-"^^^s^ ■■'^- "^ !'«^> ' -^.^^ • |^9^^^^3^B^^S^^^^ |1^ ^^ *^^ X \k 1 f rlf^^wsT Ji^'*'^^: V '^ \^^ P^^^Mj 'i-;. F#^^l\Jw^^^ \» • ^•1 iB^^K^ m. '^^>' ^ ::^^h^^K^ % ^ ?r^ Wm V mmmm y^fir i g^^^j^v- THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES \ LETTERS T O LORD MANSFIELD. CutcieO in tit l^nlLScoU of tfit Gompanu of ^tnmnm, ntcojbins to as of parliament. LETTERS T O THE RIGHT HONOURABLE L O MANSFIELD, FROM ANDREW STUART, Efq; LONDON: riintcd in tlic Month of January 177,3. f^m^i^aea M ' U B a m LETTER I. My Lord, T is not from want of attention to your Lordfliip, that I have hitherto abftaincd from doing myfclf the honour of writing to you. With great truth I can fay it, you have not been abfcnt from my thoughts, during any one complcat day, for more than three years paft; but the fubjcdt on which I meant to addrefs your Lord- fliip, was too interefting, and agitated me too flrongly, to admit of :ny commencing this ccrrcfpondence fooner. A long courfe of bad h.calth, increafcd perhaps by too much fenfi- bility in refped to certain events, with which your Lordfliip {lands deeply conneded, made it impoflible for me to fatisfy, fo foon as I wiflied, the carneft dchre of communicating to you, my genuine fentiments; they relate to a fubject very interefting both to your Lordfhip and to me, and in many refpcd;s interefting to every lover of juftice or humanity. Thofe who are injured have a right to complain; and it is the peculiar felicity of the natives of this idand, that there are no re- llraints upon the communication of truth, excepting thofe which the rules of dcjcncv, and of attention to that good order which is i) ciicntial to tl;j VN-cll-bcing of every ftatc, may neceiTarily re- r< KeftrailitB ( = ) Reflraints fuch as tliefe, every ingenuous mind mufl feel within Itfelf, Indcpcadent of the dictates of authority, or pofitive infti- tution. If in the courlc of this correfpondcnce, any expreflion efcape me, inconfillent with the refpe^ft due to your Lordfliip's fituation, and diftlnguinicd talents, fure I am it is far remote from my intention ; no man can have a higher admiration of your extenfive genius and ablUties than I have ; and I can appeal to all who know me, whether my principles, as well as the natural turn of my mind and temper, have not ever difpofcd me to be a fmcere lover of order. Nothing appears to me more difgufting and deteftable than thofe abufcs of liberty which we have daily occafion to obferve, and thofe illiberal and Indifcriminate attacks made upon all characters, how- ever refpeclable. They are doubly deteflable, both on account of their Intrinfic enormity, and becaufe they proceed not from the heart, or the real opinion of the authors, but are the fuggeftions of faction or of malice, conveyed to the public by thofe, who meanly proflitute their talents, in writing for others, what they neither think nor feel thcmfclvcs. What T have to offer to your Lordihip, relates not to public af- fairs, or to your conduct in the political line of this country ; it relates to your condu^ft in the public adminiftration of juftice, an (:l)jC(fL infcri(;r to none in its importance and extenfive confequen- c;cs, and in wliicli every member of tlie community is deeply in- terfiled : ]•>« cry man has a right to attend to all the fteps of your conduct in tliat capacity, and to declare to yourfclf, and to the world, tlic rcfiilt of liis obfcrvations. If they are founded an genuine facl?> it io of in^.portance that they (hould net be concealed j if igno- rantly; t 3 ) rantly, or ivickedly, he endeavour to mirreprcfent your LorJiKlp, the attempt will defervedly recoil upon hlmfelf to his own difgrace^ and inftead of dimlniHiing-, will only fcrve to add luftrc to your charadter. The particular opportunities I have had of attending minutely to your condud; In your judicial capacity upon fome memorable occa- fions, would of themfelves be fufiicient to entitle me to communicate my obfcrvations, and to exerclfe that right which belongs to every member of the community in this free and enlightened country. But, my Lord, if fuch a right flood in need of additional aid, 1 have peculiar reafons and motives, which all mankind will allow to be fufficient to authorife this addrefs. When it fhall appear that I have had the flrongefl: reafon that ever man had to complain of injury and injuflice received from your Lordflilp; When it fhall be fliewn that you availed yourfelf of your exalted judicial fituation to attack in a public aiTembly a private man who had no opportunity either of obviating that attack, or of anfweringfor himfelf ; And when the flagrant injuftice of this attempt fhall, in the courfe of thefe letters, be laid open to publick view, it will then be allowed, that my right thus to addrefs your Lordfliip is of the flrongcft and moft unqueflionable nature. After tracing the great outlines of a certain memorable caufe, irl which this facrifice of me was attempted, with a view, perhaps, to re- eoncilc the world to the opinion you gave in that caufe, I fhall have occafion, towards the clofe of this corrcfpondence, to flate my own fituation and condu6l in that contefl, to give the reafons which have hitherto prevented me from taking this method of doing myfelf juf-^ tice, and to flicvy- the impofTibility of my remaining longer filent, B 2 without X 4 ; without feem'ng to acqulcice ia thofc things which I have fo jufli^ rcafon to complain cf. What I have to fay with regard to myfelf in thcfe particulars flialL be poRponcd until I have examined your Lordfliip's condud in your judicial capacity, particularly in certain points conneded with the attack you endeavoured to make upon me. In that examination, I mufl: be permitted to review your condud: with a becoming freedom. I fiiall confine myiclf to facls which coniill: ^vitli i:iy own knowledge; and thefe fliall nclilier be exag- gerated nor extenuated. If in any of them yourLordfnip can fiiev/ me tliat I am miiiaken, I fliall be proud to take the hrft opportunity Ci corrcc"L!ng my error. I mean to fhite fairly the fads which I kno'.v and believe to be true, and to lay before you, without referve, t'lic 2-eniiinc reiledions and emotions of mv breaft refultin,^^ from thefe fads. This may perhaps fometimes produce a little v/armth, but^. I liope, v^ill never carry me beyond the bounds of good man- ners. During feveral years, I embraced every opportunity that ofFered^ of attending to yc/ar Lordlhip's dccifions ar.d argumiCnts, particu- Jirly in a great aflcmbly, vrhcrc your talents have long been juftly admired ; the ability and chiqucnce ever cor.lpicuous in your rea- fjni:i?s alvravs capti^'atcd mc, aiid Ici.l^rn iailccl to produce ftrong ;.d:iiii:ition (A lucii fiipcrior genius; but I mufi; be allowed lo f"ay, thr.t V. '■.en ilic circinri[t;inces or the cales that came before you hap- ]T;.:.e-! to be partieulariy knuwn to mc, and v.hcn I had an oppor- t';i:::\' '■■ e.ii^v; jii;:;^ your arginiienis and eonehid wiih men oi ahdi- tie:.. ;i.. J w^'i acoiiainted wiiIi the circiimfanees, and whole iuda- incntb you \voiod v(;i!!\cit aliow to he reipcdallc, v,'C have :irc- <;u.ntiy iound rcai^^n to coiihnc cur adn:lratlon to t'\c ab'iTuy of the rcafonin^s ( 5 ) fcafonings macTe iifc of by your Lordfhip in fupport of the fide you efpoufed. — Our convidlon v/as not on the dime fide v/ith our admi- ration. How could it be otherwife, iny Lord, when we could not but ob- ferve, that the fame rules of juftice vrcrc not applied to fnnilar cal'es ; and that, without any difference of circamftances to autho- riic it, your modes of reafcning were not uniform ? 1 hey were va- ried at pleafure, always able, and generally fuccefsful. Tocounfcl at the bar, fuch variety is permitted. Their pleadings do not cRablKh precedents, and in them an eagerneis for the fuc- cefs of their client is allowable ; but a judge can have no clicntj — - ought to have no friend in his judicial capacity. In the times of Lord Kardwicke, and of other eminent judge?, whofe names deferve ever to be refpedcd in Britain, it was not a difficult matter for men of knowledge and experience to foretel what decilion would be given on particular cafes; becaufe they knew, that tliefc jud,G;es, revering the lavv's of their country, en- deavoured to make jurifprudcnce a fjience founded on folid and fixed principles : they ftudlcd uniformity in their decilions, prefer- ring It to the vain admiration altending tf.c appearances of iuperior genius, or the applauic of individuals, v,''io might pront by the deviations from ellabliilied orincioles. Of late years the caio has been miicli othevvay? : tl;c bcH; and a])leil men, I am aifured, can fcarceiy ever ioretel upon v.-bat groimds any important caufe will be tai-:en 110 and decided by your Lordlhip ; and from wliat lias fallen under my own obferva- rion, in f)me remarkable indanccs, I cannct relule niy alf^nt to tln-^ prevailing opinion. 6 Ocneral t 6 ) General aflcitlons, ^Yithout fpeclf'ying; particular fads, defervd Iklle credit, and arc always unfatisfadory. It is my intention to recal to your memory the particulars of your condud and the arguments you employed in two very memorahle and important caufes lately decided ; both of them caufes which greatly excited the public attention; and as they will hereafter be confidered as monuments of the principles eftablifhed by your Lordfliip in one of the mod ca- pital branches of the laws and cuiloms of this country, to wit, the 7-uIds of ci'ldence, I fliall, after premifmg a few general obferva*- tions, endeavour to give as brielly as pofTible a diftind view of the fads, and of the arguments made ufe of by your Lordihip in both cafes. I had been accuftomed to think, tliat, in judging upon evidence, n matter of fiich iniinite importance in the conftitution and jurif- prudcnce of every well-regulated ftate, there were certain rules efla- blillied, which in every court, and in every country, were received as mod invaluable guides for the difcovcry of truth. For inflance, when it appeared that on the one fide there was forgery and fraud in fome of the material parts of the evidence, and efpecially when that forgery could be traced up to its fource, and difcovcred to be the contrivance of the very perfon whole guilt or innocence was tlic ohjcd of iiiquiry, in fuch a cafe, I have always undcrftood it to be an edabliihed rule, that the whole of the evidence on that fide of tb.c (|ueflion muft be deeply affedcd by a deliberate falfehood of tliis nature. The natural and ncccllary cffed of fuch a pradice, upon the minds ot iud,c;cs pofllifcd ot dllcernment and candour, is to make them extremely fufpicious of all the evidence tending to the fame conch'.lica with the forged evidence; parole tcllimony in iupport of it will be little regarded ; the forgery of the written evidence 2 contaminates ( 7 ) contaminates the teflimony of the witnefTjs in favour of the party who has made ufe of that forgery, and nothing will gain credit on that fide, but either clear and conclufivc written evidence, free from fufplcion, or the teflimony of fuch a number of refpedable, difintercfled, and confident wltnefTes, fpcaking to declfive and cir- cunidantiate facls, as leaves no room to doubt of the certainty of their knov/ledge, and the truth of their allertions. On the other hand, the proof of a forgery fuch as has been de- fcrlbed, muft alfo have the effedt to gain a more ready admlffion to the evidence of the other party. If that evidence be confident, if it be eftabllflied by the concurring teflimony of a croud of wltnefTes, and fupported by various articles of written and unfufpedled evi- dence, the bias of a fair mind will be totally In favour of the party producing fuch authorities, and againft tliat which had been obliged to have rccourfe to the forged evidence. Thefe, my Lord, are the rules which I had been taught to believe always had obtained, and ever w^ould obtain. In queflions of this nature. — But it was my fate to hear principles of an oppofite ten- dency eftabllflied by your Lordfliip on a very memorable occafion. This occurred In the decifion of one of the m.ofl: Important caufcs that ever came before a court of judicature : yet. If there ever exifted a cafe wherein the above-mentioned principles, in their fulleft extent,, ought to have operated and governed, it was in that caufe. They did receive the cfFedl; and operation due to them in the court where the caufc was hrfh judged, and where the evidence had been attended to and examined during the courfe of fevcral years ; but when it came to be judged In the laft rciort, the fentimcnts and doctrine then delivered l)y your Lordfliip, proceeded on a very different plan. I cannot fuppofc that this happened from the true principles being unknown to you; it mull have been from forae other caufe. Your ( 5 ) Your Lordfhlp can be at no lofs to dircovcr the cafe I allude to^ for there are in the Douglas Cause fome clrcumftances which, iflmirtcike not, mufl, at leafl to the extent of your feelings, pro- duce ftrong fenfations in your l>rc:ift, whenever alliifions^re made to that dccifion. Tlie fate and circuinrtanccf; or tliat meniorable caufc are recent in tlie nnnds of every one, and I truil tliat tliey will long be re- membered, as well as the part tabcn by your Lordfhip during tli.e v.hole progrefs, and at the fmal decirion of that litigation. Short aj tlie interval has been fnce tliat decifcn, there has already occurred another mem.orable caule, which came under the confidera- tionof the fame tribunal, the Houfe of Lords, oftener than once during t'le courle of tlie year 1771, I mean the An^lcfca, Cciufc^ in whlchj as in that of Douglas, the deciiion depended upon tlie canvaffmg of evidence, and upon the cfiabliPiiing of jufl: principles for the di- ■L:clion of the judgm.ent in vrciglnng the aufnoriiies produced en Qi- r: both lirlcG. In liic one cafe, as v/cll as in the other, it became necc[far^' to coniider the confequenccs of a /:/-jtVT ^'/hicli had been employed in i :mc 01 tlic material parts of tiie evidence; fur, befides otlier cir- cumllanccs of Inniiitude between tiic two cafes, tlierc v/as tliis re- rr:^iha' :c cMie, that in eacli, forgery was objccled to the moll niate-.-'.ii part of tlic wr'ttcn evidence p.roduccd in fuppHnl of the flate i:r i:i;,uion cbtimed l)y tlie perfjn whufe Ihite v/as the objed of the <!' llt-iL There w.:3 tliis diiTcrcncc Irrvevcr, tbat in the one cale tliere was r;:dy a liilpiLi'.n, v,\ (hvid.d c.;f:non \\\\\\ re.oird to the for^L'ry^ in the oiher it was cl^ar a.i..; .i'lo^'p^ued. I'iie h;rj-ery in tlic cafe of i^judefea, ( 9 ) Anglclca, as It depended chiefly on r;ci:].ir Infpccllon, appcirrd to fomc palpable and evident ; otlicrs were ([uitc of a diflcrent opinion, and fcvcral of the noble Lords thou2:ht that the evidence amounted only to a fufpicion of that crime. Your Lordfhip knows that it was cliiefly, if not entirely, on account of this forcrcry, and the inikicnce of it on the other Darts of the evidence, that the claimant in the An;;-lcfea caufe was denied the ilate and rights of fon of the Earl of Anglcica; and this too, at the diftance of near iix years after he had been put in podelfion of the Irilli peerage o[ Vifcount Valenlia, in conic'quence of a report made by the Attorney and Solicitor General of Ireland, which having been tranfmitted to his Majefty, the chiiniant was fummoncd to the parliament of Ireland, and, in December 1765, took his Icat as Vifcount \^alcntia and Baron of Mount Norris in tliat kingdom. Your Lordfliip alfo knows, that in the Douglas caufe there was not only :x. fufpicio?!^ but a certainty of forgery? traced to the very pcrfon on whofe guilt or innocence the caufe muft depend, proved by the clcareif evidence, and even acknowledged at the bar by the counfel on that fide of the queftion; notwithftanding which, the perfon whofe intereil you fupported in that caufe, was by your Lord- fliip declared to be the fon of Lady Jane Douglas and of Sir John Stewart, the author of the forged evidence relative to Ids birth ; and, in conlequcncc of the judgment pronounced in the Court of appeal, now enjoys the name and wealth of the Douglas family. To make tlic contrad more compleat, this happened after the pretenfions of llie c];\imant, now Mr. Douglas, liad been canvalTcd fcvcral yearr, h\ the Supreme G^urt of Judicature in Scotland, v\']iere it \vas I'dcir.n'y decided that he was not the ion of Lady Jane Douelas. C Theie ( i^ ) T'lcfc t\T,^. ciiies, io (lilTcrcnt from each ollicr in ihcir fate, con- tain ci:.:Li!r;'h'.nccs wliich, by comparifon, tend mutually to tlirow light on cr.cli ether; aiul as tlicy will aifill: ns in difcovering your Lordfhip's principles and [)ra'rLicc in matters of evidence, I mud beg leave to recall tliem a little more parti. ulai-ly to your memory. In the Anglefen caufe, the queilion was, wliether the perfou clai^rdng tiie dignities and honours belonging to the family of An- giei'ea, was the legitimate fon of the late Earl of Anglefea, or was of fp-urious birth ; and this cp.icfiion depended upon the truth of th3 iaci" maintained on the part of the claimant, tluit the Earl of Angle- fea was married to the prcient Countefs Dowager of Anglefea in the year 1741, prior to the birlh of tlie claimant, their fon, who was born in- the year i 744. In fupport of this faCf of the marriage In the year 1741, there %vas produced, befides a variety of parole evidence, a certilicata figned !)y the clergyman Lawrence Neal, Vv'ho aflcrted that he had married them on tlie ij'^h September 1741, to which was fiibjoined the fubfcriptions of two witneflcs to the marriage^ Nixon Donovan and Charles Kavanagh. This certificate fell under the fufpicion of forgery, in that part of it which related to tlie fubfcriptions of tlie two witnefles, particularly the fubfcription of Charles Kavanagh, which from ocular infpeQion, and the compariion of it with the certain and acknov/ledged fubfcriptions of Charles Kavanagh, and from other circumflances, appeared to be forged. In the Douglas caufe, tlie queftion was u'licther Lady Jane Dt)ug» las, in the 511!: year of her age, v;as dehvered of male tv.dris at Paris, on tlrj loth day of July i-^h', in the lioufe of a IVLidam le Ihun^ and by the alliliancc of a Pierre la MariT, Accouelicur. On the ( It ) tiic truth of ihcic fads depended the fihation and ilate claimed by Mr. Doiighiy. It was denied by his opponents that he was the Ton of Lady Jane Pouglac- : they maintained, that the whole ilory of Lady Jane's pretended deUvery, w^as a fraudulent contrivance between her and her hiin)and, and their confident Helen llewit. No evidence what- ever, either written or verbal, hefides the aflertioi\s of thefc three perfons, was produced in proof of the actual delivery at Paris; but there were produced in fupport of it, four letters, written in the name of the fuppofed man-midwife I'ierre la Marrc, and addrefled to Sir John Stewart. One of the letters was, in fubftance, a certificate of the delivery, of the date on wdiich it was fuppofed to have happened, and of its being a delivery of male twins, with feveral other effentlal circumflances. All thefe four letters w^ere, in the courfe of the trial, inconteflably proved, and at lad acknowledged to have beenyc?r^^^. Thus the motive and ohjcd: of thejlr^eries in each cafe was the i^anic, — namely, to fupport the capital fad:s in quedion, — in the one .'•afe, the Marriage, in the other, the Delivery. But the forgery in the Anglefea caufe was in fupport of a very credible fact, the marriage of the flither and mother of the claimant in the year 1741; a fact, which contained in itfelf nothing uima- lural, improbable, or diilicuh of behcf. The forgery in the Douglas caufe was in fupport of a moil: ex-* traordinary facl. Lady Jane Douglas's delivery of two Ions at a birth., in the 51R year of her age. To have a child at that :igc is very uncommon. 7'hat in her fitn- iiiion with her brother, the Duke of Douglas, it Ihould be a fon in- C z iVixd ( I- ) fiend of a daiiglitcr, \Yas fortunate; but that two fons fliould be ]^:-0':l:clc1 at a bi;-:]i, where t'ney were fo much wanted, and as b.cr i^iii-iruils, in this advar.ced period of her age, approached io much to the marvelkva.-, as to be in a very high degree improbable. A face, io circumilanced, as that the hiilory of lumian nature affords very tew ir any inihnic^^s trnlv limilar, mud be ac]:n(;w]cgcd not only to be improbable, but incredible, until it be well atteded. If it be true, that a very improbable or extraordinary fafl requires to be fupported by evidence unfufpccled, and much lironger than a prcibable one, it muft alfobe true, that when falfe or forged evidence is employed in fupport of that improbable fad:, the influence of it, upon all the other parts of the evidence produced in fupport of the fame facf, ought to be more powerful and decifive than in the cafe of a probable and natural one. In the Anglefea caufe, neither Lord Anglefea nor his wife were the perfons who forged the certificate of tlie marriage in 1741. It is all in the hand-writing of Laurence Neal the clergyman, who is hippoied to has-e married them in 1741; and the only parts of the certificate thought to be forged, are the fubfcriptions of the two wit- ncffes to it, particubirly the fubfcription of Charles Kavanagh : neither were thefe fubfcriptions fuppofed to be forged either by Lord or Lady Anglefea perfonally, but this forged certificate was found in the cuftodv of Lady Anglefea, where it is faid to liave remained from the year 1741 to the year 1752, when firft produced, and it re- mained in the fame hands till it vras depofited in the Spiritual Court of Dublin in 1762. In the Douglas caufe, the four forged letters were not forged by indifferent perfons, or third parties, but by Sir John Stewart him- felf, the fuppofed father of the claimant in that caufe. This fad was proved by the moil irrefiftiblc evidcace, aiad in the courfc of the caufe ( >^ ) can fc was acknowledged by the counfcl on that fide. Tlie par- ticipation of Lady Jane in that forgery, wa.s ahb proved by con- vincinfj; circinnuances, and all thcfe for":cd letters were found in tlic euilody of Lady Jane Douglas. They were produced in tlie trial, as proofs in favour of the pcrfon clainfmg to l)e her fon. Sir Joiui Stewart was examined with regard to tlieni, and f)lemnly and re- peatedly maintained, before a court of juilice, that two of tliem VvXre originals, and two of them copies of letters which he had adnally received from Pierre La Marre ; the faKLood of both which aiTertions, became io palpable in the courfe of the trial, that the whole account given by him of thefe letters, and given with a folem- nity equal to an oath, was admitted to be utterly void of truth. In the Anglefea caufe there was but one fmgle a£l of forgery, tiiat of the iubfcriptions of the witnefles to the certificate, which confifts but of three lines relative to one fingle fad:, the marriage of Lord and Lady Anglefea on the 15th September 1 741. L:i the Douglas caufe there was a complication of forgeries : For, . befides a variety of material letters from Sir John Stewart, falfely dated from Rbeinis, at the critical period in July 1748, while he and Lady Jane were at Paris^ and one upon the fame plan frojn Lady jane herfelf, there were four fcvcral letters prc3duced, which, trom tlieir contents and fubicription, had the appearance of letters from the perfon who had delivered Lady jane, but in facf were all of them forged by Sir John Stewart himfelf ; three of them dated in the year 1749, and the lafl: of them dated in 1752. The contents of thefe let- ters related to various eflential particulars : they were meant to fup- port not only the delivery of Lady Jane of male twins, at Paris, on the loth of July 1748, by the affiftance of Pierre La Marre, and in prefence of certain witnefles, but alfo to fupport the extra- ordinary fad" of one of the children's being left to the charge of the ( >4 ) tlic marx-mlJ'.vlfc, during I 6 months, while tlic Infciut was feparatcd- iVom his fnppuicd parenis, and inviliblc to all the reft of tlic world. In the Ang-kTca caufc, the fimple face in queftion Vv'as, whether Lord Anglcfca had been privately married to Lady Anglefea, on the 15th September 1741. The ailertion on the part of the claimant was, that there had been fuch a private nuirriagc, and that the only witncffes to it were Lawrence Neal, who performed tb.e cere- mony, and Nixon Donovan and Charles Kavanagb. From the very nature of the ailertion, this fact admitted of no dlrcifl: proof, but the teftlmony of thefe three perfons either verbal or written. In the Douglas caufe, the facl in queftion was more compHcated, and if real, mud have p^Forded various means for afcertaining its truth. There are fuch a variety of circumftances attendant upon a real delivery, and confequent to it, efpecially a delivery of tVv^ins, that there ca.i be no want of wltnelfes qualified to vouch fuch ma- terial facts as will afford conviction of the trulh. Xotwlthftanding this advantage of htuation in favour of the clai- mant in the Douglas crufc, it appears that there was m.uch more direct and collateral evidence in fupport of the lact cHfputed in the Anglcfca caufe, and infmitely Icfs evidence againft it, than happened In that of Douglas. There were in the Anglcfca caufe, three witncfles only who de- pofcd to circumdances contradictory to the fuppofition of Lord Anglcfea's having been married :n 1741. Two of them fpoke to circumftarces vague and indecifive, and though the evidence of the third was much more precife and important, particidarly with regard to the forgery of tlie certificate, yet that tefiimony was confidercd as liable to very great objccticns, and was fevcrely animadverted upon by f >s ) hy fomc of the Peers, \vlio at tlie fame time delivered their opinions agalnfl the authenticity of the marriage. On the otlier hand, there was a variety of evidence, either direct or C'jlla:cr:i], in fnpport cf that marriage, and of the certificate 17 1 1. I'hc prcfent Coimtels Dowager of Anglefea, a party indeed intcrcftcd in the event, exprefsly fvvore to it, and attefted that the ir.arriage was performed hy Lawrence Neal, in prefence of Nixon Donovan and Charles Kavanagh : there was ftrong and clear evi- dence alib, tliat the late Earl of xAnglefca did, on repeated occafions, affert and acknowlegc his private marriage in 1741. Several w'it- nefies concurred with regard to their hearing of tliat marriage, and of their knowirg that Lady Anglefea was treated as Lord Anglefea's Avife; and they depof:d to their belief of the marriage. There was a very folemn avowal of tlic private marriage, at the time of tlie public ceremony of marriage in the year 1752, which was then exprefsly declared to be only a repetition of the ceremony; and upon that cccafion there was drawn up and figned bv nine perfons prc- fent, a genuine certiiicate to that purpofe, Lawrence Keal, the clergyman who married them in 1752, de- clared to a numerous company then prefent, that he had formerly married them in 1741, and that he had drav/n up and figned a certi- ficate thereof. Further, Lord Anglefea, who is reprefented in the claimant's cafe as having been in a declining ftate of health during the latter months of his life, and as a man very regular in devotion, and Uiing frequent prayers in his family, at which he conftantly alhfted with great appearance of fervour ; this man, I fay, acknovv'- iedgcd to Ills lafl: moments the claimant to be his legitimate fon ; and in his laft will, executed in the year 1760, declared the claim- ant and his fillers to be his legitimate children, born fince his marriage with their mother ; he bequeatlied confiderable portions to thcfe Ills daughters, and left his real efiates to his fon the claimant. 9 ^ ( '6 ) In weir?; 11 111.0," tne merits of th.c Anglcfca caufc, ihc forgci'y of rhf- c:r''.hc:\['2 liad the cllcct to vitiate and dilcrcdit the whole of this cvid:ncc. Th.e :wv.vn:\gc of the pivicTit Countefs of Aiiglefea to the hitc Karl, iii Sei^. J 741? on which the ckiimant's legitimacy de- pended, was deemed to he a hclicn, and feveral of the witnetles who had dep;Med in iupport of it were confidered as perjured, In tlie Douglas caiife, tl-.c fituation of tlic proofs for and againfl \]\c delivciv in queflion cxliibits a very different pjclnre from what has now been given of the proofs for and iigainft Lord Anglefea's niarriage. In one refpecl indeed there was a refemblancc, fo far i!S tlie claimant in the Douglas caufc was acknowledged by Sir jc'lni Stcv;art and Lady Jane I^ouglas to be their ion, and there was a fimilar perleverance in that general acknowledgment ; but the capital facl in queflion, the c/V/m-j/t, flands unfupported by any genuine proot; and the fpecilication of particulars, received from tlie hulLand and wite on that fubjecf, was proved to be falfe. There was no certihcatc from INIadame Le Brun or lier daugliter, the fuppoled witnefies to the delivery ; no genuine certificate from La Marre the man-midwife, or any genuine letters from him, eith.cr on the fubjecl of the delivery, or of the youngcft child, fuppoled to be committed to his care during fixtccn months ; in fnort, no evidence that any pcrfon whatfoever at Paris had direct perfonal knowledge of the delivery ; not only fo, but no dil'covery of the lioule of Madame Lc Brun, nt)r any traces that any fuch perfon had ever cxiiled. I'iiis \ery extraordinary fact, (if Lady yr;ne\^ delivery of twins in tlie 51ft \L'M' of her age, whicli, il' true, admitted of fuch variety ot promts, rePicd therefore on the dire^rt evidence of Helen Ilewir, their conhdenr, to wliom faliehoc-d and jierjury in various particulars was objected, and on tlie indirc(5l evidence aiiiing from a proof ot J ]ircgn.anc)% ( '7 ) pregnancy, a matter in Itfelf fo fallacious as to be incapable of cer- tain proof; befides the many ftrong objections which the proof of appearances of pregnancy in this cafe laboured under. On the other hand, there was an amazing variety of direct and circumftantiate evidence, tending, by necefTary inference, to fl\ew the falfehood of the deUvery ; fuch an aiTemblage of feparate and in- dependant proofs, all verging to the fame center, as perhaps have feldom, if ever, occurred in any cafe whatfoever. To complete the contrail between the Anglefea and the Douglas caufes, it will be remembered, that, in the latter, the party in fup- port of whofe birth the grofs and inconteflible forgeries were em- ployed, triumphed over all the evidence produced againfl: the truth of the conteiled and extraordinary delivery. Thefe forgeries were not allowed to communicate their influence to any one particle of the evidence on the fide which your Lordfhip chofe to fupport, but the whole df the evidence produced on the fide which was free from fufpicion of forgery, was bv your Lordfliip fet at nought. Such were the facts, and fuch the fate of thefe two celebrated and important caufes. The very different reception which the forgeries, and the whole tenor of the evidence, in thefe two cafes, have met with, may by fome be confidered merely as an objed: of curiofity ; but, in my mind, it is fuch as deferves the mod ferious attention of every member of the community animated with a love of juflice. That it was chiefly owing to your Lordfhip that the forgeries ifl the Douglas caufe were innocent and harmlefs to the guilty party, will appear from the manner of your dating and arguing upon that J) matter ( i8 ) matter in the Douglas caufc, contraftcd with the principles admitted by yourlclf in that of Anglcfea. Thofe Vv'ho have only heard of your Lordfliip's giving your voice in favour of Lord Anglefea's legitimacy, may poffibly in^aginc, thrit your fentimcnts and condu<ft were cnnfiflcnt in both cafes ; hut as I att(?:"iv!ed very minutely to your argument and exprcffions en both occaiions, i: may pt^rhaps be in my power to undeceive them. Ycur Lordfh.ip, indeed, gave your voice in favour of the legiti- macy claimed by the fon of Lord Anglcfea, and the tendency of voiir fi^ccch was in Ids favom' ; but on v/hat principles was It that \on fupp'ortcd his caufc ? Not on a difregard of forgery, or on a denial that the mofl dccifn-e v.-cight was due to it, when clearly ./jortained ; but miCrely on this ground, that your eyehght was not gr' d enough to difcover tb.c forgery from ocular inipcdlion, and t::i? c(UT!p.'ir:fo'n of the ha'nd-wrilip.gs. You faid, that in your mind •r a-nounted only to a J:uU ox- Jiifpicion of forgery; and the doc- '•!!;■.■ vmi hi'.d down, aiHl prefb>'d hoiiie upon their Lordfliips on the ib'V :)!■ tlic- MMal d;jcif:(;n, wars this, " 'Lhat when tliere is on the one '• flic p'^'invc, clear, and conhlient parole evidence, aiid on tlie '• ( t'vrr oniv' (.'ic;ubt or fufpicion of fi)rgery, you thought it the duty ■^ • >f twrtry Lord, tf> ^vliofe mind the matter appeared in that liglitj " * ■ !ir [governed by the ]>.iH(;]e cvicloncc, and n^it rafhly to preknne •■ tj:u La(^y An^iclc.i, ai/d ievcT;d other wiinciies in this caule, ■' \.\'r pciiurcd : — "i'^-ii it would be y;iviug too great an autlun'ity '■ t.. .' z-:l\l oc:;.'- c;i iiiio!. lon ot h,'i-',crv to allow it to outwcii'-h ■' ihi" V. ;://c (.: tiic {'jr^'le cviclci^cc, and lO infer an iin])utation oi ;^ : jLn y agaii:;!. L;;;iy AneU-le.i, and lliiMjihcr w.jtuclles who had '• i,;;poLd iii iiirp'.rt o' the mail i.'Ly: and (*f t!ic certificate." I .\n\ { 19 ) 1 am fiu* from meaning to arraign this (1o£lrine, or to convey nny infiniiation of blame to your Lordfiiip for making ufe of it. Where there is but a fllglu fufpicion of forgery, it is perhaps the fafefl: rule, to be guided by the parole evidence, if cleat, pofitive, and confident. Upon this principle, I am perfuaded, thofe peers a6ted who gave their voice on the f\me fide of the queftion with your Lordfliip. Their honour and integrity are fo well known and cflablifhed, that no man can doubt of their a<fting upon the jufleft principles ; and as the proof of the forgery came at laft to depend chiefly on the comparifon of hand-writings, and the faculty of dlflinguiflnng wdiat was genuine from what was forged, it is a mat- ter of that fort which imi'fl: naturally prefent itfelf to different minds with different degrees of evidence. At the fame tim'e, it cannot a'dniit of doubt, that thofe noble lords who were convinced of the forgery a(fted upon juft and folld prin- ciples, when they gave their voice againft the fa£l aflcrted in that forged certificate, and when they fuffered the imprefTions arillng from that forgery to cancel all the poll live parole evidence in favour of the fa<3: which required to be fupported by the aid of forgery : they admitted the rule, that wherever a forgery appears, the parole evidence in fupport of tlie fame fadt becomes tainted, the faith othervs'ifc due to it i-s not fo ealily granted. In thus deciding, they acled agreeably to the dictates of con- fcicncc and of found rcafoning ; they followed the principles w^iich have been ell:abll(hed among all nations in matters of this nature, principles which that day did not efcape your Lordfliip's xecollec- tion ; for they decided agreeably to the .prccife rules wliicli in this caufe you recommended, wh.cncver there is clear convidioa or perfuallon of forgery. T) 2 Thie ( 20 ) Tills leads me to that part of your Lordfliip's fpeech which made the dccpell imprcITion on my mind, and on the minds of feveral perrons prcTcnt, who were alfo well acquainted with your method of arguing in the Douglas caufe. After various repetitions of the principle, that a doubt or mere fufpicion of forgery was not fufficient to cancel pofitive parole evi- dence, and after having communicated again and again to their Lordfhips the imperfedion of your eyefight, which you defcribed as very infufficient for the detedion of forgery from ocular infpedtion, you faid, that you did not doubt but many of their Lordfhipsi, who had better eyes than you, might be able, from infpedion and comparifon of the hand-WTitings, to fatisfy themfelves, and be clearly convinced of a forgery in this cafe ; if fo, that they might fafely rejecTt the evidence produced for the claimant. Upon this occafion you expreffed yourfelf to this purpofe, and, as nearly as I can recolleft, in thefe precife words : " If any of your Lordfhips is clearly " co7ivinced^ that the certificate of the marriage is a forgery^ your *' j^idgment mufi he regulated by that conviBion ; you invfi difbelieve ** the pofitive parole evidence on the fide of the claimajity fwear it »< -who vuili:' Thefe were your words ; I took them down in writing the day of the decifion, and fhewed them recently to others, who had alfo been prefent, and who concurred with me as to the accuracy of the note taken. The do6lrine thus delivered by your Lordfhip does you no difcre- dit. It is a true maxim. That truth ftands not in need of the aid of forgery ; and it is a fair inference from that maxim, that where forgery is employed, all the parole evidence, tending to the fame 4 conclufiODo ( il ) concUifion, muft be deeply afFeded, and liable to fufplclons deftruc- tive of its credibility. Happy would it have been for the interefts of truth, and the dignity of your own chara(Ster, if the fame principles, in tlie dcci- fion of fnnilar caufcs, had always been admitted by your Lordfhip j and if their influence had been powerful enough to direct your con- dud: with that uniformity and eonfillency which are the beft orna- ments of a judicial charader. But how is it pofTible, my Lord, to reconcile this acknowledge- ment of your principles in matters of forgery, with the declara- tions and arguments uttered from the fame lips in the Douglas caufe ? There was here no room left for your pleading natural in- iirmities to difqualify you from judging, whether the charge of forgery was true or falfe ; the quicknefs of your invention readily fuggefted to you other means of eluding the force of acknowledged forgeries. On that occafion, you flood forth the advocate and apologill of forgery, as far as that' attempt was pradicable. In the pidure you drew of the evidence in the Douglas caufe, you contrived indeed to keep the forgeries out of view as much as poffible, inftead of making them, what they ought to have been, capital figures. They could not be altogether omitted, but they were touched very lightly, and treated by you in the mofl gentle delicate manner that can be imagined. Left, however, the very mention of forgery fhould have made an imprefTion on the minds of the noble Lords who were prefent, you chofe to foften the epithet, and, inftead of the true and fimpic appellation oi forgeries^ you generally gave them the more gentle one oi ftippofcd letters^ At the fame time, you took care to give an { « ) an antidote wiili the poifon ; your memory was ranfaclvcd to find out inflances or innocent forgeries, and the mention of Sir John Stewart's forgeries and falfehoods was inftantly followed by fome anecdotes you gave of one or two innocent crimes of the fame nature, which per- !iaps may have happened fmce the beginning of the world. In thcfe cafes you faid, that forgery and falfehood had been em- ployed in fupport of a true fad:. One of the cafes to which, if I rightly remember, you referred, was that of a perfon accufed of murdering his niece. They had quarrelled, and the niece was by fome neigh- bours overheard to fay, " Dear uncle, don*t kill me." The niece dif- appeared, and the uncle was taken up on fufpicion of having mur- dered her. After fome <lelay in the trial, he delired or was allowed a certain time to produce his niece ; which not being able to do, he bethought himfclf of the expedient of producing another young wo- man to perfonate her ; but this fraud was difcovered, and the man was executed for the fuppofed murder. Some time afterwards, the niece, who had gone into another part of the country, appeared, and obtained pofleflion of her uncle's ellatc. The other cafes I do not recoiled I'o particularly as to be able to ftate them ; if I am not mif- taken, there was no book or authority mentioned where the above or the other cafes could be found ; but this I remember, that upon talking them over with perfons who had recently heard yoiir argu- ment, the fallacy of applying the circumilances of any of the cafes vou mentioned to the circumftances of Sir John Stewart's cafe, was extremely palpable; yet Vvhat otlier })urpofe could there be in thus prcdiiciiig ilicin, but to convey an idea favourable to thd forgeries of that gcntlenian i To mr.kc it the -more probable that they might have been an innocent contrivance of Sir John Stewart's, you figured him to vor.iiclt, and ficcnouriy reprcfcnted him to your illuflrious audl- LP.ce lib a thoiightlcfs lively man, not Icls likely to hit on a wrong <j expedient C 23 ) expedient tlianon aright one ; a diiFipatcd inan, who IiaJ pafs'd much of his life in jails, but rnqre apt to do liurt to himfelf than to others. Any thinp; proceeding from him, at the lime of his examination^ you coniidcred as of little confequence, becaufe there was no reli- ance on his veracity; Your expreffion was, that it appeared he had lied backwards and forwards ; and yet, in other parts of the pidure vou drew of this fame perfon., he v/as reprefented as an honeft and Iionourable man ; nay, your Lordihip went fo far as to fay, tliat it was not an uncommon thing for a man to defend a good caufe by foul means or falfe pretences. Give mc leave to fay, that it was unbecoming the judicial cha-» racier, cfpecially upon fuch a folemn occafion, and in fuch an au- gufi: aifcmbly, to treat this matter in the manner your Lordihip- did that day. Is there any crime whatever which may not be pal- liated in the fame manner r — li' the remarkable complications of deli- berate forgery and fraud in that caufe could meet with fuch gentle iiuhilircnt treatment from your Lordihip, where are we to draw liie line ? The fune dilpoiitrons, joined to fuch eminent abilities as vou poifefs, may take under their protection any fpecies of crime, ar.d periuade the world, that what to them appears vicious or frau- iiuU'in, is nothing more than mere innocent folly, kvity, or ca- \\"iih regard to the cafes you mentioned, where forgery had beeil ir.:ioccntly employed, fuppoirng tliem to be prccifely Inch as you it.iti'd them, tb.ey do by no means apply to the cafe of Sir John .Stewart a,iid Ladv lane Douglas. In thefe cafes, tlie perfons reforting 1 1 fo'-:;-cry and iaiicliood v^'cre aclually under trial for their lives or prrpcrtic;; ; From j^cculiar circumftances, tlie prcifrng necellity of ipccuily producir.g ionie proofs for tlicir own proteclion, prefented I') tli-ir view a very difagreeable and fatal alternative; and as they vvcre nnioniinatcly (o iituatcd, that their cafe did not admit of va~ riety ( n ) ncty or proofs, t!icy had no other obvious means of faving them* ic!vc5, but by making vSq of falle or forged evidence. In 'A hat refpcvfl is there any fimilitude between this and the fitu- ii'ion ol'Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas ? The capital fads conicflcd in the Douglas caufc admitted of fuch a variety of con- r'uiive and fatisfadory cvidci-'-ce, fome particulars of which have been already mentioned, tliat the total abfcnce of the proofs which were naturally to have been expelled, has been always deemed by ludicious men one of the many ftrong and convincing arguments againll the reality of Lady Jane's delivery. In another refpe£t, the cafe of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas differed materially from the cafes mentioned by your Lordfhip, for they were never confined to any precife time for producing their proofs of the fuf- pccled delivery ; The period of fcveral years, fubfequent to the date of that delivery, was at their command for this purpofe; They had i:ideed the ilrongefl incitements to obtain at an early period fatisfac- tory proofs, and carefully to preferve them; becaufe the mortifying reports againft the truth of the delivery, and fo highly prejudicial i their honour and intereft, were early and often communicated to them ; but as no criminal adion or procefs of any fort had been railed againll them at the time of their inventing the forged proofs, they are left without cxcufe in reforting to that criminal expedient ; th,c delay of a few days would have been fufficient to bring from France authentic and convincing evidence, if the fufpeded fad was founded in truth ; and as that delay could have been attended with no prejudice to them, it is not eafy, in their cafe, to figure any poflible motive for their having recourfe to forgery, but the impofli- bility of producing genuine proofs of an ideal fad. Thus it is evident, that the cafes of innocent forgeries, fo care- fully colleded by your Lordfliip, and fo kindly produced in vindi- cation of the forgeries in the Douglas caufe, contained, when duly examined. ( 25 ) examined, no clrcumflanccs applicable to the fituation of the perfons whom your Lordfliip upon this occafioii was pleafed to take under your protcdion. But, my Lord, how happens it that you did not apply the fame reafoning, and become equally the apologift: of forgery in the Angle* fea cafe ? From the nature of the fad: there in queftion, and the death of the witnefles to Lord Anglefea's private marriage in 1741, there was certainly much more room for your applying the dodrinc in exculpation of forgery, than in the Douglas caufe. When Lord Anglefea thought proper to have the marriage cere- mony publickly performed or repeated in Odober 1752, Nixon Do- novan, and Charles Kavanagh, the only witnefles to the private marriage in 1741, were dead, confequently, if it had been neg- leded to get a certificate from thefe witneffes in due time, there were no means now of fupplying it, but by forgery ; if ever therefore a cafe exifted, where forgery was excufable from the plea of necef- fity, which I deny ever did exift, this was the cafe where that plea could have been made ufe of with the beil grace. There was alfo in this cafe, much juiler ground for exculpatiiig Lord and Lady Anglefea; for no part of the forged certificate was written by cither of them, nor any proof of its having been con- trived or executed by their orders, though found in the cuilody gf Ladv Anglefea. It has been remarked as a fnigularity, in the part your Lordfliip took in tlie Anglefea caufe, that you omitted altogether, in fup- porting that cafe, to avail yourfelf of the llrong arguments that might have been drawn from the precedent in the Douglas caufe, oflabliilicd by your own dodrine. — It is to me no myftery, why you E avoided ( ad ) avoided touching on that ground — There arc arguments wliich may ibinedmcs pafs for a day, but produced and canvafled on other oc- c:^iioas, recoil on their authors, and iervc only to cover them with confuhon. The attention of the Houfc was, in the Anglefca caufe, fo much fixed upon the forgery, and the nc;])lc Lords v»dio were convinced of that fraiid, tuU io jnllly tlic conilqiicnces of it, that yon judged ]i hc(i to declare to tiic:n the edablinicd principle, that if they were cc-nvinccd oi the forgery, they mufc " dilbelieve the pofitivc parole " evidence on that Ikic, JkucJi' it i^'ho i.vill.'" Thoiigli 1 have Hated tlie capital circumftances in the Anglefca caiife, I by no means pretend to form any opinion of the merits on cither nde, 7 he cerLificate fiippoicd to be forged, and the evidence: of ihat forjrerv, never fell under mv obfervation ; it would there- f 're be very improper, on my part, to fpeak from perfonal opinion, v/lietb-er the written evidence, in behalf of Lord Anirlefea,, was, forci-ed or not. It is of no confequencc to my argument, what fide of that queftion prevcdls : I mean only to Aate faithfully what paft in the Houfe of Lords in the courfe of the deliberations on this canfe, and to fliew what infiuence the perfuafion, or even flrong fufpicion of forgerv, b.as upon generous and fair minds, acling in a folemn, judicial ca- pacity. Lrom what happened upon this occafion, I am entitled to prefume, that, in the Douglas caule, a fimilar imprelfion would have been made upon thefe fame generous minds, if your Lordfliip had th.onght pre»per to ftate, in their full force, tlie various l)ranches of rvldencc in that cauic, to draw the attention of the noble Lords to the acknovv'l edged forgeries as a capital part of that evidence, and to 9 ex plain J ( ^7 ) expliiln, ill a proper manner, the iolid principles cRabliflicd for go- vcrriin'>- the iucle-ment in matters of this nature. If, indeed, it coukl be fuppofed that your Lordiliip was deterniined to give your own voiee in favour of the party in whofe behalf that forgery had been cniployed, and if it was your earned wifli that vic- tory ihould attend them, I am ready to admit, that tlie pkm you- follovved v/as the moll judicious that could have been invented. Upon that fuppofition it was well judged, to retain fecretly In. your own bread, the Iblid principles eftablilhed in matters of for- gery, and which, in the Anglefea caufe, have been acknowledged by yourfelf. It w^as aJfo well judged to keep the forgeries out of viev/ as much as poffible, and when the mention of them could not well be avoided, to accompany them with fuch gloflcs and anec- dotes about innocent forgeries, as were beft calculated for prevent- ing the baneful intiuence of fuch an ingredient in the evidence of the party you thought proper to fupport. If you can be gratified by a compliment, dridly confined to your abilities, you are entitled to the fatisfadtion of knowing, how ge- nerally it is allowed that no Judge ever underilood, half fo well as your Lorddfip, the fcicncc of wliat may be called, Tlic management of caufcc. — It is s, praife, which that perfeO; model of a Judge, the great and good Lord Ilardvv^ickc, would have dlfdained ; — Ever atten- tive to the intereds of judice and of truth, and ignorant of parties in (lucfiions of civil right, he made it his d;;;:v not only to fearch to the bottom, and fatisfy his own niiiul on wliich fide tlic truth lav, but in delivering his fentiments, to datv: in all iheir extent, and with all tlic foixe that was due to ihcm, tlie fads and argument? of both parlks. 