only secretary to the Duke of Nivernois, you abused the privileges
of your character, and engaged in the dirty business of _debauching
our manufacturers_. You so entirely forgot the dignity of your rank
afterwards, when Minister Plenipotentiary, that you continued the same
practice, although it is contrary to the law of nations. You do not
even blush to charge this article of expence in the state of your
disbursements to the Comte de Guerchy. “Avance aux ouvriers Anglois
de la manufacture de toiles peintes, tant hommes que femmes, debauche
par le Sieur _L’Escalier_ a Londres et des environs pour les faire
passer ailleurs 195l.” Lettres, Memoires, &c. p. 172. The meanness and
rascality of such an employment in you and Monsieur _L’Escalier_ can
only be equalled by the tameness and ignominy of the administration at
that time in suffering _L’Escalier_, a notorious pimp and an _outlaw_
here, to be after this in the public character of _Secretary_ of the
Comte de Guerchy. The attestations of _L’Escalier’s outlawry_ were
printed here, witnessed by Solomon Schomberg, a Notary Public, and by
the Lord Mayor. They were dispersed at the Hague, to serve the purpose
of shewing at a certain juncture that England was bullied by France. You
afterwards quarrelled with all your best friends, as well as with the
ministers of your fortune, and your own Court, which had raised you so
rapidly from nothing, from being a writer to the police at Paris on the
pension of 600 livres, or 25 guineas a year, to the dignity of Minister
Plenipotentiary at the most important Court in Europe. Modern times
scarcely produce an instance of political treachery equal to your’s in
printing the secrets of the Court by whom you were employed, and the
private letters of your benefactor the Duke of Nivernois, of Monsieur
Sainte-Foy, Monsieur Moreau, &c. Your particular quarrel with Guerchy
had nothing to do with the sentiments of the Duke of Nivernois, of
Mess. Sainte-Foy, Moreau, and other gentlemen, on the conduct of the
French parliament, the administration of their finances, &c. which were
intrusted to you, as their private friend, under the seal of secrecy.
You betrayed their confidence without the least provocation on their
part, or a pretence of justification of your own conduct from any one
circumstance in those letters. After quarrelling with almost all your
own countrymen, you published in the same volume a gross abuse of this
nation, and called the English a parcel of fools and madmen, at the
very time that this country afforded you an honourable protection, and
an hospitality you have abused. “Apres deux secousses de tremblement
de terre, qui arriverent ici en 1750, _un soldat enthousiaste_ s’avisa
d’en predire un troisieme, qui devoit renverser Londres. Il se dit
inspire, & d’un ton enthousiaste en fixa le jour, l’heure, & la minute.
Londres consterne au souvenir des deux secousses qui s’etoient suivies
dans l’intervalle d’un mois, & plus effraie encore a l’approache d’un
troisieme & plus terrible tremblement que ce soldat enthousiaste avoit
annonce pour le 5 d’Avril, la ville s’est montree susceptible de toutes
sortes d’impressions. Plus de 50 mille habitans, sur la foi de cet
oracle, avoient ce jour-la pris la fuite: la plupart de ceux que les
raisonnemens ou les raillerie de leurs amis avoient retenue, attendoient
en tremblant l’instant critique, & n’ont montre de courage qu’apres qu’il
a ete passe. Le jour arrive, la prophetie, semblable a la plupart des
predictions, ne fut point accomplie; le faux Samuel fut mis un peu tard
aux petites maisons & _la tete de ces fiers insulaires si senses & si
philosophes ne fut pas a l’epreuve de la prophetie d’un fou_.” P. 14. I
believe there is not to be found so gross and silly an abuse of a whole
nation for the weakness of a few hysteric women, and superannuated men,
nor so false a representation of any fact. Were your other dispatches
to your court, Sir, composed of such wretched stuff as this? I hope the
_bottle-conjurer_ finds his place in the second part of your _memoires_.
That innocent joke of the late Duke of Montague, your countrymen
generally talk and write of as a serious proof of the folly and credulity
of this nation. The English laughed at your weak attack on them as a
nation, and superior to such abuse, desired that you might continue to
enjoy the protection of their noble system of laws, and the privileges
