Drouet did get away, having threatened to disclose everything if detained in durance, and so he had nothing for which to thank the King whom, as was the case with others, he was serving but too faithfully. Hugonnet’s detention was a cruelly long one. ‘Could there be a greater act of despotism than that of detaining at the Bastille, for over a twelvemonth, the valet of the Chevalier D’Eon?... Guerchy had written to ask his friend Praslin to arrest Hugonnet; he distrained the effects the man had left behind, and refused to give them back until one hundred guineas had been paid to L’Escallier, his secretary; and further gave orders, that neither Hugonnet nor his wife should be allowed to attend the services at the chapel in the Embassy.’[213] I have said that D’Eon was about to institute proceedings against the French ambassador on a criminal charge. Those proceedings had commenced and followed their course. De Guerchy was indicted on February 12, and on March 1, following, a true bill was found against him by the grand jury of Middlesex, at Hick’s Hall, for a conspiracy against the life of the Chevalier D’Eon—a verdict that greatly perplexed the ministry; for, by the law of England, a person accused upon oath of any criminal offence must take his trial for the same when the bill of indictment is found against him by a grand jury; but by the law of nations, ambassadors are exempted from the ordinary forms of law in the countries where they are resident. The most eminent lawyers had been consulted, but the decision was left to the wisdom of the two courts.[214] The Duke de Broglie asserts that ‘this audacious verdict was received in London with a sort of stupor;’ but if the English papers of the day are consulted, this will scarcely be found to have been the case, for de Guerchy was by no means a favourite with the general public. At Versailles, on the contrary, the sensation caused was immense. The Count de Broglio and M. de Beauvau talked themselves hoarse one evening in trying to make Hume[215] feel that, independently of the quality of the accusers, and the little similarity in the depositions they had made, it was inconceivable that an ambassador could be subjected to any other jurisdiction than that of his own master. Hume kept repeating in reply that the laws of England in this respect were immutable, and that the authority of the King would not suffice to effect any alteration.[216] [Sidenote: TRUE BILL AGAINST THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.] The Chevalier sought to improve the occasion by sending what may be regarded as a note of intimidation:—