Mistrustful, too, of the Chevalier’s veracity, the Duke de Broglie informs his readers that until he had seen the original letter to de Guerchy, dated September 25, in the official archives, he could not believe in the authenticity of the copy published by D’Eon himself in his ‘Lettres, Mémoires et Négotiations Particulières,’ the work to which we are frequently having recourse. The duke’s, and our own readers, will perhaps feel inclined to sympathise with his grace’s amazement at D’Eon’s audacity in holding such language towards his superiors, until they learn the vantage afforded by a vitiated and unscrupulous minister, when he again insulted the Chevalier by seeking his co-operation in an odious and dishonourable transaction. De Guerchy’s complaints of the Chevalier’s extravagance as his _locum tenens_ became so loud and frequent that an idea—a most foul idea—was conceived by de Praslin for making good the supposed losses sustained by his old friend. Incredible as it appeared at the time, de Nivernois lent something more than his countenance in support, for it was he who first proposed it to D’Eon. His letter bore three dates, September 9, 10 and 11, which the Chevalier interpreted by saying that the late ambassador’s hand had refused its office twice, even his ink-horn had shrunk from him, until at last his noble heart had humbled itself to please old friends—the minister and ambassador. ‘... Give me leave to tell you, my dear friend,’ wrote de Nivernois after a three days’ struggle with his conscience, ‘that you are wrong in dissipating nearly one-half of M. de Guerchy’s monthly allowances. But it is not enough to find fault, we must appeal to facts and find a remedy.... I think that a gratuity, be it in your name or in that of M. de Guerchy, but in either case for his benefit, will serve to fill up the gap made by your dinners, and nothing more will be said on the matter....’ ‘There are remedies that are worse than the disease,’ was the Chevalier’s reply, also of September 25: ‘Are not those you propose, Monsieur le Duc, of this kind? ... _application to be made to the King for a gratuity in my behalf, but which is to be for the benefit of another man’s pocket_! I could not conscientiously agree to such an expedient, unless I were furnished with a duly legalised receipt; for I am a man of order, and think it preferable to leave open the gap made by my dinners rather than to stop it up with such a plug.... I will never consent to the King being asked for a gratuity in my name for the benefit of another....’