of their country. They considered their own glory, not the worthlessness
of the individual. They would have parted with so insignificant a wretch
as you without the least regret; but they would not suffer you to be
forced away, nor kidnapped, merely because it would have been an outrage
to their laws, and the honour of their nation. They too, as politicians,
thought you might be induced to make some discoveries, and were ready
to profit by your treason to your own country in the secrets you might
reveal for the benefit of their’s, but at the same time they would have
abhorred the traitor. When I mention the English nation as anxious for
your safety, I mean the body of the people. The administration _at that
time_ wished that you might be carried off to France. Mansfield and
Norton saw Guerchy often on the occasion, and Sandwich signed more than
one warrant to apprehend you. The French ministry, and the people here
in power at that time, planned your destruction; but the generosity of
two or three individuals saved you, and preserved a viper in the bosom of
their country. Now is just the season for such noxious reptiles to come
forth. They always meet the approaching storm. Leagued with the enemies
of our country, whether French or English, your slender abilities are
still employed against a nation you hate, but in your heart honour and
revere. After having for some years talked very openly of the wonderful
discoveries you could make, and the impeachment you could support, after
frequently declaring, that _you had two heads in your pocket_, when a
worthy gentleman steps forth and states the charge, you at once recoil,
and declare that you do not even believe a word of it, but think that
_l’Angleterre a plutot donne de l’argent a la France, que la France de
l’or a l’Angleterre pour conclure la derniere paix_. So absurd an idea
I shall not undertake to refute, because I believe you are the only man
_at large_, who entertains it; but I shall in this first address to you,
desire you to state _two_ facts to the public, relative to the subject
of your letter to Dr. Musgrave. The _first_ is, What was the negociation
relative to the island of _Porto-Rico_? The Duke of Bedford set out for
Paris, Sept. 5, 1762. Every thing of importance was soon entirely settled
between the two courts. The most material arrangements had been made here
in private with Lord Bute before his Grace’s departure. The news of the
taking the Havannah was afterwards first received in England, while the
Duke was in Paris, on Sept. 29. Now I ask what alteration in the terms
of the treaty did such important intelligence produce? What was to be
given England, additional to the former stipulations, in consequence
of the surrender of the Havannah, when that likewise was to be given
up? You are called upon to state that transaction; what you know of the
ten days cession of Porto Rico to us by the negociation at Paris, and
the subsequent surrender of that island on the receipt of _two_ letters
from hence, one of which the Duke of Bedford ought to produce for his
justification in _that part_ of the business; the other is too sacred to
appear. The _second_ question I shall now ask is, _whether you have not
declared that you were offered 7000 louis for your papers?_ Your letter
to Dr. Musgrave is extremely evasive on this head. You say, “Je me suis
toujours flatte de l’estime & de l’amitie _des Anglois_ avec lesquels
j’ai vecu. _Qui d’eux_ dans ces sentimens auroit ose me temoigner
assez de mepris pour me faire une pareille proposition?” No, Sir, _no
Englishman_ was employed in so dirty a business; but one of your own
country was found to make the proposition, to which you objected. You
said the sum was too trifling for papers of such importance. My other
letters shall give the world more truths; for I will drag you forth to
the public view, not merely as a trifling Frenchman, trifling in every
thing serious, and serious only in trifles, but as the enemy of England,
as a pensioned tool of a wicked ministry, who hope by your means to
trifle or perplex an enquiry, which may not stop at your patron, the
detested _Thane_, to whom, although a Frenchman, you have sacrificed the
great _Sully_ in the most fulsome and lying of all dedications, prefixed
to your pirated _Considerations Historiques & Politiques sur les Impos_.

