D’Eon was unable to leave England unless he made some arrangement with his creditors, still oppressed as he was by the liabilities he had incurred in the furtherance of the late King’s service, and no sooner had his imminent departure become extensively known, than something like a panic seized upon all who had engaged in the speculations on his sex. Three several actions were commenced in Easter term, against three underwriters in the city, for the recovery of the respective sums underwritten by them. Upwards of 120,000_l._ had been underwritten at various times on this mysterious question, but rather than ‘risk a heat over the Bacon course in Westminster Hall,’ several eminent merchants forfeited sixty per cent., and even seventy per cent., to have their names cancelled from the policies they had underwritten. One trial on the legality of these policies took place before Lord Mansfield, on July 1, when it was believed that the sex of the Chevalier was established beyond the possibility of a doubt. The action was brought by Mr. Hayes, a surgeon in Leicester Fields, against Mr. Jacques, broker and underwriter, for the recovery of 700_l_., the said Jacques having, about six years previously, received a premium of fifteen guineas, on the engagement to return one hundred guineas for every guinea, whenever it should be proved that the Chevalier was actually a female. Mr. Buller, as counsel for Hayes, opened the cause by stating the fairness of the transaction and the justifiable nature of the demand, the plaintiff believing himself to be in possession of sufficient proof to establish the sex of the Chevalier. He called for his first witness a surgeon named Le Goux,[327] who gave evidence to the effect that he had been acquainted with the Chevalier D’Eon from the time that the Duke de Nivernois was ambassador in London; that about five years previously he was called in by the Chevalier to lend professional aid, when she was labouring under a disorder which led to the discovery of her sex, of which he, Le Goux, was able to give satisfactory testimony. Another witness was Morande, with whom we are so intimately acquainted, who deposed that so far back as July 3, 1774, the Chevalier had made to him a free disclosure of her sex, even to displaying her bosom, and exhibiting her female wardrobe, which consisted of sacks, petticoats, and other garments for feminine use. On the part of the defendant, Mr. Mansfield pleaded that this was one of those gambling, indecent, and unnecessary cases that ought never to be permitted to come into a court of justice; that besides the inutility and indecency of the case, the plaintiff had taken advantage of his client, being in possession of intelligence that enabled him to lay with greater certainty, although with such great odds on his side; that the plaintiff, at the time of laying the wager, knew that the Court of France treated with the Chevalier as a woman to grant her a pension, and that the