LIBRARY
UNIVBRSITY OF
V CALirOKNIA
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/douglascauseOOsteurich
motable Scottjgb grialg
The Douglas Cause
NOTABLE
SCOTTISH TRIALS.
Madeleine Smith* Edited by A.
Duncan Smith, F.S.A. (Scot.),
Advocate.
City of Glasgow Bank Directors*
Edited by William Wallace, Advo-
cate, Sheriff-Substitute, Campbel-
town.
Dr. E. Pritchard. Edited by Wm,
Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh.
Etsgfoe Marie Chantrelle* Edited
by A. Duncan Smith, F.S. A.(Scot.),
Advocate.
Deacon Brodie. Edited by Wm.
Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh.
James Stewart (The Appin
Murder). Edited by David N.
Mackay, Writer, Glasgow.
A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W.
More, B.A.(Oxon.), Advocate.
The Douglas Cause* Edited by
A. Francis Steuart, Advocate.
Captain Porteous* Edited by Wm.
Roughead, W.S.. Edinburgh.
Lord Douglas.
(Archibald Douglas of Douglas.)
From a Mezzotint in the British Museum.
^The Douglas Cause
EDITED BY
A. Francis Steuart
Advocate
GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH
WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY
PRINTED BT
WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY
GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH
1909
TO
THE HONOURABLE LORD GUTHRIE
THIS VOLUME
IS
BY KIND PERMISSION
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY
THE EDITOR
517
PREFATORY NOTE.
When Boswell was conversing with Dr. Johnson regarding " The
Douglas Cause," he received this opinion.^ "And, Sir, you will
not say that the Douglas Cause was a cause of easy decision,
when it divided your Court as much as it could do, to be
determined at all. When your judges are seven and seven, the
casting vote of the President must be given on one side or the
other ; no matter, for my argument, on which ; one or the other
must be taken ; as when I am to move, there is no matter which
leg I move first. And then. Sir, it was otherwise determined
here. No, Sir, a more dubious determination of any question
cannot be imagined."
It is the history of this "determination" which is now
presented to the reader by the Editor, and when he presents it,
he desires to thank many friends for their kind assistance during
its compilation. He has gratefully to acknowledge the help
that he received from Mr. David Douglas, whose great age does
not prevent him from taking a keen interest in the history of his
family. He has also been assisted by the Hon. Mr. Justice
Fletcher of Calcutta, in the early stages of his work, and by
Mr. George Douglas Veitch of Eliock, to whom he is indebted for
two illustrations. Two more illustrations make him thank Mr.
Charles E. Green. He wishes to express his gratitude, moreover,
to Messrs. Kenneth Douglas and Frank C. Nicholson for their
kindly patience in giving him assistance with his proofs; and
lastly, he desires sincerely to thank Mr. Horace Bleackley, whose
store of knowledge of the literature of the eighteenth century
has been so courteously and fully^ placed at his disposal.
1 Boswell's Life of Johnson, ii. 19.
2 See Appendix I.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Prefatory Note, vii
Chronological Table, xi
Introduction —
I. Narrative of the Cause, 14
II. Historical Narrative, 23
Judgments in the Douglas Cause pronounced by the Court of Session
of Scotland, 41
Speeches in the House of Lords, 136
APPENDICES.
I. Illustrations of the Popular Versions of the Progress of the
Douglas Cause, from the St. James's Chronicle and the
Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 181
II. Contemporary criticism of the two reports of the judgments
pronounced in the Court of Session, 189
III. Letters of Lady Jane Douglas, 190
IV. "Jupiter" Carlyle's Account of the Trial in the House of
Lords, - - 246
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
1. Archibald Douglas of Douglas, from a mezzotint,
2. Andrew Stuart, M.P., from a mezzotint after
Reynolds, facing page
3. Lord Loughborough, from a print, - - * -
4. Old Menilmontant, from a print, ....
6. Paris at the time of the Douglas Cause,
6. Lord President Dundas, from a print after the
portrait by Raeburn, . - - - -
7. Lord Kames, from a print,
8. Lord Alemore, from the portrait in the Parliament
House,
9. Lord Eliock, from the painting by Raeburn, lent
by G. D. Veitch, Esq. of Eliock,
10. Lord Stonefield, after John Kay, - - - -
11. Lord Gardenstone, after John Kay,
12. Lord Kennet, from the portrait by Martin in the
Parliament House,
13. Lord Hailes, after John Kay, ....
14. Lord Monboddo, after John Kay,
15. Archibald Douglas of Douglas, supported by
Lords Camden and Mansfield, from a mezzotint
in the British Museum, published after the
Trial,
16. The first Earl of Mansfield, from a print,
17. Lord Thurlow, from a mezzotint after Romney, -
18. A portion of Lord Eliock's MS. Notes in The
Douglas Cause,
19. Lady Jane Douglas, from Percy Fitzgerald's
"Lady Jean,"
Frontiapiece
16
20
30
32
40
56
72
80
84
98
106
124
136
142
146
172
190
CHEONOLOGICAL TABLE.
1698. 17 March— Birth of Lady Jane Douglas.
1720. Her betrothal to Francis, Earl of Dalkeith. On the breaking off of
the engagement she retires for some time to France.
1736. Death of her mother, with whom she lived at Merchiston Castle.
1746. 4 August — Lady Jane, now aged 48, marries Colonel John Steuart
and goes abroad, concealing the marriage, taking with her Mrs.
Hewit and two maids.
1747. 10 February — From the Low Countries she writes to Mrs. Carae
denying the rumour of her marriage.
April — She and Colonel Steuart go to Aix-la-Chapelle.
1748. April — Lord Crawford announces to her brother, the Duke of
Douglas, that she is married and going to have an heir.
21 May — The Steuarts leave Aix for Rheims.
2 July — Lady Jane, Colonel Steuart, and Mrs. Hewit (leaving the
maids at Rheims) go to Paris.
4 July — They arrive in Paris and put up at the Hotel de Chalons.
10 July — Lady Jane is alleged to give birth to twin sons at the house
of Madame Le Brune in the presence of Mrs. Hewit and M. Pier
La Marre, a surgeon, who immediately takes care of the younger
child (Sholto) on account of his delicacy.
22 July — Mrs. Hewit announces the birth to the maids at Rheims.
16 August — Lady Jane, her husband, and one child go to Rheims.
The child is baptised Archibald in the Catholic Church of
S. Jacques.
1749. November — Lady Jane and Colonel Steuart return to Paris and then
go back to Rheims with the younger and delicate child.
29 November — The whole party go to England, and Colonel Steuart
is soon imprisoned for debt in London.
1750. 15 May — Lady Jane, in great straits, appeals to Mr. Pelham, and
obtains a pension of £300 a year from King George II.
1752. May — Hearing that her brother, the Duke of Douglas, disbelieves
in the story of the birth of the children, Lady Jane decides to go
to Scotland.
17 August — She arrives in Edinburgh with the children, and sees
many old friends. The Duke of Douglas remains silent. She
attempts to see him at Douglas Castle, but is repulsed.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
1753. 17 April — She returns to London and hears of the death of the
younger child (Sholto), whom she had left behind. She at once
returns to Scotland in great grief.
12 November — Rapidly failing in health, she makes her will.
22 November — Lady Jane dies in poverty, acknowledging the child
Archibald (Douglas Steuart) as her son. He is not recognised by
her brother, the Duke, but is cared for by her friend, Lady Schaw.
1764. The Duke of Douglas settles his great estates on his heir male the
Duke of Hamilton.
1760. 6 January — The Duke of Douglas revokes his settlement in favour of
the Duke of Hamilton.
1761. 11 July — The Duke of Douglas names Archibald Douglas Steuart his
heir, as his sister's son.
21 July — Death of the Duke of Douglas. Archibald Douglas Steuart
is served heir. Actions are raised against him by the Duke of
Hamilton, founding on old Entails, but they fail.
1762. 7 December — A new action, "The Douglas Cause," begins. The
Duke of Hamilton and others attempt to reduce Archibald
Douglas Steuart's service as heir to the Duke of Douglas on the
ground that he was not Lady Jane's son, but a supposititious
child.
17 December — The Hamilton side commence the Tournelle action in
Paris.
1764. 14 June — Colonel Steuart (now Sir John Steuart of GrandtuUy) dies
acknowledging Archibald Douglas as his son.
1767. 7 July — The Court of Session, advising on the Douglas Cause, begins.
15 July — It ends in the Court being divided, seven judges on either
side, but by the vote of the Lord President the Cause is carried
in favour of the Duke of Hamilton. Riots ensue in Edinburgh.
1769. 19 January — The Douglas Cause goes before the House of Lords.
27 February — Judgment is pronounced in favour of the claim by
Archibald Douglas that he is the son of Lady Jane Douglas.
Great rejoicings in Scotland.
27 February — Protest by five Peers against this judgment.
1790. 9 July— Archibald Douglas (Steuart) created Lord Douglas of
Douglas.
THE DOUGLAS CAUSE.
INTRODUCTION.
The Douglas Cause is, most likely, the greatest civil trial
affecting status that Scotland has ever seen. The conflicting
decisions of the Court of Session and the House of Lords alone
made it momentous, and the rank of the parties and the extent
of the estates which were dependent upon the final decision
made it pre-eminently interesting to the public in its own time,
and the complexity of the evidence and the conflicting state-
ments of the witnesses, both Scottish and French, as well as
the old and irregular methods by which the evidence was pro-
cured, make the whole trial a very delicate and intricate study
even at this distance of time. The Cause endured, through its
varying stages, eight years in all, and the mass of legal
pleadings connected with it is enormous. As it is the first
Civil Cause dealt with in this series, we feel that it may be
differently treated from the Criminal Trials that went before
it, and it is proposed, therefore, to give (1) a resume of the
history of the Cause, and (2) a narrative of the circumstances
that led to it, told as impartially as may be — for upon
impartiality depends the value of this book — and with as little
prejudice as possible. The Judgments of the Court of Session
are given in full,i and the two chief speeches (which alone
exist) delivered in the judgment in the final Appeal to the
^ There are two reports, differing very considerably from each other,
and neither authoritative, of the speeches delivered in judgment. The
first is "The speeches, arguments, and determinations of the Right
Honourable the Lords of Council and Session in Scotland upon that
important Cause wherein His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Others
were Plaintiffs, and Archibald Douglas of Douglas, Esq., Defendant, with
an introductory Preface, giving an impartial and distinct account of this
suit, by a Barrister at Law, printed in London for J. Almon, 1767," and
the second, that of William Anderson, printed by Balfour, Auld &
Smellie, Edinburgh, 1768. It is the former which is here printed, as the
judgments, if less verbose, are more pithy and incisive. A "State of
the Evidence" comparing the two reports, "with remarks" by Robert
Richardson, D.D., Prebendary of Lincoln, was published also at London
in 1769. See Appendix 11.
B 13
The Douglas Cause.
House of Lords are also printed at length, from a guast-official
source. It is hoped that in this way the reader may be able to
form his own conclusion on the history of the Cause and the
difficulties connected with the evidence submitted, the com-
plexity of which made the decision one of the most controverted
in Scottish legal history.
I. Narrative of the Cause.
The Cause arose on the death, without issue, on 2l8t July,
1761, of Archibald, Duke of Douglas, on which event Archibald
Steuart or Douglas was, on 9th September, 1761, on a brieve
mortancestry, served nearest and lawful heir of tailzie and
provision in general to the said deceased Archibald, Duke of
Douglas, his uncle, in virtue of the disposition and tailzie of
the dukedom of Douglas and others, dated 11th July, 1761.
Evidence was led before the inquest that he was the only sur-
viving son of the deceased Lady Jane Douglas, the late Duke's
only, sister, bom of her marriage with Colonel John Steuart,
afterwards Sir John Steuart of Grandtully, Bart. His birth
was stated to have taken place at Paris, on the 10th July,
1748, in the presence of Mrs. Helen Hewit and M. La Marre,
the surgeon, certain letters to Sir John Steuart from Pier
La Marre, which were afterwards admitted to be
copies of originals (or, it was alleged by the Hamilton side
in the Trial, forgeries), being produced, but not read at the
inquest. The tutors of Archibald Douglas soon after completed
his title by a charter from the Crown, and he was put in full
possession as heir of the Duke of Douglas, the Duke's widow,
Margaret, Duchess of Douglas, and Charles, Duke of Queens-
berry, being two of his curators; but his position as heir was
not long unchallenged. First of all, actions were raised against
him by the tutors of the Duke of Hamilton^ and the Earl of
Selkirk, both of the Douglas family and next heirs male to the
late Duke, for declaring their right to certain parts of the
'^ James George, seventh Duke of Hamilton, son of James, sixth Duke,
and of Elizabeth Gunning, Duchess of Hamilton and Argyll, the celebrated
beauty. He was born 18th February, 1755, and succeeded his father in
1758. He died, unmarried, not long after the decision of the "Douglas
Cause " against him, at Hamilton Palace, 7th July, 1769.
M
Introduction.
family estate, which the Duke of Hamilton maintained were
limited to heirs male by a deed executed in 1630, and the Earl
of Selkirk affirmed were descendable to him in virtue of a deed
executed in 1699. They demanded the sequestration of the
estate from the possessor during the course of this competition,
but this was refused, and the Court of Session decided against
both the pursuers on 9th December, 1762. In the decision it
was solemnly adjudged thai the Duke of Hamilton's claim was
barred both by certain powers retained by James, Marquis of
Douglas, and also by the destination to heirs whatsoever in the
contract of marriage of the late Duke of Douglas.
On 7th December, 1762, a new action, and one on an entirely
new ground, was commenced against Archibald Douglas. It
took the form of a summons at the instance of the Duke of
Hamilton for reducing his service of 9th September, 1761, as
heir to his uncle, the Duke of Douglas, as having proceeded on
false evidence. A similar action was raised in the name of
Lord Douglas Hamilton, the next heir,^ on the failure of the
defender under the Duke of Douglas's last settlement; and a
third at the instance of Sir Hew Dalrymple of North Berwick,
Bart., one of the heirs of line failing issue of Lady Jane
Douglas. It is to be noted that the other heirs of line, the
Earl of Hyndford, Sir Kobert Menzies, Bart., John Swinton of
Swinton, and others, did not join in the process. The sum-
mons narrated that " The said Archibald Steuart and the other
pretended male child of which the said Lady Jane Douglas was
said to have been delivered at the time and place foresaid were
spurious and were not the children of the said Lady Jane
Douglas, as would be made appear by a variety of proofs to be
more particularly condescended on in the course of process."
The first step in the process was that a petition was presented
to the Court on 9th December in the name of the pursuers,
desiring an examination of witnesses to lie in retentis. Answers
to this petition were ordered, but, in the meantime, another
petition, unintimated, was read on 14th December, praying for
an immediate examination of Sir John Steuart, the late Lady
Jane Douglas's husband, on the ground that he was going
^ He, who succeeded, on his brother the seventh Duke's death, as eighth
Duke of Hamilton, was born 24th July, 1756, and d.s.p., 2nd August, 1799.
The Douglas Cause,
abroad. This was granted, and Sir John, though in bad
health, complied with the order of Court and was examined
upon interrogatories framed by the pursuers, no condescendence
of facts having been given in, for three successive days in the
way of judicial declaration upon facts which had happened in
1748 and 1749. Although counsel for Archibald Douglas, his
acknowledged son, were present, as they were ignorant of the
facts upon whiqh Sir John was to be examined, they could not
cross-examine him in their client's interest, but they did stat^
that the examination, if it was to be used as evidence, should
be upon oath. The interlocutor pronounced was — " The Lords
having heard what is above represented they allow Sir John
Steuart's declaration to be taken in the meantime, reserving
to the petitioners to insist for examining the said Sir John
Steuart upon oath, if they shall afterwards insist upon the same,
and all objections to such declaration as accords," and the
declaration was sealed up to lie in retentis. The Court, how-
ever, refused to examine Mrs. Hewit without a particular conde-
scendence of facts being given in. When this was done. Sir
John was again, in August, 1763, re-examined upon oath, his
former declaration being also admitted eventually as a " circum-
stance of evidence." Sir John Steuart died on 14th June,
1764, having on 7th June made a solemn declaration before five
persons that Archibald Douglas was his only surviving son by
his late wife. Lady Jane Douglas. A proof was allowed in 1763.
Against this, however, an appeal was entered for the defender
and a cross appeal was begun by the pursuers. It came to
light, moreover, that during this time the Hamilton agents had
been busy investigating evidence in France, and that a plainte
had been raised as far back as 17th December, 1762, soon
after the Court of Session action was begun, before the Tournelle
Chamber of the Parlement of Paris, by Sir Hew Dalrymple
and Mr. Andrew Stuart, one of the Duke of Hamilton's tutors*
then in Paris, the chief mover in his interest, against Sir John
* It is diflficult to apportion to Andrew Stuart praise or blame in
relation to the " Douglas Cause. " He was a son of Archibald Stuart, W.S. ,
who is here mentioned as both " doer " to the Duke of Douglas and to the
Duke of Hamilton. By the Hamilton interest he was made Keeper of the
Signet, and he became convinced of the imposture of the Douglas's claim,
and did all he could in France to further the rights of the Duke of
Hamilton, his ward, and for this was extolled or blamed by the partisans
i6
And.re"w Stuart.
Fro}ii a Mezzotint after Reynolds.
Introduction.
Steuart and Mrs. Helen Hewit, accusing them on the criminal
count of partus suppositio. On the 9th July, 1763, the pur-
suers in the Tournelle action published a monitoire under the
sanction of the Archbishop of Paris, giving an ex parte state-
ment of their account of Sir John Steuart, Lady Jane Douglas,
and Mrs. Helen Hewit, and their alleged imposture and acquisi-
tion of supposititious children. This was read in the churches,
and enjoined all persons under pain of excommunication to reveal
to their parish cures any facts known to them which might
help to establish the crime. This was an unfortunate
step, which undoubtedly was looked upon as an act
of intimidation against any witnesses who might have
been disposed to come forward to give evidence as to the
birth of the twin sons of Lady Jane Douglas, which birth was
treated in the monitoire as an assumed crime and certain
imposture. The whole Tournelle Criminelle process was
eventually ordered both by the Court of Session and, on appeal,
by the House of Lords, after much litigation, to be withdrawn
on 13th April, 1764, and the Court of Session ordered that a
new proof be taken abroad before Commissioners, and that
this proof be reported by February, 1765; but this was after-
wards prorogued. It was during this time that the Duchess
of Douglas, with Miss Fleming Primrose as interpreter,
went on a visit to France to find out evidence in favour of her
protege, Archibald Steuart or Douglas, and their manner of
doing so was not much more scrupulous than Mr. Stuart's had
been. In the summer session of 1765, the proof taken abroad
being expected soon in Edinburgh, a petition was presented by
the pursuers, praying that certain parts of the proof which had
•of the day. He was fiercely attacked in the House of Lords judgments
by Lords Mansfield and Camden, and his duel with Mr. Thurlow, while
the Cause was pending, created a great sensation. He was not without
supporters, however. The morning after the case went against him,
Horace Walpole says that he " found on his table a bond for four hundred
pounds a year for his life, a present from Mr. Johnstone Pulteney, his
friend, in consideration of the cruel treatment he had met with " ; and
later, he published a series of "Letters to Lord Mansfield " on the trial,
which from their biting eloquence were thought rivals to "Junius." He
afterwards became M.P. for Lanarkshire, and then for Weymouth and
Melcumbe Regis, and held this seat until his death. He was known in
later life as a noted antiquarian and genealogist, and died 18th May, 1801.
Most of his judicial opponents apologised to him for their attacks, and
became friendly in later life. Mr. Horace Bleackley has done full justice
to his abilities in his " Story of a Beautiful Duchess."
17
The Douglas Cause,
been taken to lie in retentis — c.g.^ the declaration of Sir John
Steuart in 1762 — might be opened. This produced answers^
replies, and duplies, and the Court deferred advising, first,
until the proof should be reported and then printed, which
was appointed to be done by a declarator of 19th December,.
1765. The huge bulk of the proofs for the pursuers, 1034 quarto
pages, and for the defender over 1066, forced the printing
houses of Edinburgh to cause more delay, but the two very
large volumes (on which the following narrative is founded)
were ready at the end of February, 1766. On 6th March the
petition relative to Sir John Steuart's deposition was advised,^
and the declaration was ordered to remain sealed till the 15th
of April, allowing either party to have access to it after that
day upon application to the Lord President.^ Against this the
defender appealed, but his appeal was withdrawn, and the
pursuers, obtaining leave to open the declaration, printed it in
sixteen additional pages to their proof. Short cases, instead
of argument on the huge proof, were now ordered to be given
in. Those for the pursuers were drawn up by Mr. Alexander
Lockhart, Dean o(f Faculty, and for the defender by Mr.
Alexander Murray.
On the 1st of July,^ to the intense popular excitement of all
Sootland, where, it is said, bets to the amount of £100,000
depended upon the coming decision, and where, as in France,
the generality inclined to the legitimacy of the children, and
" carried the current in favour of young Douglas, "^ a few
days after the cases were given in, the pleadings
began. First, four lawyers spoke for the pursuers,
viz., Mr. Andrew Crosbie, on Tuesday, 1st July; Sir Adam
Ferguson, on Wednesday and part of Thursday; Mr. William
Nairne^ began on Thursday and ended on Friday; and
<*0n 9th June a book, "Dorando: a Spanish Tale," which dealt with
the Douglas Cause under a disguise of thinly veiled names, and was really
written by James Boswell — the future biographer of Johnson — was adver-
tised for sale. Its contents were so obvious that they were commented on
by many journals. The publishers of these were, for this contempt of
Court, summoned before the Lords of Session, 30th June, 1767, and put
under caution to appear again on 19th July. On 28th July they were
*• rebuked and admonished" by the Lord President for the publication
complained of, and the matter ended.
* Scots Magazine, 1766 [406-15].
^ Walpole's " Memoirs of the Reign of King George III.," p. 301.
i8
Introduction.
Mr. John Dalrymple began on Friday and ended on Saturday.
Then four lawyers spoke for the defender, viz., Mr. Alexander
Murray, on Tuesday, 8th July; Mr. Henry Dundas, solicitor,
on Wednesday and Thursday ; Mr. Eobert Sinclair, on Friday ;
and Mr. David Rae, on Tuesday, 15th July. Two lawyers
replied for the pursuers, viz., Sir John Steuart of AUanbank,
on Wednesday, 16th July, and Mr. Andrew Crosbie, on Thurs-
day, Two lawyers duplied for the defender, viz., Mr. Robert
MacQueen, on Friday, 18th July, and Mr. James Burnett,* on
Tuesday, 22nd July. Mr. Alexander Lockhart, Dean of
Faculty, the last for the pursuers, spoke on Wednesday, Thurs-
day, Friday, and Tuesday, and ended on Wednesday, 30th July.
Mr. James Montgomery, the Lord Advocate, the last for the
defender, spoke on Friday, 1st August. The pleadings were
then the longest ever heard in a Court of justice, lasting in all
twenty-one days, and the speeches were each often two, and some-
times three, hours long. The Court then appointed Memorials
on those pleadings to be given in by the 27th of September.
This was prolonged, and not done until 24th January, 1767, the
pursuers' being drawn up in over 800 pages by Sir Adam
Ferguson, and the somewhat shorter one of the defender by
Mr. Hay Campbell. Other counsel in the case for the pursuers,
many of whom during the progress of the cause were elevated
to the bench and gave judgment on it, were Mr. Thomas Miller,
then Lord Justice-Clerk; Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes),
Mr. Walter Steuart, Mr. Wm. Johnston;* and for the defender
Mr. Francis Garden* (Lord Gardenstone), Mr. David Rae,* Mr.
Robert Sinclair, Mr. Charles Brown, and Mr. James Boswell.
The agents for the pursuers were Mr. Andrew Stuart,* W.S.,
one of the tutors to the Duke of Hamilton and of Lord Douglas
Hamilton, and Mr. John Davidson, W.S. ; and for the defender
Mr. Charles Brown, W.S., and Mr. Alexander Maconochie,*
writer in Edinburgh. Still the Cause dragged on. It
was appointed to be heard upon the 23rd of June,
but certain additions were sought for by both parties,
which were allowed and given in before the summer
session. The Court then ex nohili officio examined Isabel
Walker, Lady Jane Douglas's maid, for two days, 23rd and 24th
Those marked with an asterisk helped to get up the case in France.
19
The Douglas Cause.
June, allowing both parties to hand in interrogatories for their
consideration. Her deposition was ordered to be printed and
the advising appointed for the 7th, July. On Tuesday, 7th July,
the advising of this great Cause accordingly began [according
to the newspapers of the time, the Court was held in one of the
rooms of Holyrood House], and we give in full the decieions
of the judges. The whole fifteen judges of the Court
of Session gave .their opinions and were di^vided, seven on
either side, and the first stage of the Douglas Cause was
carried in favour of the Duke of Hamilton and the other
pursuers by the vote of Robert Dundas, Lord President, to
the intense popular indignation in Scotland, the windows
of the judges favourable to the Hamiltons being broken, and
the President receiving letters threatening him with death.
An appeal, however, was given in by Mr. Douglas to the House of
Lords without delay, ^ and into the case had been taken a young
barrister, Edward Thurlow, it is said from the agents for the
Duohess of Douglas having heard him arguing the case in
favour of Mr. Douglas in Nando's Coffee House, the favourite
resort of young lawyers. The pleadings so displeased Mr.
Andrew Stuart, the Duke of Hamilton's tutor, that he chal-
lenged Thurlow, and, though the Cause was depending, a duel
was fought by them and pistols discharged. The public interest
taken in the case was immense, and the papers of the day
chronicled carefully the movements of Mr. Douglas, the popular
favourite.
As the session of 1767-68 was a short one, being the
last of the Parliament, the Cause was postponed until the
session 1768-69 to allow the vast mass of evidence to be gone
over. On 19th January the case began ; for the appellant
the Lord Advocate (Sir James Montgomery) and Sir Fletcher
Norton, and for the respondents Messrs. Charles Yorke,
Alexander Wedderbum (afterwards Lord Chancellor Lough-
* Mr. Douglas wrote to [his half-brother] Sir John Steuart of Grandtully,
28th July, 1767 — "Our cause is indeed lost here, but there is another
Court where justice and impartiality must prevail. The final decision
here was not so great a stroke upon us as I believe upon most of our
friends. Every person's character here is pretty well known, as well as
their motives for their behaviour, but time and a little patience show
everything and every man in their proper light. My affection for you and
your family will not be the least diminished by the late decree." [Eraser's
Red Book of Grandtully, ii. 369.]
Lord Loughborough.
From a Print.
Introduction.
borough), and Dunning. The Lord Advocate opened the Cause
and spoke for four and a half hours that day, nearly five hours
more on the 20th, and finished, " and with applause," on the
23rd. Sir Fletcher Norton spoke also on the 23rd and finished,
having reserved his further arguments for the reply. Mr. Yorke,
who " was the least admired,"'^ began for the respondents on the
24th, and spoke for three hours and a half, and ended next day.
On the 25th Mr. Wedderburn began, spoke for four hours, and a
half hour more next day, and on 6th February four hours more,
ending, " with greater applause than was almost ever known," on
the 7th. Mr. Dunning began on 10th February and spoke for five
hours, but made " no great figure," nor did Sir Fletcher Norton,
who began the reply on the 20th, when he spoke for three hours
{Mr. Douglas being in the House, having gone in with the
Duke of Queensberry), and ended on the 21st. Some points of
form were discussed on the 22nd, and on the 27th judgment
was pronounced, which reversed the judgment of the Court of
Session and affirmed the service of Archibald Steuart or Douglas
as lawful heir of tailzie and provision of the deceased Archibald,
Duke of Douglas, his uncle. When this was known in Scot-
land, wild joy was shown at this popular judgment, and in
Edinburgh the crowd smashed the windows of the houses of the
Lord President, the Lord Justice-Clerk, and other judges who
had taken the Hamilton side, plundered the Hamilton apart-
ments in Holyrood House, and for two days made it dangerous
for opponents of Mr. Douglas to reside in the town, until
the military were called out to restore order. Horace
Walpoleio gives the following account of the Lords' speeches
and the end of the trial: — "The Duke of Bedford,
Lord Sandwich, and Lord Gower were the most zealous
for the Hamiltons. Lord Mansfield, it had long been
discovered, favoured the Douglas ; but the Chancellor
Camden, with dignity and decency, had concealed his opinion
^ Walpole, from whom these comments are taken, says of Mr. Yorke in
his "Memoirs of the Reign of King George III.," iii. p. 302: — "The
Duchess of Douglas thought she had retained him ; but, hearing he was
gone over to the other side, sent for him, and questioned him home. He
could not deny that he had engaged himself to the House of Hamilton.
' Then, sir,' said she, ' in the next world whose will you be, for we have
all had you?'"
J^ '* Memoirs of the Reign of King George III.," iii. p. 303 et seq.
21
The Douglas Cause,
to the very day of the decision. The debate was opened by
the Duke of Newcastle, and very poorly. He was answered by
Lord Sandwich, who spoke for three hours with much humour,^
and scandalised the bishops, having, with his usual industry,
studied even the midwifery of the case, which he retailed with
very little decency. The Chancellor then rose, and with be-
coming authority and infinite applause, told the Lords that he
must now declare that he thought the wl^ole plea of the
Hamiltons a tissue of perjury woven by Mr. Andrew Stuart, and
that, were he sitting as judge in any other Court, he would
order a jury to find for Mr. Douglas, and what that jury ought
to do on their oaths, their Lordships ought to do on their
honours. He then went through the heads of the whole case,,
and without notes recapitulated even the dates of so involved
a story, adding that he was sorry to bear hard on Mr. Stuart,
but justice obliged him. This speech, in which it was allowed
he outshone Lord Mansfield, had the most decisive effect. The
latter, with still more personal severity to Stuart, spoke^^
till he fainted with the heat and fatigue ; and at ten at night
the decree was reversed without a division." He adds lator,
" The Duke of Bedford, the Earls of Sandwich, Bristol, and
Dunmore, and Lord Milton protested against the decision in
favour of Mr. Douglas, for that he was not proved to be the son of
Lady Jane, and for that they thought it had been proved that
he was not so."i2
^^ "To say that he was great, pathetic, and eloquent is saying nothing.
There was such music in his speech, such eloquence in his diction, such
irresistible force in his reasoning, that it was impossible to hear him
without raptures." [Edinburgh Advertiser, 7th March, 1769.]
^2 Although this was the end of the "Douglas Cause," actions of reduc-
tion continued to harass Mr. Douglas until 1779, when these were finally
settled in his favour by the House of Lords [Fraser's The Douglas Book,
ii. 532]. Upon this Mr. Douglas wrote to his brother, Sir John Steuart
of GrandtuUy, 30th March, 1779 — *' Knowing good news is not inwilcome
to you, the House of Lords yesterday gave me a full and free liberation
from all further disputes in law, and the Hamilton family have now not
the smallest pretensions to the smallest part of my estate. It has been
long depending, and is at last happily ended. " [Fraser's The Red Book of
GrandtuUy, ii. 372.]
Introduction,
II. Historical Narrative.
Almost every statement made in the Douglas Cause turned
upon the real behaviour of Lady Jane Douglas, and, as she was
dead before the Cause began, the evidence was naturally vague
and contradictory. It is necessary, therefore, to examine
shortly the history of her early life, and much more particularly
of the years that followed her marriage. She was bom on l7th
March, 1698, and was the only daughter of James, Marquis of
Douglas, a great Scottish noble, and of his second wife. Lady
Mary Kerr, daughter of Robert, Marquis of Lothian. She had
only one surviving brother, Archibald, Duke of Douglas, who was
four years older than herself, and of whom she was the pre-
sumptive heiress, a position of great importance, as he remained
unmarried during her lifetime. The Douglas family, one of
the most ancient and important in the kingdom, was possessed
of vast estates and had attached itself to the Hanoverian
succession, as had the Duke of Hamilton (also a Douglas), who
was the Duke of Douglas's heir male.
Lady Jane in early life seems to have been beautiful and very
attractive, and her character is variously described. On the one
hand it was stated that she was " brought up by her mother,
the Marchioness, in principles of the strictest piety, which she
always retained. . . . Her great beauty and accomplish-
ments procured her universal attention. "^^ ^nd on the other
hand, " These great advantages, joined to her high rank and
quality, gave her a natural prospect of much happiness and
prosperity, but a certain extravagance of conduct, for which
she was from the beginning remarkable, and a singular turn
of mind, increased by the contagion of improper connections,
prevented the effects that might have been expected from the
appearances so much in her favour. "^^ She was, it is certain,
much admired, and declined many noble matrimonial alliances,
but in 1720, however, became betrothed to Francis (Scott), Earl
of Dalkeith, afterwards second Duke of Buccleuch. The marriage
was broken off suddenly later, and the Earl of Dalkeith, the jilted
party, according to one, and the jilting party, according to
another story, fought a duel on Lady Jane's account with her
^^ Defender's Memorial, 2. ^* Pursuers' Memorial, I. 2.
23
The Douglas Cause.
brother, the Duke of Douglas, and then married, on 5th April,
1720, her kinswoman, another Lady Jane Douglas, of Queens-
berry. This disappointment or "cruel affront" affected Lady
Jane so much that, intending, it was said, to enter a French con-
vent, she secretly eloped to France, accompanied only by her
maid, who was a Frenchwoman ; but she was soon followed, how-
ever, by her mother and brother, who prevailed upon her to return
to her native country. , That this adventure was not forgotten
is shown by a letter to her on 29th January, 1750, from her
uncle. Lord Mark Kerr, in which (referring to her later marriage
and second departure to France) he writes, " Now to say nothing
but the truth, your two trips into France, I do think there
is no apologising for it, which is the worst, I will leave the
world to judge. . . . Your behaviour thirty years ago
next month, ajid four years agone very soon, are both mighty
fresh in my memory." Although Lord Mark thus reproached
his niece (with whom he was on cool terms) he attempted to
help her and her two sons whom he mentions in this letter also.
Lady Jane, though pressed by her brother to marry, declined
to do so, notwithstanding that he offered on her marriage to
increase her fortune considerably. In 1725 the Duke of Douglas
underwent a great misfortune. He had the ill-luck to wound
mortally Captain John Kerr, a natural son of his uncle. Lord
Mark Kerr, and it was bruited abroad, rightly or wrongly, that
Captain Kerr's courtship of Lady Jane had " spurred him " —
the Duke — ^to this " rash action, which proved the source of his
own unhappiness and of all her misfortunes." This misad-
venture, there is no doubt, saddened the life of the Duke of
Douglas, altered his career, and alienated his sister from him.
He was forced " upon the event to live extremely retired," and
thenceforward was influenced only by his factor, James White of
Stockbriggs, a man of humble origin, and Mr. Archibald Stuart,
W.S., who was not only "doer" to the Duke of Douglas, but
" doer " to his heir male, the Duke of Hamilton (whose interests
he had much at heart) also. While the Duke resided in
retirement at Douglas Castle, his sister. Lady Jane, lived with
her mother at Merchiston Castle, near Edinburgh, until the
death of the Marchioness of Douglas, on 21st January, 1736.
She then removed to Drumsheugh House with her devoted friend
and attendant, Helen Hewit, a woman of gentle birth, who is
24
Introduction.
alternately praised in the " Process " as the most faithful of
friends, or blamed as an unscrupulous intrigante. The Duke,
on hia mother's death, granted his sister an income (small
enough) of £300 a year, but the pair were not on good terms.
Lady Jane's hint that his having beaten a footman might rouse
again the fading story of his manslaughter displeased the
Duke. He believed that she wished to have him confined as a
lunatic, and an insult from the mob, which he suffered when
he was in Edinburgh, was understood by him to be a plot which
his sister had contrived with Colonel John Steuart, with whom
at this time she was intimate and whom she afterwards married,
to have him murdered or kidnapped and carried off to St, Kilda,
so that they might get his estate into their own hands. ^^
These estranged relations were more seriously embittered when
in 1745 the Jacobite troops occupied Douglas Castle. The
Duke was again persuaded that Colonel Steuart (a known
Jacobite of 1715) and Lady Jane (who was, by repute, i^ Uee
with the Jacobite party) had instigated this attack also;
and his sister continued to fall in his estimation. In spite of
this Lady Jane assisted the escape of the Jacobite refugee, the
Chevalier Johnston (a cousin of her friend, Mrs. Hewit), and
hid him for some time in her house at Drumsheugh.
Lady Jane, though young looking and still graceful, was now
in her forty-ninth year, and at this juncture took a very serious
if secret step. On 4th August, 1746, she was married at her
house of Drumsheugh by the Rev. Robert Keith, a bishop of
the Scottish Episcopal Church and a friend of her own, to
Colonel John Steuart, a younger brother of Sir George Steuart
of GrandtuUy. That the marriage was imprudent is obvious.
Lady Jane was no longer at all young and had only a small
income, and Colonel Steuart, though " well looked " as a
handsome man of fifty-eight and heir to the estate of Grand-
tuUy and a baronetcy, was already a widower with one son. Jack
Steuart. He was known to be thoughtless and inconsiderate
to a high degree, in his circumstances poor, being " extremely
profuse," and as a ruined Jacobite, as well as a supposed
" Papist," besides the above suspicions, " though esteemed by
^^ *' Case of Archibald Douglas, House of Lords," p. 8.
*^ If the Chevalier Johnston is correct Lady Jane visited Prince Charlie
at Holyrood.
25
The Douglas Cause.
his acquaintances to be a man of honour," was an object of
peculiar aversion to the Duke of Douglas, who was the only
support his wife could rely on in case of distress.
Yet when the Earl of Crawford later, as Lady Jane's inter-
cessor, apprised the Duke of Douglas of the fact of
the marriage^^ he thought himself able to write, " She
certainly merits all the affectionate marks of an only brother
to an only sister. Much, much, does she wish, as well as
others of your Grace's devoted friends, there had been no so
great necessity " — the Duke of Douglais at this time refused
to marry — " for her changing her way of life ; but since it has
become so absolutely necessary, with the greatest submission,
considering the variety of different circumstances, I would gladly
hope your Grace will not disapprove of the person Lady Jane
has chosen, as to be isure there is none so deserving."
So much did Lady Jane dread her brother's displeasure that
her marriage was kept an absolute secret except from her maids,
and the better to conceal it she determined to go abroad. For
this purpose Colonel Steuart passed a« one of her footmen under
the name of " John Douglas," and she obtained passes to
Holland from the Secretary of State's office on 29th August,
1746, for her suite. She met Colonel Steuart at Huntingdon,
and her other attendants on the journey consisted of Mrs. Hewit,
two maid servants, Isabel Walker and Effie Caw, and the
Chevalier Johnston, Mrs. Hewit's cousin, for whom she also
obtained a pass as a footman under the name of " James Kerr."
The party proceeded to The Hague, and at the end of December
removed to Utrecht, where they met Lord Blantyre, a young
Scottish lord, who became a friend. On the 10th February,
1747, in a letter to Mrs. Carse, Lady Jane very strongly denied
the report of her marriage, imprudently imputing the rumour of
it to her cousin Mally Kerr, Mrs. Stewart of Stewartfield, and
blaming her in no measured terms ; and the inopportune
strength of the denial in this letter of a real fact we shall find
referred to frequently during the trial in connection with the
credibility of Lady Jane's assertions.
About the middle of April, 1747, Lady Jane, Colonel Steuart,
Mrs. Hewit, and the two maids removed to Aix-la-Chapelle, and
" April, 1748, Defender's Proof, 964.
26
Introduction.
resided with Madame Tewis, a lady of good birth, until 10th
August, when they made a short excursion of a fortnight to
Spa, and on returning went first to lodge with Madame
Champignois, until 14th September, when they returned to
Madame Tewis. At Spa they saw Sir William and Lady Steuart,
who noticed that Lady Jane looked ill, and she, in writing to
borrow money from Mr. Patrick Haldane, mentioned her design
of spending the winter at Bayreuth, where she might have the
free exercise of the Protestant religion, and of trying the
waters of Carlsbad, in Bohemia. They resided with Madame
Tewis until 5th January, 1748, then with Madame SchoU until
March, and then with Madame Gillesen until they left Aix on
the 21st May, 1748. During this residence at Aix-la-Chapelle
we have to observe one notable circumstance, namely, the inten-
tion still to conceal the marriage. When Sir John and Lady
Jane came to Aix-la-Chapelle their marriage was still undis-
closed and secret from all, except the maids and a few con-
fidants, but Lady Jane's visible pregnancy forced it to be
disclosed, and it was accordingly confided to Madame Tewis,
with whom they had become intimate, as well as to the Earl of
Crawford, an old comrade and friend of Sir John Steuart, but at
first to no more acquaintances than necessary. The cause was
observed by Madame Scholl, Mr. and Mrs. Hepburn of Keith,
Baron Macelligot, certain Benedictine nuns of St. Anne's, and
Baroness d'Obin, afterwards Madame Negrette, Madame
Gillesen, and perhaps by Mademoiselle Bleyenheufft, a seam-
stress. As time went on, however, the marriage being now well
known, it became important for Lady Jane to reveal the fact
of her marriage and her condition to her brother, the Duke
of Douglas, and she did this by a letter which was enclosed in
one from Lord Crawford, in whose mediation she trusted. Lady
Jane's letter — like so many important papers in this cause —
has perished, but Lord Crawford's letter was printed in the
proof, and contained the following passage: — "I am hopeful
my representations will not only meet with forgiveness, but
also with their wishes for success in reconciling your Grace to
an event all the well-wishers of your Grace's family may have
the greatest reason to rejoice at, as there is such visible hopes
of its being attended with the natural consequences so much
ionged for by all that are fond of seeing the family of Douglas
27
The Douglas Cause.
multiply." Lord Crawford, by the same letter, informed tJie
Duke of Douglas of Lady Jane's marriage, of their straitened
circumstances, and of his pleasure in her and her husband's
society. This letter seems to have been written in April, 1748,
the marriage having just been publicly declared in March.
Lady Katherine Wemyss, Lord Crawford's sister, deponed,,
however, that she liad. heard it said at Aix that^the parties were
married, "or, at least, had an intrigue together, as they lived
in one house," though she paid little attention to the fact, owing
to Lady Jane's denial ; yet after the disclosure of the marriage
she remained one of her best friends. In May some Scottish
visitors arrived at Aix, who all believed in Lady Jane's hopes
of being a mother. These were the Countess of Wigton, who
became a great support of Lady Jane in her trials later ; Mr.
Fullerton of Dudwick; Miss Fleming Primrose, then a young
girl ; and Mrs. Greig, Lady Wigton's woman, whose testimony
was strong upon the point.
The congress which was held at Aix-la-Chapelle after the war,
and the consequent increase in the expense of living there,
induced, or gave an excuse for. Lady Jane, her husband, and
suite to move once more. They appear to have thought of going
to the south of France or to Geneva, and Lady Jane alleged
(though she afterwards had her acknowledged eldest son
baptised a Roman Catholic) in a letter that she wished to go to^
a Protestant country. Lady Jane then applied, through M.
Joseph Tewis, to the Count de Salm, to whom he was Grand
Bailli, to be permitted to reside at the chateau de Bedbur for
her delivery, but before permission arrived from Vienna she
and her party had left for Rheims, in Champagne, setting out
on the 21st of May. On their way they rested at Li^ge for a
few days, and there dismissed their man servant, Quibel, who,
as a deserter from the French service, could not enter France.
At Li^ge they were visited by certain Jacobite refugees and
Scottish exiles, such as Joseph Byres of Tonley, Mr. Graeme of
Garvock, and most intimately by Mr. and Mrs. Hepburn of Keith,
all of whom stated later that they observed Lady Jane's condition,
and the Chevalier Douglas, who gave evidence that he advised
Colonel Steuart to proceed to Paris " ou elle pouvoit avoir tous
les seoours n^cessaires pour son accouchement." They pro-
ceeded by stage-coach, the maids, much to their dislike, " in the
Introduction.
basket of the coach," on 25th May, to Sedan, reaching it on the
27th, and remained there nine days, and then resting one night
at Charleville (where M. Guenet did not know Lady Jane was
Colonel Steuart's wife, " ni si elle etoit fille ou femme, qu'ell©
portoit une longue mante qui lui tomboit des epaules jusqu'aux
pieds "), another at Rhetelle, where Lady Jane fell sick, though
she was able to proceed next day to Rheims, arriving there on
7th June, and, after a night at an inn, lodged with M. Hibert.
Here Lady Jane was seen only by Mr. William Mackenzie and
Mr. MacLean (afterwards Governor of Almeyda), Scottish
prisoners of war; Mr. MacNamara, and the family of M.
Andrieux, and all the persons she met noticed her situation, if
we except the dubious evidence by a mantua maker, who did
not observe it. This place in the narrative is perhaps the best
for it to be directly stated that the other next heirs of the
Duke of Douglas, who afterwards brought the Douglas Cause
into Court, fiercely maintained that Lady Jane, at this date in
her fifty-first year, had all this time only assumed an appearance
of pregnancy, with the intention of ultimately procuring a
supposititious child, that for this simulation she wore a particular
dress, and that all the persons who observed her obvious
condition were her dupes, except her husband and Mrs. Hewit,
who were either instigators or accomplices of the scheme, and
the maids, the extent of whose complicity was uncertain.
Lady Jane and Colonel Steuart now made a move, the reasons
for which are still uncertain. Leaving, on the excuse of poverty,
in which Colonel Steuart, both as a Jacobite and a penniless
cadet, was always involved, the two maids, Isabel Walker and
Efiie Caw, behind at Rheims, they alone, on 2nd July, with Mrs.
Hewit in attendance, set out in the stage-coach for Paris, arriving
there on the 4th. It is said that Lady Jane had been told that
the physicians in Rheims were unskilled, and so undertook the
journey, though it was at so critical a period for one of her
advanced age. On the other hand, it was afterwards alleged
that the party had gone to Paris to feign a delivery and procure
a child to introduce as their own to soften the heart of the
Duke of Douglas and to induce him to open his purse strings,
and for this reason had left the maids, part accomplices only,
behind at Rheims. Upon the objects of this journey the whole
case turns, and, in spite of the Court of Session's adverse judg-
c 29
The Douglas Cause,
ment, it must be remembered that the decision of the final
Court of Appeal showed firm belief in Lady Jane's being
mother of the children she afterwards brought to England as
her own.
They arrived on the evening of 4th July in Paris, and went
to the Hotel de Chalons, Rue St. Martin, kept by M. Godefroi,
whose name was so often repeated in the Cause. Thence, accord-
ing to Colonel Steuart and Mrs. Hewit, they went a few days
later to the house of Madame Le Brune,!^ Fauxbourg St. Ger-
main, a house which was never identified, where, in the presence
of Mrs. Hewit and M. Pier La Marre, a surgeon, Madame Le
Brune and her daughter, Lady Jane gave birth on the 10th of
July to twin sons, afterwards called Archibald and Sholto
Douglas. It was said that the younger, being very delicate,
was, for fear of death in infancy, "ondoye" by M.
La Marre, who afterwards for fifteen months took care
of him, putting him out to nurse with a woman who
was identified, though not without discussion, with Nurse
Gamier, of la Hauteborne, near Menilmontant ; but leaving
the stronger and elder twin with his parents. Lady Jane,
Colonel Steuart, and Mrs. Hewit, it was said, left Madame Le
Brune's on 20th July, and went to M. Michelle's Hotel d'Anjou,
though this date also was challenged, and to this house one
child — stated to be the elder twin — was brought later, his
nurses having been frequently changed with varying success.
Mrs. Hewit wrote the following letter to the two maids at
Rheims, dated from Paris, 22nd July, but most likely written
the night before : — " Dear Tibby and EfBe, — This will be the
welcomest letter iver eny of you reeved. The last day I writ to
you, Tiby, I told you your Mrs. was very well, as I thoght, so far
from that she had been ill the whoU neght, and sad not a word
tell tuall a clok, which was 4 ours after your letuer wint af ;
then, I think, she was in soch a way as I could wisht not to a
been witness to, tho, I do belive, many is been wore with on, and
she produced two lovly boys. You may belive the confusion
I have been in sine, haven no thoght of more than wan, tho'
Tiby Walker was so moch a conjuererour as to tell me, she
18 The name, like most of the French names in the Douglas Cause, is
uncertain, and is spelled either Le Brune or La Brune.
30
Introduction.
thoght she was with two, still my thoghts joined EfPe's; they
are two lovely cretors, but the youngst very small and weakly,
so the doctor beght he might be sent to the country as soun as
possible. Your Mr. and I had to go not a litell way before
we got a right nurse that we ould pert with him to ; at last
we gone on of the clinest best woman iver you sa, a farmer's
wife, so I hop he shall do very well he agreeing so well." The
letter goes on to tell about the difficulties that occurred in
getting " a right norc " to nurse the stronger child, Archibald,
and tells of the rapidity of Lady Jane's recovery. " She is
recovering most surprisingly well, not on back-going howr, so
soun as the ninth day was over, ther was no confiningn her
longer to her bed, the heat being so vilint. In short, Tiby and
Effe, all is to a wish ; " and in a postscript she continues — " I
have thoght it two months since I left you all — the hurry I was
in last writin, I blive I dated my letter the 11, instead of the 10,
which was the happy day." On the 26th Mrs. Hewit again
writes to Tibbie Walker in the same strain, telling of the weak-
ness of the younger twin and the strength of the elder " stordy
velen," and his bad luck with his nurses, and in a later letter
12th August, 1748, tells the same maid — "You may tell Mr.
Mackenzie or any body you pleis of your Lady's being broght
to beed now, for her Lap's is writ it to her brother last week,
which was the sounest she was eble; so sine he is acquainted
with it there is no need for keeping it a secret."
At the same time Colonel Steuart apprised Lord Crawford of
the fact of the birth of the twins, and Mrs. Hewit wrote for
Lady Jane to her old friend, Mr. Joseph Douglas of Edrington.
Lady Jane's situation at the Hotel d'Anjou was subject to
different accounts, one version stating that she did not go
out of doors, another alleging that she took part in a jaunt to
Versailles. She, however, was able to leave the Hotel d'Anjou
about the 4th of August and to go to Dammartin, and notified
the birth of her sons to the Duke of Douglas in a letter dated
the 7th of August from "Rheims," though she did not leave
Dammartin until about the 15th August. Her husband returned
to Paris, where he again stayed at M. Godefroi's, and Mrs. Hewit,
writing to Isabel Walker on the 10th of August, says he went
to see his youngest son, " and I got a letter this day tellen he
hopes he will dow very well, and that the nurse is the most
31
The Douglas Cause.
carefoll womin he iver sa, and that he is now queet content to
live him with her."
About the 13th of August Colonel Steuart rejoined Lady Jane,
and in a day or two the two, with Mrs. Hewit, the (elder) child,
his new nurse, Mangin, and the latter's husband, left for Rheims,
where they arrived on 16th August, and lodged with Madame
Mayette.
In the case against Archibald Douglas i^ was maintained
that during Lady Jane's visit to Paris most of these alleged
circumstances were false. That the surviving and dead witnesses
did not agree about the details of the delivery ; that Lady Jane
was not delivered upon the 10th July of twins ; that she described
her delivery differently in a conversation with the Countess of
Stair reported by her daughter, Miss Primrose ; that Madame Le
Brune, in whose house the birth was placed, could nowhere be
traced ; that Colonel Steuart and Mrs. Hewit at first spoke of the
delivery having taken place at Madame Michelle's ; and, further,
that both on the 10th of July and some days previous and
subsequent Lady Jane and her husband were still residing at
the hotel of M. Godefroi, and several members of his family
testified that this was so, and his imperfectly kept house books
were called into evidence to support the theory of this alihi,
on which much of the case turned. It was furthermore alleged
that during the visit to Paris Lady Jane and Colonel Steuart
affected " concealment, disguise, and mystery ' ' when Sir John,
Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit brought with them from Paris one
child ; and that there was a repetition of " the same concealment
and mystery when they returned to Paris in November, 1749,
and brought with them from thence to Rheims a second child."
It was furthermore alleged, and a long proof led, that in July,
1748, a recently born male child was purchased and carried
off from his parents, named Mignon, of a very humble origin,
and that in November, 1749, another child, the son of Sanry,
a tumbler at a fair of St. Laurent, was also kidnapped, and
it was alleged that these two "enlevements" of infants, of
which we shall hear much, were caused by Colonel Steuart,
Lady Jane Douglas, and Mrs. Hewit to take the place of the
twin sons to whom Lady Jane was stated to have given birth
on 10th July, 1748. Another curious circumstance was the
vague and erroneous description Colonel Steuart gave of M.
32
Introduction.
Pier La Marr, or La Marre,!^ th^ surgeon, who assisted at the
delivery. In his examination on the subject he styled him an old
acquaintance, a Walloon ; but it was eventually proved that a
surgeon named Louis Pierre De la Marre^o did practise in Paris at
the time; and his fellow- surgeon, Doctor Michel Menager, swore
that he had heard from him that he had assisted at the delivery
of a stranger lady of advanced age, who gave birth to twin sons,
a statement which, whether true or false, added considerable
weight to the evidence of Lady Jane's child-birth. 21 Against
this must be put the frequent and unfortunate change of nurses
of the elder child, which might have been caused through fear
of discovery, as well as the alleged relegation of the
younger child to M. La Marre's care.
At Rheims Colonel Steuart and Lady Jane lived with
some consideration, and saw much of their friend Lady
Wigton, and on the 15th September their acknowledged elder
son was publicly baptised by the Roman Catholic rites in the
Parish Church of S. Jacques. The Countess of Wigton was
one godmother, and her husband, Baron Caesar de Macelligot,
godfather, with Madame Andrieux as proxy for the Marchioness
of Lothian as the other sponsor, along with Lord Blantyre and
Mr. MacNamara, proxy for the Earl of Crawford. " Un fete
splendide " followed, and it was perhaps from the severe fatigue
^^ The letters produced at the Service were signed Pier La Marr or la
Marr, but throughout the Cause the surgeon's name is given as La Marre,
and we have thought it a pity to alter this spelling.
"^ Born at Montreuil-sur-Mer, 31st January, 1711. He was first employed
in Paris in 1730 by his uncle, a barber, and, it was alleged, placed in 1734
as chirurgien apprentice to M. Menjon, and was with him five years. He
thence went to study chirurgie at the Hotel Dieu, where he remained until
December, 1746, and became, it was alleged, " a man of skill and under-
standing in the practice of midwifery." He was admitted a Privileged
Surgeon at St. Colme in 1750, and died 15th May, 1753, survived by his
wife, whom he had married 14th November, 1747. One cannot help
wondering if the family of this doctor was not related to the Mme. La
Marre, Rue du Faubourg St. Denis, the sage femme to whom, some years
later, Casanova entrusted the unfortunate Mme. della Croce, and in whose
house her son was born on 17th October, 1767. [" M6moires de Casanova,"
vii. 358-361.]
21 Horace Walpole's statement that "the principal evidence for the
Douglas was convicted of perjury in another cause in France," has been
thought to refer to this witness, M. Menager. In the Trial, before the
Court de Chatelet in Paris, of Jean Francois de Molette, Comte de
Morangi^s, who was accused in 1772 of extorting money from a widow
and her son, M. Menager was certainly imprisoned for perjury ; but, on
the collapse of the case against M. de Morangi^s and his acquittal, he was
of course released. [Vide Horace Bleackley's "The Story of a Beautiful
Duchess," pp. 243-340-1].
33
The Douglas Cause,
attendant on the baptism, as well as from an accident at
Lady Wigton's, that a circumstance stated in evidence occurred,
namely, that Lady Jane lost her hope of being again a mother.
In October, 1748, Colonel Steuart, it was stated, went to Paris
accompanied by Baron Macelligot and Mr. John Hay, to see the
younger child there, and returned to Rheims on 11th November,
when he wrote to his eldest son by his first marriage, John
Steuart, that hkdy Jane wished him to join them in France
to make the acquaintance of "your brothers." It was alleged
that he repeated his visit to Paris in the spring of 1749, and then
was placed in considerable money difficulties by the sudden with-
drawal by the Duke of Douglas of his sister^s (Lady Jane's)
pension. Lady Jane at once begged for assistance from her
uncle, Lord Mark Kerr, but without success, and then applied
to Lord Morton, her old friend, and he at once — happily for
her — sent her £350.
In November, 1749, on receipt of Lord Morton's loan, they
again, accompanied by Mrs. Hewit, went to Paris to recover
the younger twin, Sholto, and it was then asserted by Archibald
Douglas's opponents that, passing under the name of " Duvern6
de Korgue in Ireland," Colonel Steuart, his wife, and Mrs.
Hewit, who was, according to the story, styled his sister, obtained
the child of Sanry, a tumbler at a fair, and carried him off to
Rheims in November with them.
After they had returned to Rheims with the child Sholto,
Colonel Steuart, Lady Jane, Mrs. Hewit, the two boys, and
the maids set out for England on 29th November, arriving
in London in Christmas week (o.s.). Lord Mark Kerr at
once visited his niece, though on rather indifferent terms
with her, and asked her to dine with him on Christmas Day.
Lady Jane and her family lodged at Mr. John Murray's, in
St. James's Place, and then in Chelsea until August, 1752, but
Colonel Steuart was from debt confined very soon to the Rules
of the King's Bench prison, and affectionate letters, which
always mention their children, and express anxiety for their
welfare, constantly passed between husband and wife. 22 The
22 It was the collected edition of these letters, all of them pathetic and
sympathetic, which converted many people, including Thomas Carlyle, to
the belief that "the Douglas Claimant" was really the son of Lady Jane
Douglas. [" Frances Lady Douglas," BlackwoodPa Magazine, October, 1908.]
They are given in Appendix III.
34
Introduction.
Duke of Douglas, however, did not feel that the news of their
birth had brought him nearer to his sister. Lord Mark
Kerr, his uncle, wrote that he called her children " in a jocular
way Pretenders," and there is no doubt that later he and those
about him discredited the fitory of their birth altogether.
Lady Jane received reports that her children's birth was dis-
believed in 1750, and desiring to disperse "these rising
calumnies," wrote, not to Madame Le Brune or M. Pier La
Marre, but to Madame Tewis, their friend at Aix-la-Chapelle,
desiring her to certify what she knew about her pregnancy
there. Madame Tewis, along with two other persons,
made a declaration, in answer to this request, on 5th August,
1750, but it did not reach England until after Lady
Jane's death. On 15th May, 1750, Lady Jane, now in great
straits for want of money, in a letter to Mr, Pelham,
desired him to procure some mark of His Majesty's bounty on
the ground of necessity — " I am destitute, presumptive heiress
of a great estate," she wrote, " with two children. I want
bread." This touching appeal was successful, and Mr. Pelham
was able, on 3rd August, to inform her that King George IL
had granted her a pension of £300 a year. She was presented
at Court to the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Duke of
Cumberland, and the Princess Amelia, and, being now out of
want, went a. little into society. The Countess of Home, Lady
Tyrawley, and Lady Irvine paid her much attention, and at the
house of Lady Tyrawley she met the beautiful Miss Gunnings,
one of whom was soon to become Duchess of Hamilton and
mother of the opponent of her acknowledged son, Archibald
Douglas.
In 1751 her friend the Countess of Wigton returned to
England, and, in deference to her representatioujs, the younger
child Sholto was re-baptised at her house at Hampstead by,
this time, the Rev. Mr. Colvil, a Presbytorian minister, for
Lady Jane stated now that she considered the difference
between the Churches merely formal. On 14th May, 1752,
Lady Jane was sent a letter from Mrs. Carse in Scotland
informing her that Mr. Archibald Stuart, the Duke of Douglas's
agent, had gone to Douglas Castle with five clerks, " he having
a great deal of business there," and that Mrs. Stuart, his wife,
when asked how the Douglas family and name could soon,
35
The Douglas Cause.
as was reported, become extinct, when Lady Jane had two fine
sons, "Ha," says she, "they'll never be owned by his Grace;
and all that's possible to be done against her and hers will
soon be put in execution.'' Lady Jane, on hearing this inten-
tion of her brother, at once decided to go to Scotland, and was
confirmed in this by a letter from her friend, Lady Katharine
Wemyss, to whom, as we have seen, she had originally denied
her marriage, which said, " I certainly don't think, were you in
our country, his Grace could stand out long; his dear little
nephews would plead your excuse."
Lady Jane, accompanied by the two children, Mrs. Hewit,
and Isabel Walker, set out for Scotland in the beginning of
August. She arrived in Edinburgh on the 17th, and stayed
with the Hon. Mrs. Maitland in Bishop's Land, " at
a pretty easy rate, it being the vacance,"23 until
the middle of October, when she removed to Hope Park,
"out of the smoke of the town." She saw Mr. William Loch,
who had for long looked after her business affairs, and he had
an account of the children's birth from her, and she also
interviewed Lord Prestongrange, who is reported to have told
her that if she and Mr. Steuart acknowledged the children
there was no further proof necessary, and that, if any person
challenged their birth, it behoved them to prove that they
were not Lady Jane's children. On the 19th of October she
again wrote a touching letter of appeal to the Duke of Douglas,
but without any result.
On the 16th November Lady Jane attended, taking with
her the two children, an assembly in honour of the King's
birthday. She wrote, " I cannot really express the warm and
kind reception we met with from the whole assembly, which
was extremely crowded. Archy and Sholto behaved to a
wonder, and were caressed beyond measure." On the other
hand she had several unpleasant experiences. The Duchess
of Hamilton refused to see her on account of the Duke of
Douglas's enmity to his sister. Lady Stair visited Lady
Jane, who had a conversation with her about the birth of her
children, which she said should have been in " a royal manner,"
and she is said to have talked to Mrs. Menzies, who afterwards
Fraser's Red Book of GrandtuUy, i. cxcii.
36
Introduction.
stated that Lady Jane knew that her brother had called the
children "nunnery children," but that she had in her pocket
" a letter from the physician who had laid her."