Your connections, Sir, are at length discovered, and the plan of your
operations, so secretly concerted by Bute’s three deputies, Jenkinson,
Dyson, and _Target_ Martin, at a house in Pall Mall, which governs this
kingdom, shall be given to the public. You will experience, that although
English generosity makes us always ready to give refuge and protection to
a distressed foreigner, even from the country of our inveterate enemies,
we will not suffer among us a French traitor and a spy, in the pay of
an administration odious to this whole nation. I shall only at present
add, that one of your friends will soon prove to you that your own poet
_Corneille_ says very truly,

_Et meme avec justice on peut trahir un traitre._

                                I am, Sir,

                                                            An ENGLISHMAN.

_Sept. 11, 1769._

[1] The Chevalier D’Eon began in this manner the affidavit he made Dec.
28, 1764, although his public character had been superseded by the French
King, and declared at an end by the King of England, above a year before.




LETTER II.

_To the Chevalier ~D’Eon~._


SIR,

The warm applause you give to the peace of Paris, and the negociators
of it, both English and French, did not in the least surprise me. You
were well paid for it at the time, and the private advantages derived
to you from it did not cease with its _ratification_. The peace itself
was in its own nature so infamous, and so peculiarly _felonious_ to this
country, which it robbed of almost all its noble conquests, that no
Englishman was judged proper to be sent with the authentic ratification
of such a French bargain. It was given to you _contre toute regle &
contre toute usage_, as the Duke de Praslin says in your _Memoires_;
and the Duke of Nivernois observes in a letter to the Duke of Bedford,
that it was _une galanterie de votre ministere, & une bonte du Roi votre
maitre, qui se sert avec plaisir D’UN FRANCOIS pour cette tournure_.
Besides, at the very time of the negociation you held the Ambassador’s
pen; and altho’ you were never entrusted with the most important secrets
between the two courts, you were employed in the revisal of that fatal
instrument which tore from our bleeding warriors the fruits of all their
victories, the greatest acquisitions your rival nation had ever made.
You are allowed to have much chicanery; and the tricking article about
the Canada Bills was the effect of your duping the Duke of Bedford,
and the good-humoured Mr. Neville. You may therefore with reason speak
of the peace of Paris in terms of rapture, as a Frenchman, and as the
Duke of Nivernois’s secretary. I will ever mention it with indignation;
for I am an Englishman, and have not that load of guilt to expiate to
my country, the advising, making, or _approving_ so ruinous a measure.
You are, however, Sir, by no means singular in your opinion of the
late _peace_ even in this nation. We too have many traitors among us.
A set of gentlemen at Westminster gave an _entire approbation_ of the
_preliminary articles_, even with the very extraordinary original clause
about the East-India Company among them. Their bankers best know how
that _approbation_ was obtained; but their successors, altho’ careless
about the national debt, have had the prudence as well as foresight for
themselves, to pay off all debts contracted on that account.

You speak with some degree of modesty concerning yourself when you
mention the peace of Paris, as if conscious that you had only been
employed to toll the bell for the funeral of England’s departed glory
and fame. When you mention Count _Viry_, you are quite lavish in his
praises, knowing how much he had been a principal in that accursed
treaty. I respect the dead; but only the departed virtuous and good. I
distinguish characters, notwithstanding the trite maxim of _de mortuis
nil nisi bonum_. I will never confound a Cato and a Cataline, but will
give to each their due. I execrate the memory of Count Viry, as the
enemy of my country, as having been a principal in robbing England of
the _Havannah_, PORTO RICO, _Martinique_, _Guadelupe_, _Desiderade_,
_Mariegalante_, _St. Peter_, _Miquelon_, _Goree_, _Belleisle_, _St.
Lucia_, _&c._ and negociating a treaty which has proved the salvation
of France. I believe you have, besides the general cause of the peace,
which saved France, two particular reasons for the regard you testify
to the memory of Count Viry. The first is the very dexterous management
he used to get the claim of a sugar island from France waved, in which
you knew she was ready to have acquiesced. The other is, the protest he
signed in favour of the House of Savoy, which he procured to be legally
attested and given in at the time of the last coronation, in the name
of his master, the present King of Sardinia. He too in your time had
printed the _Genealogie de la Famille Royale d’Angleterre_, by which he
hoped at a future day that the ridiculous claims of his master’s family,
as being, although Papists, immediately descended from Henrietta Maria,
the daughter of Charles I. would have prevailed over those of the House
of Brunswick, who are descended from Elizabeth, Electress Palatine, one
degree more remote from the Crown, as being the daughter of James I. You
both expected at least a general confusion speedily among us; but neither
you, nor he, born under arbitrary governments, could have any idea of the
only lawful right to the crown of these realms, a parliamentary right.
The contrary doctrine was in Queen Anne’s time expresly declared to be
_high treason_, by a particular statute, the “Act for the better securing
her Majesty’s person and government, and the succession to the crown of
England in the protestant line;” _That if any person or persons, from
and after the 25th day of March 1706, shall maliciously, advisedly and
directly, by writing or printing, declare, maintain, or affirm that the
Kings or Queens of England, with and by the authority of the parliament
of England, are not able to make laws and statutes of sufficient force
and validity to limit and bind the crown of this realm, and the DESCENT,
LIMITATION, INHERITANCE, and government thereof, every such person or
persons shall be guilty of High Treason, and being thereof convicted and
attainted, &c. &c._ Count Viri acted by the express orders of his Court,
in conjunction with your’s. In the same manner the two Courts acted
in concert at the beginning of this century, in the last year of our
glorious Deliverer, King William III. Count Maffei, the Ambassador from
Savoy, delivered in the first famous protestation, in the name of the
Duchess of Savoy, against the Hanover succession, at the time the Duke
himself commanded the French army in Italy, with Marshal Catinat and the
Prince of Vaudemont under him, and every action of his life was dictated
by France. I believe you therefore _unusually_ sincere, when you express,
“la plus vive estime & la plus sincere admiration pour feu Monsieur le
Comte de Viry, qui par son attachement pour le bien des deux nations
belligerantes & graces a son zele infatiguable, eut la gloire d’amener
cette paix necessaire aux deux nations a une heureuse conclusion.” What
this _happy conclusion_ for England was, we have already seen. From that
fatal moment France, like a tall bully, began again to lift the head, and
insult all its neighbours.