11 'A 'a-i, J This riilj !:c HKnc particuLirly obl'crvcd in u certain Great Ailcnil^ly, v.-h,crc caiiics receive tlicir ilnal dccifion. Judges, in the litiiation wlacli lie then enjoyed, or in that which now falls to your I.ordihip'3 lliarc, always have been, and probably ever will be al- I'uvcd, to have in that zAflembly great weight in forming the deci- li'^ns rclaiivc to property or private rights ; it therefore appeared to Iiiin, the more indifpenfibiy his duty, to avoid any thing that could miflead others. The ingenuity and addrefs permitted to coun- ici ill fclccting the fads and arguments of one fide, and even the arts ui eloquence, appeared to him improper and mifplaced, if not con- temptible, when employed by a judge, whofe bufinefs it was to re- fume the arguments on both fides, and difpaflionately to inform the noble Lords of the genuine ftate of fa£ts without colouring, par- tiality, or vain difplay of fuperior talents. It Is an event deeply to be regretted, that this great judge lived not to the period of the Douglas caufe; his mind was formed to embrace the whole extent of matter in that caufe, and to perceive the ten- dency of all the various branches of evidence. Thefe he would have ftated to the Iloufe with perfpicuity and candour, and an opinion given by him would have afforded fatisfac- tion to the public in general, even to the parties themfelves, fenfible .IS they muft have been, that nothing had efcaped his obfervation, that nothing was exaggerated or extenuated, and that, in a judicial capacity, he w^is neither liable to be mifled, nor capa.ble of miflead- ing others. I am forry it is not in my power, confidently with trutli, to fay that the opinion delivered, and the part taken by your Lordfhip in the decifion of that caufe, have been attended with thefe happy con- Cccp^jcnccs. I can fcarccly think, that your Lordfliip's own expedta- 4 tions ( =9 ) tioni on this head, could pofllbly have been very fungulne. What I have already dated with regard to one, and but one, though not an Immaterial branch of the Douglas caufc, mlglit perhaps be fuffi- cieut intimation of the rcafons why your opinion and your conduct in that affair have been productive of fo much dii'content, and liave excited fentiments with regard to your Lordlhip's pcrfonal chara<5tcr, lo much the reverie of thofe produced by the judgements of Lord Ilardwicke — but, my Lord, I cannot agree to let it reit here — there are other parts of your fpeech and of your conduct in that caufc, wliich do no lefs credit to that ability by which you can make every thing bend to your own purpofe, and furmount thofe difficulties which to men of inferior genius appear formndabie. The confideration of thefe muR: be referved for fubfequent letters. But before I take my leave of your Lordihip at prefent, I cannot forbear touching on a topic which is intimxately connected with the fubjeCt. It contains a refledion which undoubtedly occurred to your Lordfhip when the two caufes above-mentioned came before you in the Houfe of Peers, but which I am not aOiamed to ow^n, nothing but fatal experience could have made fenfible tome. It may be afked how it happened, that firft the fufpicion alone, then the perfuafion of forgery in the Anglefea caufe, Itruck, in fo lively a manner, every breaft in that iiluftrious Affemblvy while, in the Douglas caufe, the plain avowal both of the forgery and perjury of Sir John Stewart, (for I ftill infift on the latter crime,) failed of having the fame influence, though fupported by a prodigious num- ber of other proofs and evidence. I venture to affert, that the very number, and length, and comph- catcd nature of thefe proofs, was the true rcafon. ( 50 ) The rir^umcnt derived from forfcrv, when tliat arn,-ument flood alone, was obvious and unanAverable, was convincing and congenial to the noble and uncorruptcd minds of thofe judges. As no elo- quence could give it greater force, fo no artifice could elude it : it fufpended the decifion in the former caufe, till the matter was fur- ther enquired into, and, in the iirac, it proved triunq)hant over many important probabilities which confeffedly oppofcd it : but in the latter caufe, the exaft and laborious fcrutiny made on the part of the plaintiff, necelfarily fuggefied new proofs, v/hich, from their very nature, became complicated and involved in new circumftances and new refearches ; and though thefe proofs were all on one fide, they inevitably threw on the whole an appearance of intricacy, which alarmed and terrified men not accuflomed to thofe enquiries. The controverly fecmcd not to be one caufe, but a vaft collecllon of different caufes. Thofe parts of it which were obvious to common lenfe, and which required no labour of thought to be comprehended, were loll: and obfcured in the multitude of others which demanded a more minute and accurate diicuffion ; and the Peers, actuated by their ufual intcgritv, but forgetting that the difpute turned merely on a queftion of fad, of which they were no lefs a]:)le judges than the moft profound lawyer, were apt to confider the matter as on the fame footing wath the fubtk queftions of jurifprudence, wdiere they judly have a great deference, for thofe who arc engaged by their I rofcffion to attain a more particular acquaintance with that fcience. Your Lordihip's diRinguiflied fagacity foon led you to perceive this (hipofilion of mind in your audience ; you took advantage of it, and availed yourfclf of the authority attending your ffation -, you mufcrcd up all that clo(picnce v.'liich you fo readily com.mand on c\cry lu])jccl: wlicrc vou take an intcrell: ; and by wandering in that immcnle lorcil. of fads and circumfhances, you were able to draw ( 3r ) €;ff the attention of the Judges from thofc himuious points of view, which, if confidered hngly, woiikl have funiccd alone to determine tl::it memorable cauic. But it fnall he my IniiHicfb to feparatc the parts as much as pof- fiblc in m.y future adarcllcs. In the mean time, I mufl beg leave to lay a few words y ith regard to the propriety of this addrcfs to your Lordihip. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -^- Thc peculiarity of my fituation in this affair, which in future letters will be more fully explained ; The nature and fate of the con- reil in which I have been engaged; and the hardfliips and injuries fiiftaincd by myfelf, and the other guardians of the Duke of Hamil- ton, have been fuch as to render an addrefs of this nature unavoid- able. Some men of contracied views, or timid dlfpofitions, may per- happ. obje^l: to the propriety of this meafure ; they will tell your T.ordihip, that it is contrary to public utility to doubt of the wifdom and integrity of your decifions ; the falie complaifance of fome may go even lb far as to maintain, that it is better many individuals ihould Tuffer injudicc, than that the veneration attached to your Lord;hip's lituation and office fliould in any degree be diminifhed bv too nice an exanunation of your condu^St. I Ihiall not attempt any anfwer to that part of mankind, with whom ilich language is the refult of fervile or flattering difpofitions ; but if there are any who, in fmcerity of heart, and from public con- fi derations,, ^ 3- ) fid:i ^li^.;:, u: Oifpoil'd b^> adopt tlic al)Ovc principle, they defci'vc an anfwci'j and lo tbcni 1 beg leave to fubmit a few confiderations. While a caul'e 13 in dependence, 1 admit that all publications, and dl the httlc arts of popiilaiily, tending to raife the prejudices or to inflame the pafllouj, are highly improper, and ought not to be permitted. But, after the decifion of a caufe, the freedom of in- quiry into the condudl and opinions of the Judges is one of the nobleft and beft fecurities that human invention can contrive for the faithful adminiflration of jullice. It is for this veiy purpofe that it has been eflabliflied in this coun* try, that Judges fliall give their opinions and decifions publickly ; — an admirable in.llitutlon, which does honour to Britain, and gives it a fupcriority in this refpecSt over mofl of the other countries in Iiurope. Laws may recommend or enforce the due adminiflration of juf- tice ; but thcfc laws are of little avaiU w^hen compared with the fu- ^Krior efficacy of the rcftraint which arifes from the judgment of the jjublic, exercilcd upon the conduct and opinions of the Judges. It would be extremely fatal to the liberties of this nation, and to that ineiiimable blefTing, tiie faitbful diftribution of juftlce, if this rt-flralnt upon Judges were removed, or improperly checked. Tiic pul)lic has a right, and ought to be fatisfied with regard to the conducl:, ability, and integrity of their Judges. It is from thefc fourccs aldne that genuine refpccl and authority can be derived ; and an endeavour to make thcfc the appendages of office, independent ot the pcrfonal character and condud: of the judge, is an attempt which, in this free and enlightened country, moft probably never will fuccccd. This ( 33 ) This freedom of inquiry is not only effcntial to the interefls of the community, but every Judge, confcious of intending and ading honourably, ought to promote and rejoice in tlie exercife of it.— It is a poor fpirit indeed that can reft fatisfied with authority and ex- ternal regard derived from office alone. The Judge who is poftefred of proper elevation of mind, W'ill, both for his own fake and that of his country, rejoice that his fellow-citizens have an opportunity of fatisfying themfelves with regard to his condud, and of diftin- guifhing Judges who deferve v/ell of the public from thofe who are unworthy — He will adopt the fentiment of the old Roman, who, confcious of no thoughts or adions unfit for public view, ex- prefTed a wifli for windows in his breaft, that all mankind might perceive what was paffing there. If thefe confiderations are of any force for eftablifhing the juflnefs of the principle, the only objedion I can forefee againft this free- dom of inquiry is, that it may happen fometimes to be improperly exercifed. This is an objedion equally applicable to fome of the greatcfl bleffings enjoyed by mankind, whether from nature or from civil inftitutions. — It is no real objection to health or civil liberty, that both of them often have been, and are extremely liable to be abufed. When the freedom of inquiry now contended for happens to be improperly ufed, it will be found that the mifchief carries along w^ith it its own remedy. The moft valuable part of mankind are foon difgufted with unmerited or indecent attacks made either upon judges or Individuals ; the perfon capable of fuch unworthy conduct lofcs liis aim ; the unjuft or illiberal invedive returns upon himfelf, to his own difgrace ; and the Judge whofc condud has been mlfre- fentcdj inftead of fuffering in the public opinion, will acquire addi- F tional { 34 ) tlonal credit from the palpable injuftice of the attack made upon lilm. Upon this (ground, my Lord, I am willing to clofe with you. If it can be fhcwn that in any thing I wilfully mifreprefent you, flatc falle facl;>, or form falfe conclufions, let the reproach fail upon mv head, while the advantage accrues to your Lordfliip, and to the caui'c you fuppoitcd. But ii, on the other hand, it fliall appear that there is the flrideft nttcntion to tl;e truth of fnfls, and to the fairnefs of the reafoning ; if i have had the flrongcft caufe to complain of the injuftice t have ■net '.vitli, and, v/hen thus provoked, (liall ftill abftain from too much i-verity of exprcihon ; I bopc it will be allowed, that I am far from trcfpafring againft the duty of a good citizen and fubje£t. That very duty, as v.cll as tlie duty v/hich I ov/e to myfelf, have required from iv.c this incuiry and addrefd. It is of importance to the community in general, that any fla- grant acl of injuftice done to a private man fhould not be fuflxred to cfcape without obfcrvation or ccnfurc. That importance is increafed, when the conducl complained of afl'edls numbers of men, and is likely to ellabliih a precedent for future onprefTion or injuftice. Such is the prefent cafe ; for if the Duke of Hamilton's guar- dians, acling from convidion, and upon the moft generous, I may lay, heroic principles, of duty and attachment to their truft, have juet with fucli unjuft and injurious treatment as your Lordfhip knows ihev have fuffered in this caufe ; and if this is allowed to pafs unoljferved, v/liere v.'ill there be found hereafter guardians willing to prefer the confcicntious difcharge of tiiclr duty to the perfonal and pufillauimcHis conhderations of their own cafe, intcrcft, or fifefy ^ But ( 35 ) • But what calls for the public attention in a peculiar manner, is the danp:crous innovation in the laws and rules of evidence, which has in this caufe been uiccef^fully attempted by your Lordfliip. No man who knows any thing of the principles upon which your arguments proceeded, can pofiibly blame me for exciting the public attention to them. Few cafes have, perhaps, ever exift- cd, which could fo well jufiify the propriety and utility of an ad- drefs of this nature. It Is of ufc that this freedom of inquiry, if conduced with de- cency and candour, fliould be exercifed with regard to the opinions and conducl of all Judges, whether they be fuch as judge in the firlt inftance, or in the laft refort. There can be no good reafon for allowing it with regard to one clafs of judges, and denying it as to others ; on the contrary, if a dihinction is to be made, it is more nccelfary to permit, and even to encourage that freedom of inquiry, with refpect to thofe judges whofe determinations are fubjecl to no other controul but that of the public opinion, than with refpecl to tliofe, whofe judgments, if wrong, may be redified by the mode of an appeal. Let us fuppofe a cafe where the judgm.ent given in the orlgiiir.l court had been reverfed in the court of appeal, and where thr.t rc- verl'.d, inftead of proceeding from the unanimous voice and opinion of the Supreme Judges, had given rife to a diiicnt and protefl on the part of feveral refpeclp.ble mcnil)crs of tn.e ''Mprenie Court of Jr-di- caturc ; would it not be prepoilcrous to iar.i:;ta:r:, that the public may indulec thcmicivcs as much ac they p. cafe in their cc:.^rcand nnimadverlions upon the ji'.dgcs who pror.ou.nccd tlie original iudg- ment, and upon thofe meip.bcis ot tlie court vt appeal who happen- ed to be of the fame opinion v.iili them, but that there ought to be F 2 ];o ( 36 ) no privilege of inquiry, nor any right to doubt of the re£litude or infallibility of the other members of that court of appeal who hap- pened to be of a different opinion, and whofe fuperiority in numbers had produced a reverfal of the firft judgment ? Your Lordlbip will foon perceive, that the cafe here fuppofed h not entirely ideal ; the fuppofed cafe is but a defcription of what really happened in that very caufe which gives rile to this addrefs. It is well known, that the judgment pronounced in the original jurifdidion, where the merits had been maturely examined during fcvcral years dependance, was in favour of the plaintiffs. That jurifdiclion is fupreme in the northern part of this illand, fubjecl only to a review of their judgments by the Houfe of Lords. When the caufe came there by appeal, there was a reverfal indeed of tlic original judgment; but your Lordfhip knows, that this reverfal did not meet with a general approbation or concurrence, even within tlie walls of the auguft affembly where it was pronounced ; on the contrary, there was not only a difference of opinion, but a formal pioteft and diffent, drawn up and figned by feveral refpedable peers, was entered upon the journals of the Houfe of Lords. Such Rrong marks of difapprobatlon of judgments pronounced in private caufcs, have been very unufual. This right, competent to any of the noble members of that Supreme Tribunal, had gone iiito difufc for n:ore than half a century : The revival of it was re- served for your Lordfliip'ii times, and it will be remembered liercafter, at what period, and upon what occafion, this right was affei"ted. ivluch freedom, both in difcourfc and In publications, was ufed with lIiL iudtrcs v/ho had given the original dccifion : that freedom afterwards extended itfelf alfo to thcfe noble and refpectable Peers who, irom motives of honour rr.d confclcncc, had inlifted to have tlicir fcntl meats put upon record, and tranfmitted to poflerity. Every ( 37 ) Every liberty, and even every abufc (^f liberty, exercifed with re- gard to thofe Judges in the Court ofSclTion, and in the Court of Ap*- peal, who had declared their convidion in favour of the fadts and arguments produced on the part of the plaintiffs, was permitted. The Judges thus attacked, confcious of their own integrity, viewed with indifference thefc extravagances proceeding from blind or illiberal zeal, and trufled, that when the fever abated, juftice would be done to them in the minds of the cool and impartial part of mankind. Shall it then be maintained, that the freedom of enquiry into the opinions and condud of Judges, is to be permitted only with regard to the original Judges, or thofe of the fupreme juiifdidion, who happen to be of the minority upon aqueflion of reverfal ? Where is the benefit that v;ould refult to fociety from eftabliihing a diftindion of this fort,, or from making this valuable privilege depend on fucli fortuitous circumflances ? Let us then conclude, that there muft either be a ftrid prohibition to enquire concerning the reditude, or to doubt of the infallibility of any perfons in a judicial capacity, (which it has been fhewn would be adverfe to the genius of our happy conftitution;) or if permitted with regard to one clafs of Judges, that it muft extend to all, more particularly to thofe who judge in the lafl: refort ; otherwife many in- confiftent confequences would follow, and the freedom of enquiry, i'o much connedled with li]:)erty, and fo fondly cheriflied by the in- habitants of this Illand, would be put on a whimlical or precarious footing, and reduced to an empty name. And indeed, my Lord, I am pcrfuaded, tliat upon recolledlon of the whole of your condud in the Douglas conteft, from the firfc dawn to the final conclufion of it, you muff have expeded an ad- drefs upon this fubjed, and that you can be at no lofs to difcover whv that addrefs is now made to you in particular. 6 If ( .ss ) If the ftate of my Iicahli and fpirits had not prevented rne, yonr Lorddilp would not fo long have hccn detai'.icd in expeclalion of what v/as fo iuftlv due to yon — Nor Hiall it be from an unk'-iown liand that the pavment of tliis debt proceeds. — From the frft mo- -Tncnt of my thhiking at all of this mcafurc, 1 vras refolvcd that your Lorddfip, when the addrcfs v/as made, ihould know with certainty from wbat cjuaiter it came. — I cannot approve of anon} moiis ad- drefles in matters of this fort. — Whenever a man i: fo circumdanccd ll:at he fnds h.imfelf in honour or in duty bound to make a peribnal attack or pcrfonal defence, it feems to me mean-fpirited and im- proper to abftain from putting his name to an attack or dciencc oi: this inter Ciling natiu'c. It is not for mc, r.or is it my objedl:, to arraign in general the iiidL^ment of that aurruft aifcmblv, v.'hic'i revcrfjd the lolemn iiidc:- n;ent or the court ol iudicature iinLC.^ VN-jiofe conlidcration the merits of this caufe had for a loPig time depended. Tbiofc noble Lords Vv-lio aifentcd to the opinion delivered by yoiir Lordihip upon the whole merits of the qucilion, and \\]:o hlcivdy concurred in the iudgment ot reveriai, acted, r^o doubt, iV;-in con- viclion, and upon the bcfc princip/ics ; Tliough their reafons ucre net exprclfed in pu!)lic, it mull be prefumcd, tliat they liad reafjns Wiiich to ti.em appeared ilrong and convincing. No man can be inorc remote than I am from cither fuppofmo; or inlnuiatin'^^- any tiling contrary to tliis jud: preih.mption. It is not io much the juilgment ilielf, nor the Ificnt c)ncin'rcnce or undeclared rea- i(jns I'T liiat iudgmcnr, tliat I mean to atlacl:, as trie public and ofien'f'i'^ j\af;ns, prcd^e^-d by your Lordfiiip, i]i iup'port of the opi- ifion yuu gave f jr tlic revcrlal of the original kiiLcnce. 5 In { 39 ) In judicial proceedings, the proper objeds for the examination of tlie public, are the public reaibns given by Judges in fupport of their (Iccinons. I have the honour to be Your Lordlliip's Moft obedient and Moil humble Servant, ^/ui^'<^f'ioa-^f LETTER II. My Lord, IN the lirll; Letter which I had the honour lo adcliels to your LordlhJp, it has heeii Ihewn, in what manner you difpofed ot one capital hranch of tlie evidence in the Dougkis caufe, I'iz. that wliich aroie from tlie indirputable Ibrgeries of Sir Jolm Stewart ; ThiCre will be occalioa, in the couiTe of this correipondence, to ihew, that all the material parts of the evidence produced in behalf of thofe Vv'hofe intcrcfts you oppofed, were unfortunately treated by your Lordlhip in a hmilar manner ; for it will appear that they were either difregarded and kept out of view, or fo coloured and ex- plained away, as to deprive them of the powerful eiTecls, which, in the opinion of many judicious men, who had fludied the whole of the evidence, they could not have failed to produce, when pro- perly and completely flated. I fliall not pretend to afcribc m.otives for this conducl ; Thefc proOiS, which made fo llrong impreilion on the minds of men ac- cuilomcd to tlie inveftigation of truth, and free from any bias or partiality in lliis caufe, may poini)ly have failed to produce the lame effect upon your Lordlhip; This may cither be imputed to the in- fuiliciency of the proofs themlelves, or to your Lordlhip's mind being too much fortified againil them ; — It is a matter of too nice <lJfcu(rion for me to venture an opinion upon this alternative. G , Mv { 1 ) My piirpofe at prefent is to give fome examples of the very dif- ferent reception, which every fhadow of evidence, and every cir- cumftance, hearfay or conjedure, produced on the fide which you elpoufed, met with from your Lordfhip. It is not merely with a view to the Douglas caufe that thefe things are now to be ftated ; for I fhall here have occafion to lay open a train of conduct, and a mode of reafoning adopted by your Lordlhip, of the mod dangerous nature, and tending to fub- vert the ellabliflied laws and rules of evidence, — that great bulwark of the Lives and Properties of Britifh fubjcdts. llie dccifive importance, which, in the Douglas caufe, your Lord- il lip's talents beftowcd on the ftrange, abfurd, and incredible depo- lition of Pierre Menager^ furgeon, muft, with all who are ac- quainted with the circumilances of the cafe, produce the fame fort of rcliedions, as your endeavours to diminifli the importance of the clear and acknowledged forgeries. Upon the day of the final deciiion, you ftated the teftlmony of Menaircr in fuch a manner, as was well calculated, I own, to gain credit to it for that day at Icaft ; and I am not lurprifcd, that, when lb ilatcd, it iTiOuld have made a ilrong temporary impieffion on fuch of vour hearers as cither had rut read and confidered the whole evi- (i^ncc in the caufe, or v/lio ccjiild not inifantly bring to their recol- ivvili'.".! the great outlines of that evidence ; But as I am confident tluit tlic argument founded by y(;ur Lordfliip upon the depofitions of this man, cannot (land tiic tell ')f c-:amination, I muft therefore beg leave to difcuis this matter a little more acurately than yotu* Lord- ftiip thouglit proper to do on tiie Cv.vf of the decifion. That the real import of" Menagcr'e tcRlmoMV, and of the obferva- tioiis upon it, may be r:';litiy underilood, 1 muft remind your Lord- o ftiip ( 3 ) iliip of fomc of the great outlines of the cniifc crfcntially connected v.-itli that evidence. It is acknowledged, that Lady Jane Douglas, arid her huH^and Sir John Stewai't, never were at Fa^-'is together before the month of July 174S; That they came thither from Rherr:-:s, attended only by their confidante Mrs. Hcwit, having left all tliclr ftrvants atllheims; That they arrived at Paris on the 4th day of July 174.B, and re- mained there till the end of that month. It is alfo acknowledged, that the firfi; houfe they lodged at, on their arrival at Paris, was the Hotel de Chaalons, kept by Mr. Gock- froi^ where, even according to the accounts given by Sir John Stew- art and Mrs. Hewit on their examination, they remained fome days; and tliat their lad lodgings a.t Paris were at the Hotel cV Anujii^ kept by Michelle^ where they arrived at lateft before the 20th day of July, and where they continued till the time of their leaving Paris. It is admitted and agreed on all hands, that if Lady Jane Douglas was not delivered in the month of July 1740, in the fliort interval between the time of her leaving Godcfroi\ and that of her arrival at Michelle'* 8^ flie was not delivered at all ; Nay, the matter Is brought flill to a more narrow point; for tlie precife date and aflerted clr- cmnflances of the Delivery arc fo unalterably fixed, that it is ad- mitted, that Lady jane Douglas had no delivery at ail, unlefs it happened on the ]0!]i of July 174S, in the houfe of a Madame Le Briin^ and by the aHiHancc of a ricr La Mar^ accoucheur or man- midwife. On the part of tlie opponents of Mr. Douglas, it was main- tained, and fupported by the evidence of Mr. Godefroi's books, as well as by the teflimony of Mr. Godefroi and his wife, that, on the G 2 icth ( 4 ) loth of julv 174s, the day of the aflertcd delivery, and durhig fevcral days after as v;cll as before diat date, Lady Jane refided at the hoiiie of Mr. CoJcfroi, without any delivery while there, or any appearanccb cither of recent or approaching delivery. But on tlie part of Mr. Douglas it v/as alTertcd, that Lady Jane left Air. GodciVoi's houfe two or three days before tliC ioth of July ; tliat fnc went to the houfe of a Madame Lc Bnniy Fauxbourg, St. Gcrmaine; that there fhe was delivered of tvvo fons at a birth, on the loth of ]uly, in prcfencc of the landlady and her daughter, and oi' Mrs. Llewit, and Pier La Mar the accoucheur; and that, upon the ninth or tenth day after that delivery, Lady Jane was fo well recovered, that flie quitted her bed, and changed her lodgings from Le B}un\ to Micbeilc^s, in another quarter of the town. It is not pretended that Godefrol or his wife, at wdiofe houfe Lady Jane, on her arrival at Paris, refided, knew any thing of her being come to Paris for the purpofe of a delivery, or that they knew any thing either of Pier La Mar the accoucheur, or of their going to the hcufc of a Madame Le Lnau Neither Michelle nor his wife, nor any of the perfons in their frtmlly, ever faw or heard of this Licr La Mai', or of the Mada?)ie Lc Brun from whofe houfe it is pretended Lady Jane came to Mi- ciiclles on the ninth or tenth day after her delivery. No genuine atteftation or letter cither from Pier La ?vlar or from Madame Le Ikun, or her daughter, or any pcrfon of their families have ever been produced; nor are there any traces of any \\rc\\ let:crs having; ever cxifted. *t) Nor is tliis all ; even the Jjoi'fc of this Madame Le Bnai, faid to be fit'iatcd in the Fauxbourg St, Gcnnaiue^ has never been dif- covcreci, ( 5 ) covered, notwltliflandlng the great facility at Paris, by means of the capitation and police record?, as well as other aids, of dlfcover- ing any houfc or houfeholder in any cjuarter of the town, upon the ilighteil indications. Neither has the exIRence of this Madame Le Brun ever been dif- covcrcd, though all pofTible inquiry was made, and much fruitlefs labour bellowed, during feveral years, by both parties in this caufe, in the fearches for thefe material perlons, Madame Le Brun and her daughter, as well as for Pier La Mar the accoucheur, fpecified and defcrlbed by Sir John Stewart. Your Lordiliip will recollect, that all thefe are acknow^lcdgcd and r.dmlttcd lads, and beyond the reach of controverfy ; for in this lummary, which contains but a part even of the material fiicls ad- mitted in the caufe, I have avoided making ufe of any thing that is difputed, hov/ever flrongly proved. The inference I make from thefe acknow^ledged flids, is not only that it is incredible that thefe things fnould have happened, if Lady ]ane had really been delivered at Paris on the loth of July, in the houfe of a Madame Le Brun, and with the alTiftance of a pcrfoii named; but further, I am intitled to infer, that where there is fuch a total dciiclency of the dire6l and pofitive proof, which was natu- rally, and even neceffarily, to have been expecled, from the facls allcdged, if true, any indiretft proof produced to fupply that defi- ciency requires to be very flrong indeed, tree from ambiguity or fufpicion of falfehood, and that in fuch a cafe iomething ftronger than mere hearfay mufl: be requifite. If, in thefe circumflances, tiicre Ihiould ilart up a man, who, without any perfonal knowledge of the delivery in qucRion, pre- tends to recolIcClj that, about fixtcen or fevcnteen years before the time ( c> ) un\c of iMvlri;.', ]\i:, evidence, a llorv was toki him by a furgeon at I'aris (dL-aJ iiuiiiy years before the period at which the evidence was gi\e!i) ahoiit the dehvcry of a foreign lady of twins, with circum- llances refenibhiig the dcHvery in quelVion, but without tlie fupport of ;iny wrillen proots, or of any prccile cci'tain fdOi, or chain of f \rb5, which might confirm his tcfiimony by c\idcncc independent of him- iclf, will it feriouily be maintained, that a tcitimony of this fort o'jght to have tb.e effect to fupj^ly all the amazing dciicicncies rdiovc men- tioned ? — Upon iuch lieariav evidence, would vour Lordflrio be autliorlf.^d to fay, that credit is due to a very uncommon fail, Uich as the LXtraordinarv deliverv in (jueflion, l'ii])ported by forged evi- dence, but contradided by a chain, of admitted iads and circuni- ilanccs, Inch as afrV-rd inferences more certain and conclufive than the hearlay or vetb.il teilimony of a number of witnciTes ? if fuch a dodrine can be maintainedi it is obvious, that the ftrongell and molf convincing proof ihat ever was, or ever will be brou.gln, of a fraud (jf this nature, muft be overturned, and go f;)r nofiiing, wliilft there can be fouful upon tlic face of the earth, a per- Jon capable of getting i)y heart, aiKi retaining in his memory, two or three words eifential to the party (landing in need of his teili- mony, and capable of dcpohng, that thefe words were made ufe of in his hearing, by a perfon now dead j — An alfertion, which from its jiature does not admit of any refutation, and confequcntly, from the liopes of imipunity, may be obtained ^^'ith the greater facility. To firing this fuppofed cafe home to our prefent purpofe, your T.oriliiiip iPiin: recoiled!:, tliat in the flory related by Mouv^ci-, of :i C\:\w^r: wr.ieli lic pretends had been ])crformed by Dcuunarrc^ I'lri'; •■!i <": [-'.;! i'-, wlio died in the year 1753, and with whom A^nigcr'c, c •i"-:T{;itioi; on this lul)jecl was ieveral years before De- lj.ii;'irr^,\ (b:/:!), ilic (-iny ciLaui il words are thole of tzvnis^ llheniiSy aui,! .7;/ i-;;^ ./^, ./ c '_- // /. :/r. — .'ilrip it of thcfc, or e'\en of any one of thclb, ( 7 ) ihefe, and there is not in tlic whole of Mcnagcr's depofiilons any article or circumftance that can be of the hnallLil utility to the party he meant to fupport. To what a fituation miifl: the proof in this, or any other caufe of the fame nature, be reduced, if, after examining hundreds of wit- nefTes upon material fa6ts, and after collc61.ing great variety of writ- ten evidence, it fliall be in the power of one fmgle witnefs, to break in pieces the whole chain of circumftances, and all the proofs of the oppofite party, merely by his committing to memory, and repeating^ a few words or circumflances which he pretends to have learnt from a deceafcd friend, or by fupcradding a few circumflances to a fa^t which had fome real foundation, but which, without thefe circum- flances, bore no funilitude to the fad: in quefiion ? But whatfliallwe fay, my Lord, if the teflimony thus afforded by Mcnagcr, inftead of fupporting the ftory folcmnly and judicially told by Sir John Stewart, concerning the perfon employed by him to deliver his wife Lady Jane Douglas, relates to a ftory fuppofed to be told to this witnefs hy a d'ljf event perfon \ one totally incompatible with the furgeon employed by Sir John Stewart for the deliverv, and with whom Sir John muft be prefumed to have been well ac- quainted both on [that occaiion, and during tlie courie of the fixtecn months while he had the charge of the youngeft twin. AVill it be laid that this man Mcuugcr, who docs not pretend to have ever {ccn Sir J-Jin Stev art, or Lady Jane Douglas, either in company with ili^ accouclicur, or upon any other occafion, knew L :tter than they did who it was tV.at delivered Lady Jane, or, that a depolidon which neccilarilv inipl;L> the fallhood of their ftory abcuu tlie delivery, muft, at the iame iin:c, be fuihiined as compleat evi- dence of that delivery, and oi" i!ic e:i\;ii;nftancc& aUendiuG- it. That ( B ) T!::.t :t mnv readily be perceived whetliei* tlic obicrvatlons on Ml niv'^cr's cviJ.cncc r.re well or ill founded, it is proper that it iliould be ilaLcd yrccil'jlv, in tlie ^vorJs of liis denoiltions; and for that pur- yo'c ::n abilract i? llibjnlncd, containing all tlic particulars of the iicdnint rji\-cn bv him about a dclivcrv, iaid t) have been performed bv IjcLr!:.:ri-.\ un-e-eon at Paris, and claihnG- thelc particulars in Ihcli <M-dci", as to make more obvious the total amount of Menan-er'iJ depofiLions as to that delivery. From the pcruial of tliat abftrad, with or without the dcpofitions from wluch it is faithfully taken, it will perhaps appear extraordinary hov/ your Lorddiip, upon fuch a foundation, Hiould have been able to rear up an edifice capable ox iupporting itfclf even for one day. I'hc phiintiiT.s perhaps from error in judgment, not only had al- wa^•s coixlidered I\Ienap-er's evidence as a contemptible part of the proof on the part of their adverfaries, but had perfuaded themlelve^, tliat vhen duly weighed, it would operate againft the party wdiom it was meant to ferve ; that it v\'ould fhew what defperate expedients and luppofitions they were obliged to refort to, and would mofc flrongiv prove their opinion of the ueceiTity of producing the real accoucheur, without the poiTibility of finding him. Upon that ac- count, 1 muif confcLs, that in the Cafe given in for tb,c plaintiff's, to the Iloiiib of £,ord?, lefs attention was given to this branch of the caufe than to any other, and many things were there omitted, ^vliicli might have been material, for lhe\^'ing tlie falfchood of AIc- ji',;,'' r'- tcilimonv, if it had been thought pofhble, cither that your I.oj-tliiiip.'s p,cnetration, upon perufd of the evidence idelf, could liavc fl'Kul in need of anv realoning upon it in the Cdfi'y or if wc C( uld h;i\c vicvx'cd the pofhbilitv of your venturing to adopt the ac- cou^licur' iiiL',\L;c!ud by Mcilkut, in o})pc)litiun to him fo unalterably clhiblillicd bv ilie f ilemn teilimony of Sir John Stewart, and con- ^rrr;cd by the j'^nt ads and conducl of him and his wdfc Lady Jane i):.niglar. 9 Thefc C 9 ) Thefc omlflions In the Cr.fc^ thou,f^li they afford not any fufficlent cxcufe for your Lordfhip, whole duty It was not only to examine minutely Menager's own evidence, but alio to bring it to the tefi: of a comparifon with the other proofs aiA! eftablilhed facts in the caufe, will plead my cxcufe, however, for examining this matter a little more accurately at prefcnt. Wc fh-ill then be able to judge, hovv^ far vour Lordfliip can be juftified in reprefenting this man's evidence as 'i'^ highly material for the decifion of the Douglas contefi:. But before I enter on the particular dlfcufiion of this evidence, you will permit mc, my Lord, to propole, in a few words, a general ob- fervation on all fuch means of proof. 1 believe your Lordfliip will allow, and in many cafes has allow^ed, that hearfay evidence is, in general, of very little confequcnce, and ought never to be regarded, except where, for want of direct and pofitive proof, the judge is neceifitated to give a determination even upon fuch flight probabi- lities as are laid before him. For belides that a teflimony of this kind is weakened by its removal from the flrd fource, it is liable, from its very nature, to Important obje6tions, w^hlch greatly dimi- nifli its authority. Very few perfons impofe on themfelves fuch {Iricl laws of veracity, that every word which drops from them in converfatlon can be regarded as a judicial teflimony — Vanity, felf- interefl, love of talkativenefs, a variety of motives, even the moft frivolous, make people indulge themfelves in fidlons of this na- ture ; and they think themfelves the more fccure, both as a detec- tion is not attended with any important confequence, and as their companions never dream of lifting their flory, or examining circum- ilances, fo as to render the detection poffiblc. If fuch narratives Iiave fmall authority at flrft hand, what weight Is due to them when repeated after an interval of innny years, by perfons who were no v\'ays interefled in tlie original event ? The memory of men is never lo tenacious as to retain, with li any ( 10 ) any tolerable exa<f^nefs, circumftances which entered merely by the car, which could at firfl; make but a flight impreffion upon them,. and which they never, during a very long interval, had any occa- fion to recolle^rt. Every one's experience may convince him, that no convcrfiition was ever repeated by four or five perfons, even next day, without ibme material variations, and ibmetimes contradictions^ in the circumftances. But if innocent error be fo natural, and even unavoidable in fuch telliinony, what muft be the cafe, where the lead lufpicion of fraud or corruption, or even partiality, is allowed to enter? A perfon VvliO rc'atcs a hearfay, is not obliged to enter into any particulars, to anhver any queflions, to folve any difficulties, to reconcile any contraciiclions, to explain any obfcurities, to remove any ambigui- ties : he intrenches himfclf in the fimple alTertion, that he was told lo, and leaves the burden entirely on his dead or abfent author. For thefe rcafons that fort of tcftimony, when unfupported by other proof, is much flighted by men of fenfe, even in common con- verfation, and in the moft frivolous tranfadions of life; and I be- lieve your Lordfnip's fcales were the firft, in vv-hicli fuch a feather of evidence, as that of i^Jcnager, could have outweighed fuch nioun- tains of proof as were produced on tire oppofite f:de. P;ut to enter into particulars : Tlie firlf obfcrvation wliich na- turally prcfents itfclf, upon reading the dcpofitions of Nlenager, is, tl.at as tills witncfs has thoughc proper to afcribe his information to a pcribu V, l:o had been ten years in h:s grave, and as lie has cautioufly avc'iclccl fpccifying any particulars which Vv'trc capable of being traced, a. id \vliich iTiic!;lit dlfcovcr the truth or falfcho(xl of his e-eneral aller- tions, it vv'as a thing in itfclf ablblu'icly impoibMe to bring any proof that the deccafcd I.ouis Pierre Dch::ririi-rc never had in the courfe of his life told him any Inch fl(.)ry ; confjoucnlly iMcn;;gcr's teftlmony, 6 thus ( II ) tliiis incapable of dirccEl refutation, can receive no additional flrengtii or credit, from the circurnilance that his general alTcrtion has not been direclly difproved ; and yet, in judging upon this cauTj, it was mentioned as a circumftance in Menager's favour, that his teftiiuony had not been difproved, or contradicSted, in eflential articles. If he had ventured to fpecify any particular houfc where this de- livery had happened; to mention any living authority for it ; or the names of any perfons prefent, or in the houfe at the delivery, or who had knowlege of it when it happened; or the names of any perfons now alive, who knew of DcUwiarri^^ vifiting that Lady while in child-bed, or even at any other time ; thefe, and many other particulars, which were naturally to have been expected upon the fuppofition that his general adertions v/ere true, admitted of in- veftigation, and might have led to detection. But the affertion of a flory faid to have beon learnt from a perfon dead at the time of this affertion, without fpecify ing the houfe where the aflerted event happened, or any perfons having knowlege of the fads attendant upon that delivery, or confequent to it, admits of no inveftigation ; it was therefore well judged in this vv-itnefs, to adopt the plan of avoiding particulars as much as poHible, as he thereby rendered it impoflible to trace him, or to prove dlredly, cither that his deceafed friend never had performed fuch delivery, or never had told him fuch a ftory. It muff, however, have occurred to your Lordihip., that although an evidence of this fort cannot, from its nature, be direclly dif- proved, yet there are methods of difcovering, vrilh a§ much cer- tainty as is generally attainable in human affairs, tlie truth, or falie- hood of the ftory related ; and that thefe methods of irivcftigarion, when properly purfiicd, mud }'icld com'^lcte convidion to llio mind, on one iide or ilie other. II 2 The ( " ) The judgment muflbe employed in difcernlng the truth or falfe- hood of the capital aiTertions, by attending to the credibility and confiftency of the different parts of the ftory, as told by the witnefs himfelf, and to the veracity and charatler of the witnefs in other refpeds ; fecondly, by comparing the capital aflertions with the ac- counts received from other witneflcs, who could not be ignorant of the fame faCls, if true ; and laftly, by bringing the whole to the tefl of a coiiiparifon, with the known and admitted fads in the caufe. To puri^je, at prefcnt, thefe three branches or modes of inveftl- gation, would carry me into too extenfive a field, and might prove tedious both to your Lordfliip and to myfelf : it may the more eafily be difpcnfed with, as fo wide a range is, in this cafe, totally unne- ceffary for the purpofes of conviction. The tv/o laft of the three branches above-mentioned, will be more than fuflicient for this purpofe, and therefore to thefe I fliall confine myfelf, though it is with fome reluctance I leave behind me fucli inviting materials as thofe pointed out in the lirfl: branch, where there is ample fubjed: for gaining a victory, upon the ground alone of the incredibilities and inconjijlencies in the capital ftory aflerted by Menager^ and upon the falfehoods and charaiSler of this VN'itnefs, in other refpecls. The materials there, are in fuch abundance, that, to dojuftice to that branch alone, would confume much tiuic, and might perhaps damp tlie attention, before arriving at thofe proofs of Menagcr's falleliood, which are free from tlie poffibillty of cavil, and which are ot inch a nature, as to be palpable and convincing to every mortal, whether accuflomcd to the rules of evidence or not. In ( 13 ) In profccution of the plan now propofed, I intend, firfl, to com- pare Mcnager's ftory about the delivery, faid by him to have been performed by Louis Pierre Delamarre, with the accounts received on that fubjedl from the family, relations, friends, and acq^uaintance of this Delamarre, Secondly, to fliew that the circumftanccs of Lady Jane's delivery, and particularly thofe which relate to the accoucheur^ folemnly at- tefted by perfons who had the beft opportunities of information, and who were the mofl interefled in that event, are totally incompatible with Menager's endeavours to afcribe the delivery to Louis Pierre Delamarre^ furgeon at Paris. Thirdly, the fame thing will be proved, by necefiary inference from written evidence in this caufe, independent of the verbal tefti- mony either of Sir John Stewart, or of Menager, but confirmed by the condud both of Sir John Stewart, and Lady Jane Douglas, from whofe joint ad: that written evidence proceeds. Laflly, it will be (hewn that if Louis Pierre Delamarre himfelf had been alive, and had told the fame flory which Menager^ by his hearfay evidence, has at fecond-hand given, fuch teftimony of Dela- marre himfelf would have been unworthy of credit, and unavailable to liipport the delivery in queftion, in oppofition to the affemblage of evidence produced in this caufe, and when contradicted by the fame ciixumftances and proofs which Menager's teftimony has now to en- counter with. ->• * -Ji^ PART ( H ) PART I. Mc finger's E'vuloicc d'lfprovcd by that of the Family and Friends of Dclamarre. AGPvEE ABLE to the above plan, the firft thing now to be in- quired into is, What accounts on the fubjed: of tliC Delivery in. queflion liave been received from the Family, Relations, and Friends of this Lrjii'is Pierre F)elamarre .