To thePRINTER.
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 theaddress, 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 Halifaxon 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 givingan alarm; and, at last, absolutely refused to take any cognizance of it, either in private or public. Thus frustratedin 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 shouldtheybe 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 orinnocence, 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, hispolitenessneed 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 himon 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 timerefused 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 evasivefinesseof the Frenchman.
Monsieur le Chevalier, notwithstanding his long residence in England, and the esteem and friendship he is favoured with fromsomeof the inhabitants (the reason of which he knows best) still preserves hisnativeinsincerity 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 verypolitelypassed 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 hisvastconsequence 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 toperuse his papers which hethenhad in his possession; but in his address to the freeholders of Devon, he neither desires nor expects any proofs from himnow, 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.