You tell Dr. Musgrave, “le public aura lu avidement votre lettre, aura
adjute foi a son contenu parceque vous en appellez a mon evidence.” You
are mistaken. Your evidence of itself will have little weight with any
one, but you may have papers of importance, which the public expected
from _your own absolute promise_. The last page of your tiresome quarto
promised a second volume on the first of June 1764, and a third the first
of September. You ought to have given them at the stipulated time, and
to have made them as valuable as you could from the materials of others,
were it only to indemnify us for having waded through the family dullness
and impertinence of the letters to your mother, nurse, &c. &c. What did
the Scot give you for the suppression? Was it as much as you had for the
dedication, in which you tell him that you find “dans les portraits du
Duc de Sully & de Milord Bute une ressemblance assez parfaite, de grandes
vertus, l’amour de la patrie (_Scotland I suppose_) de la philosophie; la
profondeur d’un politique, l’eloquence d’un homme d’etat, cette activite
d’esprit qui donne les succes & les revers, ce coup d’œil qui demele les
objets meme au milieu du trouble, qui fait le grand negociateur, &c. &c.”
Upon my word you merited the whole sum he gave you, let it have been
ever so considerable. But did you believe one single feature of _Bute_
was like _Sully_? I am satisfied no more than your master the Duke of
Nivernois, Ambassador and Academician, one of your _quarante immortels_,
believed that the Kings of England and France were _faits pour s’aimer,
formed to love each other_, although he declared so at St. James’s with
the utmost gravity, and afterwards printed it, like a compliment of the
French Academy, only in both French and English for the amusement of
the two nations. The flattery of the French ambassador and secretary
succeeded. The English monarch and his Scottish minister were equally
captivated; and the most gallant army in Europe were left to regret that
they had not once the honour even of a visit from our sovereign during
the whole war, or before they were disbanded. The early and dangerous
intrigues, the specious flattery of a home favourite, and an insinuating
foreign minister, but above all the holding out in such terms, _le
charactere distinctif d’une bonne foi non equivoque_, at which the King
of Prussia has so much laughed, lulled asleep all heroism, suspicion, and
even curiosity.

You are very just, Sir, in the observation, that the public read with
great eagerness Dr. Musgrave’s letter. The reason is plain. The fact,
that French gold made the last peace, was long ago believed; but the
public rejoiced when a man of Dr. Musgrave’s unblemished reputation
stated the presumptive evidence in general terms to his countrymen of
Devonshire, because then it seemed impossible any longer to stifle the
enquiry. You say, “Je vous interpelle donc, M. le Docteur, de declarer
au public le nom du temeraire qui s’est servi du mien pour faire ces
ouvertures odieuses.” The Doctor does not say that he ever heard the
name of the person, who, _in your name_, applied to Sir George Yonge,
Mr. Fitzherbert, and several other members of parliament. He only
declares that Sir George Yonge and Mr. Fitzherbert informed him _at
different times_ that _an overture had been made IN THE NAME of the
Chevalier d’Eon, importing that he, the Chevalier, was ready to impeach
three persons, two of whom are peers and members of the privy council,
of selling the peace to the French_. Why do you not make your appeal to
these two gentlemen? If neither of the placemen should chuse to answer,
if they are either fearful or false, if the _boards of admiralty and
trade_ have exacted at least a promise of secrecy, I will name a third
person to you, a character unexceptionable, of a candour, probity, and
honour equal to Dr. Musgrave’s, superior I believe never existed. I mean
Thomas Cholmondeley, Esq; the late member for Cheshire, a relation of
Lord Chatham. My reason for naming this gentleman you will see in the
following passage. “It is true (_Pitt_) assisted in the first debate
upon General Warrants in 1764; but finding that some of the party were
in earnest in their designs of going farther, and had prepared a motion
against the seizure of papers, which was, in fact, the great grievance;
and also finding that the _favourite_ dreaded the minority gaining a
victory, lest the party should be afterwards turned against him; and
that the _favourite_ had therefore supported the administration with all
his might upon this occasion, the great patriot scandalously withdrew
from the cause and the party; thereby _preventing_ any point being
then gained towards that security of public liberty, which the whole
kingdom so ardently wished for and expected. A short time afterwards,
when an IMPEACHMENT OF THE FAVOURITE was privately rumoured among a few
only; and it was said, that there was strong evidence ready to be given,
_particularly with regard to the peace_; when a certain baronet, and
others, who took some pains in order to come at this evidence, and the
conditions upon which it might have been obtained were trifling, not
pecuniary (_the pardon of the Chevalier D’Eon is here meant_) and who
thought it necessary that the great Commoner should be consulted upon a
subject of such importance, especially too as he was looked upon to be
the fittest person to lead, or principally support such a procedure; and
when, in consequence of that idea, he was applied to by one of his own
friends, and, in some measure, a distant relation, he checked the whole
in the bud, by declaring vehemently against it.” _An enquiry into the
conduct of the late Right Honourable Commoner_, page 26, _&c._ published
in 1766. The strange phrase _Pitt_ used was, _that he would set his
foot on the head of the man who first moved the enquiry, and crush him
to atoms_. I am very glad to hear that the _three brothers_ are at last
united, and that there is now not only a family, but a political union
among them. I venture however to prophesy, that two of the three will
never promote an enquiry into the transactions of the last _peace_, or
the conduct of the _favourite_, and I therefore hope all the friends of
the public will be on their guard against them both. They cannot safely
be trusted with the conduct of this important business. The _apostate_
had in 1764 his peerage and place of Privy Seal in view, for which he
then sold his friends and his country. He now looks forwards to a more
lucrative office, a larger pension to recruit his shattered finances,
and perhaps to a higher title, which he may probably get, if he can keep
the favourite’s head on his shoulders. I wish however the _triumvirate_
of brothers success, because I think a _triumvirate_, which should be
only insolent and overbearing, is infinitely to be preferred to a sole
minister who is cruel; and _delights in blood_.

