The sex of the Chevalier D'Eon

This day came on to be tried, before the Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, a cause, the most extraordinary that, perhaps, ever happened in this or any other country, respecting the sex of the Chevalier D'Eon, formerly ambassador from France to the court of England, &c.

The action was brought by Mr. Hayes, surgeon, in Leicester-fields, against one Jacques, a broker and under-writer, for the recovery of seven hundred pounds, the said Mr Jacques having, about six years ago, received premiums of fifteen guineas per cent, for every one of which he stood engaged to return one hundred guineas, whenever it should be proved that the Chevalier D'Eon was actually a woman.

Mr. Buller opened the cause as counsel for Mr. Hayes. He stated the fairness of the transaction, and the justifiable nature of the demand, as Mr. Hayes, the plaintiff, thought himself now to be in possession of that proof which would determine the sex of the Chevalier D'Eon, and for ever render the case indisputable.

In proof of the fact, Mr. Le Goux, a surgeon, was the first witness called. He gave his testimony to the following effect;

"That he had been acquainted with the Chevalier D'Eon from the time when the Due de Nivernois resided in England in quality of ambassador from the court of France; That, to his certain knowledge, the person called the Chevalier D'Eon was a woman."

Being closely interrogated by the counsel for the defendant, as to the mode of his acquiring such a degree of certainty relative to the sex of the party, Mr. Le Goux gave this satisfactory account of the matter:

"That, about five years ago, he was called in by the Chevalier D'Eon, to lend his professional aid for her assistance; That the Chevalier D'Eon, unfortunately for herself as well as her sex, laboured, at that time, under a disorder which rendered an examination of the afflicted part absolutely necessary; That this examination led of course to that discovery of the sex of which Mr. Le Goux was now enabled to give such satisfactory testimony."

The second witness called on the part of the plaintiff was Mr. De Morande. He swore, "that, so long ago as the 3d of July, 1774, the Chevalier D'Eon made a free disclosure of her sex to the witness; That she had even proceeded so far as to display her bosom on the occasion; That, in consequence of this disclosure of sex, she, the Chevalier D'Eon, had exhibited the contents of her female wardrobe, which consisted of sacques, petticoats, and other habiliments calculated for feminine use; That, on the said 3d day of July, 1774, the witness paid a morning-visit to the Chevalier D'Eon, and, finding her in bed, accosted her in a stile of gallantry respecting her sex; That so far from being offended with this freedom, the said chevalier desired the witness to approach nearer to her bed, and then permitted him to have manual proof of her being in truth a very woman."

Mr. Mansfield, on the part of the defendant, 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 French court must have some strong circumstances to imbibe that idea, therefore he hoped the jury would reprobate such wagers. The defendant's counsel did not attempt to contradict the plaintiff's evidence, by proving the masculine gender.

Lord Mansfield expressed his abhorrence of the whole transaction, and the more so, their bringing it into a court of justice, when it might have been settled elsewhere, wishing it had been in his power, in concurrence with the jury, to have made both parties lose; but as the law had not expressly prohibited it, and the wager was laid, the question before them was, who had won? His lordship observed, that the indecency of the proceeding arose more from the unnecessary questions asked, than from the case itself; that the witnesses had declared they perfectly knew the Chevalier D'Eon to be a woman; if she is not a woman, they are certainly perjured; there was, therefore, no need of enquiring how and by what methods they knew it, which was all the indecency.

As to the fraud suggested, of the plaintiff's knowing more than the defendant, he seemed to think there was no foundation for it.

His lordship then recited a wager entered into by two gentlemen in his own presence, about the dimensions of the Venus de Medicis, for 100l. One of the gentlemen said, "I will not deceive you; I tell you fairly I have been there, and measured it myself." "Well (says the other) and do you think I would be such a fool as to lay if I had not measured it? I will lay for all that."

His lordship then went on to state to the jury, that this chevalier had publickly appeared as a man, had been employed by the court of France as a man, as a military man, in a civil office, and as a minister of state here and in Russia; that there was all the presumption against the plaintiff, and the onus probandi lay upon him, which might, never have been come at; for it appeared, the only proposition of a discovery of sex that had been made to the chevalier, by some gentlemen upon an excursion, had been resented by D'Eon, who had instantly quitted their company on that account: it might therefore have never been in his power to have proved his wager, but for some accidental quarrels between D'Eon and some of her country men. His lordship was therefore of opinion, that the jury would find a verdict for the plaintiff.

The jury, without hesitation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, 700l. and 40s.