^ for it mufl; certainly be prcfumcd, that if he had a family, relations, or friends, they could not poiTibly be ignorant of fo great and ftriking an event in the life of this poor furgeon, as that of his delivering Lady Jane Douglas, and at an advanced age, and of two fons at a birth, one of whom is faid to have been committed to his care din-ing many i-" jnths; all of which Menagcr has endeavoured to afcribe to this iame Delamarre. Louis T'ltrre Dclamarre^ native of MovUrcuil in France, came to Paris in the year 1730; Llis hrft occupation there, as appears from the proof, was that of learning to Ihave in the fhop of his uncle Janus Dw'/aoiel, barber, Vvdiere he remained during a year or a year and a half; To that, fuccccded in 1/34, his apprcnticefliip to Jg/j71 Mcrzor., furrrcon at Paris, a vritnefs examined in the caufe : From the year 1734, till the time of his death in May 1753, Dclamarre'^ comiant rcfidcncc was at Paris. Tliough he never got fo far as to be rcccivvjd Int(j the corporation of fin^geons, yet lie had fomc prac- tice, as i"urgcon, among the lov.'cr clafs of people, but never, at any ]ici-i'id oT llis life, was he an accAid'cur by profcCon; and his maUcr \ \\\\ ?\Tcngon, \\'\\\\ Wi":'')m lie remained five '■.ars, dcpofcs, " T ;\!t J)c(ariarr.: did not flndy the art of delivery whilil he was ^'- Willi hi:n — Th.u he worked much in venereal maladies — T]:at; " thour'i ( '5 ) ^'^ tliongli He faw and knew the Sicur Delamarre till his death, and " that he rcLi cd to him enough of his afrairs, he never heard him " fay tli-.t lie had delivered any woman of diflindlion, nor even that " he had made any delivery.'' The marriage contract of Delamarre, produced In this caufe, and printed in the proof, fhews, that he was married in 1747, to Eli- zabeth Granette-i daughter of a journeyman taylor at Paris. That contract, by a claufe in It, referring to the prefence of Delamarre's relations and friends, fo dcfcribed, points out the relations and friends vvdth whom he was then moft connedled, viz. his brother Francis Delamarre^ furgeon in Paris, 'James Duquenil^ mafter peri- wig m.aker, his uncle on the mother's fide, Peter Beaujen^ inhabitant of Paris, and his wife Margaret iMongin^ defcribed as friends of Louis Pierre Delamarre, and Alexander Lajoye^ mafter cartwright in Paris, defcribed as friend to both parties. Of thefe relations and friends thus pointed out, and defcribed in the marriage contract, all of them were examined as witncdes in the courfe of the Douglas conteft, except Delamarre's uncle, the barber^ and the common friend of both parties, the cartiJurigbt. Their cxamlnatlon was prevented by their death before the commencement of the proof in France. From the time of his marriage in 1747, Delamarre lived con- nanlly In family with his vx'ife at Paris. This woman was alive during the courfe of the proof, flie was examined in the French adion, and both parties had cccafion frequently to fee her. Further, the brothers and mother of Delamarre were alive during th.e courfe of this conteft. One of thefe brothers Francis mentioned iC the marriage contraft 1747, as then furgeon at Paris, continued to rcfide tliere till 1750, and particularly was at Paris during the years 1748 and 1749, at the very period when Lady Jane Douglas's de- livery ( >6 ) livery Is flild to have happened, and during the i6 months while her child is fuppofed to have been under the care of the accoucheur. Being bred to the fame profeflion with his brother Louis Pierre^ they ufcd to aflift each other in that bufniefs, and lived in great intimacy, iiifomuch that icarcely a day pafi: without their meeting together, in the courfe of the years 1748 and 1749. Befides thefe perfons, feveral furgcons of the acquaintance of Delamarre, and feveral of his intimate friends, were examined during the courfe of the proof in France ; but particularly M.ada?n Beaujeu, midwife at Paris, and Mr. Bcaujeu, her hufoand, two of the moft intimate friends that Delamarre had in the world; they were the perfons who, on the footing of that intimacy, had made his marriage in 1747, and are figning witneffes to his mar- riage contrad ; and it appears from their depofitions, that they con- tinued in that intimacy with him till the day of his death. All thefe perfons concurred in the information whicli they gave to both parties, and in declaring or dcpofmg, tliat they never heard of Dcbmarrc's delivering Lady Jane Douglas, — Or of his delivering any foreign Lady of tvvlns, — Or of his having had the charge of the child of any foreign Lady, during iG months, or any other period. If iliis man, Delamivrj^ had aflually delivered Lady Jane Douglas ot her tv.'iii Ions, and had the charge of one of her children during io UKiny months, and, in confeqncnce thereof, had been engaged in a weekly correfpondence with a Milord uinglois^ father of that cliiid, (u'hiv;h is a part of the hiftory infcparably connected v/ith the accoucliciM- tu Lady Jane) thcfc were fuch remarkable incidents in the life ';t this fibicure mean fnrgcon, Delamarre, that it exceeds the bounds of human belief to imagine, tliat in a matter which required no lecrccy, Mcnager alone ihould have heard of all or any part of thclc ( -7 ) thcfc things, or to imagine, tliat Dclairinrrc never riiou;.:] have meii- tioncd thcin cither to his wife, to his brother, to his familv, or to his friends, or that They lliould never have happened to liave b.card oi' tlieie incidents, or to have fecn the child thus committed to liis care. The firfli-rate accoucheur would have been proud of fuch an article in his praclicc, as that of delivering a foreign Lady, of Lady [anc Douglas's rank, of two fons at a birth, and in the 5i(lyear of her age; he vy-ould have made it a fubjecl of converfation all over Paris. Eut if fuch a diftinguiOiing and honourable mark of contidcncc liad been placed in a furgconfo mean and obfcure as Ddamarvc^ and had been attended with fuch fuccefs, it mull have been the boai'l of his life : — Not only his wife, his family, and his intimate fricndi would liave known of it, but it would have reached as far as the circle of his accjuaintancc went ; and by being diifufcd from one to anotb.er, the knowlege of this remarkable event, fo much for the lionour and interell of Dclamarre, muft in courfc have fpread icfelf very far at Paris. There would have been hundreds of pei*fons alive, at the time of taking the proof in this caufe, who had heard of this delivery tro:n Delamarre himfelf, or from thofe to whom it had been communi- cated by him or his friends. Infiead of this, notwithflanding all the induRry of IMr. Douglas's at^ents, for years tojrether, there has not been found, in the whole extent of Paris, or of France, any one perfon, befides Menager him- felf, who ever heai d of Delainarrc's delivering Lady Jane Douglas, or any Lady vxcaw Rhc'ims \ or, in lliort, any genuine traces of his being concerned in a delivery applicable to that in queilion, or of his having kept a correipondence with any foreign Gentleman, or Lady, in corifcqucnce of a chikl's being intruiled to his care. I The ( i8 ) The total ignorance of this matter, on the part of the family, friends, and acquaintance of Delamarre, and tlie impoffibility of dif- covering, throughout France, any perfon who had ever heard of Dclamarrc's performing the deUvery in queilion, or capable of giving genuine fupport to Menager's evidence, mu(l, to every un- prciudiccd mind, afford the fcrongcft convidion of the improbability nnd falfehood of the ftory told by this witnefs. Such, my Lord, is the refult of the firft branch of evidence, which I propofed to fubmit to your recollection. On confidering the proof, thefe facts and obfervations were fo obvious, that, with- out prefuming too far, I may be allowed to fuppofe, that they made fome impreffion on your Lordihip's mind, though not equal to what you probably muft have felt in confidering the flill more decifive fads, which are now to be flated under the remaining branches. PART II. Menager'^s Evidence difproved by Sir John Stewart, <6'<r. YOUR Lordlliip knows, that in the beginning of the conteft relative to the birth of Mr. Douglas, Sir John Stewart was judicially examined by the Court of SefTion in Scotland, concerning the cir- cumftances of the birth in queflion, and particularly in relation to the accoucheur employed by him, for the delivery of his wife Lady Jane Douglas. Every perfon who hears that there was an opportunity of learning thefe particulars from Sir John Stewart's own mouth, and who wiil^es to difcover the truth or falfehood of Menager's evidence, 1 muft, ( 19 ) muft, above all things, be anxious to know what account ha> been received from the hiifband of Lady Jane, in fupportof his own and her honour, and of the rights and intercfts of the perfon he ackno\v> ledgcd to be his Ton; for although Menagtr, in a matter to him io indifferent, at the time of receiving his intelligence, and for many years afterwards, might eafily be under fom.e miiiake in this matter; or, from fome motive or other, might have given a fliii'e account ; yet neither of thefe fuppoiltions can take place with regard to Sir John Stewart. As he could not be ignorant of the perfon by hlmfelf employed for the delivery of his wife, and to whofe care one of the children, born to fuch expedations, was by him entrufted during fo many months immediately fublequent to the delivery, fo he had every motive to declare the truth with regard to the accoucheur, if Lady Jane really had been delivered by Dchwiarre of Paris, or by any other per- fon. Lie mufl: have been fcnfible that nothing but a genuine flate of fads could avail him, and that evefy deviation from, the line of truth, particularly with regard to the perfon employed to affifl at the birth, mufl have been moft pernicious to his own honour and intereft, and to the honour and intereft of thofe moft dear to him. If any thing could add weight to thefe motives, it was the folem- nity of the occafion upon v/hich he was called to give evidence in this matter ; an examination before the Supreme Judges of his coun* try, upon fo interefting an occafion, mull have made him very attentive to abllain from any fdfe relation of fads. Ifitfliall appear that, upon this folcmn occafion, he gave evidence totally excluiivc of Dclanurrc of Paris; and if, notwithftanding I 'i, fucb ( 2° ) r.ich cv'iJcnce, it is ft'ill to be fuppofed that Delamarre was the ac- c '.iclv.ur; it mull be fuppofed, contrary to all human experience, :l-ar Sir T;^hii Stewart, in oppofition to every confideratlon of honour .■;d of iiicreil, has fupprefled a truth which would have been highly .tvoiirable l.> his caufe; and that in room of it, he has fubftituted a- 'Jfe flory, evidently and elTentially to Ins own prejudice, with a i:i';;iitc detail of particulars, for none of which there ever was any iouaaJtion ; :ind all this done in a manner that may be faid to add p.'Tjury tj the Oilier guilt of fucli extraordinary conduct. His examination was continued during three fucccilive days, for fev'cral liours each dav ; in the intervals he had full leifure to recol- Iccl iiimielf, and to converfe with his coiinfel and friends, or with hib coniident ivlrs, Plewit, then at Edinburgh, and wlio had been at ?;u-is with him, at the time fixed on for the delivery. On the third day, his cvidicnce, which had been regularly taken down in writing each day, Vs'as deliberately read over by him, and after fome fmall corrcsilion:^, made at his dehre, was iigned by him. His behaviour and precifion during the whole time of his exami- nation, the accuracy ofhisanfwcrs fo clear and applicable to the •luefHons put to him, and the minute detail of particulars received from him upon tliat occafion, convinced every perfon prefent of his ability, and how much he was in poUeflion of all Ids faculties. This examination was In December 17G2. He was examined again, by the fame Judges, in the fumniLT 17G3 ; but neither then, nor at any olher time, did he give any diflerent account of the ac- couclici;;', linn that which was contained in his hrfl: examination. He lived till the month of June i 7C4, and, till his laif illneis, was in good heaUh aiid fpirits. His judgment and memory he enjoyed to a remarkable dccrrce. S Tlic ( --1 ) Tl^.e orJy part of Sir John Stewart's evidence, requifite to be Rated in this place, is what rekites to the pcrfon employed by him ior t'ie delivery of his wife, and that fnall be given in his ovrn word::. At the fime time, to afhft in making the comparifon be- tv\'e^.-i the accoiicJ.'cur defcribed and afeertained by Sir John, and tlie- pcrfon fuggeiled for that office by iMcnriV^c;-, iome of the admitted fads of the hillory of Menager's Delajiiarre Ihali be ilated occa- f onall}'. Sir pDlni Stewart's evidence as to the accoucheur, Is in thefj words : Article L. " That Pier la Mar 'r.vas tJ.w maii-nuJ^vifc : That 'ra " the year i~i 11^ /.\', Sir "John Ste--ivart^ pa[jl:d the iviuter at lAcvriiy " ard by mear.s of an old aeqiiaintanee^ C/jlonel I'ontaine, he beeaiue " acqiiahited ^a'ith Pier la Marr, a Walloon, as he belie^-oes^ and " ivIjo then fauU to the bejl of his remembrance^ tJjat he had been " fur^eon to a JVall'jon regiment, though that the chief branch of his- " bujinefs icjj ailing as a j?ian-midzi'ife.^* But the Louis Pierre Delamarre adopted as the accoucheur of Lady Jane, upon the teftimony of Menager, was a Frenchman born at Montr eiiil in France in the year 17 1 1, and who never was at Liege in his lile, nor was he ever lurgeon to any regiment. Article II. Sir John being interrogated about what age the man- midwife was, if he knew whether Pier La Ahu' was a married or an unm.arried perfon, or if he knew any perlon that was acquainted with him ; what was his fize, colour, or compleclion ? declared, " That, in his apprebenfion. Pier La Mar ivas fin 1748 J tozvards " 60 years of age, not fo tall as the declarant, oj a thin make and a " dark complecllov, but did not knoiv ivhether he ''jc as married or 710 1; " and he (Sir John StezvartJ did not kuozu any perfon Pier La May **^ njcas ( =2 ) ** Ti'jj acqua'mlcd iv'tth at Parlsy thotigh he hnagines he \vas ivell *' kiioiL-n at Licje.'*'' In otlicr parts of his teftimony, he declares, '' That he had h^en " "-oery intimately acquainted ix'ith Pier La Mar at Liege^ and that ^' /'..' relied iipon the information luhich be had received from Colonel *' Fontaine^ in the rear 1721, concerning La Marsjkill 171 his p'o^ But thefe things are totally inconfiflent with the hiftory of Delu" murrc, the friend of Menager. He was horn in 17 11, confequently was but ten years old In 1721, when Sir John Stewart, who actually was at Liege in the year i 72 i, contracted an intimate acquaintance w4th the perfon who afterwards delivered his wife. This Delamarre was but 2il years old in I 74S, when the accoucheur defcribed by Sir John was aged about 60. Ivlenager's Delamarre did not begin to flucjy furgery till the year 1 734, as appears from the depofition of his mafler, John Menjon furgeon at Paris, who depofes, " That he was acquainted at Paris *' with a furgeon of the name of Delamarre, who entered to the " deponent in quality of a fludent in furgery in the year 1734: *' Tliat before he entered with the deponent, he fhaved with theSieur *' Duquenil, maflcr wigmaker, his uncle, at Paris, ftreet St. Anne, who placed him with the deponent: That lie remained with the deponent tlie fpacc of five years : That the Sieur Delamarre had then Ionic beginning of iurgery, or notions taken up in a ]pro- ** vince ; l)ut that he had not learnt Latin, and has never learnt it " iince: — That lincc the time lie v/as acquainted with theSieur *' Delamarre till his death, llic i'aid Sieur Delamarre was not fur- *' geon-major of any regiment, feeing he always remained at Paris.'* Article cc ( 23 ) Article TIL Sir John declares, " That the firjl t'ltnc he iL^as at Paris-i as above declared on^ he accidentally ivalkimr in the Thuil- '' ler'ics^ Vict iv'ith Pier La Mar, ivith ix'hom he had been very int'i- " mately acquainted, as faid is, at Liey^e\ and the decLir'Ant'' s f.nances *' bein^ In bad order. It occurred to h'lni, that tlds iras a '^-y^.d op- " port unity of being fervcd cheaper than by Jee:rg a j/r/Krate man- " midivife at Pans, as Pier La Mar had told />/;;;, that having been ** called up upon an aiTaire cpirxufc, /'.: believed he vaild continue " fome time at Pans ; and 7ipon the declarant's mcnlioning to hijii his " 2?itention, he anfzvered, that he ivould be glad to do him any fer~ ** vice in his poiver : — That Pier La ?Jar declined, however, to " acquaint him luhere he lodged, which^ in his apprehenfion, pro- " ceeded from the reafon he had formerly given of his coming to Pa-- " ris ; but Pier La Mar told him, that at certain times he ^cvould *' be found at the Thuilleries, or at the Luxembourg^'* Every circiimflance of this is exclufive either of the trutli or ap- plication of tlie iiory told by Menager about his friend Louis Pierre Delamarre ; the very elTence of Menager's ftory is, that Dclamarre had been be/poke for the delivery, and that he (Menager) was ac- quainted with this circumflance before the arrival of the lady at Pa- ris; and even that Delamarre had told him before the lady's arrival, that it would be an advantageous affair for him : and Menager fur- ther depofes, that he had promifed to Delamarre to aflift him at the delivery, and believes that it was about the month of March or April that he made that promifc. Thefe things of themfelves deftroy any connexion between Lady |ane Douglas's delivery and that which is by Menager imputed to his friend Delamarre ; for as Sir John and Lady Jane did not come from Aix-la-Chapelle to Rheims till June, and from Rhenns io Paris till July 1748, if they ever faw or heard of Menager's Delamarre at all, it muft have been after their arrival at Paris on the 4th of July ( =4 ) fuly 174S ; and by all the evidence In t!ic caiife relative to this mcit- ter, It Is clearly eftabllflied, that there was no accoucheur bcfpoke before their arrival at Paris. The depofitlons of Mrs. Hewit and I label Walker, If credit is t^ be given to them., prove that Lady jane's moving from Rheims t© Paris at all for her delivery was a fudden tliought, and Immediately carried into execution. Article IV. ■ Sir John declares, " Tb^it not only Pier La Mar *' himjl'lj Jrcquently called through the day to inquire after Lady Jaiu\ *' hilt aljo lent his Jervant to inquire after her: That he does not re- " member ever to have heard from P'lcr La Alar ho'w long he had *• been at Paris^ nor did he tell him the place ivhcre he then lived , " or from ii' hence he had been called to Paris ; and the declarant Jup" " pofed^ and took it for granted^ that he came from the Walloon conn- " try^ and refided at the place ivhere he had lajl feen him,'''* But Louis Pierre Delamarre lived confi;antly at Paris from the time of his tlrll arrival in 1730 to the time of his death, and, fo far as the fphcrc of his bufniefs reached, h.ad no occafion for conceal- ment. Even the circumflance of 1a\ -Udr's frequently fending mefiages bv liis fervant ih not applicable to Mcnagcr's Delamarre; for it Is in proof, tliat tlic latter was in lo low and poor a fi [nation, that he never in his lite had a lervant, male or female, to afllft hlni, even in liis houlchold affairs. Madame Beauicu, midwife at Paris, an.d NIr. Bcauic'.i her hulhand, depule, Tiial: he (Delamiarre) never liad any lervant belonging to him, eilher before or after his marriage. Tiic contracl of marriage of this Delamarre in the year 1747, printed in tlie puriuers proof, contains a lill of the eifcvSls and hjufcliold- ( 25 ) houfehold-furnlture of the married couple, and exhibits fuch a ftate of poverty and wretchcdncfs as is almoft vvdthout example in the lowcfl clafs of furgeons in any country. His account-book was alfo produced in evidence, in vv'liich, during the courfe of feveral years, there appear only three deliveries performed by him, for the fnft of which ho received lo s. 6 d. for the fccond G s. 3^/. and for the third lys. Such was the mean and Vv^retched fituation of Louis Pierre Dela- marre, the friend of Menager, and fuch the man whom your Lord- fhip has fuppofed to have been befpoke and feleded by Sir John Stewart for the accoucheur of Lady Jane, in preference to all the good affiftance which Paris afforded. Article V. In the courfe of Sir John Stewart*s judicial exami- nation in December 1762, he was afkcd by the court, What v.xrc the laft accounts he had of Pier La Mar, or if he knew or fufnedled where he was ? Llis anfwer was in thefe words : *' That he thinks^ *' though he is not pofitrjd^ that the lajl accounts he had ii\is by a " letter from hhnfelf at Naples, delivered by Monf. Du Bois to the *' declaraJit^ then in London^ in the year 1751 or 1752; nor d'jes he *' knoiu or fufpeei ivhere he noiv is^ only he thinks it is probable he " 7nay be at Liege^ ivhere Ije firjl Jlvji:' him'^ In conformity with this part of the hlflory of the accoucheur, one of the forged letters found in Lady Jane Dougb.s's cabinet at her death in 1753, fjgned Pier La Mar, dated in the year 1751^ from Paris, and addrefled to Sir John Stewart, mentions, that he (La Mar) fmce Sir John's departure from France in 1749) had made the tour of Itah^ and a flay of ten months at Naples, which had been of <"^reat fcrvice to his healtli, and that he was preparing to return thither, as foon as he could find a friend to accompany him in the journey. K But ( =^ ) But iMcnngcrV^ Ddiamnrre never was at Naples, or in any part of Italv; From the known hiftory of this poor mean Turgeon, it would be too ridiculous to luppofe him making excurfions of this fort, either for plea'iire or for health ; It is clearly eftabliilied by the proof, and the fad Is not ont: cd, that Louis Pierre Delamarre never was cither at Lic^^i' or at Xaplcs^ or at any place out of France, in the courfc oi lus lite. Having thus dated in Sir John Stewart*s own words the precife and circumftantial account vciy folemnly given by him concerning the pcrfon who affifted at the delivery of his wife Lady Jane Dou- glas, and having compared that account with the known fad:s and hidorv of Mcnager'^s Delamarre^ let me now afk your Lordfhip, Whether it could be meant ferioufly, when, upon the faith of Me- nager's veracity, and of his fmgle liearfay teftimony, you exhibited to the Houfe of Lords this Louis Pierre Delamarre, as the true and genuine accoucheur of Lady Jane Douglas ? ReJ'uh of the Cowpar'ifon between Sir John's La Mar and Menager's Delamarre. There are, my Lord, fome things fo oppofite and inconfiflent, that no human art can reconcile them ; and it will not be thought .1 b(dd affertion, when I venture to affirm, that it is an affront to iiumaa realon to attempt to identify two perfons fo very different ?.X'A incoirxpalible in every rclpecl:, as are thefc two perfons, Louis Picrrt: DcLv.narrc^ the friend of jMenager, d.nd Pier La Mar , afcer- taincd and dcfcribcd on different occafions by Sir John Stewart as the aceoiiclicur of Lady Jane Douglas. It is not p'jiTible to convince any man in his fenfes, that Pier La M:ir, V/all'^jn^ whom Sir John liad fccn at Liege in the year 1721, With wlvjin lie was at that time Iniimatcly acquainted, Who before that ( =7 ) that time had been feveral years furgcon to a Walloon regiment, and Who, in 1721, enjoyed great reputation for his fklU in 17-iidwifery ; Whom Sir John Stewart met with by accident at Paris in 1748, aged then about 60, and whom he employed for the delivery of his wife, upon the faith of wlijit he had formerly licard of his fKill iii midwifery ; Who afterwards made the tour of Italvy and a hay (jf ten months at Naples^ and was preparing in 1752 to return to that country; That this man, I fay, could pofhbly be the fame pcrfon with Louis Pierre T>damarre^ born at Montrcuil in France; Who, in the year 1721, w^as but ten years old i Who never was at hiegc in his life ; W^ho never was furgeon to any regiment ; Who at no time enjoyed reputation for his {kill in midwifery ; Who, after at- tending a barber's (hop, began to ftudy furgery in the year 1734, and was in the ye'ar 174B of the age of 37; Who never was at Naples or in Italy ; and, in fhort, Who never was out of France, but had his conflant refidence at Paris, from the year 1734 to the day of his death in May 1753. I appeal to the common fcnfe of every man of plain underftand- ing, whether it be poffible to identify the two different perfons above defcribed, or to reduce them into one and the fame perfon. — I take it for granted that the anfwer will be, that it is impoffible. If fo, the honour of the delivery in queftion cannot belong to both of thefe furgeons. Sir John Stewart's account of the perfon who performed the delivery, and Menager's, cannot both be true ; tiiey may, indeed, both be falfe, and necefiarily muft be fo if there was no delivery : but as the truth or fuperior credit due to the one, ne- ccffarily excludes the truth or credibility of the other, the queftion, in tlic enquiry about the delivery, comes to this, Whether IVIr. Me- nager, or Sir John Stewart, had the befl: caule of knowlege as to the perfon who delivered Lady Jane, and which of them deferves moft to be credited on this occafion. K 2 A$ ( =n ) As Ko Mr. \kna(^er's c.iulc of knowlegc, and the credit due to h-ni, vour Lordlhlp's penetration could not fail to obferve how very flight and unfubftantial the foundations are, on which his evidence is reared up, asicl how deftitute of any genuine fupport. K: never faw his Dclamarrc in company with the perfon he deli- vered, or witli any of her connexions ; he knows not the houfe Vvlierc the delivery happened, or any perfon liaving particular knowlege of that delivery ; he never faw the child left to Delamarre's carCj nor knew in what houfe it was kept. Every eficntial part of the fads contained in this man's evidence, ultimately refts upon his own veracity or memory ; there is no fxed or vifihlc foundation for the fabrick he has raifed upon a con- vcrfation of which the reality and the circumftances are equally quef- tionable — It is the hafekfs fahrick of a nj'ifion^ and yet, by your Lord- i]:i!p, has been adopted as folid and complete legal evidence. Ovi the other hand, if Lady Jane Douglas really had any delivery at all, the caufe of knowlcge, and the opportunities which Sir John Stewart had to be well acquainted with what related to the perfon employed by himfelf for the delivery of his wife Lady Jane, and to whom he trufted his child, muft be admitted to be the flrongcft that could cxift in any cafe ; They are fuch, and fo firong, that if the qucflion were between the veracity of Sir John Stewart, and that of the perfon himfelf, who pretended to have deli- vered Lady Jane, inftcad of being a queftion with a hearfay evi- dence, that pcrf )n would not be entitled to more credit in this matter, than Sir John Stewart, to whom every circumftance was as much pciion:il, as it cf;uld be to the accoucheur, and whofe caufe of know- ic^.^^^c, in all refpccts, was at leafl equally flrong. When your Lordfhip therefore contends, that no credit is due to Sir J(;hn Stcv;arL's relation of fads, and that fuperior credit is due to 4 Mcnager's ( 29 ) Menager's (lory, you muft be reduced to the dilemma of malntaia- ing- Mio of two things; Either that Sir John Stewart, notwithihrvJing his complete caufc of knowlege, was totally mlftaken in this matter; CV, that Inowlng the truth, he wilfully fuppreffcd it, and transfer- red the dvilvery to a perfon totally incompatihle with the real one. Both thclc fuppofitions, (o eflential to yoiir argument, fhall now be confidered. Proofs that Sir 'John Stewart coula not le vnjiaken as to the Accoucheur. The fuppofition of Sir John Stewart's forgetting or miflaking fo completely the perfon employed and truilcd by himfelf, in the moll: eflential incidents of his life, His wife's delivery of children born to fuch expectations, and the truft given of one of thefe children during fo long a period, is too extravagant to admit of ferious argument : it may as well be fuppofed, that a man would be apt to forget his own exiftence, or that, from error in memory, he fliould transfer to another perfon all the incidents of his own life. If Menager's flory could be fuppofed true, or applicable to the de- livery of Lady Jane Douglas, then it becomes morally certain, that Sir John Stewart's lirft acquaintance with Menager*s Delamarre, muft have been after Sir John's arrival at Paris, in the month of July 1748, a few days before Lady Jane's delivery; becaufe this Delamarre never having been out of France at any period of his life, and Sir John Stewart not having been in France, from 1722 till fummer 1748, there never was an opportunity of their meeting be- fore July 1748: a circumftance {vi-^} as this, of his employing a perfon whom he had never fecn till within a few days of the deli- very, is of fuch a nature as could not have been forgot, nor could he pofrd)ly have forgot his inducements to the employing of this man, on fo fhort an acquaintance, in preference to all the eminent furgeons and midwives of Paris, But ( 30 ) But much lefs can It be imagined, that, bcfides forgctthig thefe circumftanccs, he fliould recolletft or imagine that this man, then aged 1"]^ and whom he had never fcen before, had been an old and inthnate acquaintance dF his at Liege, 27 years before that time; and that, bcfides the recolled:ion of this capital fad, there fliould have fprung up in his mind an erroneous recoUedlion of various other particulars relative to the accoucheur, and his connexions with him, v\-hercof he has given the detail fo minutely and dillinctly. Tlicie is no illufion of memory or imagination, applicable to a peribn in his right fenies, that can poffibly account for Sir John Stcvvart's fo totally forgetting the real Delamarre of Paris, and tranf- icrring to him all thcfe minute particulars, for vvhich there never could have been any appearance of foundation, upon the fuppofition that this Delamarre adually was the perfon who delivered Lady Jane Douglas. I befeech your Lordfiiip, to fix in your own mind, and to fatisfy yourfclf, or rather, fuice that feems fo eafy a matter, to fatisfv the world, at what time It was poffible for Sir John Stewart's fuppofcd illu- fions to commence. When he met Delamarre, for the firft time of his life, at Paris, he could not imagine him to be Pier la Mar, his old and intimate acquaintance; he could not imagine a man of 37 years of age, to be a man of 60 ; no tranfadlion which palled be- tween them at Paris, could afterwards beget that idea : each mo- ment of their intercourlc muft have continued the fime impreffion v;ith which tlicir correfpondence commenced ; and It was impolllblt: that this Delamarre could ever at that time be tranfmutcd into a per- fon fo totally different. While Sir John remained at Rheims, every day, every hour mud have recalled, along with the in:iage of his fickly clilld, the figure, the character, the lituation of the perfon to whom that precious "J, pledge ( 31 ) pledge was configned, the objccl of his mofl: tender concern. The daily, the hourly converfations with an affc^llionate and afflicted mo- ther, would prevent thefe ideas from bcii^g effaced, were his mind fuppofed to be as volatile and fleeting as fand, expofcd to cxer/ blaft of wind or gufl of paflion. Were even this fuppofition poflible, (for I allow your Lordfhip to dif{)of: of Nature in general, and of human nature in particular, as ab'Mutely as you fometimes do of law and i.r^nmient) I fay, were ev.n this fuppofition poffible, muft not the letters received every wee : from this man, the letters every week wrore to him, liavc re- flor-'d a new diftincflnefs and energy to the fuppolcd obliterated lines, by V, ich fo interefting a perfonagc prcfented itfeif to his imagina- tion ? But, I make flill further conceflions to your Lorddiip (and I fear not your gaining any advantage by them) 1 Ihall allow that Sir John, during his abode at Rheims, had, in his imagination, confounded his old and intimate friend v/ith his new acquaintance, mull: lie not on his return to Paris, in 1749J have been extremely furprifcd to find a quite different perfon from what he expected ; to Had iiis old and intimate friend again metamorphcfed, as by magic, into a per- fon whom he had lately known, and only for a f-^w days ; a man of 62 recoiling near 25 years backward^ into a more early period of life ? The memory of this aftoniihing miffake m. iil thei:jfcrth have been indelible ; his furpriie at bis own error muff have been un- conquerable ; and it is not poUible to imagine that iie could ever, in any future time, have relapfed into his fornier iilufiuns. Yet, fo early as the year 1752, when he lliougli*: proper to forge thofe letters in the name of Pier La Mar (I am forry I muft hurt yQ*ir Lordfhip's memory by recalling thefe Ijtt'jrs) he ilill thiuMS not ofDelamarre, an abjetl furgeon, then alive, and confineil ry liis neceffities C 32 ) ncccflitles to Paris, hut of his old friend Pier La Mar, who travels for bis health to Naples, and who flill thinks of repeating the fame journey. It was not upon one occafion only that Sir John Stewart gave the fame account of the material particulars relative to the accoucheur Pier La Mar ; It is eftahliflied beyond the reach of cavil, and clearly proved by the depofition of the Honourable Mrs. Napier, and by the memorandum in writing taken at the interview between Sir John Stx^wart and her in the year 1756, that at that time he had given to her the fame account of the perfon who had delivered Lady Jane, his country, and profelTion, and the manner of his becoming acquainted with him, viz. That his name was Peter La Mar; that he was a Walloon; that he had been furgeon to a regiment feveral years ; and that Colonel Fontaine was the perfon who had made the acquaintance between them. The interview which Mrs. Napier thus had with Sir John Stew- art was at tlic defirc of her relations, Lady Schaw and others, to whom Sir Jolm lay under the greatefl; obligations, for tlie generous and humane care they took of tlie prefent Mr. Douglas in his younger years. They wer-e affected by the reports and fufplcions which then prevailed againil the truth of Lady Jane's delivery ; and their anxiety to learn the truth, and to refute, in the mod fuitable manner, thefc fufpicions, induced Mrs. Napier to queflion Sir John very prccifcly and properly, about the effential circumftances con- i.LcUd with the delivery in quefiion ; particularly, Ihe applied to him for an account of the perfon who had delivered Lady Jane, in order that the information received from Sir John on thefe points, mif:,lit afford a fjlld foundation for an inquiry, and for obtaining proper proofs in a matter then fo much doubted. In thefc circumftances, every confideration of honour and of gra- titude mull have difpoll'd Sir John Stewart to have given to that lady true ( - 0^> I (i true Information, and to liavc declar'jd to her, that Dehunarr Paris was the pcrfon, if he really had been fo. Thefe moiivcs miift not only have prevented Sir Jolm from dlfguinng the truth to Airs. Napier, hut mufl have had a powerful effcd in fixing his at- tention to the fubjecff : and as, upon this occafion, he deliberately and confidently aflerted to Mrs. Napier the fime eflential particular;; witli regard to the perfon v\d\o had delivered Lady fane, which he afterwards gave at his judicial examination in iji^-, it affords the moft convincing evidence, that the preciie and circumllantial ac- count given by him on that folemn occafion, as above related, was neither a fudden thought, nor owing to miftakc, or wanton fally of imagination. I now return to the queftion which I at firfl: ufed the freedom to propofe to your Lordiliip, At what time do you ferioufly think that Sir John's aftonifliing illufions with regard to Delamarre could re- ceive their commencement ? Was it on their firfl meeting ? Was it during their perfonal intercourfe at Paris in July 1748? Was it during Sir John's abode at Rhcims ? Was it upon the renewal of their perfonal intercourfe at Paris in November 1749 ? Was it \^•hiIe Sir John contrived \hcfofgcd (or, according to your Lordlliip'a gentle phrafe, ih.Q f up pofed) letters from this flrange Being, entirely com- pofed of chimeras? Was it when he gave the narrative to the lio- nourable Mrs. Napier in 1736? Was it when he delivered the fo- lemn, and judicial, and deliberate account before the fuprcme judi- cature of his country ? It is wonderful furely, my Lord, that his memory fhould have'_been of fo ilrange a texture, (no lefs flrange tlian the objed of it) that while he fo entirely forgot the moft in- terefting and moft important realities, he fliould have adhered with (o unrelenting and perfevering an <uniformity ia the fiipport of fo abfurd au illulion. L I have ( 34 ) I have heard, my Lord, that hars are often dupes of their own fidions ; and that a man, by repcatin<^ his chimeras, may come at hift icrioi'aly to believe them. But I beg of your Lordfhlp to ob- f?rvc, that he mufl: at fiift have had fome motive to lead him into this tracl of iilufion. Be it vanity or intereft, be it folly or knavery, he nuiR have had fome object in view% fome game which led him from the direct road, and bewildered him in the tracklefs and unde- fmable path of error. Prcfs a^a'mjl the Suppof.tion of Sir Johns ivilfuUy difguifing the Truth as to the Jcicucheur. If it has been clearly cflabliflied, that the accounts given by Sir John Stewart, upon repeated occafions, concerning the perfon who delivered his wife, proceeded not from miftake or involuntary error, the only other alternative that can make way for the truth of Me- nagcr's ftory, is the fuppofition that Sir John, though well acquainted with Menager's Dclamarre, and confcious that the Delivery had been performed by him, had wilfully concealed his knowlege of that perfon, and falfcly transferred it to another perfon, totally incom- patible with him. It requires but little refledion to difcover the infuihciency and abfurdity of this fuppofition ; for it mufi: be obvious at firll; fight, that Sir John Stewart could have no rcafon or motive for telling 2l falfe Jlory about the perfon who affifled at the birth, and for concealing that Louis Pierre Delamarre of Paris was the man, if he really had been fo; — On the contrary, his honour and his intereft required him to announce it to all the world. One poffiblc cafe only can be imagined, wherein honour and in- tereft might operate towards a concealment of his knowlege of Louis Pierre Dclamarre, if he ever had any connedions with that perfon ; and that cafe proceeds upon the fuppofition that there had been no real Delivery, and that this Dclamarre had been aflifting to Sir John Stewart ( 55 ) Stewart in procuring the children, or in taking care of them for feme little time. This fuppofition, equally fatal to the pretenfions of the party whom you efpoufed, your Lordfliip will probably not chufe to lay hold of; It is certainly, however, allowable to make fuch a fuppo- fition, if it be maintained, that Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas were well acquainted with Dclamarre of Paris, but inten- tionally concealed that acquaintance, and falfcly transferred the de- livery to another perfon ; — It is the only ilippofition that can ac- count for a condud: otherwife totally inexplicable. Here, by the by, let me repeat the former obfervatlon corxerning the irregularity and dangerous tendency of admitting and giving great efficacy to hearfay evidence in matters of this fort. As we all know that there have been inftances in the world of pretended deliveries, and of fuppofititious children, there caPx be no offence in luppofing, for argument's fake, that Lady Jane Douglas had no delivery, but that her hulhand had fomehow or other con- traded acquaintance with this Dclamarre of Paris, had received his affiflance in fupplying him with children, and further had engaged him that he was to lend his name, and to play the part of tlie ima- ginary accoucheur, in cafe of future quefiions ; mean while, that he was to give it out that he had delivered a foreign lady of tv/ins. There is nothing in this cafe impoffible, or that may not eafily be fuppofed ; and if a hearfay from this Dclamarre, or any perfon en- gaged in a fraudulent contrivance of this kind, is to be luflained as equivalent to the tcffimony of the perfon himfclf, the neceifary con- fequence of it is, that the grolfeft frauds may, with the greatefl faci- lity, be eflablifhed beyond the reach of detection ; For the hearfay evidence will even be attended with remarkable advantages in fa- L z vour ( 3« ) \our oi- tlie guilty perions, cfpccially after the death of the fuppofetl original author; It cannot, from its nature, be difproved ; The hear- i'iiy witncfs is not li:ible to confrontation, nor obliged to fpecify per- fons or places, \vhich may afford the means of inveftlgation ; All that i> incumbent on him, as we remarked before, is to fay, that fuch a ftc rv v,-as told him by a deceafed Iricnd ; and where the ftake is great, th-jrc will Icluom be vranting convenient witneffes of this fort, who, in iome caics, may even fwear with veracity to tlie purpofes of the i.