I should before this, Monsieur le Chevalier, have apologized to you
for the frankness of my proceeding with respect to you, and the plain
language of my heart, but really my nature is open and undisguised. I
detest flattery and foolish compliments. I call things generally by their
names, _j’appelle un chat un chat, et rolet un fripon_. Besides your
example ought to weigh in an address to you. The embassador extraordinary
and plenipotentiary of your court, a Cordon Bleu, who represented the
person of the Most Christian King, you repeatedly in the grossest manner
call _ane extraordinaire_, and you add, _la truye n’ennoblit pas le
cochon_. Monsieur Bussy, the late French minister here, is with you a
_bourreau_. Your language even to your own mother is particularly rude.
You advise a tender affectionate parent, in tears for the misconduct
of a son she loved, to _wipe her eyes, plant her cabbages, weed her
garden, eat her greens, and drink the milk of her cows and the wine of
her vineyard_, without giving herself any trouble about you. The letter
to your nurse, Madame Benoit a Tonnerre, is rather more obliging. You
talk of all her _soins et peines passees_, and then very elegantly add,
that _you are well at present, but should be better if you could see
her soon_. To her you act the _signor magnifico_; you actually send her
one hundred livres, or near four pounds and eight shillings sterling.
How interesting is all this to the public? how glorious to you? But to
return to your poor mother, whom I heartily pity. You tell her in return
for her concern, that you have read _toutes les lettres lamentables et
pitoyables que vous avez pris la peine de m’ecrire: pourquoi pleurez
vous, femme de peu de foi?_ You make use here, Sir, of our Blessed
Saviour’s words in a very strange and indecent manner. You speak of him
in your last publication, _in a most daring and really impudent stile_.
In the _Pieces Authentiques_, page 13, your words are, _on n’accusa point
Jesus Christ au Banc d’Herode d’avoir debite des libelles; cependant ce
que notre seigneur a avance n’a jamais ete si bien prouve que ce que le
Chevalier D’Eon a demontre par ses LETTRES ET MEMOIRES. Jesus Christ was
not accused at Herod’s Bench of having published libels; although what
our Saviour advanced was never so well proved as what the Chevalier D’Eon
has demonstrated in his LETTERS AND MEMOIRS._ After all these instances I
shall conclude without the least compliment to you, with only saying, that

                                I am, Sir,

                                                            An ENGLISHMAN.




To the PRINTER.


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

                                                        _The_ BRITISH SPY.




To the PRINTER.


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

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

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

                                                        _The_ BRITISH SPY.




To the PRINTER.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                  TULLIUS.




LETTER I.

To Dr. MUSGRAVE, of PLYMOUTH.