Lady Jane, taking Isabel Walker and two other servants
with her, made a final attempt to see her brother and soften
his heart by a personal appeal by presenting the children
before him. They went to Douglas Castle and desired the
Duke to be apprised that they were there. The butler took
the message, and while the Duke was deliberating what to do,
his favourite. White of Stockbriggs, gave orders that they were
not to have access. The Duke afterwards regretfully asked
the butler if he had seen the children, and he said he had
carried them botli in his arms, and that " the eldest was black,
and the youngest, Sholto, was as like Lady Jane as ever child
wais like a mother," and this likeness was very generally
noticed by many witnesses. 24 Leaving her children in Edin-
burgh, she, hearing that her pension might be stopped, pre-
sumably on the ground of fraud, set off to London on the
17th of April, and before she got there had a fresh grief
by hearing of the illness and death of the younger child,
Sholto, from whom she had just parted. Her grief at the loss
was very great and real, and, in spite of everything, she
notified the event to the Duke of Douglas. Lady Jane never
seems to have got over this sorrow, which greatly affected
her health, and as soon as she could she returned to Scotland,
where she had left Archibald Douglas. Rapidly failing in
health, she made her will on 12th November, made a final
appeal to the Duke of Douglas, received the sacrament in the
Presbyterian form in New Greyfriars' Church, though in great
weakness, and, acknowledging Archibald as her child, died on
22nd November, 1753. She was buried quietly, at her brother's
expense, at Holyrood beside her mother in the Belhaven tomb
there, and the child was prevented by the Duke of Douglas
from being present at the funeral of the lady whom he knew as
his mother. Though remaining with Mrs. Hewit at first, he
was adopted by Lady Jane's old friend. Lady Schaw,25 and
"^ Journal of Lady Mary Coke, iii. 23 (privately printed 1892).
25 Margaret, daughter of Sir Hew Dairy mple of North Berwick, born
6th March, 1683, died 8th October, 1757 : married 1700 Sir John Schaw
of Greenock, Bart.
37
The Douglas Cause.
carefully tended by" her for Lady Jane's sake until she died
in 1757, Colonel Steuart being still in distressed circumstances.
On Lady Schaw's death, her grandson, the Earl of Cathcart,
took young Douglas under his care, and this was at a time when
he had no hope of the Douglas succession, as, in 1754, the Duke
of Douglas settled his vast estates upon his heir male, the Duke
of Hamilton, and enlarged this settlement in 1757.
In the years 1758 and 1759 two events happened which made
a great change in the fortunes of Archibald Douglas. The
Duke of Douglas, so long unmarried, unexpectedly married in
the former year Miss Margaret Douglas of Mains, a ci-devante
beauty and a woman of great force of character, who at onoo
began to turn the Duke's attention to the desirability of
inquiring into the truth of the birth of Lady Jane's son. In
1759, moreover, Colonel Steuart, by the death of his brother,
became Sir John Steuart of GrandtuUy, Bart.^^ His first act
of administration of this newly acquired estate was to grant
a bond of provision for 50,000 merks to Archibald Douglas,
nominatim as his son by Lady Jane Douglas, and he was
with difficulty prevailed upon not to increase it whether
his estate could support the burden or no ; and it must be
pointed out here that there was never any attempt on the part
of the GrandtuUy family to plead or deny that Archibald
Douglas was not Sir John's younger son, though as such he was
one of the next heirs of entail to that estate, as well as one
of the possible heirs to the baronetcy.
What followed is soon told. The Duchess of Douglas's
ceaseless endeavours and constant friendship for Archibald
Douglas wrought (though for a time it caused between the
Duke and Duchess a temporary separation) a complete change
in the Duke's attitude. In 1759 the Duke made a post-
nuptial contract of marriage, where the remainder of his estate,
failing the heirs of his body, was to his own nearest heirs. On
5th January, 1760, he revoked the settlement in favour of the
Duke of Hamilton. On the 11th July, 1761, he executed a
deed in favour of the heirs male of his body, whom failing
to the heirs of the body of his father, whom failing to Lord
2«He died in June, 1764, having married thirdly, in 1761, the Hon.
Helen Murray, fifth daughter of Alexander, Lord Elibank, who survived
him forty -five years.
Introduction.
Douglas Hamilton, and by a separate deed named as his heir
" Archibald Douglas Stewart, a minor and son of the deceased
Lady Jane Douglas," his sister, and appointed as his tutors
the Duchess of Douglas, Charles Duke of Queensberry, and
others. The Duke himself died on 21st July, 1761, ten days
afterwards, and it was in the following September, 1761, that
Archibald Douglas or Steuart^^ was served heir to him, as his
nephew, with the legal results we have already narrated.
^ Archibald Douglas, the successful litigant, bore his good fortune with
the same equanimity with which he had borne his bad luck, and gained
universal esteem. He married first, 13th June, 1771, Lady Lucy Graham,
only daughter of William, second Duke of Montrose, who died 13th
February, 1780. He married secondly, 13th May, 1783, Lady Frances
Scott, sister of Henry, Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, who died in
May, 1817. He was on 9th July, 1790, created a British peer, with the
title of Lord Douglas of Douglas, and died 26th December, 1827. His
eldest daughter, Jane Margaret Douglas, married in 1804 Henry James,
Lord Montagu of Boughton, and it was to her daughter Lucy Elizabeth,
Countess of Home, and her representative, the present Earl of Home,
that the Douglas estates descended, their right having been established by
the final decision of the House of Lords in ** The Douglas Cause."
39
Liord-Pre3ident Dundas.
Judgments in the Douglas Cause pronounced by
the Court of Session of Scotland. ^
Tuesday, 7th July, 1766.
The Lord Prbsidbnt2— Since it may happen, my Lords, that ^JJ^j^jg^t
this great cause may, by a division of your Lordships, come to
my casting vote, I think it proper now to give you my opinion,
and to lay before you fully the reasons of it. In order to
bring the case distinctly before your Lordships, I shall first
state the principles upon which the decision will proceed ; and
these are contained in the 38th page of the defendant's
memorial, and which is there exprest in the following words : —
" The memorialist does not pretend to set up the acknowledg-
ment of parents as of itself a probatio probata of filiation, nor
is there the least occasion to do so in the present case ; but he
contends that a proof of such acknowledgment, or even of habite
and repute, is good presumptive evidence, and sufficient ground
for a jury to serve him. Such service may indeed be challenged
upon evidence offered, that the child is supposititious ; but so
long as clear and undeniable evidence is not brought of the
challenge, the verdict and proof on which it proceeded will
stand in full force."
In considering this great cause, I must notice that there are
two kinds of evidence; 1st, direct or demonstrative, which
excludes the possibility/ of the case being otherwise than it is
represented by that evidence; 2nd, circumstantiate or moral
evidence, which is all that we can expect in such cases as this
before us ; and therefore I lay it down as a rule to take the
evidence without enquiring into the bare possibility of the
thing being otherwise. The simple fact before us resolves into
this question, Is the defendant the son of Lady Jane Douglas or
not? And I am sorry to say it, that my opinion in this great
cause, after the utmost pains and attention which I could bestow,
^ These Speeches have been edited, unnecessary italics suppressed, and
an attempt has been made to render the spelling of the names uniform,
'^Robert Dundas of Arniston, born 1713: Lord President, 1760; died
1787.
41
The Douglas Cause.
Lord is dearly against the defendant ; and that hj the evidence
brought, I am fully and clearly convinced, that he is not the son
of Lady Jane Douglas. If the story shall be involved and
attended with concealment and mystery, and the tale told by the
parties neither consistent nor uniform, this should awaken the
attention of judges, and lead us to weigh the whole of these
circumstances in the balance of justice, which I'm afraid in the
present case will weigh down this defendant. Let us only
consider the conduct of Lady Jane and Sir John, and see whether
this will quadrate with the notion of a real birth, or a design
of imposture. It is clear to me that their conduct is, upon
the supposition of a true birth, improbable to the last degree.
We see Lady Jane, when very far advanced in her pregnancy,
undertaking a long, tedious, and fatiguing journey, and at the
same time concealing from the generality of her acquaintances
the object of that journey, though it appears that some of her
friends, such as Mr. Hepburn of Keith, knew that Paris was the
real place of destination ; and yet notwithstanding this, we see
her lingering away her time at a most critical period, for a
delicate lady with child, at Li^ge, Sedan, and Rheims. There
is a strange inconsistency in the story of the pregnancy from
first to last. Why not discover it in a more solemn manner to
her friends? Why ostentatiously tell it to one, when with art
she concealed it from another? Why was the marriage and
pregnancy so purposely kept concealed? and why was she
ashamed to disclose it to all the world? Or if she was near
the time of her delivery when at Rheims, why did she not lay
in there, where she could have so able assistance? or why, if
she had resolved to leave Rheims and to go to Paris, did they
leave their two maidservants, Isabel Walker and Effie Caw,
behind them at Rheims? By way of excuse for their leaving
Rheims, where they might have had the best assistance, Mrs.
Hewit has told us the wonderful story of a lady (whom she
would have us believe was Mrs. Andrieux, though it is clear it
was not she) giving Lady Jane the advice to leave Rheims on
account of the unskilful practitioners there; and this story,
according to Mrs. Hewit, was told Lady Jane about the 6th of
June, and yet she does not leave Rheims till the 2nd July. And
as an excuse for leaving the servant maids at Rheims, the same
witness has told us that they had no money to carry them to
Paris, though it is clear they might have been transported
42
Judgments by the Court of Session.
thither for the paltry expense of twelve shillings. But if their Lord
money was run short at Rheims, and Paris was the place of
their destination, why linger at Rheims, and be spending their
last shilling in a place where, if the critical hour overtook her,
she might have been in so great distress for want of able
assistance? I beg leave to observe another thing here, which
is, that Mrs. Hewit has told us that when they got to Paris they
were run to their last guinea, whereas this is positively proved
to be false by the letter of credit given them by Messrs. Khar
and company, at Aix-la-Chapelle, upon Messrs. Paniers, bankers
in Paris, for 1979 livres, and which letter of credit was payable
either at Rheims or Paris, or any where else, when they should
please to draw for it. Here it is worthy of remark that both
Sir John and Mrs. Hewit have said that they got this money
only upon the 10th July, the very day of the pretended birth.
No mention at all of this at Godefroi's ; but if we consider the
reason of fixing upon this special day and saying that the money
was paid, when in Le Brune's, we shall find the falsehood
necessary to carry on the story. I have said there were con-
cealments and mystery in this affair from first to last ; and I
must now recall your Lordships' attention to a train of this kind
on the part of Sir John and of Lady Jane, both when at Rheims
and at Paris. It was amazing, that when at Rheims, and when
the pregnancy was by their account so much advanced, that a
delivery next day would have been no surprise, that they should
have concealed the whole affair from Mr. Mallifer and his
family, persons of high rank and character, and who seem to
have shown great respect towards them, and revealed it to so
many others. When an Abbe Hibert is daily walking with
her, and by degrees let into the secret, why was the same degree
of confidence not shown to Mr. Mallifer and his family, from
whom they were to have letters recommendatory to Paris?
Why not acquaint Mr. Mallifer of the real design in going to
Paris ? at least, why give him a false pretence for their going to
Paris, which is clear from Mr. Mallifer's letter to Mons. Gk)de-
froi at the Hotel Chalons, wherein Mr. Mallifer recommends
them to Mons. Godefroi as Scots people of quality " going to
Paris to buy things " ; and therein begs of him the favour to
take care that they be not imposed upon.
When they arrive at Paris, the same concealment and mystery
runs through the whole of their conduct. Does Sir John call
43
The Douglas Cause.
pS?ident ^^^ ^^® countrymen there? Does he call for Sir William
Stewart, or for the Chevalier Johnston, Mrs. Hewit's cousin
german ? No : He keeps himself entirely free of the haunts
of his countrymen, though, if they were run to the last guinea,
as Mrs. Hewit pretended, surely never man stood more in need
of a friend. This is a strong circumstance indeed, and is not
at all redargued by any thing the defendant has said upon the
subject, more especially when we consider Sir John Steuart's
remarkable fondness for his countrymen. Even after the 10th
of July, when their second child was, according to their account,
left at nurse with a woman whom they knew nothing about,
and under the care of Pierre La Marre, whom they themselves
acknowledge they did not know where to find ; would they not
at least have told the Chevalier Johnston of this? And before
they entrusted their sickly tender child into the hands of
absolute strangers, would they not have instructed him to go
and see it, or at least to have an eye upon the management he
was to be under? When to all this I join, that all the letters
wrote at that time by them from Paris to Britain, and else-
where, are falsely dated from Rheims, and have a direct ten-
dency to make every mortal believe they were then at Rheims,
what conclusion can I possibly draw but that a story so unfairly
told cannot be connected with truth? Indeed the falsehood
appears so glaring, that it at once lays the foundation for its
own detection. I have, in what I have said formerly, chosen
to dwell mostly upon the proofs arising from the res gestcz, or
conduct of the parties themselves ; because I must own, that
I do not rest very much upon many parts of the parole evidence
in this cause, either upon the one side or other. I go on ther^
fore to observe Sir John Steuart's own accounts of the matter,
and the falsehoods and forgeries practised by him in order to
gain belief to his story. Leaving the story of Pierre La Marre
to be talked of afterwards, the first account given by Sir
John Steuart of this matter, was in a note written by
his own hand to Lady Schaw in the year 1756, wherein he
expressly avers the delivery to have happened in the house of
Madame Michelle, and at the same time Mrs. Hewit writes the
Duke of Douglas a letter, expressly fixing upon the same house
as the scene of the birth. There was then no mention of a
Le Bruno's, and indeed this was never the house pitched on till
after they both knew, that upon much enquiry by Sir James
44
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Stewart and Principal Gordon, the house of Madame Michelle Lord ^^^
had been found out, and that no delivery had happened there.
Then and no sooner was it, that Sir John Steuart alters his
tone, writes a second note, transferring the scene to Le Bruno's
in the Fauxbourg, and rearing up there the same number of
persons as were said to have been present when the delivery
was averred to have been in Michelle's ; and in this story does
Mrs. Hewit afterwards join with Sir John. Here come in
properly the famous four forged letters from Pierre La Marre,
which appeared first to me upon Sir John Steuart's judicial
declaration before your Lordships : it will be remembered, that
it was upon cross-questioning him, that the improbable account
which he there gives of these letters, led to the full discovery
of the forgery. But why forge letters to support the truth?
Could not La Marre himself be goti or might not certificates
from him have been easily obtained? But, says the defendant,
though I plead the acknowledgment of my parents as the legal
presumption of my birth, yet I do not adhere to the circum-
stantiate account given of that birth by my parents. Strange
indeed ! that the acknowledgment of the parents should be
pleaded by the son, and yet that that son should tell the Court
that his father had averred falsehoods. It is indeed no wonder
that the defendant should endeavour to shake himself loose of
this declaration, because it is no doubt the foundation of the
strongest parts of the evidence against him. In this, however,
the hand of Providence remarkably appears, ever watchful over
the interests of truth, and discovering the train of falsehoods by
means of those very persons who at first invented them. Who
but the parent could be examined in this cause upon the par-
ticulars concerning the birth itself? Who knew any thing of
the matter but Sir John and Mrs. Hewit only? For the many
falsehoods contained in Sir John's declaration, and more par-
ticularly for the story told by him of Pierre La Marre, which is
proved to be utterly false in every single instance, the failure
of memory upon the part of Sir John, as is alleged, is by no
means a sufficient excuse ; for Sir John is exact and pointed in
the whole of that account : more pains could not be taken by
judges than were taken with him upon that occasion : Not only
were the questions put to him in writing, and he allowed
plenty of time to give his answers also in writing, but even
after the first day's examination, when he had signed the
D 45
The Douglas Cause,
Lord declaration so far as emitted, we then allowed him to retract
any thing in which he had been mistaken, but he never once
retracted either as to the cause of his acquaintance with La
Marre, or his being a Walloon, or indeed as to any other of the
particulars of that long story told concerning La Marre.
Leaving here Sir John's declaration, I proceed now to con-
sider Lady Jane's account of the matter, which she gave to the
late Countess of Stair. It is true, the Countess herself being
dead, we can have no other proof of this account given by Lady
Jane, but what is contained in the oath of the Hon. Mrs.
Primrose, the Countess's own daughter, who has expressly told
us the whole conversation as it was related to her by her mother
the Countess of Stair herself. We have no reason therefore
to doubt this evidence, when we consider the sensible and
prudent behaviour of the Countess of Stair upon all occasions,
which would naturally lead her to talk with Lady Jane of the
extraordinary story of the birth. What then appears upon
the oath of Miss Primrose? Lady Jane giving as a reason for
her not coming to Britain to be delivered of these children,
That she was sick at sea, and that that might have endangered
both her life and that of the children she was pregnant with :
Giving as a reason for the extraordinary step of leaving Rheims,
where she could have had such able assistance, the very wonder-
ful story about the unknown lady, who gave her advice to do so,
on account of the danger of her being abused by the unskilful-
ness of the practitioners there. And when Lady Stair with
great propriety noticed to Lady Jane the air of concealment,
and of mystery attending the delivery at Paris ; and that all
things considered, her delivery should have rather been in a
royal manner ; what excuse does Lady Jane make to Lady
Stair? Says she, that was not possible for me to do, because
I was not in Paris above half an hour or an hour before the
delivery happened. What can be a more false account of the
matter than this ? And to what can we attribute the answer
given by Lady Jane, but that she was suddenly struck with
the propriety of the observation made by the Countess of Stair
as to her delivery, being so concealed and mysterious, and that
it should rather have been after the royal manner. In which
last observation, I suppose, the Countess of Stair alluded to the
famed story of Constantia, wife to Henry the Second, who hear-
ing that there were suspicions propagated, as if she intended to
46
Judgments by the Court of Session.
procure a false birth, caused erect a royal tent in the midst of t®'^*.^
the army encamped in the plains of Palermo, and was there
publicly delivered of her child.
I come now to another particular of the conduct of Sir John
Steuart and Lady Jane, and that is their never doing any thing
to prove the birth, after they were acquainted of the doubts and
■suspicions which were entertained concerning it.
It appears from the oath of Walter Colvile, cousin to Mrs.
Hewit, That he heard these reports at a very early period, about
three or four weeks after he received the letter acquainting
him of the birth ; and it appears also from clear and undoubted
evidence. That Lady Jane and Sir John were very early
acquainted of these disadvantageous reports. Upon being so
acquainted of these reports, it was surely natural for innocent
people to have produced a proof, in order to vindicate their
own character and the interest of their children; but what
proof did they ever produce? Four forged letters, and Mrs.
Hewit's oath, which I believe to be false. Various pretences
have been used for their not getting these necessary proofs.
Lady Jane thought herself affronted, and her honour attacked.
True, it may be so — But why not, then, do something to defend
that honour and to ascertain without doubt the birth of
her children for whom she had so great regard? Why was
a Madame Tewis applied to, to prove the pregnancy, when they
bad at Paris a Pierre La Marre who was the man-midwife, and
a Madame Le Brune, and her daughter who were both witnesses
to this alleged delivery? Or if they wanted fully to ascertain
the pregnancy by the best evidence that could be expected, why
apply only to Madame Tewis, who was their first landlady at
Aix-la-Chapelle, and whose house they left as early as the
5th January 1748, when they had Madame Scholle and Madame
'Gillesen, with the last of whom, particularly, they lodged
until the 21st May, 1748, when they set out for Paris, and to
whom, therefore, the symptoms of pregnancy, and more par-
ticularly the bulk of Lady Jane, must have been more apparent
than they possibly could have been to Madame Tewis.
Put, then, all these circumstances in the conduct of the
parties together, and what can we think, but that the story is
not true? But yet, what I have hitherto said, by itself, is
not sufficient to prove the reasons of reduction, for still the
defendant may allege, That it is possible, that he might have
47
The Douglas Cause,
Pr«sid t ^^^^ ^^'"'^ ^^ *^® house of a Madame Le Brune upon the 10th
July 1748. No doubt it is still possible, but then the supposition
of the defendant is unsupported by any evidence whatever, and
is also fully contradicted and redargued by the plaintiffs.
However, we shall proceed to examine this matter more
accurately; and in the first place, consider the proof brought
as to the housed And upon this point, I am clear, That the
defendant has not only failed in proving the existence of the
Madame Le Brune, in whose house the delivery is said to have
happened, but that the plaintiffs have brought sufficient evi-
dence of the absolute non-existence of such a person. There
is indeed one of that name discovered, who was a Garde
Malade, or sick nurse, but does this person in the least answer
the precise and pointed description given of their Madame
Le Brune, both by Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewiti not to
say that it is highly incredible, That a Lady of Lady Jane's
high rank should, after having come to Paris to be delivered,
take up her residence in so wretched an apartment as those of
the Garde Malade's, when it is in proof they had money enough
to hire more respectable lodgings. But, besides all, there i&
another sufficient reason to prevent the application of this
Le Brune, who was the Garde Malade, to the present question,
and that is, that this woman herself was only a lodger, in the
house of one Madame Travers. Sir John has said. That the
Madame Le Brune, in whose house the delivery happened,
was recommended to him by Mons. Godefroi, whereas Godefroi
absolutely denies that he ever gave such a recommendation.
Sir John has also said, That she was recommended to them by
La Marre ; but this is incredible, because it is acknowledged
by Sir John himself, That he never saw Pierre La Marre at the
house of Madame Le Brune till the day of the delivery.
I come now to another material particular in this cause,,
and that is, the very suspicious appea.rance of Sir John
Steuart and Lady Jane at the time of their going to the Hotel
D'Anjou kept by Madame Michelle. When they come there,,
which, according to Mrs. Hewit's first account, was upon the
9th day after the delivery in Le Brune's, they appear there
without either nurse or child; and what follows? they are to
go next day to the country to bring in their child ; accordingly
they do go to the country, and return again with a child and
a nurse, the child almost starved to death for want of milk^
48
Judgments by the Court of Session.
and the nurse a poor wretched thief, who appears to have been Lord
suddenly picked up upon the streets of Paris, upon some
emergency when hurry and confusion would not allow them
time to get a better one. In short, I would try to find one
unsuspicious circumstance, but cannot. The time of the
delivery is fixed for the 10th July. Here, the letters wrote
by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit, and dated the 10th and 11th
of July, without making any mention of the delivery at all,
fall properly to be considered. And whatever may be the
effect of the defendant's arguments as to the rest of them, yet
it stands acknowledged. That there was one of those actually
wrote upon the tenth. And if we can fix one to be of that
date, how is it possible to imagine, That this should have taken
no notice of the delivery, or at least of the approaching de-
livery, when by Mrs. Hewit's account. Lady Jane had been ill
the whole night before the delivery? When to this circum-
stance of the letters, we add the different accounts given by
Mrs. Hewit about the time between the delivery and their
removal from Le Brune's; when we see her contradicting her-
self upon this particular ; when we find her swearing solemnly
repeated times, That it was upon the ninth day after the
delivery, that they removed from Le Brune's ; and afterwards
in her letter to Mr. Harper, the minister, correcting this, and
fixing the sixth day after the birth, as the time of removal
from Le Brune's to Michelle's, can we think all this conduct
consistent with the truth? But still, says the defendant, in
spite of the evidence now produced, the delivery may be true
as it is set forth to have happened; as there is no piece of
evidence which directly excludes the possibility of its having
■so happened. But in my opinion there is such evidence pro-
duced by the plaintiffs ; and what t mean is Godefroi's books,
•confirmed by the united testimony of him and his wife. The
books themselves, in my opinion, remain liable to no solid
'Objection, and deserving the greatest credit. But when to this
we add their oaths, in which there appears no suspicion of
perjury, and in which they set forth so strong a cause of
remembrance as Mens. Mallifer's letter, recommending them
to their house, can we possibly believe that all this is a mis-
take? If we do so, it is supposing every thing on one side,
^against clear and convincing evidence brought upon the other
side. I told you before, that I reserved the evidence as to
49
The Douglas Cause,
Lord the existence of the Pierre La Marre, to be talked of afterwards-
I will notice that now, and I must say, That it was the evidence
brought by the defendant, that has satisfied me to be of
opinion, That the story of Pierre La Marre's being the accoucheur
is a mere fiction. For what is the design of the defendant's,
evidence upon this head? is it not to redargue that of Sir John
Steuart, which is just in so many words tellings your Lordships,
That you are not to believe his accounts of La Marre, but that
the defendant has now found out another La Marre. As to-
the oath of Menager, wherein he relates a conversation with
La Marre, of his (La Marre's) having delivered a foreign lady
of twins, whatever truth be in it, it cannot suit with the^
account of Lady Jane Douglas's delivery. In point of time,,
it is clearly long prior to her delivery, and is fixed to have
been in 1747. This circumstance appears so convincing
upon this point, that there is no need to bring out any other
circumstances, of which there are many. Having now run
through most of the capital points in this great cause, I shall
speak a little of the enlevement of Mignon and Sanry's children.
The first of these certainly happened very oddly, at the very
time when Sir John and Lady Jane are able to give no account
of themselves, and when they appeared at the house of Michelle,,
under such suspicious circumstances as I have formerly noticed.
The whole story told by Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit,
about the manner of their going out to bring their first child
to Michelle's, is inconsistent, contradictory, and suspicious*.
throughout. Will they only give a reason why they did not
go to Mons. Godefroi's upon their return to Paris in 1749,
in order to bring away their second child ; or can they
so much as tell us where they were in Paris during the time?
they were searching after their second child? No — They
cannot tell where they lodged, it was somewhere or other in
Paris, but of that place, or street, or house, they can give no
sort of description. At this very critical period, was the
child of Sanry stole from its parents, under a false pretence f
And the foreigners, who so took the child, told its parents they
would hear of them at the inn called Croix de Fer. I do not
say, that the plaintiffs have brought the fact of the Enleve-
ments directly home to Sir John and Lady Jane ; I only say,
that alongst with such a concatenation of other circumstancea
they have considerable weight upon my mind.
SO
Judgments by the Court of Session.
These are the material things upon which I ground my t®*^. .
opinion, and I shall now conclude with a few general observa-
tions upon this cause, 1st. I think the conduct of both parties
in their management of the cause has been blameless. As
to the cry about the plaintiffs changing their ground, and
resorting to the evidence of Mens. Godefroi's books, after they
had founded on Michelle's, I think it nothing to the purpose.
2dly, I have given all the weight to the tractatus parentum,
pleaded for by the defendant, which I think it deservea.
3dly, Though I do not choose to enter upon the motives that
might induce Lady Jane and Sir John to commit this crime,
yet I cannot but observe, That their professed view seems to
have been, by means of false children, to get possession of the
estate of Douglas; a great part of which, it is clear. Lady
Jane thought would at any rate descend to her and her children.
4thly, As to the death-bed declarations, upon which so much
weight has been laid by this defendant, I am old enough to
have seen. That where persons have once committed desperate
crimes, they too often carry them on even to death : perhaps
hoping for that mercy from their Maker, which the enormity
of their crimes would not allow them to receive here. 5thly,
As to the pregnancy, I do not think the proof brought in sup-
port of this by the defendant, sufficient to balance the whole
of the other proofs brought by the plaintiffs.
Upon the whole, I am clear for sustaining the reasons of
reduction.
Immediately after the Lord President had finished his speech,
it was agreed by their Lordships, That they should deliver
their opinions according to seniority, and therefore Lord
Strichen, the senior judge, was called upon to give his
opinion.
Lord Strichen^ — The proof of the pregnancy strikes me so Lord Strieheo
strongly in this cause, that I own I cannot get over it. And
more particularly, I lay a great deal of weight upon the Earl
of Crawford's letter to the Duke of Douglas upon this subject.
I cannot but think that pregnancy may be proved, so as to
infer an absolute certainty of the fact. We know the seasons
1 Alexander Fraser of Strichen, appointed, with the title of Lord
Strichen, 1730: died 1775.
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Striehen of the weather by general observation, and why may not the
advancement of pregnancy be ascertained by similar observa-
tion? I see it proved beyond controversy, That Lady Jane
gradually encreased in her size : Isabel Walker depones to this
so explicitly, and I believe with so much honesty, that I own
it is a thing I cannot get over. If then pregnant, it is clear,
that she must have been delivered, or elsa have had either
a miscarriage or an abortion, which, if so, it was undoubtedly
incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove it, as the pregnancy once
fully ascertained, lays the presumption for a full birth. This
being the case, I cannot think that the defendant is bound to
prove his own birth. This must rest upon the acknowledg-
ment of his parents, and upon their uniform tractatus or
treatment of him as their son. It is incumbent upon the
plaintiffs to disprove the birth by clear and positive evidence :
and none such, in my opinion, have they been able to bring.
On the contrary, the defendant, besides the direct and positive
testimony of one witness, has brought an incredible weight
of circumstances corroborative of the truth of his birth. If
to this we add, that the whole story of imposture as set forth
by the plaintiffs is highly improbable, we shall soon find the
balance incline to the defendant. Let us examine this story of
the plaintiffs, and see if they have probability on the side of
their hypothesis. Was it credible, that when Lady Jane and
Sir John were so poor, that it is proved they could scarcely
maintain themselves, they should burden themselves with the
danger of so much guilt ; and the more poverty, provide for the
children of other people? Was it credible, that when one
child might have served the purpose, they would have burdened
themselves with two? or that they should have taken a weakly
tender child to support a stronger one? Is it to be believed,
that after they had got the imposture of the first child accom-
plished, they would have remained so long in and about Paris,
appearing in public, and exposed to the view of every person
that might be in search of them? or upon leaving Paris, is it
credible. That they would have gone to Rheims, and remained
there for the space of fifteen months? It was surely much
more natural for them to have left France altogether, after
having committed so great a crime. But, not only do they
remain quietly and peaceably so long at Rheims, but they
even go back to Paris a second time, to pick up a second
5*
Judgments by the Court of Session.
child ; which second child, when they did find, corresponded Lord Striehen
exactly to the accounts which they had given of him fifteen
months before they saw him, or knew any thing about him.
Such is the story as set forth by the plaintiffs ; improbable it
is, surely, to the last degree.
On the other hand, the conduct of Sir John Steuart and
Lady Jane Douglas is very consistent with the notion of a true
birth. Much has been said about the false accounts given
hj Sir John Steuart, concerning the particulars of this birth;
and the inference drawn from Sir John Steuart' s account of
the matter, is, that the defendant is not his son. But I
humbly apprehend, that had Sir John at the time of his
•declaration, even acknowledged that the defendant was not
his son, this would not have been sufficient to have set
him aside, after he had attained the possession of his estate,
in consequence of his own acknowledgment of him as his son.
Upon this point, I refer to the great Lord Stair, who expresses
himself in the following words, " Filiation is presumed from
marriage, whereby the children are presumed to be the lawful
children of those who are proved to have been married;
which is yet more pregnant and favourable on the part of the
■children, to give them the right of aliment and succession, and
is the probation of the marriage betwixt those who are pre-
sumed parents, which is so strong a presumption, 2 That the
mother acknowledging another father, than he that is married
to her, will not prejudice the children, much less will the
assertion of the father, that the children are not his, though
he condescend upon another to be the true father : Yet if
both the married persons do acknowledge. That the child is not
procreate betwixt them, but by another as father, who should
also acknowledge the same and own the child, it would elude
the presumption; but if both married persons had owned and
treated the child as theirs, the concurring testimonies of all
the three would not prejudice the child in the rights of
Buccession to his reputed father and mother."
The oonolusion which we draw from any falsehoods and con-
tradictions, which may appear in Sir John's account of the
matter, is, that the defendant is not his son; but we see, upon
the above great authority in law, That had Sir John and Lady
2 Lord Stair's Institution! of the Laws of Scotland, Book 4, Tit. 45.
53
The Douglas Cause.
U»pd Striehen Jane both owned that he was not their son, after having treated
him uniformly as such for any length of time, he must,
nevertheless, have been maintained in the possession of his state.
This being the caae, I shall make a few observations upon the
other parta of the proof brought by the plaintiffs, no part of
which, excepting that by Mons. Godefroi's books, and his oath,^
is totally inconsistent with the truth of the birth, or excludes
the possibility of it. It is merely of the negative kind, which
can seldom redargue direct positive testimony. I apply thia
observation, particularly, to the proof attempted to be brought
of the non-existence of a La Marre and a Le Brune, against
which negative proof, we have the direct and positive testimony
of Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit, That Le Brune's house was,
the place of the delivery, she herself one of the witnesses to
it, and La Marre the accoucheur. The defendant has shown
clearly there was a La Marre, an accoucheur in Paris at the
time, and that he delivered a foreign lady of advanced age of
twins, who (as La Marre said) would be people of great wealth
and rank in their own country; and that the one of them was.
strong and healthy, the other weak and sickly. Taking, then,,
all these things together, it is not only possible, but highly
probable, that the whole account given by Sir John Steuart and
Lady Jane Douglas is true. The plaintiffs lay great stress upon
Godefroi's books, together with the oath of him and his wife^
and assert. That they have thereby proved the alibi from the
fourth to the fourteenth July. I must here observe, that we
ought to have had the books themselves produced by the plain-
tiffs, and that the producing a notarial copy of them is not
enough. But, however, let us look into the entries made in
these books, we shall see so many blanks, so much indistinctness:
and inaccuracy, that without believing implicitly in Mons.
Godefroi's memory, we cannot pay regard to them. They havo
sworn indeed, positively. That the blank article of the 4th of
July, does relate to Sir John Steuart and his company. But ift
this, it appears to me, they are very probably both mistaken.
But, however that be, the proof by their oaths singly supplatory
of their books, which I see are liable to so much error, will not
be sufficient to set aside the whole evidence, direct and circum-
stantiate, which the defendant has brought in support of hi»
birth.
Much stress has been laid upon an alledged detection of
54
Judgments by the Court of Session.
falsehood on the part of Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit, in Lord Stpiehen
saying, that they were in want of money at Paris. It is true,
that it is in proof. That Sir John Steuart had letters of credit
for a pretty considerable sum, but how do we know that Sir
John had this money free in his pocket after he received it;
very probably he had not, as he was a thoughtless dissipated
man; and therefore, the inference drawn from this letter of
credit upon Paris is too strong. That they were in want of
money when in Paris, is positively swore to by both Sir John
and Mrs. Hewit. That it may have been so, I can easily believe.
It will account for very many things in their conduct, which
may now appear surprising to us.
As to the two Enlevements, neither of them applies to Sir
John Steuart, it is conjecture merely. Upon the whole, I am
clearly for assoilzing the defendant.
The Douglas Cause.
Wednesday, 8th July, 1766.
Lord KaiuM Loj^ Kaiubs^ — I shall give your Lordsliips the reasons of my
opinion in this cause as shortly as possible. The first light in
which I view this matter is, Whether, if Mr. Douglas (whom
in this argument I oall by that name to distinguish the person)
were now requiring to be served heir to the Duke of Douglas,
we would serve him heirl If this was the state of the question
now, I own I should be much difficulted; as I was exceedingly
struck with the circumstances tliat were mentioned yesterday
with so nmoli weight from the chair. But the fact is. That Mr.
Douglas is already served heir by a verdict of the jury; and
therefore the question is, if the proofs brought by the plaintiffs
be sufficient to void that verdict, and to turn him out of the
possession of his state, in which he is now so firmly settled? In
my opinion, the proof brought by the plaintiffs is not sufficient
for this purpose, though perhaps it might have been sufficient
to prevent his being served heir at first.
There is one thing which runs through all the proofs in this
cause, and to notice which is very material; that is, a certain
confusion naturally arising from enquiring into such a number
of facts that have happened at such a distance of time. And
therefore we shall be very apt to err if we draw strong conse-
quences from facta, which, for the reason I have given, cannot
be oompleatly ascertained. I will give some instances of this.
There is evidence brought, That Lady Jane and Sir John Steuart
brought their French servant to the borders of France only, and
that they there dropt him.^ This, when it was first alledged,
might be considered as a very strong circumstance to prove a
fraud. Whereas now it comes out clearly, that that servant was
a French deserter, and so dared not enter the kingdom of France.
In this case therefore we sliould have been mistaken, if we had
drawn the consequence which the faot> as at first set forth.
* Henrr Home ci Kaims or Karnes, appointed, with the title of Lord
[7S8; diedlTSS.
* Sm Historioal Nanativo, p. S8.
56
Lord Karnes.
From a I'liid.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
seemed well to bear. I will mention another thing which strikes Lord Kames
me in the same view. I mean that of Lady Jane's loitering so
long upon the road when drawing so near to the time of her
delivery. Upon the supposition of a true birth, she must have
had her reasons for doing so, which perhaps now cannot appear
to us, for the reason which I have mentioned before. On the
other hand, if we suppose an imposture intended, it is clear,
that the sooner they accomplished it the better. And her
loitering so long upon the road, when she pretended to be so
big with child, oould have no other tendency than to blow up the
whole scheme they had laid. It is proved, that they left their
maid servants at Rheims, and yet it is said that these maid
servants were accomplices. But taking it. That they were not
accomplices, why not entrust the affair to them, particularly
to Isabel Walker, when since it appears that (upon the supposi-
tion of an imposture I mean) she has actually perjured herself,
and endangered her soul for the sake of the defendant? So
standing the affair, I want something whereby I can explain
the conduct of the parties consistently with a real birth, and
avoid what appears to me a danger of drawing strong conse-
quences from facts, which cannot be clearly settled. The proof
which the defendant has brought of Lady Jane's pregnancy, is
just what I wanted. For if one holds this proof to be true, all
the difficulties must vanish. Of the pregnancy, I think, there
is the most oompleat evidence that can be produced. I have
always thought, from the beginning of this cause, that the
stress of it would lie here : and therefore, to do away the proof
of the pregnancy, I expected that the plaintiffs would have
brought a proof of a miscarriage by Lady Jane. But we are not
now in so strait a case : the service has ascertained the state
of the defendant, in which he must be continued; and that
service held pro veritate, except the plaintiffs oould have brought
direct and positive evidence of the contrary. What always
touched me the most in this cause, was the forged letters. Yet
I own I cannot give this circumstance so much weight as to
conclude from it, that the whole is absolutely false. I am far
from thinking that the evidence of Sir John Steuart was not
good against his son; but then I can explain the whole of that
evidence so as to make it not absolutely subversive of the truth
of the birth. The forgery of the letters was no doubt an unjusti-
fiable circumstance in the conduct of Sir John, but then I see
57
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Kames that these letters were meant as an interim proof lo the Duke
of Douglas only; for it is clear to me, that there was a La
Marre, and that Sir John did, at some time or other, correspond
with him. The forgery of the letters then was a circumstance of
conduct highly blameable in Sir John Steuart, though I do not
tibink it was i^uch unlike the Toumelle process, which to me
seems to have been intended by the plaintiffs to stab the
defendant behind his back. To me nothing can appear in a
more odious light than this Toumelle process does, though I do
not say that the gentleman who conducted it had any fraudulent
intention in so doing. The plaintiffs' managers seem from the
very beginning to have been convinced of the imposture, and
therefore it would appear that they thought every thing lawful
that would lead to a detection.
^Pd Lord AuchinlbckI — I have considered the cause with all the
Auehinleek , ■,■,■■,■,
attention m my power, and am not at all surprised that your
Lordships should differ in opinion about it, when I consider the
immensity of the proofs, and the long laboured argument upon
these proofs.
In considering this cause I endeavoured to take care not to
be as it were drawn off at the tangent, and was always willing
to listen to any further evidence that could be got. I was
therefore very glad to have Isabel Walker examined again. To
the questions which I thought material, this witness answered
pointedly and distinctly ; and though she underwent an examinar
tion of two days from the plaintiffs, with the special view, as
appeared, of making her contradict her former evidence, yet,
except in one trifling instance, she kept her temper throughout
the whole, and had to me so strong an appearance of integrity,
that I do believe that everything she has swore is agreeable to
truth. Before I enter into the cause, I mnst premise a few
general observations. In all questions about filiation, sceptical
people may have opportunities of raising abundance of doubts;
as it is possible that wives may be unfaithful, nurses false to
their charge, and that they may both conspire to bring in false
children. Yet, though such things may happen in almost every
possible case, yet the law will determine such questions upon
general principles, requiring a legal certainty in filiation, not
^ Alexander Boswell of Auchiuleck, appointed, with the title of Lord
Auehinleek, 1754 ; died 1782.
58
Judgments by the Court of Session.
certainty in the abstract. Of this daily instances occur in thi« i**'*Jj_j3^
€ourt. And in the case of alledged bastardy particularly, the
law will take its course, and hold the child to be lawful, except
there be absolute impossibility of its being the child of the
liusband. Indeed, if we had not these rules, every thing would
run into absolute confusion. I would observe further, that if
A person is acknowledged by a married couple to be their child,
this is legal evidence of it; and such a train of acknowledgment
must be held to be a probatio probata or pro veritate, till the
'contrary be proved by clear and undoubted evidence. The longer
it is before the challenge of such a person's birth is brought, the
harder it is to get the better of this legal presumption. If the
case of Douglas had been like that of Kinnaird, the argument
from the parents' acknowledgment would not have applied; but
here there is a long course of acknowledgment for the space
of many years together, with the warmest affection on the part
of Lady Jane; and what was very remarkable, though in very
great poverty, neither Sir John nor her were ever heard to
grudge their giving these children a share of the very little they
liad. The defendant must be a stranger to the circumstances
of his birth, and so cannot be answerable for the conduct of his
managers. It is not in this case as upon a criminal indictment,
where the guilt of the prisoner may often appear from his
behaviour, from his looks, and from the shape of his defences.
These are the general principles, which, applied to this case,
will, in my opinion, direct the decision of it. However, I must
observe farther, that I could have wished that we could have
Tiad a more full, clear, and satisfying evidence than we have ; and
farther, that this process had taken rise at a time when there
were no bye motives to bring it, instead of its being brought
immediately after^ the defendant had defeated Duke Hamilton
in point of law. I own that I cannot get out of my view the
method in which this process was raised and conducted. This
is material, because it will account for many singularities occur-
ring in this cause. Instead of applying for an act and com-
2 If his words are here correctly reported, it is difficult to think that
Lord Auchinleck was right in this. The decision of the Court of
Session against the action of the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Selkirk v.
Archibald Douglas, was dated 9th December, 1762. The new action,
out of which " The Douglas Cause " arose, was raised on 7th December,
1762. [Historical Introduction, " Narrative of the Cause," p. 15.]
59
The Douglas Cause.
Lop* mission from this Court to bring a proof of the imposture, the
plaintiffs were pleased to bring their criminal action before the
parliament of Paris, and procured a monitoire important, which
treats Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit as already convicted of
the supposition of children. And under the word Quidam, makes
the thing as plain as if they had put in the initials of their
names. I did not condemn this process before the Tournelle
because it was, unfashionable, but because it was unjust and
oppressive to the last degree; and I think I can give pointed
evidence, that this my opinion was well founded. I shall give
two or three instances which will sufficiently explain what I
mean. In a conversation betwixt Miss Louisa Hibert at Rheims,
and Mr. Andrew Stuart, it appears, that at first the lady told
him that she observed the pregnancy; whereas, after the Tour-
nelle process, and the publication of the monitoire, she retracted
this notion, and swore the direct contrary. Another instance
of this appears from the conduct of Fran9ois La Marre, brother
to the famous Pierre La Marre. Mr. d'Anjou, procureur for the
plaintiffs in Paris, in his private memorial says, that Fran9ois
La Marre told him, that his brother Pierre La Marre wag
intimate with a Madame Le Brune, and that he had taught her
midwifery. From a second note or jotting of Mr. d'Anjou's, it
appears that the other party had been with Fran9ois La
Marre, and that he told them every thing but the information
of his brother's acquaintance with Le Brune. But after all,
when this Mr. Fran9ois La Marre is swore upon our act and
commission, he says he knew nothing at all about his brother's
acquaintance with Le Brune. Madame Michelle is another
instance of the miserable bad effects of this Tournelle process.
Upon her being first discovered she said, That when Madame
Steuart-Douglas came to her house, she had all the appearance
of a woman recently delivered. In short, if I could believe
the witnesses adduced after the Tournelle process, and the pro-
ceedings upon it, I would fairly acknowledge that the pregnancy
is disproved by these witnesses. Madame Sautry, the mantua-
maker at Rheims, makes strong endeavours to disprove the
pregnancy; she even measures Lady Jane to make sure work
of it. When we look into the plainte to the parliament of
Paris they appear to be satisfied that Lady Jane had every
appearance of pregnancy ; but after the monitoire appeared, the
memories of the witnesses underwent a great alteration, some
60
Judgments by the Court of Session.
of them being very much weakened in this particular, when Lord
others were as much improved.
Having thus taken a general view of the proof brought by
the plaintiffs in this cause, I have only to add, that I pay no
great credit either to the books of Police, or to those of the
Hotels in Paris. The plaintiffs at first set forth, that these
books were infallibly sure, and liable to no errors or mistakes;
whereas to me it really appears to be a battle of books betwixt
the respective hotels.
Such is the evidence upon which we are to determine this
great cause, exception somewhat as to the conduct of parties. The
proof against the defendant may be reduced to two general heads.
1st, Things exclusive of the truth of the birth, such as Lady
Jane's age, letters of false dates, the enlevements, non-existence
of La Marre and Le Brune, <fec. And 2dly, The alibi in Mone.
Godefroi's upon the 10th July. The plaintiffs have now given
up the point of the age, though it was upon that alone that
the suspicions first rose; but they say that she had only the
appearance of pregnancy. Well, take it so; It is clearly proved
that she had such an appearance; and from all the circum-
stances I am fully convinced it was a real pregnancy. If no
appearance of pregnancy had appeared at all, then the cause
must have gone clearly against the defendant. None of the
other circumstances which are brought by the plaintiffs are, as
I think, proved, except that of the forgery of the letters, which
always stuck strongest with me. Here comes in a question,
What shall be the consequence to this defendant, if his father
did not act the proper part? The people upon the other side
have at times not acted properly neither; for instance, the
Toumelle process and all the consequences of it. In the conduct
of which cause there is something that does not a little resemble
La Marre's letters. Of this I shall give the following strong
and pregnant instance. At first the plaintiffs thought proper
to place the scene of the alibi in the house of Michelle upon the
eighth day of July, and this they did upon the authority of
Michelle's books, and alledged that the article of Monsieur
Fluratl and his family wrote in that book upon that day, was
of the handwriting of Sir John Steuart himself. This being
the case, the plaintiffs thought proper immediately to get this
book of Michelle's lockt up in the Toumelle^ in order, it seems,
that the defendant might never see it. Instead of producing
K 6i
The Douglas Cause.
^•1^, , , the book itself, the plaintiffs have brought a Ions: oath con-
cernmg this book, and more particularly oonoemmg this article
the date and hand-writing of the entry concerning Mons. Fluratl
and his family. This gentleman, who depones in a most pointed
manner upon his bare memory as to the dates and hand-writing
of the articles of this book, is one Maitre Duresseau, a man who
has a great many sounding titles, Conseillet du Eoi, and I
know not all what. He depones. That so far as he can
remember, the article which goes before that of Mons. Fluratl
is of a date anterior to that of the 8th July; and that he
remembers to have asked of Michelle of whose hand-writing was
the article of Mons. Fluratl : And that Michelle answered the
deponent,^ That this article was neither of his hand-writing
nor that of his wife's ; and that he presumed it was of the hand-
writing of the person who called himself Fluratl. However, the
plaintiffs having changed their ground as to the alibi, and
transferred it to Mons. Godefroi's; then Michelle's book itself
is produced, though it seems it could not be got before; when,
instead of the dates and hand-writing being as represented by
this oflScer of the police, it appears clearly that they are both
essentially different. What then can be said to be the design
of all this ? No other surely than to impose upon your Lordships
by representing the alibi to have been at Michelle's. This was
at least a wrong step, as much so perhaps as the fabricating of
the four letters, which may be compared to the pics fraudes
which were frequent of old, and which happened although the
people that used them were in the main supporting a thing that
was right. Yet I do not vindicate Sir John for this step, but
I cannot carry the thing so far as to make it overbalance the
weight of unsuspicious evidence which the defendant has
produced.
I come now to touch shortly upon the proof of the alibi at
Mons. Godefroi's. In instructing of which I think the plaintiffs
have totally failed, and I must continue to think so, except I
can believe that he and his wife have memories superior to
Joseph Scaliger's. They have indeed most unaccountable
memories, according to their own account of the matter; for
they even remember what coat Sir John had on in the year
1748. I am however unwilling to believe them to be perjured,
« Vide Pursuers' Proof, page 887.
62
Judgments by the Court of Session.
"but I believe that they had their memories refreshed by the J®''J. .
monitoire, as many others seemed to have had theirs weakened
by it. They have been misled by their books, which they
think all very accurate, tho' it is proved to demonstration they
.«,re liable to many errors and mistakes. And because they had
marked Sir John Steuart's name in the livre d'inspecteury
therefore they take up an apprehension that the blank article
of the 4th of July, in their livre de depensCy relates to him and
Lady Jane and Mrs. Hewit.
Upon the whole, my opinion is, that as the defendant is now
in complete possession of his estate, and as the evidence against
him is neither unsuspicious nor conclusive, that therefore he
falls to be assoilzied.
Lord CoalstonI — In delivering my opinion in this cause, I ^^^ Coalston
will not run over the whole of the arguments stated upon either
side, but will endeavour to take one close connected view of the
whole. The question now before us, falls to be determined upon
principles of law, of importance not only to this country, but
to all mankind; and of these principles the first is, that there
is no direct proof necessary to establish filiation. Accidents
innumerable and unavoidable may prevent a claimant from
bringing direct evidence of his birth, more especially if the same
lias happened when his parents were travelling abroad in a
foreign country. Yea, I will adventure to say. That of all the
numerous audience now present, there is not, perhaps, one in a
hundred able to bring compleat legal evidence of the precise
time and place, and other circumstances attending it. For this
good reason, therefore, it is. That the law has required no other
proof of a person's birth, but the acknowledgment of the parents,
and the habite and repute consequent upon that acknowledgment.
I do not mean to say, that such may not be defeated by a
contrary proof; I only say. That it is legal evidence, as much
as if the direct birth had been proved by witnesses; and that,
until it shall be redargued by a clear and positive proof of the
contrary. So standing the law as I apprehend, the defendant
is entitled to found upon the acknowledgment of his parents,
and the habite and repute following thereon as prohatio probata.
The consequence of which is. That the onus probandi must
^ George Brown of Coalston or Coalstoun, appointed, with the title of
Lord Coalston, 1756 ; died 1776.
63
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Coaltton fall wholly upon the plaintiffs in this cause. I am also equally
clear, that before the plaintiffs can prevail here, they must
bring such evidence to your Lordships, as would have been
sufficient to have convicted Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit
of the capital crime of suppositio partus; and if such strong'
proofs are necessary only to balance the legal presumption for
the birth of the defendant, much stronger n>ust these proofs
be, where there is both a direct and a circumstantiate proof
of the birth, as is the case here. I shall consider first the proof
BO brought by this defendant, and then the proofs brought by
the plaintiffs, upon which they would have us to set his proof
aside. The defendant's proof naturally divides itself into two
principal parts, the proof of Lady Jane's pregnancy, and the proof
of the delivery. And first, as to the pregnancy, in spite of all
the plaintiffs have advanced as to the uncertainty and fallibility
of such proof of pregnancy, I must, according to all the lawyers*^
opinions I have ever read upon this subject, hold pregnancy to
be a thing capable of a certain proof : And whatever a sceptical
physician may have given as his opinion in this cause, as to the
uncertainty of the proof of pregnancy, yet I regard not his
opinion either, for the reason which I have now given.
This being the case, I go on to enquire whether or not the
pregnancy of Lady Jane Douglas is proved : And that it is
proved, I am clear, from the oaths of Mrs. Hewit and Isabel
Walker, and from the declarations of the other maid, Effie Caw,
who died before she could be put upon oath in this cause. And
all their evidence stands so strongly supported by the oath of
Mrs. Hepburn of Keith, and so pointedly confirmed by a number
of other respectable persons who had the most intimate acquaint-
ance with, and most frequent opportunities of seeing Lady Jane
at that time ; that I can have no doubt of the matter. Against
this the negative evidence brought by the plaintiffs can never
be held sufficient. And indeed, it does appear, that the plain-
tiffs themselves were convinced of the pregnancy: not only
from their first plainte to the parliament of Paris, but also from
the testimony of Sir William Stewart in this cause ; who deposes.
That in a conversation which Mr. Andrew Stuart had with tho
honourable Mr. Murray at Paris, he (Mr. Andrew Stuart) owned
to Mr. Murray, " That he had all the proofs in the world of
Lady Jane's pregnancy, but none of her delivery."
I come now to consider the proof of the delivery itself.
64
Judgments by the Court of Session.
This, indeed, rests upon the testimony of Sir John and Mrs. Lord Goalston
Hewit, who were the only witnesses that can be found to the
•act of delivery. But then it falls to be noticed, that their
direct and positive harmony to the fact is confirmed by a
train of such circumstances, and these circumstances fall in so
exactly with the account given by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit, that
they afford conviction to my mind, as strong a^ if so many
more witnesses had swore directly to the fact. The circum-
stances which I mean, are contained in the oaths of Doctor
Menager, and Madame Garnier, the nurse of the second child.
It would have been, indeed, next to a miracle, if Sir John
Steuart, in order to accomplish this alledged imposture, should
have pitched upon Pierre La Marre, to be the fictitious
accoucheur, who, as he himself told to Doctor Menager, had
about that time delivered a foreign lady of high rank, and of
an advanced age, of twins, the youngest of whom was intrusted
to his (La Marre' s) care to be nursed. But this is not all;
jou have Madame Garnier herself swearing expressly. That
«he nursed a child given to her by Mr. P. La Marre, and
that he told her to take exceeding great care of the child,
because it was belonging to foreigners, people of distinction;
^nd might be a rich man in his own country. If, to all thisi,
we add, the accidental manner in which both Doctor Menager
and Madame Garnier the nurse were discovered, it must estab-
lish the credibility of their testimony beyond doubt. And I
am really convinced. That if Giles and Franyois La Marre
had spoke out the truth, the evidence upon these articles which
I have narrated would not have been liable even to the shadow
of an objection. But even, supposing that there had been
less proof of the act of delivery, either by witnesses or by
circumstances, it falls to be noticed, That the two proofs of
pregnancy and delivery mutually assist each other, and estab-
lish the one great point sought after, viz., that there was
really a delivery. Yea, had there been no proof at all brought
of the act of delivery, and which may have been the case often,
as the act of delivery is often transient and even in a moment ;
yet, as she is clearly proved to have been pregnant when she
went to Paris, the law would have presumed. That she was
there delivered according to the account she herself gives us.
As the proof of the circumstances before, so the proof of what
happened after the delivery convinces me, that there is no
falsehood in this case. We have Lady Jane displaying upon
65
The Douglas Cause,
Lord Coalston every occasion the etrongeet maternal affection for theift
children. You have the depositions of I believe a hundred
of witnesses, that the second boy Sholto was the very picture
of Lady Jane. A circumstance which has its weight with
me, considering the sense and character of the people wha
affirm it, and as I see that every lawyer who has wrote upon
Buch questions as this, treats of the similitude of features as
being a presumption to establish a real birth:
The plaintiffs have, in order to support their plea, found-
it necessary to discredit the testimony of the witnesses who-
had deposed to the pregnancy; and more particularly they
have attacked with all their force the credibility of Mrs.
Hewit and Isabel Walker, two persons who it is in proof had
always maintained characters free of the least exception. BotK
these witnesses were examined in your Lordships' presence,,
Mrs. Hewit several times, and Mrs. Walker once; and in my
opinion delivered their testimonies with such constancy and
firmness as nothing but truth could inspire, and which led me-
firmly to believe all that they respectively swore. There are
indeed in their accounts of the matter a few trifling contra-
dictions and variations in some of the most minute mattera
of their detail; which, instead of being either wonderful or
suspicious, is a circumstance which may naturally be expected
to happen after so long an elapse of time, and instead of lessen-
ing (in my view) increases the credit due to their story. I
therefore hold the proof which the plaintiffs have brought to
be by no means sufficient to discredit the testimony either of
the one or the other of these capital witnesses. I have thus
run through the bulk of the proof brought by the defendant,,
and which it is to be considered he was not obliged to bring,,
and shall therefore proceed to examine with as much accuracy
as I can the proof brought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs^
proof is not pretended to be direct or positive, it is circum-
stantiate wholly. I have ever considered it as an uncontra-
vertable principle of law, that wherever there is a proof upon
one side by credible witnessess (which is the case here) this
cannot be shaken by a proof of circumstances, when these cir-
cumstances are not inconsistent with, nor exclusive of the
principal alledgeance established by witnesses. I will give
one instance in the proofs which the law admits in the case
of theft. This crime is generally proved by a train of cir-
cumstances ; that the person charged with the theft was found
66
Judgments by the Court of Session.
•with the stoUen goods in his possession, that he was habite Lord Coalstoa
and repute a thief, or such like circumstances. In order to
free himself from the charge attempted to be proved against
him by such a train of circumstances, the prisoner at the bar
generally alledges that he came by the goods in a lawful
manner. And if he shall be able, by t&e testimony of two
unsuspected witnesses, to prove this fact, the whole circum-
stantiate evidence reared up against him falls to the ground
at once; and that for this good reason, that these circum-
stances, though they be fully proved, are not inconsistent with
the alledgeance of the prisoner proved by direct testimony.
If then we shall take a view of the various circumstances adduced
by the plaintiffs, we shall be convinced that they might have
all happened consistently with the defendant's hypothesis. For
many of the most material of these suspicious circumstances
the defendant has been able to account; and though they had
not been accounted for, yet they did not apply. As to the
declaration of the defendant's father. Sir John, I shall only
barely mention, that through the whole of that examination.
Sir John shewed not the least consciousness of guilt. As to
the four letters from Pierre La Marre, which are alledged to
be forged, I must observe in the first place, that I am not
satisfied that these letters were really forgeries by Sir John.
And 2dly, That though we suppose them to be forged, yet this
cannot defeat the direct and circumstantiate evidence brought
by the defendant, and which does not rest upon any after act
or deed of his father Sir John.
As to the alibi in Godefroi's, I pay no regard to his books ;
and these are supplied by his oath, in which it is highly
probable to me he is mistaken, yet they are not sufficient to
defeat the whole of the evidence on the side of the defendant.
I now draw towards a conclusion, and have only to add a
few general observations. The system of the plaintiffs appears
to me incredible in all its parts. Lady Jane is clearly proved
to have been capable to have children. Why not then have
children? Is it at all credible that upon their return from
Rheims to Paris, when they had only picked up one child,
that they should have given out to their friends there and
elsewhere, that they had two. Yea, might not this circum-
stance, taken by itself, have afforded ground for an almost
immediate detection? When come to Rheims, they give out
that their second child, whom according to the plaintiffs they
67
The Douglas Cause.
LoFdfCoal9ton had not yet picked up, was a sickly, tender infant. But this
is not all, for at the distance of sixteen months after this, the
child they bring with them from Paris was found exactly to
answer the description given of him. Upon the supposition
of an imposture, this is all truly miraculous.
Lady Jane Douglas's private letters to Sir John and her other
friends upon the subject of her children, are wrote in a stile so
affectionate and tender, so unconstrained and natural, that they
afford full conviction to me of two things: 1st, That they
were never intended for public inspection; and 2dly, That
they [come ?] from an innocent mind oppressed with misfortunes,
though free of guilt. Shall we then, my Lords, after so clear
a proof on the part of the defendant, upon which he has been
in possession of his state to the age of manhood, deprive him
of his illustrious birth and princely estate ; and, upon a moatly
collection of inconclusive circumstances, send him back to be
accounted the son of an infamous beggar, who has perjured
herself in the face of your Lordships? One thing more, and
I have done. The proceedings in France, in consequence of
the Tournelle process and monitoire, struck me with horror
and indignation ; and more particularly I was shocked to see a
British act and commission garbled by an arret of the French
king.
Upon the whole, I am convinced that this defendant is the
son of Lady Jane Douglas, and therefore that he falls to be
assoilzied.
68
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Thursday, gth July, 1766.
Lord Barjarg^ — In giving my opinion upon this cause, I do Lord Bapjai^
not think it necessary to recapitulate much ; it will be suffi-
cient to trace some of the outlines of the proof, and to draw the
consequence from these facts so established. The question
before us is a point of fact merely; that is, Whether or not
the defendant is the son of Lady Jane Douglas? Upon whom
the onus prohandi is to be laid, is a preliminary point, upon
which I cannot agree to adopt the arguments on either side, both
sides having carried them too far. We can get but few rules
of law to apply to such circumstantiate cases ; but the following
rules seem to me to be well founded in reason and sense : 1st,
It is not sufficient for the defendant to say, that as he stands
in possession upon a verdict, therefore he is obliged to bring
no further evidence; 2dly, Neither are the pursuers to be
excused from their proof. It is incumbent upon them to
point out what defects there may be in the evidence upon
which the verdict proceeded, and to bring what farther evidence
of its falsehood they can : and upon the whole of that evidence
we must pronounce judgment accordingly, taking into our view
€very fact and circumstance more or less material, as they stand
more or less connected with the material object in view; that
is, the birth of the defendant. From the very nature of the
evidence, the plaintiffs were led to contravert the pregnancy,
because pregnancy is inseparably connected with the delivery,
and yet I do not think that the plaintiffs have fully disproved
the pregnancy. Indeed the appearances of pregnancy at least,
are established without doubt when at Aix and Liege; but
from the time that Lady Jane leaves Liege, that appearance
becomes more uncertain, and grows more feeble, as they ad-
vance nearer to Paris, the place of their destination. Indeed
Lady Jane past quickly through a strange country, which is a
circumstance that may account for people's inattention to her ;
and as to those who have sworn so pointedly to the pregnancy,
^ James Erskine of Barjarg, and afterwards of Alva, appointed, with the
title of Lord Barjarg, 1761 ; died. Senior Judge in Great Britain, 1796.
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Barjarg they might be deceived with the appearance, and think it
real. Perhaps an actual and real pregnancy cannot be cer-
tainly proved ; there are many diseases that imitate pregnancy ;
and when to this I add the risque that Lady Jane ran by long
journies, rough and bad roads, and bad machines, I am led
to conclude, that notwithstanding the appearance of pregnancy,
which is proved, yet the defendant is not thereby relieved
of bringing probable evidence of his birth.