^I|^•)!u'.r^ ; in cihcrs they may im]n-ove upon the original flory lolJ thcm^ io vs to create a rclemblancc to that in queftion; — Wb.Cita,^, 0:1 the other hand, the original pcrfon concerned, Vv'ho ]e]>Jy liis name, and acts iuch a j^art as is here for a moment affigned to Dchimarre, would not find it (o eafy to efcape ; Pie would be obliged to undergo a flrict examination ; to fpecify times, places, rind jieribns ; and to give fuch a complete relation of fads, as i^iiu'lit lead to invefliiration : If his evidence could (land this teil, then credit would be due to it ; if not, it would be rejeded as falfe, and at the fame time it would become the means of detecting the fraud which it was meant to fupport. It Is upon this principle, tliat the dired evidence of a perfon con- cerning facls perl'onal to him, is by law and pradlce fo much pre- ierred to any liearfay relation cA thefe facls at fecond-hand. iku, my Lord, the precedent you have efLablillied in the cafe of Mcrihg^i's hearfav evidence, is delhucllve ot this falutarv doctrine ; V( ;i licive criven to that evidence the force of complete leeal tefti- niv :"i\ ; You have given on^ of the parties fironger advantages from it, than tluy C'jiild liave cie://'. d frcm tlie teflimony of his author Dclar/.uire liimilcli'; andYcv. h./e concluded againfl tlie other party, i;p(jn eviJc::ce w]i:.:h, iium i:-. nature^ it was irnpoffible for them to improve, e\:n .^dn^iitllng that cither the accounts given by Dela- rne.rre to Menagcr, or h'.j re:ation of thefe accounts, were certainly falfCv C 37 ) falfe. — You have eftablifhed a precedent which may be attended with the moft dreadful and pernicious conleciuenccs in matters of the greateft importance dependent on Evidence. But to return to the fubjccSt : Nothing can be more evident than this, That in every cafe but that abovcmcntioned, Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Doughis, inftead of having motives to- conceal their knowlcge of Delamarre, if he liad been the real perfon who afTifted at the dehvcry, muft have had every poflible inducement to make it known to their friends, and to the world in general. They had occalion to know, even before leaving France in the year 1749, ^^^*^^ ^^^ truth of Tady jane's delivery was fufpcdcd in Britain; Of this they were accjuainted, amongfi: otlicrs, by a Ictlcr from Lord Mark Kcr, Lady Jane's uncle, in which he conve^'^ no- tice of the iulpicions entertained on this head by her Ihxnhcr the Duke of Douglas, and of the Duke's dcfcribing the twins as pre- tenders to his family, L'pon the return of the hufband and wife to Britain, and till the time of I ady Jane's death, they had the mortification to lind that a general fufpicion prevailed againft the truth of her delivery; aiuipi- cion which, whether well or ill founded, and whether proceeding from. Friends or Enemies, it highly concerned their honour and then- intereil to remove. The neccffary confequence of their being informed ofluch fuf- picions, muft have been to excite in them an early and continued attention to every thing eilentially connected with the delivery, and with the proof of that event, which from this early dawn th.ey had reafon to apprehend, might one day or other become the liihject of legal difcuihon ; Or, at Icaft, they had reafon to be convinced, that their honour and t)ieir intereft might make it neceilary and proper 4 for ( 38 ) for them, not only to declare who the perfon was that had delivered Lady Jane, and to give to their friends every facility of converfing with him, but to preferve fome evidence of the fa£t, and an accurate rccolledion of perfons, places, and dates, eflentially conneded with this extraordinary and fufpeded event. Sir John Stewart, and Lady Jane Douglas, both of them remark- able for their abilities and knowlcge of the world, had too much penetration not to forefec, that an event fo unexpeded as that of Lady Jane's delivery of two Tons at a birth, in the 5ifl year of her age, and in a foreign country, removed from the obfervation of her Friends or Enemies, would produce much fncculation in Britain, and probably not meet with complete- credit from the world until men were better informed of particulars. The natural condudt, therefore, even from the beginning, mufl: have been to diffufe, as much as polTible, amongft their friends and acquaintance abroad, the knowlege of fuch particulars of this amazing fortunate event, as might eftabliih the truth of it on a folid foundation. If Ddamarre^ who had his conilant refidence at Paris, had been the perfon who really delivered Lady Jane, would they not have declared this to their friends and to all the world ? Would they not have dcfired their friends and acquaintance at Paris (for many fuch they had there at the very time, as appears from the proof) to meet with this man, and to receive from him juft information, that upon Ills authoritv, confirmed alfo by their feeing the child under his care, they might declare and propagate the true ftate of fads. Not only fo, my Lord, but They would certainly have obtained from that perfon, fome genuine evidence in writing of the delivery performed by him, as well as Ibme writing on the part of the wit- nelfes ; ( 39 ) ncfTes; for as both were mortal, they muft naturally have forereen the importance of this precaution, in the event at leaft of the death of fiich material witncffcs; and it appears from the proof, that this mcafure was ilrongly recommended to them by their friends and wellwiflicrs. Such certificate they might have obtained with great eafe at any period of the fixteen months they remained at Rheims ; Or if negledcd during tliat time, they would not have omitted to ob- tain it at their lafl: interview vvith Delamarrc in November I749» when Sir John and Lady Jane, according to the accounts given, v/cnt to Paris to take from him the child which had been left to his care ; Or, finally, if alfo negledled at that period, they could not polTibly have omitted, after their return to Britain, and after the mortifications which they fufFered there by means of the fafpicions, to write to Paris, that Delamarre might fend them fuch certificate, which, without expence or trouble, they could lb eafily have obtained in a few davs. I fay, my Lord, that if you ferioufly attend to thefe particulars, you muft be fenfiblc, that, in their circumflances, the fuppofition of their wilfully concealing the real accoucheur, and that of their wilfully reforting to falfehoods i'o dangerous and prejudicial to them, while they had it in their power to obtain genuine proofs, or to dif- clofe a truth which obviouily would have been of fuch infinite fervice to them, are totally prepofterous and inadmifhble ; Your Lordfhip has too n^iuch dilcennnent and knowlege of the human heart to be capable of giving credit to thefe fuppoiitions, fo inconfiftent with every principle upon which mankind have ai5led from the begin- ning of the world to this day. — A train of condud fo much the rcverfe of what mufl naturally have taken place, if the knowlege of the truth had been favourable to them, goes far indeed to prove, that there were in this cafe no accoucheur and no witneffes to 2 appeal (40 )■ appeal to; but at Icafl It mud be allowed to cflablini clearly this propofition, That if Lady Jane really was delivered, it was not by Dt'lamarre^ Menager's friend, from whom it would have been fo cafy at all times to have obtained authentic proofs for refuting fuf- picions fo highly prejudicial to the honour and intereft of the per- ions fufpeded. 77;.' Exckfe made for not applyir.g or referring to the AccAuhcur for Prcfi, Your LordQiip will perhaps fay, and in your fpeech you did at- tempt to infmuate fomething of this fort, that, in Sir John and Lady Jane's fitnation, it would have had the appearance of doubt- ing their own honour, to have taken any certificates or proofs; But this feeble excufe cannot avail, when it appears that Lady Jane, at the fame time that fhe avoided applying or referring to an accoucheur at Paris, wrote earneflly from London to Aix-la-Chapdls in the year 1750, for proofs of her pregnancy, and thence obtained them, fucli as they were. Befidcs, if I may be allowed the expreflion, it is too abfurd to fiippofe, that any perfons would be fo far influenced by a falfc prin- ciple of honour, as to allow their character and reputation to fuffer in the world, and the intereft of thcmfelves, and thofe whom they called their children, to be fo materially affected by fufpicions, w^hile it was in their power to put an end to them at once, and to confound tlicir enemies as well as to give pleafure to their friends, by telling the truth, and by obtaining genuine proofs from Paris; Or at leafh by appealing to Dchwiarrc, and accjuainting their friends, that this man, who had his conftant refidence in that city, was the perfon who could give full information ; If they had done fo, fome of their zealous partr/ans, if they thcmfelves had any falfe point of honour about it, would have faved them the trouble of the application; — Thev would have done all that was necelfary. But I 4t ) But let us fuppofe for a moment, that a falfe point of honour might make them abflaui from applying in their own names for proofs of the Delivery (though it is difficult to make this fuppofi- tion, after the evidence in the caiife of Lady Jane's earneilly apply- ing for proofs of her pregnancy), flill no point of honour could either induce them to deftroy any genuine letters they had from the perfon who affifted at the delivery, or to conceal who that perfon was ; — It could not enter into the moil romantic head in the world, that their honour was concerned in abflaining from telling, either to their friends or to their enemies, who was the real perfon, leaving it to them to make the inquiries. If there is any man who thinks that their condu^l can flill be juftified on this imaginary principle, I defire to afk that perfon, on what principle he v.ill account for their telling -^ falfc Jiory about the accoucheur, and imputing the delivery to a different man from iNIenager's Delamarre, if he really had been the perfon ? And on what principle will he account for Sir John Stewart's perfevcranccf in this falfe ftory, at different and diflant periods of timer Will your Lordfliip go fo far as to fay, that a point of honour might in- liuencc him to tell 2i falfe jl or y^ in preference to the truth, and par- ticularly upon a very folemn and awful occafion, at his judicial examination before the iuprcme judges of his country, w^hen ex- cited by every principle of honour and of confcience to declare the truth ? — Some other excufe than Honour mud: be found out for fuch degrading and unnatural condu«rt. After what has been faid, 1 may be allowed to take it for granted, that a few fimplc propofitions are eflablifhed, which, by men of cool and impartial judgments, will not now be controverted. M One Ohv^ ^', Tii,;t liic accoucheur, lb particularly fixed on and cic- ic'.ibccl l)v Sir T;^hn Stewart, is totally different from the peribii iui!.frcilcci hy Mcnngcr; and that as no human art can perform im- ]n)ii;l)iliLic3, or reconcile contradidions, fo it is impofliblc to reduce ih.le two ip.'O one and the ilunc perfon. Secondly, That Sir fohn Stewart's caufe of knowlegc was much- flron.ger tliau that of iVlena^er, with regard to the perlbn employed by himielf to aihil: at the delivery of his wife. Thirdly, That Sir John, with fo good caufe of knowlege, could not be in any miftake about this affair, fo perfonal to himfelf, and to which his attention at different periods had been fo particularly excited ; confequently, if Delamarre of Paris was the real peribn in queflion, it is impoffible to fuppoie, that every circumftance of the true ftory fliould have been obliterated from Sir John Stewart's me- mory, and that, inftead of it, there fliould have fprung up in his mind a falfe ftory, totally different in every refped, with a train of minute circumftanccs, dates, places, and perfons, nowife refembling the original faces. Fourthly, That the only other alternative, to wit, that of fup- pofing Sir John Stewart to have wilfully concealed his knowlege of Delamarre of Paris, and to liavc falfely fubftituted another perfon in his place, at tlie expence not only of his own honour and reputation, but alfo of his moil effential interefts, is equally inadmiffiblc. The confcquence of thefe propofuions is, That if Lady Jane Douglas Vv-as delivered at all, it certainly was not by the perfon to whom Mcnager has endeavoiu-ed to afcribe it ; — And thus the tefti- mony of tliis witnefs, to which your Lorddiip was pleafed to give Inch decifive importance in the Douglas caufe, deferves to be blotted out I 43 3 out from the proofs in that caiifc, where iudecd it never ought to have appeared. And \Yill your Lordfhip be well pleafcd to have it tranfniitted to poflerlty ; (for the extreme celebrity ot tliu. caiifc, ;ind iiD fiiil more celebrated iilue, will, notwlthdanding the vvxaki^ci,^ of my pen, he fure to engage the attention of the world, after boui of us arc laid in our graves;) I fay, is your Lordfhip willing it fhould be knov'.-n to pofterity, that you rofe in the moft auguft affcmbly in Europe, and ventured to infmuate, that Sir John Stewart was in a continual and capital miftake wnth regard to the perfon whom he himfelf had chofen to affifl: at his wife's delivery ; Not only was ignorant of the mofi: material circumftances attending him, but folemnly and judi- cially afcribed to him a birth, and a country, and years, and a ftation, and fortune, which vifibly, palpably, and confefl'edly, did not belong to him ? — I again infifl: upon the alternative which T at firft propofed : Chufe whether you will impute theic miftakes to in- voluntary ignorance, or to perverfe and deliberate falfehood : It Is as necelTary you fhould make the choice, as it was neceilary for the purpofe of giving the caufe for the defendant, to identify thofe two perfons, however irreconcilable in every eircumftance with each other; If nobody affifted at the delivery of Lady Jane Douglas, flie never was delivered ; and no other claims thi^ office but Dela- mdi-re^ the friend of Menager ; — I know that I am importunate to your Lordfliip, and I am forry for it ; yet I cannot forbear calling on you again to fix your choice in this alternative. ^ ^ -:t ^-^ * M 2 PA II T ( 44 ) PART III. Maiagers Delamarre excluded by the intrinfic Evidence of the forged Letters. HAVING ihewn, that the truth of Menager's evidence is ex- cluded by the teftimony of the Family, Relations, and Friends of Delamarre, and alfo by the teftimony of Sir John Stewart himfelf, I am now to call your Lordfliip's attention to the etFe(Sb of fome writ- tcu evidence in this caufe, proceeding from the joint adt or concert ot Sir John and Lady Jane at an early period. The proof I allude to arifcs, ift, From the name or fubfcription annexed to the four fuppofed^ or, to fpeak a more intelligible and more plain language, the four y^r^^Y/ letters ; — 2dly, From the con- tents of thefe letters ; — and, 3dly, From the circumflance of there being at all in this caufe forged^ inflead of real letters, from the perlon who affifled at the delivery. The arguments arifing from the intrinfic evidence which thefe letters afford to the particular cxcluiion of Menager's Delainarrc^ were omitted in the Cafe to the Houfe of Lords, becaufe the mate- rials which fupply thefe arguments having been placed before your eyes, it was imagined that your Lordfliip would have feen at once, and luivc declared to the FIoulc, the impoifibility of iupporting Lady Jane's delivery upon Menagcr's plan, and upon his evidence ; I mull iiiereiore now beg leave to bring under your view the intriniic tn'i;!e!^ce of thefe letters, as containing proofs which arc fatisfadory iii i].c'!nic:!ves, and which fervc to conhrm all the preceding pioofs oi" the f.-J.;e!:ood of Alenager's teiUinony. n fJC ( 45 ) The Suhfiripiicns to the forged Litters. li\ the four letters forged by Sir John Stewart, with the partici- pation of Lady June Douglas, and produced as letters from the ac- coucheur, the Jiihfcnpt'ions are of a perfon who figns his name thus, Fler la Marr^ fometimes Fc'ir la Marr ; This is a fubfcription to which Sir John Stewart never could have feen any thing analogous, or which bore the leaft refemblance to it, if Dclamarre of Paris, Menager's friend, had been the accoucheur ; — For it was clearly proved by the relations and friends of this man, that his name was Dclamarre^ thus written and pronounced, and that this w^as his con- flant and uniform method of fubfcription, without the addition of either of his baptifmal names, Louis or Pierre. I have myfelf feve- ral of his fubfcriptions in my poffeflion, delivered to me at Paris, which clearly lliew this, and both parties had occafion to fee his fubfcription at his contra^: of marriage, where he figns Dtlamarre, without any addition. Your Lordfnip knows, or muft have heard, that in France it is not the cuftom for perfons cither of high or lov/ rank to make ufe of their baptifmal names in their fubfcriptions. Indeed, one may be acquainted, and even have corrcfponded, many years with a Frenchman, without having ever had occafion to fee or learn his baptifmal name. Tiie fu])fcripiion cX Tier la l^larr, in three feparate words, differs tlicrefore not only in the family name, for Marr or La Marr are names quite ditfcrcnt from DtJamarre \ but the whole fubfcription o^ Pier la Marr^ taken together, is (o totally dlflx^rent from the fub- fcription of Mcnagcr's friend at Paris, which was Dtlamarre, in one word, without any baptifmal name or other addition, tiiat it is impofhble { 4<5 ) iinpoiriblc the one coinu ever take riie from, or be confounded with llic other. ll" Delamarre oi I'aris was the accoucheur, it neceflarily follows, tiiat both Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas muft have been extremely well acquainted with his iubfcription, in confequencc of the great number of letters received from him during the courfe of a iixteen months regular correlpondence, and in confequencc of the number of letters they mufl; have addreifed to him in that period. If it could be fuppolcd, that tlicy had not attended to Delam.arre's fubfcription, upon reading fo many letters from him ; yet, by ha\ ing ilich frequent occafion to dirccl: to him letters in return, the direclion of which would be copied from, and conformable to the name and fubfcription at the bottom oi his ovsm letters to them, the name and fubfcription of Dclaj}:crrj\: muii, by thefc repeated ads, liave been fo llronglv iraprelfcd on their memory, that there could be no cliance of their ever after v/ards forgetting them. Admitting that correfpondence, and fuppofing all the original letters to liave been loll: before the year 175a, when they fet about fupplying their place by forged letters ; '1 hey niuft have m.ade the fubfcription at lead of thei'e forged letters, either precifely the fame with that wdiich they had been fo v/ell acquainted with in the ori- ginal letters, or furcly fo very near to it, as to bear a flrong nmili- tude ; but never could have rendered it {o totally dllTerent, as to inl'crt a bap^lilmal name which never was in tlie original letters, or even to make fo great a difference in the family name. The fub- Icriptions at the bottom of thcfe forged letters arc tliereforc at lead equivalent to an exprefs declaration from Sir Jolm Stewart and Lady Jane Dougku. jointly, at an early period, tliat I^elar.wrr^ of Paris was not the pcrfon ; and they afford intrinfic proofs of their having never had any correfpondence in v/ritin.g with him. - The ( %7 ) Th Contents nf the. forged Lciins. ^.ccondly, The contents of thefe forged letters, particularly the laft of them, I'iz. that dated in June 1752, afford ftrong evidence of fhe fune fort to the exclufion of Delamarre. Tliat letter reprefents Pier La Marr as having then made the tour of //u'/i', and a ilay of ten months Sit j\\!j)Ies, and mentions his pre- paring for another journey to Italy. As this letter was framed by Sir John, with the participation of Lady [ane, and as it appears from the li^vidence of Ifabel Walker, that this letter, or one of iimilar contents, had been read over by Sir Jolin to his wife at London, in prefence of her and Mrs. Hewit ; it proves, that tl:e account given by Sir John in the year 1762, at his judicial examination, ai)out this journey io Italy dind Naples, was not a llidJcn thought, but tlie lame account which, many years before tiiat period, had been cither believed or given out by them relative to the perfon Vs'ho alTiRcd at the delivery. If ii be a true fiory, that Lady Jane's accoucheur made the tour of Italy, and was at Naples, it Vvnll be admitted, that this infallibly excludes Delamarre of Paris, who never in l\is lite was out of France; and it v/iil alib be admitted, that if tliere now exiiled any real letter, or CODY oi a real letter, from the accoucheur, containine; luch cir- cuiullanccs, tiuit tliis would ferve to exclude Delamarre. But, my Lord, tlierc are folid arguments to be deduced from tlie contents of 'eti.rb forc:ed bv perl'ons io intimately acauainted v/ith tlie lacls in qucilion as Sir ]ol\a and Ladv fme neceifarily muft have been ; tor if there had been any jK^-lon who v/as at all employed by Sir John to alfill Jiis vvifc in her delivery, and who had charge o.t their ( 48 1 their youngeft cliild for fixteen months, there necefTarily mufl: Tiave been mucli perfonal and written correfpondence with that man, and a particular knowlege of what related to him ; Therefore, if, by fome flrange accident, all the original letters from this perfon had been loft at the time they fet about framing letters to fupply their place, they certainly would not infert in thefe copies, or forged let- ters, a material and marked clrcumftance, fuch as that of making the tour of Italy, and a flay of ten months at Naples^ if there had been no fuch thing in the original letters that w^ere loft, or if it -were a circumftancc which they never had learnt from any quarter, or which they knew not to be applicable to the accoucheur of Lady Jane. The inference from this to the exclufion of Delamarre of Pari-j, muft be obvious to your Lordftiip ; and you muft be reduced to the dilemma of acknowledging one of two things, Either that there never exifted any real letters from the accoucheur to Sir John or Lady Jane, Or that there were fuch letters, but that they happened all to be loft when the luppofcd letters were framed. If you adopt the firft alternative, that there never w^re any real letters, I maintain, that this of itfclf is fatal to the caufe you fup- ported ; becaufe it could not have happened, if the other fad:s eftcn- tially connected w^ith the delivery, and the ftory about the child left, during fixteen months, to the care of the accoucheur, were true ; and becaufe, while it involves Sir John and Lady Jane in the grofteft forgery, it would alfo make manifcft the perjury of Mrs. Hev/it and llabel Walker about the correfpondence with the accoucheur. If you chufe rather to eml^racc the laft alternative, that letters ha^l exifted, but were all loft before the 1752 (a thing in itfelf almoft incredible, after the intimations they had got of the fufpicions about the delivery), then we muft conclude; that the letters thus recently 6 loft ( 49 ) lod had contained fome Intimation that the pcrfon in queftion had 'made the tour of Italy^ and a flay of fome months at Naples^ other- wife it is inconceivable that Sir John and Lady Jane, without any traces of it in the real correfpondcnce, and without any motive, would have invented fuch minute and particular circumflances. If they v/ere to invent circumflances without any Lrathorlty (which at the fame time is not very confident with the fuppofition of their Innocence), they would have chofen fuch as they knew to be applicable to the real perfon, not fuch as were totally exclufive of him. Therefore, whether it be confidered as a pofitive affertlon of theirs, that the real perfon had made the tour of Italy ^ and a flay of fome months at Naples., or as a circumftance copied by them from what was contained in the original letters, then recently lofl, it mufl prove fatal to the notion of Menager's Delamarre ; for if he had been the man with whom they were in connexion and correfpondence in con- fequcnce of the delivery, and of the child committed to his care, not only was it impoffible that they ever could have had any authority from his letters for this fuppofed journey, but they mufl have known, that he had continued at Par Is j and had his conflant refi- dence there. The Exijlcnce of forged.^ hiflead of real Lftter;. But to conclude this fubjedl : The very circumflance of there being forged letters in this caufe ought to give your Lordflilp a conviclloii almofl equal to demonflratlon, that Delamarre of Paris was not the perfon who aflifled at the delivery. N ThU ( 5° ) This Delauiarrc continued to rcfide at Paris from his firft efla- Llifnment there, in 1734, to the day of his death, which was not till 15th May 1753. It has been iliewii in the plaintiffs' Cafe to the Houfe of Lords, that the fuppoled letters were forged by Sir John Stewart with the par- ticipation of Lady Jane L>ougla5, and that the laft of them was forged in the year 1752 at lateil ; It was impolTible indeed that thefe letters, found in Lady Jane's cabinet at her death, could at any rate have been forged much later than Summer 1752, as Lady jane herfelf died in Augufl 1753 ; and when the forged letters were produced to Sir John Stewart at his examination, he folemnly declared, that he had not leen them from a long^ time before Lady Jane's death till that day. Tlie evidence referred to in the plaintiffs' Cafe clearly afcertains It, that the laft of them was forged at lateft in Summer 1 7 52, before Lady Jane's vifit to her brother the Duke of Douglas, at his caffle of Dou- glas; confequently many months before the death of Louis Pierre Delamarre. Is it poffiblc then to conceive, if this man, who was then alive, and refided at Paris, had been the perfon that affifted at the birth, that Sir Jolm Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, to fave themfelves the trouble of writing to Paris, and getting genuine letters from h/nn, v.-ould liave deliberately fet about the crime of forgery, and l.ave expoled themfelves, not only to the infamy arifmg from a detection of tliat crime, but run the rifk of making the whole ftory of the delivery diPoelieved, by transferring it to a different perfon, one who in every refpect was inconfiftent with Delamarre of Paris? — I fay, my Lord, that when the attention to this circumftance is fiuTiciently excited, it exceeds the powers of eloquence to perfuade any man in his fenfes that thefe things could have happened, if 8 Lady ( 51 ) T.ady Jane Douglas had really been delivered by Dclamarrc, the friend of Menager. If the accoucheur defcribcd and fixed upon by Sir John Stewart hiruiclf had been adopted in preference to the pcrfbn fuggeflcd by iMenager, there might have been fonie Tent of cxcufe made (if for- gery admits of any cxcufe) for Sir John asul Lady Jane's forging letters in the year 1752 from him, becaufe he '.vas not a native of France ; He was a man much addicted to v/andcring from one coun- try to another, who had no fettled abode any wliere ; and therefore tliey might not know where to find him, fo as to get letters from him. But the moment that you adopt Menager's Delamarre, who had Iiis cciiiiant and known refidence at Paris, and who was alive at the very time that Sir John and Lady Jane were employed in forging letters from a perfon totally incompatible with him, every thing be- comes inexplicable, except upon the fuppofitionof a fiditious delivery. I'herc are, my Lord, fome things beyond the reach even of the greateft abilities ; Of this fort is the attempt to identify two perfons fo incompatible as the accoucheur defcribed by Sir John Stewart and that fuggefted by Menager, Or the attempt to reconcile the forgery of the letters, and the conduct of Sir John and Lady Jane, with the poflibility of that Lady's having been delivered by Delamarre of Paris, Menager's friend. There muft be aii end of reafoning In judicial matters, tmlefs we fuppofe the perfons, whofe guilt or innocence is the iubjedt of inquiry, to be formed like the reft of the human race, and to be actuated in cilential matters by fuch principles and motives of adion as govern the conduct of the world in general. N 2 The ( 52 ) The Inferences arlfing from an uniform continued train of condud, I hold to be a fpccles of evidence far fuperior to the aifertions or verbal teftimony of witnefTes ; — It is the fubftantial evidence of things and adions thcmfeives, not the fallible tefllmony of men. The condudt of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, in ab- flaining from ever mentioning Dclamarre of Paris, or obtaining ge- nuine letters or certiiicates from him ; The arguments founded on the intrinfic evidence of the forged letters themfelves ; And their conduct in fabricating falfe letters, at the very time v^-hen Dda~ viarrc was alive, and had his fixed refidence at Paris, afford folid ground on which to found argiunents that no power of eloquence can deftroy, no artifice or chicanery can elude. What credit then can be due to the fingle tefi:imony of Menager, in oppofition to Evidence fo pow^erful, and fo firmly eftablifhed ? ^**=^f-*^** PART IV. T^hat the Credit given to Menagcr'j hearfay Evidence ivoidd not have been due to the Evidence of Delamarre hwifelf. LET us now confider, my Lord, what credit would have been due to LrAus Pierre Delamarre himfelf, if he had been examined in this caufe, and had given, at firft-hand, the fame fort of evidence which Menager at fecond-hand has attempted. This, it muft be allowed, would be a much ftronger cafe in fa- vour of the caufe you fupported, than the real one which now exifls ; ( 5^ ) cxifls ; and yet I hope to fliew, that the credit you gave to the hear- lay evidence of Menagcr would not have been due even to the tefti- mony of the perfon from whom he pretends to have derived his i nformation. Let it be fuppofed, that in the courfe of the fcarchcs for an ac- coucheur of the name of La Marr, and of the noife made at Paris about this great Douglas caufe, Louis Pierre Delaviarre had ilcpt forth, and depofed, that, about fixteen or icventcen years ap.o, he had delivered a foreign lady of t^cvins, laft from Rhcims, and that one of the children was committed to his care ; Or, if your Lord- fhip pleafes to make it Wronger ftill, let us fuppofe him to have de- pofed, that he had delivered a Britiili lady of thefe twins, or Lady Jane Douglas by name. At the fame time, to make the cafe fmiilar to that which now cxifls, it muft be fuppofed, that the wife, brothers, relations, and acquaintance of this Delamarre, had, in oppofition to his teftimony, concurred in declaring or depofmg, that They, though in flrong and continued habits of intimacy with him, never had heard of his per- forming any fuch delivery, or of his having the care of the child of nny foreigner committed to him. Jt muft alfo be fuppofed, that there remained, in oppolition to tlie teftimony of this man, that which now fublifts againft Manager's, VIZ. the folemn evidenceof Sir John Stewart, neccft'arily implying not only that this Delamarre was not the perfon, but naming the parti- cular perfon who had delivered his wife, with a detail of his hiftorv, and the reafons of his employing him ; and, in concurrence with this, the evidence of Lady Jane Douglas, proved by necelTary inference from her condu^Il:, and her participation in the forged letters ; Fur- ther, there muft be taken into the account all tiie arguments to th(. exclufion ( 54 ) cxcliifion of /)c'/j;;M/-/r arifing from thefe letters, forged at the very pcri'jcl when he was Uving at Paris, and had his fixed abode there. In iliort, there mufl: be put into the one fciile all rhefe circumftan- cc<, and all the other evidence in the caufe tendi-,,^ to the fame con - cluilon, or tending to prove, that in this cafe there had been no real dciivcr\- ; Into the other fca;e there mull be put the pofitivc affertioa or d^pMltion of this Dciamarre, but unfupported by any written evidence, or cllabliilied fact, independent of his ov/n teftimony, ia the i'.ime manner that IVIenager's teftimony nov/ appears. Tlie caie, as here put, is ftated as f^ivourably as can be defired, (o as I ) bear any rei'emblance to the import of Menager's evidence, \-. i'.h th.e circumilances attending it ; and I Vvdll now venture to alfert, xh-M the tcilimony o'{ Dfldviarre himfelf, {o unfupported, and in op- polition to fi.ch a weight of evidence againft the truth of his affertion, vv.ould deferve to be rejected as a falic teflimony, and unworthy ut credit. Lvcry perfon accuftomcd to the invefligation of truth, and to the canvaffing or evidence, would foon have perceived, that the plain 'biuiion of this matter was, that this man Delamarre, from one mo- tive or otlier, had told a lie; for it comes to this hmple propofition, — Whctiicr it is more probable that this one man fliould have told a '.dllciiood, Or tiiat fuch a numi)er of perfons, who have depofed to tiiclo either contradictory to, or cxclufive of the truth of his allertion, ♦ hould all ui them have concurred in luch deliberate perjury, and in ■X .natter loo where the natural bias of their minds, and the real in- i^reii of fcvcral of them, muft naturally have led them to concur in ;up[:ui iiii:i; uib teftimony ? i'o reduce tlie queftion of probability to a narrower compafs, ix. bjay evui be put u])on this lifuc alone; Whether is it more proba- ble. ( ,5 ) blc, that tills wltnefs Di'Inr/inD-e {]K)uId have told a falfl'hood in aiciibing to himfclf the delivery of Lady jaiic Douglas, Or tiiat ihc hufband, who cm})loyed the accouclicur, and v.liofe caufe of kiiov/- lege was as good in every refpecl:, fliould, v/ith the concurrence of his wife, have refolved to fiipprefs this fact, which they l)oth had every motive to declare, if Delamarre had actually been the jK^rfcii who had delivered Lady Jane ? — I fay, my Lord, Whether, in the cafe put, would it be more difficult to believe that Delamarre had told a lie, Or to believe that Sir John Stewart had not only iblcmnly and repeatedly been guilty of falfehood, by al'criring tlie delivery to another perfon, totally different from this Ddajiuirrc ; but alfo that both he and Lady [ane fhould have been fo Infenhble to their own honour and intereft, as to have abftained from ever mention- ing Delamarre as the perfon, or procuring proofs from him, in whofe power it was to have rendered tliem fuch effential fcrvi.e ; and finally, that they fhould have reforted to forged evidence, aieribing the delivery to another perfon, while this man Del.r.marre was Aili alive ? Is there a man at all accn domed to weigh evidence, who would hefitate to pronounce on which fide tbie probability lay, or to decide that fuch a teftimony as has here been luppofed, proceeding from Delamarre himfelf, in oppofition to the declarations and conduC.1: of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, (without ca^iing in the aid of the other parts of the caufe,) would deferve to be rejcaea as a falfe invented tale ? In maintaining the opinion vdiich I have now ventured to give, I tread on ground where your Lordfhip will find it difficult to engage with me ; 1 am fupported not only by the reafcn of the thing, and by w^hat muft obvioufly occur to every one accwifomed to canvafs evidence ; but further, I am fupported by a late decifion of the Lloufe ( sC ) lioufe of Lords in the cafe of Anglefea, where your Lordflilp was prcfcnt, and took no hiconfidcrablc fliare hi the debate. The partlcuhirs of the Anglefea cafe, and the ccmparifon of them with the ch-cumllances in that of Douglas, have been pretty fully flated in my hrll Letter to your Lordlhip ; It was there fliewn, that tlie legitimacy of the fon of Lord Anglefea depended on the truth of tliL- fact maintained on the part of the claimant, z'iz. That Lord and Lady Anglefea, hib father and mother, had been privately married in the ycai" 174I. Befidcs other proofs in favour of this fadt, there was produced a ccrtiiicate drawn up and figned by Laurence Neal the clergyman, exprefsly declaring that he had married them on 15th September, 1 74 1. — Not only fo, but when Lord Anglefea thought proper to liave a public ceremony of marriage with the fame lady in the year 1752, and which was at that time exprefsly declared to be only a repetition of the ceremony formerly performed in 1741, the fame clergyman Laurence Neal was the perfon who performed the office, and he at that time declared to a numerous company then alfemblcd, that he had formerly married the fime perfons in the year 1741, and that he had drawn up and figned a certiiicate there- of, Vshich certificate was produced to the company then afTembled ; This fact, and the declaration of the public ceremony being only a repetition of that former marriage, are afcertained by a paper figned by ijinc perfons of credit prefent with Laurence Neal at this public ceremony in 1752. Your Lordfliip knows, that in the Anglefea caufe this afiertion of Laurence Neal the clergyman, afcertained by fuch a number of per- lons prefent, and the evidence he gave under his hand of his having ])crformed the marriage ceremony in 1741, w^re totally difregarded; —Tiie ( S7 ) -!— The other evidence in the caufc prevailed over it; — In that cafe, the clergyman ftood in the fame degree of importance, with regard to the contejled marriage^ as in the Douglas caufe the accoucheur did, with regard to the delivery ; yet the evidence proceeding from this Mr. Neil, of fo much feeming importance in the Anglcfea caufc, was found to be of no avail. The judgment declaring the fon of Lord Anglefea illegitimate, neceflarily implies an opinion, that no credit was due to the aflertions and certificate of the clergyman> though relating to fadts perfonal to himfclf. If then the fadl of the marriage of Lord Anglefea in 1 741, a fact which contained in itfelf nothing extraordinary or improbable, could not be fupported by the pofitive declarations of Laurence Neal the clergyman, in prefence of fuch a number of refpedable witneffes, and by the certificate drawqi up and figned by him, relative to a fact which was perfonal to himfelf, and which was fupported and con- firmed by the concurring teflimony and conduct of Lord Anglefea to the day of his death, and by the Countefs of Anglefea's depofition in conformity to it, I am warranted to maintain. That the very ex- traordinary and improbable fad:, of Lady Jane Douglas's Delivery of two fons at a birth in the 51ft year of her age, could not have been fupported by the pofitive afi^ertion or teftimony of Louis Pierre Dela- marrc himfclf, contradiclcd by the folemn teftimony of Sir John Stewart, and by the tranfaclions, aflcrtions, and condud, both of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, from the date of the de- livery down to the period of their deaths; contradidcd aUb by the evidence of the nearcft relations and mofl intimate friends of this Dclamarre ; and finally contradidcd and excluded by every one of the various branches of evidence in the caufe, tending, cither di- red:ly or indiredly, to the fame conclufion. If this be admitted, What cxcufe will it be pofilble for your Lord- Hiip's moft zealous adherents to invent (for your dignity, or the O hurry ( 5S ) hurry of bufinefs, may perhaps palliate, though not cxciife, your own filence), I fliy, what cxcufc will your numerous Dependants invent, when it is announced to the world, that, without one grain of evidence from Delamarre himfelf, either written or verbal, the only thing you had to put into the fcale, againft fuch a weight of evidence on the part of the plaintiffs, vras the teftimony of a fingle v/itnefs, and that a hearfay teilimony, relating to a converfation- faid to have happened about fifteen or fixteen ye^^rs before the exa- mination of this witnefs ; — A converfation which he was at liberty to drefs up in the manner he thought proper, without any hazard of contradiction from his fuppofcd author, who had then been about ten years in his grave. The folid reafons againft admitting hearfay, as in any degree equivalent to original evidence, and the dangerous confequences of that practice, have been already mentioned ; and now it has been jhewn, that the authority which you have given to this hearfay evi- dence of Mcnager, ivit/j all its hnpey-fcclions on its head, is much itronger than what v.'ould have been due to the pofuive teflimony of Delamarre himfelf, if alive. — Need I fay m.ore, to demonftrate the pernicious and alarming innovation which you have introduced into tlie Rules of E.vidence, and to rouze tlic attention of this country to youi- Lnrdiliip's corAlucl in y'^ur iMdiciiil cann.citv r ( 59 ) ABSTRACT of Menager's Evidence, referred to ia page 8th of the preceding Letter. THE c'\ic]er.cc of this wltiiefs, taken iii the years 1764 and 1765, wich regard to fomc conveiTations faid to have pafied between him and Louis Pierre Dclamarrc, fixtcen or fcventeen years before that period, in relation to a Delivery faid to have been performed by Dclamarrc, confifls chiefly of fome geijeral circumftances, and may be reduced to the following heads : — The ante- cedent notice given to Deiamarre before the Lady's arrival at Paris : — The immediate circumftances of the Delivery : — The defcription or accounts of the Lady: — The time of the Delivery: — The houfe where it happened :— The circumftances fubfequent or relative to the Delivery. 'The antecedent Notice* Mr. Menager depofcs, " That he remembers that Mr. Pierre Deiamarre, p^f^ p,^f^ furgeon at Paris, told the deponent, likewife to Mr. Giles furgeon, and, as he ?' i-^» ^' believes, to Mr. Melld^ likewife furgeon, that he had been acquainted before- hand of a flranger Lady, who was coming to Paris to lie-in i and that this de- livery might be very advantageous to him the faiJ Pierre Deiamarre, and that he would be very glad that the deponent himfelf afTifted at this delivery, which might be dangerous on account of the Lady's advanced age." Literrogated for the purfucrs, depofes, " That Mr. Deiamarre told the depo- _„ .j» ^^ rent, before the Lady's arrival at Paris, that he was befpoke for this in-lying, and that he expeded her, but does not recollecl for how long time before Mr, Deiamarre fpoke to him, as above : That he does not remember that Mr. Deia- marre mentioned if it was by letters or otherwife that he was acquainted of this in-lying, but only that he told him before the Lady's arrival, that it would be an advantageous affair for him." At his fecond examination, after mentioning that he hid promifed to Deia- marre to be prefent at the delivery, he depofes, " That he does not precifcly puj^-^^; rcm.ember the time at which he made this promife to Deiamarre, but believes it P'S^a* C. was about the month of March or April, though he cannot exactly fay." O 2 " That f 60 ) Turf, prorf, *' That Monf, Delaruarre fpoke of this delivery feveral times in the Chanihre p 965. H. j^ Garde (of the Hotel Dhu) : 7'hat he does not remember if Monf. Gilts and Monf. Milht were prefent more than once when Monf. Di.lamarre fpoke of this delivery." . : s,''>', C, '' That when Monf. Ln Marre fpoke of the faid delivery in the Chmnbrc de Gnrnc^ in prcfcncc of tl'.e dcpoiicr.t, Monf. G/VVj, and, as the deponent believes, ■A Monf. Alcll-t^ he fpukc of it aa a delivery lui/uh vjas to happen." "The Circumflances of the 'Delivery. Dcf. rr.-rf, Dcpofcs, " That hc was not prefent at the delivery, but that Mr. Delamarre ' afterwards told him, that the Lady was delivered of two male twins, and that hc (La Marre) had been man-midwife." , p.::n, D. Upon the crofs examination, depofes, *' That it was the day of or the day after the delivery that Air. Delamarre told the deponent, that the Lady was brought to bed : That hc was vrry angry that the deponent was not prefent at it, that he had fent to feek him : — That happily the work had been attended wiih all poffible fuccefs, although the Lady was advanced in years, and that it was her firft delivery, ''"oes not remember that Mr. Delamarre told him how long the Lady remained at Paris after her lying-in." r,rf. fr-cF, *' That Mr. Delamarre told the deponent, in fpeaking of the delivery, that ^' -^'' ' it had been more fuccefsful than he had expcd^cd, confidering the age of the Lady; from which the deponent judged, that the delivery had not been fevere ; That Mr. La Marre told this to the deponent the day afcer the delivery, when rhey met, the deponent does not know where; and that he did not tell the depo- nent if the delivery happened in the day-time, or in the night." .^ P 55,. Q, " That hc docs not remember if La Marre told him, that he had obtained the pcrniifTion of the Lady, or of her hufband, that the deponent fliould afTifl at the delivery." *' That the deponent did not afk at Pierre La Marre the quarter, nor the houfe, nor the (trcet where that Lady dwelt at Paris, and that the deponent never knew it." «' That ( 6t ) 4* That We did not afk Monf, La Marrc, if the delivery fhould be kept fecref:, Purc. proof, and La Marrc did not announce it to him as a fecrct delivery." i'-96a> i^. *« That when La Marre begg'd the deponent to be prefbnt at tiie faid de- ^.