Images de page
PDF
ePub

and was rowed to Westminsterbridge to see the regatta. The royal standard was hoisted on board the barge.

A State of the Dispute between the Count de Guines, Ambassador from the Court of France, against his late Secretaries the Sicurs Tort

and Roger, and the Sieur Delpech, with the decision of the Judges*.

t

The Count's State of the Matter.

TH

HE Count, on being appointed ambassador to the court of London, at the commence. ment of the dispute between the courts of London and Madrid respecting Falkland's Islands, employed the Sieur Tort as his chief secretary for private affairs, and the Sieur Roger as his deputy. The former of these, with one Delpech, and a teacher of French in London, he declares to have been concerned together in fraudulently smuggling goods into England, under his name. But this trade, however beneficial, was not, it seems, sufficient to gratify the avarice of the Sieur Tort. He presently formed an acquaintance with a woman, who assumed the title of Countess of Moriencourt, and who was in timately connected with Mr. Salvadore the Jew, and with a number of stock-jobbers. To them, and to the Sieurs Herzuello and Morphy, the Sieur Bordieu, the Sieur Chollet, the Sieur Thelusson, and others,

[blocks in formation]

It was by an anonymous letter, received by Prince Masserano in March, 1771, that the Count first obtained intelligence that Tort had the smallest connection with the public funds; in which clandestine practice, be it at the same time remarked the Sieur Roger, and one Vauchon, who also belonged to the ambassador's suite, were concerned with him; in the belief, as they protested, that it was not without his Excellency's approbation.

From this period, the Sieur Tort was denied all access to the ambas sador's dispatches: and, from this period, all his transactions in the Alley, and those of his associates, were so absurdly conducted, that they could not possibly have been directed by one in his secrets. The object of their speculations was to lower the funds, when they ought to have raised them: instead of gaming on the certainty of a peace, they gamed on the certainty of a

war; and the 19th of April convinced them of their error, by bringing events to light, of which the Count, in his public character, had received authentic information a considerable time before. Stocks rose considerably; and, on the 20th,

From Memoire pour le Comte de Guines, et Memoire contre le Comte, published lately at Paris.

the

the Sieur Tort, having obtained leave some time before to pass a few days in the country with certain merchants of his acquintance, eloped to France. On the 21st the Countess of Moriencourt waited upon his Excellency, to whom she was an utter stranger; and, with great agitation, begged to know if he could inform her where the Sieur Tort was, adding, that doubtless he could not be ignorant of the vast sums, which, by Tort's orders, Mr. Salvadore had sunk for his Excel lency in the Alley. This visit of the Countess opened the whole scene of imposture; and as it then appeared, that the Sicurs Roger and Vauchon were accessary to it, the ambassador instantly dismissed them both,

His Excellency omitted no mea sures which might remove a possibility of doubt of his own innocence, and bring to justice the of fender Tort, whose guilt appeared every day more flagrant. The first intelligence received of him was, that he was at Montreuil, where Salvadore, by appointment, presently joined him. There they had a long private conference together; and from Montreuil they were tra ced to Chantilly, where a second conference took place, and where Salvadore left Tort, and set out for Paris. From Chantilly, the latter a letter to his Excellency, expressing, among other things, his contrition for what was past, and his hopes of meriting forgiveness, by his future conduct.

In order to facilitate the apprehending of him, the Ambassador immediately transmitted the con tents of this letter to the Duke de la Vrilliere, then minister for fo

reign affairs. As for Salvadore, on his arrival in Paris, he sent, for the Sicur Boyer, the Count's homme ď affaires, and told him, that the Count de Guines owed him $5,000 livres, which by his Excellency's private directions, he had sunk for him in the English funds; that he was well assured the Sieur Boyer would reimburse him; and that, for particulars, he referred him to M. Tort, at Chantilly. The Sicur Boyer accordingly went thither; and Tort, thinking to intimidate him, complained aloud of the Ambassador, and said he had sacrificed himself to his interests. Borne away by passion, however, he inad vertently added, that, if his Excellency gave him a stab before his face, he would give his Excellency a stab behind his back, which he little exs pected.