It is remarkable in going over this proof, that Lady Jan&
•taid no less than nine days at Sedan. We have the evidence
of Mrs. Hewit and of Mrs. Glass as to what happened there,
and which evidences contradict each other to the last degree^
though both of them seem to agree in Lady Jane's being in
danger of a miscarriage when there. From that time on
till they arrived at Paris, it is agreed, that Lady Jane had no.
difficulty in performing her journey, nor any threatenings of
her approaching delivery.
The evidence of the birth divides itself in two classes, Ist,.
That evidence arising from the testimony of Sir John and
Mrs. Hewit, and from letters wrote by them and by La Marre.
2dly, The testimonies of Doctor Menager and Madame Gamier.
This is the whole of the defendant's evidence of his birth>.
and with great regret, I must give it as my opinion, That it
does not appear to me sufficient for the purpose. If we take-
one class of his evidence without the other, it is clearly not
sufficient; if we join them together, they mutually contradict
and destroy each other. The proof of the forgery of the-
four letters from Pierre La Marre, does, in my opinion,
destroy any credit due to the testimony of Sir John Steuart
and Mrs. Hewit as to him. The plaintiffs have endeavoured,
to prove, that Lady Jane knew of the forgery, and that she
relied much upon these four letters to prove the birth. But
I own, I do not think they have succeeded in this.
The second branch of the evidence for the birth consists of
the evidence of Doctor Menager and Madame Gamier. I an>
unwilling to give way to the idea, that any witness is willingly
perjured. I believe the accounts that Doctor Menager gives.
of his conversation with La Marre ; I believe that La Marre waa
for some years in the Hotel Dieu ; and that he afterwarda
practised as a surgeon in a very low sphere, and was a good
deal employed in secret services. But then it is clear, that
this La Marre cannot be the same one that Sir John Steuart
70
Judgments by the Court of Session.
described so particularly. Doctor Menager's friend, La Lord Barjara
Marre, was not a Walloon, neither could he be a surgeon of a
regiment in the year 1721, because he was then but a mere
boy. It was very natural for so obscure a man as the La
Marre swore to by Doctor Menager, to boast of his great
practice, but it would be drawing too strong consequences
from the story which he told about the foreign lady, whom
he brought to bed of twins, to fix that foreign lady to be Lady
Jane Douglas. This is not the only objection to the applica-
tion of this evidence to the present question, for it appears
clearly in proof, that if this La Marre did really deliver a
foreign lady in the way set forth by Menager, it must have
been in the year 1747. For we have it clearly ascertained
by the evidence of Mons. Giles, That Doctor Menager was
attending the army during the whole of the year 1748. I do
indeed rest more upon the evidence of Giles, than upon that
of Menager and Madame Garnier. The consequence of which,
is, That Menager's oath applies to an earlier period. The
defendant sets forth, that he was born upon the 10th July,
1748, in the house of a Madame Le Brune. Of this the
defendant has produced no sufficient evidence; he must stand
upon the evidence I mentioned before ; and therefore, all these
objections to the evidence of Sir John and Mrs. Hewit strike
in properly here. The circumstances, situation and business
of the Le Brune, in whose house, says the defendant. Lady
Jane may have been delivered, are totally different from these
condescended on by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit, repeated times,
as well upon declaration as upon their oaths. From these
things, therefore, I must draw the conclusion. That the
defendant has brought no evidence to show, that Lady Jane was
delivered in the house of a Le Brune, and by a Pierre La Marre.
As to the alibi in Mons. Godefroi's, I think his books are
good evidence of this; it is at least moral evidence of it,
all that can be expected in such a case, and there lies no proba-
bility at all upon the other side.
If Sir John and Lady Jane had been now pleading for them-
selves against this evidence, they would have had nothing to
say, except they could have produced as strong evidence to
show, that they were actually at this time in the house of a
Madame Le Brune. But when to this evidence by Mons.
Godefroi's books, we add the obscurity and concealment, and
want of truth in the accounts given of this whole matter by
71
The Douglas Cause,
Lopd Barjarg Sir John, Lady Jane and Mrs. Hewit, the evidence is so
situated, that upon the side of the defendant's birth, there
remains but a bare possibility; whereas, upon the side of the
plaintiffs, there is a great weight of probability, and even of
moral certainty. Much has been said about the enlevements,
though I am far from thinking, that there is any direct evi-
dence against Sir John and Lady Jane upon this article. The
only proposition established by that part of the proof is, That
Mignon and Sanry had in the month of July 1748, and Novem-
ber 1749, a child carried off from each of them by foreigners;
but then, upon this point, I must join the effect of the plain^tiffs*
proof to the defects of the defendant's proof, and then take
the cumular amount of the whole. I have spoke so far, and
have given my reasons for being against the defendant. But,
I own, I have some doubts, as this is a circumstantiate evi-
dence against him, whether as he is free of all blame from
any irregularity or crimes committed by his parents, whether,
therefore, he may not be entitled to lay hold of the mere
possibility of the fact as set forth by him ; and more especially
as he is now in possession of his state by a verdict. However,
to this, I see one objection, that as a child owes his birth to
his father, so he must take his state alongst with the accounts
given by his parents ; and, in fact, the defendant's whole
plea hangs upon the acknowledgment of his parents.
There were some other things which as present seemed to
be specious upon the side of the defendant; particularly, it
was asked, what could be Sir John and Lady Jane's motives
for this imposition of children? What their motives might
be is impossible to know exactly, without knowing the charac-
ters exactly : and whatever were their characters, it is certain,
That the argument of the defendant, that upon the supposition
of an imposture, it was bringing a needless burden and incon-
venience upon them, will not apply. For if the consideration
of inconveniences could have had any weight with Lady Jane,
it would have prevented their marriage altogether. Lady
Jane, in her letters, uses a certain mysterious way of writing
alongst with the warmest affection towards these children.
For this affection towards children not her own, it is indeed
very difficult to account : But we must consider that Lady
Jane was a lady of great humanity and charity, which might
insensibly lead her to contract an affection for these children,
whom she had deprived of their true parents. She was also
72
Lord Alemore.
From the Portrait in. the Paiiiament House.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
thought a woman of high spirit and honour, which might lead Lord Barjaps
her to compleat, by every possible means, a scheme, bad as
it was, which she had once taken in hand.
From all this, then I conclude, that we should sustain the
reasons of reduction.
Lord AlemorbI — I have formed an opinion conformable to Lord Alemora
that now given. I attended with all the care I could to the
sentiments of those judges who gave their opinions yesterday
upon the other side of the question from me. They made me
examine again the grounds of that opinion which I am now
to give; and after considering their arguments as much as I
could, I found my sentiments rather confirmed than shaken.
Though my opinion is clear in this cause, yet I must own it is
a difficult cause. This, amongst other things, has been owing
to the art and abilities of the defendant's council, who, in
attemping to shake the circumstantiate evidence brought
against him, took these circumstances one by one, and then
drew their conclusion, that this was all that the plaintiffs had
proved. Whereas in stating their own proof, what was but
a presumption in one page, was in the next positive evidence,
and then rose to a demonstration. All this perplexed me a good
deal, and I was therefore obliged to return to the general view
of the whole proof in this cause.
There have been some little points of law attempted to be
brought into this cause, though the question before us isi a
point of fact entirely, upon which any man may judge. It
is a jury-cause : and it is a cause where every body will judge
for themselves, and also judge those who judge it. Much
has been said upon the defendant's service, and his possession
consequent upon it : I think he was rightly served upon the
proof as it then stood, and would then have had the same
opinion myself. 3y the possession of the estate in conse-
quence of that service, the defendant has been enabled to support
his defence ; but farther than this, what can that service entitle
him to in this cause? It is of no weight as to the evidence,
because we are to judge of the point of fact. It cannot have
more force than the decreet of an inferior Court under your
Lordships' review. It must stand or fall upon its own grounds,
and can never be held as a probatio probata. We sit here.
* Andrew Pringle of Alemore, appointed, with the title of Lord Alemore,
1769 ; died 1776.
73
The Douglas Cause,
Lord Alemore as come in place of the grand jury of error, to consider whether
this verdict should be reduced or not. Surely then the thing
under reduction must stand or fall according as it appears to
U8 now. I give all the force possible to the arguments drawn
from the acknowledgment of parents, but this is not what we
aU depend upon ; we have all habite and repute, the uncontra-
dicted voice of a whole neighbourhood or country, besides the
acknowledgment of our parents. But this habite and repute
the defendant has not in this cause ; on the contrary it appears,
that the doubts of his birth were coeval with the birth itself.
It may be asked, whether Lady Schaw, who took the defendant
into her family upon the death of Lady Jane, had a firm confi-
dence in the truth of the birth, when she desires Mrs. Napier
to write to Sir James Steuart in France, and says, that she
gives her a clew to unravel this dark story. Let us examine
Mrs. Napier's letter to Lady Frances Steuart, and we shall there
find her expressing her fears lest a failure in success makes
things less clear than they now are. Lord Cathcart in his
deposition says, that he had heard the birth often doubted, on
account of the mystery and concealment. But even supposing
that the defendant had been in possession of a general habit
and repute, it is but a presumption, and therefore must yield to
proof. And this proof must, in the nature of things, be a
proof of all facts and circumstances. And as the one or the
other preponderates, so are we bound to give the cause.
I will now proceed to state such parts of the proof as to me
appear most material. I take up Lady Jane Douglas and Sir
John Steuart at Rheims, where I think there appears enough
upon the face of their own conduct to infer the conclusion, that
it was a scheme of imposture they were going on. At Rheims,
which is one of the most populous towns in France, Lady Jane
had an opportunity of getting the ablest assistance ; and besides
the advantage of several British people there, to whom she
daily appeared, and by whom she was much beloved. In this
situation Lady Jane passes a whole month at Rheims, but at
last, when the critical period must have been very near, sets out
for Paris, attended only by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit. For so
unseasonable a journey she can give no reason ; she gives only
a false pretence, that there was no proper assistance to be had
in Rheims. And for the extraordinary step of leaving their
maids at Rheims, they give a pretence which is also proved false,
that they had not money to carry them to Paris. They arrive
74
Judgments by the Court of Session.
at Paris upon the evening of the fourth of July, and put up at Lord Alemore
the Hotel Shaloons [Chalons], a respectable inn, to which they
had been recommended by Mons. Mallifer at Rheims. Instead
of remaining in this inn, or even giving Mons. Godefroi or his
wife the least notice of the real intention of their coming to
Paris, or enquiring of them for the ablest assistance, they
suddenly leave his house and hire lodgings at a Madame Le
Bruno's, where Lady Jane is delivered of twins a few days after-
wards, in presence of that Madame Le Brune, her daughter, and
a Pierre La Marre, who was the accoucheur. Who was this
Pierre La Marre? Says Sir John Steuart, he was a Walloon
surgeon, whom he had seen at Liege in the year 1721, but who
was then in Paris upon an affair " en epineuse." This whole
account given by Sir John, the defendant now gives up. But
can he give it up without giving up his cause? Sir John had
brought Lady Jane to Paris to be thero delivered by the very
ablest hands, and yet he entrusts her to the care of a wandering
surgeon, whom he had not seen since the year 1721, and who
was obliged to be concealed in Paris upon account of a ticklish
affair. Did Sir John know where La Marre lived in Paris?
No. He is prevented from telling Sir John that, on account of
the ticklish affair he came on ; though at the same time he is
to be met with on the most public walks in Paris, in the Luxem-
burg or Thuileries. Would, then, Sir John have known where
to find this accoucheur, if he had wanted him suddenly? If
Lady Jane, for instance, had been seized with her pains in the
night? No. Sir John declares he would not have known
where to find him ; and that if this had happened, he must have
called another. When to this we add Mrs. Hewit's account
of the matter, that Lady Jane never saw La Marre till the
critical time, I can appeal to the understanding and feelings of
the heart of man, that this story has no truth in it. It far
exceeds probability ; it is even improbable to the last degree ;
so much so that it is impossible these things could have
happened upon the supposition of a true birth. Lady Jane had
staid a whole month at Rheims, though it is now in proof that
Paris was the real place of destination. Would it not then
have been much more proper to have gone straight to Paris?
None of the witnesses at Rheims mention the least of any
complaint made by her, that there was no good assistance
likely to be got there ; and there is not the least evidence of
the story told, both by Lady Jane and Mrs. Hewit, concerning
75
The Douglas Cause,
L»rd Alemore the advice given her by an unknown lady, to leave Rheims on
account of the unskilfulness of the practitioners. Mrs.
Andrieux never gave her any such advice; for it appears that
she never took her even to be pregnant. However, if they left
Rheims to go to Paris for the best assistance, it was natural and
proper for them surely to have taken the very first advice
there; at least, it is not to be expected that Sir John would
have taken so inferior a man as La Marre was»
I still demand the reason of their leaving their maids at
Rheims. They give me a reason which I prove to be false.
After this, is their deserting Rheims to be accounted for to the
mind of man?
The delivery is said to have happened in the house of Madame
Le Brune, and we have a most pointed description given of her,
of the house, and of her family, both by Sir John and Mrs.
Hewit. Yet they could give no description of the house so as
to find out in what place it lay. In short, this great event of
the birth happened in a place where no body could ever either
find out or hear of, and which never had any existence ; though
it is certain that the greatness of the event must have rivetted
it eternally in their minds. I observe that wherever there was
a real place, thither they have been effectually traced; but to
Le Brune's house they have not been traced, because there was
no such person. Upon the ninth day after the birth, according
to the account given by them, they change their lodgings, on
account of buggs ; and when they appear at Michelle's upon that
day they have no child with them at all. Where were their
children? They were sent to nurse. What was the reason
of this, of sending them both away they knew not where?
According to their own account, the eldest was somewhere in
the country towards St. Germaine, and they are to go next day
from Michelle's in order to bring home this child. Accordingly
they do go away, and return again, bringing with them a child
in all appearance much older than their child could be, under
the care of a nurse who had no milk to give the child, and
who had the King's mark upon her as a common thief. Mrs.
Hewit has said that during the whole time Lady Jane was at
Michelle's she never went abroad ; whereas it is clear that she
went in a coach to see the most remarkable squares in Paris,
and that she went also to see Versailles, though during all
this time she never once went to see her second child, though it
was 80 sickly and tender, and though, according to the account
Id
Judgments by the Court of Session.
given of it now by the defendant, it was within half a league of Lord Alomor*
Paris. There is one thing very material to be observed in this
cause, and that is, that they never wrote to any person of the
birth till the 22nd July. Was it natural for them to have
concealed so joyful an event for the space of twelve days?
Would they not rather have taken the very earliest opportunity
of communicating to their friends such joyful intelligence?
I come now to examine the evidence brought by the plaintiffs,
which to me clearly disproves every part of the accounts given
by Lady Jane, Sir John, and Mrs. Hewit. It appears from
Mons. Godefroi's books, and he and his wife have also sworn it
directly, that Sir John and his company came to his house the
4th July, and continued there till the 13th or 14th. If this
be good evidence, what becomes of the birth upon the 10th of
that month? According to common rules it is sufficient evi-
dence, and therefore the defendant has made his chief attack
upon this evidence. But none of your Lordships have said
that Mons. Godefroi is not a credible witness; you have only
said that he may have been mistaken in trusting too much to
the accuracy of his books, I have considered all the objections
brought against these books, and I think they have, like fire
to gold, brought them out more clear. When, then, we have
such evidence, why should we not believe it? Does it not
at least remain good till it is contradicted? Where is it con-
tradicted? By whom is it contradicted? Only by Sir John
Steuart and Mrs. Hewit, whom your Lordships see evidently
convicted of telling the most manifold falsehoods. To those
who shall tell me that, notwithstanding, they believe the
evidence of these two persons, I can say nothing more ; to them
it must be a clear cause.
On the 18th July they go to Michelle's ; but from the 14th to
the 18th where were they? They have not been traced, nor
seen nor heard of. In this period there was no birth, and yet
when they come to Michelle's they say they had a child at
nurse, whom they go for next day, and bring back with them.
And having got this child into Michelle's, they immediately
write the letters of the 22nd of July, wherein they fix upon the
tenth day of the month as the time of the birth. Change of
houses must have necessarily taken place to accomplish an
imposture. It was not necessary upon the supposition of a
true birth. Let nobody say there was not time enough to pick
up a child, when you have it proved to you that in that time
F 77
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Alemore the child of Mignon was actually so picked up. Having thus
got possession of a child, could they have returned to the same
house where they were formerly? No. This would have
directly blown up the scheme of imposture. They must neces-
sarily, therefore, have pitched upon some other house to take
this ohild to when they should find him ; and the house they
went to for that purpose was the house of Michelle. I have
said that when they made their appearance with their child at
Michelle's, it was a starved infant, upon the breast of a common
thief. Was this like the nurse for the child of Lady Jane
Douglas? Mrs. Hewit has herself confest that they bespoke
no nurse beforehand, and the reason as she says was because
Lady Jane was not sure if she would bring forth a living child.
Strange, indeed, that Lady Jane, after having put herself to so
much expense, and after having travelled so far, should at last
grudge an expense which the wife of the meanest mechanic
never grudges. How much more like a boy picked up, and a
nurse hastily found on the streets, were the child and nurse
brought to Michelle's, than to the description of the nurse and
child of Lady Jane Douglas.
Madame Michelle in an hour's time found out a good nurse for
them; so might they themselves if they had consulted any
person of their acquaintance in Paris. These things are all
inconsistent with a true birth, and probative of a false one.
When to all this we add that the child of Mignon was carried
oflE from its parents at the critical time, when they pretend to
go and bring their child from St. Germaine; when we take a
view of the strange indifference towards their younger child for
the whole time they were in Paris particularly — what says
humanity here? Your Lordships have heard much of the
affection of Lady Jane for these children, but this seems to
have been taken up at a proper time, after they came to Rheims.
There was indeed a good reason why Lady Jane did not go to
see him — that was because she had no second boy then existing.
How then was this boy purchased? Upon this point the calcu-
lation of Saury's enlevement is wonderfully exact. It is
brought to have happened either upon Sunday the 16th or
Sunday [Saturday?] the 29th of November, 174.9. The descrip-
tion of the persons applying for a child upon that occasion is
wonderfully like that of Sir John Steuart and his company.
They ask for a child of fifteen months old. They refuse several
of a lesser age, and at last pitch upon a boy of eighteen months
78
Judgments by the Court of Session.
old. All these circumstances tend to one point, and meet Lord Alemopft
like so many lines at the point of a circle.
Much has been said of the strong affection shown by Lady
Jane upon all occasions for these children. But this affection
may be accounted for either naturally or artificially. Lady
Jane was a woman of much humanity, and when she considered
that the infants she had taken away from their real parents
must now be dependant upon her, the tenderness she was
possessed of might naturally yearn upon such a thought; but
however that may have been, it was not to be expected that
they would be aiding to their own detection of the crime of
imposture by showing upon any occasion a want of affection
for their children. But had these children really been their
own, they neglected the proper occasion for showing a real
fondness for them by removing the suspicions so universally
propagated to their own dishonour, and to the evident danger
of their children's interests. But what is their conduct here?
Instead of applying to the Le Brune or Pierre La Marre to get
proof of the birth from them, they make a faint attempt to
prove the pregnancy by the declaration of Madame Tewis, and
forge letters as coming from the Pierre La Marre. Where did
ever a true story need such a continued scene of falsehood to
support it? But it was said that Sir John forged these letters
•only with a view to cheat the Duke of Douglas. But why
cheat the Duke of Douglas or any other man into the belief of
a thing which, if true, might have been convincingly proved 1
In short, one certificate from Pierre La Marre and Madame
Le Brune would have been a mark of stronger affection to her
children than any which Lady Jane has shown. I shall now
say a very little as to the proof of the pregnancy: this, as
described by Isabel Walker and Mrs. Hewit, must have been
observed by every body; but their testimonies are so strongly
contradicted by others of more credit that it has no weight
with me. Lady Jane seems indeed to have had the appearance
of pregnancy ; but when we consider how many ways there are
of simulating a pregnancy, and that this was as necessary as
the other circumstances mentioned before to carry on the
imposture, the appearance of pregnancy deposed to has no
weight in this case. Upon the whole, I sincerely compassionate
this unfortunate defendant : I hope the same generous lady who
has hitherto so well supported him will continue her protection
a,nd kindness to him, but he must excuse me if I cannot, in
79
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Alemope opposition to my duty to mankind, my country, and myself, find
him to be the son of Lady Jane Douglas. I think that he is not
her son, and therefore that the service ought to be reduced.
. Lord Elloek Lord EliockI — This is not a question of law, but of fact, and
therefore I think principles of law have been introduced here
somewhat improperly. The defendant in this cause is not
well founded in his legal arguments from habite and repute.
Habite and repute is public notoriety ; it is the uncontradicted,,
uncontroverted voice of a man's whole neighbours, relations,
and acquaintances. It is not the bare acknowledgment of the
parents that founds this habite and repute, because, when a
child is born in any family there are a number of people in the
family who must necessarily have many marks of observation.
It has been said that the acknowledgment of parents bestows
filiation : but it is nature that bestows filiation ; and the
acknowledgment of parents can neither bestow it where it is not
real, nor their contrary averments take it away where it is
real. Much has been said about the pregnancy in this cause,,
and if we could believe Mrs. Hewit and Isabel Walker, Lady
Jane when at Aix-la-Chapelle was absolutely a monster. Yet
it is very remarkable that at this time, as afterwards, she
always wore a particular dress calculated as it seems to disguise
her shape. Even supposing that Mrs. Hewit and Isabel Walker
were credible witnesses, it is a proof of opinion only, and it by
no means follows that she was really with child. It was an
appearance suddenly assumed, and yet, what is very remarkable,
during the whole time of Lady Jane's pretended pregnancy, she
never consulted any physician, man-midwife, or surgeon. A
thing inconceivable to me if she had really known herself to
be with child. In other particulars, too, of her conduct
there appear no marks of that care and fear for herself which
naturally attends women, and especially one of her delicate
constitution in such a condition. She makes the long and
difficult journey betwixt Aix-la-Chapelle and Rheims without
any apparent hazard or complaint, except once at Sedan, where,
as Mrs. Hewit says, she was in danger of being delivered.
When they set out from Rheims to Paris, she still continues
to travel (though within a few days of her delivery) in the
^ James Veitch of Eliock, appointed, with the title of Lord Eliock, 1761 ;.
died 1793.
80
Lord Bliock.
From the original Painting by Raeburn, lent by G. D. Veitch, Esq. of Eliock.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
common voiture after sitting up most of the night before she Lord Elioek
sets out, and during the rest of the time of this journey under-
goes much more fatigue than one in the situation she is
described to have been in could be well expected to bear.
This step of their leaving Rheims at so critical a period was
of all others the strangest, and which cannot be accounted for
upon any other supposition but an imposture, as the reason
they gave for it, being that of want of able assistance there, is
clearly disproved by numbers of credible witnesses. They left
their maids at Rheims, too, under the false pretence of want
of money to transport them to Paris. But why did they
not send back to Rheims for the maids when they were in Paris
so many days before the delivery happened, and when it is clear
from their own account that they had got money. Sir John,
Mrs. Hewit, and Isabel Walker seem all to have sworn falsely
upon this point of the money. This is proved by written
evidence upon the side of the plaintiffs, a non memini is no
sufficient excuse, for all that they swear here upon being care-
fully examined, will appear to be artfully intended as a cor-
roborative to that fact of the birth's happening upon the 10th
July.
The defendant's filiation comes to a narrow point, which is
this, whether he was born of the body of Lady Jane Douglas
\ipon the 10th July, 1748? This, indeed, is the sole point at
issue betwixt the parties. I observe that in the whole accounts
^iven of the alledged birth by all the three persons concerned,
they as long as they could keep in the general. They never
specify even the town in which the birth was said to have
happened; and even when Lady Jane came to be upon her
death-bed, and was pressed by Mrs. Greig to get the proof of
the birth established for the sake of her children, she gives her
not the least satisfaction as to the particulars of the birth, but
returns this general answer, " Let them that doubt it prove it."
Certainly the Duke of Douglas was very much interested to
know the particulars of the birth ; and yet, in the letter which
Lady Jane wrote to him from Damartine, and which is falsely
•dated from Rheims, they only acquaint him in general of the
birth, and do not so much as mention the town in which it
happened. On the contrary, from its being dated from Rheims,
and from the strain of the whole letter, any body would have
thought that ih& delivery had really happened at Rheims.
When we examine Lady Jane's pocket book we find the
8i
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Bllotk following note of the birth, " Archibald and Sholto were bom
on the 10th July, 1748." But no mention either of the house
or of the town. Mrs. Hewit in her letters from Paris to the
maids at Rheims gives no particular place as being the place
of the birth ; though, afterwards in the letter to the Duke of
Douglas in the year 1765, she pitches upon the house of
Michelle; though afterwards she agrees with Sir John to>
transfer the scene to Le Brune's. When, Sir John Steuart
emitted his declaration, he was particular and pointed con-
cerning the house of Le Brune, being the place of the birth;
and indeed, in every other particular of his story : And he
delivered the whole of that long declaration with firmness, and
hpad no defect but only deafness, and upon the last day of hi&
examination, when the four forged letters were put into his
hand again to consider, he then made several corrections upon
that part of his declaration relative to these letters. It i&
not possible to think, that Sir John could after the defendant's
service (upon which occasion, he was, no doubt, consulted by
the defendant's council) forget every one circumstance con-
cerning so important an affair as the birth of his sons. And
yet, when he was desired by the Hon. Mrs. Napier in the year
1766, to give her a note of the particulars concerning the birth,
he then fixes it down to have happened in the house of Madame
Michelle, and the very first time that he ever takes it into
his head to name the house of Le Brune as the place, was some
months after this period, when he found out by the return of
Sir James Steuart's letters from Paris, that Madame Michelle-
and her family denied that any delivery had happened there :
And it was after this time too that he was obliged to name
Godefroi's as a place they had been in. Sir John in his letter
to the Duchess of Douglas, wherein he narrates the particulars.
of the proof which he could bring of the birth, and more
particularly concerning the pregnancy at Aix-la-Chapelle ex-
pressly mentions Lord Blantyre as being at Aix-la-Chapelle at
that time, though it's confessedly clear he was not there. It i&
exceedingly remarkable, that though Sir John pretends, that hia
want of memory hindered him from particularly describing the
street in which Madame Le Brune lived : Yet, he remembers,
particularly well the situation of the coffee-houses and taverns
which he was in use to frequent.
What can be more wonderful added to all this, than the
account given by Sir John of his accidental meeting with hia
Judgments by the Court of Session.
old friend La Marre, who had come up to Paris upon an affair ^^ Ellock
en epineuse, this was a strange security indeed, for the success-
ful delivery of Lady Jane Douglas. Sir John Steuart has said,
That he went first to Paris by himself in the month of June,
or in the end of May 1748. And that he stopt at the house of
Mons. Godefroi, where he continued several days; but yet this
journey of Sir John's is proved to be an absolute falsehood as
well as the letters. It is by the defendant himself confessed,
that Sir John did not then make a journey to Paris. It
appears clearly from proof, that the suspicions of the truth
of the birth were very early notified to Lady Jane and Sir John,
and that they received these suspicions as being an attack upon
their honour, yet there was no attempt made to bring any
sort of proof. Why did they not bring such proof? When
Madame Le Brune and La Marre were both alive, why did not
they get certificates of the birth from them?
It is remarkable that the fourth of the forged letters is said
to have been brought from La Marre to Sir John by a Mons.
Du Bois, a painter. Isabel Walker swears positively, that she
saw this letter delivered to Sir John when in Mr. Murray's,
St. James Place, London, but that she does not know by whom
the said letter was brought. She further says, that Sir John,
upon reading it, damned La Marre, and threw the letter into
the fire ; but that Lady Jane snatched it up, saying something to
this purpose, that the letter should be kept more carefully,
because it might be of consequence.
For my own part, I am clear that Lady Jane knew of the
forgery of these letters as well as Sir John. This appears to
me to be clear from the particulars of the conversation which
Lady Jane had with Mrs. Menzies upon her intended journey to
Douglas Castle; and she expressly mentions to Mrs. Menzies,
as a proof of the birth, letters which she had from the doctor -
who delivered her, and which letters she said she had then in her
pocket. These letters could be no other but the forged letters
now in process.
I have said that the proposition maintained by the defendant
is, that he was born of Lady Jane Douglas in the house of
Madame Le Brune, on the 10th July, 1748. What then is the
evidence he has brought of this ? It cannot be the four forged
letters, neither can he rest upon Sir John's accounts of it,
because they are proved to be absolutely false.
As to the house of Madame Le Brune, there is no proof
83
The Douglas Cause,
Lord nioek brought of there ever having been such a house ; on the con-
trary, I think the written evidence produced by the plaintiffs,
that the Madame L© Brune specially described by Sir John
and Mrs. Hewit, never had any existence. I think she was
a non-entity as much as La Marre was. I am not moved with
the defendant's having found out a woman of the nam© of Le
Brune, and who was a Garde Malade ; as she does not answer,
in any one partic^ular, the description by Sir John, of the woman
in whose house the birth is pretended to have happened.
This proof so far as it goes, is to me convincing and credible,
that there was no delivery at all : but the evidence of the alibi
in Godefroi's, puts the thing past all doubt. It is clear,
positive, direct and credible, both upon the books and the
oaths of him and his wife.
Whose child the defendant is, is a question not necessary to
be here discussed, though it is most probable to me, that he
is Mignon's; at least, all the circumstances of the first appear-
ance of the child and its nurse at Michelle's, makes it rather
more credible to me, than other ways. That Sir John stole
Mignon's child, as also the child of Sanry in November 1749,
which happened upon the fourth day after they arrived in
Paris, when they went upon the false pretence of their bringing
home to Rheims their second twin. Since I have mentioned
the second child, I must observe, that Doctor Menager has
in his oath raised a fabric that cannot stand; because he
swears, that La Marre told him, he was bespoke to the foreign
Lady some time before hand, and as to Madame Garnier, I
no more believe that she was the nurse, than I do that La Marre
was the accoucheur.
Thus I am clear, that the crime of imposition of children
was really committed by Lady Jane and Sir John. I do not
chuse to inquire into their motives for this crime ; though I can
easily see one that would influence them very much. And
that is, to get money from her brother, the Duke, on account
of her having children ; and in fact, I see that this scheme was
immediately attempted to be put into execution.
As to the pregnancy upon which the defendant has founded
80 much, I am clear, that it is disproved by the plaintiffs. And
therefore, upon the whole, I am clear of opinion the service falla
to be reduced.
Lord Stonefleld.
After Kay.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Friday, loth July, 1766.
Lord StonefibldI — The bulk of the proof and memorials in Lord
. . _ Stoneflela
this cause renders it difficult to form an opinion upon it. I
have considered it with all the attention in my power, and have
formed my opinion against the defendant.
I did not expect to hear in this cause the proceedings in
France and the Tournelle process compared to forgery and the
blackest crimes. I have no such opinion of the proceedings in
France. I think the conduct of the gentleman who managed
these proceedings upon the part of the plaintiffs, does honour
to himself and his profession.
I think that the point of law has been pleaded too high by
both sides, I mean as to the question upon whom lies the emus
^prohandi. Such services generally proceed in a very slovenly
and loose manner. Hence, says Lord Stair, they are easily
reduced. It is therefore sufficient to bring against a service
what may preponderate on the part of the plaintiffs. And
thus far they are obliged to prove, and no farther.
The first point of this cause is the appearance of Lady Jane's
pregnancy, which appearance is very strongly proved ; but then
this proof is very inconsistent, and contradictory to the notion
of a real pregnancy. Pregnancy requires a very particular
investigation, and is very difficult to prove. At any rate, the
whole of this evidence amounts to the appearance of pregnancy
'only, and if to this we add the way and manner in which Lady
Jane performed her long and tedious journey from Aix-la-
Ohapelle to Paris, without taking those precautions which would
have been necessary upon the supposition of her being so near
the point of delivery. All these circumstances denote rather a
feigned than a real pregnancy. They go to Paris accordingly,
without making known to any of their most intimate acquaint-
ance at Rheims, the real object of their journey. They even
make use of a false pretence to Mons. Mallifier, and obtain a
letter from him, recommending them to Mons. Godefroi, as
people that were going to Paris to make purchases. When
^ John Campbell of Stonefield, appomted, with the title of Lord
Stonefield, 1763; died 1801.
85
The Douglas Cause.
stT* fl Id *^®^ arrive at Paris, they make no enquiries after their country^
men there, which is very natural to expect they would have
done; more especially, it was natural for them enquire after
Sir William Stewart, whom they had seen at Spaw, and the
Chevalier Johnston, who was Mrs. Hewit's cousin -german.
When they leave the Hotel Chalons, they repair to the house of
a Madame Le Brune, as they say, and on the sixth day after
the delivery they remove from this house, and take up their
lodgings at Madame Michelle's ; and when they first appear
here they have no child with them, but having gone out next
day to bring their child in from the country, as they pretended,
they return the evening with a half starved child, and a nurse
who had no milk, and was branded as a common thief. In
the mean time, their second child, though weakly and tender^
is deserted from its birth, never once seen by Lady Jane herself
during the space of sixteen months.
If we examine the accounts of La Marre, they are so vague
and absurd, that they merit no faith. There is a wonderful
contrast between Sir John's account of him, and the defendant's
account of him now in process. And I cannot think the
defendant is at all aided by Doctor Manager's account of La
Marre's conversations with him about the delivery of the foreign
lady; and as to Madame Gamier, the pretended nurse, she
seems to have borrowed the nursing of some other child, and
applied it to this. And it is remarkable, upon her oath, that
though she swears that she often saw La Marre, yet she cannot
describe him in the least degree.
As to Godefroi's books, it is my opinion, that when these
stand so clearly supported by his oath, they carry conviction
that there was no delivery upon 10th July, 1748.
As to the enlevements, I shall only observe, that they are very
remarkable in time, and suspicious in circumstances. When
to all this we add, that they falsely dated all their letters from
Rheims when they were truly in Paris, and that the strain of
most of these letters tended to make their friends believe, that
the delivery had actually happened at Rheims, what conclusion
can we draw from all this, but that the story was false 1
Lady Jane and Sir John were early apprized of the suspicions.
of a false birth, and yet they never took any steps to prove
the truth of it, excepting only one feeble attempt to prove the
pregnancy, at its most fallible stage, by the declaration of
Madame Tewis.
86
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Last of all come the forged letters, which finishes the evidence Lord
against the defendant, and compleats the story. Attempts
have been made to excuse this forgery, but these attempts are
vain, because the question will for ever recur : Why use false-
hood to support truth? I must own the strongest proof on the
part of the defendant is Lady Jane's private letters ; but
then when we consider, that very probably length of time
might make her contract an affection for these children, the
proof of that affection which appears in these letters cannot
much be depended on.
I therefore think the reasons of reduction fall to be sustained.
Lord PitfourI — It seems to me, that the rules of law are Lord Pitfour
likely to be altered, in determining this case, and where it will
end nobody knows. The birth-right of the subject is of all
other rights the most sacred, and indeed the foundation of all
temporal blessings. It is from this that all the joys and the
advantages of relation and of consanguinity do flow, and it is
upon this that citizens are entitled to the participation of
public honours, and the encrease of their own fortune and
rank. On all these accounts, therefore, this right of birth, or
state of a man is most cautiously guarded by the law.
The act of delivery is often transient, and over in a moment.
Witnesses are therefore seldom called, and sometimes it is
impossible there can be any witnesses at all ; and for this reason
the law does not require a proof by witnesses. Nay farther,
the more a proof against the possessio status shall encrease, the
stronger hold the law gives to the person who claims his
filiation.
I am far from thinking that there is any kind of evidence
brought by the plaintiffs sufficient to remove the defendant
from the possession of his state. The acknowledgment of the
defendant's parents, and the habite and repute following thereon,
was sufficient for him to attain the possession of his state.
I don't chuse to dispute points that will not be much contro-
verted, but when I speak of the acknowledgment of parents, I
mean an acknowledgment of parents supported by the fama
consentiens, or the habite and repute of the place of the birth,
whether it be at home or in a foreign country.
The empire of Great Britain is now extended over a large
^ James Ferguson of Pitfour, appointed, with the title of Lord Pitfour,
1764 ; died 1777.
87
The Douglas Cause,
L»pd Pltfour share of the globe. Many thousands of British families have
transmigrated to America, the East Indies and elsewhere. A
man in America has his children acknowledged there to be his
lawful issue, but upon his coming home with his family to
Britain, he finds the birth denied hero. The reason of this
perhaps may be, that a great euccession might probably devolve
upon these children, and that some other people having hopes
of the same succession may have designedly raised these
suspicions about the birth. And then these same people tell us
he must prove his birth and the whole circumstances attending
it. Such notions of law would indeed be very extraordinary.
When my birth is challenged, and I am in possession by the
acknowledgment of my parents, and have the habite and repute
of the country wherein I was bom, there must be demonstration
before I can be turned out of possession. In the present case
the defendant has not only the acknowledgment of his parents,
but the universal voice of the country he was bom in, insomuch,
that of eighteen British witnesses then residing in France, and
acquainted with Lady Jane, never one of them heard the least
suspicion of the birth till they returned home to Great Britain.
At home indeed false impressions had been carefully made,
founded principally upon the age of Lady Jane, and the impro-
bability, said from thence to arise, that she could have children.
Whereas it is in proof, that she was capable to have children
for two years after the defendant's birth. And in particular
there is one miscarriage after the year 1748, proved by three
or four witnesses. What shall we say to all these things?
Were common reports to have any effect upon this cause? —
they had no effect upon it. For fourteen years after the birth,
even at the time of the service, the plaintiffs themselves were
overpowered with conviction, and acknowledge they were
satisfied with the force of the evidence.
Whatever false rumours may have been raised on purpose to
detract from the character of Lady Jane Douglas, when she
was unluckily thrown off by her brother ; yet his Majesty, as
the common father of his people, was graciously pleased to
bestow upon her a pension towards the maintenance of her and
her children, which circumstance is surely strong and corro-
borative of the general belief of the birth.
Lady Schaw's enquiry, by the means of Mrs. Napier, has been
founded on against the defendant, in order to redargue the
habite and repute which he pleads. But I apprehend that Lady
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Schaw's enquiry cannot be viewed in this light. It rather Lord Pltfoup
appears, that the reason of her making the enquiries was, to
get some proper evidence to oppose to any attempts of the
plaintiffs in an after-time, and by no means to satisfy herself.
Nothing can interrupt the possessio status till the action is
actually brought against the person claiming upon that posses-
sion ; and if we do not adhere to this salutary rule, in the case
now before us, we shall encroach on the birth-right of all man-
kind. And therefore it has been improperly enough said, that
points of law are not to be treated of here. The whole doctrine
of law concerning the possessio status, and habite and repute,
comes properly in here ; these doctrines of law being founded
upon common sense and the necessary security of the subject.
I come now to speak of the proof which the defendant has
brought of his birth. And first, as to the pregnancy, this
must have great influence in this cause ; the witnesses who
depose to it are very many in number, people of respectable
characters, not acquainted with one another, and who had no
interest whatever to give a false account. Had this pregnancy
been like that of Lady Kinnaird, which was shewn upon every
occasion with the grossest affectation, we might have had
reason to doubt of it : but so far was Lady Jane from publishing
her pregnancy, that she seemed bashful and shy when the
curiosity of her domestics and friends prompted them to satisfy
themselves how the matter stood as to her pregnancy. Isabel
Walker, whose testimony I do firmly believe, solemnly swears,
that " she felt the children move in Lady Jane's belly." Madame
Tewis's declaration, I think too, good evidence of the same
fact ; as I do likewise that of Effie Caw. Because these declara-
tions on account of Mrs. Tewis and Effie Caw being dead before
they could be put upon oath, are the best evidence possible. In
short, there is no single testimony upon this point of the
pregnancy, but what is corroborated by others. And when to
aD this we add Mr. Andrew Stuart's own confession, that there
were all the proofs in the world of her pregnancy, why should
we doubt so much evidence?
] cannot understand the argument, that the proof of pregnancy
is not sufficient to infer the consequence of the birth. I
think quite otherwise. If pregnant, she must have been
delivered; and therefore there is a high probability at least
that the whole account of the delivery, given by the parties,
is true. It is a talis qualis proof, the best proof that the
89
The Douglas Cause.
i^rd Pltfoup nature of the thing will admit of, after so long a lapse of time.
If the proof had been brought sooner it would have most likely
been much stronger on the side of the defendant. By the
common course of things, as well as by accident, he must have
been at great loss in bringing a proof so late. Many of his
witnesses have died, and others of them have changed the places
of their abode, and cannot now be discovered. Why, then,
was not this action brought sooner? What excuse for this?
Why did they keep it in petto? Why did they keep the
challenge so long in their pockets? Yet such are the facts,
and therefore the law makes a less proof necessary now than it
would have exacted before from the defendant. The whole story
concludes, not with the idea of imposture, but remarkably well
with that of a real birth. Much has been said about their going
in a secret manner to Paris without letting their friends know ;
tiiough it is clearly in proof that the Chevalier Douglas gave it
as his advice to Lady Jane to go to Paris to be delivered.
As we have had so much evidence of the pregnancy, which
is a gradual advancing thing, why should we insist for such
points evidence as to the act of delivery ; to which there cannot
be so much evidence expected as i(0 pregnancy; because this
by the common course of nature may be gradually traced, and
so liable to the observation of many witnesses every day, whereas
that is a single act, and often over in a moment. Upon these
principles, the law makes the presumption of a birth rise
gradually, according to the advancement of the pregnancy.
Much has been said about Le Brune's house, and particularly
about the extraordinary account of their having left it so soon
after the birth. Whereas, we see in proof, that the real motive
of leaving it so soon was, because they were pestered with bugs.
And accordingly, when they come to Madame Michelle's, we find
them anxiously enquiring of her if her house was free of that
vermin. And afterwards we find them complaining of their
being troubled with them there too.
But, say the plaintiffs. Sir John is charged with being the
contriver, and Mrs. Hewit with being an accomplice in this
fraud, and therefore you are not to believe any account they
give. But if this charge brought against Mrs. Hewit (and Isabel
Walker too) of being accomplices in this alledged fraud, should
be sufficient to destroy their credibility, then the plaintiffs might
have had a clear cause of it, and used the same freedom with
the defendant's other witnesses, and so set them aside altogether.
90
Judgments by the Court of Session.
In corroboration of the truth of the testimony emitted by Lord
Sir John and Mrs. Hewit, and of the uniform account given by
Lady Jane, That these children were truly hers, you have the
«olemn death-bed declarations of all the three. In the present
age, infidelity and scepticism are accounted fashionable; but
I will aver, that this is more owing to pride and affectation
than to any conviction possible to the mind of man, That there
is no future state of rewards and punishments ; and I do believe
that there are but a very few who are so execrably worthless,
and insensibly hardened, as to make a joke of eternity. Some
malefactors there may have been, who, after having been fully
convicted of crimes, may have gone to death publicly denying
them. But there was no conviction, nor the least danger of
conviction to the parties in the case now before us; and when
to this we add, that their characters are proved to have been not
«.t all of the infidel cast; what conclusion can we possibly draw,
but that they died asserting the truth? And when to this we
still add the great distress and affliction which both Lady Jane
^nd Sir John were almost always under, and at the same time
see them upon every occasion expressing the most tender solici-
tude for the welfare of their children, whom they were then
scarce able to maintain : all this behaviour speaks out strongly,
that they were indeed their own children.
In opposition to this, it has been said, that Lady Jane deserted
her youngest child from its birth, and that she never went once
to see it during the long time she remained in Paris, and at
Dammartine. But in answer to this, I observe, that the plaintiffs
are not entitled to plead so high upon this point; I will presume
that she did see her child, although it cannot be now proved
post tantum temporis.
Another argument has been used by the plaintiffs, viz., That
she had no nurse bespoke; to which I answer. That La Marre
himself bespoke a nurse, as is clear from the testimony of
Madame Garnier, who was herself the nurse of Sholto.
It has been said by the plaintiffs. That the La Marre now
founded on by the defendant is a new La Marre, and that he
cannot be the La Marre, whom Sir John gives an account of.
It is curious to observe the conduct of the plaintiffs upon this
great point of their cause. At first, in their condescendence,
they denied point blank, that there was any person of that name
who was a surgeon or accoucheur in Paris in the year 1 748. And
now that an accoucheur of that name has really been found out,
91
The Douglas Cause.
L«pd Pltfour the plaintiflfe take hold of the particular description given by
Sir John Steuart of the La Marre, whom he condescended on a»
being the accoucheur; and because this La Marre does not in
every particular agree to Sir John's description, the plaintiffs
infer the strong conclusion, that it is impossible that the La
Marre now found out could have been the accoucheur to Lady
Jane Douglas. The plaintiffs have particularly laid hold of two
circumstances in« Sir John's account of La Marre ; one of which
is, that he was a Walloon; and the other, that La Marre had
been introduced to Sir John at Li^ge in the year 1721, by one
Colonel Fountain. As to the first of these circumstances in
Sir John's description of La Marre, the plaintiffs are clearly
under a mistake; for as the La Marre founded on by the
defendant, was bom at Montreuil sur le Mer, he might readily
enough, in respect of his country, be termed a Walloon, or at
least Sir John might very naturally take him for a Walloon.
And as to the other circumstance about Sir John's having seen
him at Li^ge in the year 1721 ; this is evidently an error in point
of time only, which it is not at all surprising Sir John should
have been guilty of, if we consider the great variety of questions
put to him, and his age and infirmities at the time he gave his
declaration.
It has been argued by the plaintiffs. That the story told by
Madame Gamier of the manner of that child's being brought to
her house, cannot apply to the child of Lady Jane Douglas : in
so far as Madame Gamier deposes. That the child which Pierre
La Marre delivered to her to be nursed, was brought to her house
at night with flambeaux, or torch-light, from which, say the
plaintiffs, it is clear, that this could not have happened in the
middle of summer, as there would have been no occasion for
flambeaux. But if we consider the length, narrowness, and
dirtiness of many of the lanes and streets in Paris and its
environs; and also that it is not so long light there as it is
here at that season of the year, we shall find the circumstance
of the child's being brought by flambeaux not to be inconsistent
with the notion of the child's having been carried to the haute
borney late in a summer night : and when to all this we add the
precise and pointed conversation which Pierre La Marre had
with Dr. Menager upon the subject of his (La Marre's) having
delivered a foreign lady, of an advanced age, oi twins, and
that these twins would be heirs to a great estate in their own
92
Judgments by the Court of Session.
country, and that it was a great affair for him ; and when Lord Pitfour
we consider also Madame Guinett's evidence, who positively
swears. That she frequently saw Pierre La Marre visiting the
child when it was under Madame Garnier's care, is it possible
to figure a stronger circumstantiate evidence in any case what-
ever than this evidence brought by the defendant to support
the truth of his birth? I am clear it is as strong an evidence
as we can at so great a distance of time possibly expect, and
therefore give my voice for assoilzing the defendant.
Lord GardbnstonbI — This is a very extraordinary and a very g^'^-ngt^,^
singular cause ; Duke Hamilton has nothing to gain, and the
defendant has every thing to lose.
My opinion is for the defendant ; I will deliver it with brevity
and precision : and as the grounds of it are few and simple,
I will not take up a large field, but only state some points on
both sides, which have led me to form this opinion. But first,
I will beg leave to state some preliminary observations, which
appear to me to be of great importance. And, first, I can by
no means agree with those of your Lordships, who have given
your opinion. That the law has nothing to do in the present
case : it appears quite contrary to me ; I look for light to the
law, and more particularly to that great branch of it contained
in the title de Probationibus, in which there are principles
enough to determine us in our judgment of evidence in every
possible case. Secondly, I do own it as a principle of law clear
to me. That wherever a person is acknowledged and entertained
by his reputed parents from infancy to manhood, he cannot be
turned out of the possession of his state without a clear,
distinct, and demonstrative evidence.
By these rules the present case falls to be determined, though
I confess I will consider the question as if it had come first before
ourselves, and without any regard to the verdict formerly
pronounced for the defendant. In so far therefore I am a
convert to an opinion delivered yesterday; but upon these first
principles which I have laid down the proof against a defendant
in such a question, must appear without any uncertainty, and
there must be no room left for the calculation of chances.
This appears evidently to me to be well founded in humanity,
^Francis Garden of Gardenstone, appointed, with the title of Lord
Gardenstone, 1764; died 1793.
93
The Douglas Cause.
KS.— «« expediency, and law. As to the first of these, the humanity,
varaonscone ^ •' „i--%e-i,.-t.r j
it is 80 obviously on the side of this defendant, that 1 need
only but mention it: The expediency is also so manifest, that
it would be needless to insist on it — The security of families
and the peace of society speak it out abundantly plain. And
as to the law: the law of this country, and of every other
country in the world, does uniformly require in all proofs of
the kind before' us,, the most clear and convincing evidence
against the rights of filiation.
A second proposition I will lay down without arguing for
it, which is, that where such a question as this is brought so
late, the evidence of such witnesses as may be now dead, will,
when reported upon oath by others, have the same strength as
if these others had been alive now, and had been legally
examined themselves. My third general observation is. That
I see no improper thing, nor ill conduct on the part of the
defendant in this cause : whereas on the part of the plaintiffs,
I see most improper and most illegal conduct. I see the
Tournelle process, the Monitoire, and all their miserable effects.
I do not blame Mr. Stuart for his conduct in these matters :
he is a man of honour and of character, and was instructed to
carry on these French proceedings by the rest of the tutors
of the noble plaintiffs : but however that be, I will define the
Tournelle process to be what I really think it was, " an indirect
practice to prejudice the evidence, and to deprive the defendant
of a fair trial." I pretend not to be the spirit of prophecy;
but it is long since I have said that the plaintiffs will find
the Tournelle process to hang about their necks like a mill-
stone, for in vain (as was said in another place) are judges wise
and upright, if the channels of justice shall by such means as
this be corrupted.
As to their Monitoire, it was such a one as was never seen
but in the case of Calas, which proved fatal to an innocent
family, and is a reproach to the annals of justice.
I come now to say a few things upon the evidence produced
in this cause : and, 1st, I observe, that taking the whole of the
defendant's evidence by itself, it seems to me impossible that
there could be a stronger proof brought of the birth aftor so
long a time, and upon so unexpected a challenge.
To me it is just as credible that a woman of fifty years of
age, of ability (as is clearly proved here) should have children,
as that a woman of twenty-five years should have them.
94
Judgments by the Court of Session.
I cannot doubt that pregnancy is a thing capable of proof: Lord
it is held to be so in the law of Scotland, and in the civil law
likewise. And if it is capable of proof, it is surely proved in
the case before us. Pregnancy may be forgot, or it may be
remembered as it happens ; but what proof of it can you expect 1
is it by the testimony of friends, domestioks and acquaintances,
or by that of strangers? It is by the first, surely; because the
law expects the best causes of knowledge from those who in
the character of domesticks, attendants and friends, are most
frequently about the person, and have the best opportunities to
know. Accordingly, in the cause before us, you have clear
and pointed evidence, by such persons, that Lady Jane Douglas
was really pregnant. Her pregnancy, then, so clearly ascer-
tained, is truly a proof of the delivery; because if she was
pregnant, she must have been delivered.
This therefore brings me to mention, that besides the proof
I have noticed, there is a positive proof of the birth of the
defendant, by two witnesses. I mean. Sir John Steuart and
Mrs. Hewit, both of whom were called as witnesses, not by the
defendant, but by the plaintiffs. When to this is added the
strong circumstances in the behaviour and conduct of Sir John
and Lady Jane towards the defendant, what doubt can remain
that he is really their son? Amongst a number of other
circimistances, I shall mention these following. Their private
correspondence strikes me strongly, and it is not credible to
me that all the scene therein exhibited could be dissimulation. It
is the same thing in my view as if two alledged confederates
in a crime had been overheard talking together in the very
next room, and had we so overheard them, breathing such strains
of truth, sincerity, and affection towards their sons, would we
not believe it? But even supposing we should disbelieve this,
oould we carry the supposition so far as to believe that Lady
Jane would absolutely break her heart, and die for love and
affection to a child not really her own? And yet that grief
for the death of her son Sholto was the more immediate cause
of her death, is proved by the testimony of respectable witnesses.
But still more, when I see her in the pangs of death, pouring
out her blessings on her then h*"" 'yn, the defendant, can
humanity allow me to believe tl this was falsehood and
hypocrisy? Can we believe that > an she was praying with
her last breath for the defendant, as her son, that she was then,
95
The Douglas Cause,
Lord when just going to appear before her Maker, taking Him
witness to solemn falsehood? Thus much for the proof on the
side of the defendant. — I now oome shortly to touch upon that
brought by the plaintifiEs. Theirs is a circumstantiate evidence
* wholly, and many of the circumstances are of no weight at all :
I am sensible, however, that when men have once formed an
opinion of guilt, they are often apt to look at every thing as
through a jaundiced eye, which makes every^ thing of the same
colour with itself. I will however consider some of the most
material parts of this large circumstantiate evidence upon the
side of the plaintiffs. And 1st, I mention Godefroi's books,
with the oaths of him and his wife. First, as to his books, I
declare from the bottom of my heart, that they have no credit
with me. When I consider the nature of a tavern reckoning
or bill, extracted at the distance of fifteen years, I can have no
notion of giving mighty credit to this sort of written evidence.
We have all heard of a person in London, known by the name
of Mother Douglas: 2 she, it seems, kept her books likewise,
upon which her representatives are now prosecuting some
respectable personages in this country. It is not to be credited
that such personages ever frequented her house. But though
they had so frequented her house, they would have surely paid
off their bills, and will not now be condemned upon the written
evidence of tavern books.
I must observe that Michelle's books were found to be
erroneous, and therefore left off altogether by the plaintiffs,
who then, for the first time, resorted to those of Godefroi ;
whereas to me both these grounds appear equally tenable, and
you may lay hold either of the one or other, as you please.
There is one reason indeed why Michelle's books appear more
credible than Godefroi's, which is, that where people go only
to eat for a day or two, as at Godefroi's, there the date is of no
sort of moment ; but where they go to lodge for a time, as was
the case in Michelle's, there the date is of moment.
2 Mother Jane Douglas, whose portrait appears in Hogarth's "March
to Finchley," and some of his other pictures. She kept a bagnio at the
Piazza, Covent Garden, which was very richly furnished, and where she
died 10th June, 1761. She is mentioned once by Horace Walpole, and
is called "the venerable matron" in Charles Johnson's " Chrysal," and
is described in Sam Foote's " The Mirror," where her religious pretensions
are ridiculed. [Information kindly supplied by Mr. Horace Bleackley.]
Her representatives apparently tried to blackmail her former clientele.
96
Judgments by the Court of Session.
I observe, thirdly, that these witnesses are tainted by the Lord
Tournelle process : Madame Godefroi's oath is utterly incredible,
because she persisted in saying, when she was first enquired out,
That she could not recollect any one thing about Sir John
Steuart and his company. When after this I see her come and
join in telling veiy many material circumstances along with
her husband, can I think her a credible witness?
Farther, Madame Godefroi has sworn. That when she applies
a blank article in her book of expence to her book for the
Inspecteur of Police, it is conjecture merely, upon her part.
This assertion of his wife's invalidates Mons. Godefroi's positive
assertion, which he has expressly swore to in very different
terms. Fourthly, It is in this single instance only that Mons.
Godefroi can take upon him to fill up any blank articles in his
books, though there are some of these entered only a year or
two ago. For all these reasons, I think there is not the least
proof of the alibi in the house of Godefroi.
I now come to mention some other circumstances, such as
the concealment and mystery which was alledged to attend the
whole of the conduct of Sir John and Lady Jane. It was
here used as an argument to infer fraud, that during the time
of her pregnancy, Lady Jane almost always wore a particular
dress, and never went without a hoop. But it is inconceivable
to me how this circumstance can ever be founded upon to prove
an imposture. To me it appears directly contrary; for surely
if her pregnancy had been entirely affected, instead of con-
cealing, she would have taken every opportunity of showing it.
Another circumstance pleaded by the plaintiffs, was. That Lady
Jane never called for the advice of any physician, surgeon, or
accoucheur during the whole time of her pregnancy. As to
which, I beg leave to observe, that however odd the plaintiffs
may think this, yet Scots ladies will not surely think so. They
are generally pretty easy, and free of apprehensions upon this
point, and can do without a physician at their bed-side every
hour of the day.
Much stress has been laid upon the circumstance of their
journey to Paris, which has been represented as the object of
their secret destination from first to last; whereas it is in
proof, that Lady Jane was really advised by the Chevalier
Douglas to go to Paris to be there delivered.
The circumstance of their employing so obscure a man as
97
The Douglas Cause.
GwSe sto e ^* Marre, after they had said that they went to Paris for the
best assistance, has been also laid hold of by the plaintiffs ;
whereas Sir John expressly swears, That he desired La Marre
to have other assistance ready at hand, which La Marre would
have got, had he not easily accomplished the delivery himself.
Much has been said also of the circumstance of the younger
child's being sent into the country, and about Lady Jane's never
having seen him there. To which it is answered, That the child
being sickly and tender, did upon that account want fresh air;
and that it is not in proof that Lady Jane never went to see
him.
I now come to mention some other circumstances ; the first
of which is, That of their leaving their maid-servants at Rheims,
and to which I do own I see no reasonable or satisfactory
answer.
As to the forgery of the letters, I see no evidence of a forgery,
in so far as Sir John said they were copies of letters. But
even supposing them to be forged, I cannot carry it so far as to
deprive the defendant of his state upon that account merely.
Had the parties been all now alive, they might have been able
to account for many circumstances in their conduct, which are
seemingly suspicious to us, in the same manner as the circum-
stance formerly mentioned of their having dropt their man-
servant at Li^ge has been accounted for. And when to this we
add the strange and singular character of Sir John Steuart,
the principal actor, we need wonder the less at many of these
circumstances. I shall now conclude with observing, that if
the plaintiffs prevail in this suit, the defendant's case will indeed
be singularly hard : For in the first place he has never had a
fair trial for his birth-right. I do not mean here, but in
France. And, secondly, of all the numerous cases of partus
suppositio, there is none similar to this ; none of those children
were possest of their filiation ; in none of those cases was there
the same strong proof of pregnancy, nor such direct and
circumstantiate evidence of the actual delivery.
Lord Kennet.
From the Portrait by Martin in the Parliament House.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Saturday, nth July, 1766.
Lord KbnnetI — This cause being of so great importance and ^^^^ Kennet
expectation, it is highly reasonable that each of your Lord-
ships should give his opinion upon it. My plan is to deliver
my opinion upon the principal points of the cause, most of
which have been already stated with great propriety by those
of your Lordships that have spoke before me.
I do not think myself capable to persuade any of your
Lordships to be of my opinion. And though I thought I
could do so, yet I would be very far from desiring it.
My opinion is then for sustaining the reasons of reduction.
The first question before us is. Upon whom lies the onus
prohandi? Upon which I observe, that when a person claima,
he must prove his propinquity, or at least he must have the
acknowledgment of parents, and a habite and repute general
and uncontradicted. Such a proof as this, however, cannot be
called a prohatio prohata. Neither is the acknowledgment
of parents a presumption juris et de jure: for then no proof
at all would have been allowed in this cause. The conse-
quence of this is. That the onus prohandi lies upon the
plaintiffs, who must therefore bring a clear, convincing, and
demonstrative evidence to support their challenge of the birth.
When I lay down these principles, I do not, as was hinted
yesterday, shake the security of the subject's birth-right, since
it ia clear. That every person must remain in the possession
of his state upon the legal presumptions for filiation, till it
be clearly and convincingly proved, that such person is not
entitled to that filiation.
An objection has been moved for the defendant, on account
of the lateness of bringing the present action against him;
but upon a little consideration, this objection flies off, as it
is clear, that the plaintiffs had no right to bring such an action
till after the death of the Duke of Douglas. And as to the
distance of time so much complained of by the defendant, it
^Robert Bruce of Kennet, appointed, with the title of Lord Kennet,
1764 ; died 1785.
99
The Douglas Cause,
Lord Kennet is really as great a loss to the plaintiffs as to him ; and indeed
I rather think it had been happy for this defendant if the
action had been still later ; and that Sir John and Mrs. Hewit
had both of them been dead before they could have been
examined in the cause.
Of all evidence to prove a crime, such as that of the suppositio
partus, the circumstantiate evidence is the most convincing;
and what is more, the least suspicious.
In judging of such a proof, the whole circumstances must
be taken together. Some by themselves may appear trivial,
which, when joined to others, appear exceedingly material.
I considered the plaintiffs' proof even with a prejudice for the
defendant, and I examined his proof to find out circumstances
to make me believe that he was the son of Lady Jane; which
I sincerely declare I much wished to be the case. But motives
of compassion cannot now have weight with me ; for when I sit
as a judge to determine a case of property like this, I must go
on in the straight road of evidence, without turning either to
the right hand or to the left.
The pregnancy of Lady Jane Douglas is in course the first
object of proof in this cause, and I must acknowledge, that
I think there is a clear proof of the appearances of pregnancy ;
but then I consider, that such appearances are often very
deceitful, and that they cannot be well distinguished from an
affected pregnancy. Of this we have many instances in that
famous title of the Roman pandects, de ventre inspiciendo.
The proof of pregnancy brought for the defendant, is a proof
of opinion by the witnesses merely; who, I dare say, have
deposed according to their own belief ; tliough I think their
depositions not sufficient to establish the truth, that Lady
Jane was really pregnant. It deserves attention upon what
different grounds the different witnesses formed their opinion
of the pregnancy; and more particularly Sir William Stewart
and his lady say, they thought Lady Jane pregnant, because
she was pale of complexion and had frequent vomitings. As
to the paleness of her complexion, that appears to have been
natural to her ; and as to the vomitings, it is in proof, by the
oath of Isabel Walker, that she had been often troubled with
these even before she left Scotland. Mrs. Hewit and Isabel
Walker are, no doubt, the capital witnesses for the defendant
upon this point of the pregnancy. But then, their testimonies
appear to me highly suspicious in many respects, and in none
xoo
Judgments by the Court of Session.
more than in what they have said as to the prodigious bulk Lord Kennet
of Lady Jane even before she left Aix-la-Chapelle. For if the
bulk had been as both these witnesses represent, it is incredible
to suppose, that so many witnesses, to whom Lady Jane daily
appeared throughout her journey, should never have observed
it. Mrs. Hewit deposes, That when they were at Rheims,
Lady Jane was so very unwieldy, that she never went abroad
but once : Whereas the Abbe Hibert walked with her often in
the most public places and walks about Rheims.