^61. D* livery, the deponent confented to be there; but that the deponent was not there, becaufe he was elfewhcre in fomc place, of which he does not remember." *' That when Mr. La Marre fent to feek the deponent the day of the de- livery, he feut to the deponent's houfe, but he was not at home." In the next fentence, he fays, «< That he believes that La Marre came him- fclf, but that not having found the deponent, he did not leave any intimation in ivriting to acquaint him." In a little after, he depofes, " That it was the deponent's father who told p. 961, F. the deponent that La Marre had come, and his father is now dead," "■■' l"hat the deponent's faid father did not tell the deponent the place to which L.I Marre had begged him to come, becaufe he knew the deponent's repugnance to thcfe kinds of operations." Defcription cr Account of the Lady. *^ That Mr. Delamarrc fpoke to him of this afFair, as being fomewhat extra- Dsf. propf. ordinary on account of the advanced age of the perfon : — That he did not tell ^' ^^''' him from what country the Lady came, but only 4hat ilie came from afar, and from beyond fea, and lafl from Rhcims : — That Mr. Delamarre fpoke of this p. 528, A. Lady whom he had delivered as a Lady of great family, without mentioning the namej and that he had expected great advantage from it." Upon the crofs examination, depofes, *' That from the manner in which p -,j, e, jlelamarre fpoke, the Lady was about forty-eight years old, though he did not icll him her age precifely : — That when Mr. Delamarre told him, that the p^.f. proof, i-ibrefaid Lady was from beyond the fea, he did not afk him of what country fhe F-S^^' ^' was, and that he did not know: — That he did not afK nor know, and that Mr. Delamarre did not tell him if the Lady's hulband was with her at Paris, but only that (he was a married woman, 9 Tm ( 6* ) 1'he time of the BcUveryl Dcf, ptPDf, *• That it may be about fixteen or fcventeen years fince this delivery happene'd, -— p',517, A. t^^^ deponent not remembering precifely : — That he thinks he rccolleils it waj. towaids the end of the Sprinp-, or in the months of June or July, fo far as he can remember." At his fccond cxaminaticn, upon a qucftlon put to him on the part of the Purf. prrof, defendant, he depofed, " That tijc delivery of the Lady from beyond the fea p, 060, D, in queftioa happened after the deponent's return from the army, which was, as he has already faid, in the year 1747 ; that oiherwife he would not have had knov/ledge of it ; that is to fay, if the delivery had happened while the deponent was at the army, Mr. Delamarre could not have fpoke to him of it in the time.'* the Ilcufe ii-here the Delivery happened* D;:f. rr.-.t, *' That i\!r, Delamarre did not tell the deponent precifely in v^hat place, or ^" '"" ' in whofe houfe, the Lady was delivered, becaufe he was piqued on account of the deponent's not being prefent at the delivery j but that the faid Mr. Dela- marre had feveral 1) ing-in houfcs (depots) where he brought women to bed : That he had fome places of this kind near the Hotel Dieu, in the quarter of St. Andre des Arts^ and in the quarter of St. Hcnorc ; and the deponent fufpedls this delivery may have happened in the quarter of St. Andre dcs Arts, becaufe lie fav/ Mr. De'amarre furulry times turn to that fide in taking the flreet dc rEpe^ roily which leads into the flicet de Pasn." .— p, 53c, A. Upon the crofs examination, he depofed, *' That Mr. Delamarre did not tell him in whofe houfe the Lady was brought to bed, but believes only, as he has faid already, that it was in the quarter of St. Andre des Arts." P 5 21, F, At the fame examinatio.i, he depofed, " That when he met Mr. Delamarre CGir.ir,^ fiom St. Andre des A;ts ftiect into the ftreet de I'Eperon, the faid Mr. IX'amarre nc\cr told the deponent that he was goii g to Madame le Brun's, cfpccially as he never mentioned to the deponent where the faid Madame le Brun •.-.■..d." 6 'Circumjlancis ( 63 ) Circumjlances fuhfequent or relative to the Delivery. *' That Mr. Dclamarre told him, that one of the children of that ftran^cr Ocf. prrc , Lady had been entrufted to his care : That he put the child out to nurfe in the ^' ^""'^ neighbourhood of Paris, towards Belvillc or Menilmortan, and that he expedled it would turn out greatly to his advantage. Adds, That the faid Mr, Delamarrc had the care of feverai other children, and paid thofe who kept them ; but he fpoke to him more particularly of the faid flranger Lady's child : — That he told p. sz8, S, him, that one of the twins was delicate, and probably it was the one who re- mained at Paris, and was entrulled to his care." L^pon the crofs examination, he depofed, " That he has frequently taken a walk p. 53:, a, along with IMr, Delamarre towards Mcnilmontan, but Mr. Dclamarre did not iTiCnticn to him, that the child cntrufled to his care, and fpoke of above, or any ctlicr child, v.'as at nurfe in that diftridl." h\ the continuation of the fame crofs examination, he dcpofcs, "That he 0.529,1, docs not recoiled that Mr. Delamarre told him, that fccrecy had been recom- mended u ith refpcvl to this delivery, and with rcfpecl to the place v»here the child had been put." " That he does not remember that Mr. Dclamarre told him for how many » r, months he paid the nurfe's fee, ncr at what time the child was taken away, nor to whom he gave it; but remembers only, that Mr. Dclamarre told him, that he had no longer his penuoner, and that he always expected crrcat advantages iVom it." " That AL'-. Dclanir.ne never told him, that he had wrote to the father anJ p. 532, B, mother about this child, ar,d that they never entered together into fuch details." *' That Mr. Dclamarre never told him, upon whofj recommendation he had ?-sZh ^> been employed in this delivery." At his fecond examination, when called upon by the plaintiffs, he depofed, Purf. rmof, *' That he does not knew of any wonian of condition v/Iio was delivered by ^' ^ ^' " Pierre La Marrc, except the Li.dy fiom cne of the provinces, and the Lady from beyond fea, cf wiiom the deponer.t ^poke in his forrr^cr depnlltion : That the deponent ncer heard ATonficui l.a Mane ip-e.ik o; hi-. b:v.;r.j delivered any foreign Lady, excep*: the f"aid L?.'.'.y frcm ' cycr.d !':a." T T E R III. My Lord, F the Letters which I have had the honour to addrefs to your Lordfhip lliall happen to fall into the hands of perfons accuflomcd to the inveftigation of fads, and willing to take the trouble of read- ing the full difcuflion that has been given of Menager's teflimony, they will probably be furprifed to find me at fo much pains to com- bat fuch a mere fliadow of Evidence ; There can be little merit, I own, in gaining a viiflory, where the conquefl is (o eafy ; but I have this apology to offer, that it was upon this man^s teftimony, fuch as it is, that your Lordfhip, in the dccifion of one of the mofl important caufes that has at any time appeared, chiefly founded your opinion, and contended for the revcrfal of the folcmn judgment of the Court of Seffion. Nor is tills the only apology I have to offer; for the encomiums bellowed on Mcnriger''s Evidence, and the arguments ufed in favour of his credibility, were fo intermixed with injurious conjectures and miinuations, and iometimes direct affcrtions, greatly to my preju- dice, that it lecame neceffary for me, in the firft pLicc, to expofe to view, the untenable ground your Lordfliip had occupied, in de- fence of which this facrifice of mo was attempted. If the fads were not fo recent, and fo well known, any infinuaiion tliat your LorcUhip had ipaid regard to fuch a Lcftimony as that of MeiV'gcr, X C 2 ) Men^ger, and ftill more, any infinuatlon that you had made It oiit-- weigh all the other evidence in the caufe, and that it was upon this foundation you Iiad raifed the immerited accufations againft me, might he confidered as malicious mifreprefentation ; But I am con- fident, that, after dtie attention to wliat I have already ftated, and nni now about to mention, many Vvho were prefent at this memo- rable dcc'fionj and even yonr Lordiliip, v/ill do me the jufiice to acknowledge, tliat I impute not to yon any aficrtions or arguments but hicli as really fell from )'onr lips ; — They made too flrong an. irnprelhcn on my memory ever to be obliterated; and if I had flood in need of any aid in the recolleclion of what fo deeply concerned me, the frequent opportunities I have liad of talking over this matter v.'ith m.any of my friends, who gave particular attention to your rea- fonlng, would have afforded me that afllPiance ; I have had the af- fidance alio of fom.e notes that were taken of your fpeecli ; — for notes there were taken, notvvdthftanding the well-judged anxiety which:. your Lordinip, at the meeting of the Houfe on the morning of the decifion, exprclTed for preventing any notes being taken that day in this c.:iuic. Having confidered the intrinfic rftcrits of Menager's teflimony, and brought it to tlie tcft of a comparifon with fome of the capital and indirputable parts of the evidence in the caufc, I mufl now beg leave to conhdcr a little, what may be called the artificial aids, to v.-j.ich your Lordufip had recourie for fupporting the teflimony of tLi^ v.-itncio. Yr -,1 rcprcfcntcd his evidence, as deriving great flrength and cre- f.ii/.iiiy iV;."i his ov/n alhjrtion, that lie had told liis flory in the l.iine manner to me and otiiers from the bcfinniup- ; You faid, that I 'lis aifcrliwU, tliough made in my prefence, Vv-as uncontradi6led, ;\?i'[ hcr.ce concluded that it muH: be true; You vrent Co far as to fclLlivcr it :.3 your opinion to the Noble Lords, that il was competent for C 5 ) ior rnc, though a party in the caiifc, and the conductor of it, to have produced myfclf in evidence againfl; Mcnagcr, for proving that lie had told a different ftory in the beginning; and that as I had not done lb, it mufl be prefumed that I afientcd to the truth of what he liad fiud ; and from thefe premifTes you deduced feveral ingenious arguments in fupport of his teftimony, and to the prejudice of the party whole interells you oppofed. To thefe alTcrtions, and to the whole of the argument on this point, there were fo many obvious and fatisfa6lory anfwers, that it is dif- ficult for me to perfuade myfelf that all of them had efcaped your Lordlhip's obfervation. One general anfwer, which takes in the whole of this matter, luuft be an obvious one, ijiz. That if it appears, as I think it necef- farily mufl, from the Evidence of Sir John Stewart, and from the whole ffate of fads and arguments contained in the papers for the plaintiffs, that Lady Jane Douglas never was delivered by Dclamarre^ the friend of Menager, it became quite immaterial, whether Mc-r linger had told his ffory in the fame manner from the beginning, or not : fo that, admitting it to have been competent^ it was unneccjfiwy for me to appear in evidence, in order to contradicf this man's ailer- tion with regard to his uniformity; nor could there be any occa- I'lon for conluming time in leading a proof, to fhew that, in his extrajudicial convcrfations, he had from time to time varied in his narration. Upon this plain and dccifivc anfwer, I fliould have been inclined to r-cff this matter as conclu^^ivc againff the whole of the fallacious arguments made ule of on tbiis head, were it not that your Lordlhip^ while you feemed to trlun^iph in the ingenuity of thefe arguments, thought proper to mix with them fome tilings, which, however *;ivilly expreifed, bore, in my opinion, a dire^ft imputation on my P s} charader ( 4 ) character and condin£l ; — I cannot permit any thing of this nature to efcape, witliout giving it the anl'wer it merits; and Ihall therefore beg leave to examine your rcafoning as fliortly as poffible ; I do it with the more picafure, as it will tend to throw forae light upon ycur Lcrdrnip's conduct, as well as mine, in this caufc. Let us nvii confider, what additional cretlibilitv is dvx to a wit- i^cii, from i;:2 circumflancc of iiis depoiing at his examination, that he lir.d unifcimiy told his Itory in the lame nianaer extrajudicially. When the veracity of a witnefs is fufpeded, and the queftion is put to him, Whether, upon other occafions preceding his examina- tion, he had told his ftory in the fame manner ? Is it to be expelled, that uich a witnefs will give any other than an aflirmatlve anfwer to i"i:ch a qucriio]i ? V/hcther the v/Itncls be confcious of the truth or fahchood of the flory to which he depofes, his behaviour in fuch a ftuation will be precifely the fame; for fuppohng him. to be ccn- fcions tb.at he is dcnofmg faliely, the pcrfon capable of acling this part can have no icrnplc to add one otlier falfehood to it, by faYi]:g ti^.at lic had, upon Ibrmcr occafions, uniformly tcld his ftory in the fam.e manner; There are even additional motives for this falfehood, iince it worfid be furnifning the means of an impeachment of Ins own tefcinionv, vrcrc he to acknov.dcdge, that upon form.er occa- lions he had told a different or inconfiftcnt llory ; and any witnets wb;0 coidd i:cf.tale in c^ivinrc this additional confirmation of his cvj- (hiicc, woifd h;ive had much more hehtation to bring liimfelf tc the refoli-.tion of giving the faifc teftimony itfelf. Iknce it is evident, tliat an affcrtlon which is as naturally and t.cce'larily the reh:itof a faifc tcuimony as of a true cnc, can never A.-i'h j;,r:icc be appealed to, as a proof cither tor or ogainll the truth c : the fLiijj'xlcd e^■:dcn^c. In f 5 ) In this fituation Menagcr exactly found hlmfclf at the time of liis examination; He perceived that lie mud cither acknowledge, that r.ow or fornierly he had departed from the truth., and fo furnifh proofs of his own falfehood to defeat the very purpofe of Ids tefli- mony, Or he mud boldly affert, that he had uniformly told the very lame flory from the beginning; — Between thcfe two alternatives there was no option ; — Was it then a fair argument, my Lord, to inhnuate, tliat the evidence of this v/itncfs derived great additional llrength and credibility from his ov/n ailertion, that he had told the flory in the fame manner to me and others from the beginning ? It is a thing indeed fo very prcpoflcrous to prove the veracity of a wit- ncfs by his own teftimony in favour of that veracity, that it is amazing how your Lordfliip fliould have been able to drci's up thii matter in the fpecious manner fo fucccfsfully em.ployed by you on the day of the decifion. As this argum.ent, taken by itfelf, could not long l^ave flood th? tcil of examination, it mull: be owmed, that your I.,ordfiiip connected it with another circumidance, on which you laid confiderablc weight, i;iz. That this affertion of Menager's was made by him in my pre- fence at his examination, and had not been contradicted by me. If your Lordlldp mernt that Menager's depcfitioii did not con- tain any contradiction on my part, it is certainlv true; and for thij plain reafjn, That it was impolhble it diould ; The depohtion ot ,1- witnef^ can contain notliing but wduit rrocecds from that witnefs himielf; and it might liave occurred to your LordQiip, that how- ever much I migbit be fnrjuiild at the effrontery of the man, wdien }ie maintained in my prelcnce a facl w'lich I knew^ to be falfe, his depolition could not contain upon the face of it, either any marks of my ama::cn:cnt, or any coiitradiclion on my part to his ailer- tion ^ Bu: ( ^ T But I can :i]n"'Cal to fcveral gentlemen of cliaracler wlio were pre- lent, ibme of whom are known to your Lordfbiip, I might even ap* peal to the agents then prefent for the other party, wliether my ainazemenr at the impudence and fiilf'chiOod of this witnefs was not viiible, and ftroni2;lv marked ? and whether at that very inflant, as well as at other times afterwards, I did not acquaint them of my opinion of this witnefs, and of his having formerly told me a very different ftory ? In the courfe of tlfis caufe, I have often had reafon to regret, that^ from the peculiar circumftances attending it, the proof was taken upon commiflion, inflead of the witneiles heing examined in pre- fcnce of the judges who were to decide upon the evidence; for, by the experience I have now had in the examination of witneiles, I cannot help being of opinion, that the veracity or falfehood of a witnefs is to be judged of by his manner and appearance, as much as by the words which proceed from his mouth ; There never could liave been a Wronger inilance of the truth of this obfervation, than in the cafe of Mcnager; for, in great hncerity I affurc your Lord- lliip, and there are fevcral refpcclable perfons, fome of them of your Lordflup's acquaintance, who vv^ill vouch for the truth of my alTer- tion, that if this witnefs had been examined in prefence of the judges who Vv'cre to decide upon his evidence, his behaviour at the time of liis examinations in France wasfuch, as, with every judge of difcern- ir.ent and impartiality, would have totally deflroye<l any reliance upon what he faid ; The trutli is, lie is a flrange abfurd fellow, r.uich addicted to rodomontade, and who, from confulion of head, as well as want of attachment to truth, and from a ftrong defire of mixing himfclf in matters of importance, is as apt to tell a falfc ilory as a true one at any time, without taking other motives into the account; and I can appeal to tlie gentlemen prcfent, concerning the flrange exhibition made by this abfurd man at his examina- tion, f 7 ) tion, and whether it did not give the idea of a mountclDank dcxflor addrefTmg a popular audience, rather than of a man under any pro- per imprcflion of the folemnity of an oath, or at all anxious about the froth of what he gave in evidence ? But your LordHiin was plcafcd to fay, tliat it was covipcicnt for me to liave produced myicU in evidence aguiniT: Menagcr, for dif-- proving what he had alTerted ; and you even went fo far as to lay, tliat I ought to have Ciono, fo ; — Both thefe propofitions I beg leave to contcft. In this great caufc, I was myfelf one of the plaintiffs, as guardian^ cf the infant Duke of Hamilton ; and bcfides this, your Lordfhip knovv's, that I was the chief conductor of it from beginning to end, both in Britain and abroad. Nov.% it is an Gfiabliihed rule, accordincr to tlie huv and practice in Scotland, which regulated the proceedings in this matter, that a perfon Handing in that lituation, though he is at all times liable to be examined at the infiancc of the oppofite party, cannot be ]M-oduced as an evidence in fupport of his own i'uit, or oa behalf of the party whofe interefts are directed and conducted by himilli; The rcafons of tliis wife regulation arc abundantly obvious ; buf a contrary pohtion I Ihoukl fooner have expected irom anv quarter tlian from your Lordlhip ; for it miufi: be rem.embered, that at an early period, while the preliminary appeal was in dependancc, in the year i 764, your Lordlhip thought proper to hnw^ out terrors to the guardians of the Duke of Ham/ilton, for their inllituting this fuit ; — Retl)rc the proof was taken, and before there was any oppor- tunity of yom" knowing the nature of the Duke of Hamilton's in- tercft in tliis matter, you ventured to give an opinion in the Bloufc of Lords upon what was not then before you, That the Duke of 5 Hamilton {■?>)■ Hamilton Iiacl no intcien. in the qucPiion of Mr. Douglases birth, a-ud you were pleafbd to intimate to liis guardians, that they would be ani'werable for the confequcnccs to their pupil, and for any damages that niiglit be found due, in the event tliat the attack upon Mr. Do'Jghis's birth was found to be injurious ; — Your words were, ■•' Tbiit it \i'ouIJ be a matter to fettle betiveen the Duke of Hamilton " and his guardians, n^uhen he came of age^ I do not admit either the fad or the doQrine v/hieh was thus pre- matureh. and, I may be allowed to fay, improperly advanced by your Lordiliip ; but whether true or not, your ovvu averment ought pe^ cuiiarlv lo have barred your Lordfhip from maintaining, that one of tlicie guardians could be a Vvitncis in this caufe ; for whatever queftions there may be, as to the nature of the intereft which a guardian has in his pupil's cauil^ liere was a folid perfonal and pecuniary intcreft eftablillied by your Lorddiip, which w'ould un- doubtedly of itfelf have been fufficient to exclude the guardian from giving teftimony in wdiat you made his own caufe. But your Lordlhip knows, or might have known, that it is a ])oint pert'eclly underftood and cftablirired in Scotland, not only that no pcrfon can offer himiclf: as a voluntarv, or what they call an iiltroiicjus witnels, but t!i;it a perfon landing in the fituation 1 did, of guardian, manager, and agent in the caufe, is barred from giving evidence, unlels called upon by the oppolite party : even the fitua- tion of agent alone is attended with this confequence : and this w\a8 io well undcrll(;()d by the parties in the courfe of taking the proof, tliat v;hcnevcr any attempt was made by the one party to produce an acicnt as a wiinefs, it was rerularlv ()n])()led and obieQcd to bv the Other ; 'Ihat objedlion flands even prefixed to Mcnager's exa- mination, upon information received, that he had in fomc refpedls acted as agent lor the otlier party, and the metliod of eluding the objeCiioa v/as by a denial ol the latft. Ecfides ( 9 ) Belldes many great authorities in Scotland which I could produce?, and with which your Lordfliip is well acquainted, on the fubjed: of the incompetency of fuch evidence, I have one authority of a very re- fpeclable perfon in England, who was well fkilled in the laws and cuiloms of Scotland, and who enjoyed in both countries that higli cllimation which he meritedj for his Knowlegc, Truth, tlonour, and Delicacy ; I mean the late Mr. Yorke. This gentleman, who was perfectly well acquainted with, all the ■circumftances of the Douglas caufe, and who was greatly furprifed and hurt by the faie of it, took occafion to write to me a letter foou after the deciiion, a compleat copy of which fhall be fent to your Lord/liip, to fliew how different his fentiments were from thofe which you delivered in the Houfe of Lords ; at preient it is fufFi- cient to tranfcribe that paragraph of his letter which relates to what your Lordihip had aflerted of the Cowpetsncy of my appearing as evidence for contradiding Menager ; It is in thefe words : " You " could not have given evidence-, confiflently wuth the rules of the *' law of Scotland, by which the execution of the commifTion was *' regulated ; if you could, fome circumftances, which appear to " me of little weight, would have been explained." Mr. Yorke had always been of opinion, that Menager's evidence, and every thing relating to it, was a contemptible part of the proof. By the above extraO: from his letter, your Lordihip will perceive fome traces of this, and particularly that he knew it not to be com- petent for me to give evidence in this caufe. — It would have been flrange if Mr. Yorkc, after fo much experience of caufes from Scot- land, had been unacquainted Avith what was io firmly efiablifliied by the law and pradicc of that country. But, my Lord, if it had been r^w^-^r/tv;^, tlicrc were reafons againfl: ipch a "meaiure; which alone weie fufnciCiit to have reiirained me ; — CL The ( 10 ) The indelicacy and impropriety of my appearing as a voluntary evidence, and in fupport of a caufe, with refpedl to which I flood in inch particular circumflancesj would have been with me decilive againft fuch a ilep. Ill this cauf^^ there were many incidents, where, if propriety could have permitted my appearing as evidence in behalf of the l^iaintiiTs, my teniniony in relating the true llatc of fadts muft have been of real iiie to tlicrn, not only in fliewing the falfehood of Me- nager, but in many other particulars relative to the condudl of the caufe abroad ; The incompetency of my evidence excluded all idea of offering it; but if it had been competent, an obvious refied:ion muft have occurred to mie, that, from the peculiarity of my fituation in this caufe, my character was unfortunately too much at flake, even v.'Ithout my attem.pting voluntarily to intrude myfelf as a wntnefs, whether In fupport of evidence produced on the part of the plaintiffs, (;r In contradiction to that produced by the cppofite party; — The f tuation of ruardian to the Duke of Hamilton, and that of condu(fior and agent of tlic caufe, had rendered me fufTiciently the objedt of the malice and obloquy of the contending party, without my afliim- ir:g the part ofwltnefs alfo in this caufe: it was eafy to forefee the commentaries that would have attended fo indelicate a ftep on my part ; and it might have occurred to your Lordfhip, that I could not with decency expert credit, where I had become fo much a party concerned ; and therefore that I fhould better flievv^ my fenfe of ho- Ticur by keeping filcnce, unlcfs where I could fpeak with fome de- 1.-JCC of Vv'cight and credit, Tlicfc rcafons would have been of themfelves fufriclcnt to pre- vent iv.c frona making any attempt towards giving evidence In this faulc, and they arc fuch as ought to have retrained me, even if I had not i:cen barred by the laws and cuftoms of tliat country where the c.;i!i;: was tu be tried in the firil: inftance; and indeed, my Lord, the f n ) the reafons are irrcfragnhlc; for had I been capable of any of the^ enormities which the other party, to fervc their own purpofes, en- deavoured to impute to mc, I might liave been equally liable to the fufpicion of ftretching an oath to fcrve a particular purpofe. Tliough I never could think of the illegal attempt of becoming a volunteer in evidence, or of appearing as a witnefs on behalf of the plaintiffs, I was ready at all times to undergo an examination, and to anfvver every queftion that could be put to mc by the oppofite party ; To them it was competent to call upon me in evidence ; They knew they had a right to require my teftimony ; and their true reafon for not calling upon me to confirm Menager's afTertion, or to give an account of what paffed in the firft interviews with him, was, that they knew from what I had declared all over Paris, and particularly to fome of their own agents, at the time of Menager's examination, that this witnefs had given a falfe teftimony, and mod remarkably falfe, in the aflertion of his having told me the fame flory from the beginning. But, my Lord, though, for the reafons above mentioned, I did not and could not adl as a voluntary evidence to contradid: Menager, it was by no means a true reprefentation of the fad:, that his aflertion liood uncontradiclcd ) for, if your Lordfliip had attended to the proof, and to the papers in tlic caul'e, you mufl: have perceived that his affertion is contradided, not only by others, but even by himfelf. Any perfon who Vn-IU take the trouble to compare Menager's depo- litions in the years 1704 and 1763, will hnd, that, bcfulcs ctlier inconfiftcncics, there is a ren:arkable contradiction m the account lie gives of our lirft converfations. In his depoiition 1764, he relates all the circumflances Vvhich he ccaceivcd to be circntially conneded with the delivery in quelVnui, Q^a and ( '3 ) and particularly depofcs to his knowlege of a conne<flIon between' Dclainarrc and a Madame k Brim ; and after relating feveral parti- culars concerning this Madame le Drun^ and her daughter^ he ex- prefsly depofcs, that, in the firft and fecond interviews I had with Jiim, " he had related to me what he hath above depofed." As I was confcions that Menagcr, both in th.ls and many other rci'pc'flis, had given a falfe account of what had palfcd at the firfi: in- terviews between us, there were ibme queftions put bv me to hinv on this iiibiccl, at the time when he was called upon to anfwer cer- tain interrogatories at the inflance of the plaintiffs ; and thefe quef- tions were made fo fpecial with regard to what had really pafled in the firft converfitions with himi, that I thought there was fome chance that he would not have the affurance to deny the fadt. In particular, as he had at our firfl conferences pofitively aflured mc, that he knew not nor ever had heard of a Madame le Brim ac- quainted with Delamarre, one of my queftions toMenager upon tliis crofs examination was, Whether, in the firfl converfations with mc, he had not cxprcisly faid fo ? His anfvvcr is in theie words (p. 970, purfuers' proof) : " That in thef: converfitions the deponent did not *' fpeak of Madame le Bnni, becaufc no queftion was put to him *' with regard to Madame le Brun.'" Another remarkable inflance of the fame fort of contradidion and faifcliood occurs in a very material part of his dcpoiition, relative to the time when the delivery alluded to by him flrould have hap- pened. At his examination in 1764, he fpecifies the time to have been then about fixtecn or feventeen years fmce that delivery happened; riiul this is one of the particulars which he depofcs had been related by hhn to n\<: at our firfl conferences. As ( '3 ) As tills fame wltncfs Mcnager, in the converfations I had with him in the year 1762, had given me a very different account, and particuhirly had referred the dehvery then i'poke of by liim to a much more early date, long prior to Lady jnnc Douglas's arrival at I'aris, I interrogated him at his examination in 1765, Whether, in- tlie converfations between us in 176:^., he and Mr. Giles had not told me, that it was at the Hotel IJieii that they heard Delamarre fpeak of the delivery, and whether they liad not then alfo pofitively faid, that the delivery they fpoke of had happened at leaft feventeer> or eighteen years before the year J 762 ? Menager-^ in anfwer to the firfh queftion, dcpofes, *' That, in^ " thefe converfations, Mr. Giles faid, that it was at the Hotel *' Dicu that he heard La Marr fpeak of the faid delivery." And in anfwer to the fccond queftion, depofes, " That he does not remem-- " ber, that in the converfations foreiliid between Mr. Stuart, Monf. " Giles, and the deponent, the deponent or Monf. Giles faid to *' Mr, Stuart, that it was then fevcnteen or eigliteen years iinca *' the. delivery whicli they had heard La Marr fpeak of. Adds^ That " hi thefe converfations there \vas no queftion as to the time, only as '' to thefacV Thus it appears, from Menager's own account, that two very ei-- fcntial parts of tlie teftimony which he gave m 1764, I'/z. what re- lated to the period of the delivery, and all that related to Madame Is Brim, and her connection with Delamarre^ had neither of them been- mentioned or fpoke of in the converfations between him and me, ■ which is direclly in contradiction to that other affcrtion in his depo- lition, where, after fpeclfying the tifiie of the delivery performed by DclauTarre, and after m.entioning his connciftion with a Madame le Bnni, c>zc. he depofes. That he had related the flime things to me. at the iirn interviews which I had with hira. What ( -4 ) What reliance can there be on the teRimony of a man who thus folemnly depofes to fads contradldory to each oth.er ? To which of thefe oppofite ailertions, one of which muft neceflarily be falfe, docs your Lord (hip chufe to give your ftiith ? Your attachment to this witnefs will probably lead you to conclude, that if the one affertion was falfe, the oppofite one, alfo depofcd to by him, was certainly true: but here again your Lordfliip's inference would be totally erro- neous; for Mcnager, as if actuated by an antipathy to truth, has avoided and difguifed the truth in both of the contradidory accounts contained in his depofitions. The real fact is, that in the firfl conferences I had with this wit- nefs, much inquiry was made by me, as may naturally be imagined, both about perfons of the name of Le Bnm^ and concerning the pe- riod of any deliveries which either he or Mr. Giles had ever heard of, as performed by their friend La Marr : — Both of them not only aflured me, that they had no knowlcge of any Madame le Brun in connexion with Dclamarre, or of his acquaintance, but they both alfo agreed, that the dehvery which they had heard Delamarre talk of at the Hotel D'len^ which is the only ground-work of Manager's ftory, was a delivery which had happened at leaft icventecn or eighteen years before the year 1762 ; in the recol- lection of which they were affiftcd by their knowlcge of the time when they lived together in the fame chamber at the Hotel D'leii^ where the converfation happened ; which place both Meficger and (> les, as well as Delamarre and Mr. Melet^ who is referred to by Menager as prefent at the converfation, had all of them left before the year 1 748. Menager, in liis laft dcpofition, has ventured to affirm, that in the converfations 1 had with him, there was no mention or queftion iiboiii a IhicJanie le Brun^ or about the time of the delivery inquired after. C ij ) after. Is it pofTible that your Lordfliip could give credit to him in thefe particulars ? The very purpofc of my going to Paris v^-as to difcover thefc elTentlal perfons, La Marr the accoucheur, and Ma- dame le Brun, m whofe houfe the delivery was faid to have hap- pened ; and the great objecSl of every inquiry muft have been, to cilicovcr any traces of thefe two perfons, fo material in this afuiir, and v;ho, from the fads alleged, mull: necefL\rily have been well acquainted with each other; Is it then probable or credible, that when my fole purpofc of m.eeting with Mc?ingcr and Giles muft have been to learn from them, whether they had any knowlege of tlie delivery in quefiion, that I could poiTi!)ly have omitted to in- quire of them, whether they themfelves knev/ the Madame le Bruii in whofe houfe and in whofe prefence it v.-as faid to have happened,- or whether they knew of any perfon of that name who had been connc'fled with La Marr ? Or will it be believed, that if iNIenager h:id, in the frfl converfations with me, pretended to any knowlege oi a delivery performed by his friend Delamarre at all refembling that of Lady Jane Douglas, that I could poffibly have omitted to put fome cjucftions to him relative to the date cv period of that event ; a- circumftance fo indifpenlibly nccefllu^}^ to be known, that without it every other circuraftance of correfpondence, fuppoling there had- been many fuch, could have been of no avail ? I fay, my Lord, that the intrinfic evidence vrhich Menager's own depofitions afforded of his falfehood and felf-contradidions in the in- flances above mentioned, felected from a number of others, vrcre of themfelves fufficient to have fhewn, that tliere could be no reliance upon this man's evidence ; but much more were tlicy fufhcient to have excluded your Lordfhip from laying fo much weight upon the aifertion, of his having told me the fame things from the be- ginning, when you muft have perceived, th.at he had depofed to two contradictory accounts of this fad, and that the account J finally ( i6 ) finally given by liim was ia iticlf totally inconriflcnt and incr«:= dible. It muPu alio have appeared to your Lordfliip, upon peru-fal of the proof, tliat the truth of Menager's aflcrtions v/as exprefsly barred and excluded by the depofitions of Meff. Giles and Mekt, the two pcrfons to whom Menager hhnlelf appeals, as having been prefent with him at the Hotel Dieti when Delamarre fpoke to them of the delivery. That converfation with Delamarre makes the ground- work of the depofitions of all tliefe three witnelTes; and it appears by the depofitions of Melet and Giles, fupported by the proof, as to the time when all of them left the Hotel Dkn, that the <lelivery then mentioned had happened fome years before 1 748 ; Their depo- fitions with regard to the time of the delivery confirm the account I have given, as to what pailed on that fubje6l-, in my firil conver- fition v.ith Meff. Menager and Gilco, and contradi<fl the account given by Mcnagei\ who (lands fmgle and unfupported, not only in his relation of what palled at our firft conference, but alfo in the account he gave at his examination with regard to the time of the delivery, the clrcumllance of tivnn\ and that of its being the de- livery ot an i^ig^'d lady, and lafl from Rbewis ; — circumfcanees which are not to be found in the depofitions of Melet or Giles, and of which jMcnagcr himlcll: was equally ignorant at the time of my firft inter- views with him, until he learnt them from myielf, in the courfc of our converfation. The plain matter of fa£l is this; Menager's ftory originally re- lated prccifcly to the fame delivery as that referred to in the depofi- tions of Mell. K]dct and Giles^ which was a delivery that had either !)een pcrfcjrmed, or boafted o^.^ in converfation hy Delamarre, amon^,' his companions at the Hotel Dieu, fome years before 1748; and Menager's original account of this matter agreed with theirs, with icfpc<5t ( 17 ) i'efped to the period of the convcrrr.tioii relative to tliat deUvcry ; Even with regard to the circumftanccs of it, his firfi: account contained no information of any material particulars, more than what appear in the depofitions of Mclct and Giles. This man Mcnagcr, however, after learning the particulars of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery, and after feeing the importance of that evcut, thought proper to inter- mix with the original ilory, fuch circuuiflanccs of Lady Jane's de- livery, as he judged woidd be fuinclcnt to create a perfect rcfemblance. It would be tedious, and unneceffarily add too much to the length of this Letter, were I to give a full detail of what paOed at the hrfl; interviews I had with this witncis ; 1 fliall only mention one or two remarkable incidents that happened at thefe interviews, which, at the fime time that they added to the conviclion of my mind, that the delivery mentioned by him related not to Lady Jane Douglas* ferved alfo to give me a decided opinion with regard to the genius and charatler of this man, on whofe veracity, I had foon occafion to perceive that there could be no reliance. In the beginning of my conference with MeiT. Menager and Giles* I had abftained from acquainti ug them with the particular circum- ftanccs of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery, wifning firfl; to lee, whe- ther, in the courfe of the anfvvers to the queftions put to them, any circun"i[hinccs might come from them fpontancoully, that bore re- fend)lance to the circumflances ot the event iu qiieilion, as by this means, I fliould be better a!)lc to judge of th.c truth and certainty of their knowlcge. The anfwers I received Irom both of them, when examined in this manner, convinced me that thcv had no knowlegc of any thing relative to Lady Jane Douglas's denvery, or of any tlellvery performed by Delamarre rcfembrmg it ; and as we remain- ed together fome time after thcfc (jueiiions were finilhed, it ap- peared to me, that there could then be no harm in acquainting them of the declared [Trrrticulars of the event v.liich had given rife to the prefcnt iiKjuiry. In ilathig the fads, I had occanon to acquaint R them ( i8 ; \\icn\ of tl;c name of the lady fuid to have been deUvered j. The <.:rcat family to which flic belonged; The large eftate to which l!)C child of that delivery might fiiccced ; The age of Lady Jane ; 1 Icr travels from Aix-la-Chapelle to R/jci^/iSj and from Rbeims to Pciris^ with the clrcumftance of its being a delivery o£ ?na/^ tivinsj &c. Theie, I told them, w^ere the alferted circnmftances of this event, and that I had come to France to difcover the trnth, and to make a report eltlicr for or againil the reality of the delivery, ac-* cordincr as the true flate of fads fliould authorife me. 't> At the fame time, I had taken care not to difclofe to them, w^he- ther my wiihes or intereft were for or agalnft the delivery ; and accordingly Menngcr himfelf has depofed, That he could not dif- cover at thefe interviews wdicther I was for or againft the delivery in quefllon, and that the only thing I afked of him w^as, that he might tell the truth. 1 had alfo abflained from any commentaries upon the anfwers given by Menager and Giles to my queftions, re- ceiving the anfwers as they gave them, without difcovering wdiether thev corrcfpondcd to the event in queflion or not; and it feemed to me, from the whole of Menager's behaviour at that time, that he liad conceived a notion, that I rather wiflied the proof to come out in favour of the delivery. Of this your Lordfliip will judge, by what 1 am now to relate. AVhen the particulars and importance of the delivery in queftlon jiadbeen difclofed, in the manner above mentioned, Menager's zeal to be of fome ule, or to have fome concern in this affair, was vifibly iQcreafcd ; The fnfl: fymptom of it appeared in what related to the drcumilance of tzvins ; Until he had learnt from me that the delivery in queftion was a delivery of tzvhis, nothing of this kind had been mentioned or hinted at by him ; but after the information received as above, his language, in the courfe of the fame day's converfation, <au:ie to this, that, upon rccollc<^ion, he believed the delivery which he ( 19 ) he had formerly mentioned as performed by Dclamarrc was a de- livery of tivnis^ though Dclamarre naturally fpokc to him cbiefly of the child under his care. — Still, however, Menager did not that day venture to recolledl; that the Lady was agcd^ or had come laft from Rhcinis'y for, by his anfwers in the preceding part of the eon- vcrfation, he had barred himfclf from tlii^, l)y declaring pofitivcly that he knew nothing about the pcribii delivered, or from wliencc Ihe came. But the moll; curious and remarkable part of tliis man*s converfa- tion, was what pafTed upon my iliewing him the copies of the let- ters from Pkr La Ma/-r to Sir John Stewart ; which letters Menager, in his depofition. has acknowledged were fliewn to him at tliis frll interview, I af!<ed him, if he thought thefe letters refembled the flile of hi> friend ? His anfwer was, that Delamarre was a remarkable bad writer and fpellcr, and he could not fay whether he might not be capable of writing letters to that purpofc ; but that, without feeing the origi- nals of his hand-writing, he could not judge v,'hether thefe letters were his or not. I dcfired him to attend to a circumflance in one of thefe letters, where P/Vr La Marr acquaints Sir John Stewart, that he had been ten months at Naples ; and as Menager, \i\ anfwer to a former queflion, had told me, that his friend never had been either at Naples or in Laiy^ I defired to know from him, how we iliould be able to account for La Marr^s writing a letter of this fort to Sir John Stewart; — The anfwer he gave, after thinking a little, was, that his friend was very much of a lihcrtin^ and that he had often fuffer- ed by tlie maladie venericnne ; and that as that difeafe in France often goes under the name of the viaiadk de Naples^ from whence it came, La Marr, by the I'Gyagc dc Naples^ had probably meant to intimate R 2 t.> ( 20 ) to hi3 correfpondcnt, that he (Delamarre) had lately pajje le grand rc'jneaj pour la malad'ie 'uenerienne. This anlVcr was fo remarkable, made fuch an impreffion on me and on Mr. Buhot, who was alio prefent, and fhewed us fo com- pletely the dlfpoiition and character of this man, that it was impof- fible for us ever to forget it. Without difcovering to Menager whether his anfwer was fatif- factory or not, I proceeded to afk him, what could be the meaning of that other paragraph in the letter, where La Marr faid he in- tended to return to Naples^ as foon as he found a friend to accom- pany him in the journey ? — Here he w^as a little puzzled ; How- ever, at lafl he even found a folution for this ; He faid, that proba- bly it was inferted to difguife the matter, in cafe his correfpondent, the father of the child, had occafion to fhew the letter to his wife or others, as by that means they would be more at a lofs to know the real meaning of the voyage ch Naples^ which was probably meant to be underilood only by his correfpondent. What effedc fuch converfation would have had upon your Lord- fhip, I will not pretend to fay ; but the efFed; it had upon me was certainly to convince me, that this was an abfurd, ftrange, rattle- headed Being, defirous of mixing himfelf in an affair, which by that time he had learnt was of great confequence, and ready to afTert or invent any thing likely to acquire him profit, or to give him an importance in this bufmefs. We parted without my cxprefhng to him, whether he had given fatisfa^lory anfwers or not ; and as, in the courfe of the converia- tion, he had learnt all the effential particulars of Lady Jane Dou- glas's delivery, he was qualified, in the next company where he had occafion to mention that fubjed, to mend his original ftory of a de- livery ( 21 ) Hvcry performed by Delamarre, as much as he pleafecl, and to blend it with the circumftances he had now learnt of the delivery in queftion. — Tills is the true folution of what is faid to have happened at the Prince de Turenne's, where Menager is fuppofed to have men- tioned fome of the particulars of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery, which he had recently learnt from me. Being made certain, by what pafTed at this interview, that Me- nager had not any knowlcge of a delivery performed by Delamarre, fuch as could corrcfpond with the circumftances of that of Lady Jane Douglas, I never after this meeting with him in I'Gi in- quired further about him ; nor did I ever meet v;ith him any where, till the day of his examination in 1764, excepting once, in Autumn 1763, when I met him at the Hotel dc Modene^ in the apartments of Sir William Maxwell; at which meeting there were prefent fevcral gcntlen^.en, fome of them Brlilfn, who, from the converfation which then paffed, conceived the fame imprcffion of Menager's character and difpofition that I had done at my firft conference with him. Thefe gentlemen, wlm had no Intereil: in the caufe, will, I am perfuadcd, have no dilFicuIty to allow me to mention their names, if neceffary, and they fliall be communicated to your Lordfhip as {{A)n as vou lignify any wIlli for information on this point; in the mean time, I may fiifcly venture to affure your Lordiliip, that the falfehood and fmgular charader of this man Menager, appeared to all the gentlemen prefent in the fame point of view as it did to me, and was frecpaently afterwards the fubje^t of our converfation. In the interval between my meeting with Menager in 17G2, and this meeting in Autumn 1763, he had been in the hands of fome perfons, very zealous friends of Mr. Douglas. It further appears from Menager's own depofition, that he had the honour to be con- ilituted ( .