At length an order was issued by the Duke de Vrilliere to arrest Tort; of which receiving information from Delpech, who then resided at Paris, he stole away from Chantilly. to the capital; where from a coun ter information of the same Del pech, he was apprehended on the 28th of April, and committed to the Bastille. On the 30th of June the Duke de la Vrilliere wrote to the Ambassador, requesting his opinion, whether the banishing Tort from Paris, to the distance of 20 leagues, would be a proper punishment for him --His Excellency insisted on more severity; and, while matters were in this uncertainty, the Duke d'Aguillon succeeded to the department of foriegn affairs. From this minister the Count unexpectedly received letters of recal, at the end of August; and, on his return, was informed, to his utter

astonish

astonishment, that the secret object of this recal was an accusation, brought against him by Tort, the very man whom he had himself accused, and delivered into the hands of government.

Though the Sieur Tort produced no proof of his charge, yet the Count thought it his duty, in several memorials, presented to the King in council, to make it appear that the whole was an absurd and contradictory piece of calumny. This he could not but suppose he had done effectually; as it was the condition on which he was to be reinstated in the ambassy. On the 10th of January, 1772, he returned to England. Tort left the Bastille a few days after; and the first use he made of his liberty was to spread a report, that he had been justified by his Majesty's council. This falsehood the Count contradicted, in a spirited letter to the Sieur Thelusson, one of the persons with whom Tort had speculated in the funds; which being transmitted to the French ministry, served as a pretext for the criminal prosecution to which he is now exposed. By command of his Majesty, however, a stop was put to the proceedings till the 4th of June, 1773, the King of England's birth day, when his Excellency asked and obtained leave to return, and vindicate his character in person.

Though it was not till some days after the stipulated time, that the letters of recal arrived, yet his Excellency found, that the Sieur Tort had already lodged a criminal information against him at Calais; and, on that account, in order to preserve the representative of his Majesty's person from indignity, he found himself under the humi

[ocr errors]

litating necessity of returning to France by way of Dieppe.

The Sieur Tort's State.

HE maintains, that, in all his transactions in the Alley, he was nothing more than an agent of the Count de Guines. On his arrival in London, says the Sieur Tort, his Excellency retained in his pay no less than four core domestics, besides a dozen, valets de chambre, and a band of musicians. By a letter of unlimited credit on Walpole, the banker, he was enabled to support so expensive a retinue, till about the end of December, 1770; when, that resourse failing, he was reduced to the necessity of either living with less splendor, or specu lating in the funds. The latter alternative he adopted; and, as secrecy was necessary, he employed in that service, as every Ambassador ought to do, a man in whom he could confide.

That his transactions in the Alley were so unfortunate, adds the Sicur, there can be little cause to wonder, from his utter ignorance of what was going forward between the courts of London and Madrid, till the 19th of April, when it was publicly announced to the whole kingdom, that, the misunderstanding being adjusted, there would be no war. It was by his Excellency's orders, given to him in private, that he left London on the 20th. He was not even allowed to delay his departure a moment, his Excellency being every minute afraid, that some of the persons, who had speculated so deeply on his account, should appear before him as his creditors, and that he should not have the confidence to declare, to

his face, that Tort was not his agent. The Count had asserted, that the Sieur Tort eloped to France, under the pretext of passing a few days in the country, with certain merchants of his acquaintance, to which he had obtained his Excellency's consent some days before. The present Memorialist refers to the Ambassador's letter, of the 24th of June, 1771, to the minisster; in which he expressly says, that, on the 20th of April, at nine in the morning, he gave him leave to pay a visit to the Countess of Morien

court.*

His meeting with Salvadorę at Montreuil, he insinuates, was perfectly accidental. He even declares, that, though he had an interview with him at Chantilly afterwards, yet the only motive he had for seeking that interview was, to communicate to him in confidence what had happened to his Excellency, and to request his advice upon it. He owns his having written a letter to the Ambassador from Chantilly, though by no means a penitential one, or at all the same with that alluded to by his antagonist. On the particulars of his interview with the Sieur Boyer, he is rather reserved: though he exculpates Delpech from the charge

of betraying him into the hands of government, and asserts, that Boyer sent this man thither, in order to prevail with him to leave Francet.