At the same time, as it is certain, if Lady Jane had been
pregnant, she must have been delivered ; I thought if I could find
out in her a real bulk when seen without her cloaths, it would
go far to instruct the defendant's plea.
With this view, therefore, I carefully considered the evidence
of Madame Tewis, Mrs. Hewit, Isabel Walker and Mrs. Hepburn
of Keith. As to Madame Tewis, she appears to me to have
declared things which could not possibly exist at that time,
at so fallible a stage of her pregnancy. But it is my opinion,
that having been drawn in to express herself too strongly upon
this point to Sir George Colquhoun and Colonel Douglas, she
was thereby obliged to repeat the same afterwards in her
judicial declaration.
The amount of Mrs. Hepburn's oath, is, that upon coming
one day into Lady Jane's bed-room when she was dressing, she
observed her breasts to be of so large a size, that she had no
doubt of her being with child. But these marks are still too
fallacious, and therefore I was willing to take in here the
declaration of Effie Caw ; but then this declaration of hers
amounts to an opinion only, and that opinion formed without
any opportunity to know.
Isabel Walker and Mrs. Hewit have gone much farther upon
the side of the defendant, but then they have swore to many
things which are not true. Isabel Walker, particularly, is
incredible when she swears as to the height of the beds, and
that upon that account, Lady Jane was obliged to use a stool
to get into them. This witness has sworn, that Lady Jane
employed no mantuamaker at Rheims. And she has deposed
very particularly, but very incredibly, as to her conversations
with Mrs. Andrieux there. She is also no less incredible, aa
to what she relates of a conversation which she says, she
over-heard betwixt Lady Jane Douglas and the late Lord
Prestongrange upon the subject of the birth of the children.
lOZ
The Douglas Cause.
LordKenn«t Perhaps, my lord might say to Lady Jane, that she was not
bound to prove the birth, but surely his lordship would never
advise her against providing herself witli proofs to be used
afterwards, if there should be occasion for them.
Lady Jane and Sir John gave many different pretences for
their leaving Aix-la-Chapelle. There is one circumstance
particularly that strikes me strongly. I see that Mrs. Tewis.
offered to procure for them the castle of the Count de Salm,
where Lady Jane might have had every thing convenient for
her approaching delivery ; and that Mrs. Tewis did accordingly
write to her friend the Great Bailiff [Grand Bailli] of the Count,
desiring accommodation for Sir John and Lady Jane in the castle
of Bedbur. It might have been expected, that Sir John and Lady
Jane, as they had agreed to petition the Count de Salm for
this favour, would have waited for his answer ; but instead of
that, they suddenly leave Aix-la-Chapelle under pretence of
the imminent hazard of an approaching delivery, and set out
for Rheims, where, nevertheless, they continue to remain for
the space of a month. How ill then does this agree with their
pretence for not staying but a few days at Aix-la-Chapelle,.
when they might have got their answer from the Count d&
Salm.
After having remained so long at Rheims, they suddenly
set off for Paris, and leave their maids behind them at Rheims,,
at a time when of all others they had the most need for their
attendance. For this strange conduct, in their not taking
the maids alongst with them, the want of money was given
as a pretence which is clearly proved to be false, for Sir John
had at that time a credit for no less a sum than 2000 livres.
I now come to the proof of the delivery. The defendant was
not bound to prove the delivery, and it lies upon the plaintiffs
to prove the falsehood of it. But then, if the only three
■ persons concerned shall be found to give inconsistent and false
accounts of this matter, this must go a great length to dis-
prove the birth. I have heard it said, that the defendant has
proved his birth by the direct testimony of two witnesses. Sir
John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit. I own, I cannot understand this
argument. If it be a good one, there is a ready way laid to»
accomplish an imposture at once: but supposing, that not
only two, but twenty witnesses had swore directly to the birth ;
yet still, the plaintiffs might have proved the falsehood of it
by contrary evidence.
102
Judgments by the Court of Session.
I have mentioned the accounts given by the parties them- Lord Kennet
selves : with respect to Lady Jane, we see her always speaking
in general ; the only time she came to particulars, was in a
conversation with the Countess of Stair, as it stands deposed
to by her daughter the Hon. Mrs. Primrose. Lady Jane well knew,
that there was plenty of good assistance to be had at Rheims.
And therefore, to excuse the strange step of her going to Paris,
she tells the Countess of Stair that strange story about the
advice given her by an unknown lady to leave Rheims directly.
As the professed intention of their going to Paris, was to
have Lady Jane delivered by the ablest accoucheur there; and
as Lady Stair observed to her, that she ought to have had
some of the British people then at Paris witnesses to the
delivery, she has an excuse ready at hand, which is, that slie
was delivered within half an hour or within an hour after their
arrival in Paris.
Sir John Steuart in his account of the matter solemnly says,
that he went previously to Paris in the month of May or June
preceding the birth ; and yet, this is clearly proved to be a
falsehood. And as this is the case, can we presume any part
of the accounts given by Sir John to be true? It is acknow-
ledged by Mrs. Hewit, that there was no nurse bespoke, and
she gives this strange and unaccountable reason for it, that
Lady Jane did not know if she would be brought to bed of a
living child.
Sir John Steuart says, that he would not have known where
to have found out La Marre, if he had been wanted suddenly ;
and that if this had been the case, he must have called another.
He afterwards attempts to make this somewhat better, but in
reality makes it worse, because he deposes, that when they came
back from Paris to Rheims, in the year 1748, he did not even
then know how to find out La Marre.
Mrs. Hewit has said that Lady Jane had no sick nurse, and
yet Isabel Walker says Mrs. Hewit wrote her they had a sick
nurse. Again, it is said that the Pierre La Marre never
came to see Lady Jane but once. This is extraordinary
indeed; and the more particularly so, as, according to their
own accounts, he had the care of the second boy, who was a
weakly tender infant.
The defendant had fixed Madame Le Brune's, as the place
of the delivery.
When Mrs. Napier pushed Sir John Steuart to give Lady
103
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Kennet Schaw an account of the particulars of the birth, he then fixes
the delivery to have happened in the house of Madame Michelle ;
and at this time too, Mrs. Hewit writes her letter to the Duke
of Douglas, fixing upon the same house of Michelle as being
the place, though she has since sworn, repeated times, that
she could never remember French names.
Mrs. Hewit has expressly deposed, that the whole time they
were at Michelle's, Lady Jane never went abroad, either to
Versailles or to any other place, whereas you^have it in proof
that she made two separate journeys while staying at Michelle's ;
and in particular, Madame Blainville swears expressly, that she
went in the very coach with Lady Jane to see the palace and
the gardens at Versailles. It must be held to be very extra-
ordinary, that she was able to go to Versailles, and to walk
about there, and yet that she never went to see the second boy,
who was at nurse hard by her. It has been said, that there
is no proof that Lady Jane never went to see this child. But
this is a mistake ; for Mrs. Hewit expressly deposes that Lady
Jane never went to see Sholto at all, " because she was weak
and sickly the whole time they were at Michelle's."
When they come first to Michelle's, let us observe their
conduct here. They talk as if Lady Jane had been lately
delivered in the country, and they set out for the country
under the pretence of bringing their child from some place
towards St, Germaine. And when they return with their
child next day, the people at Michelle's are surprised with its
appearance; and some of the witnesses, particularly Madame
Blainville, give it as their opinion, that the child brought
there must have been much older than ten days.
They have told us that this second boy was put to nurse
under the care of La Marre : and yet, by their own account, they
know not where to find either La Marre, the child, or its
nursa It is extremely odd that nobody ever saw this second
child, till he suddenly made his appearance at Rheims. Why
not desire the Chevalier Johnston, then at Paris, to enquire
after the child who was so sickly and tender?
Sir John declares that he knows nothing of the place where
they resided in Paris in 1749, and wherein they were three
days before seeing their second child. For this a bad memory
is no sufficient excuse. I had not the honour to sit alongst
with your Lordships when Sir John gave his declaration, but
I have heard that he was allowed to retract, but that he did not,
104
Judgments by the Court of Session.
upon any part of the accounts given by him. However this Lord Kennet
be, there is a remarkable instance of Sir John's attention and
distinctness in his letter to Mons. Mallifer, at Rheims.
It appears clearly in proof, that both Sir John and Lady
Jane were very early acquainted with the suspicions of the
birth, yet they took no care to remove these. They said that
their honour was called in question : but tliis was only a
pretence ; for why not send to Paris for proofs of the delivery,
when it is clear they sent to Aix-la-Chapelle for proofs of the
pregnancy? Or why attempt a proof of the pregnancy at itiS
most fallible stage, when they might have actually produced
proofs of the delivery itself? or at least they might have
kept some of the many genuine letters which it is said they
received from La Marre. Or, at least, why did Sir John forge
letters as coming from La Marre? Surely, if he could have
got real ones, he would have never fabricated false ones.
The Madame Le Brune, in whose house the delivery is now
said to have happened, is not to be found in any of the books
either of the police or the capitation ; the only Madame Le
Brune, who it is now said by the defendant may have been
the person, is a garde malade, and so does not answer the
description so pointedly given by Sir John ; and indeed it is
not credible that Sir John Steuart, whose character was never
that of a miser, should, when he had money in his pocket,
have allowed Lady Jane Douglas to have been delivered in so
wretched a place.
I do not think it however conclusive against the defendant,
that La Marre cannot now be found out ; it was his strongest
argument, that he was not now obliged to produce him; he
should have therefore rested here, for he is not in the least
assisted by this proof of a Louis Pier de La Marre. Sir
John's description of his La Marre must make it clear beyond
controversy, that this Louis La Marre cannot be the same man.
When we consider the conversations which Dr. Menager had
with Giles and Moureau, we shall be convinced that Giles's
testimony is more credible than Menager's; the manner of
this La Marre's signing his name is proved, by his contract of
marriage, not at all to coincide with that of his subscription
of the four pretended letters.
If La Marre did not deliver Lady Jane, then there is no
weight due to the testimony of Madame Gamier ; but, besides
this, when we consider the difference in the accounts given by
105
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Kennet Sir John, and those of Madame Gamier, we cannot possibly
make them tally together in any one particular. Madame
Garnier did not know whose child it was she was nursing;
only she says she was informed it was to be a rich child in its
own country. This then cannot apply to the second child of
Lady Jane Douglas, and if we examine the whole of Madame
Garnier's accounts as to the time of the child's coming and
going away fronj her, we shall find, that in point of time, her
accounts can noways suit those given by Sir John and Mrs.
Hew it of the second boy.
I have hitherto rested my opinion upon the conduct of the
parties concerned ; but I own I cannot lay out of my view the
proof of the alibi in the house of Godefroi. Godefroi and his
wife do not depose altogether from memory, and their books
are further supported by Sir John's own admission, that he
and his company did actually come there upon the 4th July.
The more these books have been canvassed, the more exact do
they appear to me. And when Sir John has himself admitted,
that he staid there three days, it is surely most probable, that
there would be an account opened for them in these books.
Great cries have been raised against the Tournelle process,
and indeed the House of Lords have in so far condemned it ; yet
I cannot see it was of such hurt to the defendant as set forth.
The Parliament of Paris is a Court of honour and dignity.
What then could induce them to do any thing bad of itself
against the defendant? I am not moved with the argument
drawn from the plaintiffs first founding their argument of the
alibi upon the books of Michelle; for when those books were
found to be erroneous, why not resort to Godefroi's, which are
not so? And as to the Monitoire, it does not strike against
this part of the evidence at all.
As to the enlevements, although the Mignons may have sworn
falsely as to some particulars, yet it is clear they spoke truth as
to their having a child taken away. The time of this enleve-
ment is critical — it is surprisingly near.
As to Sanry's child, this does not depend so much upon parole
evidence, but upon the evidence of the church records. This
enlevement is brought with most surprising exactness to the very
period at which Sir John Steuart, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit
are in Paris, and when they can give no account of themselves
whatever.
io6
Lord Hailes.
After Kay.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
There is no proof in the memory of man of an enlevement Lord Kennet
having been accomplished in Paris.
As to the death-bed declarations, I see Lady Jane behaving
with tenderness to the defendant on her death-bed, but what she
said at that time cannot properly be called a declaration.
As to Sir John Steuart's declaration, it is indeed much more
formal ; but we often see that people who have committed
great crimes will go to death averring falsehoods.
Upon the whole, I strongly feel for this defendant, but should
feel more to deliver what were not the real sentiments of my
heart.
Lord Hailes^ — In judging of a cause of this nature, we must LopdHailes
act according to strong probabilities and moral evidence. The
character of parties concerned must, in such an evidence as this,
have some weight. And if I could persuade myself of a good
character on the part of Lady Jane Douglas, I should think it
strong on the part of the defendant. But I cannot believe the
opinion of some of the witnesses who have deposed so favour-
ably for her upon this particular, because there is much evidence
of her want of truth upon almost every occasion. Thus, when
in her letters to one friend she is professing the strongest attach-
ment to the Protestant religion, and telling them that she was
going to a country where she might have the free exercise of
that religion, she has in the meantime resolved upon going
into the very heart of France, where she knew she could have no
opportunity at all of hearing Protestant ministers.
Her conversation with the late Countess of Stair, as it stands
deposed to by the honourable Mrs. Primrose, is another flagrant
instance of the truth of this observation.
In her letters to Mrs. Carse, which are dated from Holland,
she not only in the most solemn manner denies her marriage
with Mr. Steuart, although she had been married to him
several months, but likewise throws out a deal of scurrility upon
her own cousine Mrs. Stewart,^ for her having repeated the news
which she had heard of that marriage. There are several
other instances of this deceit in her conduct, in some of her
letters to her brother the Duke of Douglas, and in several other
^Sir David Dalrymple of Hailes, Bart., appointed, with the title of
Lord Hailes, 1766 ; died 1792.
^ See Historical Narrative, p. 26.
107
The Douglas Cause,
Lord Hailes parts of her epistolary oorrespondence. I admit that, never-
theless, the private correspondence between her and Sir John
is amongst the strongest parts of the evidence on the side of the
defendant ; yet there is one thing exceedingly remarkable, that
in none of these letters to one another do they ever complain
of the suspicions propagated against the birth, nor unburden
here what naturally would have been expected to have been
uppermost in their minds.
I am at a loss to account for the part that Lady Jane acted
throughout the whole of this scene, and must attribute it to the
amazing ascendency which Sir John seems to have got over the
mind of this unhappy lady.
Having made these observations, I now proceed to examine
the evidence brought in this cause. And first as to the
pregnancy. The appearance of this is proved indeed by strong
testimony. I observe that several of the witnesses give as
their reason for thinking Lady Jane pregnant that she was weak
and pale, though it is very certain that she was so by her
natural constitution. Several of the nuns at Aix-la-Chapelle
have deposed strongly to the pregnancy, though they are surely
not the best evidences to establish a fact of this sort.
Mrs. Greig I esteem a very honest evidence, but one who is
overrun with prejudices ; and I have the same opinion of Miss
Primrose. Much has been said about the miscarriages by
Lady Jane; and more particularly the defendant has founded
strongly on the deposition of the nurse. Manger, and of Madame
Rutlidge. That mentioned by Madame Manger is now given
up, and the defendant supposes that she may have mistaken
the Catamenia for a miscarriage.
It is very possible that honest witnesses may have been
deceived in their notions of the pregnancy by entertaining a
sort of belief that some great event or other was to follow — such
as is mentioned in Sir William Stewart's and the Earl of Dum-
barton's letters to Lady Jane. Lady Catharine Wemyss is an
unsuspected evidence, and yet she observed nothing of the
pregnancy; on the contrary, her whole deposition tends the
other way. The Countess of Wigton does not say that she
herself perceived anything; she only believed it because she
heard it commonly reported so by others. Mrs. Andrieux at
Rheims had no notion of the pregnancy; neither had General
M'Lean, the Miss Hiberts, nor Madame Sautry, the mantua-
maker. At the same time, if I could give full credit to Isabel
ic8
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Walker, the cause would incline to the side of the defendant : Lord Haile*
but I cannot believe her evidence, because she swears to things
which I think incredible. A strong instance of this is that she
does not remember any one thing about the Chevalier Johnston,
though he went over in Lady Jane's company in the pacquet-
boat to Holland. Her conversations with Madame Gillessen in
German, and with Madame Andrieux in French, I cannot give
credit to ; and it is truly amazing that her curiosity should
never have led her so much as to look into Sir John Steuart's
declaration, nor Mrs. Hewit's oath, although she had sent her
from Edinburgh the papers in this cause.
But these are not the most material particulars to diminish
the credibility due to this witness. In the former oath she
swore^ expressly that she had her hands upon Lady Jane's
naked belly, and found her with live child ; whereas in her last
oath, lately emitted in your Lordships' presence, she says that
it was not her naked belly that she felt when she found the child
move, but above her shirt, as she thinks. She further swears
that she had never before felt the motion of a child in any other
woman.
Is it not wonderful that this witness had not the same oppor-
tunity of making this trial afterwards, when the pregnancy was
much more compleat ? Had she fixed upon a more early period,
the difficulty would have been changed, but not done away.
Another particular in which I think this witness has gone too
far is in what she has deposed as to the letter from Mrs. Hewit
at Paris. I am persuaded there never could be any such letter,
or at least it must have been a letter wrote betwixt the 22nd
and 26th day of July. Another circumstance in which this
witness appears to me to have gone too far is in what she has
deposed as to the letter from La Marre, received by Sir John
Steuart when in Mr. Murray's, St. James's Place. The account
given of it by her is not credible ; and I am persuaded the letter
she alludes to is the famous fourth letter dated 9th June, 1752,.
whereas they had left Mr. Murray's in September, 1751.
Sir John's declaration and La Marre's letters are amongst the
capital parts of the proof in this cause. First, as to his declara-
tion, there can be no pretence of his vivacity to apply here
to palliate his falsehood. On the contrary, there is the strongest
^ Here his Lordship spoke Latin : it is supposed because there were a.
great many ladies in the Court. [Original note.]
H 109
The Douglas Cause.
Lord Hailes proof of a state of recollection of mind throughout the whole of
that declaration. And, in fact, Sir John uses with the greatert
propriety, sometimes positive assertion, sometimes a non
memini, and sometimes expressions of doubt. Sir John had
pretended to Mrs. Napier that he was very apt to forget names
and dates, though he had a good enough memory as to facts.
But the truth is that, upon considering the declaration itself, it
does appear that he had a very good memory both as to names
and dates, for in that declaration he does give us no less than
twenty-five different names and dates. The only time that he
seems to be at a loss for names and dates is when he comes
to be examined about the Le Brune's house, about her lodgers,
about the nurse of the child, and the banker from whom he got
the money at Paris. Mr. Hepburn of Keith has in his oath
deposed pretty strongly as to Sir John Steuart's want of
memory, and particularly gives one instance of it which happened
at Boulogne; but this is by no means sufficient evidence in
opposition to so much to the contrary appearing on the face of
his own declaration.
As to Sir John's description of La Marre, the accoucheur, it
is the most wonderful that was ever heard. He concealed his
lodgings even from Sir John, and yet he frequented coffee-houses
and the most public walks in Paris. And yet, notwithstanding
all this. Sir John gets his address, and so sends him letters
directed to the care of the post office in Paris, which he receives
and answers.
It has been said by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit that they were
obliged to leave the Madame Le Brune's house on account of
bugs ; but it is also said that they left the house they were in
because it was a smokey house. Which was this smokey house?
It was not Le Brune's surely, it was on account of bugs they
had left this house ; and it could not be Michelle's, for they only
here complain of the bugs.
According to Sir John Steuart's accounts, the second child
was sent to nurse within two or three leagues of Parts, on the
road to Amiens ; and when he was examined afterwards upon
oath he deposes that the child was a little way from Paris. In
short, his whole account of La Marre, and every thing concerning
him, is absurd from beginning to end.
If, as Sir John said. La Marre came from Li^ge, why not go
to that place to enquire for him 1 The power of the parliament
of Paris did not extend here, and Sir John was in absolute
no
Judgments by the Court of Session.
safety to go. It has been alledged that Sir John was in no Lord HaUes
mistake when he called La Marre a Walloon, as he was from
Montreuil sur Mer ; but suppose Sir John had said La Marre
was a Roman, it might have been equally well argued he was
right.
I have formerly mentioned La Marre's letters ; as to these four
which are forged. Sir John's alledgeance was that they were
copied from the originals by Mr. Clinton at London. And
this again Mr. Clinton denies.
In the fourth of these letters, which I have mentioned before,
there is a great deal of art displayed by Sir John. In the
first place, it is evidently intended to serve as a certificate from
Pierre La Marre, although in the form of a letter. It would
have been morie dangerous for Sir John to have forged a certifi-
cate with all the solemnities, than to forge a single letter.
Secondly, it was necessary that the Pierre La Marre should be
dead when he was called for to be produced, and therefore Sir
John makes him to say in that letter that he was going again
to Naples (on account of the air), as his health was not yet
confirmed. And, thirdly. Sir John makes the letter to be
delivered by a private hand, one Mons. Du Bois, a miniature
painter, in order to save the danger from that question, how
could you get a foreign letter delivered in England without its
having the post-mark upon it? It is remarkable, too, that in
this letter La Marre makes his enquiries after the youngest
child by the name of Sholto Thomas, though if he had really
ondoyed him, it is well known that, upon such occasions, the
accoucheur never does give the child a name.
Sir John has said that he never could find out this Mons. Du
Bois who brought the letter ; but Sir John could not but know
that if he went to a certain coffee-house in London, he would
have immediately heard of any French artist whatever who had
come over to follow his business in England.
These four letters now in process I at first believed genuine,
and was thereby convinced that the defendant was the son of
Lady Jane ; but now that they are proved false and fabricated,
they have great weight with me to believe that he is not her
son.
I will not pretend to go through the mass of proof before us,
and therefore will only state a few other observations upon the
remaining part of the evidence. Mrs. Hewit's memory,
III
The Douglas Cause,
Lord Hailes instead of being weak like Sir John's, as was alledged, is really
amazing, for she forgets only five dates in twenty. What are
these five? They are all contained in the C5ompass of time
taken up in the last part of their journey, and the time between
their leaving Godefroi's and their coming to Michelle's. But
at any rate, at the time she wrote the letters to the maids at
Rheims, her memory must be presumed to have been clear, and
yet here she is detected in contradicting herself about the story
of the nurses, more particularly as to Madame La Favre and
Manger. In her letter of the 27th July she would insinuate to
the maids that the eldest child had had only one nurse before
they met with La Favre, and yet afterwards she says they had
three nurses before Manger, who came immediately after La
Favre. Though, as she says, " base jades, they would not
come alongst with us." When Mrs. Hewit came to be examined
herself, she gave a different account of the nurses, and her
letter of the 12th of August is utterly irreconcilable with the
whole of her account given upon oath. Mrs. Hewit has deposed
that she had no conversation with Lady Jane about the person
who was to deliver her ; but is it possible to believe this ?
Were it true, it would be a most singular anecdote in the history
of human nature.
I come now to a part of the evidence which I think unex-
ceptionable and conclusive against the defendant — I mean Gk)de-
froi's books, from which the following particulars are clear :
Imo, That three people were entered into those books on the
4th of July, at four livres ten sous.
2do, That the account relates to a gentleman who was the
head of a family. And
3tio, that this company had no servant alongst with them.
In all which particulars the account exactly agrees to Sir
John Steuart and his company.
The defendant's hypothesis is, that this account may relate
to a different company, who were in the house upon the seventh
of July. But supposing that this company had escaped two
visa's of the inspecteur, there is scarcely one single instance of
an entry in the police books for two or more persons without a
correspondent entry in the household book.
As to the parole testimony of Godefroi and his wife, they had
a good cause of remembrance. Sir John Steuart and Lady
Jane had been recommended to them by Mr. Mallifer, syndic of
ZI2
I
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Rheims ; and besides tliis, it was a very remarkable thing to see Lord Hailes
British people coming to Paris before the proclamation of peace.
And when to this we add the pointed description of Sir John's
language and manner, we have no reason to think they have
been in a mistake.
If upon their leaving the Hotel Chalons they could have
pointed out the Le Brune's, or if they could have brought any
circumstances whatever to show that such a woman ever existed,
it would have derogated much from the testimony of Godefroi.
But no person whatever of the name of Le Brune has been
found out or heard of, in the least corresponding with the
accounts given of that house by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit.
By their accounts one would think that the Le Brune, in whose
house the delivery is pretended to have happened, was like that
of Michelle, a respectable house ; not that of a garde malade,
which is the asylum of the loose and wretched, a fit enough
place for Mignons to go to, but not for Douglas.
The non-esistence of the Madame Le Brune is evident; in
short, it was necessary in this case, as in all others of im-
posture, to substitute fictitious persons, and make them act
their part in the same. This was particularly done in the
famous case of George Salmanassar, and was one great means
of his detection, as it was likewise in the case of Count
Vincentio — Count De La Torre,
As to the two enlevements, whatever objections may lie
against the testimony of Madame Mignon, yet the whole cir-
cumstance of her child's being carried off is proved by others ;
and as to Saury's enlevement, the witnesses here are under no
suspicion whatever.
Upon the whole, his Lordship gave his opinion for sustaining
the reasons of reduction.
X13
The Douglas Cause.
Tuesday, 14th July, 1766.
JusUee-CIerk '^^^ ^°^^ Justich-Clbrk^ — It is now my duty to give my
opinion upon this very important cause, the most important,
taken in all its circumstances and consequences, that ever came
before this Court. .
The rights of filiation should no doubt be strictly guarded and
secured against challenge, and, on the other hand, that same
right should be equally guarded against imposture and supposi-
tion of children. The plaintiffs in this cause have an essential
interest, and have been found to have a good title to pursue.
The situation of the defendant, and the importance of this
decision are too affecting not to be felt by every body. Sorry
I am, therefore, that I must now give my opinion against him,
an opinion which, I hope, will appear to all, and particularly
to those who know my particular regard for the noble personage
who patronises his defence, to flow only from the deepest con-
viction, and from my regard to the rights of sacred justice.
This being so late in the debate, and so much having been so
well said by others of your Lordships, it would be improper for
me now to take up the cause in the same extensive view which
otherways I should have done.
I will therefore, in the first place, proceed to lay down a few
of the principles of law and the rules of evidence upon which,
in my opinion, this case falls to be determined. The first
point which has occurred in this debate is Cui incumhet
probatio? the arguments upon which, I think, have been
strained too far by the council upon both sides. The plaintiffs
and the defendant have now joined issue upon the fact ; there-
fore, if the plaintiffs have not brought evidence sufficient to
prove the position which they maintain, then the service must
stand ; but if upon the whole of the proof we shall be convinced
that the defendant is not the son of Lady Jane Douglas, then
the service must fall.
In all actionsi whether criminal or civil, we have two kinds
of evidence to judge of, either direct or circumstantiate.
^ Sir Thomas Miller of Glenlee, appointed, with the title of Lord
Barskimming, 1766 ; became Lord President, 1788 ; died 1789.
1X4
Judgments by the Court of Session.
In the case before us, the proof is circumstantiate, and Lord
therefore each circumstance must be proved by one or more
witnesses, or by written evidence: And we must in the next
place join the whole of the circumstances together, and then
draw our conclusion as to the total amount.
It is admitted by all lawyers, that a circumstantiate evi-
dence may give as full conviction to the minds of judges as
any other proof whatever. And it is likeways admitted that
no part of such a proof will go so far to convince judges, as the
evidence drawn from the oaths, conduct and behaviour of the
parties themselves; and this, because the facts being clearly
ascertained, the only question remaining is, as to the conclusion
from thence to be drawn.
We have heard it said, that your Lordships must have
demonstration before the defendant can be turned out of the
possession of hisi state : but demonstration implies the
physical impossibility of the contrary, which can occur in no
case of evidence. The term may indeed be often applied
figuratively to proofs, but literally taken, it is an abuse of
words. We have indeed seen cases where there was a moral
impossibility of the prisoner's innocence, and yet, we have
seen juries acquit such a one. Such a case was that of Reid,
who was lately tried before the criminal Court, for the crime
of sheep-stealing. This Reid was a poor man of a very
suspicious character. He was found with the exact number
of sheep in his possession upon the road leading from the
very farm from off which they were stole, and he pretended
not to bring any proof whatever, that he had attained the
property of them in any lawful way. A council at that bar,
who likes to distinguish himself upon such occasions,
patronized the prisoner's defence, and notwithstanding the
clearest and most positive evidence of all the facts which I
have mentioned, " The jury acquitted the prisoner.'* Upon
so strange a verdict your Lordships, members of that high
Court (I mean all of you who were then present) declared your
opinions seriatim, That this verdict was given in the face of
most compleat evidence.
It was said by some of your Lordships, " That a direct proof
by two or more credible witnesses, cannot be redargued by a
proof of circumstances not inconsistent with? or exclusive
of the truth of the allegiance maintained by the persons
accused." I readily admit the justice of this general pro-
"5
The Douglas Cause.
J^iee-CIerk P*^^^*^^°> ^^^ ^ ^® ^^r® ®"^^ ^^ 7^^^ Lordships as admit the
credibility of Sir John Steuart, and Mrs. Hewit, and who
think, that the whole of tlie plaintiffs' proofs is not inconsistent
with their allegiance, must apply the principle to the decision
of this case : but such of us as think the plaintiffs' proof not
compatible with their oaths, cannot give this proposition room
here ; it is impossible for us to do so.
It has been admitted, that the mere acknowledgment of
parents was not sufficient for the defendant, but it was said
that he had the habite and repute of the country of his birth.
I understand well the weight of the argument from habite and
repute, when a child is born of a marriage in the country
where his parents, his friends and his connections reside; or
if in a foreign country where it shall appear, that his parents
have established such a connection. But what is the habite
and repute contended for here? What is its strength? Is it
the habite and repute of their friends and neighbours at Paris?
They had none such there, for they kept tliemselvea concealed.
What then does it come out to be? Not even the habite and
repute of the family where the birth happened (for no such
family has been found out) but only that of the family of
Madame Michelle. But who of that family was ever to
question the truth of the account given by a strange lady
of her having had a child : And, is it possible, that any judge
can lay weight upon this as being habite and repute?
When, after returning to Rheims, the same argument holds
good, they came there amongst strangers who had no interest
whatever in the matter; why then should such people either
enquire or doubt?
Much has been said of the danger of putting British people,
who have transmigrated to the colonies abroad, to prove their
birth ; but this alarming consideration does not strike in here,
because the habite and repute arises to them from their resi-
dence in such colonies, and from the knowledge of their rela-
tions, their friends and their neighbours founded upon that resi-
dence. But will this apply to the present case, where the
parties concerned have, by their own deliberate act, shut out
the possibility of any habite and repute whatever?
Much has also been said of the great delay of the plaintiffs
in bringing this action. If this observation was true, it
would strike me in the very contrary light. Suppose that
the late Duke of Hamilton had taken up a suspicion of this
ii6
Judgments by the Court of Session.
birth, I will not say whether action at his instance would Lord
have been sustained or not ; but at any rate it was not reason-
able to expect, that when the Duke of Douglas did not challenge
the birth, the Duke of Hamilton should. On the other hand,
to be sure, the defendant might have brought a declarator of
his birth. Yet I do not impute it to him that he did not do
so, but I impute it to Sir John and Lady Jane, that when they
were repeatedly warned of the flagrant suspicions, they did not
take the common and necessary methods of removing the
suspicions, and securing evidence of the birth. If this de-
fendant had been generally received as the son of Lady Jane
Douglas, there would have been no room for such an imputa-
tion; but when, from the beginning, the birth was suspected,
not only by the Duke of Douglas, but by many others, the delay
of bringing an action to have the matter cleared up, must
be imputed, not to the plaintiffs, but to Sir John Steuart and
Lady Jane Douglas.
Much has been said on the part of the defendant, on account
of the Tournelle process, and the witnesses examined by the
Tournelle, instead of being omni exceptione majores, were
said to be omni reputafione minores; these were two strong
expressions, and I cannot but disapprove of them. I am sure
I never was attached to arbitrary proceedings, but I have too
much liberality ever to reflect on the honour of so respectable
a Court as the Parliament of Paris. These witnesses were
subject to the jurisdiction of that high Court, were examined
according to law and rule; how then can such testimonies be
compared to those of a slave under his master's rod?
What were the grounds upon which all this prejudice was
founded? They were these principally, that the witnesses
were examined in private before the Tournelle; and that they
were thereby tied down to tell the same story again. I can
have no idea, that the strong opinion which I now notice
could be founded upon the witnesses complying with the law
of their country. How can this infer any suspicion of false
swearing? Or why, because a witness is once sworn, shall his
after evidence upon oath be thereby discredited? In England,
witnesses who have sworn in one Court, are sworn again in
another. This is the case in all jury-trials in that country,
and it is the case in this country too, where we have witnesses
examined in the Court of Session, though they had emitted
their testimony formerly in that of the Justiciary. This is a
117
The Douglas Cause.
j^'uaft-ci k *^^°& ^*^ ^*^ never doubted of before ; it has occurred in thi*
very cause, for there are several of the witnesses who after
having sworn to establish the defendant's propinquity upon
his service, have been again and again examined upon your
Lordships* commissions.
I recollect, that there was a period when this Tournelle^
process had well nigh obstructed the course of justice. Much
outcry was raised against it, both here and in another great
house; and therefore it is not to be wondered at if there
was some strong speeches made upon the occasion : but with-
out prophesying, as my brother has done, I can say this upon
the judgment of the House of Peers itself, that that Court
relaxed the severity of your Lordships' judgment, and that
the idea of the defendant, as to this Tournelle process, was
there treated with contempt. If these Tournelle witnesses
had been picked off the streets of Paris, it would have been
a strong thing indeed ; but they all happened to be unsuspicious,
because Lady Jane and Sir John have confessedly committed
the inspection of their conduct to them. I must therefore,
in order to have a compleat view of this matter, find out the
sources of this alleged corruption, and bribery, and slavish
fear. I cannot believe that the noble and honourable
guardians of the Duke of Hamilton would have either cor-
rupted or concussed the witnesses. To me it is more difficult
to believe, that these persons would thus wickedly conspire
against the young defendant, than that Lady Jane and Sir
John should have conspired together to bring in an impostor.
No jealousy can be entertained of Mr. Andrew Stuart, who
carried on the whole affair in France. He has already got
an honourable testimony from the bench. I back that testi-
mony as to his whole conduct in this cause; and I do believe
that the records of Court cannot furnish us with a more
honourable instance of candour and openness than what he has
shown in these proceedings. His character stood the scrutiny
and examination of all his private memorials and papers
concerning his enquiries in France; a trial, which, it is
believed, no agent ever underwent before.
In what I have further to say, I will not however rely much
upon the Tournelle witnesses, on account of the clamour which
has been carried so extremely high against these proceedings.
I would have inclined to have given my opinion upon one
general view of the evidence ; but because all your Lordships
ii8
Judgments by the Court of Session.
have given the particular grounds of your opinions, I shall also Lord
give mine. The first thing which I take into my considera-
tion is, the characters of Lady Jane and Sir John. I will
not however go deep here, as I do own that this is a sort
of evidence which seldom weighs far with me, as people who
are honest themselves seldom suspect others. Several wit-
nesses have sworn very favourably for Lady Jane upon this
point of her character ; but I do own, that I see so much
real evidence of the falsehood and duplicity of her character,
that I cannot lay any stress upon these witnesses' opinions.
Her letters to Mrs. Car&e, wherein she so much abuses Mrs.
Stewart for telling a thing which she herself knew to be truth,
and the whole of her conversation with Lady Catherine Wemysa
at Aix-la-Chapelle, are extremely strong upon this point. In
all her letters to her friends in Scotland she is full of the
greatest zeal for the Protestant religion, and seems to be
uneasy till she can get to Geneva, or some other place where
she might have the free exercise of it; while in the mean
time she goes into the very heart of France, where she could
have no opportunity at all of the exercise of her own religion.
But above all, this falsehood and duplicity of conduct appears
in the forgery of the letters ; in which, I think. Lady Jane
was concerned alongst with Sir John.
But cui bono? and with what motives did they agree to
impose children on the world ? I am at no loss to see these :
the use immediately made of the children to get money from '
the Duke of Douglas, speaks out the design ; and it is most
probable likewise, that Lady Jane believed that the dignity
and estate of Angus would undoubtedly descend upon her and
her issue. As to the motives for this terrible action, I do
not believe they had the same views of the crime that your
Lordships have. They might colour it over with public
spirit, a desire to keep up the family of Douglas, and a resent-
ment against the Duke of Hamilton.
Lady Jane was clearly past the period of having children,
according to the common course of nature. This, therefore,
shows that it was at least an extraordinary thing. I there-
fore differ from one of your Lordships, who, upon the account
of the hability to have children, thought there was nothing
at all surprising in Lady Jane's actually having children.
And I do aver, that there is not one women in ten thousand,
yea not one in twenty thousand, who produces children at the
"9
The Douglas Cause.
jSitlM-CUPk ^^^ ^^^ *^*°® ^^^ whatever signs they may have of capa-
bility I only mention this, because it should have led ua
to be more attentive to the particular circumstances of the
allied pregnancy.
As to the proof of the pregnancy, I think it not satisfactory ;
it amounts to the appearance of pregnancy only: there is a
bulk deposed to by the witnesses, but no evidence of her being
actually and truly with child. The uncommon size of Lady
Jane's belly and breast, rests on the evidence* of Mrs. Hewit and
Isabel Walker ; neither of whom I believe. And as to what
is swore by the other witnesses, and more particularly by Mrs.
Hepburn of Keith, it goes no further than to prove certain
external appearances. I therefore leave it here, and acknow-
ledge, that there were the external appearances of pregnancy.
Shall I hold these appearances then to be assumed? No.
Shall I hold them to be real 1 No ; but I will enquire after-
wards if we can have room upon the other proof, and so join
the proof which I have already treated of to that other proof
which may occur on the side of the defendant; but if from
all circumstances taken together, I can have no conviction
at all of the birth, but quite the contrary, then I must hold
the pregnancy to have been assumed and false, such as must
precede every imposture of children.
Having said so much, I will consider slightly the other
circumstances, the principal of which is their own conduct at
Rheims. Sir John and Lady Jane had made a long and
unseasonable journey from Aix-la-Chapelle to Rheims, under
the pretence of her being to be there delivered ; and yet they
loiter away there for the space of a month, without making
their purpose known to any person they were acquainted with
at Rheims, or even without so much as once calling for the
advice of any physician or accoucheur. When at last they set off
by themselves for Paris, there is no mention made of getting
any recommendations to the best assistance at Paris : although
that has since been given as the pretence for their going
there. Not one letter from any person whatever, but that
from Mons. Mallifer. It is an amazing affair, never once
to have mentioned to him their real design in going to
Paris ; and that they should have given Mons. Mallifer a false
account of that design. I will not enlarge upon the suspicious
circumstances of their having left the maid-servants at
Rheims, because this was owned by one of your Lordships,
Z20
Judgments by the Court of Session.
who spoke on the other side, to be a strange and an unaccount- Lord
able circumstance. The fact, however, stands uncontroverted, "^ ^®" '*'
and the only dispute is as to the conclusion which it will
bear. In all the proofs of partus supposiPio, this of the
actors dropping their common attendanl^s, has commonly
occurred as a capital circumstance. Sir John and Mrs. Hewit
acknowledge the fact, and they saw the necessity of accounting
for it; and they did accordingly give an account of it which
is false. Instead of their not having so much money as was
sufl&cient to transport their maids to Paris (and it would
have only required the trifling sum of twelve shillings to do
so) it is proved that they had plenty of money to make them
live easily, although perhaps not enough to support Sir John
Steuart in his dissipated course of life. It was upon this
point noticed, that the defendant is not obliged to account
for the conduct of his parents.
This may be true in all common cases, but not in those of
the last importance to the world, in which most, if not all
men, agree in their notions of propriety of conduct. As they
travelled along in the stage-coach to Paris, there was not the
least observation made of her pregnancy, nor did she ever dis-
cover the least of that anxiety natural to a delicate lady,
making so far a journey at so critical a period. There was
surely no motive to conceal her pregnancy, if it was true.
Yea, upon that supposition it was most natural to expect, that
she would have explained to the rest of the company her motives
for the journey to Paris, as they might (and no doubt were
able to) have given her some advice as to her conduct there.
Nature dictated this, and anxiety and honour likewise.
These circumstances are indeed amazing, and show to me
clearly, that the necessity of the appearances of pregnancy,
formerly assumed, being now over. Lady Jane designedly kept
every thing as close as she could.
Upon the evening of the 4th July, they arrive at the house
of Mens. Godefroi in Paris ; a respectable house, and of all
other lodgings the most adapted to the purpose of Lady Jane
Douglas's delivery, as they had come there specially recom-
mended by Mons. Mallifer at Rheims. Or if Lady Jane had
thought proper to quit that house before her delivery, it was
natural to have expected, that she would have acquainted Mr.
or Madame Godefroi of this resolution, and desired their
advice as to the proper place she might go to for that purpose.
The Douglas Cause.
JosUee-CIerk ^^^ ^* surely would have been natural too, to have spoke
something to Mr. Godefroi about the Pierre La Marre, who
was an absolute stranger to Lady Jane, and who it is now
said had been spoke to before-hand to accomplish the delivery.
But instead of all this, there is no talk at Mons. Godefroi's,
either of a pregnancy or of a future delivery. There is not
even the appearance of pregnancy here, about which we have
heard so much when at Rheims.
As to the Madame Le Brune's, to which it is pretended they
went, and where it is said she was delivered, upon the tenth
of the month, was it not to have been expected that Sir John
Steuart should have been able to give some satisfactory
account of this matter? But indeed if ever there was such a
house, it is inconceivable that it has not ever been discovered.
A train of circumstances led to such a discovery; the appear-
ance of strangers, and more particularly British people of
rank, must have attracted the attention of almost the whole
little street in which the Madame Le Brune is said to have
lived.
When to this we add Sir John's note to Lady Schaw, and
Mrs. Hewit's letter to the Duke of Douglas, in both of which
not the house of Le Brune, but that of Michelle's, is fixed down
for the place of delivery, it is clear that all this story about
the Le Brune is a perfect fiction. But what I think the
strongest part of the proof of the falsehood of the delivery is,
the many letters wrote by Sir John and Mrs. Hewit, bearing
date the 10th and the 11th of July, in which there is not the
least mention made of any thing like a delivery. Suppose the
defendant's hypothesis just, that these letters, bearing date
of the 10th, were actually wrote upon the 9th. What then?
the letter of the eleventh still remains, and strikes strongly
by itself. Will an after-correction remove the difficulty?
No, it makes it worse; because, if it was a real birth, what
reason could there be of making any correction as to the day
and hour in the letter of the 22nd of July? When to this we
add, that all and each of their letters, wrote from Paris to
their friends in Germany and Britain, were falsely dated from
Rheims, is H possible to conceive that this circumstance
should not have great weight in the cause? And indeed a long
train of letters written by them from Rheims to Britain show
clearly, that this of the false dates was done of design. Their
not saying that the birth had happened at Rheims makes the
122
Judgments by the Court of Session.
thing so much the worse ; for the whole strain of these letters Lord
is to make their friends, especially those in Britain, believe
that the delivery had actually happened at Rheims. This
appears from Sir John Steuart's letter to the Earl of Crawford,
written at Paris upon the 10th of July ; and from another letter
•of the 26th of the same month, both which are falsely dated
from Rheims. And when to this we add Lady Jane's letter
to her brother the duke, not only falsely dated from Rheims,
after the pretended delivery, but wherein she eays, that " she
had come to remain there on account of the cheapness of the
place and the salubrity of the air " : can we think that all
these circumstances are of no importance in a proof of a most
oomplicated fraud and imposture?
There is still one other capital circumstance which affects
me strongly in this cause, and for which there has been given
no shadow of excuse; and that is, though the delivery is said
to have happened upon the 10th of July, yet no notice is given
of it by letters till the 22nd of that month. Try if you can
find any excuse for so strange a proceeding! Can you take
the hurry they were in as the least excuse for this neglect?
No : they would have been naturally and powerfully prompted
immediately to communicate to all their friends so joyful
an event as the birth of twins.
As to the alibif in Godefroi's, I am clearly of opinion, that
the evidence thereof is conclusive against the defendant, not-
withstanding all that I have heard thrown out against that
evidence. It is clear that they all were there from the fourth
of July to the thirteenth or fourteenth. There is no com-
petition as to the place of their residence during this period,
which indeed would have made a great odds upon this
argument.
As to the evidence of Madame Michelle and others of her
family, they are abundantly partial to the defendant; and
jet this whole evidence gives such a picture of the situation
of Lady Jane upon her coming to that house, as is utterly
incredible upon the supposition of a recent delivery.
Instead of Lady Jane's being so weak and ill as not to be
able to go even once abroad from Michelle's, (which Mrs.
Hewit has expressly deposed) you have it established by the
most credible testimonies, that she took two separate jaunts
during that time, and that one of these was to see Versailles.
What a picture does this give of the perjury committed by
123
The Douglas Cause.
J^'tice-Clerk ^"' ^®^^* *^^ ^^^ John Steuart, and how well does it
account for Lady Jane's never going once to see her poor,
sickly, second child I For is it credible that, while she was
thus taking jaunts of pleasure round Paris, she should not have
found time to have seen her own child?
Ab to the enlevements: I desiderated if there had been any
such thing as this proved to have been accomplished in tho
memory of man, and I find there is no proof of any such ; and
though I am by no means clear, that these enlevements are
directly brought home to Sir John Steuart ; yet, when we take
the whole of these circumstances alongst with the other evi-
dence which I have formerly stated, it conveys a belief to me,
that these children were disposed of to Sir John and Lady
Jane.^
As to the new man-midwife, Louis Pier de La Marre : I
must acknowledge, That when I considered this part of the
evidence, I did not think that the defendant had been drove
to the desperate necessity of rearing up a different man-midwife.
It is not possible to consolidate these two persons together :
they are different persons clearly and tottally, in age, in
name, and country. The account which the defendant now
gives of this matter is destroyed by the inherent circumstances
of Madame Garnier's oath, who I do believe to have been no
more the nurse to the second child, than this Pierre La Marre
was the accoucheur.
I now come to speak a little of the conduct of the pretended
parents themselves, after the supposed delivery.
It appears that they were very early informed of the
suspicions of the birth, and yet that they never took any
prudent step to remove them. All that they did was to
procure from Madame Tewis a declaration of the appearance
of pregnancy at its most fallible state.
As to the opinion said to have been given to Lady Jane
by Lord Prestongrange, that she was not obliged to bring any
proof of the birth, I do not believe the testimony of Isabel
Walker upon this point; and this because Sir John and Lady
Jane's joint letter to Madame Tewis shews to me, that they
wanted to have had a proof of the whole, if they had dared to
go to Paris to seek it.
As to the forgery of the letters, I think this part of the
evidence should by no means be treated like a lusus ingenii
in this High Court. What a strange view of tliis cause is it,
to suppose that these parties, when conscious of a true birth,
124
Lord Monboddo.
After Kay.
Judgments by the Court of Session.
would have both (for Sir John and Lady Jane are clearly con- Lord
federates) joined to support that birth by forged and fabricated "^ *^®" *'
evidence ; first thereby to impose upon the Duke of Douglas,
and thereafter upon all the world, by handing down this false
evidence to latest generations? See what deep wounds such
a thing may have given to the law ! and it is no excuse for
this, that Sir John may pretend he was only conveying to the
judges by means of forgery what he knew to be true. For
the whole evidence shows that there never were any original
letters from which these could have been taken.
It was said, that though the defendant founds upon the
acknowledgment of his parents, yet that, as he does not rest
the whole of his plea upon this, the accounts given by his
parents cannot hurt him. But is it possible to maintain that
there is any weight due to the evidence of a parent who has
been guilty of such repeated falsehoods, and who has in this
very cause forged and used false evidence for the perverting
of justice?
Lord MoNBODDoi — I am not vain enough to think that any Lord
thing I can say in this debate can have the effect to alter the
opinions given by any of your Lordships ; but yet, as I have a
full conviction that the defendant is really the son of Lady
Jane Douglas, I think it incumbent on me upon this occasion
to give the reasons of this my opinion at some length.
The plaintiffs have now taken up a very different ground
from what they at first maintained. At first the whole of their
proof was said to be founded, first, upon the books of Michelle ;
secondly, upon the age of the child brought to her house;
thirdly, upon there being no accoucheur in Paris in the year
1748, of the name of La Marre ; and, fourthly, upon the
suspicions in France at the time. These were the capital
circumstances laid down in the plaintiffs' original condescend-
ence. But now we have got a new cause, and there is no vestige
remaining of the old one. This new cause is founded, first, on
the conduct of the parties themselves ; secondly, on the alleged
alibi in the house of Godefroi ; and, thirdly, upon the enleve-
ments. Upon this I would observe that the changing of ground
gives at no time a very favourable opinion of a cause, and
that particularly in the present case it shows that the plaintiffs
^ James Burnett of Monboddo, appointed, with the title of Lord
Monboddo, 1767 ; died 1799.
I 125
The Douglas Cause.
Lord theniselvee had no confidence in Mr. Grodefroi's evidence, wh^d
they at first placed the alibi in the house of Michelle. Yet
after all there is no such clear, plain, and convincing evidence
brought as should take away a man's bil-thright from him.
There are several very material points of law which I will beg
leave to notice before I proceed to state the evidence. And,
first, as to the onus probandi. This the plaintiffs in their
memorial lay wholly upon the defendant. This is indeed a
most dangerous doctrine, and if this was law no man whatever
can say that he has a state at all. The acknowledgment of
the parents and the habite and repute is the chartor of every
man's birthright. Positive evidence is confined to a very few
facts, and in proportion as by length of time such positive proof
may be diminished, the legal presumption for filiation does
encrease. But yet in the present case this defendant rests
not upon that legal presumption, but has brought both direct
and circumstantiate evidence of his birth ; which being the case,
he cannot be turned out of possession but by demonstrative
evidence. I am here aware of the observation made by one of
your Lordships, that, literally taken, there can be no such
thing as a demonstrative proof ; but what I call demonstration
must exclude the possibility of the thing's being otherwise.
Yet I do not deny that a circumstantiate proof may be here
admitted, but it must be such a one as is sufficient to exclude
the possibility of the real birth. Another point of law is as
to the habite and repute. It was said that there was no habite
and repute to a person born in a foreign country. This
appears to me to be a very dangerous mistake. I cannot
confine the habite and repute to the voice of the family, friends
and relations at home, since it may arise from the voice of
friends, neighbours, and acquaintances abroad. And in the
case before us, it is clear there were no suspicions heard of in
France. Even the plaintiffs' own witnesses, Madame Blainville
and Madame Michelle, are strong evidences for the defendant as
to his habite and repute there.
The next point of law which falls to be treated of is that of
the acknowledgment of the parents. It has been said that
this must go for nothing, because Sir John Steuart has prevari-
cated, or tijld falsehoods upon oath. But this is confounding
the testimony of Sir John with the act of his acknowledgment.
It would be hard indeed if a man brought to be examined in
Court in the situation Sir John then was, should by mistakes,
or even by telling falsehoods, deprive his real son of his birth-
126
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Tight. Sir John's declaration was obtained by surprise from Lord
your Lordships, and he was under a fit of sickness when he
was brought to be examined before you. But even supposing
your Lordships should give all the weight to this plea of the
plaintiffs which they desire, what does it amount to? Only to
a few mistakes in his description of the Pierre La Marre. The
mistake about his being a Walloon is trivial ; it is just as
if we should call a man on the other side of the water of Tay
a Perth man. But surely the use made of this and of other
•such mistakes cannot destroy Doctor Menager's testimony, nor
that of Madame Garnier.
But even suppose that Sir John had been willingly perjured,
what then? Would his perjury have a stronger effect against
the defendant than that of any other witness? And yet it is
'Certain that though a third person, who was a witness, had
perjured himself upon the side of the defendant, it would have
had no effect at all upon his general plea.
The next question in point of law is, what are to be the effects
<of the delay on the part of the plaintiffs in bringing this
action? Surely both the Duke of Hamilton and Sir Hew
Dalrymple might have brought their action immediately upon
the birth of this defendant. And as they did not do so then,
the effect of this delay will at least be to receive good evidences
for the defendants, such as that of Madame Tewis and Effie Caw,
who are now dead themselves, but whose evidences stand re-
ported upon oath by others. This is a cruel case indeed!
When the defendant was a poor man the plaintiffs never
Attempted to controvert his birth ; they have only attempted
this when he succeeded to the estate of Douglas. The plaintiffs
complain that by the lateness of this action they have lost proof,
but whom then sibi imputet, and upon this account it is not
now incumbent upon the defendant to bring any proof at all
in this cause.
The plaintiffs have tried to disqualify some of the witnesses
as being accomplices in this alledged imposture; but this they
cannot be allowed to do : and indeed if this was law, who could
stand against it ? The plaintiffs might as easily have extended
the same charge of accomplices against the Le Brune and La
Marre, in order to have prevented them from being held credible
witnesses, if they had been now alive and found out, as throw
out the charge against Mrs. Hewit and Isabel Walker. What
reason can there be for disqualifying Mrs. Hewit and Isabel
"Walker from being credible witnesses on account of this charge
127
The Douglas Cause.
5^*^w^^^ thrown out against them? None of them showed the smallest
appearance of guilt upon any of their examinations. As to
Isabel Walker, she was a perfect model for a witness. It haa
been alledged that this witness is not credible, because in her last
examination in presence she has deposed, " That she never read
either Sir John Steuart's declaration or Mrs. Hewit's oath,"^
although she had the whole of the proofs in her custody. But
it is to be remarked that people who have something to do will
seldom dip into such large volumes a& those now under
our consideration.
Mrs. Hewit has indeed fallen into many mistakes in her
evidence, but these, instead of proving the imposture, prove
against it ; for upon the supposition of an imposture she would
have been much better prepared to have told her tale. In
one of her letters to Isabel Walker Mrs. Hewit recites the whole
circumstances of the affair. What could be the use or inten-
tion of this letter, upon the supposition of their both being
accomplices together? Upon such a supposition this conduct
betwixt the two is absolutely incredible. Much has been said
of the presumption of fraud arising from Mrs. Hewit's correct-
ing the dates of some of her letters to Isabel Walker ; but it
may be asked, what could be the use of this to Isabel Walker^
her own accomplice? Indeed, the style and manner of the
whole of Mrs. Hewit's letters is so unaffected and natural that
it goes very far to persuade one of the truth of the birth. But
whatever mistakes Mrs. Hewit may have fallen into, is it not
absolutely certain that after so long a time most witnesses
would have done the same? If the Le Brune had been found
out and had been examined as a witness, and had fallen into
mistakes, then the plaintiffs would have pleaded that she was
perjured likewise. But in fact the witnesses concur in every
material circumstance, which is enough ; and therefore though
they may have disagreed in the minuticR of their evidence, they
are not upon that account the less credible. It has been said
that Mrs. Hewit is perjured because she swears that Lady Jane
never went from Madame Michelle's house upon a jaunt to
Versailles. But I must observe that we have only, in opposition
to Mrs. Hewit on this point, the single testimony of Madame
Blainville, who it is not at all improbable has been here in a
mistake herself.
I come now to consider the defendant's evidence, which is
partly direct and partly circumstantiate.
128
Judgments by the Court of Session.
To distinguish evidence from suspicions is our chief business Lord
in the present cause. And here indeed is thei great difference
betwixt a learned judge and a common man. The latter hastily
takes up his suspicions, and from them as hastily draws his
<»nclusions. And if judges shall leave the open road of
evidence and hunt after suspicions, who can stand before
them ? Many arguments have been drawn from the conduct of
the defendant's parents, but there is a great danger lest we
should be mistaken in forming such arguments. The defendant
cannot account for the whole of the conduct of his parents ;
although some of the most suspicious parts of their alleged
conduct have been happily accounted for, such as that of the
«trong fact (seemingly fraudulent) of their having dropped their
French man-servant at Liege. There is another instance
wherein the plaintiffs themselves must confess they were mis-
taken in judging of the conduct of Sir John. It was by the
plaintiffs averred that Sir John, who was then commonly called
Colonel Steuart, had been several days in Paris, under a
feigned name, whereas it now comes out that the person they
thought was Sir John was really Colonel Stewart of Ardshiel.
It has been said, why did they not enquire after .the Pierre La
Marre ? but here it is to be observed that they did not get the
return of their letter, containing Madame Tewis's declaration
as to the pregnancy, until after the death of Lady Jane. And
for their having not gone sooner in quest of La Marre many sub-
stantial reasons may be given. Sir John was for two or three
years in prison in England ; and Lady Jane remained under
the greatest poverty, and oppressed with affronts and afflictions
-of every kind. But it has been said, why did they forge letters
to supply the want of real ones ?
These letters can with no propriety be said to be forged
evidence, because they were never used. Mrs. Menzies (upon
whose testimony the plaintiffs affirm that Lady Jane knew of
the forgery, and that it was these very letters which she was to
carry and to show to her brother) is a very suspicious evidence,
and although she was above all exception, it does not appear
from what Lady Jane said to her that it was any of the four
letters then said to be forged, which she had at that time in her
pocket.
It is clear that Sir John had received several letters from La
Marre. If it was a forgery, then it is a very bungled one
indeed. It is clear that these letters, said to have been forged,
129
The Douglas Cause.
ifonbodd ^®^^ ^ man7 copies from originals. This appears by a variety
of particulars, and especially from the misplacing of several
words, which shows that the person who wrote them had copied
them from others line for line.
I come now to make a few general observations upon the-
cause. Upon the supposition of an imposture, the day fixed
for the birth was by much too early. Again, the leaving of
the maids at Rheims is to me a proof that .there was no fraud
at all in the matter. These maids were both, according to the
plaintiffs' plea, accomplices ; why not then carry them alongst
with them to Paris? Why, two witnesses more, swearing posi-
tively to the actual delivery, would have put it beyond doubt.
This was not acting the part compleatly. In the same light I
view all the imprudences on the part of Sir John. Upon the
supposition of an imposture, he would have been exact and
pointed as to the very hour where the birth was, and his not
having been so exact and uniform can be accounted for upoa
no other supposition but that of innocence. Again, had there
really been an imposture in the case, it was necessary for the
accomplishment of it to have wrote their friends inamediately
after the birth.
Much weight has been laid upon Sir John Steuart's note to*
Mr. Napier, whereas the tendency of this is to show there was
no imposture at all. If you hold it to have been an imposture^
you must necessarily suppose a plan ; and if there was a plan it
was one essential part of it to fix upon a certain house as being
the scene of the pretended delivery. That place and house,
therefore, Sir John never can be supposed to have forgot, or if
he could be supposed to have actually forgot it the immediate^
danger of a detection would have readily prevented him from
ever fixing the scene of delivery to have been in a public-house
like that of Michelle's.
But it has been said Sir John Steuart afterwards corrected
this note when he found out that there had been inquiries
made after Michelle's house, and the time of this correction is
said to have been after Mrs. Napier received the answer from
Lady Francis Steuart, and which was after her inlaying upon
the 5th of August, 1756. But in fact Lady Francis Steuart's
letter is only dated at Aix-la-Chapelle the 28th of August, and
so could not reach Edinburgh by course of post till the middle
of September, before which time Sir John Steuart had corrected
130
Judgments by the Court of Session.
the mistake as to the house of Michelle's being the place of Lord
delivery.
Much has been said about the non-existence of the Madame
Le Brune, whereas I confess it is most clearly proved to me by
the oath of Doctor Menager that there was one of this name,
who was very intimate with the Pierre La Marre. She, how-
ever, has not been found out : in the course of nature she may
be dead, as well as her daughter, by her loose way of living.
There has, however, been discovered a Madame Le Brune living
in the Rue Dominic, Fauxburg St. Germaine : this woman was
a Garde Malade, and may have been the person. What then
is the amount of the evidence upon this head ? It is only this,
that nobody has been found to whom the Madame Le Brune ever
told anything of the matter. Much has been said on the
general conduct of the parties. But it was surely very proper
for Lady Jane to go abroad, and it was very proper for her to
go to Aix-la-Chapelle, because it appears she was in bad
health. It was also very proper for her to quit Rheims on
account of the unskilfulness of the accoucheurs there, which is
indeed proved by Madame Mallifer's evidence upon this point.
Much has been said about their desiring their letters to be
directed for them at Rheims, when they were truly at Paris,
but then it is to be considered that Rheims was the place of
their residence, and that they had a house taken there, in
which they had left their maids. Much has been said about
probability and improbability in this cause; but sure I am
that the plaintiffs' account of the imposture is of all other things
the most improbable. It was surely highly improbable that
Lady Jane, who, it is proved, had the capability of having
children, should bring in two beggar brats who might cut out
her own eventual issue; it was surely highly improbable, too,
that they should suppose two at one time, and thereby lay
themselves open to so great a danger of detection. But it has
truly happened that the proof found out as to the nurse of the
youngest child has supported the birth of the eldest.
But to proceed upon the plaintiffs' account of the matter ;
they, when they had only one child procured, gave out that they
had two, and of the one they had not got they give infallible
marks sixteen months before they brought him to Rheims, and
when he arrives there he is the very picture of Lady Jane.
Is this all possible, then, upon the supposition of an im-
posture? But still farther, what was the method they took to
131
The Douglas Cause.
J^rd accomplish this supposition? They take a special recommen-
dation to the house of Godefroi, and yet they have the day of
delivery to be one of those days they were actually residing with
him. This is indeed incredible, and therefore it would appear
that Mons. d'Anjou, the plaintiffs' procureur, in his memorial,
says that they went to a private house, and that they did not
leave that house so very soon as within eight days after the
pretended delivery.
