THEMUSGRAVE CONTROVERSY,AnAddressto 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.
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injured in a way which they little suspect, I have ardentlywished for the day, when my imperfect information should be superseded by evidence and certainty.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, anddelivered 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. Livingwitnesses 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 justifya 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 sufferingsuch 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 lateglorious 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.