-a ) flitutcd body-lurgeon to a certain Gentlenian, very nearly alike] to Sir John Stc^Yart ; and though he (Menager) acknowledges, that it was the Douglas caufe which gave rife to this acquaintance and employment, yet he depofes, (Purf. proof, p. 967) " That they *• never entered into the detail of the Douglas affairs ; their coiwcr- " fations (according to the depofition of this credible witnefs) did. ^' ahvays run upcn vicdical matters^ It was proved, that this fame witnefs had, long before his exami- nation in I 764, been fupplied with a printed memorial on the part of the defendant, which contained the whole hiftory, on his part, in relation to the circumftances of Lady Jane's delivery. Menager, in his depofition, acknowledged that he had in his poifeflion fucli memorial, which he had received from an agent for the defendant; and that he had alfo a printed memorial on the other fide, which he liad found by accident ; but, to prevent any fufpicion of his having received aiTiftance from the contents of thefe papers, he afferted upon oath, " That he had never read neither the one nor the other of " tliefc papers." This fingular want of curiofity, confidering the bufy and important part which this witnefs had aifumed to himiclf in this contclf, appeared not extremely probable, and ferved only to incrL-aic tlic fufpicion of his having taken every aid to make the cir-» >.umftanccs of his fiory apply to thofc of Lady Jane's. At th: interview before mentioned with Menager in Autumn 1763, 1 wao a good deal amazed, to find how much his original flory was ini- j^TOVLU iince our full meeting in 1762, and could not help teftifying iiiy Un-prlic. Still, however, it fell fliort of what it afterwards ..;ac3untcd to, at the time of his examination in November i7^'^4. What had pailed at my firil confercnccb with Menager and Giles Vv-as not only mentioned to our French counfcl in the caufe, both by me and ( 2,-; ) and by Mr. Biihot, tlic Jnfpecicur ck Police^ who liad been prefcnt with ine, but it was a frequent fubjech of converfaticMi in otlicr (juarrer-; There was icarcely a friend or particular acquaintance 1 had at Pari-, who had not occafion, at one time or other, to liear me talk of it, and particularly of the curious interpretation Menager had given of the meaning of the 'voyage dc Naples performed bv Put La Man \ The oddity of this circumflance had made fuch an impreffion on me, that it became a fubjed: of mirth with my friends, particularly witli the French counfel, and was oftencr repeated than would othcrwifc have happened, had it been lefs ridiculous. Your Lordfhip, taking it for granted, tliat iNIdingcr, in his frft converfations with me, had told precifely the fame (lory which he afterwards did on his examination, was pleafcd to build u|)on tliat ground additional fuppolitions ; Your exprcflions conveyed to the Houfc of Lords a very extraordinary fentiment, intimating it as your opinion that 1 mull: have fupprelled and concealed, even from the French counfel, what had thus pafled wdth IMenagcr, cthcrwiic, you thought, fhat they w^ould have feen that the delivery had been vc:- formed by Delamarre, and could not afterwards have ad\i fed t!^e adion carried on before the Parliament of Paris. — You were ia\o pleafed to fuppofe, that, for a hmilar reafon, I had avoided calling upon him as a witnefs in that ad:ion. — Nothing could be more un- juflifiablc than both thefe fuppofitions. Your Lordfliip muft have obferved, that at my firft conferences with Menager, there were two perfons preient in company, Alonf. Giles and IVlonf. Buhot, Infpcchur ck Police ; and you mull alfo have obferved, that, from Menager's own acknowledgment upon oath, no arts of feduO:ion or improper pradices were ever in any degree attempted w^ith him, by any pcrfon on the part of the plain- tiffs ; The only recommendation to him from me, as he himfelf 8 acknowledges, ( 24 ) acknowledges, was to tell the truth ; neither was there any deriie or recommendation to him, or to any of the pcrfons prefent, to fup- prefs their knowlege of fads, or to keep private what paflcd at thefc interviews. It miifi, therefore, have been obvious to your Lordflilp, that there could be no fcheme on my part to conceal any information received irom Mcnager; You will hardly think me fo void of undcrftand- ing, as to have imagined, that what thus paffed in the company of tliree indifferent perfons could remain a fecret, efpecially when none of them had been defired to make a fecret of it. But if I had been capable of fo abfurd a fcheme, the diiTiculty of fuccecding in it was greatly increafed by the prefence of the hifpcc- tciir ck Police^ who had been appointed by the Lieutenant- General de Police to make diligent inquiry into this matter, and with a flri6t injundion to report to himfelf a faithful account of any difcovcries that might be made citlicr for or againft the truth of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery; — A difobedience to this injuncSlion, or any un- faithful report made by the ollker of police, might have been fatal to him, aiui forfeited his office. If, in tlicfe circumftanccs, Menagcr had given to I\h-. Bubot and me any account that to us appeared amounting to a probability of Lady Jane's having been delivered by Dclamarrc, it migbt liave oc- curred to your Lordfhip, tliat ncitlicr Mr. Ihdiot, in his fituation with rcr|)ccl to the fupreme Mrigiflrate of Police, nor I v/itli JTipccf to tl'.c hrcncii counfcl, would have ventured on f) foollfh a projccl' as to conceal it from thcrn, bccauie it v/ould liaVe forfeited all credit witli both, v/licn tlicfe tliiPigs came afterwards to be dil'covercd, and there could be no chance (A their not being difcovered in tlie courfc of the conteft. Befidcs, as I mufl have v/ilhed for tlie afhilanee of ( -^ ) the French counfcl la the cauie, 1 could receive no elTcdual aid from -tliem, without infonnlng them of all the evklciaee which had been dilcovered. Thefe particulars were under yoiu-Lordiliip's view at the time vou made the fiippofitions io injurious to me; I will now beg leave to add the direct evidence of the French gentlenicn thcmlclvcs, to whom the direction and condud of the adion in France was p.rin- cipally entrufted ; I mean MeiT. lyOutrcr/ioiit and Dar/jjii, two gentlemen of the highell reputation for integrity as well as abilities in the profeiTion of the law, who would be an ornament to that pro- feihon in any country, and whofe private cliaraders would procure to them the fame rcfped and confideration iu England, as they enjoy at home. YourLordfhlp will fmd annexed, copies of two letter? received bv me from them, of which the originals are in miy pollclTion, and at your command whenever you pleafe to call for them ; From thefe letters you will fee a complete refutation of the infm nations above mentioned that were fo improperly thrown out againft me ; You will fee that I had not failed to relate to thefe gentlemen what pafied at tlie f ril interviews with Menager, and will perceive the impreffion which the circumflance of the toy age dc Naples, that fubject of mirth and pleaiantry amongft us, had made upon them. By the iamc letters you will alfo difcover, that inflead of my avoidip.g the examination of INlenager in the French aclion, I liad frequently propofcd and preflcd tliis meafure. For the truth of this, I can appeal not only to thefe letters, and to the evidence of feveral gentlemen in France, but to a very refpec- table BrliiOi fubjed, who was at Paris at that time ; I mean Mr. Pulteney, who had occafion, as counfcl for the Duke of Hamilton, S to C 2<? ) to he prcfent at fome of the meetings with MciT. D'Oiitt'emont and Daiijo-!!^ when I propofed and prefTed tills meafure ; and Mr. Pul- tcney was ftrongly of opinion with me, tliat Menager ought to be examined in the French acllion. My rcafon for wlfhing Menager to be examined was, that from what pafTed at the firft conferences with him, I had conceived a very ])ad opinion of the man j I faw him to be of fuch a compofition, that if he fell into bad hands, or met with any encouragement, he would be ready to extend his evidence any length that might be defircd, and fo by fome falfe hmilitude endeavour to create a fort of puzzle in the caufe ; I gave it therefore as my opinion to the French counfel, that we ought to afcertain the extent of his flory by a judi- cial examination in the beginning. Mr. Danjou w^as of the fame opinion with Mr. Pulteney and me ; but Mr. DYJiitre?!i07it (the leading counfel in the whole condudl of the caufe, and to w^hofe opinion great deference was juftly due) was of a different fentlment, and gave fuch reafons in fupport of his way of thinking, that my propofal of examining Menager was laid afide. This facl, and the reafons given by Mr. D'Outremont, will apjiear to your Lordiliip, on the perufal of the annexed letters from MeiL J)'Outienioiit and Danjou, * ^^ r.:ll.:cv in the Re i^fonhi^s founded on Mcnager'^s ylljcrlions. HAVING flicwn the falfchood of Menager's affertions ia rclalicn to wliar paflcd at my hrft interviews w^lh him, I fhall nov; beg leave to offer one general obfervation upon your Lord- fjiip's manner of arguing from the evidence of this witnefs; It is an ( »; T ?n o1)rcfvatlon ^^Iiicli, by tliofc who uiiciulctl to liic n^xic lA y^.ih)n* ing adopted on the day of llic dccilloi], will be allowed to be a Itrikini; one, though by fomc flrange fatahty, and by the ch-eumdance oi' many Noble Lords being overpowered by the fatigue of tlie day, and by tlic crowd and infufferable heat of thie houlc, the fallaciouf- ncfs of the reafoning cfcapcd that day withiout aniniadverfion. Your argument was conduded in this manner; Without an.v real evidence, and upon the faith of Menager's aficrticMi ak)ne, your LordDiip took it for granted, in the hrft place, that from the begin- ning he had given to me and others precifcly the fame account of this matter, which he afterwards gave upon Ids examinn.tion in 17(^4 : Thence you made an inference, that the ftorv related by him of a delivery performed by Delanianr^ with all the circumflances of hmi- litude to Lady Jane Douglas's contefled delivery, muil certainly be true in every particular; and after this rapid conclulion from falfc preniiiles, you then exulted in the comparilon whicli you made on the one hand, between the various clrcumftanccs afcribed by Menager to the delivery performed by his friend Delamarre, and, on the other band, the known, or at leaft the alferted circumftances of Lady jane Douglas's delivery. All this was fo managed, that thcfe wlio liad only a general knowlege of the cauie mufl have Imagined, that tlic principal, If not the only quefiion, was concerning the aj'pi:c::ti^;i of the circumftances of the delivery mentioned by Menager, to the circumilaiices ailerted concerning that of Lady Jane. To thio poiiit chieflv you corurlvcd to draw ilie attention of the Houfc ; and then indeed there was a hne field open, which your Lordfi.ip did not fiiil to make ufe of. — With triumph you prefild home tipon your Illuflrious audience, tl\e conformity and amazing iimdhtudie between the circumflances of the delivery contalne*! in ?vIenagcr'-> dcpofitlon, and the circumRances of: the delivery In (jueftlon, — liach of them a delivery of tivins^ — Thofe twins both 7ua!cs^ — The mother an aged laJy-i — :). foreigner^ — :\ jKrjhn of dijlinclioih — and lad S 2 from ( =8 ) troni A\'\' ;;;;/. Thele you Aated as a real founilailon on which to fcrni a iolid calculation of chances, by confidering what an infinite ivjinbcr of cliances there were, tliat this amazing concurrence of ...ircumihances ihoukl not have happened, and in the fame year too, to two different pcrfons; whence the conchifion, according to the known ritks of probnhUity^ which muft govern Judges in their opi- nions of events, was evident, that the deUvery mentioned by Me- nagcr could be no other than the delivery of Lady Jane Douglas. "When your Lordfhip made ufe of this plaufible reafoning, very wrell calculated indeed to make a temporary impreflion, and even to Ie:id captive many of your hearervS, for one day at leaft, could it poiTibly be expeded, that it was to ftand the tefl: of future examina- ticn, or to efcape altogether without detection? To deftroy this chain of reafoning, it might be fufficient for me, cfpecially after the genuine flate I have given of the fad:, to pat this fimple queftlon, — Why did you fo eafily take it for granted, that iVIenager, in his firft converfation with me, had fpontaneoufly related to me all thofe remarkable circumflances of fimilitude which were the fole foundation of your argument ? You had no manner of proof, no pretence of proof beyond his own alTertion, for this capital, this decifive article ; There were even many proofs before you which eftablifhed the contrary pofition ; and had I been called upon, wdiich alone could have given me a right to fpeak, and which, fmce )0U thougVxt me a competent witnefs, it was your duty to have done, before concluding agalnft the plaintiffs or me upon erroneous fup- pofi lions ; had I been called upon, I fay, I could have produced many more proofs to the fame purpofe : I have now mentioned fome of tlicrn, and fubmit tlicrn to the impartial world; and had I never men- tioned tlicin, your I ordtnip's rapidity (I am unwilling to make ufe of any hariher expreffion) mufl; have been equally unpardonable; fnice you built your whole fabric of argument upon an hypothefis which was not proved, and which, as it was falfe^, was incapable of proof. But ( =9 )" But on this occafion, my Lord, 1 have reafon to complain clou]>'!v of your condud: Not only you took it for granted fo lightlv, thut Menagcr had from the beginning told uniformly the iame fcorv, without any means of his learning (except from Delamarrc) the cir- cnmftances of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery, but, after affuming this important fi.id, I am afraid it will be found, that your Lorddiip did not hold the Icale of jullice even ; for I ihall now make it ap- pear, that the fame weight was not allowed to the flmie argument on the fide of the plaintiffs as on the fide of the defendant. After affuming the material fact above mentioned, and after you Iiad from thence concluded, that Delamarre certainly had performed a delivery of an unknown lady, attended with all the circumftances related by Menager in his depofition, the fubfequent part of your reafoning^ for conneding that delivery with Lady Jane Douglas, was folid, and, if equally applied to the evidence on both fides, unex- ceptionable : It is an undoubted truth, as your Lordfhip juflly ob- ferved, that Judges, in forming their opinion of events, and iri deciding upon the truth or falfehood of controverted fails, niud be guided by the rules of probability ; and as mathematical or abfolutc certainty is feldom to be attained in human affairs, reafon and public utility require, that judges, and all mankind, in forming their opi- nion of the truth of faclTts, fliould be regulated by the fuperior num- ber of the probabilities on the one fide or the other, v^-hether the amount of thefe probabilities be expreffed in words and arguments, or by figures and numbers. When this do(Strine, in another part of thecaufe, was applied by the plaintiffs to the Enlevements (or, in the Engliili cant phrafe, the kidnappingj of the children o^ Mignon and Saury, for afcertaining the foreign gentleman and lady by whom thefe children were carried off in the years 1748 and 1749; ^^^^ when it was applied to the account in Godefroi\ books, in the month of July 1748, relative to three perfons, for afcertaining whether that account related to Sir John 8 Stewart, I 3^ V Stewart, Lady Jane Douglas, and Mrs. Hcwlt, your Lordfliip was not then (o willing to admit this doclrhie of probabilities ; You there tried to avoid the efFcd: of the argument, by laying hold of the word chance^ or calculation of chances, which, in that part of the caufe, Ibemed to offend your ear; and inflead of attempting to overturn the Iblid foundations of the argument, your Lorddiip prudently evaded it by this facetious obfervation, " That fuch arguuicnts were better " fuited to certain focieties in London, well known to fome of their " Lorddiips, than to a court of judicature." This fcrokc of pleafantry was the amount of the feeble defence made upon that occafion, againrt the prelfure of the accumulated probabilities, which {o loudly proclaimed the cliildren of Mignlon and Saury to have been carried off by Sir John Stcv/art and Lady Jane Douglas ; and which afcer- tained with fuch force of convidion, that, on the loth of July 1748, ll:ie, with her hulband and Mrs. Llewit, aCcually refided at the Hotel dc Chaalons^ in the houfe of I\ir. GoJefroi, I fliall not imitate your Lordfliip's example, by adopting in one part of the caufe the dotirinc of probabiUiics, and rejedling it in an- other; I fcall readily agree, that if it were eftablifned by folid and certain evidence, that Delamarre of Paris had, in the year 174H, :n;ule Tiich a deliveiy as is by Menager afcribed to him, of an aged 7crei:ni lad]' of difincUon, laft from Rhei?ns, v/ho was delivered of .■t;^"//.:, and thcfe both 7naks\ I fay, my Lord, that if the truth of •thiCie iiruK^s were unqueliionably afcertained, and that the only doubt v.ei-e coiicerrjinc; tlie application of that delivery, ^u'lz whether it was ;'ie udivery of Lady Jane Douglas, or of ano'ther perfon, in fuch a e;i:':, 1 have no difHculty to agree, that judges might with a fafe con- \\:'.:ac-: pronoun.ce that delivery, fo proved, to be precifely the delivery <f Lac'v lane Douglas ; unlcfs tlicre ihould happen to be in the flory eX L':e uiiiinov.-n lady fuppofcd to be dehvercd l^y Dehnnarre, fomc v: rcumfbinces clearly inappllcidjle to Lady Jane; for, in queflions ol ']:;j n;i;ure, one fmglc circ'jmilance Ir.cnpable oj application dcflroys the { 3' J the effe^l of any given number of clrcumflances perfedly applicable and correfponding. vSuppoling no fuch bars in the way, I fliall admit, that tliough in the wliole of the fiory, even as related by Menager, there is not, from beginning to end, any mention of Lady Jane Douglas or Sir John Stewart, or any defcription of the perfon delivered, or of thofc* who attended her, nor any mention of their language, or the country to which Hie or they belonged, yet the mimhei- of prohabilitlss^ from the coincidence of circumftances above mentioned, connetfling that delivery with Lady Jane Douglas, would, in fuch a cafe, be fo far fuperior to any chance, or, if that word happens to be ftill offen- five, to ^xnj probabiiit}', of that delivery's relating to a different per- fon, that I Ihould efteem it the duty ot a Judge to form his opinion, and to pronounce judgment on the fide to which the greater weight of probability inclined. When I have made this concefTion in favour of your argument, it might with juflice be expedled, that your Lordiliip would be dif- pofed to make a fimilar concefTion in what relates to the appricatioii of the Enh'Vcnients of the children of Million and Scmry^ and the application of tlie account in Godcfroi\ houlchold-books ; for, ad- mitting it to be true that Delamarre had really and ccrtr/mly per- formed a delivery, fuch as is by Menager afcribcd to him, and with all the circumflances of fimilitude which that witnefs lias bellowed upon it; yet I do maintain, and will undenake to dcinoiijlratc, that thefe circumflances, do not with more certainty eRabliih this delivery to relate to Lady jane Douglas, than the circumflances which are in- difputably proved to have :\ttendcd the Rnlcuemtnts of the children of jMignon and Sanry, do eilablllh the fadf, that thefe children were earned off bv Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas; Or than tlie account in Godcfroi'i houfehold-book, commencing the 4th, and ending the 14th, of July 174^, with all the circumPianccs attending it, does eflablifn the fasli, that Lady Jane Douglas rcfidcd in Gode- fvoi% ( 3^ ) //■si's hoiiil' at the very time when the delivery Is faid to have hap- pened In the houfc of Lc Brun. Admitting, therefore, that Menager had fpokcn truth In every ar- ticle, and even in the afiertion of Ids having told me the fame things at our firfl interview, and admitting that it were proper to give to his fmgle hearfay-teftimony as flrong an efFecc as if It had amounted to complete and indifputable evidence, the conclujions upon fimilar grounds of probability, arifing from both or either of the Enlcve- vients^ (where the cffential facls are eftabllfhed by a crowd of witnef- fes, having good caufe of knowlege) and the conclufion arihng iVom Godrfrois houfehold and police books, (where there cannot 1)e any conteil: about the fades whence that conclufion is drawn) were, Icparatoly, each of them, fufhclent to overbalance any inferences in favour of Lady Jane's delivery, to be drawn from the facts contained in Menagci's dcpcfition; but when jointly co-operating to the fame cinclufi'^n of no delivery in this cafe, the accumulated force of fuch evidence, when united, was fufhclent to annihilate the circum- llances alTerted in Menager's dcpofition, to the effedl at lealf of ren- dering th.cm totally Incapable of any application to Lady Jane Douglas. Tills would be the rcfult, even thou"-h there had not been fuch ftronrr proofs, that the delivery faid to have been performed by Delamarrc liad happened before tlie year 1748; which circumfiance alone was fuihcicnt to dellroy any pofhble application of it to the delivery in (picfllon. V.'<:u:ci it 1. >: t'lCn Iiave been more natural and rational, on your i /):•'.!. lup'^ r:n-r, to have doubted of the truth of Menager's ftory, hccauil- it Vvas contradidted and overbalanced by all the certain and ;i(!initt'jcl t;!cls in thccaule, and r^y the conclufions arifing from them, \\v.\v\ to L i\": doubted of all thefe facls and conclufions, becaufe con- tiad:L,lcd, oj- ip.cant to be contradicted, by the fmgle teflimony of \\v.'\ man, vli'jfe hearlav at beU could never amount to legal evidence ? Mu(> ( 33 ) Mufl: it not have occurred to your Lordfliip, that there was a fimple and natural folution of the puzzle, if any did arife, from the pretended fimilar circumftances of a delivery mentioned in this man's depofitlon, njiz. That the correfponding circumftances of his ftory were founded in ficlion, and had been moulded upon the intelligence he had got, of the aflerted circumftances of the con- tefted delivery ? In your fpeech in this very caufe, you took occafion to acquaint the Houfe, that there feldom came before you a caufe of any confe- quence, without your perceiving inftanccs of perjury; Might not your Lordfhip then in this cafe, with great propriety, have fubmltted to confideration this plain queftion, Whether is it more probable, that this fnigle witnefs Menager may have told a lie, or, that all the various facls and written evidence in the caufe, which oppofe the truth of his ftory, have been fabricated ; and that fuch numbers of rcfpcclable and difinterefted witnefTcs, concurring with theie proofs, and with each other, have all of them been guilty of falfehood or perjury ? It is, no doubt, in the nature of things, pojjlhh that both of thefe contending proofs might have been founded in truth ; that is to fay, it might be true, that Lady Jane Douglas had no delivery, and at the fame time true, tbat Menager's friend Delaiuarrc had delivered a fo- reign lady of tv.-ins, and that this delivery bad been attended with all the ilriking circumftances ot limilitude to the afTerted circumftances of Ladv lane's ilorv, without bavin'''- in facl: any real relation to her : but it muft be owned, tliat tlic truth of both thelc propolitions is in a very high degree improhahlc ; and tliercfore, that it is infmitely more probable, tliat the one or the other of the above fecminglvop- pofite propolitions was y^//J/t^, than that there could liave happened to cxift, at the fimc time, a jiijl and true joiindatlon for forming •both thefe conclufions. T If ( 34 ) If this matter prcfentcd Itfclf to your Lordfliip's mind in the above natural and obvious point of view, the effed: of it muft have been, to incite your attention in a peculiar manner to the examination of this- point, Whether \.h.Qf^icts upon which the reafonings on either fide proceeded, and from whence tlic oppofite conchifions were drawn by the plaintiffs and by the defendant, were, in the one cafe, equally well eftablillied as in the other ? In purfuing this mode of inquiry, your Lordfl\ip could not have failed to obferve, that, while the ejjhitial faffs ^ Vv^hich ftand as the bafis of the plaintiffs' reafonings and conclufions, are either admit- ted, or proved by fuch a concurrence of witneffes as puts them beyond all doubt or fufpicion, the facls^ on the other hand, from whence the arguments for applying Menager's ftory to the contefted event of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery are taken, reft entirely upon the veracity and affertions of this fmgle witnefs, whofe relation of fads is rendered unworthy of credit, not only by his falfehoods, incon- fiftencies, and felf-contradi£tions in many effential particulars, but by the ftrong and irreconcilable contradictions which his teftimony meets with, from the evidence of Sir John Stewart himfelf ; from the conduct both of Sir John and Lady Jane; from the forged let- ters- ; from the depofitions of Melet and Giles; and from various other brandies of evidence in the caufe. The true and obvious conclufion from thefe premlffes is, that, without the aid of any evidence to have been given by me for con- tratlicting Menagcr's affertions, the folidity, and fuperior force of rliofc braiichcs of evidence in the caufe, by which were eftabliflied propofitions incompatible v^ith the truth or application of this man's teftnaony, v.'cre in themfelves more than fufficient to overbalance and difcredit that lingle and inconfiflent teftimony. Had ( 35 ) Had I not reafon then, my Lord, to cxpcd, that, inftcad of in- dulging conjcftures, and attempting to fupport Menagcr at my expcnce, the force of truth would have induced you to commu- nicate to your audience this juft obfcrvation, That, befides the /?:- competency and impropriety of my offering myfelf as an evidence in thiscaufe, there was this additional reafon againft that meafure, that the other certain facts, and eftabliftied proofs in the caufe, had ren- dered my tcdimonj fuperjluous and unnecejfary ? If fuch was the fituation of the contending proofs, independent of my teflimony, what confufion muft your Lordlhip feel on the recol- Icclion of thefe things ? And if, notwithftanding the greatnefs of your talents, you was yourfelf deceived, what compunction muft you not feel, upon viewing the pidure of unclouded truth, which I have now fet before you, and upon perufuig the fnnple relation of the fads, which fhew the rife and progrefs of thofe fictitious circumftances, which have given birth to fo much fallacious argu- ment, in the courfe of this conteil. ? * The Nature and Amount of certain, injurious Rcjleciions upon, the Condut^ of thi Caufc. THE complete faith whicli your Lordfliip was pleafed to give to Menager's teflimony, implied not only a diihelicf of the whole evidence on the part of the plaintiffs, and an imputation on all the various proofs, which afix^rded fuch ftrong and powerful conclufions againft the truth of the contefted delivery ; but it was accompanied with conjectures, infinuations, and alTertions, highly prejudicial to my -character and conduct. — If founded in truth, theie infinuations were T 2 of ( 36 ) of fuch a nature, astniifl: hr.ve refledled indelible dlfhonour upon me; but if {ri]Cc, the world will judge, on whofe head that dishonour mufr no\Y fall. Without my hivinn; been examined, you madeufe of me, as a wit- ncTs iu fupport of the truth of Menager's affertions; You maintained the ccrjipetencY, and propriety^ of my appearing in evidence againfl him, to contradidl his afl'ertions ; As I had not done fo, one inference you made, was in favour of the veracity of this witnefs ; but the other inferences, and inhnuations of the blackefl: nature, though conveyed in decent language, were, That at the very commencement of the caufe, I muft have been flruck with the fads and circumftanccs learnt from Menager, and convinced of the truth of his flory, as well as of the neceffary application of it to Lady Jane Douglas's delivery; — This joined with the falfe conjectures already mentioned, where your lordlliip did me the Iionour to fuppofe, that I had concealed from tlie French council, the furprifing intelligence thus received from Menager; and, that for a fmiilar reafon, I had avoided his exami- nation in the French adlion, m.ade up indeed a very complete and and highly finiihcd picture of my condud; and I had the mortifi- cation to perceive, tliat the pidure thus compofed, though entirely a work of imagination, did not fail to make a ftrong impreffion on many of the noble lords to whom it was that day exhibited. Vl I had been capable of the condud thus diredly or indlredly mipirted to me, I fhall readily agree, that I deferved, not only to be defpifed as a fool, for thinking it pradicable to difprove th.e reality of a delivery whicli really had liappened, but to be abhorred as a monfter of wickednefs, capable of ading fuch a part, in oppofition to his own internal convidion ; I fliould have been guilty of fuch a com- plication of crimes as is rarely to be met with; — Attacking, contrary to my own perfuafion, the birthright and moft eflential interefls of onje innocent perfon who had done me no injury; — The charader and ( 37 } and honour of his parents and others; — And, deceiving at the lame thiic, thofe for whofe IntcrcRs I was a£ling, — and thofe in conjundlion with whom, and by whole advice and affiftance, it cv'as ncccflary for me to carry on tliis conteft. When your Lordfliip was dillributing thcfe infmuations in that auguft afiembly, it was my fate to be prcTcnt ; and I confefs that I was not Ids firiick with furprife, than inflamed with indignation, at the barbarity and injuflice of your imputations. They were the more barbarous, that I had no means of redreflmg myfelf, nor was it pof- fiblc for me to have forefeen, that I was to be attacked upon this ground. If TOurLordfhip, from your own feehngs, had been poflcfled of any idea, how Jiiuch, and how flrongly, a man wiio vahies his integrity and reputation more than life itfelf, muflfcel upon occafionsof this kind, I can hardly think, you would have been fo inhuman as to have branded me with thole acculations, and before fucli an affembly ; but if feeling for others be a ftrangcr to your breafl:, how ftrong, if you have any regard to your own weight and reptitation with the public, muil; be the feeling for yourfelf, when it is anounced and proved to the world, that tliis attack, made by the Lord Chief Juflice of Eng- land upon an innocent man, v/as altogether on falfe ground; and. that the conduct of theperibn attacked, had been precifely the rcvcrfe of what it was upon that occaiicn rcpreientcd to have been. If, in deciding this great conteil, any facls or circumftances ap- peared to you material, which had not been flated or explained in the Cafes^ or in the pleadings, it was your duty, my Lord, and in your power, to have called for an explanation of them, cither from mc, who attended at the bar, or from the counfel in the caufe ; If 1 had been examined, and had given a falfe evidence^ I could not pofiibly have been worfe ufed, than I was in this cafe, for having given no evidence at all \ but when there were fuch obvious means of 'C 38 ) of Icarr/uig, wlih ccrtulnty, what evidence I was hi condhion to give, it was your duty, I fay, my Lord, to have abftained from cGUjCvfturcs, and to have made life of thefe means, either by fug- gefiing to the council at the bar what points you wifhed to have cleared up ; Or by appointing an examination of mc, which appoint- ment would have totally removed every objedion or fcruple, either of competency or delicacy, which had hitherto prevented my appear- ing as a witnei's. If either from error, or from any other motive, I had hitherto abflained from appearing as a voluntary evidence, thefe furely were no reafons for not requiring from me that teflimony ; A perfon acting in the manner 1 did, was not the lefs worthy of credit, that he had not intruded with his tellimony. If your excufe for not calling upon mc was, that you could not trufi: to the evidence of one fo deeply interefted in the contefl, that very excufe proves the juftnefs of the principle before mentioned, efta- bliflied in the law and practice of Scotland, with regard to the incom^ fctency of my appearing as an evidence. If on the other hand, you had no doubt of my telling the truth, there can be no excufe for your not having required my tellimony, if you thought this a material part of the caufe ; but flill lefs can you be vindicated in making ufe of me as a witnefs in fupport of your favourite point of Menager, without examnning me at all, and in aggravation of this, making inferences and infmuations, as if I had perfevercd in the caufe, con- trary to what mufl have been my own conviclion. This is an inference, I muft be allowed to fay, which your lord- (liip was not entitled to have made, even if it had been afcertained by my own, or by any other unqueflionable evidence, that Menager really had, in the beginning, given to me precifely the fame account of fadls and circumflanccs, which his fubfequcnt depolition in 1764 contained 5 ( 39 > contained; ^'^Ji-' it lias been already obferved, that admitting the truth of every word in that depolition, ftill, upon balancing the proofs for and againfl: the delivery in qucfllon, thofe which afforded fuch powerful conclufions againll the truth of that fact, greatly- overbalanced the conclufions arifmg from Mcnager's evidence ; If this be iOi would it not have been a more natural, as well as a more charitable fuppofition, on y^our Lordflilp's part, to have prefumed, that, when thefe proofs againft the truth of the delivery, poured in upon me from all quarters, they had infpired that convidion, which left me no choice as to the condud I was to purfue ? I fay, my Lord, that the juft and fair prefumption inclined to this fide ; What fli all wc fay then of an attempt, upon fuch light grounds, not only to deprive nic of fliat fair interpretation, but alfo to cllablifh an opinion, that I Iiad acted a mofl difhonourable part, for fuch it muft have been, if in this caufe I had a£ted contrary to my own convidtion ? Hitherto I have proceeded on the fuppofition of your Lordfliip*s being totally in a flate of uncertainty, with regard to the evidence which I was in a condition to give upon this matter, but it would perhaps be an excefs of good nature to continue that fuppofition in all its extent. It rnufl be prefumed, that your Lordfliip had carefully read the long Tiiemorials given into the Court of SefTion, and the cafes to the Houfe of Lords, as well as the other papers in the caufe ; If you did, you muft have perceived, that inftead of aflcnting to the truth of Mena- gcr's evidence, and allertions, every material part of them was ex- prefsly denied on the part of the plaintiffs, and the whole tendency of their arguments was to fhow that there could be no reliance upon any one averment of this witnefs. Your Lordfhip, I believe, had occafion to know, during the dcpendancc of the Appeal, that nothing was inferted, in the plaintiffs T 4 Cafe C 40 ) (uiJl to the Hoiifc of L.ords, or in their papers to the Court of SefTIon^ riirlicLilariy no aikTLion of fa^ls, but what had eitlier been drawn i![i by mc. or which the gentlemen by whom they were drawn up, hiA infcrted with my concurrence ; The aflertions contradictory to iMenager's evidence, and the arguments on that head, might there- fore naturally have been iii\derfl.ood by your Lordfliip, as fo many pofitive aflertions on my part, in oppofition to what this witnefs had iaid, and hence it was eafy for you to have perceived, what fort of evidence I w\as in condition to give, and likely to give if called upon in this matter. AVhoever takes the trouble of reading over the papers in the caufc, will be amazed to find, that your Lordfliip, after peruhng them, had ventured to maintain, or to take it for granted, that I had aflented to the truth of Menagcr's aflertions ; There arc in page 95 of the plaintiffs Cafd to tl:c Houfe of Lords, fome paragraphs, which, of ihcmfelves, were fuiRcient to bar your Lordfliip from fuch fuppofi- tions and arguments ; A reference is there made to an aflfertion in the plaintiffs Menioj-'ia!^ which is repeated in the Cafey in thefe words : " If the refpondents (i. c. plaintiff's) had thought it at all regular " or allowable, they could eafily have produced witnefl^es on their '' part, to prove accounts given by Menager, to many perfons both '' Britifli and French, who had converfed with him on the fub- ' iccls mentioned in his depofition, very diff'erent from the accounts " he has tlicre gfvcn ; but they abflained from this, becaufe they ' thought it contrary to the genius of the law in Britain, to fet '' up tlie extrajudicial converfations of a witnefs, in oppofition to his '' dcpontionf' And finihcr, it i^ there faid, " That if it had been competent to *' bring a proof 01 the extrajudicial converfations of Menager, and *' particularly of that convcrfation alluded to by him, where Mr. 2 " Stuart ( 4t ) *' Stuart was prefent, the falfehood of Mr. Menager's aflcrtion would *' have been made manifeft.'