Much has been said about Lady Jane's having concealed her
pregnancy from some persons by wearing a particular dress, but
this was unnatural and meaningless upon the supposition of a
fraud ; but upon the supposition of her being really with child,
it may be accounted for by one of these two ways, either from
her bashfulness or from her desire to conceal the marriage.
The plaintiffs have said that Sir John and Lady Jane concealed
their going to Paris, whereas on the contrary they told it to
every body, to Mr. M'Lean and Mackenzie, and, still more, they
went thither in the public voiture. Isabel Walker and Efl&e
Caw, the two maids, have been said to be accomplices in the
fraud ; but it is proved that Lady Jane treated them very ill
afterwards ; and that she actually turned off Effie Caw from
her service. Upon the supposition of an imposture. Sir John
and Lady Jane must have been expert hypocrites indeed, and
of this there is a remarkable example in the story of the beggar
at Li^ge as it stands related by Mrs. Hepburn of Keith on her
oath.
Sir John Steuart upon no one occasion ever changed his
name ; he did not run for it after he had stole the children in
Paris, but instead of doing so goes back to Kheims, where they
reside sixteen months, and then return again to Paris without
fear or dread.
I now come to speak of a material article in this cause,
and that is Godefroi's books. In what I am going to say, I
will distinguish his parole evidence from that of his books, and
hope to convince your Lordships, that he is not worthy of credit.
In the first place then, I say it appears, that Mr. Godefroi
was instructed to give evidence. It was otherways impossible
for him to apply the blank article in his book to Sir John
Steuart without knowing these two things. First, that Sir John
Steuart was the gentleman that arrived at his house upon the
fourth of July, and secondly, He must have been told, that Sir
John Steuart had actually a third person with him. This man
132
Judgments by the Court of Session.
Oodefroi actually forgets his own hand writing, and he says, J;**''^ . .
that it was that of his wife. Upon his first examination, he
actually forgets that he had two books, though it afterwards
€omes out, that he kept two. But then when he goes to his
livre logeur, he finds no third person there; therefore it is
clear, that he must have been informed by some person or other,
that Sir John Steuart had two other persons alongst with himself.
Secondly, I say that Mr. Godefroi has varied in his tale ; and for
the proof of this, I appeal to the expose de faits, kept by Mens.
D'Anjou. Thirdly, I say that Mr. Godefroi has sworn falsely,
in so far as he swears that his books contained the names of all
the persons who came to his house. Michelle's books were
at first strongly founded on by the plaintiffs ; and to make
these books appear accurate and exact, Mons. Durisseau seems
to have perjured himself.
I do suspect many bad practices with these witnesses in
Paris, by whom these practices were carried on ; I am not
concerned to enquire, but I have so bad an opinion of the
plaintiffs' proof, that although they had proved twice as much,
I would have paid no sort of regard to it.
As to Mr. Godefroi's books themselves, they are far from being
accurate or exact as he deposed they were, for the defendant has
clearly proved, that there are many names entered in his livre
de depense, which are not to be found in his livre logeur y
and that there are six at least, in his livre logeur, that are not
inserted in his livre de depense ; particularly one Mons. De
Sarassin is entered into the book of expence, eighteen days
before he is entered into the livre logeur.
As to the enlevements, I remember, that the oldest council
lor the plaintiffs, in his pleadings only urged them as circum-
fltances. As to Mignon's child, some of the witnesses say, that
it was three months old at the time of its being taken away.
And as to Saury's child, neither the description of the persons,
nor the time answers to Sir John Steuart.
I will now run over the capital circumstances of the defendant's
proof of the pregnancy as well as the actual delivery. None
of your Lordships have denied, that there were the appearances
of pregnancy; and that they were natural I think is clearly
proved. Mrs. Hepburn of Keith must be perjured with the rest,
if the pregnancy was not real. In the condition Lady Jane was
when Mrs. Hepburn came into her room, she must have observed
•every thing about her.
133
The Douglas Cause,
J^>^^^^^ This proof of the pregnancy is confirmed by a proof of her
capacity to have children, and of miscarriages afterwards. And
because there are a few contradictions attending these mis-
carriages, will we therefore say there were none? Upon this
point of fact, the witnesses cannot be mistaken, although per-
jured they may be. When to all this, we add the appearance
of her reconvalescence upon their going to Michelle's; and
when we compare the depositions of Madame Michelle and
Madame Blainville -with those of the witnesses who saw Lady
Jane at Aix, Li^ge and other places, it is clear, that somewhat
must have happened, and what it could be but a real delivery
cannot easily be imagined.
As to the evidence of Dr. Menager, the story told to him by
Pierre La Marre, of his having delivered a foreign lady of twins,^
exactly corresponds to the delivery of Lady Jane Douglas.
Menager's testimony stands uncontradicted by any one witness.
Some of your Lordships hinted, that Menager was not to be
believed, because he said, that La Marre gave lectures upon
midwifery ; but his own brother Fran9ois La Marre says the
same thing. If Menager is perjured, he must have been
corrupted. Then, who was it that corrupted him, who of the
British agents was likely to corrupt him? In what he has said,
he was supported by Giles, as the conversation betwixt Giles
and him stands confirmed by Mons. Moreau ; although Mr. Giles
was afterwards pleased to deny upon oath what he had formerly
said.
Madame Gamier the nurse, by the whole of the accounts she-
gives, establishes beyond doubt, that the conversation which
La Marre had with Doctor Menager about the youngest of the
twins which he had under his care, does really relate to the
youngest child of Lady Jane Douglas. In short, this is the most
conclusive circumstantiate evidence that ever was.
It is of the essence of a circumstantiate evidence, that the
different witnesses should swear to different facts, which though
independent of each other, all tend to the same point. Such
a chain of evidence as the one now before us could not have
been formed by chance. And if Dr. Menager and Madame
Gamier had been corrupted, each of them would have said
much more.
This not only shows the high probability of the defendant's
alledgeance, but also the high improbability of the plaintiffs'"
fitory. Sir John names La Marre as being the accoucheur from
134
Judgments by the Court of Session.
the very beginiimg : The plaintiffs denied the existence of such J-o^d
a one ; but now he is found to have actually been a practising
accoucheur in Paris in theyear 1748, and to havehad conversations
with his brethren of the profession about his having delivered a
foreign lady, of an advanced age, of twins.
Sir John and Lady Jane further told, that they had left their
youngest son under his charge somewhere in the neighbourhood
of Paris. Lady Jane named Menilmontaine as the place the
child was left at. Madame Rutlidge says, that Lady Jane
named the place, though she has forgot the name.
Are all these things then possible upon the supposition of
an imposture? I wish that the plaintiffs had here given us a
calculation of chances upon all these wonderful circumstances.
For if all these particulars be true, as I have no doubt they are,
then Sir John's contradictions and falsehoods are of no
importance.
Upon the whole, his Lordship declared, that he had not even
a suspicion remaining in his mind of the truth of the defendant's
birth.
The whole fifteen judges having thus given their opinions,
and the Court being equally divided upon this important ques-
tion, the Lord President proceeded to state the vote. Sustain or
repell the reasons of reduction 1 And it was carried by his Lord-
ship's casting voice, Sustain. And then the judgment of the Court
was wrote out in the following words. " The Lords having .
considered the state of the process, the writs produced, and testi-
monies of the witnesses adduced, and heard parties' procurators
thereon ; and having advised the same with the memorials,
observations, and other papers given in by each party, they
sustain the reasons of reduction, and reduce, decern and declare
accordingly."
For the Plaintiflfs — For the Defendant —
The Lord President. Lord Stricken.
Lord Barjarg. Lord Kames.
Lord Alemore. Lord Auchinlbck.
Lord Eliock. Lord Coalston.
Lord Stonefield. Lord Pitfour.
Lord Kennbt. Lord Gardenstone.
Lord Hailes. Lord Monboddo.
Lord Justice-Clerk.
135
The Douglas Cause.
Speeches in the House of Lords.
Lord Lord Camden^ (Lord Chancellor)2 — My Lords, the cause
berore us is, perhaps, the most solemn and important ever
heard at this bar. For my own share, I am unconnected with
the parties, and having, with all possible attention, considered
the matter, both in public and private, I shall give my
opinion with that strictness of impartiality to which your
lordships have so just and equitable claim. We have one
short question before us — Is the appellant the son of the
late Lady Jane Douglas or not? — I am of the mind that he is ;
and own that a more ample and positive proofs of the child's
being the son of a mother never appeared in a Court of
justice, or before any assize whatever.
The marriage of Lady Jane to Colonel Steuart, August the
4th, 1746, is admitted on all hands. Her pregnancy in
January, 1748, and the progress of it, were observed by many
people; at Aix-la-Chapelle it was notorious; her stays were
widened ; the nuns of the Convent of St. Anne discerned it,
notwithstanding Lady Jane's modesty; the maid servants are
positive of the fact. The Earl of Crawford wrote an account
of it to the Duke of Douglas, not as an hearsay, but as a fact
of which he himself was fully satisfied by ocular inspection ;
and if there be a pregnancy, there must be a delivery, which
accordingly happened by the positive evidence of Mrs. Hewit,
who has deposed that " she received them into her lap as they
came from Lady Jane's body." She was delivered of twins
on the 10th of July, 1748, at Paris, in the house of Madame
le Brune, in the Fauxbourg St. Germaine. Lady Jane's ability
to bear children is established by many witnesses, and
^Sir Charles Pratt, Lord Chancellor 1766-1770; created Lord Camden
1765 ; died 1794.
2 From " The History, Debates and Proceedings of both Houses of
Parliament of Great Britain, ] 743-1777," vol. v. pp. 112-124, collated
with the report in Francis Hargraves' " Collectanea Juridica." For Lord
Camden's speech see also Campbell's "Lives of the Chancellors," v. pp.
289-90.
^"He did not use his carefully prepared notes, pace Sir George
Hardinge." [Campbell's " Lives of the Chancellors," appendix.]
136
Archibald Douglas of Douglas, supported by Lords Camden and Mansfield.
From a Mezzotint in the British Museum.
Speeches in the House of Lords.
a miscarriage after the birth of twins still more and more chancellor
proves the delivery.
But, my Lords, there is another proof, no less convincing,
that the appellant is really the son of Lady Jane, and this
arises from the uniform tenderness shown towards him. 'Tis
in proof that, on every occasion, she showed all the fondness
of a mother; when he casually hit his head against a table
she screamed out and fainted away; when her husband, the
Colonel, was in prison she never wrote to him without making
mention of her sons ; she recommended them to clergymen
for the benefit of their prayers, is disconsolate for the death
of the youngest; takes the sacrament, owns her surviving
son ; does everything in her power to convince the world of
his being hers ; blesses and acknowledges him in her dying
moments ; and leaves him such things as she had. Sir John
likewise shows the same tenderness in effect. He leaves him
50,000 merks by a bond in September, 1763, ten years after
the death of Lady Jane; and on his death-bed solemnly
declares, before God, that the appellant is the son of Lady
Jane. " I make this declaration," said he, " as stepping
into eternity.'' A man that is a thief may disguise himself
in publick, but he has no occasion for any mask when in
private by himself. These positive declarations convinced
the Duke of Douglas, and he left his dukedom and other estates
to his nephew, the appellant, who was regularly served heir
thereto in September, 1761 ; when he was possessed of all
the birthright of a son, so far as the oaths of witnesses, the
acknowledgment of parents, and the established habit and
repute could go. The cruel aspersions thrown out against
Lady Jane and the Colonel had been refuted by the late Duke
of Argyle and the Countess of Stair. No mortal doubted the
appellant being the son of Lady Jane, except Andrew Stuart ;
his father, Archibald Stuart; Major Cochrane, who is married
to Stuart's sister ; with White of Stockbriggs, a principal
actor in these scenes. These doubted the matter, and Andrew
Stuart, 4 as by concert, went over to France, not to procure
evidence of a real fact, but to suborne witnesses to establish
an article that never existed except in their own imagination.
The design was bad, and the means to accomplish it were no
* The name is left blank in the report in Francis Hargraves' " Collectanea
Juridica" (vol. ii. p. 386-484).
137
The Douglas Cause.
Lord lees criminal I It is needless to follow the searcher through
all the scenes of his enquiry, the result of which was to return
to Scotland, enter an action against the appellant, and bring
his own father to condemn him, at a time when the old
gentleman was in a condition every way deplorable. And
taking advantage of his inaccuracies, he makes a second tour
to Paris, where he published a Monitoire entirely to seduce
witnesses, and influence them to commit the blackest perjury.
In this paper he describes the person of Sir John Steuart,
Lady Jane Douglas, and Mrs. Hewit ; asserts that they had
purchased two children, whom they wanted to impose upon
the world in order to defraud a real heir of an immense
estate and fortune; and inviting all who could give light into
the matter to come to his lodgings, which he particularly
described.
Mr. Stuart certainly appeared like the guardian of the
Duke of Hamilton, a pompous title, which drove several to
their own destruction, and in hopes of a reward. Among
the number of those was Madame Mignon, a glass manufac-
turer's spouse, who, after conversing with Andrew Stuart
and his clerk, and receiving presents from them, comes in
before the Toumelle Criminelle and deposes that she had sold
her own child to foreigners whom she did not as much as
know. Can a woman forsake her sucking child? is a
rhetorical remonstrance handed to us from the highest
authority. The thing is incredible, and yet the woman has
sworn it! A circumstance sufficient to render her testimony
of no force, when opposed to the dying declarations of Lady
Jane Douglas and Colonel Steuart, and to the positive oath of
Mrs. Hewit, whose character is established upon a very good
foundation ; but take the declaration of madam in all its
extent, yet she has said nothing to affect the appellant ; the
time when the people to whom, with every other circumstance,
prove her not to have been the mother of the young gentleman ;
his complexion, the colour of his eyes and hair, prove that
he was not hers. The same thing might be said of the son
of Sanry, the rope dancer, whom the counsel for the respondent
would infer to be the child Sholto, the younger of the twins,
and, as a strong proof of the same, urged that the two were
but the same identical person under different names; and your
Lordships were entreated to keep in your view the rupture
under which each of them laboured in order to prove the
138
Speeches in the House of Lords.
identity ! But how comes all out ? Saury's child could Lord
«peak in November, 1749, but Sholto could not utter a word
for some months after he came to Mr. Murray's house in
December, 1749. And now evidence is offered to be produced
-at your Lordships' bar, that the child Sholto had no rupture
in 1749, that he was as sound as any person within these
walls ; certainly Mr. Murray, the most material witness in
this affair, is more to be credited than madam.
Your Lordships have heard much ingenuity displayed in
•order to prove that Lady Jane's pregnancy was imaginary;
the symptoms are allowed, but the reality is now denied, though
once Andrew Stuart himself was forced to acknowledge that
Lady Jane was actually with child. If Lady Jane or any
other woman had such symptoms, it is impossible she could
have been eased of them so soon in any other manner than
^yy a delivery ; had she been ill of a dropsy, her bulk would not
have been totally diminished in so short a time as from the
2nd of July to the first week of August, when all who saw her
at Rheims concluded that she had but lately lain in. Great
stress has been laid upon the letters said to have been forged
in the name of Pierre La Marre, the man-midwife, the person
who delivered Lady Jane. I admit them to be forged, and yet
this forgery is with me a proof of Lady Jane's innocence;
Sir John's hardships are admitted ; and if he, after so long
a confinement, should cause the letters that had passed
between La Marre and him to be translated in order to amuse
liimself, or to satisfy Lady Jane that they were not lost,
it was no way criminal. Lady Jane received them, but
observing they were not originals she laid them by, so
-conscious was she of her own innocence that she did not use
them, nor ever would they have made their appearance had
it not been for the conduct of Andrew Stuart, who, upon
getting an order to search Lady Jane's repositories, found
out these letters, produced them in Court to Sir John, when
under all the miserable circumstances of a man groaning
under a load of years, infirmities, and the acutest pains.
The evidence of Godefroi, the landlord of the Hotel de
Chalons, in the Rue St. Martin, is contradictory and incon-
sistent, his books being in every way defective and erroneous ;
nor does Andrew Stuart appear in a favourable light in this
particular. When first he came to Godefroi 's house both
the man and his wife were ignorant of the matter; neither
139
The Douglas Cause,
Lord the one nor the other recollected Lady Jane Douglas or her
husband till Andrew Stuart desiring a sight of the livre
d'inspecteur, found two articles one of them Mr. Flurat
Vexcossois et sa famille sont entri, 8me Juliet, 1748, and this
he positively affirms, with oaths and imprecations, to be the
handwriting of Sir John Steuart, with which he pretended
to be thoroughly acquainted ; but he was obliged to retract
when other postages were found to be pf the same hand-
writing. This postage was found to be posterior to one
written on the 12th, and the landlady of the house declared
that she herself had marked it down. He had fifteen rooms
and ten closets, which they pretended always to be full, and
yet in their book it does not appear there were three persons
in them during Colonel Steuart's pretended abode ; and, what
is pretty strange, they had many women lodgers during that
year, and yet they depose they remember none but this lady,
whom Andrew Stuart would have to be Lady Jane Douglas.
They even differ with respect to the names of their servants ;
the counsel at the bar have acknowledged the inaccuracy of
the books owing to the avocations of the man elsewhere, and
to the inadvertency of his spouse, continually hurried by a
multiplicity of business. Besides a postage in a book, such as
the Uvre d'inspecteur, which, like a waste-book, contains
things just as they occur, or the livre de depense, to which
the articles of the former are transferred, bears no manner of
convincing proof that the persons mentioned in these staid
at such and such places, it being a customary thing to mark
down the name of the person the moment he takes the lodging ;
and it is notorious that many persons have paid a week, nay,
a month's lodging, without sleeping a night in it ; and this
is no more than equity, since the same was reserved for
their use.
But here, my Lords, the pursuers in this affair have destroyed
their own cause; they have brought a sort of proof that
Lady Jane Douglas was at Michelle's house, called Le Petit
Hotel d'Anjou, in the Rue Serpente, Fauxbourg St. Germaine;
and this at the very time when they would prove her to have
been at the house of Godefroi, of whom so much has been said
and heard. Michelle and Godefroi disagree in everything
except in the irregularity of their books, and it, indeed, is
hard to say which of the two excels most in that particular ;
but not to insist on the irregularities, it is proved to be the
140
Speeches in the House of Lords.
practice in Paris, and of Michelle in particular, to write Lord J^
., Til ij.ij Chancellor
people s names m these pohce books as entered on tne day
the room was hired, though the person does not enter for
some days after. To insist on these things, my Lords, is
tedious, and yet the importance of the case requires it. One
Madame Blainville swears that on one of the days betwixt
the 8th and 13th of July she accompanied Lady Jane in a
coach to take a view of Versailles, and at another time to see
the Palace (Place?) de Vendome; but this witness is, in every
respect, contradicted by a multiplicity of evidence, and in
every view her testimony appears to be absurd and
preposterous. First, she is contradicted by Mrs. Hewit,
whose deposition bears great weight with me, as also by other
witnesses, for, first, she, Blainville, says that Sir John and
his family were eight days in Michelle's before the child was
brought to the house, whereas Michelle's family all swear
that he was brought next day. Secondly, she says that the
child was given to the nurse La Favre the very night of his
arrival ; that she saw her carry him home with her, and that
the Lady Jane visited him in the nurse's house; whereas, on
the contrary, it is proved that Favre remained four days at
the hotel, during which period Lady Jane was nowhere
abroad. Thirdly, she deposes that no person visited Sir
John and Lady Jane during their stay at Michelle's ; whereas
by the oath of Madame Favre, a gentleman visited him there ;
but be that as it may, Lady Jane was delivered on the 10th
of July, and Blainville does not say she went to Versailles
till the 27th ; and it is no new thing for a lady, however
delicate, so long after delivery to go so far in a country where
the weather and roads are so remarkably fine and the carriages
every way easy and convenient.
All these objections to the reality of the appellant being^
the son of Lady Jane are imaginary, and hitherto have been
reputed to the honour of the innocent, and the more firmly
establishing him in the possession of his birthright. They
only tend to render her virtues more brilliant and illustrious,
for as the allegations never existed in fact, but in the
imagination of Andrew Stuart ; so, when put to the trial, they
must necessarily fall to the ground. Thus, he asserted that
Colonel Steuart received £550 from the Earl of Morton's
banker some days before Lady Jane's lying-in, and from-
thence would infer that her delivery at Madame Brune's, an
K 141
The Douglas Cause.
l£>*d obscure house, was only to carry on the imposture ; but now
it appears that this money was not received till sixteen days
after. How unfortunate for the Duke of Hamilton to be
under the direction of such a man I One who has involved
him in such an immensity of expenses, and this by examining
a multitude of witnesses upon articles really foreign to the
cause, which, indeed, is not the Duke of Hamilton's ; it is the
cause of Andrew Stuart, who has acted eo estrange a part, as
well deserved the observation made at the bar, with great
propriety, " That if ever I was to be concerned in any business
with him, I should look upon him with a jealous eye." ^
I shall not follow >the noble Lord who spoke last through
the various descriptions he has given us of midwifery. His
observations may be just, but they cannot affect the character
of Lady Jane Douglas, or the cause of the appellant, her
son. The question before us is short : Is the appellant the
son of Lady Jane Douglas or not? If there be any Lords
within these walls who do not believe in a future state, these
may go to death with the declaration that they believe he is
not. For my part I am for sustaining the positive proof,
which I find weakened by nothing brought against it ; and in
this mind I lay my hand upon my breast, and declare that
in my soul and conscience I believe the appellant to be her
The Duke of Bedford then spoke [for about forty minutes]
in favour of Andrew Stuart's procedure and in condemnation
of the Tournelle.^
ilS^sfleld Lord ManspibldI — My Lords, I must own that this cause
before us is the greatest and most important that occurs to
me. It is no less than an attack upon the virtue and honour
of a lady of the first quality, in order to dispossess a young
man of an eminent fortune, reduce him to beggary, strip
him of his birthright, declare him an alien and a foundling.
I have slept and waked upon this subject, considered it upon
" Walpole says he said — " He was sorry to bear hard on Mr. Stewart
[Stuart], but justice compelled him." ["Memoirs of the Reign of
George ni.,''iii. p. 204.]
• "Collectanea Juridica."
1 William Murray, third son of Viscount Stormont, Chief- Justice King's
Bench 1756-88, and created Lord Mansfield. He was created Earl of
Mansfield 1776, and died 1793.
142
The Earl of Mansfield.
From a Print.
speeches in the House of Lords.
my pillow, to the losing of my natural rest, and with all the Lord
judgment I was capable of, have considered the various articles
that make up this long and voluminous cause, upon which I
am now to give my opinion before your Lordships.
I apprehend that, in the matter before us, three things are
to be considered. The situation of Lady Jane, before her
delivery, at her delivery, and after it was over : to all which
the Chancellor has spoken with great propriety. It is proved
beyond a doubt that she became pregnant in October, 1747,
at the age of forty-nine years, a thing far from being
uncommon, as is attested by physicians of the first rank and
confirmed by daily experience; and that in the month of
July she was delivered of twins, one of whom died, the other
is still alive ; he has been presented to the world by Sir John
Steuart and Lady Jane Douglas as their son ; nor can he be
wrested from the hands of his parents unless some other hand
in their lifetime claimed him as their child in a legal and
justifiable way,^
This action, my Lords, did not lie against the appellant as
an imposter; for an imposter, in the sense of the law, is a
person who wilfully and knowingly " pretends to be different
from what he really is, in order to defraud another, and to
impose under a fictitious name upon the publick." If any
be an imposter, it must have been Lady Jane, whom they
ought to have prosecuted in her lifetime, and not at the
distance of nine years after her death. The method of
discovering an imposter is to bring his accomplice to the
Court before which the imposter was arraigned ; and if, after
a fair trial, the accused person be found guilty, let him take
the consequences thereof; but this the respondents have
neglected. The appellant has been for five years four months
and twelve days the acknowledged son of Lady Jane Douglas ;
and for thirteen years and two months the son of Sir John
Steuart, before any attempt was made to rob him of his
parents, his birthright, and his all.
As the Lord Chancellor has anticipated much of what I
intended to speak upon this subject, so I shall only touch
* Walpole says ("Memoirs of the Reign of King George III.," pp.
204-6), that Lord Mansfield spoke *' with still more personal severity to
Stuart" than the Chancellor, till he nearly fainted into fatigue. The
report of the speech we print has no specific attack. Stuart in 1773
printed " Letters to the Rt. Hon. Lord Mansfield," to vindicate his point of
view.
M3
The Douglas Cause.
I^>pd at the situation and character of the deceased, whom I
remember in the year 1750, to have been in the most deplorable
circumstances. She came to me (I being Solicitor-General)
in a very destitute condition, and yet her modesty would not
suffer her to complain. The noble woman was every way
visible, even under all the pressure of want and poverty.
Her visage and appearance were more powerful advocates
than her voice; and yet I was afraid to offer her relief, for
fear of being constructed to proffer her an indignity. In
this manner she came twice to my house, before I knew her
real necessities; to relieve which now was my aim, I spoke
to Mr. Pelham in her favour, told him of her situation with
regard to her brother the Duke of Douglas, and of her present
straits and difficulties. Mr. Pelham without delay laid the
matter before the King ; the Duke of Newcastle, being then
at Hanover, was wrote to ; he seconded the solicitations of
his brother. His Majesty immediately granted her £300
per annum out of his privy purse ; and Mr. Pelham was so
generous as to offer £150 of the money to be instantly paid.
I can assure your Lordships that I never did trouble His
Majesty for any other. Lady Jane Douglas was the first
and the last who ever had a pension by my means. At that
time I looked upon her as a lady of the strictest honor and
integrity, and to have the deepest sense of the grandeur of
the family from which she was sprung ; a family conspicuously
great in Scotland for a thousand years past ; a family whose
numerous branches have spread over Europe; they have
frequently intermarried with the blood royal; and she herself
was descended from Henry VII. ^ I took care that his late
Majesty should be made acquainted with her family and name
to the intent that though she was married to Colonel Steuart,
a dissipated and licentious man, and who had been in the
rebellion of 1715, yet he would pass it over, as she was of
a race who had always been eminently loyal, her brother
having charged as a volunteer at the head of the cavalry in the
year 1715, when his cousin the Earl of Forfar died like a
hero in defence of the Government ; and that his Grace had
in the year 1745 treated the rebels and their leader with
'This was not so. Lady Jane Douglas was descended from the 5th
Earl of Angus. It was Archibald, 6th Earl of Angus, who had married
Queen Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. , Dowager of King James V. ,
without male issue, but through his daughter was great-grandfather to
King James VI. and I.
144
Speeches in the House of Lords.
contempt and ridicule; and indeed His Majesty, from his }f*''*|,^^
wonted magnanimity, spoke nothing of her husband ; but
treated her with all the respect due to a noble woman of the
first rank and quality ; one who carried all the appearance of
a person habituated to devotion ; and for a number of years
trained up in the school of adversity and disappointment.
Is it possible, my Lords, to imagine that a woman of such a
family, of such high honour, and who had a real sense of her
own dignity, could be so base as to impose false children upon
the world? Would she have owned them on every occasion?
Was ever mother more affected for the death of a child than
she was for that of Sholto, the younger of her sons? "Will
you," said she, "indulge me to speak of my son?" and cried
out with great vehemency, " Oh, Sholto ! Sholto ! My son
Sholto ! " and after speaking of his death she said, " She
thanked God that her son Archie was alive. What," said
she, " would the enemies of me and my children say if they
saw me lying in the dust of death upon account of the death
of my son Sholto? Would they have any stronger proof of
their being my children than my dying for them?" She still
insisted that the shock which she received by the death of
Sholto and other griefs she had met with were so severe upon '
her that she was perfectly persuaded she would never recover,
but considered herself as a dying woman, and one who was
soon to appear in the presence of Almighty God, and to whom
she must answer.
She declared that the children Archie and Sholto were
bom of her body, and that there was one blessing of which
her enemies could not deprive her, which was her innocency,
and that she could pray to Almighty God for the life of her
other son, that she was not afraid for him, for that God
Almighty would take care of him.
And what is remarkable, the witness Mary Macrabie
observed, that the grief for the loss of the child grew upon
her. Would she, my Lords, have blessed her surviving child
on her death-bed? Would she have died with a lie in her
mouth and perjury on her right hand? Charity, that thinketh
no evil, will not suffer me for a moment to harbour an opinion
so cruel and preposterous. Or can we suppose that two
people who had not wherewith to support themselves would
be solicitous and show all the tenderness of parents towards
the children of creatures, who, forgetting the first principles
of instinct and humanity, had sold their children to people
145
The Douglas Cause.
Lord whom they did not even as much as know by their names.
The act of Joseph's brethren in selling him is represented as
wicked and unnatural, but indeed the crime of Madam Mignon
and Madam Sanry is still more black and atrocious! To
carry this a little further, suppose Lady Jane Douglas had
acted out of a principle of revenge towards the family of
Hamilton, yet Sir John Steuart had no occasion to do so, much
less continue the vindictive farce after her death, especially
when married to another spouse.
And here we see Sir John as much a parent to the appellant
as Lady Jane ; he was every way fond of him ! it is in evidence.
I know it to be true. My sister and I have been frequently
at Mrs. Murray's with them and were always delighted with
the care we observed. No mortal harboured any thoughts
of their being false children at that time, I mean in 1750
and 1751, Every person looked upon them as the children of
Lady Jane Douglas and of Colonel Steuart. The Countess
of Eglinton, Lord Lindores, and many others have upon oath
declared the same thing.
No sooner does the Colonel hear of the aspersions raised
at Douglas Castle, and of Mr. Archibald Stuart's swearing
that Count Douglas, a French nobleman, had informed the
Duke of Douglas that they had been brought out of an hospital,
than he returned an answer to Mr. Loch, who gave the
intelligence in a letter to Mrs. Hewit, and wrote him in all
the terms of a man of spirit, cordially interested in the welfare
and happiness of his son. Both he and Lady Jane begged the
favour of Chevalier Douglas, a French gentleman and officer
then at London, to acquaint his cousin, the Count, with what
was said of him. This the Chevalier undertook, and fulfilled
with the fidelity of a man of honor. And the Count, in
consequence of the application, wrote a letter not only to
Lady Jane but to her brother the Duke, in all the language
of politeness and humanity, disowning what was said of him.
But, my Lords, the Duke of Douglas himself was fully
satisfied of the appellant's being the real son of his sister
Lady Jane, for on beginning to be known after his marriage
and to relish the pleasures of social life he became very
inquisitive " about the size, shape, and complexion of the
appellant, and if he appeared to be a smart boy." He
employed Sir William Douglas and others in whom he could
confide to enquire of Mrs. Hewit, Lady Jane's companion, and
of Euphemie Caw and Isabel Walker, the two maid-servants
146
Lord Thurlow.
From a Mezzotint after the Portrait by Romney.
Speeches in the House of Lords.
who had lived with them abroad, and observed their conduct Jg^^Jg^gj^j
in the most unguarded moments, concerning the birth of the
children. He even searched into the characters of these, and
it appears from the depositions of clergymen and gentlemen
of the first rank in that country that they were women worthy
to be believed. He even went in person to visit Mrs. Hewit,
conversed with her in the presence of his gentleman, Mr.
Greenshails, concerning his sister's delivery, and the accounts
given by these, like the radii of a circle all pointing to one
and the same centre, confirmed the reality of Lady Jane
being the mother of the young gentleman. He was satisfied,
acknowledged him for his nephew, and left him his heir.
If the Duke of Douglas, after so serious an enquiry, was
convinced, why should not we? 'Tis true, his Grace has
sometimes expressed himself warmly against the surname of
Hamilton even in Lady Jane's time, but never so warmly as
to prefer a supposititious child to the Duke of that name, for
he only declares, " That if he thought the children were Lady
Jane's,'* he would never settle his estate on the family of
Hamilton. Nor did he till after detecting the frauds and
conspiracies that had been so long and so industriously carried
on against his sister and himself make any alteration in his
first settlement.
After the Duke's death, the appellant was served heir to his
uncle, according to the form prescribed by the law of Scotland
upon an uncontroverted evidence of his being the son of Lady
Jane Douglas, takes possession of the estate, and is virtually
acknowledged heir by the Earl of Selkirk and by the Duke
of Hamilton's guardians themselves, for these enter actions
before the Court of Session declaring their right to certain
parts of the estates, upon some ancient claims which the
Judges there declared to be groundless. But in the whole
action there was not the least intimation that Mr. Douglas
was not the son of Lady Jane.
It is needless to trouble your Lordships with the conduct
of the respondent's guardians at Paris and elsewhere upon the
Continent. Nothing has been discovered that could throw the
least blemish upon the honor of Lady Jane Douglas or Colonel
Steuart. They have indeed proved her straits there and his
imprisonment here; but both these circumstances carry a
further confirmation that the appellant is their son, for in
every letter that passed between them the children are named
with a tenderness scarce to be believed. Whereas, had they
147
The Douglas Cause.
^^ been counterfeited, as is pretended, they would have been
apt to upbraid one another for an act eo manifestly tending
to involve them in their sufferings.
Suppose, my Lords, that Mignon, the glass manufacturer's
wife, the pretended mother of Mr. Douglas, had deposed the
same things in Lady Jane's presence as she had so long after
her death. From the evidence it appears that she had never
seen Lady Jane ; by her words both in private and publick,
she seems to ddserye no manner of credit. * The oath of Mr.
Murray, a principal witness, has destroyed everything she
asserted. The same thing might be said of Sanry, the
rope dancer's spouse, whose child's rupture we were earnestly
desired to keep in view to prove him to have been the identical
Sholto, the younger of the twins ; and now evidence is offered
that the child Sholto had no rupture, but was as sound as
any within these walls. Your Lordships have been told,
and I believe with great truth, that a gentleman, shocked
at the assertion, had wrote to the counsel that the influence
arising from so false a suggestion might be prevented. I
always rejoice to hear truth, which is the ornament of
criticism and the polished gem that decorates a bar. The
scrutiny in France, followed by an action in Scotland, produced
two things never intended by them ; it brought forth a striking
acknowledgment of the appellant by his father, Sir John
Steuart, as is manifest from the bond of provision, read at
your Lordships' bar. Sir John openly acknowledged him
before the Court of Session in the midst of a crowded multitude
and when labouring under a load of anguish and pain. Nay,
when by himself, he solemnly declared before God, in the
presence of a Justice of the Peace and two clergymen, that
the young gentleman was his son. It likewise established the
character of Lady Jane, for on examining the proof obtained
through the vigilance of the Duchess of Douglas, Lady Jane's
reputation is unsullied and great. All who had the honor
of being known to her declared that her behaviour attracted
universal esteem, and Madame Marie Sophie Gillesen, a
maiden lady with whom she lodged several months, deposes
that " Lady Jane was very amiable, and gentle as an angel."
It further proved that the elder child, the appellant, was the
exact picture of his father, and the child Sholto as like Lady
Jane as ever a child was like a mother. I have always con-
sidered likeness as an argument of a child's being the son
148
Speeches in the House of Lords.
of a parent, and the rather as this distinction between Loi'd
• T -1 1 • 1 1 • • T -1 1 xt. • Mansfield
individuals m the human species is more discernible than in
other animals. A man may survey ten thousand people before
he flees two faces perfectly alike; and in an army of an
hundred thousand men every one may be known from another.
If there should be a likeness of features, there may be a
discriminancy of voice, a difference in the gesture, the smile,
and various other things, whereas a family likeness runs
generally through all these, for in everything there is a
resemblance, as of features, size, attitude, and action. And
here it is a question whether the appellant most resembled
his father. Sir John, or the younger, Sholto, resembled his
mother. Lady Jane. Many witnesses have sworn to Mr.
Douglas being of the same form and make of body as his
father; he has been known to be the son of Colonel Steuart
by persons who had never seen him before, and is so like his
elder brother, the present Sir John Steuart, that except by
their age it would be hard to distinguish the one from the
other.
If Sir John Steuart, the most artless of mankind, was actor
in the enlevement of Mignon and Saury's children, he did in a
few days what the acutest genius could not accomplish for
years. He found two children, the one the finished model
of himself, and the other the exact picture in miniature of
Lady Jane. It seems Nature had implanted in the children
what is not in the parents ; for it appears in proof that in
size, complexion, stature, attitude, colour of the hair and
eyes, nay, in every other thing, Mignon and his wife, Sanry
and his spouse, were toto ccelo different from and unlike to
Sir John Steuart and Lady Jane Douglas. Among eleven
black rabbits there will scarce be found one to produce a
white one.
The respondents' cause has been well supported by the
ingenuity of its managers, and great stress has been laid
upon the not finding out where Madame Le Brune lived and
where the delivery was effected, but this is no way striking
if we consider that houses are frequently pulled down to make
way for streets, and houses are built upon the ground where
streets ran before. Of this there are daily examples in
this metropolis. However, we need enter into no arguments
of this kind, as there is a positive evidence before us. How
is it possible to credit the witnesses, some of them of a sacred
149
The Douglas Cause.
mt^ flAid character, when they speak of Lady Jane's virtues, provided
we can believe her to have been a woman of such abandoned
principles as to make a mock of religion, a jest of the sacrament,
a ecoflf of the most solemn oaths, and rush with a lie in her
mouth and perjury in her right hand into the presence of the
Judge of All, who at once sees the whole heart of man, and
from whose all discerning eye no secrecy can screen, before
whom neither craft nor artifice can avail, nor yet the ingenuity
and wit of lawyers can lessen or exculpate. On all which
accounts I am for finding the appellant to be the son of Lady
Jane Douglas.
Upon which judgment was given — " Die Lunee, 27th
February, 1769. Counsel being fully heard and debate had
in this Cause it is ordered and adjudged that the Interlocutor
complained of be reversed.*'
But the following Protest was entered : — " Die Lunse, 27
Februarii, 1769. Dissentient — Because, upon the whole of
the evidence, it appears to us that the appellant has not
proved himself to be the son of Lady Jane Douglas, and
consequently not entitled to the character of heir of tailzie
and provision to Archibald Duke of Douglas. Because we
are of opinion that it is proved that the appellant is not the
son of Lady Jane Douglas.
" Bedford.
" Bristol, C.P.S.
" Sandwich.
" DuNMORB.
"Milton."
The two reports of the speech of Lord Camden, the Lord Chancellor,
on the Douglas Cause in the House of Lords are so different that it
makes it advisable to give the second report from the Scots Magazine of
1769, p. 699. It is most probably the unrevised but perhaps more correct
report.
Lord My lords, I shall now take the liberty to submit to your
lordships what occurs to me upon the consideration of this
cause, which hath been pled at great length at the bar, and
hath been heard by your lordships with great patience and
attention. The rank in which I have the honour to sit in
this House will give such ground of expectation, as I am afraid
ISO
Speeches in the House of Lords.
it will be impossible for me to acquit myself to your lordships' ^J^^ggu^p.
satisfaction on this occasion. I am, however, happy in this
case, in the expectation of being heard by your lordships with
seriousness and attention. The impropriety of many argu-
ments entered into by the other lords that are not used to speak
in questions of this kind has made it necessary for me in
this case to say the more. I should have been glad to have
been relieved from the trouble of entering minutely into
every branch of this great cause. This I find is now un-
avoidable, and I am therefore under the necessity to beg your
lordships' indulgence while I go through the evidence, which
I will do as shortly as possible. I am satisfied that your
lordships will pay more regard to one of this House delivering
his opinion as a judge than to any of the counsel at the bar.
In delivering the grave sentiments of judges none in this
House dare wilfully to mistake the evidence, or to go beyond
the fact.
I come, my lords, to consider this cause with the most
perfect indifference. I am happy, my lords, in having no
connection whatever with any party on either side. I have
not now, nor had I ever, I protest, any reason or any wish,
as I believe none of your lordships have any wish whatever,
beyond that of justice being truly and impartially adminis-
tered. I confess I never was so much perplexed in fixing
my judgment in any question as in this cause. I was long
in forming any opinion; but this opinion being now formed,
your lordships will find it is, indeed, very positive, very clear.
In order to obtain this clearness, I have waded through more
intricacy and doubt than I ever before met with in my life. A
variety of circumstances arising almost upon every deposition
made each a separate cause ; every variation, every opposition,
in the evidence formed a several question. I have been en-
abled, by much thought and more than ordinary application,
to form a solid judgment, more from a careful perusal of the
whole evidence than from what passed at the bar. Though
much perplexed, the mind is at last worked up to an opinion ;
and an opinion when once so formed, after much study and
deliberation, is more likely to be lasting and permanent than
an opinion taken up suddenly and without much study.
I will now, my lords, endeavour to state the evidence, and
give you the grounds upon which my opinion is formed, with
as much clearness and gravity as if I was sitting below in the
151
Xhe Douglas Cause,
Lord Court of Chancery pronouncing my opinion upon the most
important cause.
If, my lords, I was possessed of the talent of eloquence
(which, I am sure, I am not) I know well this is not the place.
Your lordships are not the persons for eloquence to work upon.
Your lordships will fix your eyes upon the evidence, see the
cause throughout, abuse no person without cause, and spare
none that deserves censure. It is the glory of a Court of
justice to deal fairly and impartially, and not to discover
the least prejudice, prepossession, or partiality to either of
the parties.
I shall have no occasion, my lords, to give a detail of facts.
Your lordships are so well apprised of the whole facts in this
case that this has become totally unnecessary.
The first thing material in this cause is to state the question
truly in order to determine what shall be the rule of evidence
and the effect and application of such evidence. Much has
been said by the counsel at the bar, and much has been written
on the question concerning the onus probandi. Notwith-
standing the many learned hints that have been thrown out
on that head, it appears to me that in the examination of the
evidence this question is totally immaterial.
This has been admitted, and never denied, to be a solid
ground of decision : That every person who is fairly in
possession of a state of filiation cannot be dispossessed of that
state without clear, strong, and decisive evidence. If the
defender in the present case is fairly in this state of possession,
your lordships will then suppose everything in his favour, and
presume nothing to his disfavour.
What is it then that establishes the possession of filiation?
It is the acknowledgment of the parents, and habit and
repute.
The acknowledgment of the parents is in this case clear
beyond contradiction, from the very hour of the birth down
to the time of the mother's death. And that this acknowledg-
ment has been constant, uniform, and invariable is proved
by all the witnesses.
The habit and repute is not so clear, so indisputable, so
free from imputation as the acknowledgment of parents. I
am desirous to have it always solemn and uniform ; I wish
it was sullied by no calumny, blasted by no injurious reports.
In this case it has been said — and it must be admitted — that
xsa
Speeches in the House of Lords.
rumours did arise prejudicial to the real birth soon after Lady ^^^^^^^^^
Jane's delivery, and before her coming into Great Britain.
But, my lords, the ground of these rumours is known. They
have been traced to their source and origin. The same per-
sons who set up private and secret suspicions of the delivery,
and endeavoured to blast the reputation of the birth, thought
it necessary to shut the ears, as well as the doors, of the
Duke of Douglas against the mother and the children. I
think I am entitled to say upon the evidence in this cause
that those rumours were raised and propagated by the friends
of the family of Hamilton. This, in fact, is proved. Those
who saw Lady Jane in the first moments after her delivery,
those who saw her at Rheims, conversed with her in England,
and saw her in Scotland, both publicly and privately, did
really and truly believe that the children were hers and her
husband's. There is not a doubt but that the habit and
repute would have been complete if it had not been sullied by
those reports.
This makes it necessary to inquire how these rumours were
received. Who adopted any opinions upon such reports?
I shall be told that Mr. White of Stockbriggs, Mr. Stuart,
and several of the respondents adopted and believed them all
for truth. Admitting all the evidence that the cause is
burthened with on this head (and I have looked into the whole
evidence the respondents have adopted to show the reality
of these rumours and suspicions), taking the whole of this
evidence together, I believe there are not less than twenty-
three or twenty-four persons who speak to this particular.
But I can venture to affirm, from my own observation, that
about one-half of those, though they admit that such reports
prevailed, yet they did declare at the sanie time that they did
not believe one word of them. The remainder were not
examined as to their belief. The respondents durst not put
the question to them. This appearing in evidence, shall
it be said, my lords, that such a calumny, spread for evil
purposes and bad designs, which no person sincerely believed,
shall be admitted to destroy the reputation of the birth, and
turn a man out of the possession of his state? When I said
that none believed these reports, I should have excepted Mr.
Hamilton, who did believe the first story to the discredit of
the birth. But this same Mr. Hamilton, upon being better
informed, was perfectly convinced, and did believe, that the
153
The Douglas Cause,
Urd children were hers. There is hardly one witness to be found
so bold as to avow his belief of these reports. Such was
the character of Lady Jane (and character, my lords, is an
immense thing in cases of this kind), such was the goodwill
bore her by all mankind, that the moment she appeared with
her children in her hands all rumours disappeared ; there was
not a whisper to their prejudice. She carried them publicly
to the Assembly at Edinburgh, where they were received as
her children.
I do therefore fully conclude that the appellant's possession
of state stands established by habit and repute. And your
lordships will see it is a dangerous doctrine to say that the
child who has been acknowledged from the day of his birth
should lose the protection and advantage he is entitled to by
such acknowledgment, by the false breath of calumny spread
in the neighbourhood by interested persons for their own
purpose. Upon this foundation it is, that I will submit to
your lordships, that the habit and repute being sufficiently
clear, the appellant is entitled to all the advantages this
will afford him as to the onus probandiy and the whole, then,
will amount to this : that if the appellant had put his cause
altogether upon the acknowledgment of parents and upon
habit and repute, in that case the law would have called for
clear and positive evidence to have dispossessed him. But,
as I said before, I question whether this argument will be
very useful in managing the present proof, and that because
the appellant has not relied entirely upon the protection
arising from the acknowledgment of parents and from habit
and repute. He has sallied out of this line. He has gone
further ; he has undertaken to prove his mother's pregnancy
and delivery; and having proceeded upon that ground, I
apprehend it is now too late for the appellant to resort t©
habit and repute, and to rest his defence upon this only.
But still this may be laid down as a rule, that the appellant,
fortified with the recognition of his parents, and with habit
and repute, will be entitled, with these advantages, not only
to call upon the other side for strong and direct proof to the
contrary, but will be further entitled to every favourable
presumption in support of his birthright. The respondents,
on the other side, have no right to any favour whatever. The
respondents say that in this case there is such a chain of
evidence, such a train of circumstances, as are irresistible.
154
Speeches in the House of Lords.
These they have worked together with such industry and skill Lord
that the legal presumptions in favour of the appellant appear
weak, and his claim is made to totter. The respondents
have gone to positive and direct proof ; the appellant meets
them with such : in God's name, as the armies are fairly drawn
up, let us see on which side lies the strength of proof.
I shall now, my lords, come directly to the merits of the
cause. The facts under your lordships' consideration on both
sides are briefly these —
The appellant undertakes to prove Lady Jane's pregnancy,
her delivery, her reconvalescence, and her subsequent mis-
carriage at Rheims, together with all the other parts of the
case that fall in their proper course, until the last dying ex-
pressions of his father and mother. These are the branches
of his proof, and of these he is to satisfy your lordships.
The respondent, on the other side, says he will prove an
alibi : that Lady Jane could not be delivered at Le Bruno's,
because she was at Godefroi's at the time fixed for the de-
livery. This is a positive fact your lordships must be en-
tirely satisfied about. Another positive fact is, that Sir John
and Lady Jane stole two children, one in July, 1748, another
in November, 1749. These two are positive facts that must
necessarily be proved. Much has been said and insisted on
of what passed at Michelle's, of Lady Jane being in perfect
health there, and a thousand other circumstances that have
occurred in raking together the whole facts ; but I shall take
no notice of many of them.
In the first place, my lords, as to the pregnancy, this part
of the case has been managed, in my apprehension, in a very
singular manner. I observed, when I first read the respondents'
memorial and heard the counsel at the bar, that this fact
of the pregnancy was treated as being in its nature incapable
of proof. They have endeavoured to draw off your lordships'
attention from this part of the proof, and have attempted
throughout the whole to treat the pregnancy as separate and
distinct from the birth, and no wise connected with it. The
Solicitor-General went so far as to postpone the pregnancy to
the last part of his argument. The noble lord who spoke
before me endeavoured to produce authorities to show that
pregnancy was extremely difficult, if not incapable, of proof.
It appeared upon the whole evidence that the respondents
most anxiously desired an acquittal upon the article of preg-
155
The Douglas Cause.
ft VM tha, mj loid^ tiMt lad mb im to wmipeei
piBft : ifc iraA th» fn* put of tlM eMM tbttt
to throv t^ pngBABcj wrt of ^m ci— . WbT dk-
tkofaiitkt SumpooBOMbirtiritoolf
mad ^ko t^oMe of H «oi so door ob
oHf p«noii mj tiMt a ofeor proof of tke
m «ko proof of 1^ birth!
Mt tbo defireiy p i O Mi| yooo tho pngnoBcyf Are all
of pngMOKf to bo MJn^htfd beta oo o oaeo m taa tiioaHBd,
of tOMB, onoonMsoB mMj bo OBi
it is boni^ poBiible
IT bo a IbIbo oiMcep l io nt Is ttk mmj
itium for joor loidriiipB to reject tbo
of lhB|H«MM7f I
ttaft a proof of
aproof of MfOiv. dbat ttio artido vas of
I am Kjaah*
GvB ■» iBa^ to wmj tbai Abto Ib aoi obw ai^k
to ^Empnw ifc. Wbai Ib H Ibaft tbo ro-
icditbevpnBfoatUilHodf H Ibooo ^riio tnvclled
Ladf Jaao ia a eoacb, w^ saw bar or oua ro ta Bd wiOt
ber ia a p^tfe oaaapo^, or ^Ad kd^ m tbo an
MPfcr odcnd bar dkairiMr, if afl tben did aot
■«M of piifcOBiy, wbat iB Oo iafaraMof Ibi
o^ Oaft tbia Aooo Aero vaa aoi tmrn tbo appoanMo of
SaawTf . Haw ia it poodblo tba^
hf tbat of Sb- GoBiS^ CMq^oM aad otbon. What |
giroaf SkB ia am i j ipiiiiMUM l ladbf, wbo
of ber ova; aho waa Mhaittwi to aa
M7 viA Lady^ JaM» aiod I
Aix ia Mkf. 1748 ; Ae vaa bi
l&aft codi bo RMind of a
Speeches in the House of Lords.
am hadj Ja^s hdlj mn
Ldidj Jane iw <Mft of bed.
of Mn. Bmrit nd Xn. Walks k A» wamm, m far
A» ImIL. I wmM dedm to kaov, hj kidi^ kow
the III M 1IBI i M iB l^ gradMl — Ufaft rf Ike la i if i , Aa
of Ae ^ild, tke
proved ia Ikie
«f Ae
to tte UdL U
tke
«^7 aa I17
leal
an naeak to tibe
Oe
iMr
of a
r, am !■■■■■! iil aft tta kerf Bo;
fiverf, a^ Ikaft Aqr aliife tmm
I
The Douglas Cause.
Chaiceiior ^^^^ ^^^^ ^®^* Rheims, if she was not pregnant, what was
the disorder she laboured under that occasioned such enor-
mous swelling 1 At Michelle's she was slender, taper, and flat-
breasted. Every argument the counsel used to prove a
fictitious pregnancy are evidences of a real one; for the
respondents admit the appearances of swelled breasts and a
swelled waist, and I should be glad to know by what trick
and contrivance Lady Jane got rid of these troublesome com-
panions in less than a fortnight. I say, my lords, it was a
million to one if she was not pregnant. And the unavoidable
consequence of this pregnancy must be either a miscarriage or
delivery, for the preconception must somehow or other be
disposed of. Give me leave to say, my lords, that the on/us
probandi lies upon the respondents in this particular. The
respondents' counsel saw this, and they knew that nothing less
than evidence amounting almost to demonstration could over-
throw so solid a proof of pregnancy.
But, my lords. Lady Jane's motions have occasioned the
darkness and obscurity that appear in this case. She set
out for Paris on the 2nd of July; she departed from Rheims
with Sir John, and came to the house of Mons. Godefroi ;
from thence she goes to Le Brune's, where she is delivered by
La Marre. There are some things, to be sure, not easily to
be accounted for. That Lady Jane should leave Rheims so
near the time of her delivery and hurry herself to Paris; that
she should leave her servants behind ; that she should after-
wards go to an unknown place without any previous prepara-
tion ; that she should entrust herself to the care of such a
person as La Marre (who is now unfortunately dead) ; and
that Madame Le Brune, at whose house she was delivered, can-
not now be discovered, these are things, my lord, which I am
ready to admit, made a strong impression upon me; they
were circumstances that made me look with a jealous eye upon
the event of the delivery; they made me wish I could trace
Lady Jane to the very bed where she was delivered, to see the
house, and to be able to produce the physician. But this I
could not do. Yet, notwithstanding the difficulties that stand
in the way, let us endeavour to bring light out of darkness
the best way we are able. Let us consider what proof has
been produced, and at the same time reflect that at this
distance of time the appellant lies under great disadvantages
to make good that which does not lie within his own know-
158
Speeches in the House of Lords.
ledge; especially now that the parties themselves, and ^^s* oS'^geiijvp
part of the witnesses are dead, and no satisfaction can be had
unless it was possible to summon their ghosts to attend.
In considering the evidence that has been produced with
respect to the birth, your lordships will give me leave to see
Jiow Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit have stated that
fact. It was affirmed as a fact in England very soon after
they returned from abroad that Lady Jane was delivered of
twins, by one Pier La Marre, an accoucheur; and that after
the delivery the youngest of these twins, who was weak and
puny, was put to nurse, and intrusted to the care of this Pier La
Marre. Now, that this is the very story given out at home
is proved by every one of the witnesses — Sir John, Lady Jane,
and Mrs. Hewit repeatedly told it. The very forged letters
themselves tell this tale. The memorandums or notes given
by Sir John to Mrs. Napier show the same. And here it
is not worth while to dispute one way or other whether one
of the notes in question was contained in the list of papers
delivered by Mr. Orr to Mr. Brown (xxvi. 383), or whether
the note indorsed on the draught of Lady Jane's will was
■copied from one of Sir John's handwriting, or taken from
Lady Jane's own mouth (xxv. 23). This dispute has taken
up a volume, and is totally immaterial. It is enough for
me to say that in England, in Scotland, and abroad the same
story is adopted, without any communication or intercourse,
without sending a message, or without having any confirming
testimony to support it. I will admit they are bound to
prove it. They can now advance no other. But, my lords,
if it should be found by evidence, by other evidence than
the persons who told this story, that a foreigner, unacquainted
or unconnected with the parties, had, at the distance of ten
years, and in another country, told the same story more than
once, I say, should this foreigner, upon examination, tell
exactly the same story, with all its several circumstances, I
would then ask your lordships this single question. Are both
the tales invention? It is impossible, my lords, to say that
this man could invent a story so punctually alike, and that
no part of the same story thus invented in different parts
of the world should prove true. Nothing less than omniscience
could do this. The consideration of this has stilled my mind
more than any other ; that when I see a credible witness in
France, without tampering in any sort, give the same his-
159
The Douglas Cause.
Utfd torical account of the birth that Sir John and Lady Jane have
done, then I throw aside a thousand particulars related by Sir
John. I care not whether they be true or no in every par-
ticular circumstance ; the solid foundation, the main substance ia
true; and I don't weigh slight circumstances when the most
material are confirmed by such credible evidence.
I confess, my lords, that this part of the case struck m&
much. I read it more than once, and laboured much on both
sides, until I came to consider the evidence of Mons. Menager,
the single credit of whose testimony I dare venture to affirm,
stands fairer than any other that has been examined in this
cause; nor is there a witness in the whole list of them whose-
credit is so pure, so untainted, so free from reproach, so much
omni exceptione major. I heard with attention all that the
noble lord said about it, and I observed the indefatigable
industry of the counsel at the bar to wrest his testimony and
shake his credit. But Mr. Menager will for ever stand the
test, because his deposition in this cause is punctually the
same with the first information given by this witness, at a
time when he was unknown by all the parties. It is seldom
such evidence is to be found, and your lordships must deem
it to be authentic, and clear from all brass and corruption.
In most cases it is impossible to come at the sight of the first
original information given by witnesses ; most part of them
are kept close, the witnesses are practised upon, they come
to be heated with the cause, they gain prejudices and partiali-
ties, and though there is no corruption, yet a partiality will
take place, and therefore it is very difficult to find a witness
free from all objections. But in this case Mr. Menager gave
the first information and the same account to the respondents'^
own agent, Mr. Andrew Stuart.
I now mention his name for the first time. I have not
spoken of the monitoire and of his other proceedings in this
cause, nor of the Tournelle process ; for though I am of opinion
that this was as foul a practice as ever was exercised in any
civilised country, yet I did not care to rip up that sore afresh
and hurt a gentleman here with the reflections I must make
upon it, because it does not seem to go to the heart and merits
of the question. I really do not know who this Mr. Andrew
Stuart is. I observe a marvellous attachment to this gentle-
man, a most unaccountable anxiety for any things that may
touch his character. I observed an anxiety of the counsel
i6o
Speeches in the House of Lords.
at the bar to vindicate him, forgetting their clients' cause for Lord
-r . , . , 1 ii • Chaneellop
two hours together. I don t know what sacredness there is
about this gentleman. This I know very well, that whenever
a cause requires it, Mr. Andrew Stuart must be content to
hear such observations as the evidence in the cause makes
it necessary for the judges or the counsel to throw out. I
shall not, from any misguided lenity or indulgence, spare the
least reflection that I find necessary upon him or any other
person in this cause.
I see Mr. Andrew Stuart, in the early part of this business,
in the year 1762, meeting with Mons. Gilles and Mons.
Menager, when they had not seen any other person concerned
in this cause. The noble lord who spoke last, if he had ex-
amined the evidence with attention, would have found that Mr.
Manager never saw Mr. Murray till some months after this ;
nay, he had never seen Mr, Murray until he had seen him at
the Duchess of Douglas's, who had sent for him on that occa-
sion. My lords, until he had seen Mr. Andrew Stuart he
had seen nobody. Mr. Menager had no desire to appear as
an evidence. He told Mr. Andrew Stuart that he was well
acquainted with Mons. La Marre, that Mons. La Marre
acquainted him, in the year 1748, that he had brought a
foreign lady to bed of twins ; that the lady was advanced in
years, and came last from Rheims. Mons. Gilles repeated
exactly the same thing to Mr. Stuart. This was unlucky
evidence for Mr. Andrew Stuart's cause, for it cut up his
whole hypothesis by the root. It produces a La Marre ; it
produces a Le Brune; it brings two persons into existence to
whom he had denied any existence whatever. I had under-
stood from Mr. Andrew Stuart, and his counsel averred it, that
when he went to France he went in search of truth, that truth
was his object, and whenever he found her she was to be taken
up ; that he even wished to find truth in favour of Lady Jane.
But if this was really the case, if character was to be pre-
served, why conceal the evidence of Mons. Menager and Gilles?
Mons. Menager's evidence is left to shift for itself; the whole
fltory is thrown upon Mr. Stuart, and I call upon him to dis-
prove it. Menager, in 1764, swears he told it him two years
before — this makes it months befoi'e any person applied to
him on the part of the appellant. He swore it directly in
Mr. Andrew Stuart's face. If this was true, it confirms and
'established the credibility of Mr. Menager's evidence beyond
i6i
The Douglas Cause,
Jgjd contradiction. If it was false, it was incumbent on Mr
Stuart to come into Court to deny it. Yet he does not da
80. Mr. Menager comes, and says to his face, " I related this
to you two years ago." Mr. Stuart stood by him and says
nothing, therefore he admits it.
I know it may be said — and it has been boldly said at the
bar — that Menager was contradicted by Mons. Gilles. But
Gilles, my lords, is made to unswear what he had formerly
told Mr. Stuart. How is this proved? Why thus, my lords.
In the year 1763, when Mons. Gilles was first heard of, the
appellant's agent spoke to one Mons. Mornad, to inquire of
Gilles all he knew of this matter. This gentleman, not being
acquainted with Gilles, desired one Mons. Moreau to do it.
This gentleman accordingly put down certain questions upoa
paper, and they were produced, and shown to Gilles. He
answered, " I do remember Mons. La Marre. I know he was
connected with a Madame Le Brune. I know he told me he
delivered a foreign lady of twins in the year 1748. I know
he also told me she was delivered in the house of Madame Le
Brune ; but I do not know this Madame Le Brune." These words-
are taken down in writing from Gilles's own mouth by Mons.
Moreau. How comes it to pass, my lords, that Gilles is not
called upon to give evidence by Mr. Andrew Stuart? How
comes it he denies the answers he gave to the questions put by
Mons. Moreau? Will it be saying too much, my lords, to say
that this witness is flatly perjured? He must have a reward
somewhere ; for no man commits perjury gratis ; where is the
man that commits such iniquity for the pleasure of doing it
only? I will venture to say he could not be bribed by any
of the appellant's agents. So far I will go, and no further.
But this is not all. My lords, there is another witness^
Fran9ois, the brother of Pierre La Marre. He is examined
originally by Mr. Andrew Stuart, too. He told him that his
brother had connections with Madame Le Brune. He told
nearly the same tale to two gentlemen that went over to France
on the part of Mr. Douglas. This Fran9ois La Marre, after
having told this story to both parties, came to be sworn in
Court, and he denies it all upon oath. How came it to pass
that Le Brune should be entirely forgotten upon this second
examination? Why does he run away without signing his
deposition? I cannot account for it.
There is another part of the case similar to this. Madame-
Z62
Speeches in the House of Lords.
Le Brune, in St. Germain, knew a Madame Fountain, who told Lord
her of a delivery in the house of one Le Brune, in the Rue de la
Comedie. She had a conversation concerning this in presence
of several gentlemen, and four days after she denied every
word she had said. My lords, I do not like this; I have a
right to say, as a judge, I do not like it. It speaks strongly of
some improper management on that side of the question ;
an endeavour, if possible, to suppress the truth. It is im-
possible otherwise to account for the hidden silence, the false-
hood, and perjury of Gilles and La Marre.