SIR,

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

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

The fact, of thus committing the management of the most important affairs
of Great Britain to the Ministers of a foreign power, is extraordinary
and alarming, and ought to be considered as highly criminal; especially
when we recollect, that the Sardinian Minister in London, at the time
of his present Majesty’s coronation, signed a protest in favour of the
House of Savoy, which he procured to be legally attested and given in,
in the name of the King his master. He printed, or caused to be printed,
‘the _Genealogie de la Famille Royale d’Angleterre_, by which he hoped,
at a future day, that the ridiculous claims of his master’s family, as
being, although Papists, immediately descended from Henrietta Maria,
the daughter of Charles I. would have prevailed over those of the House
of Brunswick, who are descended from Elizabeth, Electress Palatine, one
degree more remote from the crown, as being the daughter of James I.
He might hope for a general confusion among us; but being born under
arbitrary government, he could not have the least idea of the only
lawful right to the crown of these realms, a parliamentary right. The
contrary doctrine was in Queen Anne’s time expressly declared to be _high
treason_ by a particular statute, the “Act for the better securing her
Majesty’s person and government, and of the succession to the crown of
England in the Protestant line;” ‘_That if any person or persons, from
and after the 25th day of March, 1706, shall maliciously, advisedly and
directly, by writing or printing, declare, maintain, or affirm that the
Kings or Queens of England, with and by the authority of the parliament
of England, are not able to make laws and statutes of sufficient force
and validity to limit and bind the crown of this realm, and the DESCENT,
LIMITATION, INHERITANCE, and government thereof, every such person or
persons shall be guilty of High Treason, and being thereof convicted
and attainted, &c. &c._ Count Viri acted by the express orders of his
Court, in conjunction with the Court of France. In the same manner the
two Courts acted in concert at the beginning of this century, in the
last year of our glorious Deliverer, King William III. Count Maffei, the
Ambassador from Savoy, delivered in the first famous protestation, in the
name of the Duchess of Savoy, against the Hanover succession, at the time
the Duke himself commanded the French army in Italy, with Marshal Catinat
and the Prince of Vaudemont under him, and every action of his life was
dictated by France.’

The present Count V. (who, during his late father’s life time, was known
by the name of M. De Verois) had a pension granted him for his services
in this negociation of 1000l. per ann. on the Irish establishment,
though not in his own name. In the _debates relative to the affairs of
Ireland, in the years 1763 and 1764, &c. inscribed by permission to Lord
Chatham_, we find this fact mentioned, Vol. II. page 475, by Mr. Edmund
Sexton Perry, who thus speaks: “I shall communicate a fact to this House.
There is a pension granted nominally to one George Charles, but really
to Monsieur De Verois, the Sardinian Minister, for negociating the peace
that has just been concluded with the Minister of France. I must confess,
Sir, that, in my opinion, this service deserved no such recompence, at
least on our part. If it is thought a defensible measure, I should be
glad to know, why it was not avowed; and why, if it is proper we should
pay 1000l. a year to Mons. De Verois, we should be made to believe that
we pay it to George Charles.”

Besides the above pension, there was certainly a remittance from France
or Spain, or both, of a considerable sum of money; but for whom it was
designed is not at present so certainly known. However, there is no
doubt that Count V. is thoroughly acquainted with the whole of this
transaction: but now that the affair of the peace begins to be enquired
into, he is preparing to depart the kingdom; and has actually sold his
pension upon the Irish Establishment for 16000l. or thereabouts.

When the D. of B. set out for Paris, which was on the 5th of September,
1762, he had _full powers_ to treat with the French ministry upon the
terms of peace. But when he arrived at Calais, a messenger was dispatched
after him, containing a limitation of those powers. Upon which, he
instantly dispatched the same messenger back to London, declaring (by
letter) he would proceed no further, unless his former instructions were
restored. He waited at Calais for the return of this messenger, who
brought a restoration of his former instructions. However, he submitted,
notwithstanding this affected spirit, to see the conquests of a glorious
war bargained for and surrendered by the two Sardinian ministers. In a
word, the D. made no important figure in the negociation, till an event
turned up, which seemed, by the confusion it occasioned, to be totally
unexpected. This was the capture of the Havannah.

This being only an introductory letter, my next, I hope, will be more
worthy of your attention; at least, it will contain some important
truths. I am, Sir,

                        Your most humble servant,

                                                            An ENGLISHMAN.




LETTER II.

To Dr. MUSGRAVE of PLYMOUTH.


SIR,

My last letter concluded with the mention of the conquest of the
Havannah. The news of this important conquest arrived in England on the
29th of September, 1762, while the treaty of peace was negociating. Until
this period, the D. of B—— had little or no trouble in the negociation,
for the principle articles or great outlines of the terms of peace had
been previously settled between Lord Bute and Mons. De Verois (now Count
Viry) in England, and the Duc de Choiseul and the Sardinian minister at
Paris.

At this time the Right Hon. G—— G—— was Secretary of State for the
Northern department, and by his office (being a commoner) was to carry
the peace through the House of Commons, when it should be laid before
the House. When the news of the conquest of the Havannah came, and it
was directly determined by the Favourite to give up this important
island, because it should not embarrass the negociation, nor impede the
conclusion of the peace, Mr. G——— differed, and, in particular, insisted
upon an indemnification for it, from either France or Spain. He wanted
St. Lucia and Porto Rico, or the entire property of Jucatan and Florida.
The Favourite refused to make application for any of these; upon which
Mr. G——— resigned October 12, 1762[2]. Mr. Fox (now Lord Holland) was
then called upon to carry the peace through the House of Commons. Lord
Halifax succeeded to Mr. G———’s office. But Lord Egremont, being of
Mr. G———’s opinion, prevailed to have an instruction sent to the D. of
B——— to demand Florida only, which was granted without hesitation; for
the messenger who was dispatched to the Duke at Paris with this demand,
returned in eight days, with an account of its having been complied with.
The fact is, the French minister (Choiseul) obliged the Spanish minister
to agree to this demand, without sending to his court. A proof of the
discretionary power which was vested in the French minister by the court
of Spain, to agree to whatever compensation should be insisted upon for
the Havannah.