* Thcfe paragraphs contahictl, not only a dirccl coiitradidion, oil my part, to Menager's aiTertioas, bul\thcy iliewi d, upon wr.at pnii- ciples it was, that the phauuiffs had ablhiined Irom produc.iig thr evidence, which, if it had been competent or allo-ivahic^ tliey could have produced, for proving the fahehood of this nianV. teltiiuonv, with regard to what had pailed at the full iutcrvicvv's v;ith him. If in thcfe points we were under an error, was it nor incunibcn? on your Lordfliip, wh.en tliat error was fo clenrlv pointed out to you. 10 reUevc us from the miftake, and to dcfirc to know from us, win! that evidence was, which we had expref^ly aflcrtcd wc were in con- dition to produce ? Was it proper, my Lord, was It confiifent with that dignity of charader, fo fuitable to Judges in high fituations, to avoid aiiv cxamination of me, or even any fuggeftion to the counfcl at the bar to fpeak to thefe points ; yet, at the fame time, to conclude againli: me, and againfl the plaintiffs, as if I had been examined, and upon examination had given fuch evidence, as might have authorifed every argument and infmuation that was made ufe of to my prejudice; and all this contrary to the authority of the papers which were then in your Lordfl^iip's hands ? Thefe papers, indeed, did not contain any refutation of tliofe parts of the injurious infinuations, by which 1 was fappoied to have concealed from, the Frcncli counfcl, what had palled at the tirft inter- views witli Mcnager, and by wliich it was prcfimied, that, from )imi]<ir bad motives, I had avoided this man's examination in tlie French adion; — It was impoihble to cxpcc>, tliat eitlier the papers, or the plead i]igs for the phiintiirs, lliould have contained any refu- tation of luipicions winch had never been indulged ')r ventured upon U ' b^' ( 48 ■) by the oppofitc paity, in any ftage of the caufe ; for which there was not the fliadow of foundation, either in reality, or in any part ef the vohimes of proof; and which had never occurred, even to tlic imaginations of any of the various able counfel employed by the defendant in the courfe of this conteft : — It was a difcovery refernjed i(^r your Lordfliip's fuperior genius ; and the communication of it w\is bv your Lordlhip rejervjcd till that period, when no anfvver to it could be given, either verbally or in writing : — It was in your fpeech which conckidcd the debate on the day of the decifion, that thefe imputations againft me made their firft appearance. In vindication of your Lordfhip, it will be laid, perhaps, That, at the time of the decifion, you had not examined fo minutely the va- rious fads contained in the volumes of proof, or that the true ftate ©f thole things which had given rife to your fufpicions and imputa- tions, had not, at that time, been brought fo completely under your view, as it has now been by what I have vfrote : — This, my Lord, would be no fufficient excufe in the prefent cafe. A Lord Chief juftice, when making an attack upon a private man, in prefence of the mod illuftrious affembly in the world, in a place where no defence could be made, in a place too, where that Judge tnjovs the higheft degree of confidence, (efpeclally in queftions of appeal from the Northern part of this illand) ought to be perfedly Jure, that he has truth and juftice on his fide, before he ventures to tlirow his poifoned darts: The advantage of the fit nation from whence they are thrown, is fuch, that they can feldom fail to prove mortal to thofe againil: whom they are directed, whether they be dcfcrving of that fate, or guiltlefs. It is painful to me, and not without much reludance, that I find myfelf obliged to ex-cite the public attention to your condud: in thefe particulars; Were there no other grounds to jufiify it, this uldrefs to your Lordfhip would ftand iufiified upon this ground I alone, T 43 ) alone, that you had forced mc to It in defence of myfelf ; and when compelled to this difagreeable office, I have not attacked you by de- clamation, or rhetoric, or infinuations, or general Imputations; I liavc employed only fad:s and arguments derived from the very cfltmce of the caufe which lay before me, and thefe arguments are of fo very ftrlking and obvious a nature, that they muft make an Im- preiTion on the mofl: prejudiced, and carry conviction even to the mofl Ignorant and unexperienced. I boaft not of any fuperlor abilities In this dlfcuffion : I know how much I fhould be overmatched by your Lordihip, if ever the contro- verfy came to depend on that iffue; but I fmd myfelf fo flrongly entrenched in the very nature of the ground, that 1 do not fear the utmoft vigour of your affaults. In vain will you wrap yourfelf up in filence, covered v.'lth the falfc appearance of difdain : In vain will you affect fcorn towards this expoftulation from a private Gentleman; and, though 1 am proud only of my confclous innocence and integrity, I fliall add, One whofe birth intitles him, when provoked by injury, to feel no inferiority to your Lordfhip ; and One polfeffed of as fair a fame as you your- felf enjoyed, even before the declfion of this caufe : — I throw out this defiance in my own name before the world ; and If no anf^ver is given to it, (as I am confident none fatlsfacftory ever can) the perfoU' whofe reputation you attempted publickly to murder, though then obliged to keep an indignant filence, will not go unlamented and; unrevengcd to his grave. U 2 LET- ( 44 ) L E T T E Pv S referred to in pages 25tli and iGdi of the preceding Letter. Fro?ii Air. Dajijou, Pari?, 20 Dec. 1770. E ffay bon grc, Monfieur, au vent qui vcus a retenu fur nos cotes, puifqu'il vous a d(,;Ti'.c !e terns de m'ecrire avant votre retour de Londres. Jc fouhaite que vous \ i( uillicz a:lue!kment du bienque vous out procure les eaux de Spa et le bon air de France. La recoiincifrance d'ua remcdc fi cfncace, I'atlachement et I'eftime de vos :-.;i;;s Joivent \o'js y rappcller, et ricn ne me flattc plus que reipcrancc de vous y re'.'oir I'annce prochaine. N(jiis n'y parlerons plu3 de cctte malheuroufe affaire dont la pourfuite a prefque detiuit votre I'^ntc, et dont Tcvenenient a fi crucllcnient blefic votre coeur. Tout ce t]ue vous ni'en avez, dit ici a augmen'e ma fenfibilite, et j'ai peine, en vous en ecrivant c.'icore, a retenir mes exprcfTions fur I'imputation qu'on s'eft permis d'hazarder centre \(rjs tt vos confeiis. J'cn fuis principaleirient affcftc a I'occafion de la depofitioii <.'e cc ridicule chirurgien nommc Menager, dont vous fcaves que j'ai toujours regrette qu'on ne put depeindre la phifionomic, la contenance, et reaiberras, lorfqu'il a parii devant les commiilaires qui I'ont interroge de part et d'autre. Je peux blen comprendre que, par des raifonncmens captieux, on aittentcde tirer parti du langagc equivoque ct obfcur que ce temoin a toujours affecte de tenir, mais je ne m'accoutumerai jamais a pcnfer qu'on ait pu propofer, avec confiance, et avec I'ucces, dc3 prefomptions injuricufes a votre perfonne, fur ce que vous ne I'avez pas fait entendre a la Tournclle. Si vos Loix pcrmettent de juger fur des moyens de cette cfpJce, clles doivcnt donncr ouverture a bi:n des injuftices, et il n'en fut jamais • 'e plus granJe, puifqu'il ef!: certain que lors dc rinformation a la Tournelle, vous cticz d'avis qu'il fut cntendu. Jc pcnfois comme vous, et ce ne fut que fur I'opi" 'i:on de M. D'Outr'.mont que nous en abandonames le projet. Je rre raptlie triis clairement, que vous nous fucs obferver que dans la premiere c;:t:evue que vnus aviez cu avec cct homme, il vous avoit paru difpose a rcalifer P^r ion cfprit romancrouc, I'avanture fiiigtilicre du prctcndu accouchement de Lady jcannc, que prtfumant (juc vous cticz charge de chciclicr des preuvcs pour le con- ifatLT, \\ vGUi avoit ftm' le f-ccupc u'cn appliquer toutes les circonftances a fon ami ',:: 'vl;rrc; ct que mcmc a\ant cte dc.orccrtc par la rcprcfentation des faufles Ict- rr',: dc ce l.a Marre qui iailoient meriiun ue fon \oy:i2;e ci'Ita'ie et de Naples, il avoit '8 iOt ^ uire (pa'i;Iits rouvoitnt tr.s bi'.ri ttrc t'c lai, quoinu'il n'eut iamais voyage CIl ( 4." ) cn h:Mc, mats ^uc Li mention c'e cc vno^e ck Kt.flts ctoi'. une cxp-cnion alle^'orique pout fairc cnttnclrc qu'il avoit pafTc par le rcmccie An:ivcnerien, parce q I'cn France on cicfiJiie Ic iM d J'ourltn^ par Ma', de N.iplcs d'ou on pretend qu'il y cit vciiUj et tiu'on appcilc lo-n^c (,'c No^'hs, I'abfcnce iiccLflairc pojr sVn faire gueiir. Tciutcs k's abfurditcs de fa converfation vous firent croire, comme a moi, qu'il feroit bon dc fixer le rccit fabulcux de I'imaoination do cet homme avide dc chofes liji2ulicrcs, mais M. D'Outiemont nous fit fcntir, que ce feroit prefque manquer de ielpe6t a l.i jjfiice, que de pourfuivre un temoiii dent Ic tcmoignage feroit contredit non fciikmcnt par fes propres circonftanccs, mais par le ternoignage contraire de la veuve de La Marre qui tloignoit toute idee de vra-. fcmblance que fon Mary eut ete, ou [u etre I'accouchcur de Lady Jeanne; par la i^.reuve c'vidente de la faufiete des quatre lettrcs a iui attribuccs ; par tous les faits fans ncnibre exclufifs de la pofTibilite de raccouchcmcnt ; ct encore plus par la certitude moralle que nous avions de con- I'tatcr par Tinterrogatoire du Chevalier Stewart, que Pierre La Marre, ami de Menager, n'ctoit foint celui qu'on pretendoit avoir etc I'accoucheur de Lady Jeanne ; Nous I'eumcs, cn effci^, cette certitude par les reponfes du Chevalier Stewart, qui furent a ]ios yeux autant des mcnrunges grofficrs, mais exclufifs de Tami de A-lenager pour I'accoucliair cn quedion, ct nous nous corfirmamcs dans I'opinioa de Mr. D'Outre- n-ont pcur nc pKis pcnicr a le faIre entendre. Qj^ii auroit jamais pu prcvoir que cette deliberation prifc par confei!, psr amour de la \critc, tt par rJi'Ccl pour la juftice, eut pu doraicr lieu contre vous, Monfieur, a une conjecUire injuricuie et calomnieufe, et encore plus, qu'elle eut pu etre c'coutce et luivie de fucces ? — mais jc mc livre biea inutilement a mcs reflexions, I'afvaire cii uisec ; II faut rcfpcd^cr cn filcnce les jugements contre lefquels la loi n'ouvre point de voie de letours, et cette ouvcrtuic de coeur entre nous n'y changcra rien. Oullicz done, A'onf.cur, I'lniurc ct rcvcncmcnt qui a confondu toutes nos cfpe- ran.'fs. Ce n'cfl; ctrtaincnuMit pas vcws qui a'.ex ri.;n perdu dans reltiri'.c des gens d'l)oncur ; pendant tout le cours de la p.ourfuitc dc ct l important ct niemorable proccs, vous confervert'/ toujcurs leur temoign.ige avec celui de \otre ccnfcience. Je 1 cux mCnic dire que s'il ccoit quelquc fois poHlble de manquer par execs de de- licatefl'e, vous auriez peutetre a vous reprocher d'avoir trop pris de precautions pour ne pas tncourir I'apparence mcmc du foupcon. Je fais mille refpe£lueux complimens a Mr. votre frerc et a tous vos amis dont le fouvenir ne me raptlie que I'honnetete et la candeur qui m'ont infpirc pour la vie i'attachement et rdtime avec lefquels je fuia, Monfieur, Votre tres humble ct tres obeifant ferviteur, (Signc) DANJOU. Rccevez kg remercimens et les complimens bicu finccrcs de toutc ma famille. { 46 ) Fi-6?ii Mr, D'Outremont. T>AI rccri, Moniicui, la iettrc dont vous m'avcz honore, par laqu'elleje vois que voui -J ttcs arrive a LonJrcs en bonne fantc. Lc fejour trop court que vous avez fait a Pans, et Ics entretiens que nous y avons eu, out rcnouvelle mes regrets et ranime ma lenlibilite iur re\er.ement fiUal de la caufe que nous avions defendu avec tant de con- fiance : a la premiere nouveile que j'en recus dans le terns, j'en fus faifi d'etonne- ment, fans pouvolr comprendre les niotiis qui ont pu determiner un tribunal ft rcfpeclable, et ce que vous m'cn avez dit n'a rien diminuc de ma furprife. Tous les fdits qui ont ete eclaircis dans I'inftrucSlion de cette grande affaire, ont tellement multiplie les preuves de la fuppofition d'etat dont il s'agilToit, qu'il eft im- pofTible que Icur reunion n'entraine la convi»3ion de tout efprit raifonable et attentif. La multiplicite de ces preuves, et la force quelles fe pretent mutuellement, eft meme une efpece de prodige, et devoit etre une occafion pretieufe pour lajuftice de fairc triompher la verite. Toutes et chacune des circonftances qui ont precede, accom- pagne, et fuivi le pretendu accouchement de Lady Jeanne Douglas en excluoient la poflibiJite, et en ptouvoient la fuppofition, avec tant d'evidence, qu'avec quelque fcru- pule qu'on appretiat toutes ces inductions, il n'etoit pas pofTible qu'on n'en fut per- I'uade. Cette reflexion, Monfieur, dont je fuis penetre, me fait croire, qu'on ne peut attri- buer la difgrace que vous avez eprouvee, qu'aux preventions injuftes qu'on a pu prendre fur le cara6tere de vos temoins, et fur la nature des recherches et des de- marches qui ont etc faites pour les produire ; or c'eft-la ce qui m'afHige lc plus. Q^iand je me rapellc, que j'ei ete, ainfi que M. Danjou, confident ct confeil de toute la conduitc que vous avez tenue, que nous avons pour ainfi dire guide vos pas, et que Jifant fans cefle dans le fonds de votre penfee, nous n'y avons rien vu que de conforme aux fentimens d'honneur dont nous faifons profeffion ; Quand je me rapelle, que fi nous avions quelque reproche a vous fairc, c'ctoit peutetre de porter trop loin ia c'clicatcfle fcrupuleufe qui domine dans votre caradtere, pourrois-je n'ctre pas touche de voir que la calomnie s'eft jointe a I'injuftice ? D?.ns une affaire de cette nature, la reputation des perfonnes qui I'ont conduit ne pcut manqusr d'jnfluer fur I'opinion des juges, nous avions fait choix pour cntre- prtndre et pourfuivre cclje-ci des confeils les plus eclaires et les plus integrcs — ;;;— c c(t aufli ce que vous avez principalkment confidere dans les temoins que vous avez produits i n.dis la confiance qui nait de la bonne reputation des perfonnes ne peut :^'LJitcndre jufqu'a une nation etrangere ou elles ne font pas connuiis. On y aura regardc [ 47 ] rcgarcfc comme furpe£ls des tcmoins qui font reconnus ici pour etre irreprochablej, et au contraire on aura ajoute foi a d'autres produits par votre adverfaire qui n'en au- roient merite ici aucune. Le S' Menager par exemple, a fait des dcpofitions abfurdes et romancfqucs : Les premiers diibours qu'il vous tint, avoicnt fi peu de rapport au prctendu accouchement de Lady Jeanne Douglas, et etoient fi fabuleux, que jc fus le premier a vous detourner dc I'idee que vous aviez de le faire entendre dans la procedure de la Tournelle du parlemcnt ; ct les depofitions qu'il a fait depuis font en efFet dementies par toutes Ics preuves du proces. Seroit-il pofTible qu'on s'y fut arrete, et qu'on vous ait fait un re- proche de n'avoir pas fait entendre ce temoin a la Tournelle ? Si ccla eft, je vous dois la juflice dc reconnoitre que c'eft moi qui en fuis la caufe innocente, n'ayant eu d'autre motif en vous confeillant de ne pas le faire entendre que le refpedl qu'on doit a la juftice; et fi ce temoin avolt ete eonnu a Londres, comme il I'efl a Paris, fa- depofuion n'auroit pas pu y faire impreffion. C'eft done, Monfieur, a I'eloignement des lieux que j'attribue la fatalite du juge- ment que vous avez eprouve, et qui auroit ete tout different en France ou la verite etoic conniie dans fa fource. Mais quoi qu'il en foit, nous aurons toujours la fatisfadtioa de nous rendre I'un a I'autre le temoignage d'une conduite irrcprochable : Si cette aff'aire etoit a recommencer, je ne pourrois m'aflocier de confeils plus fages que ceux que nous choifimes dans le terns, et vous, Monfieur, vous conduire avec plus de droiture et d'honneur ; ainfi nous n'avons point de reproche a nous faire, et j'aurai toujours retire de cette corrcfpondence I'avantage de connoitre I'homme du monde qui merite le plus d'eftime, et a qui j'ai voue le plus finccre attachemcnt. ^'eft avec ces fentimcns que je fuis pour la vie, Monfieur, Votre tres humble et tres obeliTant fer\ itcur, (Signc) irOUTREMONT. Agrees Monfieur les rcfi^einueux ccmplimens de toute ma fam.illc qui a cce bien fachce que le fcjour que vous avez fait dans ccUc ■ .ille ait Cte fi court, A Paris ce 3 Jan. 1771. L E T T 5^ R IV. My Lord, ' I ' PI E nature and importance of the fubjects touched upon in J. the preceduig Letters, have imperceptibly led me into a longer difcuflion than I was at firll aware of: There is too much rcafon to apprehend, that what has already been dated will be felt as tedious ; and I cannot lielp alfo regretting, that the length of the preceding parts of this inquiry precludes me from doing juftlce at prefent to fomc other material articles, conned:ed with the arguments employed by your Lordfliip, at the decifion of the Douglas caufe. The points are endlefs, where I might attack your decifion, at leafi: the arguments on which it proceeded ; but I am well apprifed of the general indolence which prevails, and of the reluctance which moft Readers would feel, to enter into the minute details of a caufe, which, though the moft curious, and the Icaft intricate, yet, by the variety and luxuriance of its branches, is the moft compli* cated, that ever was brought before any human tribunal. I have therefore feleded thofe branches only which could be appre- hended with the Icaft eff'ort of thought, or labour of application : Some others of the fame nature I have all along had in view, and as foon as I had arranged my ideas with regard to them, I meant that they fhould have been fucceftively prefented to your Lordfhip. X To (5 ) To do iuflice to thole remaining branches of the caufe, and to your Lord{hip*s reafonings upon them, would, I find, lead Into st longer detail, than could well be comprehended within the bounds of one, or perhaps two Letters. Befides the attention due to your Lordlhip*3 time, fome degree of attention to my own, and to fome material concerns which have a claim upon part of my time, oblige me to poftpone the confideration of various particulars to a future period. Liilead of entering upon any difcuiTion of them at prefent, I fliali therefore beg leave only to hint at fome of thofe topics, which remain ns a fund of future correfpondence with your Lordfhip. One of thefc remalaing topics, v/hich on account of its import- ance well dcferves to be difcuffed, relates to the proofs of Lady Jane Douglas's refidence at Godcfroi?> in July 1748, at the time of the aiTerted delivery in the houfe of Le Brun. In the courfe of this branch of the caufe, I fliall have occafion to iliew, that the princi- ples adopted by your Lordfhip, in reafoning upon the application of the fuppofcd and contejlcd facls under the article of Menager's evi- dence, would, when applied to the eJIahUpjed and iiid ifpi: table fa els ^ v>.hich ftand as the bafis of the arguments for proving t]ie refidence at GodcfroPs on the icth of July 1748, have led to a clear and dccifive ccnjiiificn as to the whole n:icrits of this great conteft. In the fecond place, I iliall beg leave to remind your Lordn-jip of liic a[loi/in/:rig fuppchtlon, to which you were obliged to refort, for fiipporiin!:^ t!ic vcraciiy and credit of Helen Llewit 5 a witnefs indii- pcnfibly nccclTary to the defendant. You p-crceivcd, that her perjurv in one palpable inftance could not be denied, if ir was true, that Ladv lane Dou::,las and ihe had made an ( 3 ) an CKCiuTion from Paris to Vn-fuiHcs in Summer ly/^H : The truili of that fad was fo firmly eftabliilicd Ijy the (lepofition of Madam.e Blain- vjlle, \aIu) lodged in the fame houfe with them at Paris, and who went in the coach with tliem to and irom Vcrjailks^ and dined with them there, and by tlie dcpofi lions of yL-r.Y';.' 6//0.^r izitn^jjc:^ that there was no other refourcc h:ft, but that wdiich your LordlLip ventured to employ, wdien you had rccourfc to the bold attempt of difcrediting the whole of thefe wdtneflcs, by fuppofmg, withotit a fiiadow of evidence, that all of them were perjured. The fmgle teflimony of Mrs. Hewit, fo deeply intcreflcd in taii contefi:, that flie could not, confiflently w'lth her own fafety, and the interefl of the eaufe which the fupported, acknowledge this fact of the vilit to Ve-rjaillt's, was by your Pordlhip reprefented, as affording complete evidence of the truth, pure, and untainted. In the fcales of juftice fuRained by your hands, this woman's tefli- mony (the mofl unworthy of credit of any that perhaps ever appear- ed in a court of judicature) was thus made to outweigh the depofitionS' of eight pcvfons of honed fame ; who depofed from the bed eaufe of knowledge ; wlio had no intereft in this matter; and againft whom there is not in the whole extent of tlie proof any one circumflance of imputation. — This therefore is a fubjecfl w^hich will merit a full difculiion in fomc future Letter. Another extraordinary fuppofitlon was made by your Lord- flilp, which will alio be well intitled to a full confideration. I allude to that part of your argument, where, without any evidence, and without reforting to that which it was in your power to command from the other party, (who had In their poflefTion copies of the Tour- nellc depofitions) you ventured to fuppofc, and even to maintain, That Godcfroi and his wife, and the family of Michelle, with Ma- a'affie Uiainvi/le, and others, had, at the time of tlieir exapiination X 2 }» ( 4 ) in the Tourncllc, given evidence different and inconfiftent with that which they aftcrvvMrds gave, when examined under the commiflion from Britain. Here too there was a mahgnant infmuation againfl the conduct of the caufe on the part of the plaintiffs ; for you pre- tended to tracs a variation of the pla7i of their evidence, after a cer- tain period ; — a fuppofition contrary to the fadt, but fupported by fuhtle and fallacious reafonings, which, however, it is happily flill in my pov.'cr to refute, not only by a detedion of the fidlacies, but by an appeal to the moft authentic evidence in v/riung. Tb.elc :.rc the principal articles which at prefcnt occur to me as fub- jecls of future examination ; andinthecourfe of that inquiry, there may happen to be occafionally fomc flight animadverfions made upon the cxprelfons and colourings employed by your Lordfhip in difcuffmg fome of the inferior parts of the caufe : One inflance of this fort, v.'orthy of notice, relates to a remarkable fentiment and expreffion which efcaped from your Lordfhip, when talking of the pidlure of Tvladame Mignon : You faid you had obferved from my journal, that fuch a picture was drawn, but remarked, that it had not in the courfe of the caufe been produced ; whence you concluded, that it miifl: have been purpofely concealed ; and for this reafon, Becaufe the picture would have fliewn, that there was no refemblance be- tween her and the defendant. After affuming this mixed ftate of fiifis and conjedures, (in which all was erroneous, excepting the iimplc affcrtion of a picture having been drawn) you then took occa- lion to give your fcntiments upon the great force and efficacy of a /;/:>'/ :>f iikcncfs in queflions of this nature. This wonderful fenti- mc::!t (a very dan.2;erous one for the Defendant's caufe) was pufhecl iiiJt'cd to a great length; and the exprefiion made ufe of by your LorciftiiD, tliat it would have been caufe 'ja'^nce. if we could have ])rovccl a h^cnejs between the defendant and the family of Mignon, Vv-as too amazing and too extravagant not to be remembered, or to be allowed to pafs on a future occafion altogether unobfervcd. it ( 5 ) It was my intention, and my wiOi, to have comprehended within tho bounds of this Letter a full examination of all the preceding articles ; but as the confiderations already mentioned oblige mc to alter that plan, it feems to me fuitable on my part, while I make this apology for poftponing a little the completion of this inquiry, that I fhould give your Lord (hip this general view of the remaining fund of in- vefligation ; and that I fhould add to it an affurance, that the articles which I am now obliged to poflpone fliall be refumed by me on a future occafion : I flatter myfelf, that the interval will be fo Ihort, that your Lordfhipwill have no reafon to impute to me negligence or forgetfuinefs. Before this paufe in our correfpondence takes place, I muft beg your Lordfhip's indulgence, if I Ihould happen to trefpafs a little upon your time, v.'hile I fay a few words with regard to my own fituation in this affLiir, and the motives which originally impelled me to the troublefome. undertaking in which I have been engaged, and alfo with regard to the hardfliips and injuftice with which the guardians of the Duke of Hamilton, and myfelf in particular, have had to encounter, and the reafons which have induced me thus par* ticularly to addrefs myfelf to your Lordflup, upon. the whole of this intcrefting fubjcd:. •fC Tff "^ 7^ 7^ Tp" 'V' ' 'n THERE are, my Lord, in my opinion, few occafions which can- juftify a private man's troubling the world w-ith what relates to hira- felf perfonally, and there is no fubjedt fo difficult to write upon with any degree of propriety : Yet fituations do fometimes occur in life, where filence would be as blameable and improper, as the impertinence of individuals, when they intrude upon the public with a detail of their own private and frivolous concerns ; The nature of the occurrences which- ( <5 ) v.lilch liavc uncxpeiftedly fallen to my fliare, and vvhtch relate not to myfelf alone, will probably exempt me from any imputation oi tins mttcr ibit. Without any tlndure of that rcfllefs difpofitlon, which ma.kc» lonie men fo readily engage in Tccnes of contention, animofity, or adventure, it has been my fate to be thus embarked, contrary to my V. ifiies or inclination; and, after being once unwillingly engaged in a fituaiion of the greateft anxiety and contention, it was no longer optional to me to quit my ftation, until the florm was over. The hrfl: ftep, once taken, necefiarily engaged me to proceed to tlie final conclufion, and by this means it has fallen to my lot, to pafs fevcn years of my life, in fituations full of agitation, wdiich required more unremitting attention and anxiety, than would ever have been with me a matter of choice. Neither could it be agreeable to engage in an enterprize, wdiere, from the nature of the conteft, it vras eafy to forelee, that, let my conduct be ever fo blamelefs, I muft neceflarily draw upon myfelf the rancour and animofity of antagonifts contending for the deepeft Jlakes, and be expofed to the violence of all the vindidlive paflions, which generally actuate the breads of intcrefted adverfaries in contro- vcrf es of this nature. By the particular appointment of the father of the prefcnt Duke of Hamilton, I was left one of the guardians to his infmt chil- dren, and the affairs of that family were under the adminiftration of the guardians, at the time of the Duke of Douglas's death in the year 176 1. That event gave rife to a competition for fome of the honours, and for all the wealth of the Douglas family ; one of the competitors was not 6 named (• 7 ) named In the fcttlemcnts, but claimed under the defcriptlon of nephew to tlicDukeof Douglas, as fon of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Doug- las, the Duke's filler: If the pedigree, thus fet forth, was not founded in truth, it put an end'to the pretenfions of that claimant, and this, in many refpedls, would have produced material variations, with regard to the nature of the claims, which both the young Duke of Hamilton, and his brother Lord Douglas, now Duke of Hamilton, would have had upon the fuccefTion of the late Duke of Douglas. The extraordinary facl of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery of two Tons at a birth, in the 51ft year of her age, in a foreign country, removed from the obfervation of friends or enemies, and attended with many peculiar and fufpicious circumftances of condudl, before, and after, as well as about the time of the deliverv, had given rife to many doubts and furmifes very unfavourable to the truth of tliis aflertcd event : Thefe were univerfally diffufed over Scotland, and were in particular known to every one of theDuke of Hamilton's guardians. In this fituation, it will be allowed, even by the mofl prejudiced, that it was natural for thefe guardians, nay that it was their duty, to make fome enquiries concerning this fufpefled fad:, in which the intcrcfts of their pupils, tlie Duke of Hamilton, and Lord Douglas, as v;eil as the honour of the Douglas family, the head of 'li.-hich, the Duke of ILrniilton 7ioiu iS, v/erc fo deeply concerned. No enquiry could be made with propriety or cffedl till the death of tlie Duke of Douglas: The Di^ke of Hamilton, thoiigh heir male of the Douglas family, and entitled to fiijceed, at leafl:, to all the honours and dignities, vsliich liad hccn cnjoved by his ov.m anccf- tors in the Douglas line, liaJ. ncilher title nor intcrcil:, before the ]3uke of Douglas's death without heirs of his own body, to cr.nteft the pretenfions of the children acknov/lcdged by Lady jane Douglas; neither was it practicable lor him to have made an cff(.cl;ual fcrutiny into •( 8 ) inlo tills matter before the year 1762; for as there muft be fomc thread by wh'icli to condud an enquiry, this thread never was given till at\cr the death of the Duke of Douglas : That event made it neceffary for the pcrfon claiming under the character of fon of Lady jane Douglas, to make up his titles by the form of what is called in Scotland a fcycicc as heir, in the courfe of which, it became neceflary for his friends, particularly Sir John Stewart the father, and Mrs. Hewlt, to fi>eclfy the time and place of the claimant's birth, with the names of perfons prefent, and other particulars which might admit of iavciligation. It was upon occafion of this fervice, that the time, place and circumftances of the Defendant's birth were for the firfl time dif- clofcd to the public, and at the iiime time were produced i\\Q forged letters of the perfon faid to have delivered Lady Jane, and found in her cabinet, and although the authenticity of them was by fome fufpected, yet it was not till a confiderable time afterwards, that the compleat convidion of thefe letters being forged, and by Sir John ^^tewart himfelf, was attained ; It is certain however, that with ' many difcerning perfons the proofs attempted at the fervice, inftead of diminifhing, ferved only to encreafe the fufpicions. It became therefore a matter of ferious deliberation with the guar- dians of the Duke of Hamilton, in what manner to make this eflentlal enquiry. The point of the greatefl difficulty, as it appeared to thefe guardians, was, to find out a perfon proper to be trulled with a commilTion of fuch importance : One, whofc proceed- ings and report might give to the world, and to the guardians themfelves, a reliance on the refult of liis enquiries, whofe fituatlon and character might remove all fufpicion of any thing improper, who would be equally refponlible with themfelves, for every ftep of his condud, and who could embark the guardians in no meafure, of ( 9 ) of wliich lie mufl not fliarc the dangers and dilTiculiles, as mucli at Icall as they themfelvcs. From tlie fitiiatlon of the otlicr guardians, it was not to be expedcd that any of them would devote thcmfclves to fuch an In- <;|uiry: It was alfo, on many accounts, very Inconvenient tome: Ikit at the fame time it was found fo diilicult to fix upon a proper perfon to undertake it, that at hift, after due deliberation, the requefl: of the other guardians, fupported and enforced by that of tlie perfon then at tlie head of the fiiniily, as mother of the young Duke of Ha- milton, made the hard lot of undertaking this tafk fall upon me alone. It was not without concern and rchidance, tliat (his requefl was made to me, on the part of thofe frt^in whom it came; becaufe they were fenfible, that it was, in the firft place, afking me to facrifice, for fomc time at leali, my other purfuits and profpe(Sls in Britain; and if the difcoveries fliould give rife to a cpieition at law concerning the legitimacy or filiation of the Duke of Hamilton's rival for the Dou- glas fucceffion, they forefaw that it might prove the fource of much animofity againft me perfonally. The matter was brought to fuch a point, that it became impolTiblc for me to decline this tafk, without incurring the imputation of too little concern for the interefls of the Duke ot Hamilton's family (vv-hofe moll: elT-jntial a flairs, in llic executive part, and in the ordi- nary courlb of adminillration, were then peculiarly entrufled to me); and without at the fame time incurring the further imputation of too much fclfiih attention, if I fiiifercd myfelf to be deterred by any apprehcnfion of the diOiculties, or hazards, which might pof- fibly attend this undertaking. The confequencc was, that, witliout any ftipulations whatever with regard to myfelf, I complied with the reqncft that was made Y to ( 'o ) to me, and agreed to repair to Paris, the fcene of the aflerted delivery, vvKcre alone the truth or falfehood of the aflerted fads could Be difcovercd. The intention of iny going thither, was, before I fet out in the vcar 1762, communicated to many of my friends, and to many per- ibns of confideration at London : All approved of the propriety of fuch a mcafure on the part of the Duke of Hamilton's guardians; but icveral of my friends, who forefaw the fcene of troubles I was ai)out to engage in, rcprcfciucd it to me in the ftrongcft; colours, and cxpreffed much regret, that it was put upon me to encounter with fuch manifcfl difficulties. Amongft the number of thofe to whom the rcquefl made to me by the other guardians, and the intention of my expedition to France, were communicated, were the late Mr. Yorke, and the prefent SoHcitor General ?vlr. Wedderburn, both of whom highly applauded the meafure : They knew particularly upon what ground, and with what equitable and proper views, of afcertaining the truth, whether lavourable to the one party or the other, I entered upon this piece of duty : This fad:, your Lordfliip had occafion to hear from them- felves at the bar af the Houfe of Lords. The only lights which I carried with m.e to France, for affilling me in the whole of the invelligations relative to the Delivery, were the date of the event, and the names oi Pier la Mnrr and Aladamc h' Brini. 1 little thought at that time, that thefe were imaginary pcrfons ; as Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Llewit had recently given thcfc names, and had affigncd a didindt function to each, it fcemed to me almoft incredible, that they would have had the effrontery to name pcrfons who had never cxKled, At that time 1 reckoned fo mucli upon the facility of difcovering th'jfe eflcntial perfons La Marr and Lt Brut:-, or fome of their family, ( n ) family, or connexions, by whofe means I might in a fhort fpace of time be well informed of the truth or falfehood of the fads in. qucllion, that I fct out on tliis expedition, in fome refpedls, very ill provided for the unexpected fcenes which afterwards prefcnted them- felves to me in France, It was my firfl: excurfion beyond the Hmits of this idand, and your Lordfhip will perhaps be furprifcd to hear, that this inveili- gation, to which the adverfe party have endeavoured to give the appearance of a deep-laid fchcme for rearing up a lidlitious plan of evidence in France, was undertaken by one, who at that time had not a fingle acquaintance at Paris, — who carried out with him no letters of recomimendation to any pcrfon that could afnll him — who was then pofleil'ed of very little knowledge or experience of the French language for converfation — ^and who did not carry along with him from Britain any perfon to alhft him in this bufuiefs. After fome months fpent at Paris in fruitlcfs fearches for thofs ideal perfons, Lc Bnin and La MntT, I was on the point of return- ing to Britain, and had communicated that intention to the Duchefs of Hamilton and others, when fome difcoveries were made of fads important both in thcmfelves, and on account of their gradually conduding to the knowlege of additional fads totally inconfiftent with any notion of the truth of Lady Janets delivery: In this light tliev appeared not only to me, but to the moft eminent council in France, confultcd by inc upon that cccafion. The fleps and plan of condud advifed l)y thcfe counfcl, and approved of by fome of the moll eniincnt counlcl in li.ngland and Scothnd, produced the necefTity of niy making a nuicli lojiger ilay abroad tlian I liad any idea of a6 the conHncncemcnt ci this atfair ; and as my continuance was alfo carriclUy requcfted by the other guardians, I could not decline it without ading contrary to the duty I owed to them and to our pu- y 2 pih.; ( 12 ) pils ; nor was it pofTiblc for me to abandon what then appeared to mc in i'uch ft rone,- colours to be the caiife of truth itfelf. 'fc> Thus have I given to your Lordihip a true and fimple account of the rife and progrcfs of my lirft expedition to France, of the motives which induced the Duke of Hamilton's guardians to make this enquiry, and of mine for complying with tlieir requeft ; in all which, you wiU find nothing imnatural, or improper : On the contrary, I am perfuaded, that, fo far at leaft, you mufh approve the conduct' of thefe guardians, and cannot cenfure mine. Why then, my Lord, did you abftain from doing juflice, at Icaft, to the propriety and reafonablenefs of the meafures adopted by the Duke of Hamilton's guardians in making enquiry into this matter ? And why did your Lordfliip fufFer to pafs, without reprehenfion, the illiberal and unjuft attacks made by the council of the adverfe party, in their papers and in their pleadings, when they painted in the falfefl colours the defic-ns and condud: of the Duke of Hamilton's fa- o mily, of his guardians, and of myfelf in particular, as purfuing a diabolical and deep-laid fcheme for depriving Mr. Douglas of his moft valuable rights, and for rearing up, by the corruption of vv^itnefleSj, a falfe and hditious proof againfl the evidence of his birth. It will not eafily be believed that your Lordihip, poffefTed of fo much experience and fo great abilities, could have been the dupe of thcfc falfe and malignant fuggeflions : It could hardly efcape your obfervation, that ilHberal invedlive is one of the ulual expedients employed on the fide of falfehood, and is feldom or never refortcd to by the advocates of truth. WHEN ( 13 ) WHEN you heard the condud of the Duke of Hamilton's guardians arraigned, it might have occurred to your Lordfhip, that they could not pofTibly have had any other motive, but a fenfe of duty, and a ilrong convidlion that truth and juftice were on their fide ; for you mull have felt that a contcfl carried on by guardians ought to be viewed under a very different afpedl:, from that carried on by a man in the management of his own affairs, where he is perfonally concerned in the event. In this lafl: cafe it is natural to view, with a more jealous eye, every ftcp of condudl : A pcribn, deeply intcrcftcd in his own caufc, may be fuppofed under the influence of pcifiion or prejudice. He is not fo likely to form a cool and unbiailcd judgment, and, it his principles are not of the purefl: nature, his paffions and his vlev/s of interefl may poUibly tempt him to depart from the paths of inte- grity, and even fuggeft to him tlie Vv'icked and infamous expedient: of rearing up a falfc proof by the corruption of wltnefles. But the fame motives, which in that cafe authorife fuch fufpicionsy could not in this have any exiftence. The guardians of the Duke of Hamilton could not reap any profit to themfelves by the fuccefs of their pupil, had they affifled him to attain all the wealth of the late Duke of Douglas. Thefe guardians gave tlieir time and attention to the Duke of Hamilton's affairs, without cither ialary, appointment, or emolu- ment of any fort: They had fuflicient merit with the Duke of Hamilton's family, on account of the trouble they took, and the attention they gave, to the management of his concerns, and of the efiates left to him by his anccflors, without having any occalion to feek for additional merit, by trideavouring, without juft caufc, to acquire for him ether ellates. They- ( u ) They knew, tliat if tlicre was juH: reafoa to believe, that Mr. Douglas was truly the ion of Lady Jane, they could be fubjedi to ho blame or difadvautage for not endcavourhig to prove the contrary : They alfo knew, that fvinpofing him to be a fuppofititious child, the proof of it mull be attended with infinite trouble, and perhaps rifk to themfelvcs, and be productive ol much animofity and rancour, the bad cffcdts of which they miglit have occaf on to feel, without any profpecl: of perfonal bcnclit, even from the fuccefs of the enter- prize. Was this a fituation, my Lord, fuch as could have tempted any man, or fct of men, to engage in an unjufi undertaking ? Thefe are not the principles on which mankind a£l ; your Lord- fliip knows, that men in general are too much attached to their own intered, to their eafe and their quiet, to put all thefe to evident hazard, without any object of intereft or of paffion to incite them, and at the fume time without being prompted by any call of duty. It is therefore a fuppofition altogether prepoflerous and abfurd, to imagine, that any guardians, who generouily expofe themfelves to thefe hazards, could enter upon or perfill: in fuch an undertaking, witliout the mofl real conviction, that tlieir duty and the interclls of truth required it of tliem ; or that they could be induced to profecutc it themfelves, or to approve of others who did profecute it, by any other than the mofl honourable means. I protcft, my Lord, that I am almofl: afliamcd to confume a m.o- ment's time in vindicating cither the guardians or myfelf from the im- ])utations wliich were dircclly made, or indirectly infinuated, againfl our intcFitions and condudl in this caufe : The wcli-e(labli{]ied cha- radlers ot the perfons thus uujuftly and fcandaloufly attacked, ought, wherever they are known, to afford a fufhcient refutation of every calumny ( '5 ) calumny of this nature, and at the fame time to render thofe who thus bafely traduce them, objc(Sts either of contempt or of dcteftation. Without tranfgrcfring the bounds of propriety or modcfty, I may Tcnture to affirm, that if any improper defigns, or plan of condud:, had been neceflary to the Duke of Hamikon's fuccefs in this caufc, his guardians were men incapable of meditating or adopting any fuch iniquitous fchemes ; and further, I may be allowed to add, that if they had been capable of it, they would have made choice of another perfon than myfelf for carrying fuch defigns into execution. But as no man, nor fet of men, be their conduct ever fo laudable or free from blame, can be fecurc againft the attempts of malice and defamation, I hold it to be proper, on the part of thofe who are thus attacked, not to defend themfclves merely by an appeal to their chara6:ers, nor to make ufe of their general reputation as a fufficient entrenchment ; it is more honourable to meet their antagonifts in the open field, with the fame readinefs as if they had no fuch fortrefs to refort to. ^he Nature of circumjlantiate 'Evidence^ and the Impoffihil'ity of dlf proving by fuch Evidence a real Delivery. IF it be allowed, that either the guardians of the Duke of Hamil- ton, or the perfons they entrufled with the condud: of the caufe, were polTeffcd of any portion of common underftanding, they could not fail to perceive, that it was a thing totally impoffible, ever to rear up i\ ficl it fcus proof capable of annihilating the true fa^s belonging to Lady Jane Douglas's delivery,- if that ailerted event had ever had a real cxiflence. Hillory ( >c ) Hiftory aiul experience have fliewn, that it is vei'y poflible foi- impoftures to fuccecd, by reafon of tlic extreme difilcuUy with which the oppoTite party has to encounter, on whom the biu'den of proving the negative propofition Ucs ; but no Inftance can be fliewn of any fa- tisfadlory or fuccelsful proof brought of ilicfalfcbood of a true birth. Impofliire may tr: jmph by aiTuining the garb and air of truth, fo artfully put on as to cfcape detC'£lion ; but to endeavour to prove that to be an irr.pnjlure^ which really w^as a true jacU mufl be tlie inoft iboliih and the mofh fruitlefs of all pofFible attempts. On the fujipofuion o^ n real pregna?ic)' Rud real derivcry^ by what means can they be difproved, or how is it poffible to deprive fucli events of the reality and circumflances truly belonging to them ? But the moll: hopelcfs and ablurd of all poffible attempts, would be that of diiin-oving and annihilating the truth of a real delivery, by the irfcvences arihng from a iv'ide extended chain of c'lrcumflances ; for ii' fuch circun:»ltantial proof is raifed upon a falfe foundation, the greater the fuperftruclure is, and the more various the branches of evidence arc, the more cafily will the whole fabric be overturned. In an affair which depends on the direcft teftimony of t\YO or three witnclTcs, it may indeed happen, that the truth of a fa6t may be difguifcd or lupprcifed bv tlicir filfc tcilimony ; but he who grounds his caufe upon a circumftantial proof, confifting of various branches, and comprehending a variety of feparate and independent proofs, eiUi- bliflicd by circumftances and hy wdtnefTes unconne<fl.ed with each otlier, luuff be very confident indeed of the truth and juftice of that caufe.— A\'itncncs may be corrupted, but circumftances cannot ; nor are they fo pHant as the memories or difpofitions (^f men. From thcle coufidcratlons, a proof by clrciunfiances, fo incapable ot being })crverted, and ib liable to detection if falfe, has ever been allowed to be not only the mofh free from fufpicion, but the heft fiiited ( t7 ) fultcd for affording to the mind of man the farcll indications of tlie truth ; indications far more convincing and laiisiactory than can arilc from the pofitive teRimony of a few wiineilci Hable to error or fcduclion. In other caufcs, I have heard that this ufcd to he a favourite topic with your Lordfliip ; in this I know, that your efforts were employed in dhniniiliing the force and authority of a circumflantial proof. A moment's refie<Slion ough.t to have fatisficd your Lordfliip, that even fuppofing me to have the moft depraved heart, capable of at- tempting a falfe proof, for the purpofe of depriving others of their moft valuable rights, ftill, if you allov/cd to me any degree of undcrftanding, the manifeft impojfihihty of fuccecding in fuch a plan, efpecially by the means of circumjlantlal evidence^ muft have been a fufficient fecurity againft my attempting it. For inftance, when 1 fet about proving the non-exijlcnce of Madame he Ih-iin and of Fisr La Marr ; or proving, that on the loth of July 1748, Lady Jane was in the houfe oi Godefroi ; or apply ir.g to Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane the circumftances attending the Eiuci:l- incnts of the children of W.gnon and Sanry ; I could not fail to per- ceive, how cafy a matter it would be for the other party to overturn the v/holc of tliis fabric, if they had truth on llicir fide. In the {\\?i place, I had reafon to expecl, tliat Sir jc^lin Stewart him- fclf, wlien thus attacked, would have aClcd agrecal)Ic to the natural and neccdary feelings of an innocent man, jealous of his honour, by repairing inflantly to /\:ri.^ ; His reputation and intereft, the intereft of the perfon he called his fon, and ib.e plcafure of revenge againft thofe who had in:!peachcd his onn hoiir.p.r, were Inch iireririil)!'