The Decision of this Dispute.

ON the 2d day of June, 1775. the criminal chamber of the Chatelet passed sentence in the cause between the Count de Guines and the Sieurs Tort and Roger, his secretaries. It is in substance as follows:

The complaint of the Sicur Tort against the Count de Guines, respecting his gaming in the English funds, is declared calumnious, and he is condemned to make reparation to the Ambassador, according to a process to be drawn up; he is further condemned in a fine of 300 livres for damages, to be given, with the consent of the Count, to the prisoners in the Chatelet.

[ocr errors]

With respect to the complaint of the Count against Tort and Roger, for having betrayed the secrets of the state, the two latter are expelled from the court. The Sicur Tort is to pay five sixths of the expence of the process, and the Count the other sixth. The other parties are to pay their own expences.'

As a proof of the Ambassador's delinquency, the Sieur Tort asserts, that, on the morning after his departure, when the Countess of Moriencourt, full of alarm and apprehension, waited upon him to know if he could give her any tidings of the Sieur, his Excellency confessed to her he was ruined in London, squeezed her by the hand, and conjured her, in the name of God, not to speak so loud.

It would be a great pity to omit, on this occasion, the very honourable testimony the Count de Guines gives of three French merchants, Messieurs Beaumont, Darnauld, and Fagan. He says that these honest men, being offered by Tort a share in his dealings, were so shocked at the iniquity of the plan, on which they were founded, that they refused to have any concern in them.

[ocr errors][merged small]

All the memorials published by Tort are ordered to be erased, sup pressed, and cancelled, with a strict admonition to Mr. F. his advocate, never to publish any such memorials on such pains as shall appertain. Tort, Roger and Delpech, are not cleated from the accusation made by Count de Guines against them, of having abused his name and dispatches, and for other ministerial objects; they are only put out of the Court by the Chatelet upon these points.

Some Account of the apprehending and trying of Robert Perreau, of Golden square, Apothecary; Daniel Perreau, of, Harley-street, and Margaret Carolina Rudd, for divers forgeries.

both to Tothill-fields Bridewell, for further examination.

On the next day, from a variety of circumstances, there being a strong foundation to believe Robert Perreau's brother Daniel was also concerned in the forgery, he was detained in Tothill-fields Bride well, upon his going to pay Robert a visit.

The Wednesday following, they were all three examined before the bench of Magistrates at Guildhall, Westminster; but nothing material appeared at this, or any of the subsequent examinations previous to their trials, but what appeared again at the trials in a more satis factory light; except some few facts, which have been since found to be false; and some others, the truth of which there is, on that, and many other accounts, all the reason in the world to disbelieve:

Saturday March we shall therefore to the

the 11th, a gentleman came to the Public Office, in Bow-street, in company with a woman elegantly dressed, and inquired for one of the Magistrates. Willkim Addington, Esq; being then in the parlour, the parties were introduced, when the man, after a short preface, in which he acquainted the Justice, that his name was Robert Perreau, and that he had lived as an apothecary, for some time in Golden-square, in great reputa tion, said he was come to do himself justice, by producing the person, who had given him a bond for 7500 1. which was a forgery. The woman denying the circum stance, and the parties mutually upbraiding each other, Mr. Ad dington thought proper, as there was great appearance of an iniquitous combination, to commit them

trials, just taking notice, that, at the above mentioned examination at Guildhall, Mrs. Rudd was, on making the usual declarations, admitted an evidence for the crown.

Robert's trial first came on, on Thursday, the first of June, at eight in the morning, before Mr. Justice Aston, Barons Burland and Hotham, &c. at the Sessions house; in the Old-Bailey. He was indicted for uttering a bond of 75001. under four counts, the first with an intent to defraud William Adair, Esq; the second to defraud Henry and Robert Drummond, Esqrs, and the other two for, uttering and publishing it, knowing it to be forged,

Mr. Howarth, counsel for the prosecution, opened the trial, by barely recounting the charges laid in the indictment; he was followed by Mr. Lee, on the same side,

whe

« PrécédentContinuer »