The following anecdote concerning the English Ultimatum may throw some
light on the preceding fact:—Towards the latter end of the negociation,
Mr. Wood, then Secretary to Lord Egremont, called one day at the Duc
de Nivernois’s (the French Ambassador in London) about three o’clock,
and desired to speak with him. The Swiss told Mr. Wood, his Excellency
was dressing, and could not be disturbed: but Mr. Wood insisting upon
admittance, was carried up stairs, and passing through a bed-chamber
leading to the dressing room, he laid some papers upon the bed, and
covered them with his hat. This circumstance being observed by the
French Secretary, he directly whispered the Ambassador to keep Mr. Wood
to dinner, and he would copy the papers if they contained any thing
essential. This was accordingly done: and these very papers, which
contained nothing less than the Ultimatum on the part of England, were
actually copied by the French Secretary and his clerks, and dispatched
that very night to the Duc de Choiseul at Paris. Thus the French Minister
at Paris was in possession of these important papers at least two days
before the D. of B———.

In a subsequent conference which the D. of B——— had with the French
Minister, he urged a compliance to his demands in a high and peremptory
tone; the wily French Minister smiled, and told his G. _He knew the
sentiments of the court of London upon the whole business._

It was the current report in England, when the D. of B——— returned from
France, that he had frequently said to his friends, that he could have
obtained better terms of peace if he had been permitted. If he was
controuled, why does he not now shew those instances of controul, and
who it was that obliged him to sacrifice the conquests of the war? As
he is known to keep a diary of all public transactions wherein he is
concerned, there is no doubt of his being able to give full information;
and as days and dates are sometimes of importance in affairs of this
kind, his diary will assist him greatly on this occasion. Besides, his
letters are somewhere in existence; the Chevalier D’Eon never saw them,
and consequently a motion in the H—— of C—— might produce them. We
should then see who were the betrayers of our country in that infamous
peace: And who it was that so frequently pressed his G. to conclude the
negociation, and sign the treaty. The originals of all these important
letters are still in being; and if they should not, there is no doubt
the D. has a copy of them in his diary. I repeat it emphatically, the
correspondence relative to the negociation ought to be laid before the
public. The Commons of England have a right to call for it; and it is a
duty which they owe to their country and to posterity.

Whether the immediate cession of Florida, or what other cause that has
not yet transpired, encouraged the demand of Porto Rico, or whether
the D. of B. knowing Mr. G——’s sentiments, made that demand himself,
finding Florida so easily given up; certain it is, that a demand of
that important island was made; and here the French Minister resorted
to his chicane. A messenger was sent with this demand to the Court of
Madrid. Fourteen days were allowed for the messenger to return. During
this interval, the D. received express and positive orders _to sign the
treaty immediately_. Two days after the treaty was signed, and within the
fourteen days, the messenger returned from Madrid, with the surrender of
the island. It has been suspected, perhaps from the complexion of the
fact, that the island was purchased. If it was, Count V. no doubt, knows
both the sum that was given, and to whom it was consigned. If any sum
actually was given, it was by Spain; for the view of France was, to make
Spain pay the piper.

My next will contain some further particulars of this extraordinary
negociation.

I am, Sir,

                           Your humble servant,

                                                            An ENGLISHMAN.

[2] In the pamphlet, intituled, _An Appendix to the State of the Nation_,
we find this fact strongly pointed at, p. 16, wherein the author says, in
reply to the _Observer_: “If he means to charge the great statesman (Mr.
G.) who was Secretary of State at the time the plans for the reduction of
Martinique and the Havannah were carried into execution, with consenting
to restore them _without compensation_; I must tell him, that it was
publicly spoken of, at the time the treaty of Paris was negociating, that
this gentleman resigned his office of Secretary of State for no other
reason, _than that further cessions in the West Indies were not insisted
on_.” And in the Observations on the State of the Nation, we find that
author not unacquainted with this part of the negociation, though,
agreeable to the principles of the party he espouses, it is but faintly
touched; page 29, 8vo edit. are these words, “If this gentleman’s hero of
finance, instead of flying from the treaty, which, though he now defends,
_he could not approve_, and would not oppose; if he, instead of shifting
into an office, _which removed him from the manufacture of the treaty_,”
&c.




LETTER III.

To Dr. MUSGRAVE of PLYMOUTH.