Menager is uniform on every occasion. He is examined the
first time, and is then strictly cross-examined by Andrew
Stuart; he is tried in every shape; he is again called upon and
examined for two days together. The examination was nothing
to the purpose ; it was merely calculated to bring out some little
collateral circumstances to which other witnesses had been
examined. It was all an engine made to entrap an honest witness.
Besides, my lords, examine yourselves touching any material
fact twelve years back ; was it this month 1 in such a company ?
was it in that place? before Christmas? or after Christmas? Is
there a man living, let his memory be ever so retentive, let the
images of things be ever so strong, that can recollect every
fact at that distance of time, with all its concomitant circum-
sftances? This man, when he comes to be worked, twisted, and
tortured, yet falls into no errors, except some little inaccuracies
as to time and place in particulars of no consequence. They
mostly regard his being recommended to Mons. d'Argenson.
This is a capital objection. Another is, that it is impossible
Mons. Menager could have had the information of a foreign
lady's delivery from La Marre at a collation at the Hotel Dieu
in 1748; for this does not correspond in point of time, because
La Marre had been turned out of the hospital before the year
1748, and could not be admitted to a collation, after supper,
when the doors were shut. This is another critical objection
which depends upon a fact not in proof as to the time of eating
collations in the hospital. A third relates to the reading the
books and papers that were published in France concerning the
cause, which is frivolous to the last degree.
Now, my lords, you have everything in Menager's evidence
but the name of Lady Jane. He says that La Marre told him
he had delivered a foreign lady, last from Rheims, of twins.
163
The Douglas Cause.
Lord The noble lord who spoke last said — Why apply the denomina-
ChaneelloF ^.^^ ^^ ^ foreign lady to Lady Jane in this case and not apply
it to the enlevement of Mignon's child? for, as he was stolen
by a foreigner, I should be at liberty, on the other side, to
apply it to Sir John Steuart. But, my lords, the cases are by
no means similar. In the case of the delivery, the evidence of
Menager coincides with direct positive testimony. It is sup-
ported by Lady Jane, Sir John Steuart, and Mrs. Hewit. For
that reason the application of the foreign lady is just, and
you are bound to believe it. In the other case of the enlevement
you have nothing but mere conjecture. The name of
foreigner may apply to thousands; and you are not at liberty,
upon that, to charge any one particular person with a foul and
atrocious crime. In Menager's evidence, as I have already
said, you have everything but the name of the foreign lady;
you have her delivered of twins by La Marre; you have one of
these twins entrusted to the care of La Marre; can this have
happened to two women upon the face of God Almighty's earth?
It is absolutely impossible; and therefore it is impossible to
pronounce a verdict to the contrary. The evidence of Menager
therefore proves the delivery materially and substantially, just
as it is related by the witnesses in England. I never could or
ever shall be able to get rid of the strong impressions these
extraordinary circumstances made upon me; keeping this in
view, I can easily get rid of all minute objections. I can make
allowance for a thousand little circumstances. I see this at
once, that God Almighty has so disposed of human affairs as
to make it utterly impossible for two persons in different
countries, at one and the same time, to make two stories both
to coincide. God forbid it should. It would make a world of
confusion. Nothing else than omniscience could do this.
I hope, therefore, my lords, I have now lodged Lady Jane
at Le Bruno's house ; and now I shall be at liberty to ask some
questions concerning this La Marre. It has been said that he
is not Sir John Steuart' s La Marre. He is not the La Marre that
brought Lady Jane to bed. But, my lords, this does not at all
destroy the identity of the person. Sir John does not destroy
his existence, though he mistakes particulars. His information
at the bottom may be true, though his declaration in some
things may be false.
It has been said that La Marre was not a surgeon of any
X64
Speeches in the House of Lords.
considerable eminence. To be sure he was not. That Le Brune Lord
was not a person of any considerable rank. So far, to be sure,
they say right. Nor could her name be found in any of the
registers, or even in the capitation books. How, then, could
Lady Jane condescend to be delivered by such a person as La
Marre, and in such a house as Le Brune's? These things engaged
me to look a little into the state of Sir John's finances at that
time, and this gave me a satisfactory answer to these and other
grand difficulties that are to be found in this cause. I find Sir
John had stretched his credit to the utmost at Aix. When he
went to Rheims he had only a credit for £75 or thereabout.
It appears by a letter produced that Lady Wigton had made
a pressing demand on Sir John for fifty louis-d'ors she had lent
him. Several letters passed on this occasion. In her last letter
she tells him she is on her journey to Rheims, and expects the
money. So low at last is he reduced as to be forced to draw a
bill for a quarter of Lady Jane's pension, though not due. So
far from abounding in riches, it appears he had just enough to
keep them from starving. Yet amidst this poverty Lady Jane's
pride was not in any degree abated; even to the last it was not
abated ; for it is proved that, in the year before her death, her
poverty made her ashamed of her rank, and she travelled under
the feigned name of Brown from Edinburgh to London, and was
alone, without any servant, during the whole of her journey.
My lords, pride and poverty are very bad companions; and,
whenever they meet together, there is nothing so much dreaded
as public inspection. The persons in whom they are united will
submit to anything in the world rather than discover their
situation. It appears to have been Lady Jane's intention, and
she thought it better, to conceal herself in some unknown comer
in Paris, than expose herself to the world or be seen by any-
body but those about her. If that was so, it will well account
for the reason why she did not bring her maids with her from
Rheims. She was averse even to their seeing the wretchedness
to which she was reduced. There was, no doubt, a concealment
and mystery. In such a case there are always false pretences
and shifting of things. The real situation cannot otherwise be
covered. But I think, my lords, the whole of this mystery and
concealment may be fairly attributed to Lady Jane's pride and
poverty.
I come now, my lords, to consider the evidence of the alibi.
165
The Douglas Cause.
Lord If the alibi is clear, the birth must be false: they are in direct
Chancellor vl- ^ .i t> . t i .• ,. i -,
opposition to one another. But I hope to satisfy your lord-
ships that the residence at Godefroi's was a new hypothesis
that never sprung up in the respondents' imagination until near
the close of the examination of the witnesses in July, 1765. I
will show your lordships that all the witnesses examined before-
Christmas, 1764, apply to the first plan of a residence at
Michelle's at the time of the delivery ; all after it to the new
plan of a residence at Godefroi's. When the first plan was forced
to be abandoned, this new plan is taken up from necessity.
This is one of the most extraordinary parts of the respondents*^
conduct. My observations must here fall upon Mr. Andrew
Stuart ; and I cannot, nor will I, spare him or stifle my opinion
of his proceedings in this affair. What was the first plan
adopted by the respondents, and which continued to be their
plan for two years together 1 It was this, that Sir John Steuart
and Lady Jane came to Paris, and put up at Godefroi's on the
4th of July, where they remained to the 8th; that on the 8th
they departed and took lodgings at Michelle's ; and remained at
Michelle's, with a double abode, as they call it, till a child was
found to suit their purpose. The capital part of this plan was
the departure from Godefroi's and the entry at Michelle's. Your
lordships will observe, the plan being once taken and the dates
fixed, all the sinews are strained, all the witnesses are led, to-
meet this hypothesis and to close in with it in their evidence.
Mr. Andrew Stuart, when he saw Michelle's books, considered
and inspected them with close attention, and believed verily
that the entry on the 8th July was the handwriting of Sir John
Steuart, for he had frequently seen him write. He does not
swear to this, but his solemn asseveration is equivalent. For
how does this affect the people at Michelle's house? They think,
according to the best of their memories, that it was the gentle-
man who wrote it, for they did not write it themselves. The-
books were then carried to the Tournelle, and there locked up.
And this is the evidence then given : if Lady Jane was at
Michelle's on the 8th, it was impossible she could be brought to
bed on the 10th at Le Brune's. This, therefore, if true, was a
lucky hit. The time was only to be filled up till they all
departed at the end of the month. Blainville says that she
had no communication with them for the first eight days after
they came to Michelle's ; that at the end of eight days they
i66
Speeches in the House of Lords.
brought a child, and two or three days after they made a Lord
-r-r • ■, Till t Cnaneeiloi?'
journey to Versailles; she says she went and asked leave of
the lady to whom she was engaged to be absent eight days,
and that she stayed till these were expired. Breval says it
was eight days before the child was brought. The Michelles'
account, when first examined in the Tournelle, coincides with
Blainville and Breval, and fixes their habitation at their house
before the child was bom. This account takes up no less than
three weeks, most evidently with a view to their first plan of
their going to that house on the 8th of July. But when Mr.
Andrew Stuart thought fit to change this plan, and to fix their
evidence at Godefroi's until the 14th, when the Michelles are
examined after Christmas, they swore that the very day after
Sir John and Lady Jane's arrival they brought a child, and
that two or three days after they made their journey to Ver-
sailles. Thus the Michelles, who had extended the stay at their
house to three weeks in order to serve the first plan, now confine
it to one. Everything is now crammed into one week which
formerly took up three. I never, in the whole course of my
life, saw such a knot of witnesses. Nurse Favre, in her first
information, tells Mr. Andrew Stuart, if you believe him, that
the child was three months old. She is examined after in the
Tournelle, and there swears it was six weeks or two months old
when brought to Michelle's. But after Mignon's child was dis-
covered it became necessary to ascertain the exact age of the
child with more precision. The account she then gives is that
the child must be three weeks old. First it was three months
old, then she swears to six weeks or two months, then, the plan
being changed, another child is introduced upon the stage, and
this alters it to three weeks; shifting and turning the evidence
to every new hypothesis, so as to leave it not the least degree
of credit whatever.
Now, my lords, we come to examine the second hypothesis,
of the residence at Godefroi's at the time of the birth. Now,
your lordships will attend closely. Convincing and satisfactory
evidence must come home; for this second hypothesis is of
itself enough to overturn the whole fabric of the cause, to set
at naught all the evidence of the pregnancy, to destroy all the
evidence of the habit and repute. This, my lords, is the
substance of it.
At the end of two years a new plan, not dreamed of before,
167
The Douglas Cause.
^i is adopted, and a very singular one it was when your lordships
consider it. Your lordships will very well remember that Sir
John had taken another lodging at Michelle's on the 8th of July.
Upon the first plan he could not remain a minute longer at
Godefroi's; but Godefroi swore that they continued at his
house from the 4th to the 14th of July. To reconcile this fact,
perjury is introduced to support their new hypothesis. We
are now upon ^ evidence that depends upon memory. At first
Godefroi and his ■ wife do not remember Sir John Steuart,
though he was recommended to them by Mens. Mallifer at
Rheims. It does not appear that, from the moment of their
coming there to their departure, Godefroi ever spoke to Sir
John Steuart, nor to this hour does he know his person, nor
the two ladies, neither the one nor the other. Sir John and
two ladies came to their house in 1748; and, fifteen years after,
when they are called upon to say if they know anything of them,
they declare, in their first examination, that they do not pretend
to have any knowledge of them. Here, then, some art must be
used, some artifice must be contrived, to enlarge their memory.
They are told, it will be too long for you to remember particular
persons at such a distance of time ; how can. you remember them
when you have such a multitude of guests perpetually at your
house? It would have been marvellous, indeed, if any person
would have been hardy enough to have charged his memory
with a fact of this sort. Godefroi, therefore, has attempted
to do it by the help of his books. Let us see, then, how this
is to be done in such a manner as to be clear of all objection;
for here there is no room for conjecture. Show me how your
house was filled on the 4th of July; what was the company on
the 8th; show me the account of their expenses. The book
containing the names of the lodgers is produced, and the book
of the expenses; but the book of expenses contains no account
which they can expressly bring home to Sir John Steuart.
Many articles are set down in an account blank in the name,
but they cannot from memory apply it to Sir John and his
company. What is, then, to be done? Instead of applying
this blank account as they ought, they take another method.
They examine the book of lodgers and the book of expenses
together, and then say that this blank account must apply to
Sir John Steuart, because it is applicable to no other company
mentioned in the book of lodgers. But, my lords, it will be
x68
Speeches in the House of Lords.
found upon examination that the book of lodgers and the book Lord
containing the account of household expenses are equally in-
complete and erroneous; for it is admitted that many of the
persons entered in the book of lodgers are not to be found in the
book of expenses; and, what is still stronger, it appears that,
in May, 1766, when the Godefrois were first examined, they
only produced one book, and they have spoken of it in their
deposition so as to mislead every person, to believe that this was
the only book of expenses they have. This book, however,
does not give any account of a thousand things. On the close
of the examination of the witnesses, when they came to be
examined finally, they say there is another book, and they
produce it. Even this book does not mend the matter; both
taken together do not contain a complete account of the house-
hold expenses. When one book is suppressed and another
shown as a complete book of expenses, it may well be supposed
a third still exists. The whole evidence arising from these
books is a great deal too loose; it is not to be depended on or
believed. The evidence of the Godefrois, who have actually per-
jured themselves to support their books, going upon the strength
of memory alone after such a distance of time, and then coupled
with their books, is totally inconclusive. There is that evidence
arising from the books, if any credit was to be given them,
that makes it more probable that Sir John must have left the
house before the 11th; for, if Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs.
Hewit had been in the house when visa of the 11th is marked
by the inspecteur de police, it was impossible they should omit
Mrs. Hewit. But, in fact, they were gone. The whole, in
short, is too uncertain evidence to prove an alibi against the
birth, where the pregnancy is proved beyond the possibility of
contradiction, and where other matters equally important will
appear to be equally well proved.
The noble lord who spoke before me, and, indeed, the counsel
at the bar, acknowledged that the evidence upon Mignon's child
brought nothing home directly and positively to Sir John Steuart
and Mrs. Hewit. There is, indeed, a chasm in the evidence of
the enlevements which cannot be filled up by conjecture. It is
impossible to do it. You must bring home the evidence to the
person charged when, the state of a man is to be decided. A
probable coincidence of features and a thousand other circum-
stances are all wide and short of the mark if any chasm is left
169
The Douglas Cause.
ChaneelloF ^ ^® fiUed up by conjecture. Reflect for a moment what would
be the consequence if this doctrine was to be shaken. Instead
of going secundum allegata et probata, instead of considering
the proof of facts as charged, every man must be told that he is
to go according to his belief and opinion. But this, my lords,
is a false, iniquitous, and dangerous position. When once you
depart from that most sacred rule, one man will be satisfied
with slight proof,, another will want stronger, and the measure
of evidence is left uncertain. But, my lords, the law says,
let the fact itself be proved as it is charged ; upon your oath you
are to determine according to the evidence, and it only must
decide. I have no doubt, my lords, but that there are many
honest persons on the side of the respondents that will swear that
they believe that Mignon's child was stolen by Sir John Steuart.
But I will tell them, let their belief be what it may, that, if
they should so decide upon oath upon the evidence before us,
they will be perjured. Attend, my lords, for a moment to the
condescendence or particulars of facts given into Court relative
to the Mignon and Sanry^s children. I will be bold to say that,
in any Court of justice in England, the proof brought of this
condescendence would have been rejected the moment it
appeared. The respondents upon this proof state all the facts
relative to Mignon and Sanry's children; and, when they have
gone through the whole evidence, they stop short and say they
are sure such children were carried off at the critical periods
they have mentioned. They do not say that the appellant is
the son of Mignon; but, in order to steal this enlevement into
the cause, they state it in as strong a light as possible. In the
condescendence of factis they charge directly Sir John Steuart
as the person who stole Sanry's child; but the evidence is so
far from coming up to the charge that the respondents' counsel
were forced, in spite of themselves, to give up the application
of this enlevement to Sir John Steuart. I do not like this, my
lords. Why introduce either of those enlevements? Most
certainly for no other purpose than to fill up a chasm. Why
attempt to support evidence by a calculation of chances? a new
and scandalous attempt never before heard of in any Court
of justice ! If there had been any shadow of real evidence they
would have been ashamed to have called in this to their aid.
But I will mention two or three facts relative to Mignon 's
child. All the witnesses who were first examined as to this
170
Speeches in the House of Lords.
•enlevement fix it to the 11th of July. This was done to corre- Lord
„ , . . - "^ -tr- ^ ii , 1-1 i Chancellop
spend to the time of their residence at Michelle s, which was at
the first fixed on the 8th. But, when it was resolved to continue
their residence at Godefroi's till the 14th, your lordships see
it was iftipossible to maintain that Mignon's child could have
heen stolen upon the 11th. In the year 1765 the plan, therefore,
is totally changed, and the evidence of Mignon and his family
must be accommodated to this new plan. They and other
witnesses had spoken to the feast of St. Clair as a remarkable
period which led them to remember the time of carrying away
the child. This feast usually happens on the 18th of July,
and so it was allowed to stand till it became necessary to accom-
modate the time of stealing the child to the second hypothesis.
It was then discovered that the feast of St. Clair did not happen
that year till the 22nd of July. Your lordships will consider
how the evidence is then managed. The age of the child had
been carried into the monitoire by Mr. Andrew Stuart. It
had been sworn to by the witnesses. All that was left was to
carry forward the date of the feast of St. Clair; and the wit-
nesses, in fact, carry forward this day, without carrying forward
the age of the child. I must again assert I never saw such foul
practice in shifting and managing evidence — no, never since I
was born. There is not one witness that does not stand per-
jured on his own evidence. They perpetually shift their plan,
from Godefroi to Nurse Favre; I will not except one. Mignon
and his family, and the other witnesses to the enlevement, all
swear that the child had blue eyes. All the witnesses at Rheims
that saw the appellant said he had black or grey eyes. To
reconcile this there is an examination of a great many witnesses
to prove that blue eyes may change to black. I admit they
may change greatly in a course of years, but most certainly
they could not change from blue to grey or to black in so short
a time as six weeks. The Mignons first swear to a period that
comprehends the transactions of three weeks. Blainville joins
them. She is led and conducted throughout; there is not a
word of truth in what she says of this matter. All of them
swear to the journey to Versailles, and Mrs. Hewitts evidence
has been more impeached on account of this journey than any-
thing. But, my lords, I will set her credit against the Michelles,
Blainvilles, and the whole troop of them, notwithstanding all
that has been said by the gentlemen at the bar to the contrary.
171
The Douglas Cause.
Lord^ The Michellee are perjured, Blainville is doubly perjured, the
perukemaker, too, is certainly perjured; the whole evidence as
to this part of the cause is contaminated.
A noble lord who spoke before me said that when Mrs. Hewit,
the principal witness, is detected in so gross a falsehood in her
evidence, it taints the whole. I shall never agree, my lords,
that Mrs. Hewit's evidence shall weigh one moment in com-
petition with ^Blainville, and such a troop of witnesses. I will
suppose anything rather than suppose Mrs. Hewit to be per-
jured. I shall suppose that Blainville invented the story of
the journey to Versailles to excuse her not coming to her mis-
tress's service on the day she had appointed. Your lordships
will find that the other witnesses mostly speak of this journey
from her report. If, my lords, the fact is proved (as in my
apprehension it is) that Lady Jane was brought to bed on the
10th of July, I will give credit to no facts spoken to by sus-
pected witnesses inconsistent with this most essential part of
the proof; and, upon my word, my lords, the more I examine
the proof the less credit I can give to the evidence of this
journey to Versailles. There is another circumstance I have
forgotten to mention : your lordships will remember that, in
the year 1756, inquiries were made by Principal Gordon at
Paris in consequence of the note delivered by Sir John Steuart
to Mrs. Napier. At that time the Michelles, when totally un-
connected with the parties, told Principal Gordon that the lady
kept her bed and appeared like one lately delivered. This is the
general, natural account given by the Michelles recently after
the fact happened, and years before this suit was thought of.
How can that possibly be reconciled with the account the same
witnesses afterwards gave of this matter ? How is it possible to
give credit to the journey to Versailles? In this cause, when-
ever I meet with a witness irreproachable in character, who
has spoken honestly in the cause, I have accounted it as a jewel
in my mind. Mrs. Hewit is such a witness.
I shall now, my lords, say one word or two about the mis-
carriage at Rheims. I think it is clearly proved, and I will
tell your lordships why it so appears to me. Before any
person had appeared on the part of the appellant, Mr. Andrew
Stuart had been all over the ground. Nurse Mangin was his
own witness. She was examined in the Tournelle. I will give
credit to her, notwithstanding the indigent and miserable con-
dition he now describes her to have been in. She gives a
172
Jvi/utJ^. ^^rr^^y • 1-uHluf l^^T^^rt V4/UM
Portion of Lord Bliock's Notes in the Douglas Cause.
In the possessdon of G. D. Veitch, Esq. of Eliock.
Speeches in the House of Lords.
most pointed and distinct account of this miscarriage and of ^ord^^^^^^
the size of the child. Isabel Walker has sworn to this very
same miscarriage. Some objections have been taken to this
miscarriage, as confounded in point of time with other mis-
carriages spoken to by some witnesses ; but this stands separately
proved by clear evidence, and I see no reason why this one
should be rejected, because there are others spoken to by some
witness from report or from a faint recollection of what passed
at such a distant period.
When they were at Rheims, my lords, there are several wit-
nesses who have sworn that Sir John Steuart received letters
from La Marre, who had the care of the youngest child. Lady
Rutlidge has sworn that Lady Jane anxiously expected such
letters, and that Sir John went frequently to the post office
to inquire for them, and on one occasion brought a letter, which
she heard read. Miss Primrose has sworn, too, to Sir John's
receiving such letters, and that when she went to Paris with
Lady Wigton she believed there was an address given Lady
Wigton so as she might inquire concerning Sholto, though
she does not know whether she saw the child, as she was
confined by illness during the most part of her stay at Paris.
My lords, in the situation wherein Sir John and Lady Jane
were at Rheims, is it possible to believe that, being possessed
of one promising child, they should return to Paris to steal
another child? and, what is wonderful, that they should im-
mediately find a child to their wish, answering the description
they had given of the second child to all their friends and in
all their letters? That he should be a weak and puny child,
and exactly corresponding in age, and, above all, the very
picture of Lady Jane, the very image, the most perfect
resemblance? This circumstance of the likeness is sworn to in
the most particular manner by above twenty witnesses, and
deserves the greatest weight. This is a wonderful incident.
It is an impression stamped by God Himself to prove the
legitimacy of the child. This circumstance alone would over-
turn any evidence less strong than demonstration.
With respect to the time of the enlevement of Saury's child,
it certainly does not answer to the time when Sir John and
Lady Jane were at Paris. The time when Saury's child was
stolen is not to this day proved. Most probably it was not
till the beginning of January, when the letter was written by
the cure de St. Laurent. I desire to know, was it between
M 173
The Douglas Cause.
Lord the 23rd and 29th of November, or what day was it? It is
admitted that Sir John left Rheims the 29th of November,
and must have returned from Paris some days before his de-
parture. If he returned before the 14th the matter is put
beyond dispute, for Duvernes did not enter to the Croix de
Fer till the 14th at soonest, and the enlevement could not
be till some days after. In fact, if Sir John left Rheims on
1st or 2nd of November, immediately after receiving the money
from Lord Morton, he might have returned before the 14th,
and I see no reason to believe the contrary. Benoit's books
are a strong proof of this. The payment is stated to be
made by Sir John Steuart himself upon the 14th of November,
and the books must be supposed true until it be shown that the
payment was made by some other person in his name, which
is not presumable, nor even probable.
I cannot, upon the whole of the evidence brought by the
respondents in this cause, hesitate one moment to conclude
that the alibi at Godefroi's is clearly disproved; that the two
enlevements stand unsupported by any colour of evidence to
affect Sir John and Lady Jane Steuart; that, on the other
hand, the pregnancy is proved by clear, positive, and in-
vincible evidence; and that it is in no particular disproved
by the negative evidence offered by the respondents, or shaken
by anything said by their counsel at the bar, or insisted on in
their long, elaborate memorial, which is the finest performance
of sophistry I ever read. I am therefore of opinion that the
delivery, thus supported by the proof of pregnancy, by the
positive testimony of Sir John Steuart and Mrs. Hewit, and
by a thousand collateral circumstances, is established beyond
a doubt, and that the appellant must be deemed the genuine
son of Lady Jane Douglas.
But, my lords, I have to add further some most convincing
evidence. I feel myself, and am persuaded your lordships
must feel the evidence I am now going to mention.
Let me reflect on the conduct of Lady Jane Steuart from the
hour of the birth of the children to the very hour of death.
Suffer me to mention the uniform appearance of her tender
parental affection, encountering a thousand difficulties,
struggling against poverty and want, and having many
enemies to add to her distress, yet bearing all with the most
unparalleled patience for the sake of her children. She was,
indeed, the most loving, the most affectionate of parents. You
m
Speeches in the House of Lords.
see her, even by Blainville's evidence, falling down in a faint Lord
the moment it was discovered the health of her child was
affected by the nurse's wanting milk ; you see her in a flood
of tears immediately upon her recovery from this faint; you
see her at other times rising from her bed in the dead of night
when the least ailment affected either of them ; you see her
upon the least disaster flying straight from her chamber to
their assistance; and, to crown all, you see her in dust and
ashes upon the death of her youngest son. Do not all the
witnesses declare she never recovered the shock of the death
of this child? Do not all of them combine to speak of her
affection? Does not all this prove in the strongest manner
the tender and loving affection of a parent? And can all
this be hypocrisy? Yet there are those who endeavour to
insinuate such doctrine. Base and invidious imputation, which
none but the most wicked would dare to avow, and which I
will not now retaliate. I will not say she must have been
in a state of continual torture to act such a part for so long a
course of time. Amidst all her difficulties and straits, not
to drop one repining word, not to discover a motion or gesture
that could lead to show the deceit, one would think this was
almost impossible. In public, in private, at home and abroad,
at all hours, on all occasions, and in all shapes, she is always
the same ; she never forgets the mother ; she maintains the
same steady, constant, and uniform character.
But supposing, my lords, it was possible to be deceived,
supposing such a character did really exist, yet surely the
mask must be at some time pulled off. The mind on some
occasions must be affected, and appear miserable, and the
heart must seek relief. Let us therefore view Lady Jane in
her retirement. In the letters that are produced of the corre-
spondence between her and Sir John Steuart there appears
the most unaffected tenderness and affection. These, my lords,
must be considered as a conversation between persons without
any deceit. They are imparting their very souls to each other.
It is not possible they were written with caution or design.
They mention their distresses in the most simple and artless
manner. So low were they reduced, they mention Lady
Jane's sometimes sending to Sir John (who was then in jail)
five shillings, a joint of meat, and sometimes a cold joint;
yet even in this distress, not even when brought to the last
pinch in a starving condition, and at the hour of death, does
The Douglas Cause.
Lord there appear the least repentance or consciousness of guilt,
which most certainly would have discovered itself at some
unguarded moment if there had been really any concealed
fraud. On the contrary, the only topic of their conversation
is to encourage one another to bear up under all these calami-
ties — their only consolation, their children.
What, my lords, does a thief assume the character of an
honest man, and does he never so much, as discover his real
sentiments to his brother-thief in their most private interviews?
These letters are to be looked upon as the most private con-
versations between the persons supposed guilty, yet there is not
a word of expression, not the most distant hint of any concealed
fraud or deceit.
Let us now bring this home to the last stage. In their
dying moments, with their latest breaths, the same tenderness
and affection is manifested to their surviving child. At such
a time to suppose they should carry on such dissimulation we
must believe them the most abandoned, the most profligate of
the human species. I cannot, then, from my conscience say,
in giving my verdict, that this is not to be taken as evidence,
or that it ought not to weigh with me, because that, even in
this dreadful hour, when persons are in the near prospect of
making up their accounts with God, it is said they may de-
ceive, or because there have been instances of persons wickedly
combined who have carried on their intrigues to the last moment
of their lives. But who will say that Lady Jane or Sir John
Steuart were capable to do this but those who have presumed
everything to their disfavour, without any foundation, in fact,
from the beginning to this present hour?
Do the characters of Lady Jane or Sir John Steuart deserve
this? Do they ever discover any act or design? Never but
in the invention for their children. Sir John was thoughtless,
profuse, and in many things whimsical and absurd. The
worst is his making up the letters, which he might have
done with a very innocent intention ; but otherwise he was
not a bad or wicked man.
Lady Jane was religious, it is said, almost to a degree of
enthusiasm, but I believe not to too great a degree. If
religion is ever to be depended up, it is under misfortunes.
Her trials were great, and she bore them with true resignation.
After engaging in the most solemn act of devotion, in her
last dying hours she poured blessings upon her son. I shall
176
Speeches in the House of Lords.
never believe, my lords, this lady died with a lie in her Lord
mouth. In her life she was perfectly blameless in every
respect
I do therefore, upon my honour and conscience, pronounce
that I believe that the appellant is the genuine son of Lady
Jane Douglas, and that the judgment of the Court of Session
ought to be reversed.
177
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX I.
Illustrations of the Popular Versions of the Progress of the
Douglas Cause, from the St. James's Chronicle and the
Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser. I
August 6, J761. — Monday morning the corpse of the most noble
Prince Archibald Duke of Douglas was carried with great funeral pomp
from Queensbury House, in the Canongate, Edinburgh, to be interred at
Douglas, the seat of the family. The procession, which was most
magnificent and grand, passed through the city about ten o'clock, the
bells tolling all the time of its passing.
His Grace dying without issue, the Peerage of the illustrious House
of Douglas is now extinct, or sinks into that of the Family of Hamilton.
Thursday, August 13. — We hear from Scotland that several preten-
sions are already formed with regard to the estates of the late Duke of
Douglas, among the principal claimants to which is the Rt. Hon, the
Earl of Selkirk, as being not only a collateral branch of the family, but
also considerably allied to the noble line of Hamilton.
September 15. — Edinburgh, September 12. — On Tuesday morning last
came on here, before the Macers of the Court of Session, the Service
of Archibald Stewart, now Douglas of Douglas, Esq., as Heir of Tailzie
to his uncle Archibald, late Duke of Douglas, when the most full, clear,
and convincing evidence was laid before the Inquest that the Claimant
was the only son now in life of his Grace's sister, the deceased Lady
Jane Douglas, by Sir John Stewart of GarntuUy , Bart. , her husband ;
and the Inquest on Wednesday afternoon unanimously served the
claimant heir of that noble family accordingly.
It had been reported that Mr. Douglas was not the son of Lady Jane
Douglas, but a supposititious child.
Saturday, August 20, 1763.— Edinburgh, August 15.— The Court of
Session having allowed a full and general proof to be taken in France,
and in order to let every possible light into the present interesting dis-
pute relating to the succession of the late Duke of Douglas, we hear
that the examination of the witnesses will take place as soon as the
forms of law in these countries will allow, in order, if possible, to have
it finished by next Sessions. Her Grace the Duchess of Douglas sets
out early to-morrow morning for London on her return to Paris, in
order to attend that important affair.
Saturday, August 27, 1763. — Yesterday her Grace the Duchess of
Douglas set out from her house in Pall Mall for Paris.
1 Communicated through the kindness of Mr. Horace Bleackley.
x8z
The Douglas Cause.
February 9, 1764. — A part of the great cause about the estate of the
late Duke of Douglas is now appealed from the Court of Session in
Scotland to be determined by the House of Peers.
April 14, 1764. — The great cause which has been some time depend-
ing went yesterday in favour of her Grace the Duchess of Hamilton.
April 16, 1764. — Friday. — The cause, so long pending in the Courts
of France, relating to the claim of young Mr. Archibald Douglas to the
estate and honours of the late Duke Douglas of Scotland, and which for
some days past h^s been under the consideration of an august assembly,
is ordered to be referred to the decision of the Lords of Session in
Scotland, so that it is not yet known how that important affair will
be determined.
Thursday, August 7, 1766. — Edinburgh, August 2. — The Pleadings
in the Douglas Cause, which has engrossed the attention of the Court
of Session these four weeks past, ended yesterday. Their Lordships
have ordered Memorials on the Proof to be given in betwixt this time
and September 27, and any other observation either party may have to
make on the other's Memorial, to be given in before the 15th October,
and on the 25th November the Cause is to be advised.
January 6, 1767. — It is said some thousand pounds are laid in betts
upon the issue of the Douglas great Cause, to be determined upon the
27th inst.
May 8. — They write from Edinburgh that bets to the amount of
£100,000 are depending on the Douglas Cause.
May 18, 1767. — Saturday. — Arrived in from Edinburgh the Hon. Mr.
Douglas. The great cause between him and the Hamilton family as
to the succession to the late Duke of Douglas' estate is to be deter-
mined by the Court of Session in the month of June next.
May 20, 1767. — ^A letter from Edinburgh says — We hear that at the
determination of the great Cause of Douglas, the Lord Judges of the
Court of Session are to sit on that day in one of the large rooms of the
royal palace of Holyrood, and that scaffoldings are to be erected as at
Westminster Hall at the trial of Earl Ferrers. To defray the expense
of which, as well as to raise a contribution for the Royal Infirmary, all
who are admitted, except the members of the Court, are to give half a
guinea each.
June 26, 1767. — By a gentleman just arrived from Scotland we are
informed that at Edinburgh and other places they are at present greatly
agitated by the near approach of the determination of the Douglas great
Cause, and that bets are near on an equality ; that several shorthand
gentlemen are arrived from London to take down the debates, for which
they are to be paid from 300 to 500 guineas each person; and that
most of the nobility and persons of distinction in that Kingdom were
come to Edinburgh to be present at the debates.
182
Appendix L
July 14, 1767. — By advices from Edinburgh we are informed that the
great Cause of Douglas, which has been so long depending, was deter-
mined on Tuesday, 7th inst., before the Lords of Session, and, as it is,
ended in favour of the Hamilton family.
Wednesday, July 15, 1767. — Extract of a letter from Edinburgh, July
7. — The grand decision of the Douglas Cause began this day. The
President, in a speech of near two hours, declared his opinion in favour
of Hamilton, and was clear for a reduction. Lord Strichen spoke next,
and was as clear in favour of Douglas. After which the President
asked Lord Karnes' opinion, who excused himself, as he was then too
much heated by the throng in Court to speak. It was adjourned till
to-morrow, when it is expected that he and Lord Auchinleck will de-
liver their opinions and the affair be determined on Thursday. The
30th ult. the publishers of all the newspapers in this city were called to
the bar of the Court of Session for having inserted in their papers
certain extracts from " Doranda, a Spanish Tale," which it seems is
now become an object of very serious attention. Each of the publishers
gave bail to appear before the Lords of the Council and Session.
Friday, July 17, 1767.— Extract from a letter from Edinburgh, July
11. — On Tuesday came on before the Court the decision of the Douglas
Cause. The opinion of the Judges upon which stand as follows : —
For Hamilton. Foi^ Douglas.
Spoke
on Tuesday,
Lord President
Lord Strichen
j»
Wednesday,
Lord Kames
))
, J
Lord Auchinleck
))
))
Lord Coalston
>>
Thursday,
Lord Barjarg
>)
jj
Lord Alemore
))
Lord Eliock
))
Friday,
Lord Stonefield
Lord Pitfour
this day,
Lord Kennet
Lord Hales
Lord Gardenstone
There remains only Justice Clerk and Monboddo to speak on Tuesday
next, one of whom it is certain will be for Hamilton and the other
Douglas, thereby here is an equality, and reserving upon the President's
casting vote the Hamilton family carries it here. It is needless to
mention what a consternation this affair makes in Edinburgh.
If this decision be final. His Grace the Duke of Hamilton will be
possessed of one of the greatest real estates in Britain.
It is remarkable in the determination of the above Cause, four of
the Judges who gave their opinion in favour of Douglas are all of the
county of Aberdeen, viz., Strichen, Pitfour, Gardenston, and Mon-
boddo.
Saturday, July 18, 1767. — We hear a nobleman at the Court end of
the town has lost a bet of two thousand guineas on the late decision of
the Douglas Cause.
Tuesday, 21 July, 1767. — By a letter from Edinburgh we learn that
in the determination of the Douglas Cause the Lords seemed to express
183
The Douglas Cause.
themselves in such a way that it is imagined they will not sequestrate
the estate, and consequently deprive Douglas of possession until the
final determination by the Peers of Great Britain.
Monday, July 27, 1767.— The following letters were sent to the Rt.
Hon. Robert Dundas, Esq., Lord President of the Court of Session at
Edinburgh : —
Dear Bumbo, — I am surprised at your Behaviour in Douglas Cause
you the only person who injected him into the estate and caused
the Plea to be carried on and then you to turn your back and
give the whole Swe (?) to hamilton which I dar say you ar con-
sciouss that you are in the Wrong but I hope first that you will
Loses your seat in the Parlement House and then as ther is about
350 of in and about Edinburgh joined under an head and we shall
Burn yur Lodgin in Town and then Arnston Lodgin's shall go
into flames and then your self, we shall make a Captain Portus of
You in the Gras Market as an exampel to all false Judges
passing wrong sentences, but I shall think it proper to acquaint
your Bumbo to alter your mind a time and not cause any Toumolous
Noise or Mischief. Perhaps you will think me an imprompter
Person for oping to send such a Epistel but you may excuse me and
if you want to know the writher they call him Timoth Love Justice.
P.S. — You you Great Bubo to speak against the truth and the
Clearest Light in false imaginations and false proof that was taken
in france from Persons that would sewar thar Souls to hell for a
peny, but I hope you will be sent [to] uter Darkness.
To,
Lord President of the Court of Sheshon,
Edinr.
May Lord, —
I am not a little surprised you should have Broht on yourself
such a Damt Scundruly Law Suite and Sir give me Leav to inform
you that in a day or two you Brains will be put at bolfine of a
gun may Lord have a care and think on me.
I am Sir yours,
I mean well,
otherways you go for.
P.S. — ^iff you Dont Vout in Mr. Douglas's cass may be Well
assured you will be put to Death on first miting.
A reward of five hundred pounds sterling is offered by the King,
and a pardon, to any one of them (except the person or persons
who actually wrote the said letters or either of them) who shall
discover their accomplices in the said facts. The Guardians of His
Grace the Duke of Hamilton promise a reward of three hundred
pounds, and Archibald Douglas, Esq., also promises the like reward
of three hundred pounds for the discovery of the writer (See
London Gazette.)
August 20, 1767. — From Scotland we are assured that the pleadings
184
Appendix I.
and excellent speeches of the lawyers in the famous cause of Hamilton
and Douglas reflect great honour both on themselves and their country,
being nothing inferior in point of eloquence or subtlety to any that have
ever been made in Westminster Hall or either of our British senates.
In short, Greece and Rome, in the most flourishing and distinguished
period of those famous republics, never produced greater orators than
North Britain does at present.
August 22, 1767. — We hear two gentlemen of distinction at the west
end of the town have laid a wager of a thousand guineas and a thousand
shillings that the great cause between the Hamilton and the Douglas
family will be determined in favour of Mr. Douglas.
We hear the Douglas estate, about which the famous contest is now
subsisting, amounts to £12,000 a year.
August 28, 1767. — The opinion of one of the greatest sages of the law
in England is in favour of the defendant in the famous cause of Hamil-
ton and Douglas, and that he will support the same if it should come
before a most august assembly. It is said that it was on this account
that among several wagers now depending on the first issue of this cause
one of 1000 guineas has been laid to as many shillings that it will
be given in favour of Mr. Douglas.
A letter from Scotland mentions that in the great cause between the
Hamiltons and the Douglases a reclaiming petition is preparing on the
part of Douglas to be presented to the Court of Session at their first
meeting in November. By the consent of that Court, after judgment
is given, either party may petition or reclaim against such judgment
provided they advance new matters of law or fact. If such is ad-
vanced, the other party is allowed to answer and the Court then deter-
mines. It is well known in many instances that the Court, on such
reclaiming bills, have altered their first opinion. From this circumstance
it is probable this great cause will not come before the House of Peers
next session of Parliament.
August 29, 1767. — The estate of the late Duke of Douglas, now in the
possession of Mr. Douglas, is worth upwards of £20,000 a year, besideB
the honours of Earl of Angus to which he will be entitled as soon as
this cause is over, 2 which it is expected will be determined in his
favour, as all the relations of that noble family except his competitor
Are satisfied of the authenticity of his birth.
September 25, 1767. — From divers parts of Scotland we learn that
ever since the decision in the famous cause of Hamilton and Douglas
the generality of the Ladies of that country take care to be brought to
bed in a more public manner than ever was known before, or than
seems consistent with the delicacy of their sex, the rooms in which they
are delivered being often filled with as many persons of both sexes as
they can conveniently hold, and the intention of which is that there
2 This was a popular error. The Earldom of Angus became extinct on the Duke of
Douglas's death.
The Douglas Cause.
may always be witnesses enough alive to authenticate the birth of any
child whose birth to any estate or legacy may be litigated on that
account.
April 1, 1768. — It is reported that some of the ablest pens in Britain
are to be employed in the great Douglas cause.
Saturday, February 25, 1769 (wrong date).— Last night the great cause
between Hamilton and Douglas was finally determined after ten hours
consideration, when it was given Nem. Diss, in Favour of Douglas. A
noble lawyer in the Determination of a late great cause spoke for Two
Hours, when being overcome by the heat of the room he fainted, but
recovering again resumed his discussion and went on for near another
hour, with the greatest eloquence and strength of argument.
Tuesday, February 28, 1769. — By the decision of the great cause on
Monday last in favour of Mr. Douglas, that young gentleman succeeds
to the Douglas estate and to the title of the Earl of Angus.
The same night her Grace the Duchess of Douglas dispatched a
messenger from her house in Piccadilly to Scotland with an account of
the above event.
Thursday, March 2, 1769. — The Douglas estate lately decreed to the
Hon. Archibald Douglas,. Esq., is said to amount to £17,000 per
ann.
P.S. (same day). — Five noble personages, we are told, have entered
their protests on the subject of a late great cause.
Thursday, March 2/4, 1769. — The great cause lately determined had
been in hearing ever since the holidays : the Counsel on both sides dis-
played great eloquence : those for the Apellant were Lord A . . e,
whose speech lasted about fourteen hours, and Sir Fletcher Norton, who
spoke for about seven hours. The Counsel for the Respondent were
Mr. Yorke, who was about six hours in his speech, Mr. W . . . . n,
about twelve, Mr. S . . . r G . . . . 1, about nine. After Sir F. N.'s
reply, which took up about six hours, the Lords proceeded to Judge-
ment, where one Nobleman spoke about half an hour for the Apellant,
another about three hours for the Respondent, a third spoke near three
hours for the Apellant. When the Question being called for and put,
they were almost unanimously in favour of the Apellant.
Tuesday, March 7, 1769. — Yesterday the Hon. Archibald Douglas was
presented to His Majesty at St. James.
P.S. — They write from Berwick that on receiving an account of the
late great cause being decided in Favour of Mr. Douglas, great Rejoic-
ings and Illuminations were made there, and particularly by Mr. Leo
Douglas of that place, who in the evening caused a large bonfire to be
made on Hallidown Hill as a Signal to the neighbouring country,
and entertained upwards of 50 of the principal gentlemen at the Red
Lion, where the following Healths were Drunk : — Archibald Douglas,
etc. etc. etc.
i86
Appendix I.
Edinburgh, March 3. — Last night, about half an hour after seven
o'clock arrived an Express from London with the news that the Decree
of the Court of Session was reversed without a vote.
The Restitution of this noble and illustrious Family gave imiversal
Joy to all Ranks of People here, the whole town was immediately
illuminated, and Bonfires appeared in all Corners of this City.
The mob last night broke many windows and committed other irregu-
larities which it is to be wished had not happened.
All the Ships in the Harbour of Leith have colours displayed this
Day on account of Mr. Douglas's success, in particular the Success
Capt. Howison has above Twenty Flags flying,
Thursday, March 9, 1769. — Yesterday Her Grace the Duchess of
Douglas and her Nephew the Hon. Archibald Douglas, Esq., were pre-
sented to his Majesty at St. James's.
Tuesday, March 16, 1769. — By a letter from Edinburgh we are
assured that on the arrival of the account of the Decision of the Douglas
Cause, a numerous mob assembled, and after parading the streets some
time, proceeded to commit several outrages on the houses of some of
the principal gentlemen of the Court of Session. They broke the
windows of and began to pull down the house of Lord , on which
the Town Guard were ordered to disperse the Rioters, which finding
themselves unable to do, a body of Regular Troops were sent from the
Castle, when the mob left the City and went a few miles from Edin-
burgh to the country house of an agent of Mr. D.'s opponent, where
they committed a great many Acts of Violence. It is said that a
reward has since been offered by the Magistrates at Edinburgh for
apprehension of the Persons concerned in the above Disturbances.
Edinburgh, March 10. — In the Glasgow Chronicle, after the Account
of the Rejoicings there on Mr. D.'s success, we have the following
paragraph : — When the Chelsea Men had done firing the Company
ordered each man 5s. — but when Mr. Graham was going to pay it them,
they all with one voice refused it, and said that they would as cheer-
fully charge with Ball, as they did that Night with Powder, in Defence
of Mr. D. and his Cause.
Thursday, March 16, 1769. — In a letter concerning the Rejoicings at
Glasgow on Mr. D.'s Success, an Account is given of a Bon-fire made
before the Saracen's Head Inn there, of 20 carts of coals, which blazed
so that the owners of some thatched Houses at a small distance came to
the Landlord expressing their Fears lest they should be set on Fire.
He bade them be easy, for if it so should happen, of which he thought
there was no Danger, the Price of the Houses should be put to the Bill.
Saturday, March 25/28. — On the Sunday after the Arrival in Scotland
of the Account of Mr. D. 's success, a Clergyman preached in the Church
of Douglas, from the following Text: — " I will overturn, overturn, over-
turn it, and it shall be no more, until he whose right it is, and I will
give it him." — Ezek. xxi. 27.
187
The Douglas Cause.
Thnrsday, April 6, 1769.— A gentleman in Scotland, in a letter to his
friend in London, dated 9th March, mentioning that the Ladies and
Gentlemen in his neighbourhood met at an Inn on the 7th, where
the Gentlemen entertained the Ladies with a Dinner and a Ball in the
evening, to express their joy on the happy decision of the Douglas
Cause, gives the following account of some of their proceedings : — As
Tuesday was a Presbytery Day, and the Ministers assembled as usual,
it was suggested that an act of Indemnity would be a most suitable
circumstance tq the occasion, and a Petition was accordingly prepared
and addressed to the Reverend Presbytery praying that they would
pardon all such Persons as at that Time were under Prosecution before
them on Account of the good-natured vices ; the Petition was signed by
the Ladies and Gentlemen and presented in Form. The Answer of
the Reverend Presbytery was as follows : — The Reverend Presbytery
having read and considered the above Petition are of opinion that so
uncommonly joyful an occasion should be distinguished by some very
joyful circumstance, and whereas a simple Act of Indemnity was nothing
by the ordinary Attendant of Common Felicity they, without division,
remit it to the Consideration of the Petitioners, if it may not to them
appear fit to add a Clause for an Indulgence also to all the Conse-
quences of the Good Humour of the Night.
Thursday, April 18, 1769. — On the Sunday after the news of the
noble Decision of the great Douglas Cause by the House of Peers arrived
at Edinburgh, the Reverend Dr. Hugh Blair preached in the High
Church of that City before the Lords of Council and Session from these
words : — " What fruit had ye then in those things whereof we are
now ashamed? " — Rom. vi. 21.
Daring the Rejoicings at Edinburgh on the late Decision of the Great
Douglas Cause, while the Mob were casting stones at certain dark
Windows, a gentleman humourously said — '* Aye, aye, these honest
fellows are giving their casting votes in their turn."
I88
Appendix II.
APPENDIX II.
Criticism of the two versions of the speeches delivered in judgment in the
Court of Session, from "A State of the Evidence in the Cause between
His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Others, Pursuers, and Archibald
Douglas of Douglas, Esq., Defender, with remarks by Robert
Richardson, D.D., Prebendary of Lincoln. London, 1769." [v. note
to Introduction, page 1.]
** The book [Almon's * Speeches', reprinted in this volume] had run into
a second edition before he [the writer] heard of it ; and it does not appear
that any of their Lordships have been offended at the publication, though
from the many great inaccuracies in that part of it which has been
consulted for these papers, there is room to hope they were strangers to
its contents. . . .
** Seven months after Almon's book had been circulated without oflfence,
another copy of the speeches appeared, said to be accurately taken down
and published by William Anderson, Writer, in Edinburgh. The account
Mr. Anderson gives of his performance is in these words, ' He made
himself fully acquainted with the Cause, and while the Judges were
delivering their opinions he took down the greatest part of what each of
them said. These notes he daily corrected and enlarged by memory : not
satisfied with this he got the several opinions revised by those who were
best qualified to correct any errors or to supply any omissions, so that the
present publication may be depended upon as exact and genuine.' All
that Mr. Anderson is here pleased to say leads us to think that his
publication is neither exact nor genuine. How could his memory enable
him to correct and enlarge his notes with facts he had never taken down
and probably never heard? And who were these persons who were
qualified, after the long vacation, to correct the errors and supply the
omissions of a copy taken down in Court ? Mr. Anderson's book is indeed
a collection of speeches totally different, both in argument and stile, from
that printed by Almon. The stile is more diffuse, the sentiments more
ambiguous, and, in some of the speeches, the very state of the question is
totally changed. "
189
The Douglas Cause.
APPENDIX III.
LETTERS OF LADY JANE DOUGLAS.^
LETTER I.
From Lady Jane Douglas to Mbs. Cabse.2
Hague, 18th October, N.S., 1746.
My Dear Madam, — I received the favour of your obliging letter
two posts ago, which, I do assure you, was mighty acceptable j and
the oftener you write, it will be so much the more so. You say my
leaving Scotland has cast a gloom upon your spirits. Pray throw it
off. Though so kind a demonstration of your concern and friendship,
yet it gives me pain to imagine you should suffer any the smallest
uneasiness on the account of any step of mine, which I would not have
made had not my health, or rather lowness of spirits, required it,
which I am hopeful I shall speedily get the better of, so that my stay
abroad shall not be extremely long, and then I please myself with the
thoughts of having a happy and an agreeable meeting with my friends,
and particularly with you, my dear madam. And as to my situation
at present, it is as follows : — On my arrival in this place I made
application to Mr. Trever, the English resident here, for a pass to take
me to the waters of Bourbon, being informed since I came here that
there is no going to Aix-la-Chapelle (where I was determined to go),
because of the constant robberies committed by the troopers in that
quarter; and I was the more easily diverted from pursuing my first
intention of going to Aix, since it is now in a manner the seat of war,
from which sad scene I am but lately come from, and was too long too
nigh a neighbour and spectator. Mr. Trever mighty obligingly took
in hand to get me a pass, and wrote to Mr. Van Hoey, the Dutch
Ambassador at Paris, for that purpose. But so goes the stream of
1 Reprinted from a little book, " Letters of the Right Honourable Lady Jane Douglas,
with several other important pieces of private con-espondence from all which the
characters of that celebrated Lady and of her husband, Sir John Stewart, will appear
in a light hitherto not sufficiently known to the world. London : Printed for J. Wilkie
in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1767." The preface explains that they are extracts only in
some cases, and that the orthography has been corrected. It must be remembered
that the letter of Lady Jane Douglas to Mrs. Carse in which she denied her marriage
and imputed the rumour of it to Mrs. Stewart of Stewartfield, is not included in these
letters, which have been considerably " edited," obviously by an adherent of Archibald
Douglas. In this reprint the name Stewart is spelled Steuart as in the rest of the
book, following the spelling in Sir William Fraser's monograph " The Red Book of
Grandtully." Both Sir John and Lady Jane spelled it " Stewart."
2 )i6e Jane Douglas.
190
Lady Jane Douglas,
trom the Portrait in Mr. Percy Fitzgerald's "Lady Jean.
Appendix III.
politics at present that, instead of getting one, which he thought there
could be no mighty difficulty in obtaining, he received a polite,
courteous letter from Mr. Van Hoey, with an apology of regret, that
the situation of affairs were such that no pass could be allowed to
any of the English to go into France ; which extremely surprised Mr.
Trever, who imagined that ladies might pass freely at any juncture
anywhere ; and, for my own part, I confess frankly that though I am
somewhat mortified to find unexpected accidents arise to prevent my
little scheme for health's sake taking place, yet my vanity in considering
that the trifling movement of ladies is believed by two great and wise
Courts of so extraordinary import that I believe my health shall be
better established by so flattering an idea than it could be by any
other medicine, or by the use of the finest waters in the world, par-
ticularly my illness being mostly lowness of spirits. What heightened
them must prove an effectual cure. But, to be more serious, I reckon
I shall not, for all the mighty notice that is taken of the motions of
the fair, stay a great many days longer here. Having met very
luckily with Mr. Keith,3 late secretary to Lord Stair, now to Lord
Siandwich, at present at Breda, affairs sometimes calls Mr. Keith to
the Hague, and last Wednesday I had the favour of his company at
dinner, and by his means I imagine a pass may be obtained. Mr.
Keith is really a mighty pretty gentleman, makes a good figure in
the employment he is in, and promises very fair for further advance-
ments, which I truly think he deserves. I am extremely concerned to
hear Mr. Carse is afflicted with low spirits. I sympathise with him in
that distress, and wishes that could relieve him. And Madam Hewit
is in tribulation about him ; she says she never thought she liked him
so well as now she hears he is ill ; she begs you both to accept of
her compliments and best wishes. Keir my landlord's behaviour has
shocked me a good deal ; and the more that I could easily have pre-
vented any impertinent demonstration had I not had a better opinion
•of him than it seems he deserved ; but my greatest uneasiness for his
late proceedings is that I had allotted Drumsh.[eugh] for an easy
«,nd agreeable dwelling for Peggy Ker, who I always had, and always
shall have, a particular liking and friendship for. I need not bid you,
dear madam, shew kindness and friendship to her, since I know you like
her, and since you know it will be doing the kind, obliging thing to
me. From time to time I shall have the pleasure to write to you, and
•even longer letters, though this is none of the shortest. I offer my best
and most affectionate compliments to dear Mr. Carse, to Mr. and Mrs.
Robison, and to Mrs. Burnet. I don't deserve, the mighty compliments
Mrs. Robison makes me. The one she makes the other lady, the fair,
the young, the beautiful, delightful creature, is a very just one. I
hear she is in pretty good health at present, which will please her,
as it always does me, to have an opportunity of assuring you, my dear
madam, that I truly am, with great esteem and affection, your most
humble servant, Jane Douglas.
3 "Robert Keith. Esquire, a descendant of the illustrions familjr of Marischal, long
his Britannick Majesty's Ambassador at the court of Russia, now living in an honour-
able retreat near Edinburgh." [Original note.]
191
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER n.
F&OM Lady Jame Douglas to Mbs. Cassb.
Utrecht, 10th February, 1747, N.S.
My Dear Madam, — I received your two large letters just before the
great frost began here. They were extremely acceptable ; and I count
it a piece of my good fortune that they came at that time, for,
immediately after, it froze so hard that no packet-boat could arrive for
several weeks j which may assure you I could, not answer your letter
8o soon as you might have reasonably expected, and which I certainly
would have done had not that circumstance prevented it. It is what
always happens in these parts about the New Year; but such an
excessive cold I never felt before; the year '40 was warm in com-
parison ; yet I catch no cold, I thank God, which was extraordinary
enough, considering the rigorous season. This place stands high, and
is very wholesome, which made me choose it till the season for Aix
returns. I left the Hague only because it was damp ; and not without
a good deal of regret, having got several acquaintances, and some
amongst the Dutch, I found mighty well-bred, agreeable people. I
have been as lucky since I came here in meeting with a great many
Scots and English gentlemen. They are indeed chiefly of the younger
sort, who choose this place for their education ; but they have so great
a share of good sense, and so much wit, they render themselves accept-
able to much older people. Amongst the rest young Lord Blantyre
deserves justly the greatest praise. But I am not capable of drawing
characters well, the want of which talent I mightily regret, since it
deprives me of the pleasure of doing justice to the most promising young
gentleman ever I saw in my life ; yet in my plain, awkward way I shall
tell you some of his qualifications : He has extreme good sense, the
best scholar, the greatest application, a vast pleasure in reading, and
best taste of books ; is free of all manner of vice, and has the sweetest
temper in the world ; and in all appearance will be a very great
honour to his country. I sometimes wish his mother, my old acquaint-
ance Lady Blantyre, had the satisfaction to know how much her son
has profited by being abroad, and what an accomplished young man
he really is ; but I immediately check myself for it, since it is certainly
better that she hears nothing of it, for the half of what he deserves
could not be told her, without her becoming too vain. 1 could also
say a great many advantageous things to Mr. Hay and Mr. Dalrymple,
who have a great deal of merit, excellent good sense, mighty good
scholars, and are both equally free of all vice with the other. But if
I go on at this rate you'll grow afraid that I intend to draw the
pictures of all the gentlemen in Utrecht; so I shall have done with
characteristics, only I must add that Mr. Dalrymple,4 your neighbour
Sir James's son, has employed his time well, and has acquired much
learning of all kinds.
I am, dear madam,
Your most humble servant,
> Janb Douglas.
* Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes).
192
Appendix III.
LETTER III.
Fkom Lady Jane to heb Brother the Duke.
Rheims, 7th August, 1748.
Dear Brother, — Though not a Jittle discouraged by your favouring
me with no answer to that under cover of Lord Crawfurd's, acquainting
your Grace with my change of state, and in whose favours, I think
10 my incumbent duty, as well as natural inclination, to acquaint you
further with the happy consequences of it, which I am hopeful may be
a means to replace me, in some measure, to the share of your
favour I was once happy in, and never willingly forfeited ; but to the
contrary have regretted my ill fortune in that particular more than
all the others of my more than ordinary cross fate. If want of title and
estate in the gentleman I have chosen seems surprising, your Grace well
knows no subject could add to me ; and a gentleman as well born as
any can take nothing off. Please know then, my Lord, that the tenth
of last month I was blessed withS boys, one a promising child ; the
other, poor thing, so weak that I fear is little to be reckoned on ;
God's will be done ; the other my hopes centre in, and want but the
pleasure of your approvmg his having your name, with that of Sholto
to the younger, to be happy, for, thank God, I have philosophy enough
not to place happiness on superfluous riches or pomp, and faith enough
to hope that they nor I shall never want a decent competency.
Though I have recovered health beyond expectation, I cannot make
this letter so long as I incline, having many things to say, but am able
to add no more but that Mr. Stuart begs allowance of your Grace to
offer his humble duty in this, and that of being permitted to do
himself that honour more amply by a letter, if favoured by your Grace
with an opportunity ; and that I am ever, with the sincerest and
most respectful regard,
Dear Brother,
Your most obedient servant, and most affectionate sister,
Jane Douglas.
Reims en Champagne, 7th August, N.S., 1748.
LETTER IV.
The Earl of Crawfurd to the Duke of Douglas.
My Dear Duke, — Having had the honour in my younger days to be
favoured with your Grace's friendship, which I have ever since flattered
myself yoa have continued me, as I am conscious no relation of your
Grace's family wishes it better, or prides himself more in the con-
nection they have with it ; and as it has providentially been my fate
to pass these six last months confined to a place where the irretrievable
5 A blot on the paper which cannot be read. It means two. [Original note.]
193
The Douglas Cause.
misfortunes it has pleased the Almighty to afflict me with could only
be rendered supportable to* me by the most agreeable society of so
deserving people as that of your sister Lady Jane and Mr. Steuart ; and
as, during the space of time we have been together, I have, from a
regard I have for your Grace's family I cannot conceal, so far merited
my Lady Jane's confidence, as to be entrusted with the alteration there
has happened in her state of life, as also the notifying of it to your
Grace, by the enclosed, a service that the same regard I have mentioned
I ever shall have for your family, has even prompted me to offer on
so important an occasion, recommending, with the greatest earnestness,
all its consequences, to your Grace's most mature deliberation; I say,,
as my undertaking proceeds from the most warm affection to your
Grace's family, I am hopeful my representations will not only meet with
forgiveness, but with also their wished-for success, in reconciling your
Grace to an event all the well-wishers of your Grace's family may have-
the greatest reason to rejoice at, as there is such visible hopes of it&
being attended with the natural consequences so much longed for, by
all who are fond of seeing the family of Douglas multiply; and since I
have thus far ventured upon my dear Duke's goodness, he must forgive
me if I proceed a little further and represent that a sister, tenderly
fond of your Grace as she is, and in the situation my Lady Jane is in
at present, a favourable answer from your Grace is more necessary than
may be at first, perhaps, adverted to; wherefore, allow me once more
to entreat you will neither by silence nor indifference hazard the bad
consequences that may follow either the one or the other. I can
assure your Grace she does great honour to her family wherever she
appears, and is respected and beloved by all that have the honour of
her acquaintance. She certainly merits all the affectionate marks of
an only brother to an only sister : much, much does she wish, as well
as others of your Grace's devoted friends, there had been no so great
necessity for her changing her way of life, but since it has become
so absolutely necessary, with the greatest submission, considering the
variety of different circumstances, I would gladly hope your Grace
will not disapprove of the person Lady Jane has chose, as to be sure
there is none more deserving. But I'm afraid I shall encroach too long
on your Grace's patience, so I shall only add that your Grace's rendering
Lady Jane satisfied and happy, by a reconciliation, and such other
marks of your brotherly affection as shall seem proper, shall ever render
me unalterably.
Your Grace's
Most devoted relation, friend, and humble servant,
Ceawfurd.
P.S. — As your Grace may, perhaps, incline to know how things are
likely to turn out here, I shall venture to add that I'm afraid the enemy
will have made too great progress in the siege of Maestricht before we,
by the junction of all our troops and recruits, become formidable
enough to interrupt their progress in their attempt upon Maestricht ;
but, I hope, we shall be able to frustrate all their other designs, and„
perhaps, to thrash them before the end of the campaign.
194
Appendix III.
LETTER V.
From Lord Crawfurd to Colonel Steuart, at Rheims.
London, 12th August, 1748, O.S.
Dear John, — I had the pleasure of yours, just as my wound broke
out again. I have been so distressed ever since that it has not been
in my power to answer you, notwithstanding I hope both you and my
Lady Jane will do me the justice to believe it is impossible to con-
gratulate you with more sincerity than I do, on my Lady Jane's safe
delivery of my two young relations. It is more than probable the
same Almighty Providence, who seems to have decreed their coming
into the world, intends also to reserve them, or theirs, for his great
ends. Almighty God preserve them, and their valuable parents to
rear them up in this selfish world.
