It had become de Praslin’s object to crush the Chevalier, first by degrading him, then seizing his person, when he would have thrown him in all probability into the Bastille. To effect this, he showed D’Eon’s two letters of September 25 to the King—the one to himself, the other to de Guerchy—and maintained that both sufficiently betrayed aberration of wind in the plenipotentiary, who could not possibly continue at a foreign court. It was under pressure such as this that Louis XV., feigning to believe in the imputation, suffered the despatch of the letter of recall, signed, not with his hand, but with the stamp. _Louis XV. to George III._ ‘Sir, my Brother,—The arrival of the Count de Guerchy, my ambassador at your Court, causing the functions of my Minister Plenipotentiary to cease, I do not delay to divest him of his office, and to require his immediate presence in France; but as he is not in a condition to present his letters of recall, in person, I instruct the Count de Guerchy to deliver them to you, and to renew to you upon this occasion the assurances of the inviolable friendship with which you have inspired me, and of my sincere desire to render it for ever durable.[128] ‘I am Sir, my Brother, ‘Your good Brother, ‘LOUIS.’ ‘Fontainebleau, October 3, 1763.’ ‘Instead of bringing the Chevalier to trial and proving his guilt, de Praslin contented himself by causing forged letters of recall to be presented to the King of England by the Count de Guerchy. There was nothing in this to manifest the majesty of ministerial justice—it was the feeble apology of a desperate cause.’[129] [Sidenote: KING, MISTRESS, AND MINISTERS.] It was enough for the Chevalier to have learnt from the King himself that his letters of recall were not signed with the sign-manual; he felt assured that his Majesty could not be prevailed upon to sign away, with his own hand, his perdition, whilst want of firmness and feebleness of character had precluded him from fairly interposing in the action of his minister, and he refused to recognise the authenticity of the document.[130]