SIR,

The article respecting the East-India Company, is a demonstration
that better terms of peace might have been obtained, if they had been
insisted upon. During the negociation Mr. Wood waited upon Mr. Rous,
on the subject of an article, including the Company’s affairs, to be
inserted in the treaty. An article was accordingly framed, and sent to
the ministers, who said it was impossible to obtain what was therein
demanded. They altered it: and if it had been permitted to remain with
their alterations, as it had been agreed to by the French ministers, and
as it stood in the preliminaries, the interests of the Company would have
been essentially injured. But Lord Clive opposed it; and in consequence
of this opposition, it was altered to the form in which it now stands in
the general treaty.

With regard to the _present_, or rather _new_ treaty of commerce, the
following is not a little curious.

When the D. of B. Mr. N——le, and the Ducs de Choiseul and Praslin were
together at Choiseul’s hotel, at a conference on the peace, the D. of
B. said, he would not renew the treaty of Commerce that was made at
Utrecht, because some of the articles had been objected to by the British
parliament. The subject dropped after a short conversation upon it:
and they proceeded to renew the treaty of Aix la Chapelle, and other
matters. At length the D. of B. renewed the subject of the treaty of
commerce: upon which Choiseul said, the treaty of commerce had never been
mentioned during the negociation. But, answered the D. it has always been
understood. Choiseul replied, you must either take the treaty of commerce
as it now is, between the two nations (meaning that which was offered
to be renewed) or there must be no treaty of commerce at all. The D. of
B. declared, he would not accept of that treaty; nor would he sign the
treaty of peace unless a treaty of commerce was previously agreed to.
And so, says Choiseul, you want to carve that treaty just as you please;
to put in some articles, and to strike out others—_No!_ said he in an
exclamation, and turning about to a picture of the French King, which
hung up in the room, and clasping his hands together, cried out, _My dear
master! when I sacrifice your honour, take off my head_.

Mr. N——le then said, Mons. Choiseul, what better would you be if that
treaty was renewed? The British parliament would disapprove of it, and
the D. of B. would be impeached for it.—Think you so, said Choiseul?—Yes,
answered the D. of B. and added, if you do not consent to the making
a new treaty of commerce, I will return to England to-morrow morning,
and tell the K. there is no honour in the French ministry; that he must
send for Mr. PITT, who is the only man to deal with them, and renew the
war. The name of _Pitt_ frightened the French minister; he gave up the
contest. A treaty of commerce was made; but has not been published, nor
was it laid before parliament.

During the negociation, the Duc de Choiseul was constantly complaining
of the English news-papers; which, he said, were continually publishing
the terms of the peace; and these papers coming into France, he added,
induced the French to think, and say, he was sacrificing the interest
of France in that treaty; which he apprehended might occasion some
enthusiast to assassinate him. In complaisance to him, and to quiet his
fears on that head, it was, that no authentic defence or even authentic
account of the negociation and treaty, was ever published.

Every reader will make his own observations on this series of
_extraordinary FACTS_. I have given them to the world without any of
those advantages which they might have derived from a detail in fine
language, being convinced, _that plain truth needs no flowers of speech_.
I am, SIR,

                        Your most humble servant,

                                                            An ENGLISHMAN.


FINIS.




Transcriber’s Note


A number of probable printers’ errors were identified and corrected
during the preparation of this e-text:

  Page 8, “oppor-” changed to “opportunity” (an early opportunity of)
  Page 13, “dons” changed to “dans” (alleguez dans votre derniere lettre)
  Page 22, “tremble mentque” changed to “tremblement que” (plus terrible
    tremblement que ce soldat)
  Page 31, “conjuction” changed to “conjunction” (his Court, in conjunction
    with your’s)
  Page 32, “pui” changed to “qui” (activite d’esprit qui donne les succes)
  Page 37, “n’enoblit” changed to “n’ennoblit” (la truye n’ennoblit pas le
    cochon)
  Page 37, “burreau” changed to “bourreau” (is with you a _bourreau_)
  Page 42, “dress” changed to “address” (tendency of the address)
  Page 42, “gentlemen” changed to “gentleman” (can bind a French gentleman)
  Page 43, “absosolutely” changed to “absolutely” (at last, absolutely
    refused)
  Page 50, “conjuction” changed to “conjunction” (in conjunction with the
    Court of France)
  Page 52, duplicated word “an” removed (till an event turned up)
  Page 53, “negocitien” changed to “negociation” (no trouble in the
    negociation)
  Page 53, duplicated word “and” removed (and the Duc de Choiseul)
  Page 56, “preremptory” changed to “peremptory” (in a high and peremptory
    tone)
  Page 56, “Tho” changed to “The” (The originals of all these important
    letters)
  Page 57, “negociaaion” changed to “negociation” (particulars of this
    extraordinary negociation)

Punctuation errors were amended without note.





*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.