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.