I was lucky enough to receive your letter soon enough before I fell
ill, so as to recommend my Lady Jane's affairs to the Duke of Argyll's
care. He promised me he would talk to my Lord Milton in relation
to bringing the Duke of Douglas to a way of thinking of the affair as he
ought to be. I also wrote to the Duke of Douglas a second letter,
though I had no answer to my first, intimating to him my Lady Jane's
safe delivery, thundering in his ears his family's cause, and trying to
rouse up all that is Douglas in him; I wish it may have the desired
effect. I have also engaged my Lord Home, who is gone down to
Lord Mark Kerr's, to reconciliate him, and I intend to go myself as soon
as I am well, in order to talk to him for some supplies for Lady Jane,
which, I make no doubt, must soon become necessary. I have also
spoke to the Master of Ross, son of the Lord Ross, who is lately come
over from Prussia, and who is gone down to Scotland to see his father,
to talk with his father and the Marquis of Lothian, to take the proper
steps with the Duke of Douglas to induce him to act by Lady Jane
as he ought to do. The young gentleman undertook the thing very
willingly, and, I believe, will do all that lies in his power to do you
service. You shall soon hear from me again, particularly after I have
seen my Lord Mark Kerr. In the meantime pray make my compli-
ments, in the most kind manner, to Lady Jane, my blessing to the
two young gentlemen, my compliments to Mrs. Hewit, that we are all
vastly obliged to her for her care of Lady Jane, and, believe me, with
unalterable regard,
Dear John,
Your most devoted friend and humble servant,
Crawfurd.
P.S. — Having been so ill, I hope you will excuse this being wrote
by another hand.
Addressed thus : — To Colonel Jno. Steuart, at Rhemes en Champagne.
195
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER VI.
Lord Blamtybb to Lady Jane Douglas.
Madam, — I have often had the pen in my hand to write to your
Ladyship, several of my letters were begun, but, before I had time
to finish any one of them, an unlucky trifle still presented itself and
enticed me away ; if I have been in the wrong, and I am afraid I have
certainly, I have been much punished for it by being so long deprived
of the pleasure of hearing from you. What I have said I do not mean
as a compliment, and I should be sorry if you looked upon it as such ;
it is truth itself, and if it were not so, I should not certainly give
myself the trouble of sending it so far a journey as from here to
London. To make amends for my past negligence, I wish I had any-
thing to write that were capable of entertaining you, but I am so stupid,
and besides, the gallant anecdotes of Paris do not deserve to occupy
for a moment your Ladyship's attention.
I hope to hear by your first letter that your affairs have taken a turn,
and that fortune persecutes you no more ; you have suffered more from
her caprice than any one I ever knew, and you have bore it all with
a constancy and cheerfulness quite uncommon ; many are unfortunate,
but few, very few, are unfortunate with so much grace as your Lady-
ship ; everything will be compensated soon, at least I hope so.
I beg leave to offer my compliments to Mrs. Hewit ; I am persuaded
she thinks me very indegrate. Adieu, my dear Lady Jane. I am,
most sincerely.
Your very affectionate cousin, and humble servant,
Blantyeb.
Paris, 21st January.
I hope the two young heroes are well.
LETTER VII.
Lord Blantybe to Lady Jane Douglas.
Paris, 24th April.
Madam, — So long a silence makes me afraid that the letter I wrote
to your Ladyship in the beginning of January has never reached you ;
if it is so, I am sorry for it, because you will think me guilty of a
neglect that I am innocent of. If, on the contrary, my letter has
come to hand, I shall still be more uneasy to guess at the reason of
my not hearing from you. The only way to draw me out of so cruel
a perplexity is to let me hear from you soon, and I know you are too
good to leave me long in pain. Write to me soon, dear Lady Jane,
and make me happy, for nobody interests himself more than I do in
everything that regards you. I send this letter by a private hand
that it may run no sort of risk. Adieu, my dear madam; I send a
196
Appendix III,
number of compliments to Mrs. Hewit, to Mr. Steuart, and to my two
godsons. Farewell, dear Lady Jane. I am, with the greatest truth
imaginable,
Your affectionate cousin and humble servant,
Blantyrk.
LETTER VIII.
Lbttrb de Madame La Comtbsse de Bassevitz,6 a My Lady Jeanne
Douglas Steuabt.
Ma tres chere Lady, — Votre lettre du 7me de Juillet ne m'a plus trouve
k Aix-la-Chapelle. J'en ^tois d4ja partie le 16 du meme mois, pour aller a
Paris, oti apr^s avoir s^journ^ pr^s de trois mois, retournant par Bruxelles,
j'ai eu le plaisir de recevoir vos chores lignes. Nous aurions bien aim^, le
Comte de Bassevitz et moi, de rester I'hiver k Paris ; mais comme nous
avions fait tout le voyage avec notre Prince h^r^ditaire, et les Princesses,
son 6pouse, et sa sceur, et que par consequent, tous nos arrangements
6toient pris de forte que nous ne pouvions nous s^parer d'eux sans leur
incommodit6 et la notre, il fallut les suivre, lorsque la nouvelle qu'ils
re9urent de la maladie du Due regnant leur p^re, les obligea de pr^cipiter
leur retour. Vous pensez bien, aimable Lady, que nous nous sommes
trouves fort k notre aise, dans cette superbe ville, oh les plaisirs naissent
sous chaque pas. Cependant, en rendant justice k ses beautes, aux chef
d'oeuvres des difiF^rents arts qu'elle etale, et au g^nie vif et heureux de ses
habitans, je n'ai pu m'accommoder de leurs mceurs. La frivolity de leurs
entretiens, I'air 6vent6 des hommes, les manieres etourdies des femmes,
jointes k ce rouge affreux, dont elles masquent leurs teint, et qui fait
ressembler les belles a des Lais, les laides k des Meg^res, tout cela m'a fait
sentir que je suis n6e pour I'Allemagne, et non pour la France, parce que
mon goiit ne scauroit se former k toutes ces fadaises. II est vrai, n6an
moins, que je con5ois, que merae avec I'humeur que j'ai, on pent vivre tr^s
agr^ablement k Paris, lorqu'on a le tems d'y deterrer le petit nombre de
gens senses et savans, qui y sont disperses, et de lier commerce avec eux ;
mais, pour y parvenir il faut fronder les pr^jug^s du public, lequel y
permet tr6s rarement aux femmes d'etre raisonables, et qui ne nous y
regarde que comme des poup6es, destinies k faire I'amusement, pour ne
pas dire, le jouet des hommes.
Qu' Aix-la-Chapelle m'a paru desert, mi Lady, parceque vous m'y avez
manqu6. Je ra'en suis consol^e comme j'ai pu, en m'entretenant de vous
avec tous ceux qui vous connoissoient, ou qui avoient entendu parler
de vos m^rites, et de vos malheurs dans votre patrie. J'ai sou vent fait la
visite k Mad. Tewis, pour lui entendre r6p6ter ce qu'elle s§avoit de votre
sort. C'est une tr^s bonne femme qui vous est d'autant plus sincerement
6 The Countess de Bassevitz is a lady of the court of Mecklenhurgh Strelitz. She is
in correspondence with M. de Voltaire and most of the celebrated geniuses in Europe,
and is upon the whole one of the best and most accomplished women of her time,
it Original note. J
The Douglas Cause.
attacht5e, qu'elle vous croit amie intime de sa fille la Colonelle Herberts
Les preuves qu'elle m'a dit etre en 6tat de vous livrer, pour la verification
de votre grossesse, sont plus que suffisantes, pour pr6venir tout ce que la
noire malice de vos eunemis pourroit inventir au prejudice de vos cher&
jumeaux; surtout, si comrae je lui en ai donm'i le coaseil, elle rend son
tteioignage par devant nottaire, afin de lui procurer la validity d'une
deposition authentique. J'ai vu votre cousin, mi Lord Drumlanrik. On
m'a dit qu'il aspiroit k la succession du Due votre fr^re ; j'ai peine k le
croire, sa phijsionomie est trop noble pour qu'il soit capable de la bassesse,
de travailler au xi^pouillement d'une h(iriti6re legitime. On I'a dit aussi
m^outent de votre mariage : j 'ignore si cela est vrai, puisqu'il ne s'est pas
expliqu^ sur oe sujet en ma presence, mais au moins I'ai je entendu parler
de votre personne avec tout le respect qu'on doit k vos vertus. Mad.
Tewis vous aura mand^, sans doute, que le Chevalier Cuningham, Ofl&oier
du regiment de mi Lord, 6toit venu s'informer chez elle de circonstancea
qui vous concernent. Peut-etre, qu'abus^ luimemepardefaux-rapports, il
a souhaite d'etre 6clairci, et cette eiivie ce savoir la verity suppose, qu'il
n'a pas le dessein de vois faire tort. Au surplus il ne gagneroit rien, en
agissant, soit directement soit indirectement, centre vous, car des gens qui
peuvent etre au fait de la chose m'ont assur^, que le Due de Douglas avoit
aussi peu d'envie de favoriser son cousin que sa soeur, et qu'il destine apr^a
sa mort, tout ce dont il pent disposer, k une parente, qu'on nomme ainsi
que vous Jeanne Douglas, et qui est mari«5e si je ne me trompe, k ce m6me
Due de Buccleugh, dont autrefois vous avez rejet6 la main. Ce n'est pas
d'aujourd'hui, ch^rissime Lady, que la caract^re de mi Lord votre fr^re est
transpire jusque k ma connoissance, malgr^ la gen^rosite avec laquelle vous
tachiez de tirer le rideau, sur la duret6 des ses proc^d^s envers vous.
II eat bien triste, qu'il vous aye force a r^courir k la justice contre lui.
N'auriez vous pas avant d'en venir k cette extremite, pu trouver quelque
occasion de le joindre, et d'^mouvoir en lui la nature par voire vue?"
La force du sang est grande en de telles rencontres, et souvent le fr^re
qu'on avoit perdu se retrouve entre les bras de sa soeur. Peut-6tre
r^ussiriez vous encore de cette facon k le rendre traitable, malgr^ ce qui
s'est passe entre vous, votre magnanimity n'y perdroit rien, puisqu'une
avance, faite k un fr^re, ne seroit qu'un hommage rendu k I'union de votre
famille, k la gloire du nom que vous portez tous deux, au bien de vos
enfans, et par consequent k votre amour-propre dirige par la raison. Mais
peut-etre juge-je de votre situation, comme un aveugle des couleurs. Voua
devez connoitre votre frere, et vous avez trop de sentiment et de prudence,^
pour rien negliger de ce qui pourroit le ramener, si vous n'etiez seure, que
c'est impossible, et qu'il a ferme son ame k tout ce qui peut emouvoir un bon
naturel. S'il est ainsi mi Lady, permettez moi de vous dire, que lui ayant
une fois rompu en visiere, par votre recours au gouvernment pour votre
pension, vous devez tacher d'ajuster, maintenant tout ce que vous pourriez.
jamais avoir k debattre avec lui, et k vous munir des precautions contre
toutes les supercheries, qui pourroient alterer les droits de votre heritage j
et cela d'autant plus soigneusement, que si Dieu vous retiroit de ce monde,
et Mr. Steward aussi, avant la mort du Due votre fr^re, et pendant que
vos enfans sont en bas-age ces pauvres innocens coureroient risque de tout
perdre. Pardonnez mi Lady si I'ardeur de mon zdle me fait entrer
198
Appendix III
indiscretement dans trop de detail ; la tendresse de mon amiti6 pour vou»
doit me servir d'excuse, Je vous protests, que Tabsence ne ralentit rien k
la chaleur des mes sentimens, et que votre id6e m'est encore aussi
interessante, et aussi chere, que me la f At jadis votre aimable presence, vos
vertus, vos talens, votre caractere, vous ont attach^ mon coeur par des
liens indissolubles. Quel dommage que la mer nous separe, et que
I'eloignement mette un invincible obstacle a la jouissance d'une si belle
amiti6. Je rends graces k Mr. Steward de son souvenir ; si mes 6gards, si
ma parfaite estime peuvent le ilatter, il a toutes les raisons d'etre content
de moi. Tenez parole, chfere Lady, informez moi de la retraite que vous-
choisirez, et croyez que je ferai jusqu'au tombeau, avec la consideration la
plus afiectueuse, votre tres humble, tr6s obeissante, et tr^s devou6e
servante,
Sabine Comtesse de Bassevitz.
De Rostoc le 6me de Mars 1751.
TRANSLATION.
Letter from the Countess of Bassevitz, at Rostoc, to Lady Jane
Douglas Steuart.
My dear Lady, — Your letter of the 7th of July did not find me at
Aix-la-Chapelle. I had set out for Paris upon the 16th of that month,
where having remained near three months, it was in my return by the
way of Brussels that I had the pleasure of receiving your dear lines.
The Count de Bassevitz and I would have been very well pleased to
have passed the winter at Paris ; but as we had made the whole journey
in company with our Hereditary Prince, and the Princesses, his consort
and sister, and of consequence all our matters were so disposed that
we could not separate from them without incommoding both them and
ourselves, we were under a necessity of attending them when the
accounts which they received of the reigning Duke their father's
being indisposed, obliged them to hasten their return. You are not
mistaken, amiable Lady, in supposing that we passed our time very
agreeably in that magnificent city, where pleasures spring up under
every footstep. At the same time, while I do justice to its beauties,
to the masterly performances which it exhibits in the different arts,
and to the lively and happy genius of its inhabitants, I could not
conform myself to their manners. The frivolousness of their con-
versation, the foppish air of the men, and the giddy behaviour of the
women, joined to that frightful rouge with which they disguise their
complexion, and which makes the handsome resemble courtesans, and
the ugly look like hags. All this makes me feel that I was born for
Germany, and not for France, as my taste would never be recon-
ciled to such fooleries. I believe, however, that even a person of my
turn of mind might live very agreeably at Paris, if one had time
to search out the few people of sense and knowledge who are there
dispersed, and to form a connection with them; but, in order to arrive
199
The Douglas Cause,
at that, one must combat the prejudices of the public, which in that
place seldom allows women to be reasonable creatures, and which
looks upon us as puppets destined for the amusement, not to say the
sport, of men.
What a desert Aix-la-Chapelle appeared to me for want of your
company ! I comforted myself the best way I could, in conversing
about you with all who knew you, or who had heard of your merit,
and of your sufferings in your own country. I often visited Madam
Tewis, to hear her repeat all that she knew concerning you. She
is a very good woman, and is the more sincerely attached to you that
she believes you to be an intimate friend of her daughter, the Lady
of Colonel Herbert. The evidence which she says she is in condition
to produce in support of your pregnancy is more than sufficient to
frustrate whatever the blackest malice of your enemies might invent,
to the prejudice of your dear twins, especially, if she takes my advice
and delivers her testimony before a notary, in order to give it the
force of an authentic deposition. — I have seen your cousin, my Lord
Drumlanrig. I was told that he aspired to the succession of the
Duke, your brother; but I can hardly believe it; the nobleness of
his look bespeaks him incapable of so mean an office as that of sup-
planting a rightful heir. I have likewise heard that he was displeased
at your marriage. I know nothing of the truth of this, as he never
explained himself upon the subject in my presence ; but this I can
say, that I have heard him speak of you with all the respect that is
due to your virtues. Madam Tewis would, no doubt, inform you
that the Chevalier Cunningham, an officer of Lord Drumlanrig's
regiment, applied to her to be informed of some circumstances con-
cerning you. Perhaps he had been deceived himself by false reports,
and wanted to have the matter cleared up; and his desire of knowing
the truth seems to imply that he has no design of doing you hurt.
At any rate he will gain nothing by acting, either directly or in-
directly, against you; for people who have access to know have
assured me that the Duke of Douglas had as little inclination to
favour his cousin as his sister, and that he intends to leave all that
he can dispose of at his death to a female cousin of the same name
with yourself, and who is married, if I am not mistaken, to the same
Duke of Buccleugh, whose hand you formerly rejected. It is not of
yesterday, my dearest Lady, that I have been acquainted with the
character of my Lord your brother, in spite of the generosity with
which you endeavoured to draw a veil over the harshness of his pro-
ceedings towards you. It is very unhappy that you should be
obliged to have recourse to justice against him. Could not you, before
coming to that extremity, endeavour to bring about an interview with
him, and to awaken the impulse of natural affection in him by your
presence? The force of blood is great upon such occasions, and it
often happens that a lost brother is found again in the arms of his
sister. — Perhaps, in this way, you may, so far at least, succeed as to
make him listen to terms notwithstanding what has passed between
you ; your magnanimity would suffer nothing by it, because an advance
of this sort made to a brother would be no more than a due homage
200
Appendix III.
paid to the union of your family, to the glory of the name which both
of you bear, to the good of your children, and, of consequence, to your
own self-love, directed by reason. But, perhaps I judge of your situa-
tion as a blind person does of colours ; you are certainly not un-
acquainted with your brother, and you have too much sentiment, as
well as prudence, to neglect any step which might regain his affections,
if you were not positive that it is to no purpose, and that his breast is
steeled to every suggestion of humanity. If that is the case, my Lady,
permit me to tell you that, having once so far outfaced him as to apply
to the Government for your pension, you ought now to endeavour, as
far as in your power, to adjust your matters so as to have no after-
questions with him, and to fortify yourself with precautions against
all the tricks which may be made use of to cut off your right of inherit-
ance ; and this you ought to be the more solicitous about, that if God
should withdraw both you and Mr. Steuart from this world before the
death of the Duke, your brother, and while your children are under
age, these poor innocents might run a risk of losing all. Pardon me,
my Lady, if the ardour of my zeal makes me enter indiscreetly into
too minute a discussion; the tenderness of my friendship for you will
plead my excuse. I protest to you that absence abates nothing of the
warmth of my sentiments, and that your idea is at present as interest-
ing and as dear to me as was formerly your amiable presence. Your
virtues, your talents, your character have bound my heart to you by
indissoluble ties. What pity it is that the sea divides us, and that
distance occasions an invincible bar to the enjoyment of so perfect a
friendship. I return thanks to Mr. Steuart for his remembrance of
me ; if my regard, if my perfect esteem can flatter him, he has reason
to be satisfied with me. Keep your word, dear Lady, inform me of the
retreat which you make choice of, and believe that I shall be, to the
grave, with the most affectionate respect, your most humble and most
obedient servant,
Sabine Countess of Bassevitz.
Rostoc, 6th March, 1751.
LETTER IX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Saturday Morning.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Good morrow to you, according to Lord Blantyre's
stile; I hope, by the letter I am expecting every moment from you,
to hear that your cold is absolutely removed ; in that case, I beg you
to be thankful to the great Bestower of all good, who daily loads us
with His favours.
The colds at present, which scarce any have escaped, are so much
more severe than that you complained of, makes me write the little
exhortation above, to put you in mind of gratitude to our great Bene-
201
The Douglas Cause.
factor; though you may justly say that remonstrance was needless to
you, who are always so sensible of favours received from friends. Our
Almighty Friend cannot then be forgotten by one who has such
sentiments as yours.
I enclose here the card I received in return to mine from Captain
Wilson and his lady ; I am to make inquiry after her health, and a
proper excuse for your not coming immediately to wait on him.
The town continues as dull as I am, affording not one thing worthy
the pains to write, or you to read ; yet I can tell you what will please
you beyond evdry other thing, that our dear little ones are well. Poor
Mrs. Hewit also begins to mend ; she put on blisters last night behind
her ears, and finds herself this morning much better. I stop here till
I receive your letter, which will certainly enliven me ; but this I ought
not to have said, lest it produce another kind quarrel on your side.
This moment I have the satisfaction of yours, and though you write
nothing of your cold, James brings the agreeable account that it is
quite well, blessed be God that it is so. The glimpse of hope you
mention, I hope shall come out soon in a full blaze of joy and
satisfaction.
What you write concerning Lady Betty and her spouse is well imagined
and expressed ; we shall very soon see the extent of their friendship ;
I should have more properly said the constancy of it, since I have
already received material proofs of it, which I shall never forget.
I send a fine fowl and a piece of beef ; I hope as fine as the last you
commend so much. I flatter myself Tuesday shall prove a good day,
that I may have the pleasure to tell you how much I am affectionately
yours, which words cannot so well express.
J. D. S.
LETTER X.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Tuesday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — ^I have felt so much pain since I left you, for
the few rash words expressed at parting, that I take this way to dis-
charge, if possible, some part of the burden of grief I have suffered
upon that occasion ; at the same time that I find myself unable to give
you an idea of the one half of my sorrow, which will not diminish till
you, with your usual goodness and indulgence to me, assure me of a
pardon. Dear Mr. Steuart, write as soon as this comes to your
hands, that you are not displeased, which will make me happy again.
I won't enter upon the subject of our debate, which caused my wrong-
headed expressions ; only this far, that I confess you were in the right
and I excessively in the wrong. I am from my heart and soul
conscious and sensible of my fault; so, once more, dear Mr. Steuart,
pardon it, and pass it over, and never in your life think more of my
ill- judged, as well as ill-managed, arguings.
202
Appendix III.
On Friday, please God, I intend to dine with you ; don't provide
dinner, I bring one along with me.
Receive enclosed a moidore ; I'll bring a little more of the same metal
with me ; wish I could bring as much as would deliver you out of your
•confinement.
Dear little Archie and Sholto are charmed with their hats, and have
promised to be good boys ; they're in perfect health, blessed be God,
as I am ; only till I hear from you, and that you are friends with me,
I shall have no tranquility of mind. Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart. In
spite of frequent idle sallies, I am, and ever shall be, with the tenderest
-and warmest affection, yours,
Jane Douglas Steuart.
LETTER XI.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Friday, 1 o'clock.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Yesterday, just after I made answer to yours, I
received a letter from my guardian angel, in return to a card I sent
her. The contents are as follows : —
Madam, — I should be extremely sorry to give your Ladyship the
trouble of calling on me, but am very glad I can now with certainty
assure you, your request has been laid before his Majesty by the Duke
'of Newcastle ; and Saturday last Mr. Pelhara had notice from his
Tjrother it was granted. Proper notice of this, I conclude, Mr. Pelham
will give your Ladyship. And I am, madam, your most obedient, etc.,
3rd August.
I dare say you'll be pleased with the contents of this letter ; I expect
every hour to be informed of the matter by another hand ; but the early
notice of favourable things come always by her friendly hands.
Mrs. Hewit is better to-day ; the little men are well. Adieu, entirely
yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Saturday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I see you are better versed in Elibank7 and his
"brother's affairs than any information I can give can possibly make
you ; however, I'm always pleased to give you, in your present
solitude, any little piece of news that comes my way, which, indeed,
but very seldom presents itself to me. I think with you that Miss
Murray, by her behaviour in this matter, appears to have both
7 Colonel Steuart married Lord Elibank's sister after Lady Jane's death.
2(^
The Douglas Cause,
honour and good sentiments. I can't doubt but Elibank will soon
come to see you ; then you may, with decency, offer my request to him,
and I think, as you do, you may expect success,
I was to wait on Lady Mary Douglas, Thursday ; her father. Lord
Morton, was present, and received me very kindly and obligingly the
first visit, and people being by, I could come upon no particulars, but
when he comes here, as probably he will, I shall then talk over
several things with him. His daughter is a very beautiful girl,
genteel and well bred, not yet fourteen, and is as tall as a woman.
I did not so much as think of the 17th of JMarch when I read your
intention of having claret and Burgundy some days hence ; that pro-
fusion does not, I confess, please me much in our present situation,
nor does the reason you give for it mend the matter at all ; Lisbon
or Cherry, if you will remember that day, is sufficient to solemnise the
birthday of one so far advanced as I am ; but if in remembrance and
honour of St. Patrick, no liquor is good enough. I would not, there-
fore, endeavour to keep the day at all, only by praying a little more
than ordinary, not to him, but to Almighty God, who daily loads us
with benefits and spares us to see the returns of New Years and birth-
days. If your affairs took a happy turn, that happy period I would
indeed solemnise myself, with all the rare fine delicates could be
imagined ; but, till that satisfactory moment arrives, it becomes us to
shun every extravagance, and to walk softly and very humbly. In
the meantime I send you a young pig, which, I hope, will be a little
regale to the King, and you also a young fowl.
I'm glad you took the rhubarb, and that it did so well with you;
take every fine moment of good weather to walk, as you have always
been accustomed to do ; and take great care of your health, which
secures my happiness.
I can learn no news to divert you, but I send a book of poems, which
I hope will; it was wrote by a gardener's daughter, a young girl,
uneducated, and yet it is esteemed well wrote and the language fine ;
retiirn it so soon as you have read it. It is not mine; I borrowed it
from Mr. Clayton.
The little men are well, but Mrs. Nelly is mightily distressed, yet
affectionately yours. I shall leave off here till James comes, then I
shall add a few lines, and bid you adieu till next morning that you
send. Just after dinner I received the pleasure of yours ; you imagine
me partial when I commend your manner of writing, but I declare it
is quite otherways, and my sentiments are entirely unbiassed ; and
to show you how great my opinion of your good sense and judgment is,
I must beg you write down, by way of hints, what the articles are,
that you judge most proper for me to insist upon when I next see the
E. of Morton ; for any further than to thank him for his timely generous
supply I cannot possibly stoop to demand more. This I am determined
not to do ; as for other topics, to speak on these, no doubt, are
various. I therefore wish to have your thoughts on the heads you
think I should insist most on ; that won't hinder me to mention, perhaps
dwell on some subjects that I may find proper to talk to him about.
I shall probably see him the beginning of next week; any socmer I
can't expect, being just come to town, and a great deal to do.
ao4
Appendix III.
Use Elibank in your own way; you best know his good and bad
properties.
Archie's asleep, and Sholto above stairs prattling by him, else they,
perhaps, would send some kisses to their dear papa.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart, ever with the greatest tenderness and
affection, yours, J- ^- S-
LETTER XIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Thursday.
Dear Mr. Steuart,— That implies a short letter; yours I received
and begin mine in the same manner you do yours, with wishing you
every happiness and felicity this year, and a great number of them.
As for your witty sallies, I won't answer them ; but for the attack
you make upon my love and friendship, that I can, and must assure
you, is a§ sincere and warm as ever, though many invincible reasons
make it possible to give the proofs of it I could wish to do ; be
satisfied of this, as I am of every thing that is good and kind on your
part. As to the rest of your letter, I shall answer it next occasion,
which, I believe, shall be on Saturday, when I shall send John pretty
early in the morning ; dispatch him, then, soon. I have wrote this in
such a hurry, I'm afraid you can't read it.
The children are mighty well, blessed be God, as Mrs. Hewit and
I am, and tenderly and affectionately yours, as I am in a particular
manner. J. D. S.
LETTER XIV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Sunday Morning.
Dear Mr, Steuart, — That implies a short letter ; yours I received
this moment with great pleasure. Your regard and kindness to me,
which has prompted you to the expense you've made in sending finer
wines than I think the day required (barring the honour due to St.
Patrick) makes that I dare offer nothing against that obliging
demonstration.
Your cold is not quite gone, which gives me pain ; for heaven's sake,
be careful to take everything proper to remove it.
The children are, I bless God, well. Poor Mrs. Nellie, far from being
so, had a very bad night of it; you'll see I am in a great hurry just
going to church. Dear Mr. Steuart, entirely yours, with great affection.
J. D. S.
o ao5
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER XV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Stbtjart.
Monday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Your not writing this morning, you having
accustomed me to that satisfaction, has given me a great deal of
painful anxiety, the rheumatic pain in your arm, the uneasiness you
complained of in your head, though not a headache, all these things
together has made my mind very uneasy ; I have, therefore, sent
Mr. Smith to inquire how things are with you, and would have gone
myself, but the rain and wet under foot prevented me, and coaches
are expensive.
Mr. Lockhart of Camwath was with me this morning, and, to do
him justice, behaved extremely well, with great kindness, friendship,
and politeness; spoke of you with the warmest friendship and esteem,
called for the children, and appeared transported to see themj com-
mended them more than I think they deserve, for he said he never
had seen two such fine boys, especially Archie took his eye ; he was
delighted with him, and repeated several times with pleasure that he
was just your picture.
In regard to your son, Mr. Jacky, he protested he had all along
acted the friendly and honourable part, and that a little before he
left Scotland your son had got up all the bonds that were committed
to his trust, which only, from friendship to you, he engaged and con-
cerned himself in ; his whole behaviour and manner of acting since
you left Scotland he refers you to be informed by your friend, George
Sinclair, with whom he consulted, and took along with him, in
whatever related to your son. I, therefore, beg, when you meet with
Mr. Lockhart, which he anxiously wishes for, you may first hear him
speak before you condemn him. He goes out of town to-night, but
is to return to-morrow ; he wants to have an interview with you ; I
said you were in the country, but that upon my giving you notice
you would come to town. He is soon to set out for Scotland. Mrs.
Hewit continues still better, the little men are well. I hope to have
the same good accounts of you. Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart, ever
entirely yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XVI.
Lady Ja^ne Douglas to Mb. Steuaet.
Thursday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Pray don't pay me so many compliments in my
doing what is just and right, and what shall ever afford me so much
pleasure. I am glad you have hopes of everything coming out to
your wish ; I never can allow myself to doubt of success at last.
These delays are only permitted to acquaint us with the virtue of
206
Appendix III.
patience and resignation. Things so useful and amiable, who would
not be put at at any age to such a school? I'm glad you have got
acquainted with so agreeable a gentleman ; you do well to cultivate
it. I send the history of Douglas, I send a bit of velvet and a snuff-
box for a little rapee, which I am quite out of ; send it back any
time to-day or to-morrow, only quarter filled.
I'm invited to-morrow evening to Lady Tyrawly's; if you choose
to be there it is well [but if affairs of great moment comes in the way,
don't come]. 8
We're all mighty well, and the little men very much so, blessed
be God ; I take abundance of care of myself, and of the dear little
ones, as you may well believe. Pray take my example of being
careful of yourself.
I have nothing new to offer ; only Mrs. Hewit was at the ball on
Monday ; she underwent many hardships and difficulties that night
by the excessive cold and great crowd, but has luckily got the better
of all; she says they are a very amiable family, and is fallen in love
with King George. Adieu, Dear Mr. Steuart, always more yours than
I can express. J. D. S.
LETTER XVII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Chelsea, Thursday, March 5.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I have this moment the pleasure of your letter
by your messenger ; this and all yours are ever welcome and agreeable
to me; but the paragraph in some of your late letters, and in this
last one in particular, upon religious matters, absolutely charm me ;
go on, dear Mr. Steuart, fix your eyes, your hope and trust above,
and all worldly concerns will soon seem perfectly easy, nay will, in
reality, become so ; for God never disappoints those that entirely
depend on Him, nor will He continue to afflict when we fly to Him for
succour, and place our whole happiness in His favour alone. Allow
me to send you by the bearer a favourite book of mine, Thomas a
Kempis; read it, I beg you, in it you'll discover so much heavenly
and even worldly wisdom, that it never fails to please both the
spiritual and temporal mind, and to instruct both.
Your letters by Greenly I received yesterday; they were most
acceptable to me ; he would tell you the reason why I could not send
sooner to you than Tuesday last, and that I was obliged to employ
him to carry my letter to you, and likewise yesterday gave him a
packet, I believe, from your son, to carry to you to-day, John being
not yet able to go out; but against Saturday I design to send him,
if better.
You imagine, because I happened to say in one of my letters that
8Def. proof, 832 B.
207
The Douglas Cause.
I took uncommon care of my health, that on that account 1 am
become low-spirited. Nothing is farther from me, I bless God, than
low spirits ; many years ago they were not near so much so ; yet I
do think, and must think, that my life at present is, and ought to
be, more my concern than formerly, because I have you and the
children to care for. Is that a reason to think that I am become
low-spirited, because I would like to live some time longer for your
sakes? The end of the week, or beginning of next, I shall write more
fully on everything. I am, &c., ^ J. D. S.
The children are very well, I bless God.
LETTER XVIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Chelsea, Friday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I'm resolved you should have no reason to
complain any more of my remissness in writing to you, so have
engaged Mr. Grinley to step over to you to-morrow morning, by whom
I hope to have the agreeable account of your being perfectly well,
as we are all here, I bless God.
I'm extremely sorry that you're quite out of pocket-money, and
the more so that it is not in my power to supply you, nor I don't
know when it shall, it being by no means to be expected that the
money the King has been graciously pleased to allow me is imme-
diately to be paid just a few days after the term it falls due, nor is
it fit for me to show any impatience about the payment, so I must
have patience.
I was obliged to borrow half a guinea last Monday from a friend,
just for necessary things ; judge then, dear Mr. Steuart, if out of that
I can send you any supply. But I won't dwell upon this painful
subject, nor indeed upon any, for I must end with assuring you
that I ever am, with all possible affection and tenderness, dear Mr.
Steuart, entirely yours, J. D. S.
The children often talk of their dear papa, and are impatient to see
you. Judge, then, how much more I am so.
LETTER XIX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Friday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Your seeming to be so much on the
melancholy turn in your last letter gave me a considerable
uneasiness, of which I have not yet got the better.
Why will you allow your spirits to sink, dear Mr. Steuart?
It is that alone that gives me pain, and when I think that
208
Appendix III,
your mind is easy, the little difficulties we are in at present gives no
manner of disquiet, save your confinement and my seeing you so
seldom ; that is indeed shocking, but it is hardly to be bore when you
sink under it. Pray then keep up your spirits, if not for your own
sake, for mine ; let this be an argument to persuade you to bear well
up under all your distresses; if you don't, you will assuredly distress
me more than all my calamities have hitherto done, for, to say the
truth, when I look around, I see and hear of so many people much
more unhappy than myself that I really think I am a great deal more
fortunate in many things than others are, or than I deserve to be.
I enclose here five shillings. Employ it in giving me the satisfaction
of a visit on Monday or Tuesday next.
The children and we are all mighty well, I bless God.
LETTER XX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Sunday Evening.
You may justly think it odd, dear Mr. Steuart, as well as unkind,
that I did not answer your letter yesterday, which you wrote from
so obliging and so affectionate a motive ; but your messenger was in
so mighty a hurry, and pretended letters to be delivered necessarily
before five, some of which I believed might belong to you, that I would
not let him wait a moment for a letter from me, it being three in
the afternoon ere he came here. I write this now to make apology
for that appearing neglect, and to know particularly how your cold
is, as everybody complains they are very obstinate this season, and
I'm afraid you are not so careful of yourself as you should be; and,
alas ! I am not near you to take that care which I would wish to do,
and which I am sensible you want so much ; therefore, dear Mr.
Steuart, let me beg you, for my sake and for the children's, to neglect
nothing that you think will contribute to remove your cold before
it gets too fast a seat, which if it does, will with great difficulty be
removed ; and, pray, let me know if you choose to have any mum,
and I will send you some by next occasion, from the place you used
to get it. I return here Mr. Hamilton's letter ; it is a very civil one.
I wish your scheme which you're to offer him may suit him.
I have not seen Greenly since Tuesday, so I know nothing how
matters go on that quarter; but however they go, I am perfectly
resigned, and not only so, but satisfied and pleased, well knowing
that bounteous Providence will work out a way for our deliverance
in the best way, and at the best time, if we in the meantime will be
but patient and submissive.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart, I ever am, with the greatest tenderness,
yours.
Mrs. Hewit returns you many thanks for your kind offer of honey,
but has got some, so you need not send any; she sends you her best
209
The Douglas Cause.
wishes and compliments; her cold continues still obstinate. The
children are very well, I bless God. Once more adieu, dear Mr.
Steuart. I had not room to sign my name on the other side; I put
it in large on this.
Jane Douglas Stbuaet.
LETTER XXI.
' Lady Jane Douglas to Me.. Steuaet.
Thursday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received your letter yesterday, and by it I
perceive your spirits are depressed, which a great deal mitigates
the joy and satisfaction your letters usually give me. No wonder
you are discouraged, and quite tired out of patience with your lonely,
disagreeable quarters, and many other unlucky occurrences; but are
all these, in common with other human creatures, sufficient maladies
to sink the spirits, or to harbour the smallest murmuring, as if too
rigorously dealt with? We have made mighty small progress in
looking inward, and in judging aright of ourselves, when we frame
such a conclusion; for certain it is we have many more blessings
and benefits that call loudly for our acknowledgments to Almighty
God, than cause of complaint. For my own part, after many times
considering the situation of all around me, even of those counted the
most happy, and upon this reflection, looking home into myself, I
find I am possessed of more happiness than any I have yet heard of,
or can fix my eyes upon, anywhere abroad ; so then, dear Mr. Steuart,
learn to be contented and absolutely resigned to the Divine Disposer
of all things, and then, I can assure you, your mind will obtain
perfect quiet and happiness, and, at the same time, be in the more
proper and probable way of having your wishes and heart's desire
accomplished. This is a long sermon you'll say ; I delight in preach-
ing, when I can forbear it, even when you desire me to send you
P6re Chemeine, who can so much better exhort and teach. I send him
to you with great joy; and your desiring him, though contained in
a mighty small volume, gives me infinite satisfaction.
Duchess Wharton and Countess Wigton were with me yesterday; the
Duchess inquired very obligingly after you; and for the Countess,
you're prodigiously in her favour; she really speaks of you on all
occasions with unconunon friendship and concern. I'm excessively
glad that the good Baron9 continues in better health; I sincerely
wish him everything that is prosperous and happy. Offer him my
best respects, as Mrs. Hewit does, and most affectionately to you.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart; be you but happy and easy, and I am
extremely so, and ever yours,
Jane Douglas Steuaet.
The children are very well, I bless God.
> Baron Caesar de Macelligot, husband of Lady Wigton.
210
Appendix III.
LETTER XXII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuabt.
Friday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received your letter yesterday from Grinley,
at his house in town, being come in to go with Lady Wigton to Lady
Tyrawley's, where I met Lady Home and Mrs. Winter. All these
ladies sent you a thousand compliments, particularly Lady Home,
who is charmed with the bottle of salts you sent the other day,
which showed so kind an attention about her; the other Countess is
to be your guest on St. Patrick's day; to whom you're also much
obliged in point of kindness. Mr. Mackercher proposes to conduct
us to you on Tuesday. I am to send what is necessary for dinner
the day before, so pray don't you provide anything save a bottle of
wine, as the stocks are so low it would be out of all common sense
to have any extraordinaries in such a situation and in such circum-
stances ; and as we need use no mighty ceremony with our guests,
they being both, I dare say, our sincere friends; therefore expense
would make them justly doubt that we believed them so.
I'm charmed that my favourite book pleases you so much. By
all I can see in most of your late letters, I verily believe you're upon
the way of becoming a saint yourself, as well as St. Thomas and the
rest of the saints, that you of late days have been so conversant with.
Judge how this thought delights me; how it raises my spirits, and
sets me above all misfortunes. Had I a great many, as indeed I
think I have none, save that you are in captivity and I at a distance
from you, these are painful indeed ; but all the rest of my fate is
perfectly happy. I wish only I could be sufficiently thankful for it.
The dear little children are mighty weU, I bless God.
Mrs. Hewit is a good deal better, and is most affectionately yours.
Being to see you, please God, so soon, I shall not add any more
now, but to assure you that I truly am, with the greatest affection
and tenderness, entirely yours,
J. Douglas Steuart.
LETTER XXIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Friday Night.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Having wrote to you this evening already, and
designing to see you the beginning next week, I refer everything I
have to say to you till then; only I must here assure you that I am
highly pleased with your wise and prudent letter; and certainly to be
patient and calm under every calamity, even those of our own acquir-
ing, is the religious and wisest part. But I must confess I am a little
uneasy to find you so much upon the supposition that I took any
offence at the heat with which you spoke the other day. Lay all
311
The Douglas Cause.
these anxious thoughts aside, dear Mr. Steuart, and believe once for
all that nothing gives me pain or disquiet, but the fears I sometimes
have for your being disheartened for little cross accidents; assure me
you never will be any more so, and then I'm perfectly happy.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart. The children and we are all well, blessed
be God, and very happy, only somewhat poor, which I only regret,
because I cannot send you even pocket-money ; but we'll grow richer,
and in whatever situation I am in, I ever am most tenderly and
affectionately yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XXIV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Chelsea, Wednesday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — It has not been in my power to send sooner,
though impatient to know how you do. I have nothing now material
to write, but that dear little Archy and Sholto are well, as we all
are, blessed be God.
I hope you profit of this fine weather, as the children and I do.
I was in town yesterday, and find myself the better for it. I hope
your cold is quite gone. Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart. You shall hear
again from me this week, with a small supply for your pocket, which
I have these days past sent in search about. I ever am, with the
tenderest affection, yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XXV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Tuesday Morning.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — ^You may judge how low money matters are
with me at present by this most scurvy poor half-crown I send you;
I'm quite ashamed of it, and, to conceal it from my servants, I have
enclosed it well wrapt up in the pretty little money-box, which ought
to contain gold ; wish to heaven I could send of that useful but rare
metal with \is. This poor bit of silver I send just to procure you a
little rappee Ever yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XXVI.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Chelsea, Tuesday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — How did your last letter, dear Mr. Steuart,
affect my heart! where you tell me you subsisted for so many days
upon the small remains of our little dinner, and not wherewith to
send even for porter; and this all owing to your parting too freely
with your few shillings to me, which I took from you with regret;
no wonder, since I could so much easier get a supply where I am
than you possibly can, in your confined quarter. But, dear Mr.
212
Appendix III,
Steuart, cheer up, for I hope very soon to bring you as much money
as shall make you above these pressing, painful necessities ; and, in
a little time, I hope kind indulgent Providence shall set you and 1
above our present inconveniences, which, by the way, only give me
pain because I know your spirit cannot easily bear up under them ;
but, believe me, the only way to get soon rid of any calamities is to
be entirely resigned, patient, and submissive during the duration of
them ; such a disposition is certainly pleasing to Heaven, and provides
for after happiness, even in this life.
The very well-timed supply Mr. Farquhar gave you, of which you
sent me too large a share ; I shall never forget that kind proof of his
friendship, and I need not put you in mind to make it up to him
a hundredfold when in your power, which, I hope, shall soon be the
I did not choose to write last Sunday, though we were all well.
Dear little Archy has had a little cold, with a small degree of a fever ;
but, blessed be God, 'tis now in a manner quite over. Do not be
angry with John for not mentioning it to you ; he could not indeed
do it, as I knew nothing myself of the child's being ill till after I
had given him orders to go early in the morning to see how you were.
I must own, when I perceived the child hot, and, as I thought, in
danger of taking a fever or the smallpox, I felt a pain and distress
of mind not to be expressed. I slept not a wink for a whole night,
and was not without great anxiety the next day, though he was grown
considerably better ; and now all is, I think, over, blest be God ;
and so would not have mentioned it to you but to convince you that
no outward bad circumstances can in the least disquiet or discompose
me ; only what concerns you, dear Mr. Steuart, and these two little
babies, Archy and Sholto, robs me of rest and ease. Let this persuade
you to take care of your health, and to bear up with fortitude under
the present frowns of fortune, which will, more than any other thing,
oblige your ever tenderly affectionate J. D. S.
I send you a little tea and a few stakes ; a fine present indeed, but
all in good time, better will come after, if we'll have but patience.
Four o'clock, afternoon. — Archy's now so well that he's playing in
the garden.
Mrs. Hewit sends you her kind compliments, begs to know if you
have got her spectacles set in silver, which she got from Mrs.
Cockburn, thinking, perhaps, you might by chance have taken them
in place of your own.
Archy's just come upstairs and desires me to send you his humble
duty.
LETTER XXVII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuabt.
Friday Night.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — The weather does not yet seem to favour my
intended visit to you ; and, besides, I find Tuesday next will suit my
213
The Douglas Cause.
little affairs better to perform it; so that day you may expect me,
please God, to dine with you, unless a constant rain prevent it. For
all this delay, I long much to see you; and since I cannot have that
satisfaction till next week, I send this purposely to have the pleasure
of receiving a particular account of you, which I hope shall be, that
you are in great good health and spirits, as we all here are, and the
dear little men extremely so. I think that may be enough to keep
you from any great abatement in yours. So, dear Mr. Steuart, adieu
till Tuesday Believe me ever, in the tenderest manner,
affectionately yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XXVni.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steua&t.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I bless God the children are in perfect good
health, so you may judge how surprised I was upon receiving yours.
Your little messenger must delight in teUing painful stories; however,
don't chide the boy, for it was only a mistake. J. D. S.
LETTER XXIX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuabt.
Monday Evening.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I intended this letter should have been with
you this morning, but John was so ill of a cold and toothache that I
could not send him out, so most unwillingly must defer sending it till
to-morrow, and then I believe I shall be obliged to send it by one of
the maids to Grinlay, to desire him to carry it to you till our servant
be recovered.
I have been the more uneasy that I could not possibly get your
last letter sooner answered, as it kindly mentions a visit from me
so obligingly, and with so much tenderness desired. I do assure you,
dear Mr. Steuart, you can't wish it more earnestly than I do; nor
shall it suffer one day's delay when I can possibly perform it, and
that shall be when I'm perfectly free of a little cold that has hung
about me this while past, and though far from being severe, yet it
is somewhat obstinate in going entirely off, for which I continue to
take almost every night bran water and raisins, which does me great
service. You may justly think I am at much pains and care about
myself; I truly think so too. But that does not use to be my fault,
only of late I begin to be mighty dainty of myself, because I think
my life, in the present unhappy posture of our affairs, may be of
some use and service to you and the children. This is all my anxiety
for living, and the cause that forces me to take so much care of
214
Appendix III.
myself ; but if the weather prove as favourable as it has been these
several days past, I hope to have the satisfaction to come to see you
next week, and to stay with you two or three days.
Countess Home was here Saturday forenoon and took Mrs. Hewit,
the children, and I out in her coach for an airing. She's a very
obliging, friendly woman, and you are a mighty favourite of her's
and Mrs. Winter's, which recommends them much to me. Pray let
me either have the Italian novel, or what part you have transcribed ;
I fancy it will be agreeable to read. When I can light on any divert-
ing book I shall certainly send it to you. Alas ! you stand too much
in need of amusements in the dismal solitude you're confined to;
but, dear Mr. Steuart, keep up your heart, and, above all things,
trust in God, and all things will go well with you, and, consequently,
with me.
The children are very well, I bless God.
I expect a long letter from you by the bearer of this; be assured
that the longer your letters are they are always the more agreeable.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart. I ever am, with the utmost tenderness
and affection, entirely yours,
Jane Douglas Steuart.
Your two shirts you sent shall be carefully mended.
LETTER XXX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Pelham.
Sir, — If I meant to importune you I should ill deserve the generous
compassion which I was informed some months ago you expressed,
upon being acquainted with my distress. I take this as the least
troublesome way of thanking you, and desiring you to lay my applica-
tion before the King in such a light as your own humanity will
suggest. I cannot tell my story without seeming to complain of one
of whom I never will complain. I am persuaded my brother wishes
me well, but from a mistaken resentment, upon a creditor of mine
demanding from him a trifling sum, he has stopped the annuity which
he had always paid me, my father having left me, his only younger
child, in a manner unprovided for.
Till the Duke of Douglas is set right, which I'm confident he will
be, I am destitute. Presumptive heiress of a great estate and family,
with two children, I want bread. Your own nobleness of mind will
make you feel how much it costs me to beg, though from the King.
My birth and the attachment of my family, I flatter myself his
Majesty is not unacquainted with ; should he think me an object of
his royal bounty, my heart won't suffer any bounds to be set to my
gratitude; and, give me leave to say, my spirit won't suffer me to
be burdensome to his Majesty longer than my cruel necessity
compels me.
215
The Douglas Cause.
I little thought of ever being reduced to petition in this way ; your
goodness will therefore excuse me if I have mistaken the manner or
said anything improper.
Though personally unknown to you, I rely upon your interceBsion ;
the consciousness of your own mind, in having done so good and
charitable a deed, will be a better return than the perpetual thanks
of, sir, your most obliged, most faithful, and most obedient servant,
Janb Douglas Stbuaht.
St. James's Place, May 15, 1750.
LETTER XXXI.
From Mb. Pelham to Lady Jane Douglas.
Arlington Street, August 3rd, 1750.
Madam, — I have the pleasure now to acquaint you that his Majesty
has been graciously pleased to approve of the humble request which
I laid before him, and to order me to pay you three hundred pounds
a year as long as your Ladyship's situation shall make such an
assistance from his Majesty's bounty necessary for your support. This
method will, I flatter myself, be most agreeable to you, as the whole
sum will come to you without fees or deductions ; and no further
trouble now remains to your Ladyship than to authorise your agent
to receive it from my hands, the first half-year of which I shall be
ready to pay to your order any time after next Michaelmas. What-
ever share I may have had in procuring to your Ladyship this mark
of the King's goodness cannot but be very pleasing to me, as it
furnishes me with an opportunity of testifying the great respect with
which I have the honour to be, &c.
LETTER XXXII.
Lady Jane Douglas to the Eabl of Mobton.
London, December 22, 1750.
My Lord, — Some months ago I did myself the honour to write your
Lordship acquainting you that I had good reason to believe the King
was graciously disposed to grant me some relief, having received the
application made to him in the most favourable manner. I have now
the pleasure to acquaint your Lordship that his Majesty has been
graciously pleased to appoint me three hundred pounds a year; and
Mr. Pelham, without my taking the liberty to desire it, was so
extremely humane and good as to pay up a hundred and fifty of it
before it became due, knowing my distressful situation. I could not
have been so far wanting in duty and gratitude to you, my Lord,
as not to have informed you of this long ere now, but that I still
expected from post to post an answer to my former letter; being
2i6
Appendix III.
deeply impressed, as I mentioned in my last, that whatever good
fortune has befallen me is entirely owing to your Lordship's great
and uncommon goodness to me, else I should have been out of the
way of receiving any, still at Reims, and there, long before this time,
without credit and in the most deplorable condition. Judge then,
my Lord, what my sense of your goodness is, and what my gratitude
ought to be; I'm sure my heart is full of it, but I have not words
to express the half of what I feel on this occasion. My Lady Irwin,
to whom I owe a thousand obligations, and to whom I often speak
my sentiments with regard to your Lordship, can better than I am
capable acquaint you with what I cannot find expressions fit to
represent to you myself. Her Ladyship, according to her continued
favour for me, did me the honour to introduce me last Friday to the
King, who was graciously pleased to receive me with peculiar marks
of goodwill and kindness. Lady Irwin, who is acquainted with
courts, assured me that the greatest favourite could not have had a
more favourable reception, for which I shall ever retain a lasting
gratitude. Next Sunday I am to be introduced by her Ladyship
to the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Friday following to
the Duke, 10 and Princess Amelia.il Excuse the length of this
letter, and do me the justice to believe that I am, with the
highest esteem and the greatest regard, my Lord, your Lordship's
most grateful and most obedient servant, and most affectionate
cousin,
Jamb Douglas Steuart.
January 5th, 1751.
I began the enclosed to your Lordship some days ago, but was
not able to finish it till this day, as you'll see by the different dates,
being seized with a very severe cold.
Permit me to offer my best compliments to Lord Aberdour and
to Lady Mary Douglas. I can't end this without wishing them and
your Lordship a great number of happy years. It shall ever be my
earnest prayer and wish that singular and distinguished blessings may
be the lot of my Lord Morton and the lot of his children.
Mr. Steuart offers his respectful compliments to your Lordship, and
to Lord Aberdour and Lady Mary,
When you honour me with a letter, which I long much for, direct
for me at Mr. Murray's at St. James's Place.
LETTER XXXIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Me. Steuart.
Saturday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I have this moment the pleasure of yours, but
I have some disquiet that your cold is not yet quite removed. For
Heaven's sake, take care of your health, so dear to me.
10 The Duke of Cumberland, " The Butcher Duke."
11 Daughter of King George II.
ai7
The Douglas Cause.
Your generous concern and grief for the death of the Prince of
Wales, I join heartily with you in, and in your sympathy with the
greatly distressed Princess.
I intended this should have been a very long letter, but that is
impossible at such a confused time. On Monday I expect to make
it out; for I do assure you, it gives me great pleasure when I have
matter sufficient to make out a long letter to you ; it is next to the
joy of talking to you, which I am deprived of now ; but this I don't
repine at, it being my perfect and constant belief that whatever wise
and bounteous Providence allots is surely most certainly for the best.
I am ever yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XXXIV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuabt.
Monday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — The account you gave me yesterday of your
being so well entertained the day before, afforded me much pleasure.
I'm sure all your guests were greatly regaled and pleased with the
agreeable manner you received and entertained them ; so young Leslie
told me last night, and added that he never saw you in such high
spirits as you were that day, which much supported mine, which,
thanks be to God, are never very low; but what he said of your
being the anchove of the company (as was formerly said of Dr. Garth),
made them uncommonly high, as if I had taken castor drops ; may
yours always be so, and flow high without the help of any
cordial.
What you say of Lord Glencairn's manner of receiving and answer-
ing your proposal I think very well of, and am of opinion it promises
well for his intention to serve you.
Trust you in God, and there is no fear of you, some one way or
other Providence will point out to give deliverance.
LETTER XXXV.
Ladt Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuabt.
Wednesday Morning.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — ^I have just now read your letter over with great
pleasure and with satisfaction, and am set down to answer it. The
whole contents of it are wrote with good sense, sentiment, and judg-
ment; and that part upon Providence, and the unerring and
unsearchable wisdom and goodness of Almighty God, charms me
beyond measure ; by which I see plainly the goodness of your heart
in religious matters. May these good inclinations ever grow, which
are alone capable to make one happy.
The little men are, I bless God, very happy.
2l8
Appendix III.
LETTER XXXVI.
Lady Jane Douglas to Me. Steuart.
Saturday.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I saw the two Miss Gunnings, whom Lady
Tyrauley had invited on purpose that I might see them. They are
excessively charming; no wonder they gain the admiration of every-
body who sees them, and that sprightly Mr. Walker was smote ;
and I do think they don't want a good share of sense, and I don't
think they are much affected ; I have seen many who have no title to
half their charms much more so.
You were much inquired after by Lady Tyrauley and Countess of
Buchan yesterday; I made the properest answer to their compliments
I could.
The little ones and I are, I bless God, very well.
LETTER XXXVII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — You'll see by the newspapers that Duke
Hamilton is married to the youngest Miss Gunning ; she's a charming,
pretty creature, and generally well spoke of. I am ever yours,
J. D. S.
LETTER XXXVIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Sunday Night.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have
had the satisfaction of receiving your two kind, acceptable letters,
but, being from home, could answer neither of them till just now;
and, though late, I begin my letter to assure you that I give the utmost
attention to what you write as to my manner of travelling, and shall
with pleasure observe all your rules, only, in return, be so kind to me
as not to have too much anxiety about me ; doubt not my care of
myself and of our dear little ones.
A list of my debts I shall send in my next, or rather leave it
enclosed in a letter to you for Grinlay to deliver.
Dear Mr. Steuart, take care of yourself, and be cheerful and easy,
as you would oblige and make happy your ever tenderly affectionate
Jane Douglas Steuart.
219
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER XXXIX.
Lady Jane Douglas to Me. Stbuaet
Edinburgh, 18.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I am now in my own country once more, and,
blessed be God, arrived there in perfect safety and in perfect good
health ; the children, too, are mighty well, and in great good spirits,
delighted with everything they see ; and the people, as we came along,
and here, seem, in indulgence to me, to be highly delighted with
them.
We came to town yesterday, the 17th, so that our journey was not
a tedious one, and was a very agreeable one in all respects, only the
want of you was a painful circumstance, and could not fail to give
me abundance of uneasy thoughts. But I assure you, dear Mr.
Steuart, I don't indulge them ; on the contrary, I banish them from
me, and good reason I have to do so, since I am confident that every-
thing will come out very happily for you and I if we but trust and
resign ourselves entirely to the will and pleasure of Almighty God.
I had the pleasure, on my arrival, to receive your welcome letter
from Mr. Golville ; I hope all your expectations shall be answered
to the full of your utmost wish.
I havg nothing yet to write, having seen nobody, but shall
neglect no occasion of writing to you, and I very well know how
punctual you are. Madam Hewit held out bravely ; she is excessively
much your affectionate humble servant, and I am more tenderly and
affectionately yours than I am able to express. J. D. S.
Since I wrote this Lady Mary Hamilton is come in, and sends you
her affectionate compliments.
LETTER XL.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Edinburgh, September 3rd, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received your welcome letter last post, with
Mr. Farquhar's postscript; the assurance he gives me of your being
in perfect health and good spirits gives me inexpressible joy and
satisfaction ; may that agreeable news be long continued to me, which
will make me always happy.
Have no concern about what falls due the end of this month. I
took proper care before I left London to recommend that matter to
a special friend, and am to write soon to another about it.
Don't be uneasy and impatient because I cannot yet write of any-
thing that is material, but rest content and assured that I have, and
will neglect no occasion of doing everything that is expedient and fit
to be done in the present posture of our affairs. Many of our friends
are out of town, but I expect some of them soon, particularly Lord
Appendix III,
Milton, who drank tea with me and sat a long time with me before
he went to Kintire or Inverara, and showed me the most cordial
affection and friendship that ever he had done in his life.
The children, I bless God, enjoy perfect good health, and are in good
spirits ,• they are mightily caressed here ; little Archie is thought
very like you.
Lady Mary Hamilton enquires always very kindly after you ; she's
much your humble servant, as Mr. Hamilton is. I'm mighty well
lodged, and commodiously, at Mrs. Maitland's house in Bishop's
Land, and at a pretty easy rate, it being the vacance.
Countess of Stair and Mrs. Primrose inquired most obligingly for
you. Mrs. Hewit sends you her blessing, and kind compliments.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart, I hope my next shall be fuller of matter.
In the meantime I am, and ever shall be, most tenderly and
affectionately yours, J. D. S.
LETTER XLI.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Edinburgh, September 20, 1752, N.S.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — This is the fourth letter I have wrote to you
since I came here. I hope they're come safe to your hands. I would
have wrote oftener, as it is the greatest pleasure I can have at so
great a distance from you ; but all my friends and acquaintances are
in the country except a very few, so that my affairs go at present but
slowly on, which makes me write the seldomer, having nothing as yet
material to acquaint you of. I think your letters come slowly on
too ; these three posts I have been looking for that satisfaction, but
it is not yet come ; and I have answered each of your letters punctually
that I received since I came to Scotland.
I have yet had no answer to the letter I wrote immediately on my
arrival here, to a person who is near my brother's person, in order
to be shown to him. I, therefore, design to write directly to my
brother himself, to see what effect that may have. I have not yet got
an answer to the letter I wrote to Mrs. Duncan of Lundie; I expect
it every day. I much wish to know what influence yours has had on
your brother. Last Sunday I went to see your cousin, Mrs. Betty
Lesly. She received me with the utmost kindness, and spoke of you
in the most obliging and affectionate manner ; she would have pre-
vented my waiting on her, but, just after my coming here, her sister,
Lady Balgowan, died.
This day Archie and Sholto are to begin to learn to read by one
Warden, recommended by the Countess of Stair as one that teaches
well and brings children forward in a short time. I told them I was
writing to you, and they both prayed me to give their duty to their
papa.
P 221
The Douglas Cause.
I dined last Monday with Mr. Ker,12 our Parliament man ; he's
married to my cousin, Betty Kerr; you was kindly remembered by
them, and your health and the children's drunk with great marks of
affection. I intend to write again by Saturday's post; in meantime I
must bid you, dear Mr. Steuart, adieu. I am, with the utmost
affection, yours, J. D. S.
, * LETTER XLII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Stbitab.t.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I'm not a little uneasy that you're quite out of
money. I am at present making it my endeavour to purchase a small
sum, which, if I succeed, which I hope I shall, you shall soon share
of it. In the meantime my heart is full of the warmest gratitude
to that good man, your faithful friend. Captain Cockburn, for his
uncommon friendship and civilities to you ; and I flatter myself that
you and I shall have it in our power, and that soon, to show him
the sense we have of his great goodness. Though such kind offices as
his has been to you these many months past are hardly possible
ever to be repaid, offer him my grateful and regardful compliments.
I have wrote a most affectionate, and even a most submissive letter
last Thursday to my brother; what the result may be I cannot yet
determine. When I can learn, you shall be informed. In the mean-
time keep up your spirits, and trust in God's great goodness, as I
do; and, as I am, be entirely easy and happy. I really am strongly
impressed that we shall soon get some deliverance out of our present
calamitous state ; but whatever happens, I am wholly resigned and
satisfied since you are in good health, as I and our little ones are.
What cause have we then to grieve? Put that far from you, 1
beseech you, dear Mr. Steuart.
Pray don't be discouraged that you are so long of hearing from
Lundie; he is not yet arrived, and I'm afraid his affairs in Ireland
have been more troublesome than he expected, and to have detained
him long; but I hope they'll come out well at last. I can't but
interest myself in that good man's concerns; and his wife, too, has
been my long-tried, constant friend. Mrs. Hewit sends you her best
compliments and good wishes. She and I and the children are happy
in being here, out of the smoke of the town. All my regret is that you
are not here, which would make everything to a wish ; but we'll
meet when Heaven pleases, and that's enough. Poor Mrs. Hewit
has almost as much anxiety for that happy event as I have. Adieu,
dear Mr. Steuart. I ever am, in the tenderest manner, yours,
J. D. Steuabt.
12 Mr. James Ker, an eminent jeweller, formerly member of parliament for the city of
Edinburgh, and much in the confidence of the late Mr. Pelham. [Original note.]
He mamea in 1750, Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Charles Kerr of Cramond.
222
Appendix III.
Dr. Clerkl3 is as kind as ever, but is much in the country, having
few patients in town. You may judge the children's indisposition
and my own were very slight when I neither called Clerk nor Eccles ;
but Mr. Eccles has, since my arrival, come every day to see me ;
never was there a kinder nor a better man. Also, Dr. Dundas is
excessively kind and obliging, inquired in the kindest manner for you,
and ordered a medicine for me when I was a little ill ; comes constantly
to see me, but will take no money. Eccles, too, asks after you in the
most obliging way.
