DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70301#0018
6
kirby’s wonderful museum.
the bridges of London and Westminster, in which, should,
they unhappily seize my person, they mean to transport me
to Gravesend, where a small armed vessel is held in readiness
to sail with me to France, the instant I am conveyed on
board.” He then expatiated on the extremity to which he was
reduced, by this daring attack on the national liberty; and
justified his right to protection by the most exact conformity
to the laws. He next proceeded to ask if self-defence did
not authorize him to repel force by force; or in other words,
whether he might not, in such circumstances, kill any officer
of justice with impunity that should make an attempt upon
his person. To procure a sanction for this outrage seemed
to be the main end of his four letters, particularly that to
Lord Mansfield, in which he thus expressed himself: “ I
contract no debts, I pay ready money, I endeavour to live in
harmony with every body, I carefully avoid every the least
infringement of the laws; if the laws then were to appear
against my liberty, ought not I to suppose it a pretence used
by my enemies to get me into their power; and in this case,
does not the law authorize me to repel force by force; and
should the most fatal accidents result from such a step, were
there laws to condemn me, which I cannot conceive, the
spirit of those laws must feel the stroke.”
The fallacy of M. D’Eon’s reasoning was fully exposed in
a publication of the time, which observes : “ Let us suppose
him under a double prosecution; one for a libel against the
French ambassador, for which he may be liable by our laws,
either to imprisonment, or to some other punishment which
the court may think fit to award; the other by his enemies in
France, who may have a design to seize and carry off his
person, in order to make him answerable to the laws of his
own country; under these apprehensions, his argument is,
that he may kill the officer of the King’s Bench, if he attempts
to seize him legally; because, under pretence of that seizure,
he may be secured by the emissaries of France, who are en-
kirby’s wonderful museum.
the bridges of London and Westminster, in which, should,
they unhappily seize my person, they mean to transport me
to Gravesend, where a small armed vessel is held in readiness
to sail with me to France, the instant I am conveyed on
board.” He then expatiated on the extremity to which he was
reduced, by this daring attack on the national liberty; and
justified his right to protection by the most exact conformity
to the laws. He next proceeded to ask if self-defence did
not authorize him to repel force by force; or in other words,
whether he might not, in such circumstances, kill any officer
of justice with impunity that should make an attempt upon
his person. To procure a sanction for this outrage seemed
to be the main end of his four letters, particularly that to
Lord Mansfield, in which he thus expressed himself: “ I
contract no debts, I pay ready money, I endeavour to live in
harmony with every body, I carefully avoid every the least
infringement of the laws; if the laws then were to appear
against my liberty, ought not I to suppose it a pretence used
by my enemies to get me into their power; and in this case,
does not the law authorize me to repel force by force; and
should the most fatal accidents result from such a step, were
there laws to condemn me, which I cannot conceive, the
spirit of those laws must feel the stroke.”
The fallacy of M. D’Eon’s reasoning was fully exposed in
a publication of the time, which observes : “ Let us suppose
him under a double prosecution; one for a libel against the
French ambassador, for which he may be liable by our laws,
either to imprisonment, or to some other punishment which
the court may think fit to award; the other by his enemies in
France, who may have a design to seize and carry off his
person, in order to make him answerable to the laws of his
own country; under these apprehensions, his argument is,
that he may kill the officer of the King’s Bench, if he attempts
to seize him legally; because, under pretence of that seizure,
he may be secured by the emissaries of France, who are en-