.: motives to h^'s undertaking this ic^uincy, that iiom the bce;innin^- I Z ! narked ( '» ) marked it down as certain, that Sir John Stewart, if innocent, would infallibly follow me to Paris, I was perfuaded, that no difficulty or inconvenience, real or ima- ginary, nothing but a confcioufnefs of guilt could ever pofTiblv deter him from meeting and counteradting me in France : It was obvious, how eafy it would have been for him, Vv'hen on the fpot, ta overthrow, by one or two fimple fadls on his part, any given num- l)cr of proofs accumulated on mine, if falfe, or erroneous : He would immediately have pointed out the houfe at Paris n.vhere his ivifc Lady yane "-a^as delruered^ and where llie was on the loth of July 1748. This too muft neceifarily have led to the difcovery of Madame La Brun and her daughter, the fuppofed witnefles to the delivery, and to many other eflential circumftances. Thus at once would have been overthrown all my vifionary proofs of the non-exiflence of Le Brun, as well as of the refidence at Godefroih on icth July, and va- rious other circumftances, from which I had attempted to prove the falichood of the delivery. While this alarming hazard muft have been conftantly in my view, muft it not, on the other hand, have been a confiderable incitement to Sir John Stewart's journey to Paris, that he had it in his power fo eafily to cover me with ftiame and confu- lion, both on account of the folly and the iniquity of my attempt ? Sccondlv, I muft have forcfeen, that even if Sir John did not rhink proper to comxC to Paris himfelf, he and Mrs. Hewit would be able to fupply their friends who came there with luch information ub would certainly lead to the difcovery of the facts and perfons effen- •.ial to their caufc, and luch as would eafily overthrow any falfe ivftcm of mine. Indcpendcu!: of tlicfc advantages enjoyed by the other party, I muft have been p:cpared 10 '.:Mn.i3:, if my fyftcm was founded in falfe- i. hood 3 ( '9 ) hood, that In the comCc of the anxious iiivcAigallons of bolli p?rticj, ionie fad or circuniilancc would certainly conic out, fufficicnt to detcci: the fallacy or ini(|uiLy on iriy p.iit ; for if I.c Bnni and I i Marr were real per Jons ccnccrncd in this aflair, how was it p-oflihl : for me ever to fucceed in a proof of tlicir non-cxiJlciKc? Could I ex- pcd to annihilate them, and all their Relations, Friends, antl Ac- quaintance, and every writing, record, or paper, that inadc mention of them, or of tlieir place of refidcncc ? In the fame manner was T expofed to certain dctecllon of the falic- hood, if without juft grounds I had fappofed, or endeavoured to prove, that Lady Jane never had been delivered, and tliat fhc ha 1 lefided at {7oc/ty;-^<'s on tlic loth of July 174^'. Such fuppofition, if i\\\^e^ admitted of cal'y detedion, by any tolerable proof of a diiTercn.t houfe where the then really was, or by the teilimony of any perlnn of character, who miglu have happened to fee her or her family immediately after the delivery in another houfe, or by tlie fn (1: nurfes of the children, or thole who faw thefe children recently after their birth, or had feen the accoucheur vifiting Lady Jane; all or nuAX of whom wotdd probably have been able to refer to circumdtances fufh- cicnt for eftablifliing the authenticity of the facts and dates. Thefe, with a variety of otlier particulars Infeparable from a real delivery, afforded molf certain means of deftroying any hypothefis of mine, if not founded in truth. All the arguments about the application of the Enlevements were in the fame manner liable to be expofed by a difcovery of the real per' fons who had carried off the children of Migfion and Sanry, or by fuch a proof of Lady Jane's delivery, or fituation in other refpects, as made the clrcumftanccs of thefe Enlcvcfnents totally inapplicubk to her and her hufband. Z 3 The ( 20 ) The fame reafonlng may with fimllar force be applied to various other parts of the proof brought on the part of the plaintiffs. Is tlicre a man bold enough to have entered upon, or to have continued in the prorecntion of a fyl>*?!ii of this fort, expofed to inch a variety of hazards, if he v\"erc not acliiated by the Urongefl: conviction, tliat truth and juflice were on his fide; and if he were not co'iillioiis, that his real fccurity, as well as his only hopes of fuc- cef-, aniidft lb many Turronniling dangers, mud proceed from the i:rni fupport of integrity and truth ? * * * * tI^ -^ -^ "* Prefmnptioris and Proofs In fa'uonr of the Condii^i on the Part of the Duke of Hamilton's Gtiardians. FROM the nature of this contefl:, and from the fads and obfer- vations which have now been ftated, feveral reflections obvioufly prcfent themfelves. In the firft place, it muft be owned, that nei- ther I, nor the other guardians of the Duke of Hamilton, are intitled to much merit on account of the integrity and propriety of our intentions and condu£l in the courfe of this affair ; fmce it has been fiiewn, that there was no temptation, no motive of intereft or paiTion, to incite us to depart from the paths of rectitude; and t'lnthcr, bccaufe it muft have been fo clear and obvious to us, that any fcliemc of rearing up a falfe proof, efpecially by circumftantial eviJicncc, was a thing totally impradicable. But candour requires tliat another refledion, equally obvious and juuj iliould alio be a^^plicd, to wit, Tliat fmce it was fo evident that 4 on ( 21 ) no fcheme of a falfe proof could pofTibly fucceed, and that there was no temptation for us to make any fuch wicked attempt, every pre- Jimiption in favour of the rediitude of the proceedings ought to have come to our aid in judging upon this cafe. Judges endowed with difcernmcnt and impartiality, ought not raflily to have prefumed, that in the commencement, or during the conduct of thecaufc, either I, or the other guardians, did, or futfered to be done, any thing that was unfair: Neither ought it ralhly to liave been prefumed, that, in fiich circumllanccs, men of clhibliihcd charadlers, and enjoying conlideration in the world, could be fo void of fcnfc and of honour, as to forfeit that confidcration and charac- ter, by iniquitous practices in fupport of wicked and impracticable fchemes, in the fuccefs of which they could have had no interefl. It was your duty, my Lord, to have flatcd fully and fairly both my fituation and that of the other guardians of the Duke of Hamil- ton in this matter, to have excited the attention of the other Noble Lords to it in a particular manner, and to have declared that by the rules of reafon and of candour, as well as by thofe of law, every prefumption in this cafe w'as in favour of the integrity ot theic guardians, with regard to their intentions and conduct. It was your duty to have obferved, that this prefumption was \o Arongly founded in the nature of the thing, th.at notliii^^ but the moft diredf, clear, and convincing evidence ot corruiniou ot wit- nelTes, or of improper conduct on my part; could be admillible, or deferve to be liflened to. If the matter had been brought to this iffue as it ought to have been, and if inftead of having to combat with conjectures and inli- nuations deilitute of truth, and unconneded with precife facts, any- pointed charge of corrupt practices liad been made againft me, the falfehood ( " ) falfehoocl or frivolity of fuch an acculluion would foon have been made manifeft, INIany inveterate enemies I had raifed to myfelf by this contefl, and by obeying a call of duty in undertaking a taHc, otherwiie diiagreeable to myfelf: If therefore there had been a poffibi- llty of difcovcrlng a falfe ftcp with regard to the rectitude of the proceedings on my part, it would have been feized by my adver- farics with the utmoft avidity : In the perufal of the proof, your Lordlnip muft have perceived the ftrongeft indications of thefe dif- pofitions on the part of my antagonills, and of the rancour and nialignity, with which they puiTucd every trivial, or feemingly ambiguous circup/i fiance, that co::ld afford them any hopes of being able to involve me. They went fo far as to employ fplcs, fome of them lodged in the very houfes of the witnelfes: They invefligated and led proofs not only of the converfation or words that dropt from myfelf, but extended their enquiries and proofs even to the idle converfations of the fervants that attended me: Yet with all this ardent zeal to dif- cover m.atter of reproach againft me, and with all the advantages which your LordHiip procured for them in this caufe, by the claufe you fuggcfled in the judgment upon the preliminary appeal, in confc- qucnce of which my journals and memorandums, and the mofl con- f dential papers kept for private ufe were laid open to the defendants, 'here has not been difcovered the moft dillant appearance of impro- per conduct with any of the witncflcs, nor any thing that my warmed friends ever could have reafon to regret. Confcious of having neither intended nor done any thing In the whole courfe of this affair unfit to fee the light, I rejoice, my Lord, ^t the pains that have been taken, to make manifefl the whole pro- grcis of my condud : It gives double force to the defiance which I now ( "-3 ) now give to your Lordfliip, and to all mankind, to give a fmglc inftance of any thing reprchcnfiblc in my condudl with the witneiTcs, Qi- of any attempt, either by pecuniary motives, favour, reward, or promife of any fort, to pervert the truth, in any refpedt whatever. Befides the evidence arifing from all tlicfc proofs and prefump- tions, I might with fafety appeal to another tcfl: of my conduct, and foregoing other advantages might even agree, that this tefi: fliould of itfclf be decifive, — I mean, the opinion entertained, and the reports made upon this fubjed:, either by the general voice of Paris, and the perfons of the greateft confideration there, or by the voice of the moft refpciflable Britiili fubjects, who happened to be at Paris dur- ing the wholcj or any part of the period of this contefl. If the prevailing opinion of French and Britifh at Paris was lb much in favour of the plaintiffs and their conduct, it muff be imputed to fomething elie ihan the efFed: of any recommendations from Britain to France, either for afhfting me perfonally, or the caufe which 1 efpoufed : For it is a fadt, perhaps not iinknoivn to your Lord- fhip, that whilft 1 ventured upon this enquiry and proof, without the benefit of any i^id, or recommendation from Britain, the party I had to encounter v/ith, enjoyed that aid in an eminent degree : They had the benefit of niojl poieerful recoimnendations from Britain^ fuch as gave them an advantage, feldom enjoyed, during the dependance of a cauie, by the one party over the other. Of all the tciliinonics with regard to my conduct while abroad, none could be more iatisfa^tory to the public, nor to me more ho- nourable and agreeable in every refpe^l, than the teflimony given in the Floufe of Lords, upon repeated occafions, by a truly noble peer of the firll: rank and cllimation in Britain. It proceeded from One, who ( =4 ) who at lUc commencement, and during the moft eflentlal period of the proceedings in France, was at Paris in the iituation of AmbalTador Plenipotentiary from Britain, and by that means, had better occafion to be well informed of the true ftate of fadts, and particularly of the conducft of parties, than your Lordfliip, or any other peer who fpoke or judged in this caufe. Your LordOiip will Toon perceive, t1:at I mean the late Duke of Bedford : — His name muft ever be held in veneration, while there remains in this country, any attachment to real goodnefs, and to an honourable, manly, generous, and exalted charaQer. I can appeal to your Lordflilp, and to every one who knew the temper and fmcerity of his mind, whether any thing but real opinion of the propriety of the conduct, could have incited him to give the public and warm tcflimony he gave in favour of an individual upon this occafion ? No man held in greater detcftation than he did, every thing un- fair; and if with all the information Vv-liich he had fo good oppor- tunities of receiving at Paris, he had found rcafon to believe, that there vv'as any thing reprehcnfible in my condud, the firil and mioR fcvcrc attack upon me would have come from that quarter. Your Lordfhip knows, that there was no difguifc nor deceit in the charafter of this noblcm.an : You niult likcwife have obfcrvcd, that though diflinguifhed by his abilities, and talents, he podcfrcd the Hrmncfc and integrity of his mind, untainted by that duplicity and timidity, which fo often attend and degrade eminent abilities ; — Pur- fuing candidly and ardently, what appeared to him right and honour- able, he was equally carclefs of vain applaufe, and of unjufl or fadicus clamour, I muft ( 25 ) I inuR be cxcufal, n^y Loid, ibr incliil-inj^ i:r: ad:;ii.ati;!n ::C ^ diaracLcr i\) kldoin to be nict wbli ; aiul f'>\- piivbi- ihi:^ juil ti-i;:irc to the aiiics g1-' One, whofc cleatli I jliali ever lincerci / Ititicr.t, as a national lols, as well as a real mlsrorttme to ail who had the honoui' and happiiiefs of his particidar acqtiaiatance. Since I have totiched npon this fubie^Sl of refpeiflable authorities, I lliall h.cre beg leave to add tlie Icniinients of fonie gentlemen, who' had the beft opporliniity of inveiligating every ilep of conducl:, and all tlie proofs in this cauie : The letters received by nie Toon alter liie dccifion of thcDougias caufe, from Mr. Yorke, Mr. Dinming, (llien Solicitor General,) Mr. Wedderburn, and Sir Adam I'erguii'on, con- tain their fentiments on tliis fnbjecl:, cxprcil in fudi a maimer, a': does honour to the goodnefs of their hearts, deeply touclrcd by th-a iinexpeded, and Vvdiat appeared to them unmerited attacks, and inii- n nations to my prejudice. Copies of thefe letters arc fubjoincd ; I reckon m)rclf at libertv to communicate them, becauie thefe gentlemen never wifncd to conceal the opinions, which in thefe letters they have expreft, and lb nuich dildained any falfe complaifance of this kind, that they have fmcethc dccihon taken every opportunity of declaring thicir real fentiments. It is not from any principle of vanity, that thele authorities are now poured in upon your Lordihip ; for though I am proud of the regard and alTedlion of thole whole names have in this letter been mentioned, yet furely, it is no foundation tor vanity, that I have abrtained from doing thole things, which, if I had done, muft for ever have covered me with infamy: All the tellimonics with regard to the integrity and propriety of my condu'ft, however handfomely expreft \vi[h regard to me, I conlider as in fact amounting to no more than A a this, ( -'^ ) t]^,is,ar.t; tlicrvibretl.cy may the more calil}' be produced v.iihoiit any vioiaiiv)!! ui prc^pncty. I rrotcil. iTi\ Lc^rd, tliat inftcad of rnliiking there is licre any rr-'/rn ic>r vanitv, mv feeUnii; upon this fubjecl is, that there is fome- lliing i:!i'iii!:atiu:^ in being obhged to appeal to the tcftimoriy of any i^.Kui \v]latlbc^■cr m matters of this kind: — b]iit as lew men have at all times tlie choice of their iituations, or can by tlie moil bbimclefs condncf on tlieir parts, be fecure againft defamation, io the iincx- pccled and unmerited attack made upon mc in the Iloufc of Lords, has left me no choice in this matter : It makes it now proper for me, to lurmount any faHe pride or falfe deUcacy ; and fince the attack ^yas made from a quarter, which enjoys weight and authority from ofhce, it is fuitable to produce in oppofition to it, the fentimcnts and authority of others entitled to real refped and credit from more genuine confiderations. 7^ -5^ •* Aiijrjcrs to certain Ohjccfions to this Addrcfs. () N perufal of thefe letters, it will perhaps be urged in mitic^atioa r)f the blame here thrown upon your lordihip's conduct, that you • vere not the only peer, who I'pokc upon this occafion : It will be laid ib.at there were others who delivered an opinion in favour of the de- i>.ridauv, and wlio in their argument took up ground funilar to that ■\\ hi^li you occupied : Some of your adherents will from thence pro- bably cojitend, that this addrefa ought not to have been confined i:'!c]^' to "^'oi'v Lordlliio-. )si' ( 27 ) It \vGiiiu be fiinuicnt for nic at pi'cfcnt ':') c:'vc this -ad^wcv, l!,.>l il'l iru}HUc 'J) youv I orciriiip notiiin:,^ hut wh:\i tn:]-,- bch)!';:-^ to \'';'i, rnd ii' tiic lads thus imputed, arc ilicli a. authcM-ile llic ui,!hrv:i;" ^ns ]iKidcuncn t]>am, I liavc a ri[^ht to make this adciixl's \'.'hiu)i:t: ^iv~ ing any other realbns, and without further [;rooh of tiic ]^rorri..-ry of dirccliu^ it to yourlclf alone. It \T0U)d aUo be luih'jient, v/ere I to fav, that I kuov. t-)0 iuuc!i of tlie proercls and true iiiibjrv ui" what lias hain^eued iu this cauie, iTom {\x?i to hifr, not to be convinced how mucli tlic fate of it, aud tlie incideiits wiiich precjded that (ate, are impuiable to vour I oj-d- {]:i;\ as t;ie ^rcat fi)i-i;<:?; a:id mover of the whole, ^v]let]ler tliat lorin^ a^ficd vifddy cr invifibly. Bu.t witliout avaihng myfelf at prefent of thefe general anfwers as fuflicieut tor removing tiie objecfion, I diall b.g heave to take notice of a few circiunftanccs wliich pccuharly diibiiguifued voiu' fituation, in this caufe. It is well known that, on the ck\y of decifion, there were only two noble Lords who fpoke and dehvered their opinions on tlie lanie hue with your Lordfliip, v/!iile there were other tv^-o noble Peers who fpoke on the oppohte fide, and who fupported tlieir opinions, by great force of argument, and by that knowlcde of th^e caufj v.!iiv.h in- fpired the real conviclion under which thc^' fpoke. It vras no fecrct to the world, and yotu" Lordfnip mud luivc been coni^cious cf it, that if there ever was a cauie, v^here it was in your pov/er to ueMke citlier Icale preponderate, it v;as in this : It you did not f V.1 tiie ficredu'Js of the truil that was rep''ied :n ycu, vou muil at \<z.S. have "".dt that the balance was ]daccd in vour liands : and you oeght to lii.ve roreilen, ti:;l th.: judgment yen that d.g' gave, ly a 2 ^". ui.;U. f 28 ] Avoiild be reiudgeu, even in this world, by tlie great tribunal of the public. Vrithout taking into the account the attention paid to your Lord- frilp's trulv eminent abilities, and the weight you enjoy in all quef- tio!^:5 of appeal, tliere were circumllanccs in this calc, which tended to iiicreaie that weight, and they created a degree of refponfibility upon vou.r Lordlhip, not equally applicable to any other Peer in that autrull auembly. It '.vas an appeal from the northern part of the ifland, from that part of the kingdom to w^hich you belong ; in appeals from whence, your lordiliip has hiccceded to great weight and influence fmce tlie death of that able and upright judge Lord Hardwick, — ^juflly la- mented by all, and by none more than by the inhabitants of the north. If it might be fuppofed, that there was an error in the judgment of rcverfal, the opinions delivered by the two other Noble Lords,' who fpoke on the lame fide of the quefiion, merit a very different •..ini'^deraiion fvom }'our Lordlhip's : To them the circumftanceb of this very voluminous caufe were entirely new, till within a very iiiort time of tlie Imal decilion : The characfters of the pcrfons con- i:tiued on th.e part of the plaintiffs, and of the judges by whom tliis '.,;.. To h;id b/cen decided in the fnH inftance, were to thefe Noble 1 ' :vd' totally Uiiknovv'n : Thele things would naturally produce in :':j:ri a great tlegrce of reliance upon your Lordfliip in a caufe of f ire i-.y-fancc ('f ihi^ fort, joined to the knowlege of your abilities, tiat, in your diftinguiflied fituation, you could ■1 . )P. . [ n ■' hiiicr V' u:;.ii to ciilcrtain any partiality, might naturally, and '■--: :oo s i:);p:rcer'.t;b;y, operate upon the minds of judges poffeffed ti lV,<: bcil inrcnti^.io. ; elpccially when they perceived the l)-mptoms of ( =9 ) of your reloiiition to rcvcrfc tlie decree of the Court of SeiTion; — lyniptonis too evident to be rnirtaken, and t(X) generally known, long before tlie day of the dccllion. But, my Lord, the fiiine apology (if I may be allowed the phrafc) which, on the fuppofition of error, thcfe Ncjble Lords may be intitlcd to, could not poiTibly avail your Lordllup : What may ferve to account for their C(jndu6l, will only ferve to render your's more unaccountable. To your Lordfliip, the circumflanccs of tliis caufe were not new : AVithout taking into tlie account any extrajudicial attention given by your Lordihip to this conteft, you had an opportunity to learn a great deal on the fubjecl: at the time of the firfl appeal in this cauie, in the year 1764 ; and at that time you did 'not fail to take a part in it : The part which you then took muil have made an im predion en your own mcn^ory, lince it made fo deep an imprcflion on the minds of tiioie who had occafion to attend to )Our arguments and conduct in tlie courfe of that preliminary appeal. The characters and conduT of that majority (>f tlie judges who liad decided tliis cau.ie in ScotLind, were alio well knovrn to your LcmxI- fhip. If tlicy had been eqi;allv well knov/n to tlie oilicr ?sobie Lords who Huijcd in tb.is caufe, it may realonaljly be preium^d, that great weight v,-c,u.ld have hccn allowed to the opinions ot tingle judges, at kail that their kniinients would have been tr':ated '.viih more reipecl and attention tlian they happened to meet widi trom your Lorolhip on the day of the decilion. Tlie characters ioo of feveral of the guardians (^f the Duke of Ha- milton YOU liad ccc.\(]on to know\ As to niyiclt, I liau not the ho- nour Oi iieing perkMiallv much known to vc^ur Lf^'diliin ; but it will iivit l:,c thought preiunrjtujus in n.ie t ) take it lor gra'.ited, th;;t in the .v:-;tcnrive circle ox' your accjuaintance, you muft ];a^•e liCard iach an account ( 30 ) accounr y ': mc. :.i r-:g!it to liavc rilii'alncd from any ralli fufpicion^ or i::-'^:\'-^cr cl niiii: Th.:l' conndcr.itions, bc-^c-cs vtlicrs that might be mentioned, LV' J to accumulate upon yoor Loruiliip's head the relponfibihty in tills cau;c, and to jnilir/ the propriety of tliiis confining this addrefs t'j ^■Cul■l■.;i in particular. 'lh:re rcmaina to he ohviatcJ only oue other ohjecLion, which, lO iar a.:^ i can iarcicc, is UivCi'r to oe niacie to thu aciurcis. It mav be faid, by thole wlio dilapprove of any attack upon your Lordihlp, and perhaps you may think id vourlelf, that You were entitled to efcape any diiccl attack, at Icart from me, becaufc in lonie parts ot your ipeech., )'ou hiad behaved with a degree of attention towards me ; had made uie of polite cxpreihons whenever I was mentioned, and had even gone the length of mingling fDme com- pliment with your oblcrvations. 1 do not deny th.at tliere is fome foundation for this affertion, and ai, it is my intention neitlier to exaggerate nor extenuate anv part of ^•e.ur couducl, it woidd be unbecoming in mc to avoid doing juftice t J thib pau-t of it. Your Lordfhip took occafion, indeed, to mention to your illuf- trlous audience, that Mr. Stuart, tlic co'KhiQor of tiie caufe, enjoyed a \ erv for characler ; ;md you were [ leafed V) add, that yon believed lie defcrvcd it; — io far I am (ddh;c 1 to \ our Lordildp, and return -\-,.u thanks fa- the civility : Lat hi, n: :; to be expccled, that I am to overrate the value (;f th: ^ cooioibi.v'n ; hiii IJs, that it flioidd fo much (jvcrpower mc wiih '■■■:;; -a' ', a'; to make me inf:niible of the real ( 3' ) real import of oilier parts of yoiir [.'n-diliip':. f] ccch ; or oi'' tlic true i]>ir!t and tendency of the wlio'e of it. I am too \Ycll acquainted \vit:i your L;)rdr]:i;)'3 manner of ir.dircct nttaek, to be amufed hv tlic apparent ci\ilitv (-■: exprciri(jii : It wenkl 1)C an cxcefs of gratitude indeed, were i f) reckein m\-rLlf mucli (^bligcd to your LordQfn>, for tlic repeated d;.'cl.ir;iti(>ns you made cf vour periuaiion of my ini:ioeenee, wdr'e ^":u were artfully p:;inting in the biackeil colours, tJie conduct or tb.e eanfe, r.nd cn.deavonring to perfuade your audiciice, tliat fomc of tlve molt cilential parts of the proof on the part of tlie plaintiifs, niuil have been the reldlt of corruption and perjury. VVhen any grofs charge of tliis kind was made, You were pleafed indeed, to reprefen.t me as deceived, or impofed upon by tiKjfe who had been truiled or employed by mc in France : — "f his alio I admit was to me cl\il and polite. But, my I/o]-d, th.is veil of civility was of too tliin a texture to ccii- ceal the real iifuf ance it covered. Vfhen vour I.orti(]np, v/ith all tliofe powers of elo'juenee v.h.ich vou f) rcadil"' command, arraigned the conJu:c c: trie eaule ; when vou alarmed th.e honc^urable feelings of the n ):-.lc fccrb wiili jitfpi- c'y.iis oj Cji-rulitirni an. I perjury:^ ;ind v/licn you amiounced to then^ with an air or impoitance, the pret'. r.ded diiei:very or ./ chairyc in the phiinl'ij's ■■■■Ivi '.f evidence after n (\!\u::i p^ri:.!, the duUell per- ceptions mu.ft at once iiavc ddcovered tlie iniudiCicn.cy ot th.e covering which y(Hi had iramed lor mv |ir(;tecli(;n. It vras evident, and I em rced^' to i.fmit i':, that if tlie pivTcure drawn by yoin- Lordihi[-i v,\.:: a ^ailhlid traijijrii't- ii'-'!n ?-^'aoire, if I the ( 32 ) tl:c tr:.rJ':v:lKMi3 were c;".ri(li:5le(l in tlic manner you rcprcfcntcd ilicm, tlicv would b'j totally and abloUilclv incompatible with any idea of ir.v irjioccncc. In a caufe where lumdretls of witneiles are examined, it may in- deed liairocn, and I believe gener:illy does happen, that tl^'re are ibveral who dL'p;)re to fadls which are not true: Inaccuracy of me-^ mory, llie improper zeal of witnc'les to ferve one or other of the parties, or the iniluence of bad paliions, may irequcntly produce talie iwearing ot this nature, "without any degree of blame upon tliofj Wiio are entrii'dcd wiili the general condudf of tlie caufc • Ikit, ir.y Lord, live fdcts charged b^' your Lordlliip, were fuch as came home direelly to tlie candudors. li' there was that corruption of witneffes, which witliout evidence vou afferted : If the p-eneral conduel or tlic caufe merited the attack J o you made upon It ; but more particidarly, if there was any trutli in vour obicrvatiou that the plan of evidence uaas clianged after a cer- tain period, in order to accom;modate it to the purpofes of the plain- tiiTs, tlicle things I miaintain could not poITibly have happened without vr.y knowlegc and direction : The apparent excuie you contrived for me, b\' imputing the blame to the perfons employed in. hrance, I beg leave to difclaim, as inadequate for me, as well as urduR to them. I naiufi; have been the guilty perlbn if fuch iniquity really was committed; I have no dihiculty, and I feel as little apprehenfion, in admitting this juh: and obvious inference from the accufations con- tained in your Lordlhip's fpeech. Ihat, VAX Lord, l:cfide3 this indireef at^ick under the mafk of civl- iii)' and. cc;mpliment, other att;'.cks IlIs indireel^ though not lefs fevere, i.vere aimed at me by vour Lordlfdo. Of ( 53 ) Of tliefe Tome notice was taken iu my lafl Letter ; I Hiall not now repeat them, any further than to declare, that, in my opi- nion, there could not be a more feverc, nor a more injurious attack, than that which your Lordfhip ventured upon, when you took it for granted, that Menager had, in the beginning, told me the fame ftory which afterwards appeared in his depolition, and when upon this ground, you thought proper to infinuate, not only that this converfation with him mufl: have been coi^iccaled bv me from the French council, but that, at the outftiting of the caufe. I mufl have been convinced of the reality of Lady Jane Douglas's de- livery. " It is not eafy to imagine a greater degree of wickednefs and auda- city, or a greater want of ccmmon fenfe and underllanding, than would have been fixed upon me if 1 had defcrved the imputation thus conveyed by your Lordfliip. This I am well warranted to fay, fmce it is fo manifefl:, that the loweft degree of underftanding, admitting all the bad qualities of the heart, muft have prevented fuch a criminal enterprize on my part, on account of the impofTibility of fucceeding in it : And, on the other hand, the fmallefl portion of integrity or virtue, mufl have been fufhcient to reftrain me, though I had been poilefl of the moft able and entcrprifing genius for plans of iniquity. No fituati(m can be imagined, in which the conductor of a caule might, with Icfs appearance of prefumption, have laid claim to com- plete credit for the fincerity of the conviction under which he aded; and yet, if any regard had been due to the infinuations contained in fome parts of your Lordfhip's fpecch, the opinion formed upon my condud, mud have been the reverfe of what I was thus entitled to exped. B b If ( ^4 It ihcre needed rniy thing further to fallsfy your Lordflilp, and all mankind, of the fmcerity of that ccnviclion which has thus been called in qucflion, I was always ready mod: folemnly and fincerely to declare before God and the world, as I now do, that in the profecution of this undertaking 1 was actuated by the moft complete and real convidion ; and \vhich, after the moff mature confideration, ftill continues to animate my brcail. I did not chufe to intrude with my teftimony, nor did your Lord- fhip chufe to call for it, before the decifion of this caufe. At that time, it feemed fuitable to my fituation to abftain from giving volun- tary evidence, even if fuch evidence could legally have been offered ; but the decifion has now removed every circumftance which might have then diminifhed the force of a teftimony from one fuppofed to be concerned in the event. There is now no object of inter-eft to ferve, there Is nothing to prompt me but a regard to truth, and to my own honour unjuftly attacked. A material part of your Lordfhip's fpeech in the laft flage of the caufe, and in the very moment of decifion, has in a manner called upon me for tliis teftimony — I now give it, under the deepeft im- preffion of the prefence of an Intelligent and Overruling Power, from whom no thought or action is concealed, and to whom, both of us muft be accountable for our conduct in this ftage of our exiftence. ***** CON- ( 35 ) CONCLUSION. I HAVE now, my Lord, unloaded myfelf of what mufl: other- ways have remained a weight upon my mind during my life ; I hope that hereafter, whatever your declared opinion may he as to the merits of the caufe itfelf, you will at leafl give me credit for the fm- cerity of the convid:ion which animated my conduct, and for the rectitude of the proceedings regulated hy that conviction. It is no light or trivial matter, my Lord, to traduce the character of an innocent man, jealous of his honour and reputation. The attempt to do me this cruel injury, was attended with pe- culiar circumllances of aggravation. The attack was made in the greateft and moft augufl aflemhly in the world ; it came from a perfon High in Office, and whofe weight and authority was fuch, as would in moH: cafes, whether juftly or unjuilly, have been fuflicient to crufli to pieces any private man. It was dire^Stcd againfl one, who liad no opportunity of anfwcring for hlmfclf, or of refuting your fufpiclons and aiTcrtlons ; nor a poffibility of obviating the attack, for the imputations and the new ground taken up iu this laft llagc of the caufe, being fuch as never had been fuggefted by tlie counfcl or judges in the original jurifdidtion, it could not have been forefeen or cxpe(5ted that they were to be refortcd to in the Court of Appeal. Bb 2 It ( 3« ) It wa? directed ngainft one, who had enjoyed the trufl and confi- dence of many of the moil: refpedable perfons in both parts of this iiland ; and who had hitherto pofleflcd an unblemlflied reputation, together with th.e warm attachment of many vahiable friends. Could there be any thing more ungenerous, than an attack made upon fuch unequal terms ? Could there be any thing more cruel, than an unprovoked, unwarranted attempt to deprive me of that reputation, and of thofe attachments, which I have ever valued more than life itfelf ? It can be no juft excufe for this condu<£l, that the facrlfice of me, feemed neceflary to difpofe the minds of men to an acqui- efcence in the opinion you gave upon the merits of the caufe. Impartiality and juftice were due to me, as much as to the caufe itfelf, or to either of the parties interefted in the event. I am not afhamed to own, that my fenfibility upon this occafion has been flronger perhaps than it ought to have been; fome men in my fituation, and with the fame confcioufnefs of innocence, would have been able to reft fatislied with that refled:ion ; they might have had fuch force of mind, as to view with indifference, the fate of the conteft, and with contempt, the unjuft attack upon themfelves. — I have not reached thefe heights in philofophy ; all my attempts to attain them, have been defeated by the fuperior force of thofe feel- ings which I have found too ftrong for me to combat. 1 had never figured to myfelf, the poflibility of meeting with an injury of this nature ; my mind was unprepared for it : The unex- 8 pe^cd ( i^ ) pcdcd ihock, and the conflict of the various pafTions cxcltc\l by the injuftice I met with, had ahnoil proved fatal to inc. My conftitution, impaired by the labours which preceded the pe- riod of the decilion, had not ftrength enough to fnftain the agitations occafioned by what pafl at that time. Tlioiigh it be now more than three years fmce thefc unhappy events, it is only of late, that I have had health and fpirits fufficient to fui^port me in this painful tafk of addreffing your Lordiliip — A taflsi doubly painful to me, be- caufe every line brings along with it, the recolledlion of all the hard- iliips and injuries furtained. This is the apology I have to offer, for having fo long deferred an addrefs, which your Lordiliip had fo good reafon fooner to expect. My general motives for now entering upon this difcuffion have been already mentioned ; and if any further were requifite, there is one perfonal to myfelf, which, with every man capable of fympathy, will be allowed to be of fomc weight. It is this : That during thefe three years I have made every effort to reconcile myfelf to tlic fate and incidents of this caufe, or at lead to blot them from my remembrance ; but from experience, I have found thefe efforts vain : The fame experience has given me affurance, that I never could be able to regain my former happincis and peace of mind, without unloading my breafl in the manner I have now done. It may be an error or misfortune in conftitution, that the attacks upon charadler or condud, and the ideas of injuftice fuffered by our- felves or by our friends, fliould produce fuch deep and lafling im- preffions : — But fuch is the conftitution of my minck ( 33 1 If, in the conrfc of thcfc letters I have fometimes mixed with ihe do fence of myfclf, an attack upon your Lordfliip, it has been fuch only as was infcpirably connected with the fubje<£t. I have not permitted myfelf to adopt the fentiments, or to fellow the example of thofe, who declaim againft you upon general or upon fa<flious topics. The facT:s and arguments upon which any charge has here been made againft Vf^ur Lordfliip, have been fo fully prefented to view, that it will be in vain for you ever to Hatter yourfelf, that you are not called upon in the moil preihng manner to refute me if that is in your power. Attention to vour own charadler, as well as to the fatisfadion due to me, and to the public, require, that your Lordfliip fliould dedi- cate fome of your vacant hours to the difcuflion of tlie fubjedts of thcfe letters. If you are able to prove, that they contain mifrepre- fentations of you, or if you can fhcw that there is error in the fa6ls, or fallacy in the arguments employed by me, there can be little doubt that my Vv^ifli of receiving an anfwer will be gratilied. If the multiplicity of your otlicr affairs be afFigncd as an cxcufc for your avoiding to give any anfwer, there is yet one other method which may fcrve to afford me fatisfaQion, and may pofTibly do juflice to yourfelf without confuming much of your time : It is to publi/b to the ivorld your fpeccb or ar^unicnt hi the Douglas cauj'e. If, after all, your Lordfhip, inflead of adopting either of thefe plans, ftiall chufe to wrap yourfelf up in filence, or to excite others to ( 39 } ■ to employ their talents in your defence, tlic world will be at no lofs to penetrate your motives. I have littk doubt, that in the elevated and powerful fituation you enjoy, furrounded by fuch numbers of friends or dependants, there will be found, amongfl: thofe who cither have or wiHi to have your protcdlion, fome perfons abundantly ready to enter the lifts for you upon this occafion. To thefe gentlemen, if any fuch fhould appear, I beg leave to addrefs myfelf once for all, and to alTure them, that every pro- duction on their part Ihall on mine remain unanfwercd, and be totally difregarded. It is from your LordHiip alone that I can receive tlie fatisfa£lion which is due to me ; I am bound to anfwer every thing that comes diredly from yourfclf, and cq^ually bound lo difregard what proceeds from others. I cannot think of concluding without declaring the genuine ftatc of my mind with regard to your Lordiliip : Neither malice, nor fadion, nor deep-rooted perfonal dillikc, have with me had any fliare in producing this addreiV: On the cc^ntrary, it has not been without a large mixture of concern and regret, that I have myfelf perceived, or found it neceflary to make others perceive, any real defeats in your charader or condu6l. Where nature has been fo bountiful in bcfiowing her richeft gifts of genius and of eloqucncCj it muft affect every lover of humanity with ( 40 ) with regret to fee thefe qualities degraded, or even the luflre of them oMcured bv anv unfortunate or effential blemifhes. In declaring my fentlments fo freely as I have done in the courfe of tlicfe Letters, there has perhaps been too little attention to the didaics of vulgar prudence: Some of my friends earneft for my prol'pcrity, in thofe things to which that phrafe is commonly ap- plied, have ufed every argument to diffuade me from this public aJt'rci's to your Lordfhip. Your diftinguifhed pov/er and influence, and tbvj confcqucnces of your enmity and refentment, have been painted to mc in the flrongefl: colours. — I know and admit the great extent of that power, and am aware, that by this (lep, which many v.iil probably condemn as rafli or imprudent, I may draw upon mv- felf, not only your own refentment, but the bad offices alfo, of thofe who wifh to prove their zeal, or to pay their court to your Lord- fnip. All this, and every confequcnce perfonal to myfelf, I have maturely weighed : But liftening to the voice of honour, I find there is a fuperlor call upon me thus to declare and vindicate the truth, even at the hazard of every future objed: of interefl. There is little merit indeed in giving the preference to a call of this nature, efpecially as I can widi great truth afliire your Lordfhip, that it is not in your power, nor in that of your friends, to make inc uncafy by any exertion of your or their influence, though at- tended with prejudice to me in thofe objeds of intereft which are fo ^;cncrally and fo ardently purfued. AVithout pretending to any uncommon degree of philofophy or (;i iclt-dcnial, 1 have had fuflicient experience both of myfelf and »jf the world, to be able to form fome notion of thofe pofleflions, as ( 41 ) as well as of that flate of mind, which are bcfl: quaUfied to afford real fatisfadion ; and of this I am certain, that in my eftimation, neither riches, nor power, nor fplendor, attended with a bad or doubt- ful fame, have any allurements, comparable to that genuine fatif- fadion which belongs to an honourable condudt, joined with an unblemilhcd reputation. With thefe fcntiments, it is much more cafy for me, and even with little effort, to fuftain any adverfe incidents with refpe6t to fortune or ambition, than to bear with injuftice, or to overlook an iniquitous attempt to traduce my chara(!^er :-*^Nor could I ever recon- cile myfelf to the notion of tamely fubmitting to injury or infult from any quarter, however high and powerful the perfon may be from whom the injury proceeds. Neither fliall it be in the power of any man hereafter to fay, that accufitions to my prejudice, had at a certain period of my life been thrown out againft me, in the firft affembly of the nation, without receiving from me the anfwer which they deferved. — It might juftly be interpreted an acquiefcence on my part, were 1 either to avoid fuch anfwer altogether, or to defer it until you had quitted this ftage : or even until that period, when, either by the courfe of nature, or by the inflability of human affairs, a decline of your abilities, or of your power and influence, might happen to take place. At fuch a period> any anfwer, efpecially if it partook of the nature of an attack, would deferve to be dcfpifed and dctefted as daflardly and ungenerous : — Such conduct, or the acquiefcence under reproach, might be proper on the part of one who was confcious of having deferved the imputa- tions ; but, confcious as I am of innocence, and having fo much rcafon to complain of unmerited injury and injuflice, it is proper tliat the vindication of my charadcr, however it may affe(^ that of C c your ( 42 ) your Lordihip, fhould be addrefTed to You whilft in full poffefTion 'jf your great abilities, and in the plenitude of your power, I have the honour to be Your Lordfhip*s Moft obedient, and Mofl humble fervantj, n/1 r/y3 ^ ^ ;.<:, I Jfi/Z'-'JfM/j/y/ ( 4 1 LHTTHRS referred to in pvn: 2 ^th of the pre-' ceding L-tticr. From the Ilonouyahk Ch-irlcs York S Dear Sir, Sunday, March 2 0th, 1769, lligligatc. INCE I hid til-.' iDlL'afuiT of keing yau, a friend from your country called on ine, and laid much of the difiurhances at Edir.burgh, a:id the infults to tlie Vrejidcr.t. After tlie example let in tiiis part of tw^i country, to refift the authority oi parllo/nicyit^ I do not v/ondcr at t!ie ef- forts to weaken the dignity of an inferior judicature, tliougli within its limits, and for the ordinary courfe of juftice, fupreme. — Let me beg of you one thing, as a friend ; not to be too anxious, nor feel too much, becaufe things impertinent or injurious are faid of yourfelf. — Can any m.an exert his talents and induilry in public or private buhnefs without ftaking his good name npon it ? or at lead expofmg himfelf to the jealoufy of contending parties, and even to their malice and detraftion ? — In thefe conftquences do you experience more than the common lot ? And why fliould you hope to be exempt from it ? No impartial man can read over the ■papers irl the caufe, with all the frrcate letters and memoranda exhibited, and not ftand convinced of the purity of your intentions, and the integrity and honour of your conJucl. You could not have given evidence confiftently with the rules of the law of Scotland, by v/hich the execution of the commiffion was regulated. If you could, fome circumftances, which appear to me of little weight, would have been explained. The council in Scotland for all parties, and x\\z jucigc." who diirored on the merits froju one another, all concurred in doing lufdce to your cha- racter, and declaring that you had afted uprightly, as v/di as ably. — I'his I am free to fay every where, and fay to you in this letter, mertly becaufe C c ;! I think ( 44 1 I think it ; and becaufe the fincere opinion of a friend, declared on fuch ©ccafions fo trying and important, is the genuine confolation of an honcft mind. For myfelf, I need not fay, that I would not have urged fome things at the bar of the Houfe of Lords, as I did, if I had not felt the weiglit of them. — In fuch caufes, an advocate is unworthy of his profeflion, who does not plead withthe veracity of a witnefs and a judge. I am, dear Sir, with great regard. Your obedient humble fervant. (Signed) C. YORKE* ( 45 ) from Mr. SoUcitor-Ceneral Dunnln"-. o" I Lincoln's Inn, 27 May 17^9. Cannot write to you without exprefTing my hopes, that you have ere now taught yourfelf to difregard the many injurious niiirepre- lentations of your condu6tin the Douglas Caufe, which I am forry to learn are rtill circulated with Tome induftry. It is not to be doubted, but that all imputations wliich are not founded in truth will be forgot, as foon as the animofity which gave birth to them has fubfided. — In the mean while, though the beft confolation is the confcioufnefs of not having defcrved them, it may perhaps be matter of fome facisfaclion to you, that thoic who have had the moll occafion to examine them, think of them as you would wifh ; — perhaps too, fome of them may be referable to the want or a fufficient explanation at the bar of particular pafTages, v^hicli have been made the grounds of cenfure •, and if lb, it is more peculiarly a debt of juilice to you from the council in the caufe, thinking of it as 1 do, to deckire, that, after the fulled: inveiligation which in that charafter it was my duty to make into every part of the caufe, it appeared to me to liave been condu6led on your parr, in a manner not only altogether irreproach- able, but dillinguifhed throughout bv' a degree of candour and delicacy, of which I have met with few examples. I am, with real efteem and regard. Your ven,' humble fervant, 7 (Signed) J. DUNNING. ( A^ ) From Mr. Wcdderburn.' My dear Stunrt, Broomhallj 2 2d Miy 17(^9, 1 HAVE read over here tlie News-paper account of Lord Chancellor's fpeech in tlie Douglas Caiife, which, in my opinion, he has more reafon to be ofiended wiih tlian you have : It is the publication of one, v/ho had only capacity enough to retain thofe parts of the fpeech, which, 1 am perfuaded, the Chancellor would wifh to be lead remenibcTed.— Nothing ever was worfe founded than any afperfions upon your condudi in that caufe, which in its whole progrefs v/as carried on, not only v/irh the flricteil probity on your part, but with a candour and delicacy that very few men would have thought themlelves bound to obferve. — I have more than once thought, in the courie of the inquiry, that you aded with too nice a fenfe of honour, in a contention with people who made no fcruple to take every advantage, though I refpecled the principle upon which it proceeded. It w^as impoflible you could efcape abufe (let your condud: be ever fo correct) at a time when, for much lefs interefts, all characters are daily traduced, and perfonal invedive is become a (landing mode of argu- ment. — I am forry, upon their own account, that it fhould be adopted by thofe, who having felt what calumny is, fliould be cautious how they give a fandion to it. — Upon your account, I feel very little anxiety ; be- caufe, befides the teftimony of your own mind, you have the fatisfaction to know, that all thofe who have been eye-witnefles of your condudl, not only juftify it, but applaud it-, that of the many judicious people who have fcudied the caufe, very few indeed join in the refiedlions upon you ;- and t!iat even your adverfaries do your condu6l that juftice in private, wliich in public tlicy have facrificed to the interefls of their caufe. — They have fucceedcd, and the decifion mufb compel our fubmifTion ; but aflfenc can only flow from conviftion -, and the opinion I had entertained of the caufe is not altered by any reafoning I have heard upon it. — My ideas of junice are a little perplexed by the decifion, and I confider it as a ftriking example that no caufe is certain or defperate. — You will probably be gone from London before I return to it \ and I could not help writing to you, as I fliall not have an opportunity for fome time of meeting you. Adieu, my dear Stuart, and believe me ever Yours moft fmcerely, ^ (Signed) AL. WEDDERBURN. ( 47 ) From Sir Adam FergufTon. S I R, T Cannot exprefs the indignation I have felt at the attempts which have been made, efpecially fmce the appeal was entered in the Houfe of Lords, to throw out afperfions on your condu(5l in the management of the Douglas Caufe. — If thefe attempts had proceeded alone from your advcr- faries, or from the mere vulgar, I fliould have difregarded them, and thought them unworthy of notice •, becaufe in the one I Ihould have con- fidered them as arts made ule of to fupport their cauie ; in the other, as owing to want of proper information. But when I have {zQn them fup- ported by thofe whofe fituation naturally gives weight to their aflertions, how void foever they may be of any foundation in evidence, or even defti- tute of common candour, I look upon them in a very different light. It is for this reafon, Sir, that I confider it as a tefbimony I owe to truth, to de- clare, that having had the fullefl opportunity of confidering every particular relative to the condufb of that caufe, I have not only the moll thorough conviction of the uprightnefs and integrity of your proceeding in every part of it, but think the whole has been conducted, not only with remarkable abilitv, but with a degree of candour, moderation, and temper, of which I know very few men who are capable. — This is a piece of juftice which I have not the fmalleft doubt will, fooncr or later, be done you by the world. —In the mean time, if a declaration of my fentiments can be of the lead ufe to you, I chofe to exprefs them in this manner ; and am, with the moft real eileem, founded on thofe very qualities which have been fo unjuftifiably traduced. Dear Sir, Your mofl obedient humble fervant. St. James's Place» jith March 17(^9. (Signed) AD. FERGUS SON, FINIS. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. mr D I If Aiv. Form L'J-lOml, '52 (9291)444 MM^ UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL I ifiRAR A A 000 132 958 ^=-118^7*^^ ^^: ^r^