LETTER XLIII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Hope Park, 15th November, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received your letter last Tuesday, and would
have answered it the very next post if I had had anything material or
mighty satisfactory to say ; but as that does not happen to be the
present case (but in due time it will come), I delayed writing till this
post, last week the holy sacrament being given in Edinburgh, in
all the churches, which is just in my neighbourhood.
It grieves me beyond measure, dear Mr. Steuart, that you're so
low in money, and that I have as yet got none to send you ; especially
as the time of your getting some liberty is so near approaching. I'm
truly disquieted about this, but to help it is at present entirely out of
my power. However, I'm not idle in endeavouring to raise a small
sum (a great one is impracticable), and when I'm happy enough to
accomplish it, you shall immediately share in whatever it is. In the
meantime, keep up your spirits, which your letter assures me you
do, which charms me, as all of it does, save that part relating to
money matters.
As to your anxiety about my living in the country, imputing it
entirely to economy, which I do assure you is the least consideration,
my dear children's and my own health being the chief motive that made
me leave Edinburgh, neither they nor I agreeing with the place. We
were truly indisposed almost all the while we were in town, and
Sholto had a little fever upon him when I brought him here ; he is
now, I bless God, very well and hearty; but it was full time to leave
a place that impaired our health; but for all that I made no great
haste to leave it, being eight weeks in town, lodging in the best house
in it in Bishop's Land, where I saw all my friends and acquaintances
that were then in town ; nor will they grudge to step a quarter of a
mile out of it to see me here, and when I choose to wait on them, a
chair can carry me in five minutes.
13 A very eminent physician at Edinburgh, and the constant companion of all the
men of rank m his time who were distinguished for their learning or their wit and
humour. He had a singularly good memory and an inexhaustible fund of entertaining
stories, which he used to tell with a shrewd gravity which gave them a high relishT
After a very long and successful practice he dropt off in a fresh old age. while he was
reading his favourite Horace. [Original note.]
223
The Douglas Cause.
I hope, after reading these reasons, you'll be persuaded that it is
best for me to live in the country; so, pray be satisfied and easy as
to that article.
Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart, be happy and easy in your present circum-
stances, for Providence will, I trust, deliver us out of our distresses in
due time. Depend on this, and on the most tender affection and
love of your J. D. S.
Archy and Sholto send you their humble duty. They speak
frequently of you, and are perpetually writing letters to you, especially
Archy ; it is> his chief employment.
Mrs. Nelly, in the most affectionate manner, sends you her best
compliments ; she longs much to see you, and if her prayers and mine
are heard, you'll soon be here.
LETTER XLIV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Hope Park, 18th November, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received the pleasure of your letter of the
11th yesterday, in which you complain of my being become mighty
lazy. I confess I did not write for six days, but that was occasioned
by the holy sacrament's being given in all the churches of Edinburgh,
which solemnity I had the honour to attend ; so my not writing pro-
ceeded from no unkindness nor carelessness about you, dear Mr.
Steuart; and pray observe my present punctuality in answering your
last letter, this being the day after I received it.
I went to the assembly this last Thursday, the King's birthday
being solemnised here on that day, because the week before was set
apart on account of the holy sacrament. I deal not much in public
diversions ; it would ill become me as you're in confinement ; but our
dear little ones and I as well as you are under such great obligations
to his Majesty that I thought it my indispensable duty to be present
on the day that was appointed for solemnising his birthday, that I
might by that demonstration express publicly to the world the sense
I have of his Majesty's great goodness to me and mine; and for that
reason I took the children along with me ; and I cannot really express
the warm and kind reception we met with from the whole assembly,
which was extremely crowded and full of company. Archy and Sholto
behaved to a wonder, and were caressed beyond measure. I thought
the people would have eat them up ; and very many that I did not
know complimented me upon their account, and upon my being
returned to my own country ; so that I wanted nothing to make me
perfectly happy on this occasion but your being there to share in
my satisfaction, and so to make it complete.
I made Mr. Linn of Gorgie introduce me to my Lord Advocate's
lady, who was directress that night. She received my compliments
224
Appendix III.
better than I deserved. The Advocate is one of my best friends.
I'm under great obligations to him, which I'm fond of, as I look upon
him as a very valuable man, as well as a person of weight and greatly
esteemed. Lord Home, Lord Napier, and Mr. Linn, and many
others, asked kindly for you ; so you see you're not forgot here.
Take no care about my managing material matters in a right
manner; my submissions to ray brother, and all the affectionate
demonstrations I can possibly show him, are right to be done. These
cannot, and shall not hurt my interest, but promote it.
I'm excessively sorry that our good friend, Captain Cockburn, has
been so ill; I hope to hear by your next that his health is entirely
restored; he has my best wishes for that, and for everything else
that may be agreeable to him. Offer him my best compliments, and
tell him from me he has the prayers of all the ministers in our
churches every Sabbath day, which are that God may spare all useful,
valuable lives; without any flattery, he is amongst that number.
I have not yet got the money borrowed, but am doing my endeavour
for that purpose. It grieves me to think how you are put to it at
present. May God in his great mercy send us relief.
Mrs. Nelly offers you her most affectionate compliments, Archy his
humble duty, but Sholto is not at leisure to send you any, he did in
my last. He is, blessed be God, quite well again, as we are all.
Pray take care of yourself, and keep up your spirits ; all will be well
if we submit and have patience.
This is a long letter, I'm sure, but very undistinctly wrote. Excuse
it, dear Mr. Steuart, and accept of my best wishes, and of the
tenderest and affectionate regard of your
J. Douglas Steuart.
LETTER XLV.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Hope Park, November 28th, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I find it a matter more difficult than I imagined
the raising any money here ; though but a very small sum I demanded,
it has not yet been in my power to procure it, but I am still in hopes
to succeed. In the meantime I am much perplexed and uneasy with
this disappointment, chiefly on your account, too well knowing how
much you want a supply. But pray don't be discouraged, dear Mr.
Steuart, at these rubs and little strokes of ill-fortune ; all will, I
hope, go well with us, if we behave with patience and resignation
to the wise Disposer and Orderer of all things. It is our interest as
well as duty in all circumstances and in all situations to have such a
submissive disposition of mind to the Almighty power who governs
all affairs, and who can do no wrong.
Dr. Clerk was here the other morning. He's just in his usual
friendly way to me, and likeways in regard to you, speaking a great
deal of you with the greatest friendship imaginable.
225
The Douglas Cause.
Give my best compliments to our valuable friend, Captain Gockburn,
and to Mr. Mackercher. I hope the captain's health is perfectly
restored, and that Mr. Mackercher 's affairs are going on in a manner
that all good people wishes.
We are well here, blessed be God, and our dear little ones in good
health and spirits; they both send you their humble duty and Mrs.
Nelly her most affectionate compliments. Adieu, dear Mr. Steuart.
Keep up your spirits; that and your health is my greatest concern.
While these are in good condition nothing can disquiet your ever
tenderly affectionate
Janb Douglas Steuart.
LETTER XL VI.
Lady Janb Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Hope Park, 5th December, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received the pleasure of your welcome letter
of the 25th November last Thursday, some part of which was mighty
agreeable ; that of your assuring me that you are in perfect health
and in good spirits is beyond all the happiness anything in this world
can possibly bestow on me.
Upon the Duchess of Hamilton's coming to town, I went to pay her
a visit, but was refused access, the Duke having wrote to my brother
to demand of him, in case I offered a visit to the Duchess, whether
it would be agreeable to the Duke of Douglas that it should be
accepted or not, in answer to which my brother wrote that he by no
means pretended to dictate or lay down rules to the Duke of
Hamilton ; but since he intended never to see his sister, he would
take it well and kindly if Hamilton did not see her; upon which
account my visit was not received. This Dr. Clerk came out here
the other day and told me, having read my brother's letter to
Hamilton, who has gained no honour nor credit by this low syco-
phanting procedure ; on the contrary, all the good and disinterested
wise part of mankind look upon him with abhorrence and detestation,
reckoning him the meanest, as well as wickedest of mortals, who, by
such unjust practices, endeavours to widen the breach between a
brother and a sister; and by that means to see, if possible, to place
himself in the sister's room, who is undoubtedly the lawful heir.
Pray don't let this piece of news trouble you ; the flattery is so gross,
I hope it will rather be of service than any hurt to me ; it only shows
a very mean, bad heart, of which there are too many at present in
the world. Adieu, ever yours, J. D. S.
XLVII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Edinburgh, August 27th, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I had the pleasure to write to you the next
day after my arrival here, and also to receive two letters from you,
226
Appendix III.
which gave me great comfort. I now more than ever feel the joy
it gives me to hear from a friend from a far country, and am sure
you'll give me that satisfaction, dear Mr. Steuart, often, knowing your
tenderness and your punctualness, even when I was at a less distance.
I have nothing as yet considerable to write to you from this ; only I
was received, and our dear little ones, by all my relations and
acquaintances now in town, with great marks of friendship and affec-
tion. Lord Milton was remarkably friendly and kind, came immediately
to see me, though in a great hurry preparing to go to Inverara to the
Duke of Argyle, who is at present there. He appeared mighty fond of
the children, who behaved extremely well, and with great vivacity and
spirit.
I shall once or twice a week write and let you know how matters
go. In the meantime, dear Mr. Steuart, be perfectly easy and keep
up your spirits, for all will be well, and my happiness depends
upon your ease of mind.
Mr. Hamilton and Lady Mary supped with me the other night;
they spoke with a great deal of esteem of you, and drank your health
with much cordial affection.
The children are perfectly well, I bless God. I ever am yours,
J. D. S.
LETTER XL VIII.
From Lady Jane Douglas to .
Sir, — I received the favour of both your letters ; that just on my
arrival in Edinburgh and the other some weeks ago. It gives me
inexpressible pain to find by them that my brother continues still
inflexible ; nay, seems to be more than ever incensed against me, not-
withstanding that I have made him all the submissions, by writing
in the most humble, as well as affectionate manner, and in giving up
my papers, which were of great consequence and advantage to me to
have kept ; yet, to please him, I have resigned them, without being
compelled by any other motive than my inclination to do everything
that might contribute to his satisfaction, if happily by these con-
cessions I might gain back his favour again, which is all my desire,
and the utmost of my wishes. Let him give his riches to whom he
pleases, even to those that meanly and dishonourably court him for
it; amazing that he does not see through their selfish views, so
manifest to all the world besides, and which every wise and honest
man has in the utmost abhorrence and detestation ! I pray God
to open his eyes, and to pardon those that are going on in such dis-
honest and wicked practices ; they are as much my brother's enemies
as mine who conduct themselves in this manner.
I must acquaint you with a pretty odd procedure in Mr. Archibald
Stuart. 14 I gave him my papers to deliver to my brother. Mr.
14 Mr. Archibald Stuart, father to Mr. Andrew Stuart, agent for Duke Hamilton in
the Douglas Cause. [Original note.]
227
The Douglas Cause.
Stuart received them from my hands with remarkable transports of
joy — a very strange demonstration to show before me, who must
suffer so much in my interest by delivering them up. But this is the
time of my suffering all kinds of distresses, even insults too.
Mr. Stuart promised, without my desiring it of him, to use his
warmest endeavours to persuade my brother to restore to me the
30,000 merks which he had formerly made me a present of, which
paper I gave up amongst the rest. He also assured me he would do
all in his power to incline my brother to restore back the £300 with-
held these few years past. I thanked Mr! Stuart for these fair
promises, and desired him to press that matter no farther than he
could do it safely for himself, and not to incur my brother's dis-
pleasure by any act of friendship done to me; begged him to make
me a report how things went, at his return from Douglas Castle;
but, so far from complying with that just and reasonable request, he
has never once come near me, nor sent me one single line, though 1
reposed so much trust in him as to give him my papers to deliver to
my brother, which I gave to Stuart on the 27th of October, and now
it is the 8th of December. I am not ready to suspect, or to put bad
constructions upon any person's way of acting ; but this conduct of
Stuart's must occasion various thoughts. When I inquire what this
gentleman is about that occupies him so much that he does not find
time to behave with common civility and decency where it is due,
the answer I receive is he is constantly down in the Abbey, consulting
and contriving matters with the Duke of Hamilton, whose behaviour
to me I suppose you are not ignorant of ; but in case you should, 1
shall here give you a description of it. Upon the Duchess of
Hamilton's coming to town, I attempted to pay her a visit but was
refused access, which surprised me a good deal, and yet more, when
a gentleman, some time after, came and told me the reason of it was
that the Duke of Hamilton had wrote to my brother, demanding of
him in what manner he should behave in case the Duke of Douglas's
sister were to offer a visit to the Duchess of Hamilton ; to this letter
my brother's answer was that he did not pretend to dictate to the
Duke of Hamilton, but, as he resolved never to see his sister, he
would take it well and kindly if the Duke of Hamilton did not see
her. This letter of my brother's Duke Hamilton showed the gentle-
man who told me what passed, which, amongst other things, this
noble Duke said it was very strange that Lady Jane should endeavour
to force a visit where it could do no service to her and a great deal
of hurt to him. Such sentiments ! The reason why Lady Jane
honoured the Duchess of Hamilton with a visit was because she could
not imagine the Duke her spouse was half so mean and wicked as he
showed himself to be, nor that the Duke of Douglas was so weak and
easily imposed upon. My brother little imagines that he is the dupe
in this matter, and the subject of Duke Hamilton's and all his little
creatures' derision, while all the good and wise part of mankind
grieve and lament to see the head of such an ancient and noble house
fallen so low.
Let me know what you think of Stuart's conduct. If any has
228
Appendix III,
represented me in a bad light to my brother, it is hard he won't permit
me to clear myself, which I could easily do, would he but allow me
to be so happy as to see him, or to read my letters. I would offer
him here my most respectful and most affectionate compliments; but,
perhaps you dare not venture to own I have wrote to you ; and yet he
can't be angry that I have forced a letter upon you. Let him then
know that I love and regard him, notwithstanding the manner he has
chosen to act towards me.
I am, sir.
Your most humble servant,
Jane Douglas Steuart.
LETTER XLIX.
Carse to Lady Jane Douglas.
Madam,— 'Tis now a very long time since I gave your Ladyship
the trouble of a line from me, and your silence may sufficiently
reprove and forbid my presuming to trouble you any more that way ;
but, being strongly attached to your interest, I can't forbear letting
you know how active your enemies are against you, especially as I'm
peersuaded your great genius and address may furnish you with ways
and means to disappoint your enemies.
Some time ago I had it from a good hand that a certain elevated,
foolish woman, viz., Archibald Stuart's wife, as she was holding out
her throng of business, and having nobody to assist her, as Mr. Stuart
had five clerks away with him, it was asked her, where? She
answered — To Douglas Castle, he having a very great deal of
business there ; and very soon, said she, that great and ancient house,
the brag of the world, will be quite extinct. How, says the person
she talked to, has not Lady Jane two fine sons? Ha, says she, they'll
never be owned by his Grace, and all that's possible to be done against
her and her's, will soon be put in execution, and a great deal to this
purpose. Now, madam, I don't in the least question many people's
being very active against your Ladyship, and against the interest of
that illustrious house ; but I'm very hopeful his Grace won't be their
dupe. I assure your Ladyship I believe White is no friend to your
interest, nor for the perpetuating of the very ancient and illustrious
house. For I own to you, upon the hearing of that silly, lifted-up
woman's idle clatter, I very rashly took upon me, and wrote to his
Grace, and told him very freely the whole story and the author. I
also told him that these boys was an evidence that a good Providence
was taking care to keep a stem of it alive ; that there was none upon
earth that was come of my Lord Marquis his father, or the good Earl
Angus, his grandfather, but these two boys, after his Grace and
sister; it wholly depended upon him to strengthen their right, and if
he did not, or did anything against them, it would be the foulest blot
in his character. A good deal more I said very plainly, but in a
229
The Douglas Cause.
coaxing way. I thought it the best way to get it put in his hand, to
give it to Thomas Trotter, who would put it in Stockbrig's hand;
and so I desired Mr. Trotter afterwards to inquire at White if he
knew how his Grace took it. But Mr. Trotter said that he was afraid
to inquire, for my Lord Duke was so exceedingly uneasy at the hear-
ing of your name that it put him in a sweat, or made him like to
faint; but that is so far an untruth, that to Charles Douglas, who
officiates for Mr. Carse, he spoke of your name several times, and of
the colonel's, as I wrote Mrs. Hewit. And I beg pardon for troubling
you with this long story, and did not rather 'write it to Mrs. Hewit;
but indeed I durst not put it in any hands but your Ladyship's, who,
I hope, will keep it entirely to yourself, for if it should take the least
air, my speaking against Stuart's wife, it might make them act
against me, as you know their connection with Major Cochrane; 15
but I've some apprehensions White has not delivered my letter; I
shall soon search and find it out. — I am, &c.
LETTER L.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mb. Steuart.
Hope Park, 15th December, 1752.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received the pleasure of your letter last night;
what you say of your being in great spirits gave me excessive joy and
satisfaction. May you ever be so, and I shall ever be satisfied and
happy.
Archy and Sholto are very well; they're often speaking of you.
How happy would you make us all here were I not afraid that by the
unfortunate situation of my affairs, I might be the cause of exposing
you to danger.
I'm grieved beyond expression that at this time it is not in my
power to raise any money ; but if you can at present get a supply
sufficient to bring you down, and to free my things lying out, I think
I shall be able in a very few months to raise a little money, and by
that means make you a return.
LETTER LI.
Lady Jane Douglas to Me. Steuabt.
Hope Park, 6th February, 1753.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — With the greatest pleasure I received your two
letters, the one the 20th, the other the 30th January ; particularly the
last, which I got yesterday ; you seem in it to abound in spirits,
notwithstanding the many disappointments you have lately met with
"Major Cochrane, now Earl of Dundonald, married a daughter of Mr. Archibald
Stuart, she being a great beauty. [Original note.]
230
Appendix III,
In money matters, and even though you cannot yet be certain that
the raising the sum necessary for you can be obtained, this fortitude
and resolution of yours amidst all your own and ray diflEiculties
gives me utmost joy and satisfaction ; and to transfer what
will support and augment your good spirits I here assure you
that it will be in my power, please God, against the beginning
of the month of April, so far to make you easy as to free you of all
your small debts in London ; so that, though your own money
scheme should fail, let this assurance I have given you serve to keep
you from being discouraged.
Why are you displeased that I regret and am grieved that I have
brought you into encumbrances? I well know your good, generous
heart, and that such things only give you pain on my account ; and
won't you then allow me so far to resemble you as to suffer, when
I am in this matter the occasion of your suffering?
I'm concerned for your deafness; pray take care to keep very
warm in this severe cold weather.
Nothing passes in these parts worthy your hearing. The best news
I have to write is that dear little Archy and Sholto are in good health
and perfect good spirits. They are often speaking of you.
LETTER LII.
Lady Jane Douglas to Mr. Steuart.
Thursday, Hope Park, February 22, 1753.
Dear Mr. Steuart, — I received your welcome letter this last Tuesday,
and I answer it the immediate post following, that I may occasion,
dear Mr. Steuart, no more anxious fears by not being sometimes quite
so punctual as I ought to be. Never blame me after this for my
anxieties, since you find how impossible it is altogether to avoid them ;
but my uneasiness are only in regard to those I love and am interested
in, in which number you are my chief and dearest concern. As to
other incidents in human life which fall out to everybody, sometimes
prosperously, sometimes adverse, these sit mighty easy upon me, as
I am sure a wise hand, and a hand full of mercy, disposes of all our
fates and orders everything for the best, so I am always satisfied and
At the same time I received your letter last Tuesday I got one from
Lady Lundie, which I enclose here. You'll see by it that it is not
want of friendship, kindness, nor even civility that occasions her and
her husband's long silence, but a certain awkward, ill-judged fear that
a great many people have upon their spirits when they have no good
news to tell, little knowing that your spirits and mine are able, by
the supporting goodness of Almighty God, to bear bad tidings.
Lady Lundie's advice to me is no doubt well meant, and with good
will to us. I don't know how you may relish it, but I intend to put
it in practice in a few days ; I don't see any mighty act of con-
231
The Douglas Cause,
descensioD in one lady's writing to another; besides, I can stoop at
any time to serve you.
I'm sorry you are still disappointed in raising the money so
necessary for you ; but I am still hopeful you shall obtain it at last.
It grieves me that it is not in my power to assist you.
I shall be more punctual and frequent in my letters hereafter, and
I beg you to write as often as you can.
Archie and Sholto are very well, which makes me happy, as I'm
sure it will make you ; and I am in good health and in good spirits,
as, I hope in 'God, you continue to be, the thoughts of which is my
best cordial, and a rich one too, though in other things not in mighty
affluence; but I trust in God's goodness that you and I shall be
provided in what is necessary to make us live easily, though not in
great wealth.
Lady Mary Hamilton, Marquis Lothian's sister, begged me to send
you her affectionate compliments. Good Mr. Gustard, the minister,
who I see often, remembers you always in the kindest manner. I
ever am most affectionately yours, J. I>- S.
LETTER LIU.
Lady Jane Douglas to Ladt Maby Menzies.16
Few things could have been more agreeable than my dear Lady
Mary's letter, which I had the honour to receive last week. It
belongs to me, madam, to make apology for the fault of not writing
sooner, which you so obligingly charge yourself with ; and I did indeed,
immediately on my arrival in Scotland, intend to have wrote to your
Ladyship ; but various things came in the way (not mighty delightful)
which prevented my having that agreeable employment; the warm
expressions you honour me with of your continued friendship give me
a satisfaction more easy to be imagined than expressed ; only be
assured I prize the favour much and value myself upon it.
It gives me great pleasure to think how happy my dear Lady Mary
has been these few months past in the company of her brother, and
such a brother as Mr. Mackenziel7 is I loved when a child, I admire
him now, and I pay him no compliment (worth can't be compli-
mented) when I say he's the agreeablest and finest young gentleman
our country can boast of at present. Amiable Lady BettylS I likeways
esteem much ; and, to show that I am not unacquainted with her
merit, I think she deserves Mr. Mackenzie, which is to say a great
deal. Your Ladyship has been so happy part of last, and beginning
of this new-styled year in their society, that I can only wish you
16 Lady Mary Menzies, sister to the Earl of Bute, and wife of Sir Robert Menzies,
17 The Hon. James Stuart Mackenzie, Lord Privy Seal for Scotland.
18 Lady Betty Mackenzie, daughter of John Duke of Argyll and Greenwich, wife of
the Hon. James Stuart Mackenzie.
232
Appendix III.
many, very many such years of satisfaction, with every other joy your
heart can further desire.
The town is mighty gay, I'm told. But I can give no account of
its entertainments, going to none of them, save to one assembly
several weeks ago, appointed to solemnise King George's birthday;
I thought it my duty to appear on that occasion to testify my regard
and gratitude to my royal benefactor, who is the only crowned head
I ever was personally under any obligation to.
The account your Ladyship gives of my dear young Mr. Steuartl^
and his family gives me great pleasure. I have from all hands heard
the best character of them, and of Bellachin his lady, and their whole
family ; and your Ladyship's good opinion of them convinces me that
all I hear to their advantage is true. I saw Mr. Jacky several times
six years ago, and I did think him a very fine and handsome youth ;
my little Archy is reckoned by several people to resemble him much,
which I take as a compliment to my little man, Mr. Steuart, whose
affairs did not permit him to come to Scotland along with me, has the
honour to be, I do assure my dear Lady Mary, her devoted humble
servant and her great admirer, as well as a sincere friend and servant
to Sir Robert.
Lady Grace Campbell'sSO late lying in, and my perplexed affairs, has
prevented my waiting upon her Ladyship as yet; but I intend to do
myself that honour soon.
If I could expect to see my dearest Lady Mary in Edinburgh while
I remain here, it would give me inexpressible satisfaction ; but it is a
happiness I dare not flatter myself with. My stay here is uncertain,
having thoughts of going to the north of England ; but before I leave
these parts I shall certainly give your Ladyship notice. Adieu, my
dear madam. Favour me always with your friendship, which I
deserve, for this one reason, that I have the honour to be, with the
most perfect esteem and regard, your Ladyship's most obedient,
humble servant and most affectionate cousin,
Jane Douglas Steuart.
Hope Park, near Edin., 23rd Jan., 1753.
I offer my best compliments to Sir Robert Menzies ; I beg your Lady-
ship will likewise make them acceptable to Mr. Mackenzie and Lady
Betty. Your old friend Mrs. Hewit is just as much your Ladyship's
devoted servant as ever, and begs to be most kindly remembered to
you, madam, and her good friend Sir Robert. Likewise, she begs leave
to offer her compliments to her charming favourite, Mr. Mackenzie,
whom she loves most tenderly.
19 Mr. Steuart, son to the late Sir John Steuart by his first marriage, afterwards.
Sir John Steuart, Bart., of Grandtully. He married Clementina, daughter of Charles
Steuart of Ballechin.
20 Lady Giace Campbell, sister to the Earl of Bute, and wife of John Campbell, Esq.„
Lord Stonefield.
233
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER LIV.
Ladt Jane Douglas to the Duke of Douglas.
Dear Brother, — I came down from London on purpose to wait upon,
and pay my dutiful respects to you, which I wrote, and acquainted
your Grace of on my first arrival in Edinburgh. I was not honoured
with any answer ;. notwithstanding, I resolved* to make offer of a visit
to your Grace, but was detained by various people industriously
bringing it to my ears that such an attempt would incur your dis-
pleasure, and give you a great deal of uneasiness. Upon which I,
with much regret, laid aside what above all things I wished and was
ambitious to have performed ; but now that I am under a necessity
to go into England, to seek out a cheap place to live in, I could not
think of leaving this country without making an effort to see you once
before I die, to vindicate the cruel, false aspersion that my enemies,
wicked and designing people, have as unjustly, as cruelly spoke
against me, and which, I am informed, have reached your ears, and
that your Grace gives credit to them, the thoughts of which pierces
my heart and gives me inexpressible anguish. What, then, must my
sorrow be, and what an additional torment do I now feel, when in
your house, with my children, come to throw ourselves at your feet,
we are debarred access to your presence ! Recall that cruel sentence,
I beseech you, if you don't intend to render me all my life miserable,
and to shorten it too, which must be the case ; for it is impossible
to live any time with a load of such exquisite grief as mine is; all
I beg to be permitted to speak but a few moments to your Grace,
and if I don't, to your own conviction, clear up my injured innocence,
inflict what punishment you please upon me; I shall receive it
willingly, and shall think I deserve your utmost rigour if I cannot
justify myself fully of all that is basely and falsely laid to my charge.
In hopes that your Grace will, with great goodness and humanity,
allow this my petition to take place in your heart, and you will call
me back again, I shall remain this day and the following night in
Douglas town.
The children, poor babies, have never yet done any fault; may I
not then plead for their being admitted and allowed to see you, and
to kiss your hands. The youngest, Sholto, is thought to resemble
you much when you were a child ; and Archie is thought by a great
many to have the honour too of resembling you much when you
became a man.
I am, dear brother,
Your ever affectionate sister,
Jane Douglas Stbuart.
234
Appendix III.
LETTER LV.
From Dr. Eccles21 to Mr. Steuart.
Edinburgh, Nov. 21, 1753.
Sir, — With very great grief and concern I take this opportunity to
inform you that Lady Jane Douglas Steuart died this day at noon,
very much emaciated and decayed. She bore her sickness with
Christian patience and resignation, accompanied with that remarkable
sweetness of temper and affable behaviour so natural to her.
Your son is a very fine child, is thriving and healthy. I pray God
may preserve him. Poor Mrs. Hewit is very much distressed and
grieved. God support you under this heavy affliction.
LETTER LVI.
From Mr. Colvill22 to Mr. Steuart
Edinburgh, 24th Nov., 1753.
Sir, — I am obliged to write you this melancholy letter, with the
deepest grief and concern imaginable, for the death of that dear angel,
Lady Jane, who departed this life the 22nd instant, at twelve o'clock
forenoon. Poor Mrs. Hewit is in the greatest affliction that can be ;
she is neither capable of writing nor speaking to anybody, only begs
of you, for dear Archy's sake and her's, you'll take care of your own
health and preservation. She feels your distress in the most tender
way ; but all the comfort she can give you is that, while dear Lady
Jane was alive, nothing was wanting that either gave her ease or
satisfaction ; nobody durst venture to write you the situation she was
in ; she absolutely discharged it. There is an express gone away to
the Duke to see what he will do ; however, whether he will do or
not, everything shall be done about her like herself. Mrs. Hewit has
had credit all along to support her, and still will for what is necessary ;
therefore, she begs you'll let nothing of that trouble you; and when
all is over, and she gets herself composed, she will give you a full
account. Poor woman, she is left at present with a few shillings in
her pocket, but her only lamentation and cry is for you.
The poor dear child is at present very well, and she has just given
orders for his mournings. I am, &c.
31 Dr. Bccles, an ingenious physician at Edinburgh. [Original note.]
22 Mr. Walter Celvill, baker in Edinburgh, and one of the macers of the Court of
Session, a sensible, worthy man, and much attached to Lady Jane Douglas. [Original
note.] He was cousin of Mrs. Hewit.
i^
The Douglas Cause.
LETTER LVII.
From Mr. Gustard to Mr. Steuart.
Edinburgh, Nov. 24, 1753.
Sir, — I would been sorry to have been the first to give you the
melancholy news of your worthy lady's death. I know you have
been prepared to hear it.
You were amongst the happiest of men tq be matched with such a
one, not only for her quality but qualifications ; she excelled the most
of her sex. But, as she's gone and shines no more in this world,
good reason we have to hope she has made a happy change, where
all sorrow and sighing fly away. She bore her affliction with great
patience and resignation to the holy disposing will of God. She had
her noble spirit till near her very last.
Mrs. Hewit, a friend indeed, will, no doubt, give you a particular
account afterwards of her sickness and manner of dying. I pity you,
sir, and your child, under such a loss and shocking trial. But this is
the doing of the Lord ; therefore we ought to be dumb, not opening
our mouth, because He did it. God is righteous in all his doings,
but we have sinned and deserved the worst we can meet with. May
we be awakened to consider our ways, and to turn to Him that
smiteth, and who alone can heal. Peace with God through Christ
is the best cordial under trouble and at a dying hour. I am, &c.
LETTER LVm.
Sir John Steuart to Lady Jane Douglas.
Dearest Lady Jane, — As I have had such proofs of your dis-
interested and grand sentiments, I hope now that hard (and I must
think) undeserved fate, has done its worst. I hope the same con-
stancy of mind, with your Christian resignation and philosophy, will
support your magnanimity in this trying stroke of all these virtues
summed up ; my dearest lady, please remember it is no fault to be
poor ; I would choose to be honourably so rather than purchase
riches at the expense of it. This cloud will soon disperse, we have
reason to hope, and will prove but a whet to make us relish the more
better times when God pleases to send them. I am entirely resigned
to His will, and can bear every cross with patience, but being
kept from the pleasure and happiness of being with you ; and even
in that I am supported by hopes that our separation can be of no
long continuance, which I have reason to expect from many different
views, any one of which will put an end to the only misfortune I
regret, providing that you are easy till that happy period.
936
Appendix III.
LETTER LIX.
Sir John Steuart to Lady Jane Douglas,
My dearest Lady Jane, — Your delicatess this morning were well and
kindly meant, but, if I may say it, somewhat mistaken; for, dear
madam, as I could not but perceive an uncommon concern and grief,
with an effort to conceal it, your refusing to tell me the deplorable
cause made me imagine it proceeded from something still more fatal
(if anything can be more so) than even the death of our estimable
and every way valuable Lord Blantyre, in whom our country suffers
irreparably, in the most hopeful of our youth, endued with every good
and shining quality, without the least tincture of vice. But,
D.L.J,, to what purpose your so excessive grief, that to your friends,
and even to his, rather increases than diminishes the misfortune ;
should it impair the health of one who had so just a value for his
uncommon merit? Besides, madam, you will give me leave to remind
you that it is upon such extraordinary occasions you are to practise
the Christian resignation due to Providence, which orders everything
for the best. As far as my poor view can see, he must die, or the
world reform, for he was really unfit to live in such an age as ours is ;
but I shall not pretend to moralise further (to one knows so much better
what the loss is and how it should be bore) than by this small word of
comfort, he has left no one such behind him that I know of ; this
reflection should comfort even his afflicted mother, how much more
every other distant relation and friend; it does me, who never have
felt near so much, but for poor dear Lord Crawfurd ; these two non-
pareils are taken away, our best friends and most valuable
acquaintances (hard strokes !) But, please remember, good Provi-
dence raises new friends, and though the best are carried away, the
dross and dregs which remain flourishes but for a while, to do as
much hurt as the heaven-born geniuses of these departed friends was
disposed to do good.
They shall likewise have a period, and heighten the merit and
character of the worthy, by the contrast of their characters, to the
immortal honour of the former. So, my dearest Lady Jane, do not
give way to immoderate grief on this melancholy occasion, but muster
up philosophy and religion to your quiet and comfort, which, I assure
your Ladyship, is the endeavour of your adviser and affectionate,
humble servant,
Jo. Steuart.
Monday, 12 at night.
LETTER LX.
Sir John Steuart to Lady Jane Douglas.
My dearest Angel, — In the hurry I was put in writing my last, or
rather the postscript to it, I had not time to make answer to any
one thing contained in yours, which gave me much pleasure, and. at
Q 237
The Douglas Cause.
the same time, much pain; for, my dearest Lady Jane, at the same
time you tell me the dear little men are recovered of their cold, and
are going every day to school, I learn the distress you have been in.
My disappointments in not hearing from Lundie, though much
depends on it, is nothing in comparison with the anxious distress your
precarious state of health puts me in ; so, for heaven's sake, let me
have the cordial of knowing you are well, for everything without that
is nothing.
I shall direct your letters for the future as you desire ; and, if I had
not been a blockhead, might have understood it sooner ; but knowing
that, your Ladyship should have been more explicite.
I know not what I should have done for many months past, but
for my friend. Captain Cockburn, who has supplied me every way,
besides eating regularly with him ; I hope I shall soon have it in my
power to make some return, which is not an easy matter, to such
favours, considering everything. I am surprised that in speaking of
your indisposition, and that of the dear boys, it did not lead you
naturally to say something of our friend Dr. Clark ; sure he continues
his allegiance to his Princess. I am glad to hear that Mr. and Mrs.
Hepburn are so well in looks, and so forth. They will bring Balfour,
who your Ladyship will find a very entertaining oddity, droll flights
very unconmion, and sings very genteely, when in the humour of it,
which is but sometimes.
I left off till last night's post arrived, in great hopes of letters by
it; no. Well, Wednesday may bring me out of my anxious
suspense. I never think it can be longer deferred than the first post
from my last disappointment.
I ever am.
My dear Lady Jane,
Your affectionate, humble servant,
Jo. Stbuart.
LETTER LXI.
Sib John Stetjart to Lady Jane Douglas.
My dearest Lady Jane, — Your kind letter of the 13th instant came
not to hand till yesterday, I know not by what accident; God be
blessed, it confirms your health's being better and better. Riding is
certainly very proper, and indeed all exercise, so that it is not over-
fatiguing. I must beg leave to remind my dear Lady Jane, now that
her appetite and tone of stomach are recovered, to be careful not to
eat up to what the stomach may crave, after so long abstinence, and
to make that up by eating two or three times a day ; for I am con-
vinced that your former method of taking no breakfast or supper,
but letting subsistence entirely depend on dinner, was too fatiguing
to your stomach, and probably has been the occasion of your late
terrible distress. Excuse this, D.L.J. You know I must play the
238
Appendix III.
physician sometimes, even when less concerned than in this case,
where all that is dear to me is at stake. When you let Doctor Clark
and Doctor Dundas know how you used to fast and eat, I am more
than convinced, they will join in opinion even with a quack; for
they have too good sense not to know that one may reason justly in
such a case, though not regularly bred to physic.
LETTER LXII.
Sir John Steuart to the Reverend Mr. Gtjstard.23
London, May 15, 1753.
Reverend Sir, — Lady Jane had the favour of your kind and most
obliging letter yesterday, and return thanks for your pious and whole-
some advice under her present distress ; she is as resigned to the
unerring will of Providence as Christianity can make her, though
nothing but time can bring us to think of our great loss of so lively and
promising a child without a painful concern which is inseparable from
the imperfection of nature.
She hopes and expects your prayers for the preservation of her only
surviving comfort, and would have wrote you herself b\it for the
painful distress of mind she is under, which cannot but in some
measure affect the health of one so delicate. However, I hope the
spiritual soulagement she finds from the Holy Scriptures, and proper
care, she will very soon be well.
Lady Jane begs you'll make her compliments, with hearty thanks,
to Lady Mary Hamilton for her kind concern and taking the trouble
of acquainting her brother the Duke, by express, of the distress of
his sister, by this unexpected severe stroke ; God knows she had, poor
lady, enough to bear before, which she did patiently.
Lady Jane joins me in offering our compliments and best wishes to
you and your family. I am, sir, with esteem, your much obliged
and most humble servant,
Jo. Stbuart.
Mrs. Hewit offers her regardful compliments.
LETTER LXIII.
Sir John Steuart to Lady Schaw.
London, January 10th, 1754.
Madam, — By a letter I had last post I find that the letter I did
myself the honour to write your Ladyship, 22nd of last month, has
not come to hand ; I think myself most unlucky by that accident,
23 The Reverend Mr. Gustard, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and father to the
ingenious Dr. Gustard at Bath. [Original note.]
i*39
The Douglas Cause,
which must make me appear ungrateful in your opinion, which I must
have been very much had I neglected thankfully to acknowledge the
great obligation your Ladyship has laid me under by the regardful
manner you have choosed to prove your friendship to your dear
deceased friend, Lady Jane Douglas Steuart.
Madam, your generous friendship I have the most grateful sense of,
and shall fondly embrace all opportunities to show with what high
esteem and consideration I have the honour of being your Ladyship's
much obliged and most obedient humble servant,
Jo. Steuart.
P.S. — On the cover I have sent a copy of that of 22nd December,
which it seems has miscarried.
Copy Mentioned in the above Postscript.
London, Dec. 22, 1753.
Madam, — The kind concern and interest you have been pleased to
take in the welfare of the dear infant who is now all that remains
of your dear deceased friend. Lady Jane Douglas Steuart, lays me
imder an obligation I want words to express, though I have the justest
and most grateful sense of it. The unnatural indifference of dear
Lady Jane's nearest relations, as well as the same in my brother on
this melancholy occasion (when my affairs happened to be in some
disorder) heightens the favour of your Ladyship's kind interposing
very much. I hope my affairs will soon take a turn that will prevent
the continuance of the expense your Ladyship is now at, and shall
think it my greatest happiness to have an opportunity of proving
with what gratitude, high esteem and regard, I am your Ladyship's
much obliged and most obedient humble servant.
LETTER LXIV.
Lady Schaw to Mr. Steuart.
Sir, — I received your letter of 10th January last some time ago,
with the cover, and copy of the one you formerly wrote me, which
I would have answered before this time if I had not delayed it on
purpose to see how your child agreed with his new quarters. I can
now assure you that, not only I, but others who see him, think that
he is improved both in growth and spirit ; for, as he is a very sensible
child, he was extremely cast down for the loss of his dear mother.
I cannot say but I was extremely surprised both with Lady Jane
and your near relations neglecting a duty that I thought incumbent
on them, in looking after the only remains of Lady Jane Douglas
Steuart, who was entitled to a better fate in this world than it pleased
God to give her; and that whatever disobligations they judged they
had received from her Ladyship, still the child had no fault from
them.
240
Appendix III.
It was mere Providence that sent me to this place of the country
when my Lady left this world for a better one, which gave me the
opportunity to hear of the destitute condition her poor infant was in,
who I brought home, and is my intention to use him as my own child
so long as I live j but, as I am old, that probably will not be many
years, I wish your affairs may be settled, so as to take care of your
child at my death ; till then, neither I, nor none of mine, have any
demands upon you, nor none of yours; and I think myself happy to
have it in my power to say that it gives me the greatest satisfaction
to show any part of the regard and honour had for the dear deceased.
Another reason for delaying the answer of your letter was that I
keep the child close for fear of the infection of the smallpox, as many
of the children of fashion have been inoculated this year, all with
success, as I did not choose to have Archy inoculated in the winter
season ; but if the spring were some farther advanced, I purpose to
have him inoculated as my own children were, which I hope you have
no objection against, as I am soon to remove to Edinburgh, where it
will be impossible to keep him from the natural infection, which may
prove fatal, as it did to one of my grand-children who was not
inoculated. I am, sir, your most humble servant,
Margaret Schaw.
Edinburgh, Feb. 21.
LETTER LXV.
Sir John Steuart to Lady Schaw.
Madam, — I received the most obliging letter you honoured me with
of 21st inst. by last post. The favours you have laid me under could
not have been added to, so much as by the handsome manner they are
done in ; the concern you are pleased to express for preventing my dear
boy being in danger of infection from the natural smallpox is most
obliging and kind.
And, madam, as you have been pleased to take the trouble of my
dear little Archy, I leave the means of his preservation entirely
to your Ladyship's kindness and experience ; so please order as to
inoculation or not, as your unerring judgment shall direct, which I
am sure needs not to be put in mind to take care that the pock be
favourable and the person it is taken from of a natural healthy
constitution.
I hope my affairs will soon take a more favourable turn, that I may
be somewhat less sensibly hurt by the unnatural behaviour of dear
Lady Jane's relations as well as mine; they have much to answer
for, breaking the heart of the most meritorious lady ever was born,
and next neglecting to take proper care of all she has left ; for, as your
Ladyship very justly observes, whatever might be alleged Lady Jane
had disobliged in, surely the infant had never disobliged. But,
I beg to be allowed to pay your Ladyship my respect in this way,
whilst at a distance, as I shall fondly embrace all occasions to prove
241
The Douglas Cause,
with what regard and high esteem, I have the honour of being,
madame, your much obliged and most obedient humble servant,
Jo. Steuaet.
London, February 28, 1754.
If I may be allowed to trouble your Ladyship to give my blessing to
my dear little man ; I beg it may have addition and sanction of yours,
to the many other favours your Ladyship does his dear mother's
memory.
If I may taj:e the liberty, after what I have said, to wish, it is that
Dr. Dundas and Mr. Eccles may be at the consultation, when and how
dear little Archie is to be inoculated ; not to put your Ladyship to
expense, they will leave that till I see them. But, madame, allow me
to remind your Ladyship, they know more of the boy's constitution
than physicians, however able, who have not had occasion to know so
much of his constitution.
Please excuse this natural anxiety, madame, which, as a parent,
you have felt.
LETTER LXVI.
Sir John Steuaet to Lady Schaw.
Madame, — After being seemingly long out of my duty, please allow
my offering your Ladyship the compliments of the season, with my
best wishes and hearty thanks for the great and endless favours you
continue to lay me under by the motherly care, trouble, and expense
you're pleased to bestow on my dear child (your goodness has, as it
were, adopted). My unwillingness to trouble your Ladyship with a
repetition of bare and weak acknowledgments for favours so great
and uncommon, no words can express, to some might have appeared
like ingratitude or want of a just sense of so indulgent goodness ; but,
madam, your generous and noble way of thinking, that I have so much
experience of, persuades me that your Ladyship puts a better and
juster construction on my respectful silence ; and I beg, madam, you
will please be assured that as I have the most grateful sense of your
great goodness and favours done me, I am, with great impatience (to
have it in my power to offer something of a return) endeavouring to
get some money that I may at least replace the expense, though the
favour and manner of doing it never can be sufficiently acknowledged,
much less repaid. I am, madam, with the highest esteem, your
Ladyship's much obliged and most obedient, humble servant,
Jo. Steuaet.
Perth, January 1st, O.S., 1756.
If I might hope for the honour of a few lines letting me know your
Ladyship is well, should be glad to know where and with whom your
tender care has boarded dear little Archy.
242
Appendix III.
LETTER LXVII.
Sir John Steuart to the Earl of Morton.
My Lord, — Next to my son's happiness in having the blood of
Douglas in his veins, and the justice his uncle the Duke has been
pleased to do him, I reckon it his greatest good fortune that his Grace
has pointed out the Duchess of Douglas, his Grace of Queensberry,
your Lordship, and some other gentlemen of worth and knowledge to
countenance and direct him till he is of age to think and act for
himself. I approve highly of this step, and shall never interfere or
attempt obstructing a management so much abler to conduct him
than any weak efforts of mine. I never was acquainted with the
modes of business. I am now far advanced in life, and have no further
ambition than to end my days with decency and decorum, and to do
justice to mankind, which, I thank God, the estate of Grandtully will
enable me to do, if creditors will hearken to reason and not harass
me in a way that cannot serve themselves. When I have the honour
to see your Lordship, I will explain myself more fully ; meanwhile I
am, with the greatest respect, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient
and most humble servant,
Jo. Steuart.
Edinburgh, July 27th, 1761.
The Dying Declarations of Lady Jane Douglas.
Mrs. Elizabeth Hewit, spouse to Dr. Lachlan Maclean, late of
Philadelphia, deposes " That she was often with Lady Jane about the
time of her death, and that Lady Jane's fondness for the defendant
(Archibald Douglas, Esq.) continued to the last time the deponent
saw Lady Jane, which was a day or two before her death."
Mrs. May M'Crabbie, milliner in Edinburgh, deposes " That she
(Lady Jane) still insisted that the shock which she had received by the
death of Sholto, and other griefs that she had met with, were so
severe upon her that she was perfectly persuaded she would never
recover, but considered herself as a dying woman, and one who was
soon to appear in the presence of Almighty God, and to whom she
must answer ; she declared that these children, Archibald and Sholto,
were born of her body."
Dr. Martin Eccles, physician in Edinburgh, deposes " That the
deponent was oft with Lady Jane during her last illness, until her
death ; that Lady Jane's fondness for the defendant continued to the
last; that she expressed concern what should come of him after she
was gone."
Mrs. Helen Hewit deposes " That Lady Jane was attended in her
sickness at London by Mr. James Pringle, surgeon to the Guards, and
when he left that place, by Mr. Fordyce ; that these gentlemen told
the deponent that Lady Jane's disease was a broken heart ; that Lady
243
The Douglas Cause.
Jane returned to Scotland in August, 1753, and died the 22nd of
November following ; that about four hours before she died she ordered
her son Archibald, the claimant, to be brought to her, when she laid
her hand upon his head and said ' God bless you, my child ; God
make you a good and an honest man, for riches I despise. Take a
sword in your hand, and you may one day be as great a hero as some
of your predecessors.' "
The Dtinq Declaration of Sir John Steuabt.
Murthly, June 7th, 1764.
Having lately had some severe fits of the gout in my stomach, with
my health in other respects much impaired, these, with my great age,
going seventy-six, make it appear incumbent on me to make the follow-
ing declaration, as aspersions have been thrown out by interested and
most malicious people as to the birth of Lady Jane Douglas her
children, in order to rob the surviving child, Archibald, of his birth-
right, by making his parents. Lady Jane and me, appear infamous, to
make him illegitimate.
I, Sir John Steuart of Grandtully, do solemnly declare before God
that the forementioned Lady Jane Douglas, my lawful spouse, did, in
the year 1748, bring to the world my two sons, Archibald and Sholto,
and I firmly believe the children were mine, as I am sure they were
hers. — Of the two sons, Archibald is the only in life now. — I make
this declaration as stepping into eternity, before the witnesses after-
mentioned, James Bisset, minister of the Gospel, at Caputh ; and
James Hill, minister at Gurdiej John Stewart of Dalgoos, Esq., Justice
of Peace ; Joseph Anderson, tenant in Slogen-Hole.
(Signed thus) Jo. Steuart.
Jambs Bisset, Witness.
Jambs Hill, Witness.
Jos. Anderson, Witness.
Jo. Stewart, Witness.
N.B. — Sir John Steuart died a few days after signing the above
declaration.
The Dying Declaration of Mrs. Helen Hewit.
Mrs. Helen Hewit was first an attendant upon the late Lady
Marchioness of Douglas, a lady of distinguished piety. She was
afterwards the faithful attendant of Lady Jane Douglas. The late
Rev. Mr. William Harper, a clergyman of the Episcopal communion
at Edinburgh, and a man whose memory is much respected, was well
acquainted with Mrs. Hewit, and deposes " That he does verily
believe Mrs. Hewit to be a woman of truth and veracity, and a
sincere, conscientious woman, so far as he could observe."
Mrs. Hewit solemnly swore, in presence of a jury, " That upon the
244
Appendix III.
lOth of July Lady Jane was delivered at Paris of two sons, and that
the deponent was present at their birth, and received them both into
her lap when they came into the world ; that the eldest, whose name
is Archibald, and is the present claimant, was a strong, healthy child."
Being very old and infirm, Mrs, Hewit was long in a dying state.
Finding she had made a trifling mistake in her deposition, so
scrupulous was she that she wrote to the Rev. Mr. Harper upon the
subject. Her letter concludes with these serious and striking words —
" I hope you, sir, can ease my mind, as all I declared on my examina-
tion is true, but that mistake of the day of leaving La Brun's house,
which I thought true when I said it. And this I declare to you, sir,
was I to step into eternity this moment. — Helen Hewit."
Mrs. Hewit lingered a little longer upon the brink of eternity than
was expected. She persisted to her last hour in affirming the truth
of what she had sworn, as she was to appear before an Almighty
Judge.
245
The Douglas Cause.
APPENDIX IV.
" Jupiter " Caelylb's Account of the Tbial in the House of
Lords. 1
February, 1796.— On the 27th I attended the House of Peers in the
Douglas Cause. The Duke of B(uccleuch) had promised to carry me
down to the House ; but, as I was going into Grosvenor Square
to meet him at ten o'clock, I met the Duke of Montague, who was
coming from his house, and took me into his chariot, saying that
the Duke of B. was not yet ready. He put me in by the side of
the throne, where I found two or three of my friends, amongst them
Thomas Bell.
The business did not begin till eleven, and from that time I stood,
with now and then a lean on the edge of a deal board, till nine
in the evening, without any refreshment but a small roll and two
oranges. The heat of the house was chiefly oppressive, and Lord
Sandwich's speech, which, though learned and able, yet being three
hours long, was very intolerable. The Duke of Bedford spoke low,
but not half an hour. The Chancellor and Lord Mansfield united
on the side of Douglas; each of them spoke above an hour. Andrew
Stuart, whom I saw in the House, sitting on the left side of the
throne, seemed to be much affected at a part of Lord Camden's
speech, in which he reflected on him ; and immediately left the House ;
from whence I concluded that he was in despair of success. Lord
Mansfield, overcome with heat, was about to faint in the middle of
his speech, and was obliged to stop. The side-doors were immediately
thrown open, and the Chancellor, moving out, returned soon with a
servant, who followed him with a bottle and glasses. Lord Mansfield
drank two glasses of the wine, and after some time revived, and pro-
ceeded in his speech. We, who had no wine, were nearly as much
recruited by the fresh air which rushed in at the open doors as his
lordship by the wine. About nine the business ended in favour of
Douglas, there being only five Peers on the other side. I was well
pleased with that decision, as I had favoured that side; Professor
Ferguson and I being the only two of our set of people who favoured
Douglas, chiefly on the opinion that, if the proof of filiation on his
part was not sustained, the whole system of evidence in such cases
would be overturned, and a door be opened for endless disputes about
succession. I had asked the Duke of B. some days before the decision,
how it would go ; he said that if the Law Lords disagreed, there was
no saying how it would go; because the Peers, however imperfectly
1 " Aatobi(>graphy of the EeT. Dr. Alexander Carlyle, Minister of Inveresk," pp. 518-4.
246
Appendix IV.
prepared to judge, would follow the Judge they most respected. But
it' they united the case would be determined by their opinion ; it
being [the practice] in their House to support the Law Lords in all
judicial cases. . . .
The rejoicings in Scotland were very great on this occasion, and
even outrageous : although the Douglas family had been long in
obscurity, yet the Hamiltons had for a long period lost their
popularity. The attachment which all their acquaintance had to
Baron Muir, who was the original author of this suit, and Andrew
Stuart, who carried it on, swayed their minds very much their way.
They were men of uncommon good sense and probity.
247
NOTABLE SCOTTISH TRIALS.
Messrs. William Hodge & Co. have arranged for the publication of a
series of volumes under the above title, the object of which ir ';o present
a full and authentic record of the more notable Trials that have a place
in the annals of our Scottish jurisprudence. Of many of these Trials
the details are at the present time not readily accessible^ being either
confined to the pages of official reports or buried in the files of the
daily press ; and it is intended to issue in a uniform series such a
narrative of our more important causes c'ellbres as shall prove not only
of interest to the general reader, but also of utility to those concerned,
professionally or otherwise, with the study and application of the legal
principles involved in the various cases to be dealt with.
To each Trial a separate volume will be assigned ; and, where
verbatim evidence is available, it will be reproduced in full, special care
being taken to ensure accuracy of detail.
The series is founded upon careful research into every available
source of information, and, so far as permissible, the opportunity has
been taken of consulting with and acquiring reliable information from
gentlemen who may have been authoritatively associated with any of
the Trials in contemplation.
** A remarkable series." — Glasgow Herald.
"... Altogether a most interesting and welcome series these * Notable
Scottish Trials.'" — Law Jmcmal.
Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing distinct service not only to the legal
sssion, but also to the
rials.'" — Dundee Courier.
profession, but also to the general public by the publication of 'Notable Scottish
** The series of * Notable Scottish Trials ' which has just been initiated with a
volume dealing with the trial of Madeleine Smith forms an enterprise on which the
publishers are to be heartily congratulated." — Glasgow Evening Times.
** Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing good public service in issuing a series of
volumes dealing with * Notable Scottish Trials. ' Since many of these trials took
place a new generation has arisen, to whom most of the persons tried are mere names,
and the series promised by Messrs. Hodge & Co. will necessarily take the form of
educative works of considerable historic value." — The Scotsman.
"While abounding in the dramatic interest of the 'higher crime,' they are edited
with all the completeness and accuracy and attention to the legal issues involved of
reports intended for lawyers ; and there is no class of reading more useful for students
of law than the study of the laws of evidence as they appear in practice during such
trials. At the same time for the general reader they have the intense fascination of
revelation of the darker side of human nature." — Sattirday Review.
Notable Scottish Trials— continued.
The Trial of Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan
Smith, F.S.A.(Scot.), Advocate. Dedicated to Lord Young.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 400 pp. Price 5s. 1905.
*• If all subsequent volumes are as full of interest as the present, their publication
should be an assured success." — Daily News.
" This full record of the trial, while as ' good as a novel ' for many lay readers, has
also a deeper meaning for the student of law or of humanity." — Aberdeen Free Press.
"The volume has been admirably got up, and the type is beautifully clear." —
Edinburgh Dispatch.
"An excellent production — figuring up the various characters in the drama, and
portraying in graphic style the whole tragical romance." — Glasgow Citizen.
"As a record of one of the most remarkable criminal trials of modern times, the
book will be found of supreme interest." — The Scotsman.
" The publishers are to be congratulated on their selection of Mr. Duncan Smith as
the editor of the present number. He brings to his task a delightful freshness, and
unfolds the romantic tale in a truly romantic manner. . . , It is only when we
come to the appendices that the real importance of Mr. Smith's report is apparent.
Those show an amount of research unequalled in any report of the trial yet issued.
. . . It is not too much to say that, if the succeeding volumes maintain the high
standard of work which marks the present number, the series should have a ready
and abundant market." — Glasgow Herald.
The Trial of the City of Glasgow Bank Directors. Edited
by William Wallace, Advocate, Sheriff-Substitute, Campbeltown,
Joint Author of " Banking Law." Fully illustrated from contem-
porary photographs. Demy 8vo, 500 pp. Price 5 s. 1905-
"A work of permanent value." — The Bailie.
" The volume is very full and complete." — Dundee Advertiser.
" It will prove most interesting reading to all commercial men, and especially to
those engaged in the business of banking. " — Dundee Courier.
" The reader will find it worth while to peruse the whole extraordinary tale. . . .
The volume is of absorbing interest all through." — Evening Times.
" The evidence on both sides is given verbatim, and the entire work of editing has
been exceedingly well done by Mr. William Wallace. There are some excellent
portraits." — Glasgow Citizen.
"Mr. Wallace, the editor, has discharged his duty admirably, and his skilful
guidance is exceedingly helpful and valuable. The introductory chapter is a
singularly lucid and effective piece of writing." — Aberdeen Daily journal.
Notable Scottish Tpials—^oMfintMd.
The Trial of Dr. Pritchard. Edited by William Roughead,
W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the late Sheriff Brand, Ayr. Fully
illustrated. Demy 8vo, 346 pp. Price 5s. 1906.
•' . . . The narrative is most interesting, and one which lawyers and laymen
alike will read with fixed attention. " — Law Times.
•*. . . Mr. Roughead's highly interesting book. "-r-Zawf^/.
"... One of the most absorbing of a remarkable series."— (7^^!?a/ Herald.
•• . . . This carefully prepared report has real historic value." — Sheffield Daily
Telegraph.
•*. . . The record of the trial in the present volume is the most complete and
accurate that has yet appeared." — Westminster Gazette.
**. . . The volume, which forms one of the ' Notable Scottish Trials' series, is
the best of its kind we have yet seen." — Lloyd's Weekly News.
**. . . This book, which Mr. Roughead has edited with a skill and complete-
ness worthy of the highest praise, is a record of great interest to every student of
criminology." — Scottish Review.
"A volume which is of outstanding interest not only to lawyers and medical men,
but to the general public as well, for the revelation of human nature which it
contains." — Glasgow Weekly News.
The Trial of Eugene Marie Chantrelle. Edited by A.
Duncan Smith, F.S.A.(Scot.). Dedicated to Sir Henry D. Little-
john, M.D., LL.D. Demy 8vo, 250 pp. Price 5s. 1906.
" The book is a thoroughly well-edited chapbook." — Daily News.
" Apart from its undoubted interest as a tragic story, the book is valuable as a
judicial record." — Glasgow News.
" Apart from its interest for lawyers and medical men, the book possesses a strong
fascination for tbe general reader. It is full of human tragedy." — Dundee Courier.
** Mr. ^Duncan Smith may be congratulated on the able manner in which he has
executed his task." — Law Times.
** It is an interesting case from the point of view of either the lawyer, the medical
man, the student of crime, or the man in the street." — Solicitors' /outnal.
** The trial is edited for lawyers and doctors, and not as a mere popular newspaper
report, by Mr. Smith with all the thoroughness which distinguishes the series." —
Saturday Review.
Notable Scottish Tvisils— continued.
The Trial of Deacon Brodie. Edited by William Roughead,
W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Dundas.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 280 pp. Price 5s. 1907.
" The work forms a valuable addition to the series of * Notable Scottish Trials.' "
— The Scotsman.
*• This volume admirably edited by Mr. Roughead. . . . The editor has con-
tributed a very full and well-handled introduction." — The Daily News.
*• The volume is edited by Mr. Wm. Roughead, whose introduction, giving a
succinct account of the Deacon's career, is a thoroughly capable piece of work. " —
The Tribune.
*'This biography . . . more interesting than many novels." — The Daily
Telegiaph.
*• This latest volume of the admirable series of ' Notable Scottish Trials ' at present
being published in Glasgow by Messrs. William Hodge & Company — the * Trial of
Deacon Brodie' — is, from all points of view, one of the most interesting and
valuable." — Glasgow Evening Times.
"The full report of the trial is here given, and the book is illustrated with a
number of portraits of judges, counsel, and prisoners, which, together with an admir-
able introduction, make a work of considerable interest." — Law Magazine.
The Trial of James Stewart (The Appin Murder). Edited
by David N. Mackay, Writer, Glasgow. Dedicated to Alex-
ander Campbell Eraser. Fully illustrated. Demy Svo, 386 pp.
Price 5s. 1907-
'* In compiling this addition to an important and valuable series of criminal trials,
Mr. Mackay has shown singular assiduity and industry. He has ransacked the
records and chronicles of the time with care and diligence. His introductory sum-
ming up of the case is lucid, judicious, and complete, grasping the facts with a firm
and sure hand, and exposing the hoUowness of the theories of the prosecution with
convincing force." — The Scotsman.
" The volume deserves a permanent place in one's library not only because of its
deep human interest, but by reason of its political and literary association." —
Aberdeen Free Press.
*' Mr. D. N. Mackay has done his work well, and it will doubtless give rise to fresh
controversies and be the mine from which new theories will be dug." — The Tribune.
" In certain respects this is the most interesting of the series yet to hand.
The editor of this fascinating volume is Mr. D. N. Mackay, who has discharged his
task with much ability. ... To all fond of the mysterious the narrative before
us should make very good reading." — Laiv Times.
"Too much praise can scarcely be given to the admirably comprehensive intro-
duction provided by Mr. David N. Mackay, in which many different points are
elucidated and the reader's path rendered smooth and clear, ... A well-equipped
and most important book." — Evening^ Times.
Notable Scottish Trials— continued.
The Trial of A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, B.A.
(Oxen), Advocate, Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Lord Justice-
Clerk. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 480 pp. Price 5s. 1908.
** Mr. More has done his work of editor well, and he contributes a brief but well-
written introduction covering the facts of the whole case. . . . This book gives an
accurate account of the most famous Scottish trial of this generation. " — Edinburgh
Evening News.
•'The volume is got up with the same scrupulous eare that has been bestowed on
the others of the series, and is illustrated in a manner which greatly assbts the reader
in following the evidence." — Evening Dispatch.
" The publishers have been fortunate in securing the services of Mr. More as editor.
He has done his work well. . . . Everything has been done to make this report
accurate and full." — Scotsman.
The Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis Steuart, Advocate,
Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Guthrie.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 247 pp. Price 5s. 1909.
The following volumes are in preparation and will shortly be
published : —
The Trial of Captain Porteous. Edited by William
Rough e AD, W.S.
The Trial of Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay,
Writer, Glasgow.
Particulars of other volumes will be duly announced.
WM. HODGE & CO., Edinburgh and Glasgow:
7
7^